Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Growth Management Strategy AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 8A FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. NOVEMBER 18, 1996 Within the last twelve months, the Metropolitan Council pursuant to a direction provided by the State Legislature has prepared a Growth Options Report for consideration by the general public. The mandate to the Metropolitan Council is to establish a Metropolitan Growth Management Strategy which will determine the extent to which and where growth can take place in the metropolitan area over the next forty years. The Metropolitan Council will be conducting public hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday, November 19th and 20th. The Public Hearings are intended to solicit input from individuals who are affected by the proposed Growth Management Strategy. The purpose of this agenda item is for the Council to consider and adopt a City position regarding the proposed Growth Management Strategy. Earlier this year, the Council received a copy of the Growth Options study. Councilmembers will recall that that study laid out three different Growth Options for the metropolitan area. In reaction to this study, and the Metropolitan Council discussion of this general issue, the Builder's Association of the Twin Cities issued their own report and recommendations with respect to Growth Management in the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council has sought input on the Growth Options report. Councilmembers will recall that the City together with other Scott County communities submitted observations on this report earlier this year. The Metropolitan Council staff has now reviewed the comments and presumably assimilated them into their proposed Growth Management Strategy. On October 18, I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS ON PROPOSED METROPOLITAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MN. NOVEMBER 20, 1996 The City of Prior Lake submits the following comments concerning the proposed growth management strategy for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 1. There is a significant flaw in the Growth Management Strategy. On page 3, the report notes that some implementation tools are identified in the report, but more will be needed (emphasis added). It is extremely difficult to develop a meaningful response to the general policies in the document without a clear understanding of how the Strategy will be carried out and what specific role the City will be expected to play. It seems premature to adopt a Strategy until the Metropolitan Council can specify what the City is expected or required to do. Until it does, our response could cover a wide range of possibilities from outright opposition to qualified support. 2. On page 2, the Strategy says it will encourage adjacent Counties to cooperate with the Council in its planning efforts as a means of addressing leapfrog development outside the 7 county area. This level of effort will be totally ineffectual in dealing with this issue. Leapfrog development will continue because there is nothing in place to restrain it. Simply creating a bigger MUSA is unlikely to significantly slow growth outside the 7 county area. It is the MUSA that leads to leapfrog development because of its' impact on land economics. 3. In June of 1996, the Metropolitan Council approved a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Prior Lake. Included in this plan were development forecasts which were the result of joint efforts by City staff and Metropolitan Council staff. The forecasts included in the proposed Growth Management Strategy now show 1,000 fewer dwelling units in the City in 2010 than were forecast less than 6 months ago and agreed to by the Council. What, other than developing a proposed a strategy, occurred to alter these forecasts so drastically? It appears that the "forecasts" are not forecasts but rather growth allocations that the Council intends to achieve, apparently by means of the unspecified tools referred to on page 3. This implies a higher degree of local land use micromanagement on the Council's part, rather than the lower level which has been repeatedly predicted by Council staff. Prior Lake's Livable Communities 16200~. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER goals are intended to address lifecycle housing needs in the City. It appears that this been ignored by the Council in developing the forecasts with the result that the new forecasts become little more than self-fulfilling prophecies. 4. We completed the Comprehensive Plan update process in June of this year at a significant cost to the City. Will we now be required to go back and do it all over again because our forecasts are no longer "acceptable"? 5. Reference is made several times in the document to a negotiation process between the Council and the City in arriving at specific programs and policies to be implemented. Reliance on a negotiation process implies that the City has some measure of control over the final outcome of such negotiations while, in truth, the City has very little leverage in such a negotiation process. Indeed, if the forecasts are negotiable, it calls into question the whole rationale for the Growth Management Strategy. If individual cities truly have room to negotiate, there is no way to insure that the goals of the strategy will be realized. We fear the resulting virtual anarchy will only add fuel to the arguments for more stringent controls over the local land use regulatory process. 6. On page 37, item 4, the proposal states that the Council will assist communities in setting housing density benchmarks. We recently completed negotiations on housing densities in our Livable Communities program. The Metropolitan Council has approved an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan which contains our Housing Action Plan. What does the action item referred to mean in the context of our approved Action Plan. We hope it does not imply that we are going to have to revisit this issue because of the revised forecasts and policies in the regional Blueprint. 7. On page 37, item 2, what are the referenced staging requirements? 8. The 2040 Urban Reserve boundary cuts through the middle of Spring Lake, rather than corresponding with the boundaries of the Orderly Annexation area which has been a matter of record since 1972. The portion of the lake outside the City limits is largely developed with small lots on septic tanks and sewer facilities will likely be required to address a potentially serious environmental problem. This issue was discussed in the Scott County Comprehensive Plan recently reviewed by the Council, yet the proposed strategy fails to recognize this problem and the orderly annexation agreement between the City and Spring Lake Township. Is this one of the areas open to negotiation, or does this imply that the part of Spring Lake Township in the Orderly Annexation area should not anticipate sanitary sewer facilities? 9. Scott County, Shakopee and Prior Lake have all recently completed Comprehensive Plan updates and these have been approved recently or are on the verge of approval, yet the Growth Management Strategy seems to ignore significant elements of these plans. For example, the density of the permanent rural area is inconsistent with the Scott County Plan which allows 2.5 acre lots 10. The Blueprint is silent on the issue of tribal lands encompassed within the City limits. These lands are served with sanitary sewers by agreement with the Metropolitan Council yet the City has no jurisdiction over these areas. The development of the casino, hotel and related land uses utilizes sewer capacity which HEARING.DOCIDR 2 then becomes unavailable to the City. In addition, the City is responsible for police and fire protection on the reservation. Continued development of these lands and the significant employment base associated with it will have a significant impact on the ability of the City to deliver services. 11. Regarding the Transportation chapter, the major road connecting Prior Lake to other areas in the region are TH 13 and CSAH 21.. These are identified as "A" Minor Arterials on the Plan. The Blueprint pays little attention to these roads specifically and to A Minor Arterials in general. The Blueprint also fails to address the implications of the connection ofCSAH 21 to 1-35, which is scheduled for 1997, or of CSAH 18 and 21 to the Bloomington Ferry Bridge and the potential effects on the County. The major transportation emphasis in terms of dollars and planning is on the 494/694 corridor. The Plan needs to address the transportation needs for the area outside of the Corridor, especially considering the recent growth of the area outside the freeway ring. 12. Regarding the Water Management Plan, on page 39, the Plan describes reconveying facilities from the Council to local units of government. Are there facilities currently owned by the Metropolitan Council that are intended to be reconveyed to the City of Prior Lake? HEARING.DOCIDR 3