Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1996-260n U CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 96-260 RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO TRANSMIT COMMENTS ON THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S REPORT, "GROWTH OPTIONS FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA" WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities has issued a report entitled "Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area", along with forecasts of household and job growth that correspond to the options described in the report; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council will be selecting a preferred towth option in June or July, and thereafter incorporate the option and the forecasts as a part of the "Regional Blueprint;" and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has asked cities to review and comment upon this report and on and the forecasts; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that the City Manager is hereby directed to transmit comments on the Metropolitan Council's growth options and household and job forecasts as contained in the draft letter to the Regional Administrator, Attachment A to this resolution. Adopted by the City Council on May 1, 1996 cd\plan\Btaffrep\res\growopt.doc • RESOLUTION 96- 260 ATTACHMENT A May 29 1996 James Solem, Regional Administrator Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities 230 Fast Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 Dear Mr. Solem: You have requested comments from the City of Plymouth on the three alternative forecasts of population, households and jobs, based on three growth options for the region as a whole, as contained in the Council's report, `Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area." The City of Plymouth has not taken an official position on which of the three growth options it prefers. Plymouth participated in the film Creek Cluster Planning process with the Council and the communities of Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove and Medina. As a result of this process, the Metropolitan Council decided to delay its decision on extension of the Elm Creek Interceptor beyond Maple Grove to serve Plymouth and Medina until the conclusion of its Growth Options process. Based on Plymouth's current Sewer Plan, the Interceptor would likely be necessary for urbanization of the northwestern portion of Plymouth which lies outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA.) Absent a regional policy decision on extending the interceptor, Plymouth has not yet developed a plan indicating when or if it will extend urban services beyond the current MUSA. Two of the Growth Options (Current Trend and Growth Centers) imply that the film Creek Interceptor would be extended, indicating that northwestern Plymouth would be part of the pre -2020 urban expansion with the exact area to be determined by local plans. These options would give Plymouth more choices and freedom to plan its future development. The third option (Concentrated Development) appears to indicate that the interceptor would not be extended until after 2020. This option would limit Plymouth's options, as the current MUSA arca is rapidly being consumed. 'lite household forecasts for all three options are fairly similar, and consistent with our local projections that the existing MUSA would be almost built out by 2000. Our own land use inventories estimated that the capacity of the current MUSA is about 24,000 households. The 2010 and 2020 forecasts for the Current Trend and Growth Centers • options are not unreasonable assuming an expansion of the MUSA to the entire remaining area of the City staged over that time. We are concerned about the forecasts for the Concentrated Development option, which shows about the same number of new households as the other two sets of forecasts. The assumption is that the MUSA would not be expanded, but that increased densities and redevelopment would occur to accommodate about the same amount of growth. While density could probably increase somewhat if land supply is constricted, making the existing MUSA area more valuable, we doubt that this would increase density enough in Plymouth to reach the forecasted number. A large percentage (over half) of Plymouth's vacant land in the MUSA already has development in progress or approved, so that there is little "raw" land that could be planned for higher density projects. Based on the age of Plymouth's existing housing stock, redevelopment will probably not be a major factor. Furthermore, there is little commercial/industrial land that could be converted to residential use. Between higher densities and rulevelopment, we doubt that Plvmouth would add 6,000 households beyond the estimated capacity of the current MUSA by 2020. A more reasonable number may be one third to one half that number. Comments on the job forecasts are more difficult to make. The differences among the three options appear to be due to the Metropolitan Council's assumptions about increasing intensity in the existing MUSA and the amount of development that would be diverted to the Growth Centers, and not to whether or not the MUSA is expanded. We would expect few new jobs in Plymouth to locate outside of the current MUSA. The jobs forecasted might be accommodated within the existing MUSA; but all three options would likely require some intensification of employment in existing commercial and industrial areas, given the shrinking land supply. Please feel free to contact me or Community Development Dimctor Anne Hurlburt if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, Dwight Johnson City Manager cc, Mayor and City Council Metropolitan Council Member Roger Scherer Community Development Director Anne Hudbutt cd\plan\cmren\5059\ntet ofnr.doe 2 C: