96-819�5�' ru fe� —
AMe' Noeo -
Council File # �p � �
Green Sheet # a 7 bd �
�fa����
'1�3� t°►�.
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL.aVIINNESOT
Presented by
Referred To
Review of the Metropalitan Council's "Growth Options"
Committee Date
G'�
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council is empowered to review regional policy of the Metropolitan
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council commented on the Metropolitan Council's "Regional Blueprint" in June, 1994;
and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has released their draft of "Growth Options for the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area" as an outgrowth of the "Regional Blueprint" for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Ciry Council affirms the central significance of regional development patterns to the
economic vitality of the City of Saint Paul; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the significance of the long-term impacts of regional investments
in infrastructure and economic development; and
Wf-IEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the "Growth Options" and discussed them with the Metropolitan
Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the need for a cogent and well-
funded urban redevelopment program for the region; and
BE IT FiIRTI�R RESOLVED that the City Council is concerned that the differences in fiscal impacts of
the options are understated, and that the "Current Trend" greatly underestimates the regional and local costs;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council calls for greater specificity in tools for a realistic
reinvestment strategy which include 1) Redirection of the Metropolitan Council's substantial tax and revenue
capacit�ward fullv develoned area reinvestment, 2) Infusin¢ Qreater equitv into our trans ortat�
, and 3) Radically changing the cost ailocation formuiae
for regional highway and sewer construction which does not unduly ta:c the fully developed azeas; and
by reversing the existing structure which rewards long trips by providin� coach bus
not sufficienfly addressed in the "Growth Oprions" including 1) Greater recognition that the functioning size
of the region is well bevond the 7-County area and in need of State regulatory assistance, 2) Attention to the
on ramp metering in the urban core
1 inequities of the region's K-12 education system, and 3) Institution of progratns' wtuoh r2cognize crime as
2 a regional issue, not lunited to individual communities or counties; and
4 BE IT FUR'II�R RESOLVED that the City will work to euhaxice housing densities in those areas where
5 it can enhance property values while adding ta housing choice; and
BE IT FURTf�R RESOLVED that the City will continue to aggressively pursue redevelopment of polluted
industrial sites in parmership with the region and the State; and
10 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Ciry Council transmits the attached comments of the Saint Paul
11 Platuiing Commission to the Metropolitan Council.
Requested by Department oE
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: � 01- , By:
Approved by Mayor: Date O G
By: __�_f�-
`�6- ���
DEPARTMENT/pFFICE/CAUNGL ' DA7E INITIATED N� L� O V V
c�tyco,��� 7-17-96 GREEN SHEE
INITIAVDATE INITIAUDATE
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE � DEPARTMENT DIRECTOfl O CT' COUNCIL
Roberta Megazd 6-8640 A�eN O CRYATfORNEV O CITYCLERK
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BV (DATE) ROUTING O BUOGEf DIRECTOR � FIN. & MGT. SEflVICES OIR.
OPDEF O MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) O
TOTAL # OP SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACIION REQUESTED:
Adopt Resolution approving the commenu of the Planning Commission and forwazdiug them to ffie Meaopolitan Council.
RECAhtMENDA7iONS: Appmve (A) or Reject (R) pEfiSONAL SERVICE CONiHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
_ PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this personttirm ever worketl under a contract for this department?
__ CIB LOMMITTEE YES NO
— 2. Has this personRrm ever bee� a c�ry employee?
� S7nFP — YES NO
_ DiS7RIC7 COURi _ 3. Does this person/Firm possess a skill not normally po55essetl by any current city employee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNQL OBJECTIVE? YES NO
Explatn all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, Wheq W�ere, Why).
The Metropolitan CommcIl has requested comments on its Report, "Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area."
ADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED�
The City Council will take a formal position on the Report.
�I��JTAGES IF APPROVED:
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVEO: .
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC7fON $ COSSIREVENUE BUDGE7ED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNOIfdG SOURCE AC7IVLTY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION� (EXPLAIN)
Council File #
Green Sheet #
RESOLUTION
CIN OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
ar
22
23
24
25
26
27
Presented By
Referred To
Commit jfee : / Date
9�—S19
a?a c� �
Review of the Metropolitan Council's
WIIEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council is empowered to review
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council commented on the
1994; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has released tt
Metropolitan Area" as an outgrowth of the "Regional
WHEREAS, the City Council affirms the central
economic vitality of the City of Saint Paul; and �
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes
in infrastructure and economic developm
policy of the Metropolitan
s "Regional Blueprint" in June,
of "Growth Options for the Twin Cities
t" for public review and comment; and
of regional development patterns to the
of the long-term impacts of regional investments
NOW, THEREPORE, BE IT RESOLV D that the City Council affirms the need for a cogent and well-
funded urban redevelopment progr or the region; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t the City Council ca11s for a new and encompassing rural development
policy as a response to the dest tive affects of "leapfrog" development; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVE that the City Council approves of the attached comments and recommends
them to the Metropolitan C cil.
Requested by Department of:
Planninci & Economic Development
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By:
Approved by Mayor:
Date
By:
By:
Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Council
By:
Adopted by Co,iSncil: Date
a�-��q
���� �
NDMENT tem # 26 on Council Agenda Metropolitan Growth Options.
The third resoived at line 28 should be amended to read as follows:
2) Infusing greater equity into our €ree�e�
system
M�=N i
��1 1 ��
iGi ' ' _ — � _ " ��bKi.���iriR�ii�J1�
37
� � : �
SA1NT
PAUL
�
AAAA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANt�'ING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOP��fENT
CIT'Y OF SAIl�I"f PAUL
Norm Co[eman, Mayor
Divirion ofPlamning
25 I{'est Fourlh Stree!
Saint Paul, M,N 5510?
MEMORANDUM
•
DATE: July 11, 1996
Telephone: 612-266-6565
Facsimi(e: 612-218-33! 4
TO: City Council n �
li
.
FROM: Allen Lovejoy, Department of Planning and Economic Development
RE: Policy Discussion for your July 17 Meeting
Attached are two documents:
1
Metropolitan Council's "Growth Options for the Twin Cities Metzopolitan Area";
2.
Planning Commission draft of °City of Saint Paul Review of the Metropolitan
Council's Document."
Next Wednesday we will have representatives of the Nletropolitan Council and of the
Planning Commission to discuss these regional development issues.
Upon review the attached materials, if there are specific topics or questions you want covered,
please contact Ken Ford (x 6-6577) or Allen Lovejoy (x 6-6576) of the Planning Division.
The Metropolitan Council is seeking official Ciry response by the end of July.
c.a Mayor Norm Coleman
Pamela Wheelock, Director, Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development
•
9 �-Fs�q
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL REVIEW OF
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S DOCUMENT
"GROWTH OPTIONS:
FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA"
June, 1996
•
Planning Commission Recommendation - June 14, 1996
•
�1 t.-�f�°l
• "[Tl:e CityJ is deeply concerned with the trexds of regional infrastructure investments that
seem fo so fhoroughly promote suburban sprawl...the [CifyJ hopes that the issues
raised..wil[ broaden the Metropolitan Council's ro[e to fully embrace social and economic
issues. "
- City of Saint Paul's Review of "Options for Change"; 1993
I. THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE FOR
"GROWTH OPTIONS: FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA"
"Choosing an Urban Development Option" develops three alternatives as guides for directing
regional investments in transportation, airports, water quality, pazks and housing. The central
purpose of devising the options is to create alternatives for allocating household and job
growth in the region over the next 25 years.
We applaud the efforts taken in this study to propose alternatives to the current trends of
inefficient sprawl and development inequities within the region. We believe that thoughtful
options to the current trends aze vital to the economic and social stability in our region.
However, we do have serious concerns about some vital issues still lift untouched by the
"Growth Options" report.
• "The acceleration of sprawl has sur enormous fiscal, environmental and economic costs,
which until now have been hidden, ignored, or quietly borne by society. The burden of these
costs is becoming very clear. Businesses suffer from higher costs, a loss in worker
productivity, and underutiliaed investments in older communities. "- "Beyond Sprawl: New
Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California."
II. CRITICAL "TOOLS" ESSENTIAL FOR THE REGION'S PREFERRED
GROWTH OPTION.
In order to have a reasonable approach to a growth option, the region must make fundamental
decisions about the mechanisms needed to fulfill the vision. Although the broad land
development patterns have important implications for the region, there are equally important
aspects of development that must be addressed.
The City has responded with detailed recommendations four times over the past four yeazs.
The attempt has been to highlight significant issues of importance for the region and for Saint
Paul. Again, the City is trying to emphasize issues that will benefit the region as well as Saint
Paul.
•
In this response, the City focuses primarily on major policy work that should precede, or at �
least pazallel, discussion on regional land development policy. The City believes that the
three options do not offer sufficient choice among critical regional issues. Therefore, in
response, the City recommends three policy areas/"tools" to be discussed in tandem with
growth options before a preference is chosen.
First, the region needs a cogent and powerful urban redevelonment nolicv. Elements
have been discussed in other forums, but not integrated into regional plans. Such an urban
redevelopment policy should address the foilowing issues:
• Incenrives for industrial site redevelopment (current cleanup and
financing programs aze woefully inadequate). In particulaz, the region
should seriously consider development of a dedicated tas that could be
the foundation of general obligation bonding, specifically for the
purpose of industrial site redevelopment. In addition, we need to enstue
that lenders and developers of "brownfields" aze not at-risk for cleanup
liability on "preexisting" pollution problems by issuing o�cial
certificates of compliance to "brownfield standazds."
• Assistance in housing redevelopment that can develop higher densities
and wide choices (see especially the Seattle Comprehensive Plan). It is
significant to note that the Metropolitan Council projects newly added
households over the next 25 yeazs to average less than two persons per •
household. However, the vast majority of new units added will be on
the periphery, likely as single-famity houses at low densifies. Even
given the internal regional shifts in housing occupancy, it seems likely
that the expected new housing stock will not meet the changing needs of
the region. Even more significantly, it is being projected that the types
of housing needed in 25 yeazs will be substantially different from the
housing we have now as a result of an aging population and likely
immigration. Housing types and amenities in the existing fixlly
developed azeas aze likely to be much more adaptable to the changing
housing needs in the region.
• Development of urban densities in designated urban azeas. Reasonable
gross densities in urban azeas begin at 5 or 6 dwelling units per acre
throughout a community. (According to Peter Calthorpe's The Next
American Metropolis, urban densities begin at 8 dwelling units per acre
- net.) Urban-services and amenities for specific azeas should be
regionally supported only insofaz as urban densities are achieved. For
urban-service levels of transit, highways and neighborhood schools,
development served must be at least 4 units per acre. Either that, or
such low-density development within the MiJSA should pay a
substantial regionaI premium for provision of such services.
r1
LJ
`a
�1c.—�1�r
• • Vastly improved transit in higher density areas, focused on
transportation corridors and with the assumpfion that not all areas of the
region can be served equally. Transit corridors should achieve an
average gross density of at least 7 dwelling units per acre, with much
higher densities at "growth centers" (as per the Metropolitan CounciPs
"Transit Redesign Report").
Improved mechanisms for a regional approach to public education.
Currenfly, there aze great discrepancies among independent school
districts regarding the quality of education. Many factors contribute to
inequities among school districts. However, the most significant
inequities stem from a lack of resources to deal effectively with children
in poverty as well as the manner in which schools aze funded in this
zegion and state.
A social service delivery system that:
•
► Takes much of the burden off schoois in the fully developed
azea;
► Recognizes the need for de-concentrating poverly and social
distress, and is viewed as part of the entire region's
responsibility; and
► Recognizes the need for emphasis on prevention as a cost-
effective alternative to welfaze and incazceration.
Second, the region/state needs a powerful and encompassing rural development policy.
Such a policy holds as much significance for urbanized areas as for rural azeas. Exurban
development continues to draw wealth out of all parts of the region. In particulaz, five-acre
parcel developments are t�ing the regional infrastructure without paying their fair share.
Such development puts pressure on adjacent suburban azeas to lower densities in an attempt to
compete. And rapid expansion of the region's hinterland will work against regional economic
development strategies. Elements of a rural development policy include:
Development of either regional ar state regulations on rural development
in the cunent seven-county azea and the five adjacent counties.
Seriously consider state-wide land use planning and controts (see the
Oregon experience and the potential Wisconsin initiative).
Establishment of realistic agricultural preservation densities
beginning at 160 acre minimums.
Establishment of non-agricultural rural densities at 20 to 40 acre
minimums.
•
3
Institution of tax policy changes which help preserve agriculturaUrural �
lands and discourage land speculation.
Consideration o£ measures that diiscourage long auto commutes, such
as increases to the gas taY, congestion pricing and metering of the
freeway system as mainline roads cross into the urban azea.
Third, the region needs a comprehensive approach to government financing. The
Metropolitan Council must be willing to participate in a rational discussion of local and state
tasation policy related to land use and economic development in the region. According to
David Rusk, fhis region is prosperous but ea�tremely "inelastic"; that is, econoxnic segregation
will worsen due to the multiplicity of local governmental jurisdicrions and the inability to deal
with vital economic and social issues.
It is not appropriate here to oufline a fmancing approach that improves tas equity as well as
government accountability. However, those should be treated as essential elements in the
debate. A major independent study should be conducted to review a variety of approaches,
including the following:
Realignment of school financing, including consideration of shifting a portion
of school operations fmancing from the local property tax base to a region-wide
or state-wide financing source.
Realignxnent of transportation taxes (the gas taY and cottgestion pricing in •
particulaz) to discourage long commutes and sprawi.
Restraints on local economic development incentives that foster unproductive
competition among cities, while encouraging incentives which better match job
and housing locations.
•
0
°t�-��9
• III. COMMENTS ON THE SPECIFIC OPTIONS
The foilowing comments aze intended to raise significant questions as to the efficiency and
efficacy of the three options. The nature of these options is to "outline" growth patterns and
their implications for regional expenditures. The report also endeavors to follow the six-part
mission statement of the Re�ional Blueprint.
It is important to note, however, that the options do not include the measures likely necessary
for implementation of the growth pattems. This makes definitive responses to any one of the
options problematic. For example, a preferred option might be prefened only insofaz as it
does not increase taxes, or it promotes greater housing choices. Full evaluation of the options
depends heavily on assumptions about how they might be implemented. We trust that the
Metropolitan Council will take this dilemma into account as the comments aze compiled and
evaluated.
As before, the City has organized comments around the six policy azeas of the Reeional
Blueprint
A. Concentrated Development. Of the three options, this one holds the best hope for
the region:
• • Economic Growth. The notion of an economic strategy has much more
meaning in a region that is economically weli-defined. This includes regional
cohesion related to worker training and education, easy and quick movement of
goods, and access to a qualified pool of workers. There is no widely accepted
optimum size for the region. However, insofaz as worker commuting distances,
costs of shipping goods and easy access to all necessary components to
successful urban commerce, there aze some limits on the size of the region and
the urban regional economy.
Of greatest significance is the impact that the current development pattern has
on the fully developed areas. Sprawl, such as we have seen over the past 20
years, has drawn wealth from the fully developed azea; leaving large portions
poliuted and without livable wage jobs or a tax base that can rectify these
problems. Concentrated development patterns would increase the viability of
urban land redevelopment; effective transit service; and housing options within
fully developed areas.
In addition, productivity of the workforce may be enhanced by having more
direct access from home to work (shorter commutes, perhaps no commute at
all). Integrated land development will allow for work and family lives to be
separate, but not necessazily distant. And greater overall development intensity
will aIlow for mora convenient amenities. As a result, there would be potential
•
5
far business efficiencies within an urban setfing: access to support services; �
potential for clustering (as in Michael Porter's work); and greater workforce
choices.
These would require a series of incentives for urban development and
disincenlives for sprawl dwelapmeni. Incentives for urbaa redevelopmenY
would include a regional funding pool for the redevelopment of polluted
industrial sites and complementary workforce training programs needed for new
businesses. The etimination of incentives for sprawi devetopment might
include:
► Suburban industrial development paying a premium for "greenfield"
sites;
► Suburban commercial and industrial development not qualifying for tax
increment finaucing;
► Suburban and rural development paying full costs of school construction
as weil as of regional street and sewer system connections; and
► Suburban industrial development helping pay for participation in
cleanup of fully developed azea polluted sites.
Foster Reinvestment. Reinvestment is at the heart of the "Concentrated
DevelopmenY' oprion: to ensure the region realizes masimum benefit from
investrnents already made, thereby avoiding the high costs of opening new land •
for development unnecessarily. If the region begins to operate as a community,
engendering private reinvestment will respect the notion that the region is only
as strong as its weakest neighborhoods. The focus of "Concentrated
Development" must be to reinvest/reuse, not just infill.
Speculative inveshnent into the hinterland will not be a desirable option.
Concentrated Development would, however, need to discourage "[eapfrog"
development by instituting incentives for compact development as we[l as
protecting agricultural uses.
Housing Opportunity/Choice. Housing in cities azound the world and in
many U.S. cities demonstrates the ability to sustain successful reinvestment and
intensification of urban housing. Intensification of development will likely
result in creative reuse of eacisting buildings:and less emphasis on adding to the
housing stock via suburban single family residenfial development. In addition,
the building industry will actively seek mazket niches for creative reuses, rather
than remaining fixed on conshuction of large homes. IY is important to
remember that the region wiil still need 330,000 additional dwelling units that
will be built by the construction industry irrespective of the alternative growth
option chosen. In addition, some flousing will continue to be builf in the
r�
L
�
q S.-�Iq
• hinterland. But such rural development should be constrained to very large
Lots ar clustering (160 acre net densities in agricultural areas, 20 to 40 acre
net densities in woodlands and other non-agricultural rura[ lands).
• Strengthen Sense of Community. Community grows out of a sense of shazed
experience and shared temtory. And rebuilding a sense of community is an
economic development strategy. The region cannot expect to sustain economic
prosperity if family disintegration, and divisions by wealth, race/ethnicity & age
continue. This need to build community is not exclusively a central cities
issue: it crosses geographic, political and social lines. Engendering community
will be essential for the region's future prosperity, and the region's
development pattern will play a strong role in the success or failure of
community-building.
The "Concentrated Development" pattern seems to lend itself best to
community-building. If we begin treating land as a scarce resource, we will be
better stewards as well as being drawn to communal interests. In addition, by
reinforcing current development patterns in the fully developed areas, the
region is taking advantage of the commitment to community found in many
existing neighborhoods.
• Preserve the Natural Environment. No other option is as supportive of
• environmental protection as the "Concentrated Development" option. Lazge
expanses of open space aze not needed within an urban setting rather, the
region needs walking access to neighborhood places/spaces and open space
corridors. By being compact, this option preserves agricultural land and
wildlife habitat, as well as reduces air pollution through more modest needs for
personal transportation.
• Financially Sound Public Facilities. The focus in this option will be
reinvestment in current infrastructure. Given the costs associated with major
new/expanded roadway projects and regional interceptors, it may weil cost less
to reinvest in our current systems. Shxdies, especially in Kansas City, Portland,
Seattle and Denver, as well as by the National League of Cities ("City Distress,
Metropolitan Disparities and Economic Growth", 1992), show that
rehabilitation of the central core and continued infz[I is possib[e and
preferable in meeting growth demands in most regions. In this regazd,
maintaining infrastructure is faz more important and cost-effective than building
new.
•
7
B. Growth Centers. The "Growth Centers" option has some attractive features in terms •
of efficiency of travel, increased housing choices and the development of complete,
mixed-use neighborhoods/communities. However, without strong urban redevelopment
and rural development policies the "Growth Center" concept will promote sprawl. In
addition, since the Metropolitan Council does not currentIy have the tools necessary to
deal with issues at the neighborhood/community level, it seems unlikely that the
"Growth Canters" option is implemenYable.
• Economic Growth. The impacts on the economy of the region could be
remarkably positive if the Growth Centers option is combined with the
appropriate incentives for development However, this option does not yet
specify the types of urban redevelopment incentives to be employed in the
region. If the incenrives aze slight, tY�is option begins Yo look like the "Current
Trend" option. It is essential to understand that redevelopment, especially on
polluted industrial lands, cannot be justified on a costJrevenue basis. The
benefits must be measured not only in traditional terms (jobs and tax base) but
must consider the economic and social costs of neglect if such incentives are
not used. Therefore, it is difficult to judge the economic e�cacy of this
option.
• Foster Reinvestment. If and only if the region is committed to intensification
of jobs and housing into clusters will reinveshnent will occur. This option has .
the potential for private reinvestment, but then so does the Concentrated
Development option. It is essential to detail the measures ta be used to
ensure reinvesfinen�
• Housing Opportunity/Choice. Again, this option has tremendous potential for
making a major market unpact, but it is dependent upon the urban
redevelopment policies of the region and its cities.
• Strengthen Sense of Community. This option hoIds some hope in the
concept of nodal development, but needs further development. The physical
form which best fosters community is that of an intimate grid. The Crrowth
Center opfion potentially incorporates such urban forms, but they are not
explicifly stated. The "center and corridor" concept works only insofar as the
centers and corridors enhance intimacy.
The "Growfh Centers" option, together with some aspects of the "Concenfrated
Growth" option, supports most fully a principal recently articulated by Andteas
Duany that we believe to be of the greatesY importance for the fuYure of the
region: We should insist, when arry significant increment of development is
considered, that we add the notion of "whole communities. "
0
�
q L-���
� • Preserve Natural Environment. This option is likely the most
environmentaily sensitive. It intensifies development in the urban area while
making environmenYal considerations a priority in allowing rural development.
• Financially Sound Public Facilities. Clearly, there are efficiencies to be
found in a development pattem which focuses new, higher intensity
development within azeas already served by necessary infrastructure. However,
capacities of infrastructure may be issues both in intensified centers within the
fully developed azea (especially highways and transit) as well as free standing
growth centers.
C. Current Trend. We believe this option will have disastrous consequences for the
fully developed areas, as well as shaking the economic and fiscal stability of our
region.
• Economic Growth. This laissez faire approach to economic growth has a
certain amount of appeal. However, our growth patterns aze affected not
strictly by the mazket, but profoundly impacted by the federal tax code, local
land use and zoning regulations, and local development incentives. That is not
to say that govemment should try to reconstruct our economic base. Rather,
government subsidies to business should encourage cooperation in our struggle
to compete economically. This potentiality is hurt by continued suburban
� relocation of urban jobs and businesses, as well as economic development
competition annon¢ local jurisdictions. It is significant to note that regions
which have adopted a cogent and cooperative regional strategy have greatly
profited in the intemational mazketplace (e.g. southeastern Germany and
northern Italy) .
• Foster Reinvestment. The "Current Trend" option is antithetical to the notion
of reinvestment. Sprawl draws wealth out of the fully developed azea with
concomitant increases in infrastructure costs to the region. Ironically, the mare
suburbanization takes place, the more the fully developed azea subsidizes
suburban development (see especially the financing methods of regional sewer
expansion).
• Housing Opportunity(Choice. In a recent Sensible Land Use Coalition
meeting, experts from both Seattle and Portland commented on the strength of
the Twin Cities region's home building industry to foster suburban growth. We
have the lazgest Pazade of Homes event in the country, and suburbanization is
spearheaded by a few powerful developers. As a result, our region's focus has
been on new single family homes which da not broaden housing choice.
Although the new houses seil quickly, values of less expensive houses are
depressed in the wake of "move up". [Note that none of the options deals
significantly with housing choice in the region.]
�
E
Strengthen Sense of Community. One of the devastating legacies of our �
indiscriminate use of land has been an erosion in our sense of community.
Much of the new housing architecture fosters isolation with lazge lots, cul-de-
sacs, and complete dependence on the automobile. Knowing neighbors is often
viewed as a novelty, especially in two-income neighborhoods which are
deserted by day and cloistered by night. Combined with the other social and
economic forces which work to discourage communal interests, our
development pattern should be encouraging community, not discouraging it
with sprawl.
Preserve Natural Environmeut. Use of large tracts of land and long vetucle
trips degrades our environment. The sprawl pattem encouraees such
degradation. [Ironically, air quality rules and wetland conservation
requirements fosters a lower density of development in suburbanizing areas,
thereby increasing air pollution and wetland degradation.] This degradation
could be lessened if we promoted development forms that use land more
efficiently while respecting the environmental resources.
Financially Sound Public Facilities. This option is the most expensive
growth pattern to sustain, over the long run, with qualiry pub2ic faciliries.
Exurban and low density suburban development is extremely costly, especially
for transportation services, and generally ignores maintenance of inner ciry
infrashucture in azeas not ready for reinvestment .(See "American Farmland �
Trust Study", Loudoun County Virginia and "Impact Assessment of the New
Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan")
IV. SPECIFIC RESPONSES
p.24 "Reinvestrnent in Distressed Areas/Strengthened Sense of Community"
a. "Current Trend" scenario states that any redevelopment should be "mazket
driven." This seems to assume that new development is also mazket driven,
ignoring: federal and state tas policy benefitting new construction; cost
allocations for regional infrastructure eapansion which has historically kept
down costs of new development; very heavy subsidy of roads, gasoline, and
auto manufacturing for long auto commutes.
b. "Concentrated" scenario states that the economic segregation in the region will
continue. That is only necessarily true if the region refuses to adopt both an
urbarz redevelopment policy and program and a rural development policy.
ZO
�
��,�tq
� 2. p.24 "Economic Crrowth and Job Creation"
a. None of the scenazios buiid on the notion of developing the regional economy
on the "City-State" model used in almost all other industrialized countries, nor
is there mention of the importance of international trade. A"city-state"
approach to the regional economy would consider the emerging needs of
business for workforce skiils and complementary regional coordination related
to training. It would consider the balance within the region related to the mix
of business and mazket advantages of the region. It would consider location of
new industry in relation to the available qualified workforce.
b. "Current Trend" scenario ignores the weil-documented trend in low-density
regions for suburban tas burdens to be substantially higher due to high
infrastructure costs. These tax rates may act as a disincentive for industrial
location.
3. p.25 "Preservation of the Natural Environment"
a. Under ail three scenazios, the comments on "air quality" appear to be
inaccurate. It is not justified to state that air quality wilUwili not improve. For
the "Current Trend", air particulates will increase due to more vehicle miles
traveled. For the "Concentrated", air particulates will be more concentrated,
� but volume will be relatively low. And for "Growth Centers" it does not seem
practical to suggest that minor improvements to the jobs/housing mix will have
measurable impacts one way or the other.
4. p.26 "Transportation"
a. "Concentrated" scenario claims a stabilizing or net reduction in auto
dependency. This seems unrealistic. More appropriate would be "growth in
auto dependency stopped and/or reversed in some azeas."
b. "Concentrated" scenario states that the miles saved for urban travel will be
"offset by increase of trips iolfrom adjacent counties. Again, this presumes
there will be no strong urban redevelopment policy or rural development
policy.
•
ZI
V. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Regardless of the preferred option, development of policy in three areas is
essential for an economically and socially viable region for the Twenty-first
Century:
i. A cogent and powerful urban redevelopment policy;
ii. A powerful and encompassing rural development policy; and
iii. A comprehensive approach to government financing.
�
C.
The City prefers the "Concentrated Growth" option, in that it:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Offers the best potential for a cogent regional economic strategy;
Is generally most effective at fostering reinveshnent in the fully
developed azeas;
Creates best mazket incentives for provision of housing choice
responsive to the region's needs over the nea�t 25 yeazs;
Best captures the existing strengths in our sense of community;
Best preserves our natural resources including farmland; and
Is clearly the most fiscally responsible.
However, the City is also attracted to certain elements of the "Growth
Centers" option, in that it:
i.
ii.
iii.
Is most responsive to the need for better match of new job location with
the available workforce;
Has strong potential for improved efficiencies in transit/transportation
operations; and
Has potential for offering broader housing choices than the "Current
Trends."
�
s
�
12
'
'
1
�
'
,
'
,
,
,
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�Metropolitan Council
� �eport to t�e
M innesota �egis,�tu�re
J anucmy IQCjb
'
'
'
'
�
,
,
�
�
�
,
�
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
Growth Options
for the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area
A Metropolitan Council Report
to the Minnesota Legislature
7anuary 1996
Adopted by the Metropolitan Council7anuary 11, 1996
Metropolitan Council
Meazs Pazk Centre
230 E. Pifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101-1634
(612) 291-6359
Publication No. 78-96-003
-V•'�'L
Curtis Johnson, Chair
Roger Scherer—I}istrict 1
Bill Schreiber—District 2
Mary Hill Smith District 3
J�� C. s��n D��a� 4
Neil Peterson—District 5
Martha M. Head—District 6
Bazbaza Butts Williams—District 7
Cazol A. Kummer—District 8
David Hartley District 9
Richard Packer—District 10
Esther Newcom�District 11
Chazles Arnason—L}isfrict 12
Diane Z. (DeDe) Wolfson—District 13
Stephen B. Wellington, Jr. District 14
Kevin How�-District 15
Terrence F. Flower—District 16
1he mission of the Metropolitan Council is to maintain and impmve the overall health and vitality of
the Twin Cities metropolitan azea. The Council carries out its plans for guiding growth and development
thmugh joint action with the pubfic and private sectors. It develops tong-rang�e plans for transportation,
airports, water quality, pazks and housumg. The Council also operates the regional services for wastewater
treatment, transit and affordable housing through its Metro Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
The quality of life of the Twin Cities azea has been impmved as a result of Council accomplishments:
cieaner lakes and riveis, a transportation and txansit system that provides mobiIity mgion-wide, a sensible
land use plan that saves public dollars, and a regional pazks system that is the envy of urUan areas
nationwide.
The Metropolitan Council
Workixg for the Region, Plaxxixg for the Future
Upon request, this publication wilt be made available in aiternafrve formats to people with disabi]ities.
Piease call the Metropolitan Council Data Center aE 291-5140 ox TDD 291-0904.
Council infortnation is available by calling the Metro Information Line (229-3780). For information via
computer, you may modem-dial 337-5400 to reach the Twin Cities Computer Network (TCCI�; then
access CounciI information by typing. MC. TCCN Customer Service is 332-2101.
Publication no. 78-96-0p3
� Metropolitan Council
Workrrtg for the Region, Planrzing jor the FYcture
MemsPazkCemce 730FaxFi[t6Srcret ScP,wl.Minrcsora 55101-163a (6I2) 29(fi359 Pex 291-6550 1T1 29t-09DM1 MevolnfoLive 2Z9-3780
�
Pm1eE m �e�3� � wuh a miimm� af 20%D�camu� wbVe.
'
1
,
,
,
'
,
�
'
t
,
'
'
L1
!_1
'
��
,
���f � 6'
Contents
Chair's Message ...................................................1
Summary ........................................................3
Lntroduction ......................................................5
The Twin Cities Region:
Forecasts for the Nezt Quarter Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
MorePeople .................................................6
More Househoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
MoreJobs ...................................................8
Less Money ..................................................8
Uncertainties ............ .. .......... .. ..... ........ ...... .... 8
Development Planning in Twin Cities Metropolitan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Metropolitan Development Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . 9
Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Blueprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Foundation for Future Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Current Land-Use Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Other Key Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Three Development Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CurrentTrend ............................................... 14
Concentrated Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Crrowth Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Implications of the Three Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Implications: What the Trends of the Last 25 years
Tell About the Next 25 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Land-useTrends .............................................. 28
Demographic Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Implications and Impacts: Adjacent Cities and Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Financing Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
i
�
List of Tables
1. Development Oprions, Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Figares
1. Population, Household and Job Growth, Based on Preliminary New Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Growth Options ...................................••................... 13
3. Crrowth Option: Current Trend Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. Growth Option: Concentrated Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Growth Oprion: Growth Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Metropolitan7ob Concentrations,1990 ................................:....... 20
Appendices............................................................. 35
List of Appendix Ta61es
A. Development Options, Major Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B. Development Options: Assumed Changes to 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
C. Growth Center Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
D. Metropolitan Job ConcenYrations 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
List of Appendix Figures
A, Household Growth Forecasts by Planning Atea, 1995-2020, Cuaent Trend, Concentrated and
Growth Centers Options .................................................... 42
B. Household Forecasts by Planning Area, 1970-2020, Cuaent Trend, Concentrated and Growth
Centers Options .......................................................... 43
C. Employment Growth Forecasts by Planning Area, 1995-2020, Cutrent Trend, Concentrated and
Growth Centers Options .................................................... 44
D. Employment Forecasts by Planning Area, 1970-2020, Current Trend, Concentrated and Gmwth
CentersOptions .......................................................... 45
E. Metropolitan Sewage Disposal System, Current Trend Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
F, Metropolitan Sewage Disposai System, Concentrated Oprion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
G. Metropolitan Sewage Disposat System, Growth Centers Oprion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
H. General9zed Extent of the Prairie du Chien Jordan Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
I. Metropolitan Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . 50
J. Highly Congested Corridors as of 1992-93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
K. Housing Permit Activity, I970-1994, Metropolitan Development Option Quadrants ........_ 52
L. Single-Family Housing Units, 1970-1994 (Building Permits) Top 15 Communities ......... 53
M. Muki-Family Housing Units, 1970-1994 (Building Permits) Top 15 Communities _......... 54
N. Commercial-Industrial Buildina Permits, 1983-1987 Top 15 Communiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
O. Commercial-Industriat Building Permits, 1988-1993 Top 15 Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
P. Residential Development Mix, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1970-1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Q. St Louis Pazk Housing Trends, 1888-I994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • - . . . . . . . 58
R. Land Use Pattems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
S. Neighborhood Street Pattems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
T. Household and Employment Densities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
ii
LJ
����'�
, U. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and Contiguous Counties . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
V. Growth Outside the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
, W. Aousing Permit Activity in Contiguous Counties, 1970-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : . : . 64
X_ Daily work Trips into the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Y. Percent of Local Workforce Commuting into the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1990 ...... 66
, Z. Daily Work Trips From the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1990 . . . . . . : . . . : : : . ✓ : : . . : . 67
AA. Employment Forecasts by Quadrant, 1470-2�20, Cunent Trend Option . . 68
BB. Household Forecasts by Quadrant, 1970-2020, Current Trend Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
L�
1
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
'
,
�
�
'
The cost of preparing this report for submittal to the Minnesota Legislature is
$15,000. It is part of a lazger study the Metropolitan Council has under way.
iii
'
'
1
�
'
,
�J
'
�
'
,
'
c��-���
Chair's Message
The Twin Cilies region has reached a crossioads. The powerful forces that corrverged to make this
region economically stron$ shaped iu urban development and P�ovided a high 4��Y of T�fe over tfze
Iast quarter cenkuy are begbuung to change. The pace of that change is likely to quicken in the
.fiurue•
The baby-boom generation, so influential in driving the need for schonl� housvsg and services, rs
agittg and will make dif ferent demands of tJte economy and govenunent
The expansion of the urban part of the region oceumed because the young baby-boom gene�a�ion
needed housbzg and there was sufficient federal money toPaY. for the new freeways and sewers
necessary for the growth to occur. Clearly, federat funds will nor be avarlable to support future
Srowth, and the e�sting system is agin� meaning more dollars will need m be spent on maintenance.
Public support for quality services, which has been so strongdy ingrained in our cultur� is still there,
bu1 so is the call for less goverrunent and fewer public services. Clearly, the public sector, and local
governments in particular, will not see revenues grow at the rates of the past era.
Global economics also ponend change. Where once the region's econo»tic comperitors were other
U.S. regions, tomorrow's competitors will increasingly be regions locafed on otlzer continents.
These forces mean change is coming in the region We need to chan a course tluough these changes
and confront even those we can't predict ahead of time. The joumey, however, will be an even more
complex one, because the region will grow by 650,000 people, 330,000 households and 380,000 jobs
by the year 2020. The forecasts mean the region wrtt have about the same amount of growth in the
nezt 25 years as u had in the previous qunrter century.
If the peopie making up the increased population aII located in a new, imaginury county, it would be
, the second largest in populution in rhe state. The housef�old growth expected is more than
M'tnneapolis and St Paul combv:ed
, The growth is welcorr� and represenrs a"problem" marry other urban areas would like to have. The
dilemma is how m absorb the growrh, locate it properly in the region, and pay for ir in ways that
keep our economy robust and our region livable.
'
L !
�
J
I �
How wisely we choose wil� in par; determirte how well the region thrives in the future. The question
has statewide implications, because the seven county region and its adjacenr counries are the state's
primary economic engine.
The Metropolitan CowicrT intends to play a leadership role in fmming the dilemmas and making the
choices that Tie aheacL We btow we can't deal with change the same way we have in the past.
The 1996 legislatcue directed the Council to project the likely growth pattern of the reg'wn in the
fuh4re. This report does so. In preparittg the repor; however, we have gone well beyond the mandate
by idennj'ying tfuee fundamentally di, f ferent options for the region's future. The report explains the
'
/ / / I' / / ' / ' 1 / / / / I / / ' / / I / / I �' I / / ' / / I ' I l I / I /
��///
�i i � r i �r•i i i��l i u� r� ��� • IS ii��
i`wa iii vi� � 1 ii i• i •a i i:� iv i � i • i i
� i i �i ii i�� i i� r� / �i i r r i i i � i i i e • e �
'AI I / M 1 'I. ' / I I / / ' d / / / / ' / / M fl '
' // / /�/ / / I � � /' / �'M'/ / /' / // !Il'M'/ / /' M'/ '/
r� :l lll �f �� i • ��l ll�l iii�i i � � i � � - i
'// IY 'I / :r % w ' I '//L q / /. � . �„ .I i � /' ' // %
/O�' � /f' '/ � / � wt I I / I w' /' • ' ' I/II I /
I / I 'J / / M I� • / • I / / Y / / / / / ! / � ' � I Ill / / " / / / / /
../'/ / / ' / / I '/ • 'Yl/ / / /' M /' I / / I / // "/'/ I / I
'/ //I/
We wiII then be bz a position to take the nert step and select a preferred option, which will be our
cdlective °vision" of the future urban development patte►n in the region.
That selection won't be arbitrary, because we want to pursue solutions in parb�ership with the
legi.dawre, local units of govemment and the private sector, so choices made are based on our
collective wisdo�n.
Part of our leadership commitment is to assess the necessary tools and other changes needed in state
law and to bring the propvsals W the legislatrve in 1997.
The rask is a formidable on� and the schedule ambitious. It is not for the Yimid or for those who
seek to avoid maldng decisions. There will be disagreemenxs as we go faward What will unite us is
b►owing we have m act assure our child�en will live in an economically prosyerous region that is
also a good place to live.
.
„ ... , . ,
2
'
�
,
I
J
,
,
,
,
,
,
'
I�
IJ
'
'
�
'
'
Summary
°l�-� �9
"The report describes and identifies the implications of three
fundamentally different firiure urban development patterns for the
Twin Cities Azea. The Metropolitan Council is presenting them
to legislators, local offcials and citizec�s in an effort to establish a
vision for the fimue. Following extensive public review and
discussion, the Council plans to craft an option that best meets
the needs of the region by July 1996.
The options are the Council's response to its recent population,
household and job forecasts for the next quarter century. The
forecasts indicate the region will grow by 650,000 people,
330,000 households, and 380,000 jobs.
At the same time, public bodies will find themselves hazd pressed
to pay for the public infrastructure and serc�ices needed to support
the growth. Funds will increasingly need to be raised locally.
Other key factors influencing the growth pattern are also
described.
The three options represent different answers to the basic
question, "Where should the growth locate in the region?" Each
calls for public management of growth in varying degrees to
achieve the development pattem.
The "C�urent Trend" option accommodates housing market
demand. Public inveshments would be managed to respond
to the demand. Continuing current trends is estimated to
require 260 to 270 square miles of land, outward expansion
of the MLTSA boundary, $162 million in regional interceptor
sewers, and $3.1 billion in local public sewer, water and
stormwater systems. Some 54 percent of the housing would
be single-fatnily; 46 percent would be multi-family
(apartment buildings with five or more units) or other fornis
of attached housang such as townhouses.
The "Concenh�ated Development" option would increase the
density of jobs and housing in the core of the region. It
holds the MIJSA line in its current location, thereby bringing
some economies in the provision of sewers and
transportation. The pattern would require 175 to 185 square
miles of land, $116 million in new regional interceptor
sewers, $1.3 billion in local public sewer, water and
stormwater. Some 42 percent of the housing would be
single-family; 58 percent multi-family or other forms of
attached housing.
�
�
• The "Growth Centers" option wouid encourage the '
developmetrt of jobs and housing in "mixed use" centers
desigued to be pedestrian and "hansit friendly," with Iess
dependence on the automobile. The centers pattern would '
require 210 to 225 squaze mites of land, $133 million in
regional interceptor sewers, $2 billion for local public sewer,
water and stormwater. Half of the ho"�+ng woutd be single- '
family and half would be multi-family or other forms of
attached housing.
The report fulfills a legislative mattdate (Ck�apter 225, Laws of '
1995) by describing the pmbable development pa#erns in and
affecting the metropolitan azea by the�year 2020 under vazious �
scenarios, including the present coucse of growth verses directed,
compact and efficient development In addition, the report
identifies the implications of the Twin Cities zegion's growth '
pattetn on the adjacent, non-metropolitan cownties.
II
,
�
'
,
,
ir �
LJ
I�
�
�
'
4 '
'
�
,
'
�
,
'
�
�
'
The Council intends to go
' beyond the legislative
mandate. In mid-1996, it
�J
i
'
�
�
,
�
will use this report to
establish a preferred
development plan for the
Twin Cifies region.
The three options are
conceptual in nature, but
reality based. They have
been prepared so the
Council and others can test
and evaluate them.
Introduction
tL'�) 4
The 1995 Legislature (Chapter 225, Laws of 1995) directed the
Metropolitan Council to prepaze a report on the region's
development pattern. The law requires a report to the legislature
by Jan. 15, 1996 on:
"the probable development patterns in and affecting the metro
azea by the year 2020 under various scenarios, including the
present course of growth versus directed, compact and
efficient development. The report should consider impacts on
the greater meiropolitan region, including within it coimties in
which five percent or more of residents commute to
employment in the present metropolitan region or which are
part of the metropolitan azea as defined by the U.S.
Department of Commerce Standard Metropolitau Statistical
Area.��
Tlus report fiilfills the legislative mandate. It goes beyond the
requirement, however, by identifying three growfli options: 1)
��CURRENT �IYtEND, 2� ��CONCEN'fRATED DEVELOPMENT�� and 3)
" GROWTH CENTERS." It describes and compazes the options, and
has inforniation for evaluatin� them, such as their impact on
metropolitan systems (sewers and iransportation) and geograpluc
portions of the region (such as the nual azea or region's core).
Both ihe Concentrated Development and Growth Centers options
have the chazacteristics of a more "directed, wmpact and efficient
development" option identified in the legislation. The Current
Trend option follows the present course of growth, which
accommodates demand via a managed system.
Moreover, the Council intends to go beyond the legislative
mandate. Tn mid-1996, it will use this report, and other
information to be developed,to establish a preferred development
plan for the Twin Cities region. The adopted plan will then
become part of the Council's Regional.8lueprint'. The Council
will put the new plan into effect throu� regional capital
improvement prograws, regional service delivery, •and thmugh the
locaUregional comprehensive planning process.
The three options aze conceptual in nahue, but reality based.
With more definition, they each could be implemented.
Fundamentally, however, they have been prepazecl so that the
Council and others may test and evaluate them. During the first
half of 1996, the Council will bring the options to communities
and the public for discussion and evaluation. Council staff aze
'
,
currently preparing: 1) the population, household and
employment forecasts for cities and townslups under each option;
2) more detailed analysis of the metro system (sewers, higfiwaYs,
etc.) needed to carry out each option and the costs of doing so; 3)
recommendations for transit system redesign; 4) an analysis of
the financial implications of growth; 5) a desciiption of public
tooLs necessary to cazry out the options.
��
'
�
Information in this report results from Council staff research and
information gathered £rom 10 Metropolitan Council development ,
tours and public meetings in all parts of the region as well as in
the adjacent counties. '
'
The Twin Cities Region:
Forecasts for the
Nezt Quarter Century
More People
The Twin Cities area is forecast to grow by 650,000 people by
"he Twin Cities area is the year 2020, up from today's estimated population of 2.4
fbrecast to grow by 650,000 �on. The anticipated 28 percent increase exceeds the region's
people by the year 2020. growth the previous 25 yeazs, when it gtew by 575,000
people. (See Figiue 1)
If the people malang vp the increased population all loczted in a
new, imaginary coimty, it would be the second lazgest in
poptilation in the state and more than twice the populafion of
Dakota County.
As Twin Citians grow in number, they�will also get older (due to
the aging of the sizable number of 'baby-boomers"—the lazge
n�ber of children bom in the 20-year period after World Waz
In, and more raciatly diveise.
On tfie other hand, auerage househoId size (about 2.5) and
average mmmber of children in a family (2), both of wkuch have
been decreasing for decades, may be stabilizic►g and probably
won't change much in the years ahead.
'
1
'
1
,
�
'
�
1
'
1
,
�
'
1
'
,
1
'
Figure 1.
Population, Household and Job Growth
Based on Preliminary New Forecasts
Thousands
700
.il
500
.��
300
200
100
C�]
�
q`-��!
1970-1995 1995-2020
More Households
The Council staff estimates the seven cowrty region will grow by
The seven county region 330,000 households to a new totai of 1.27 miflion. That's a
will grow by 330,000 si�able increase. Although a little less thau the region added in
households by 2020. the previous 25 yeazs, it is more households tban both
Minneapolis and St Paul have today. Households have a domino
effect on the land use and development within the region. As
they spread outward consuming new land they aLso require roads,
schools, emergency services and related public inves�nents. In
addition, sheer numbers affect the health of the economy—every
household needs a refrigerator. .
More Jobs
F,gpansion of services and
infrastructure will be
financed largely with tocal
resources.
A growth of 380,000 jobs is forecast by the year 2020, to a total
of 1.8 million in that year. The increase, however, is well below
the pace of job growth in the previous 25-year period, when the
region adde3 640,000 new jobs fueled by baby-boomers and a
big jump in participation of women in the worl�orce.
Less Money
Crrowth means more demand for public services and
infrastruchue. Cuirent trends (e.g. aging baby-boomers retiring
and a larger shaze of jobs paying lower wages) suggest tbat there
will be less money to meet these demands over the neat 25 years.
Mantenance of existing infrastructtae will increasingly compete
with growth for available resources. With less fimding from
federal and state govemments, the expansion of s�rvices and
infrastructure will be financed lazgely with local reso�sces.
Uncertainties
Despite sound forecasts and some predictability, zmeacpected
events occur. This means even though the region needs a clear
direction for its devetopment, it mvst also remain flexible to
adapt and adjust as needed to unforeseett circumstances. Changes
in energy costs and availabi�ity, technology and
telecommunication advances, national and international economic
conditions and other factors outzide the region's control will
require future adjustments to the region's development plans.
0
'
�
0
'
�
'
�
,,
,
�
'
C
'
'
�
C
�]
'
2�-�lg
Development Planning in the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area �
The idea of a regional physical development plan is not new.
While many trace its roots to the Metropolitan Planning
Commission (MPC) era dimng the 1960s, it actually gces back to
Horace Cleveland's comprehensive, two-city pazk plan of 1888,
and to a Metropolitan Regionai Planning Aszociation of
Minneapolis and St Paul and Environs, which was founded in
1927. Neither plan was put into effect on a regional basis.
Metropolitan Development Guide
The MPC, a voluntary organization made up of the region's cities
and counties, selected a regional development plan focused on the
two downtowns and very large regional shopping centers
(existing or planned) in suburbs ringing the central cities. The
lazge, lugh density, full-service "activity nodes" would have all of
the services needed by the public. They would be the focus for
several suburban cities, hence the name "Constellation Cities."
T'he plan was developed in an era of decision maldng about the
location of suburban "dales;' in part to,guide their location. The
MPC incorporated the plan into its Metropolitan Development
Guide, but it had no authority to see its planning concept through
to reality, a limitation that led the group, after 10 years, to urge
the creation of the Metropolitan Council, which replaced the
MPC in 1967.
Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework
The new Council, with more clout, put its Metropolitan
Development and Invesiment Framework' into effect in the mid-
19'70s. The plan called for an urban azea (within the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area (MUSA)) where urban services would be
available, and a nxal area far rural land uses. The Council would
provide metropolitan sewer, highway and transit service in the
urban azea.
The plan constituted a contiguous growth development strategy
focusing on ma»��+r+a fringe azea growth. Its chief benefits were
cost-efficient inveshnent in public in&astructure and long-term
preservation of agricult�ual areas. A new state law required locai
governments to develop comprehensive plans in ways consistent
with the MUSA concept and planned regional sewer, highway,
,�
park and aitport services.
7Yie Blueprint sets the
policy direction for regional
growth. Current
development options effort
w�l estabiish physical
development vision and
map.
Overall, the plan worked as intended Between 1980 and 1490,
93 percent of the region's development occurred in areas planned
for it This percentage was sgiificanfly higher than it was in the
pre-MDIF period. An effort to enroIl fazm land in an agricult�uai
preserve program had considerable success. The number of
people moving to nnat parts of the region or locating to outlyiag
coimties dropped, compared with the previous decade. Local
planning and regional service provision were coordinated.
However, the region's growth in single-family homes surged in
the late 80's and 90's, leading to somewbat more•growth than
anticipated in the region's rural areas and in adjacent counties. At
the same time, declining economic and social conditions in the
region's older core area intensified as a regional problem.
Regional Blueprint
The Councii evaluated its MDIF in the mid-1990s, replacing it
with its Regional Blueprint in 1994. It contains goals, policies
and actron steps to maintain a healthy and livable region. It is
more balanced in addressing redevelopment as well as new
development at the fringe. The Blueprint sets five goals for the
region:
• Economic growth and job creation
• Reirrvestment in distressed areas
• Strengthened senre of community
• Preservation of the natural environment
• Souyrd regional infrastructure vrvestments
The Blueprint sets the policy direction £or growth, but it dces aot
contain a physical development map nor dces it set a priority
among the five goals. The au�rent effort, once completed, will
result in the selection of a developmern pattern for the long-term
development and redevelopmeirt of the region and the setting of
priorities among the goats. These will be made part of the
Blueprint.
10
1
��
�l
�J
�
'
,
L
L
�'
�
I�
C
i
'
'
'
'
'
��-��9
Foundation For Fu�ure Development
Current Land-Use Pattern
A number of factors influence the region's growth pattem. Chief
among them is the pattern of current development, occupying
about 750 of the region's 3,000 square miles radiating out from
two historic downtowns and home to about 2.4 million people.
This existing pattern is sesved by an ea�tensive infrastructure of
highways, sewers, and other public and private utilities. As a
result, it would take a long period of time to markedly change
the current urban settlement pattem, should a decision be made to
do so.
• The land-use pattern of newer development has tended toward
separated land uses. The pattern is very automobile oriented
and expensive to serve with transportation.
• Jobs tend to cluster. New clusters aze locating farther out,
expanding the area for attracting commuters from non-metro
counties.
• The urbanizing area (second and third ring suburbs, like
Eagan, Eden Prairie, Lakeville, Maple Grove and Woodbury)
will continue to attract most of the new households.
• Growth will increase in the niral azea and contiguous
counties. Continued growth in the contiguous counties will
effectively expand the "real" Twin Cities region.
Other Key Factors
In addition, a number of other key factors are shaping the form
of regional growth, including;
• The natural environment (rivers, lakes, wetlands, forests) and
Twin Citians' strong desire to protect and enjoy it.
Economic orientation is no longer only focused on the two
central cities. Emerging suburban concentrations, notably the
I-494 slrip, have grown in importance. For future
development p lann'no the region can be looked at in three
equal parts: Minneapolis/northwest, Minneapolis/southwest,
and St. Paul and its environs.
11
The lrighway system and job location wiTl continue to have
major influence on the developme� pattem. For e�sample,
jobs in more outlying suburban locations make previously
remote locafions, or locations outside of the region, more
accessible sites for housing. Those residents nced other
infrastruchue and its maintenance, police and fire protecrion—
the elements of urbanizatioa
Development Options:
• Current Trend
• Concentrated
Development
• FisCal Ieallty, iticluding the inCleasittg cAStS to maintain
infiast�ucture, less federat and state support, and taY policy
that affects the location of development '
• Social issues, such as safety and school qaality, which affect
the choices people make about where to live.
Three Development Options
This report proposes how the region couid accommodate
expected growtn in rhree funaamentauy aifferent ways. They are
envisioned as sh�cingly different with different underlying
ass�nnptions so that choices and policy options aze clear In
addition, it is hoped that this wiTl aid in the analysis and
development of other combinations or related options. (See
Appendi�c Tables A and B.) �
The Blueprirrt calls for the orderly and economic development of
• Growth Centers the region through the provision of regional services and the
creation of a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and a
Rural Service Area. In addition, the Blueprirrt directs the region
and communities to explore the designation of long-teim urban
reserve land for potenrial urbanization over the next 50 yeats and
to presserve agricultural land The three development options
address these requirements ia different ways (See Figure 2).
12
,
■ Figure 2.
� Growth Options
' rhan Ar a RnTal Area
, � E�stiag MUSA � Generai Rnxal Use
(m� of fatm, mral
MUSA Eapaasion estate and xnrai
residential)
, � Pte-2A20 Uxbaa Eapansion
(esact aiea tobe dete=mined � FaimJLoag-Texm Agricnitnre
ia local plaas)
� Rn:al Ce�e:
Post-2D?A Uxban Reseroe for
Fnt¢ze Btbanizatioa
,
� Concentrated Development
�
,
�
�
r
,
�
' � Metro Centers
Q Intensified Mised Use Centers
, � Nem M�ed Use Centers
L'ty Corridors with Infill Nodes
, Note: Gravth Centers designation
is illustra tive; a c[ual designation will be
made in consultation with local
� govemments.
' 13
1��� i
Current Trend
Growth Centers
. . � . �
Under this option:
Single-fam�ly housing is the
major preferred land-nse
and shaper of developmenY.
This option assumes that accommodaling housing market demand
and.making public investments accordingly best assures the
economic and social heatth of the region Undec it, housing,
particularly single-family ho"�+'�, is the major prefeired ]and-use
type and shaper of development (See Figure 3).
It assumes demand far housing and jobs will be met through a
public shategy supporting the e�ansion of the urban area, and
thaY most new growth occius in developing suburbs. The rurai
area would see increased demand for rural subdivisions and estate
development—if this demand is accommodated it would limit
futtae urban expansion; the adjacent counties woutd have similar
development pressiue.
New residential development density—the number of homes pet
acre—would be lower in the newly developed areas, based on
cutrent pattems and wefland protecrion practices, than what
occurred in the urban growth areas of �he 1970s and 1980s.
During the next ZS yeazs, new housing and businesses would
locate at the contiguous edge of today's urban azea, extending the
concentric ring of suburban growth out from the region's center,
much as m the past
The locarion of ho"�'_na and jobs would occur in all sectors of
Location of housing and the region following historic pattems and market demaud (See
jobs foIIows historic Appendix Figures A, B, C and D). Growth would not be raudom
patterns and market �d haphazard Tnstead, the developmern would be based on
dem$nd. regional and local poficies and planaing That provide necessary
regional and local infrashuchzre. However, the infrastructute is
provided in reaction to the housing market and, to a lesser
degree, to the job market
The MLTSA woutd be e�anded in stages based on local
comprehensive plans. Ctiurent economic inceatives, such as tax
policies and infrastructure financing, would not change much.
Adjacent, rural land would be seen as land "on hold" in
Rurdl land Seen as land anticipation of the next phase of urban expansion, not as land
"on hotd" in anticipation ��oned for long-term nffal use. The rural azea's household
of the next phase of urban �'°� ��'ould increase, and the azea would see rural
expansion. Subdlv�s�ons and "nual estate" development, wluch competes with
future suburbanization. Agricultural preservation would be limited
to areas where agricultural uses are economically competitive
with urban deveIopment Growth in the contiguous 12 cou�ties to
the region would largely follow cuirent trends- '
14
,
'
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
�
r
,
�
�
'
�
,
,
i,Tit��
0 Esisting MUSA
MUSA Espansion
� Urban Eapansian and
Urban Reseive 2020
Post 7A20 Urban Reserve
15
Rura( Area
0 Geaeral Rural Use
0 FarmlLong-Term Ag.
� Rural Center
moa�
:.w
a »Ar
Figure 3. � `� � y
Growth Uption: �
Current Trend Development
CONCENTRATED DEVELOPMENT
Under this Option:
MUSA line not ezpanded
until after 2020 in effort to
build a market for
This option assumes tbat increasing_the density of jobs and
housing in the core of the region best assures the health of the
region. In addition, it assumes that holding the line on the urban
service azea will build a market for redevelopment and
reinvestment in the MIJSA, and bring some economies to the
provision of sewers and trans�ortation (See Figure 4).
redevelopment and Further, the demand for ho'��+ng aud jobs wilt be met by
reinvestment increasing the density in the MLTSA azea, and local planning and
zoning will be changed to allow more density. Density would be
accomplished by construction of more townhouses or other forms
of attached single-family housing. Litfle growth would occur in
the nu�al area. Agricultzsal azeas would be preserved. (See
Appendix Figures A, B, C and D)
The MiTSA would not be expanded before the year 2020. That
means no new infrasRucture would be buiit in what is currendy
designated as nma2 area during the next 25 years. The emphasis is
on full use of exi'sting infiastructiue. Nlaintenance and
rehabilitation of facilities would be a priority.
FIousing and businesses would locate in undeveloped parts of the
Over time, overall density MUSA at the fiinge, in vacanY sites in the alreaay developed part
of the urban part of the of the region sldpped over in the initial wave of development, at
region inCteases. locations made available thmugh redevelopment, or by
intensifying uses on aiready developed land. Over time the
overall density of the urban part of the region would increase.
Competition for auailable land would increase. E�sting struct�ses
wouid become more valuable and experience rehabiIifation and
improved maintenance. ?ilso, land values within the urban service
area would probably increase because no seivice area eapansion
would be allowed zmtil after 2020.
The rural area would see very Iimited growth imder stronger
agricultaual preservation and general nual policies and coirtrols.
Protection of natural resources would be a priority in maldng
land-use deciszons. With reduced land options and increasing
value in the urban area, more development would probably locate
outside the seven cotmty azea, unless statewide Iand-use planning
is put in place.
16
,
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
�
�
,
�
'
Figure 4.
Growth Option:
Concentrated Development
Miles
0 Esisting MI3SA � Genenl Rural Use
MI7SA Eapansion � FarnJLong-Term Ag.
Post 2020 Urhan Reseroe 0 Rural Cencer
17
�'C-�� 9
��
� �� : �
Under this option:
Mixed-use centers
developed.
This option encourages the development of mixed-use centers. It
channels a major portion of the region's job growth into
designated centers, adds medium-to-lugher density housing, and
promotes a lxansit- and pedestrian-friendly development pattem
witbin the center.
This option ass�es land uses in gowth centers can be
influenced by tiansit services and that the region and local
Region & locals make decis�on makers caa make a long-term committnent to focus oa a
long-term commitment to limited number of e�cisting and potential m�ed-use growth
limited number of centers. centers (See Figure 5). The option builds oa existing lob
concentrations with an emphasis on potential for mi�ced-use
development (See Figure 6}.
Centers woutd become reinvestment and redeveiopment sites.
Half of the region's job In newly developing areas a growth center is a way to shape
growth and 17 percent development and dampen pressLUe to expand the MiTSA line.
household growth locates About half of the region's job growth and 17 percent of its
in centers. household growth wouid locate in growth centers. It assumes the
two doumtowns, the core azea and existing job locations would
see job growth. The centers, or nodes, could be connectsd to
transportation corridors.
Demand at the urban
fringe dampened somewhat
by channeling a portion of
the job and household
growth into centets.
The centers would be home to a vaziety of businesses,
commercial establishments, services, entertainment and medium-
tahigher-density housing, such as townhouses and garden
apartinents. They would have a diversity of ho"�no types, costs
and sizes to accommodate tfie cfianging age and household
strucriue of the region's population, including owner/rental,
single-family/multifamily, and market rate/affordable/ subsidized.
The region has about four dozen existing job concentrations with
over 3,000 jobs and job density over 10 (jobslacre). Over a dozen
have potential for expansion as or change into mixed use centers
(See Figure 6 and Appendix Tables C and D).
Some parts of the MUSA would be expanded, paztic�arly
azound growth centers, but the assumption is that demand at the
urban fringe would be dazupened somewhat by channeling a
portion of the jobs and households into growth centers. Over time
the growth centers, plus other infill deveIopment, coutd increase
the overrdllll density of the built up �t of the region, but more
gradually than in the Concentrated Development option. (See
Appendix Figures A, B, C and D)
Rural area growrh would be confined to rural centers and
Freestandittg Growth Centers, with some azeas desig�ated as
"�ban reserves" for after 2020. Limited estate development
would be clustered so over the longer teim it would be
compatible with a MUSA expansion. Growth in adjacenY counfies
could also be encouraged to locate in growtb centers.
m
�
�
�
,
,
,
,
,
�
,
�
,
'
�
'
�
'
'
�
Figure 5.
Growth Option:
Miles
� Metro Centers
� Intensified Mi�ed Use Centers
Q New 1VTixed Use Centers
m Corridors with Infill Nodes
Note: Gtowth Centers designation is i(fusirative; actual designation
will be made in consultation with local governmentc
�
� Esisting MUSA
.A: �,=,.� Urban Eepansion
and Urbaa
Reserve 2A?A
Post 202A
Urban Reserve
� Rural Area
� Farm/Long Term Ag.
Rural Centers
F re 6.
Metropolitan Job Concentrations, 1990
Miles
Number of Jabs
• 27,000+
- 18,000-Z6,999
� 9,040-17,999
� 3,•.000-8,999
� MUSA
20
'
�
,
�
,
'
'
,
,
,
'
lJ
�:J
,
'
'
,
'
There is a difference of
about 100 square miles
among the development
options (about the size of 3
Bloomingtons).
�L `�9
Implications of the Three Options
The major implications of the options are ��**+mari�Pd below. A
matrix that compazes the options according to their bearing on
the five Blueprint policies, housing, transportation and sewezs is
shown in Table l.
• Aifferent goals drive the pattem of development
CvxxENT "Ih�t�m: Responds to housin�ob market
preferences.
CoNCENTxa't�D: Redirects/restricts housing/job market to
encourage infill and redevelopment in
existing urban azea.
Gxow'rx CErrrERS: Directs/guides jobs, housing and
transportation in multi-use centers;
encourages a portion of the new jobs and
housing to locate there, links centers to the
urban core.
• Amount of land needed to accommodate growth differs.
Cu�rrr TxErm:
x
CANCENTRATED:
GROWTH CENTERS:
260 to 270 square miles
175 to 185 square miles
210 to 225 square miles
• The MLJSA boundary varies greatly.
CUxttErrr "I�rm: Staged expansion as needed; next ring of
townships become at least partially
�banized.
CONCENTRATED:
GROWTH CENTERS:
Boundary is not expanded prior to 2020.
Staged eapansion to complement new
TIILXCd-USC CCri'tCI'S.
, 21
,
There is a cost difference
of about $2 billion among
the opiions for Iocal sewers,
etc.
All three opfions result in
single-family housing as the
major housing type.
• Costs for regional sewer service vary only for interceptors. ,
(See Appendix Figures E, F and G)
Cutu�t�' 'iT�rm:
CONCENTRATED:
Gxow� CaN�xs:
$162 million
$116 million
$133 million
o Costs for treahnern plant ($450 million), quality
improvements ($240 million) and system reltabilitation ($13
billion) aze the same for all three options.
• Local costs for sewer, water and stormwater vary
significantiy.
;�7i 7ii�iUl;Tx�i►7i
CONCENI'RATED:
$3.1 biflion
$13 billion
Gxow'I� CENrERS: $2 billion
• iVI� of new single-family and multi-family housing
construction varies.
CU[txEN'r 'I7tEt�m: 54 percent single-family and 20 percent
townhouse or other single-family attached,
and 26 percent multi-family.
CoNCENTttA'rED: 42 percent single-family, 27 petcent '
townhouse or other single family attached,
and 31 percent multi-family.
Gxow� CEN'reizs: 50 percent single family, 22 percent �
townhouse or other single-family attached,
and 28 percent multi-family. '
• The mle of the automobile and transit differ.
CUxxErrc TREND: The development pattern is auto-oriented. '
CoxcEN'rltA'rE�: Transit serves a snaller isban azea, but
with a lugher level of service as density
ittcreases.
GROwTH CENTERS: Transit is a tool to support miXed-use
centers and urban core. Automobile
rnmainc jmPp��,
22
,
,
�
�
�
u
�
L
,
'
'
,
,
'
'
'
�
�
II
� j
1
�
�
C�
Table i
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
Implications
at-���
CQARENT TREND CONCEN?RA1ID GROVPI'H CENTEIiS
:$�7fttl PO�TCJ>' �OZ1��P.$tO17R�IF�T�t3�h#'e�)FY�IiRPlILF_
I. Growth Mana�ement 1. Growth Manaeement 1. Growth Manaeement
� Public infrastructure & services � Public policy guides and �✓ RegionaVlocal policy efforts to
respond to, anticipate housing red'uects mazket forces to infill and 'mtensify job, housing and
market uends. redevelopment locations. uansportation mix.
� Meeting needs of expanding � Reinveshnent needs of w�ban � Downtowns aod mixed use
urban area given priority over azea given priority over new land centers receive regionai priority for
reinveshnent. development economic development and job
cteation.
�/ To meet forecasts for jobs and � To meet forecasts for jobs and
households 260-270 sq. miles of households 175-185 sq. miles of ✓ To meet forecasts for jobs and
serviced land would be needed. serviced land would be needed. households 210-225 sq. miles of
serviced land would be needed.
� 2020 MUSA set by IocaU �✓ Yeaz 2000 MUSA stays in place
regional agreement with 5-year until at least 2020, creating an ✓ 2020 MUSA set by locaU
staaing incremenis. "isban growth boimdary". regional ageement with 5-year
staging increments based on more
� Next ring of townslrips becomes �✓ Tn communities split by e�sting limited growth pressises.
part of urban service azea MUSA the remafning area is saved
for post 2020 urban expaasion. ✓ Mutually designazed go�rtth
1/ A long-term urban reserve azea centers pmvide subregional
for post 2020 urban expansion development focus for reinvesmient
would be nceded to saue land for in urban area and focus for new
evemual urban development. development pattern in isbani2ing
azea.
2. Reeionallnveshnenu 2. Reaional Inveshnents 2. Reeional Inveshnents
✓ Priority given to assuring � Priority given to maintenance �✓ Priority given to designated
adequate supply of serviced urban and reinvesanem to maximize use of growth centers and nodes for new
land for housing development existing pnblicJprivate inveshnents. infrastrucnse and for reinveshnent
3. Who Decides 3. Who Decides 3. Who Decides
� Precedence to local conhol in � RegionaVState growth �✓ RegionaVlocal growth
land use decision-making; regionat management polici� take m�agemem policies and priorities
authorizy continues on cucrent, grecedence in land use decision- are co-equal.
limited basis. making.
23
CURRENT TRIIVD CONCENZRATED GROWTH CEN1'IILS
. _ _ . . -_ - , .. _ : .:�. ,
- - � _ - " -. .
. � � - �f7'�'�2 �f �'t3ittfit#73�Ij+' ; ;��-
i. Reinvestment 1. Reinvestment 1. Reinvesmaern
� Mazket driven redevelopment � Redevelopment and remveshnent �/ Redevelopment and reinvestm�t
xtivities benefit from regionaVlocaZ activities receive regional/local
✓ Redevelopmern and reinvesament priority for using existing priority in desi9nazued gowth centers
aarvities Face sa�ong campetiROn in&ashuct� and &om mcreased and nodes.
&om development on mw land in market mterest as MIISA becomes a
urbanizing subiubs. "growth boundary". '� L'mldng jobs and housmg in
selected centecs and nodes helps
✓ Disinvestn�ent occws in lowest � Economic searegation continues. address concentrations of poverty.
income neighborhoods as poverty
remains concen�zted and economic � Prioriry for brownfield cleanup � Job location and job cre�ion in
segregation increases. given to azeas with job lossas �d/or selected centtecs and nodes supports
sites in �sban core. neighborhood and city econbmic
✓ Ptiority for'brouvfield" vitatity.
(polluted site) cle�up supported in
�y community that provides ✓ Priority for brown&eld cleanup
affordable housmg. given to designated mixed use
centers mmd nodes with strong
mazket potential for
redevelopmendreuse_
, . - ,:
: Slu�zurt PnTicy>�. �eGra�vtliarrdJs�7i �r�ron .;_.::,
1. Comcetitiveness i. Comu�itiveness 1. Comnetitiv�ess
� Comperitive position of reb on ✓ Competilive position of region � Competitive position of region
sastained by focus on m�derly and sustained by reinvesmient and sustained by rmgeted 'mvashments to
aconomic exp�sion of the region. redevelopment m urb� core; creaYe cerne� and nodes which
regional iavesenents focus on move the region to greater resource,
maintaining and ffiproving quality energy and public inve,shnent
of tife and physicat candition of efficiency.
existing areas. '
2. Comm�cial-Indushia[
Develooment 2. Commercial-Indu.strial 2. Commercial-Industrial
Develooment Develooment .
�✓ Location follows established
uend — mcreasingly suburban along ✓ Encouiaged to locaze in existing � Public supports developme.nt in
major highways. planned/mned azeas. desigoazed growth centers/nales.
� More than adequate land '✓ Faces greater c�mpetition with � Land-int�sive mdushial uses
available as commimities compete housing for available land as MUSA may choose to locaTe outside region.
fnr tac base and ecoaomic land beoomes more sc��ucae and
development. valuable.
� Land-intensive industrial uses
may choose to lopte outside region.
24
CuxxEnrr Tx�vn CoNC�nrID Gxowrx C�s
3'r�rlarrori :
I. Transoortarion Svstem Trms�ortaYion Svstem 1. Transoomrion Svstem
(See App�dix Figures I and n
� Transit oriented development � AutomobIle oriented
� Automobile oriented pattem. development pattem tempered.
developmem pa�tem.
� Automobile deQendence stopped '� Growth centers, nodes �d the
�/ Transit service focused on and/or reve�sed in some azeas. intaconnecting coiridors selected to
commuter trips. sustain �ansit.
� 80% of highway revenues
�/ 80°!0 of Iri�way revenues dedicated to maintaining system, �✓ 80% of highway revenues
dedicaYed to maintaining system, 20% for capacity improvements to dedipted to maintaining system,
20% for capacity unprovements to principal & minor arterials. 20% for capaoity imgrovements to
principal & minor arterials. principal & minor arterials.
�! Roadway congestion increases.
✓ Roadway congestion increases. '✓ Roadway congesrion increases.
J Transit service increased in
�✓ Disinvesmient occurs in uansit response to increased density. � uifrashvcdse and servica
system, increases in aperazional improvements focused on centess
subsidy levels required. � Miles haveled for regional uips and interconnecting corridors.
decrease; offset by increace of hips
� Rural azea gowth requires to/from adjacent counties. � Intense nodal development
improvement of region's minor supports HOV & busways.
arterial system. � As trips to/from adjacent
counties increase, conflic[s with � Growth centecs reqnire urban
�/ Miles haveled for regional trips goods movement develop. design & development control
continue to increase. changes, intemal local circulators,
� High Occupancy Vehicle (HO� improved pedestrian facilities.
lane usage up.
� With increased densities &
� InvesUnem requ'ved in minor ridership, transit routes require
arterials by counties and cities. lower operational subsidies.
�
,
�
�
,
LJ
,
�
'
�
�
,
�
,
,
�
'
�
I
i
�
i
1
�
J
CI
�
,
,
,
�
'
,
,
,
r
�
�
�
��
�C��q
CDRREN'P TREND CONCE�TRATID GROR'Tft CENTERS
IS.iue�rsmPnli�• �r�seraatzor�a}'�el�ak�miFEr�uaur�riC
I. Environment 1. Environmeut 1. Environment
� Urban expansion sUaped by � Greater land use intensity rnises �✓ Urban expansion guided to
concem for wetland protection and concern for wedand 8c green space reduce mipact on wetlands and
surface water mana�ement protection and surface water sisface w�ers.
management
�✓ Municipal water supply concerns � Mimicipal water supply concerns
increase as development moves �/ Municipal water supply increase as development moves
beyond Prnirie du Cluen-Jord� dependence on rivers — renewable beyond Pmirie du Chien-7ordan
Aq¢ifer (See Appendix Fig�se I�. resouree but I�ks backup syste,m;. Aquifer.
� Air quaiity concems. ✓ Air quaiity improves with � Au� quality �pmves with
decmase in auto dependeace. geater jobs/housmg mix; less
� Converts most land to urban automobile dependency.
uses. � Converts least amount of land m
urban uses. �✓ Converts relarively large �toimt
� Treats fazmland as azea for of land to wban uses.
potential development �✓ A grcenbek around the MCTSA
could be created; fazmland treated as �/ Some fazmland needed for
resource to be preserved developmen� Provides med�anism
to focus, manage growth pn,ss�ses
on ag. land
„�rng '.
I. Housme Tvoe 1. Housing Tvce I. Housine Tvoe
�/ Singl�famfly detached comprises � Single-family ddached comprises � Single-family detached
54% of housmg buiit 1995-2020. 42% of housing built 2995-2020. comprises 50'�0 of housmg built
1995-2020.
✓ Tocvnhouse �d odier singla �✓ Townhouse and ather siagte-
family attached housmg comprise f�ily attached housing comprise �/ Townhouse and other single- .
ZO% of fiousmg built 27% of ho"c'ng buiit famiIy attached ho»cina comprise
22% of housing built
�✓ Multi-family housing (5 uniu or �/ Muiti-fazniIy housing (5 imiu or
more) comprises 26% of housing more) comprises 31% af housing � Mulri-f�ily housing (5 �mits or
buih. built more) comprises 28% of housing
built
25
,
�
!'
�
,
,
r
L1
,
�
�
�
�
,
,
,
�
�
�
CURRF3HT TREND CONCFI�TRATID GROWRI CENLERS
- .;$2i9P13 !-
1. ReQional 1. Re�onal 1. Reeional
(See Appendix Figures E, F and C:)
�✓ Regional ppital cosls of $116 � Regonal capital costs of $133
✓ Regional caprtal costs of $162 million for interceptors. million for interceptors.
million for mterceptois.
�✓ Regional capiral costs of $450 � Regional capital costz of $450
� Regional ppital costs of $450 million for treatinern piants; $240 million for ireatment plmmts; $240
million for treaament plamu; million for treasment quality million for t�eatment quality
$240 million for treamient quality improveme�s; and $13 bfflion for improvemeuts; and $13 billion for
improvements; and $13 billion for system rehabilitation. system rehabilitation.
system rehabilitation.
✓ Regionai system stays well '✓ Regionat system slays within
� Regional system expanded within current marim�un service cucrent maximum service azea; post
outside curzent maximum service area 2020 �sban reserve azea extends
y� outside.
2. Local 2. Locat 2. L.ocal
� Local sewer/water/stormwater � Local sewer/water/stoimwat� � Local sewer/water/stormwater
system costs of $3.1 billion. system costs of $1.3 billion. system costs of $2.0 billion.
27
�
Implications: What the Trends of
the Last 25 Years Tell About the
Negt 25 Years
Land-Use Trends
If the present course of growth corninues, the region will see
more of the following conditions.
• Roughly half of the growth will locate in flze north half of
the region, and one half to the south. (See Appendix
Figure K)
• Rougbly twathirds of the households will locate in the
westem half of the region, and one tIvrd wi11 locate in the
eastern balf.
• Managed growth has worked well in the region. The vast
Managed growth has majority of the growth will continue to occ�s within the
worked well in the region. Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)
• The urbanizing azea (second- and third-ring suburbs, such
as Eden Prairie, Lakeville, Mapfe Grove and Woodbtuy)
will continue to amact most of �he aew hoexseholds.
• The communities where most of the housing and
commerciaU'mdustrial growth will occur tend to be the
commimiries that added the most households and
commerciaVindus�iat growth d�sing the two previous
decades (See Appendix Figures L, M, N, and O). The top
15 communities, predominanfly located on the west side
of the region, had hatf of the single fanuly permits.
During the period, about 425,000 housing wuts were built
in the region to meet needs of new households attd for
hovsing replacemem, and about 75,000 �its, or 15
percent, were built outside the region in adjacent coimties.
The top 15 communities accounted for 2/3rds of the
multi-family growth during the period. Between 1983 and
1993, the top 15 commtmities had 2/3rds of the region's
commercial/ industrial permits.
Grrowth will increase in the rural azea and outlying
cotmties, effectively expanding the "real" Twin Cities
region.
28
'
�
� Single-family ho"�'na is the
dominant housing choice.
�
,
,
i
Housing density in newly
, urbanizing areas, as
measured by the number
,
,
�
,
,
1
�
�
,
�
of units per acre, is
egpected to drop.
Development pressure is
eapect�l in rural
communities.
Most of the commercial-industrial growth (new jobs) will
concentrate along major lughways and intersections in the
newly urbanizing sub�sbs.
Single-family ho„c�� is hlcely to remain the dominant
housing choice. During the last 25 year� 56 petcent of
the new construction has been for single-family housing,
and 44 percent for multi-family housing. The average,
however, masks considerable variation over the period.
Single-fatnily housing was as high as 77 gercent and a
lovr as 40 percent (See Appendix Figure P). The
variation is due to the impact of the baby-boom
generation, interest rates, taY policy on multi-family
housing and low demand for multi-family housing.
Individual communities also see lazge fluctuations in the
type of housing percuits issued. (See Appendix Figure Q)
Based on recent discussions with local communities, the
housing density in newly urbanizing azeas, as measured
by the number of units per acre, is expected to drop. Lots
will be larger and more eacpensive, adding to housing
costs.
The land-use paitem of newer developm�ent has tended
toward sepazated land use, where various housing types,
commercial and institutional uses are sepazated, not
connected (See AppendiY Figure R). The pattern is very
automobIle dependent and difficult to serve with
iransportation (See Appendix Figure S). It calls for local
arterial roads so local hips aren't taken on the regional
system.
Development pressure is expected in rural communities
near MUSA commwuties that wi11 not be able to handle
demand, even with MIISA eapansions.
Jobs tend to cluster. Overall, the number of clusters is
increasing and occurring in more decentrali�x.d locations.
The spread of the clusters is oriented to the freeway ring
and will continue. The central cities aze expected to
maintain current job levels, but have an increasingly
smaller proportion of jobs in the regon. (See Figure 6
and Appendix Figure T). Appendix Figure T aLzo shows
job locations in relation to household locations.
�
'
Demographic Trencls
The region will receive the about same shaze of the
nation's growth as it had between 1960 aad 1990.
The number of children per family is expected to remain
stable.
The aging baby-boom generation will have significant
im� on the workplace. The region will have an
increasingly aging work force. Baby-boomers will greafly
ownumber the generation of entry workers following it
By 2020, the older porkion of the baby-boom generation
will be retiring.
Unti12000, baby-boomers
fuel demand for detached
smgl�family housing units.
Then demand likely shiffs
to attached single-family &
multifam�ly nnits.
The aging baby-boom generation will aLso bave important
impacts on the housiug market and the mix of units
desired over the ne�ct 25 yeazs. Umil the Year 2000,
baby-boomers will fuel demand for detached single-
family housing units. Then demand will likely shift,
especially after 2010, to attached single-fainily and
multifamily units as the baby-boomers reach retirement
The region's racial minority and Hispanic populations
will continue to grow, given their youthful age
composition and higher birth rates. However, they are
tinlik to continue to double every decade in the fupue
as they haue in the recent past
If recent trends continue, poverty witl continue to
concentrate in certain neighborhoods in Minneapolis and
St. Paut, and the poverry area will grow in size.
Implications and Impact: .
Adj acent Cities and C.ounties
The Council is to consider the growth impact on the greater
metropolitan region, including coimties meeting tke federat
standard meiropolitan statistical azea definition and those counties
in which five percent or more of its residenLs commute to the
seven courny Twin Cities area to work (See AppendiY Figures U
and �.
The following cowrhes meet the legislative definition: 12
30
i
'
,
�
�
�
J
�
'
�I
�J
�
'
�
�
�
�
,
'
Five contiguous counties
have over 40 percent of
their labor force working
in the Ttvin Cities.
About 65,000 workers
commute from 19 adjacent
counties into the Twin
CSties.
RG-���
contiguous counties—Isanti, Goodhue, Rice, LeSueur, Sibley,
McLeod, VJright, Sherburne in Minnesota and Polk, St Croix
and Pierce Counties in VJiscflnsin; and five non-contiguous
counties: Meeker, Mille Lacs, Kanabec, and Pine counties in
M"innesota and Burnetx Coimty in Wisconsin (See Appendix
Figure �.
The 12 contiguous counties grew by nearly 75,000 housing lmits
between 1970 and 1994, while the combined region (12
contiguous and 7 metropolitan counties) grew by nearly a half
million. The contiguous coimty growth represented IS percent of
ffie 19-county azea's housing permits. Generaily, the coimties to
the north added about twice as many housing units as did
counties to the south (See AppendiY Figure W).
The contiguous cournies' workers commute in sizable numbers to
Twin Cities locations to work, particularly from adjacent counties
located to the north and northwest of the region (See Appendix
Figure �. In five of the counties over 40 percent of their labor
force work in the Twin Cities. Appendix Figure Y breaks tlus
down further, and illustrates how the communities within those
counties immediately adjacent to the Twin Cities have the lughest
percentages of commuters, with a number in excess of 60
percent. About 65,400 workers commute from adjacent
counties into the Twin Cities.
Twin Citians also work in the adjacent counties, although the
number, 10,500, is relatively small (See Appendix Figure Z).
Wright, Sherbume, Chisago, and St Croiac County in Wisconsin
have the most employees who live in the Twin Cities.
Employnnent has doubled in the last 25 years in the adjacent
counties, but theu total employment is only about a third of the
employment in Minneapolis and St. Paul (See Appendix Figure
AA).
Crenerally, the adjacent counties growth is detexmined by the
availability of highway access to the Twin Cities, and factors
affecting housing location, such as cost, the desire for nuai and
small town lifesryle, perceived personal safety and school quality,
and topo�aphy, woods, lakes and other nattual amenities.
Recenfly, growth in the contiguous counties bas been accelerating
and, as a result, may exceed the state's forecasts. Development
pressure in the rural parts of the cowities is not unlike that felt by
the rural counties in the seven county Twin Cities area during the
1970s and 1980s. The adjacent counties aze beginning to see z�ural
subdivision development, much of it clustered azound natural
31
'
amenities. More of it than in the past is expensive housing, likely
owned by Twin Cities commuters, wtrich will, over time, change
the housing mix of the commimities.
During the 1990s, the IZ
contiguoas connties
increased their share of
housing units built in the
combined 19 county area.
Not all of the growth is due
to Twin Citians moving out
of the seven county region.
Indushrial parks aze �+*�n�g up on the edge, some of them
relying on individual wells and septic tanks, others located with
tsban services in the cities and townships. Some of the firms
locating in the industrial pazks are transplants from the seven
county Twin Cities area.
buring the 1990s, the 12 co�guous cournies increased their
shaze of housing units buiit in the combined 19 county azea from
13 percent dvring the 1980s to nearly 19 percent (See Appendix
Figure BB). As a result of this development, the adjacent
counties are examining ways to accommodate the growth through
planniug and a variety of reguiatory approacfles, a number of
which haue been x�entty implemented.
Not ail of the growth is due to Twin Citians moving out of the
seven cotmty region, although proximity to the Twin Cities is the
likely major factor in adjacent cownty growth. Much of the
growth is due to people choosing to stay and form fam�ies and
from people from greater Minnesota choosing to }ive close to the
Twin Cities to enjoy its benefits, but not to locate within it
The counties meeting the five percent commute criterion in the
legislation aze so distant from the seven coimty region that metro
development �ends have little influence on them. Small numbers
of workers comumte from the counfies to the metro area, drawn
by higher salaries and benefits than can be fouad locally. Good
accessibility to interstate and state lrighways helps make the
commute possible.
Public officiaLs in the adjacent counties are interested in
discussiag common issues with their Twin Cities area
cournerparts, and recognizs the need to coordinaYe their planning
with Twin Cities azea planning activities.
Financing Implications
Growth and public finance aze inextricably linked: The
characteristics of the population influence the form of
development, the demand for public services and the ability to
pay. The form of development affeds the cost of infrast�vcture
and creation of ta�c base. The overall fiscal environme� creates
32
1
LJ
�
,
�
�
'
�
�
,
�
'
�
�
�
,
'
,
Federal & state funding
policies have had a
profound effect on regional
developmen�
���� �
incentives that influence the development pattem. The financiai
implications of growth will vary among the numerous units of
local govemment in the Twin Cities region.
How and who pays for growth is a key question in planning for
the firture of the region. This rzport dces not attempt to answer
the question, but rather frames issues that must be addressed in
creating a development management system for the region.
Over the past 25 years, federal and state-fwiding policies
have had a profoimd effect on the development of the
region. Crrant and aid programs were available to finance
the e�cpansion of the highway, sewer and transit systems.
Revenue sbaring, Community Development Block Crrauts,
"Section 201" of the federal Clean Water Act, and Local
Govenunent Aid (LGA) picked up the tab for a portion
of the costs of growth. The design of these programs
indirectly fueled growth. For e�mple, revenue sharing
was based on population and at one time the LGA
formula increased the aid allocation as communities grew
in households and population. Now many federal
programs have been elimuiated or significanfly reduced.
State spending for LGA has been capped. The state
Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA) is frozen. As
this trend continues into the future, local government will
bear an increasing share of service and infrashucture
costs.
This relationship, particulazly at the stat� level, increases
the complexity of planning for the fuhzre. State decisions
regazding local finance are generally made without
considering the implications for growth, development or
redevelopment Many key elements of state-local fiscal
policy have changed frequendy over the past 25 years,
making it difficult to make realistic long term plans.
Policy decisions have often taken a"one size fits all"
approach. As with the Livable Communities Act, the
future may require fimding tools linked to regional
objectives.
It is necessary to look at the financial implications of
development from a regional perspective. Land use and
development decisions made at the municipal level ripple
through the adjacent and overlapping jurisdictions.
Adding jobs in one community leads to housing demand
in other communities. New household growth creates the
demand for commercial development New households
33
,
also place demands on school districts, many of which are
not coterminous with municipal boundaries. All of these
and other factors affect the demand for local services and
facilities.
There is a shift to Iocal
revenue sources.
The shift to local revenue creates an mcentive to favor
development tbat pays its own way. Commercial-
indus�lriai development and Iugher vaIue singie-family
homes aze seen generally as generaxing tax revenue that
exceeds additional local service costs. This perception,
whether real or not, influences the development pattern.
Guiding development cannot be reduced to a cosdbenefit
analysis. The economic consequences shoutd be only a
part of the factors shaping a livable and sustainable
region. Other criteria must be used in the analysis of the
implications of the development Environmental, social,
and other considerations are also important to quality of
life.
1.The Blueprint, adopted in 1994, lays out regional policies, sh�ategies and actions to attain and sustain
a vitai and livable Twin Cities Area.
2. The region will add more people, but its rate of �owth by 2020, compared witlt Yhe 1970 to 1995
period, will be somewhat slower because the 1995 base is larger than it was in 19'70.
3. The original Metropolitan Development Fraznework was subsequeirtly amended to add investment
policies and was renamed the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework, or MDIF.
4.A11 oprions assume that Minneapolis-St, Paul Intemational Airport remains in iu current location.
5. The region has a Metropolitan Urban Service Area which is the previously developed urban part of
the region, plus land planned for urban growth.
6. Estimate is based on a 1990 survey.
34
'
'
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
0
�
�
�
�
�
Appendices
35
't � ��
il
Table A
DEVELOPMENT OPTTONS
Major Assumptions
CuxRSrrr Tk�n CoxcErr�ax�n Gxowz�ti CIIV�reRs
MAJOR ASSUMPTiONS MAJOR ASSUMY'fIONS MAJOR ASSUbIPTIONS
o Assumes no change in current o Assumes that holding the line o Assumes development shaped
development trends. on the urban service area will by concentrating on job location
build the market for and job/housing/tcansportation
o Assianes housing, particuIarIy redevelopment and reinvestment Iink
new sinalo-family detached, is
major land use type and o Assumes fulUefficient use of o Assumes land use pattems can
development shaper. existing public sewer and be influenced by the pmvision of
�ansportation investrnents is �ansportation services—transit and
o Assumes sewer and highest priority. highways.
uansportation services are built in
reaction to and support of o Assumes sewaltransportation o tlssumes regional public
housing/ job development. investments are major shaper of infiastructure investmenu would
development. be prioritized to achieve an
o Assumes that the long term integated land use/ uansportation
economic and social health of the o Assumes that long-term pattem.
region is best met by economic and social health of the
accommodating housing market region, particulazly in the core of o Assumes the region's economy
trends and guiding investments the region, is best served by and popularion are best served
accordingiy. building density of jobs and tfirough a Iand use pattem that is
housing. less dependent upon the
automobile.
o Assumes increased housing
density will support transi� o Assumes regionalllacal
agreement & long-term
commimient to a limited number
of existing and potenrial mixed
use gowth centers;
* in older areas it becomes a
redevelopment and reinvestment
tool;
• in newer developing azeas it
becomes a way to focus and shape
development.
36
, Table B
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Q/ �� t�
Assumed Changes to 2020 (/j► d
�
'
,
,
�
'
�
,
�
'
'
�
�
'
�
'
'
'
Cu�xr�'r 'RtErm CoNC�naxw'te� Gxowrci C�s
Households and Jobs: assumes Households and Jobs: assumes not all Households and Jobs: assumes
forecast gcowth will be accommodatecl forecast gowth would be forecast gFowth will be
in the region. accommodated in the Region; 22,000 accommodated ia the Region;
households and 14,000 jobs would be
accoaunodazed somewhere in the � 49% of the region's job growth
adjacent 12 counry area (21% without channeling} and 16.5°!0
of ffie region's household growth (5%
without channeling) ctanneled into
, designated gowth cente:s/nodes.
MUSA: assumes that demand for MUSA: assumes demand for MUSA: assumes demand for MUSA
addiIIOnal urban service area will be expansion of the urban service area expansion dampened by channeling a
met flvough staged expansions to will be met by increasing density portion of jobs & households into
assure an adequate land supply, throughout the MUSA. growth centers.
Urban Area: assumes the
Urban Area: assumes a relatively Urban Area: assumes infill on vacant revitalization of core azeas occurs
stable number of households and jobs; or undenrtilized sites and that market wiffi increased job crearion and
assumes core area remains primary interest in the sites increases due to location in the two downtowns and in
location of the poor and tighter urban service area; assumes other existing job concentretions.
disadvantaged. that overall housing density inereases
to meet demand; assumes local
planning/ zoning are revised to bring
about land use changes.
Urbanizine Area: assumes major Urbanizine Area assumes this area Urbanizina Area: assumes major
growth in households and jobs occurs receives most of the househol�ob amount of region's growth is
fn the developing suburbs and is growth; assumes undeveloped land iu accommodated in this area; assumes
accommodated by expanding the suburban locations would be used first growth can be focused around new
M[JSA consistent with housing before major amount of infitl is mised-use centers; assumes urban
market demand and local plans. stimulated in the urban area; assumes service area would be expanded to
housing density increases — more meet more limited housing and job
townhouses and other attached foims mazket demand at periphery.
of singl�family housing.
Rucat Area: assumes rural housing Runl Area: assumes limited gowth Rural Area: assumes mtal job &
demand remains high & household due to strong new development household growth is confined to rural
growth nte increases reflecting recent confrols in the nual azea; assumes nodes; assumes long-tezm ufban
[rends; assumes increased ourivazd very limited wal residential growth reserves designated for urban service
developmem pressure with nnal and strong agricuhural preurvation. az�a after 2020; assumes ag. xemains
subdivisions/esha[e development; economically competitive; assumes
assumes ag. preservation 1'vnited to lunited rural residential development
azeas where ag. uses are economically is ciustered for long-term potential
competitive. inclusion in MUSA.
Adiacent Counri Area: assumes area Adiacent Counri Area: assumes that it Adiacent Counri Area: assumes
increasingly a pazt of the regional is desirnble to limit accelerated growth is related to economic .
economy; assumes household growth gowth outside the region; assumes influence of the regional economy;
follows trend of increasing shaze of development controls siaulaz to mral assumes growth occurs along major
19-county metro commuter shed's part of inetro area. interstate freeway comdors and in
gowth; assumes job p�pwth consistent exis[ing cities outside the metro area
with pasttrends & locates along
intetstate freeways.
37
Table C
GROw'rx CErr't'ER Ciu'rExrn
A. MEx�co Mmen usE CEN�x
1. 30,000+ jobs in contiguous Trnffic Assignment Zones (TAZs);
2. Job Density 50+, jobs per employmrnt acre;
3. Broad Housing Mix — 8+ households per residentia( acre within the Job Center TAZ or adjacen� and
4. High PotenUal for Mixed Use Developomrnt — Vacant, undeiutiltized or redevelopment land to increase job
numbe�s, job density and/or medium-to-higher deasity housing (minimum of 8-units per acre, 15 to 20
preferced).
B. MIXEn UsE CENPER
1. 7,500 to 29,999 jobs in contiguous TAZs;
2. Job Density 20+, jobs per employment aae;
3. Broad/Moderzte Housing Mix — areas of 8+ households per residential acre within the Job Center TAZ or
'unmediately adjacent and significant areas of 5.0-7.99 households per residential acre within the Job Center
TAZ or adjacent; and
4_ High/Medium Potential for Mixed Use Development — Vacant, undecutiltized or redevelopment land m inc�
job numbeis, job density and/or medium-to-higfier densiTy housing (minimum of &unils per acre, 15 W 20
preferred).
C. MIXED USE JOB NODE CORRIDOR
1. 1 or more aodes with 3,000 to 7,499 jobs and significant vacany underutilized or redevelopment land available
to develop a new node that is along a hanspottation conidor (highway or hansit) that is connected to an
existing node;
2. Job Density 20+, jobs per employment acre;
3. Broad/Moderate Housing Mis — areas of 8+ households per residential acre within the Job Centet TAZ or
unmediately adjacent and signi5cant areas of 5.0-7.99 households per residential acre within tlie Job Center
TAZ or adjacent;
4. High/1�4edivm Pofeatial for Mixed Use Developmeat — Vacan; mdenriiltized, or redevelopment land to increas
job numbers, job density and/or medium-tahigher density housing (minnnum of &uni� per aae, IS W 20
prefeaed).
Applying the Criteria
The following mviced use ceniers/nodes aze use in the Growth Centers option, They have been selec[ed to illusuate the
concept and for moie de4ailed analysis. In addibon, they will be discussed wiTh local govemmeat and oihe� duriag ihe first
quarter of 1996. Nhile these centerslnodes show promise, based on preliminary aaalysis, some may be dropped and/ar
additional ones added if this concept is se[ected.
A. ME7x0 MA'�n USE CEiv'i'ER Centers with Potential:
o Minneapolis Downtown/Mississippi River&ont
o St Paul Downtown/M�ssissippi River&ont
o University of Minnesola/SE Minneapolis Industrial
B. MixED USE CENrER Centeis with Potentiai:
o St Paul Midway (Westgate to Midway Marketplace)
o Edina East (Fairview Southdate to Centennial Iakes/ EdSnburgf�}
o Roseville Industrial/Rosedale/Haz Mar
C. MLYED USE JOB NODE CORRIDORS
0
0
0
0
0
Comdors with Potential:
St Paul Phalen Corridor (Space Ceater/East 71h and 3M/PLalen Comdor)
Robert SueeVHwy 52 (West St Paui/faver Grove Heights)
HiawatLa (Lake Street to Mpls VA Hospita!)
ExcelsipdM"umetonka $Ivds (Micacle Mi[e/Fxcelsior Bivd, Methodist
Hospital Area, Knollwood Arza and Hopkins Downiowu/Excelsior Blvd)
Lake Street (Abbott Northwestem Hospital Complex/Seazs, Honeywelt HQ
Area, and Uptown) .
38
ll
'
'
�
'
�
`J
L�
'
t
C
�
I__J
'
'
t
'
�
,
�
�
,
,
�
'
' O
�
� �
.--a o
.�
� o ,-.
' zo�
O M �
�'^
N
Q O �
' � 'i O
3 °
W ; �
❑ z N'
„ O � �
�� �`
F �..
� c c
O Q >
� z � �_
H �A
, aF �
O p w
Q b C
� ( .� 7 7 U m
� v
�
r
'
�
�
�
d1
� = _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - -
�
� � m � m d = m
z U $ m -nO m = c c � c c a c c c a c
U � � m � m U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
�' ro cJ 'm c� $ n a a a a a a
p u� ° �c `� o 0 0 0 0 0 ..°� � �° �° ° � �
� u � � � � -a
�
K
�
LL
£ � �
~ N L L G 0 � � L O � � O O O 0 � 0 m
o W � E E E
a�
J � L .0 L L �t �L mL L t t Z` Z` L L �L mL L
m L¢ s ?� t m t m t m �,a� Z.3� Z.3 m a m m g � m gm Z,a z,w a
N 3 � L Q L tA L � L m L m L 0 L � L p t � t �> p> O� O'C m t N' `'
y 'L $ � t • L • L • > � > • > � � • p • pl • � p1 • p1 � m � > � > � �
W Q O T � �. • f. ' > ' T � �. ' T • T � T � T � T � T ' �. ' T � T � T T
6' � N � N .� R r. N a. N r. N r N r. N �. 4 (6 �+ N � N r W r. R `r R r. lE a. R
V F- = m 3 'm 3 » 3 — 3 — 3 w 3 � 3 w 3 — 3 'S 3 q 3 a ��3 � c c c t c� c t c�
C L C L C.L C L C L L � L C G C L C.0 C L
Q t` m � m @` m (� 6 N Ol N O� � O� R W N W W O+ R O 0 t` d W m R OI N Ol t` � N m
rx r-x r= �_ �s r=i ri rx' E== r= r=o, rso, ri �_ �_ �2 �'x
0
� w ? ? } � ? � � ? ? � ? ?
= O
z w
zN�w �
Q O Y � 0 tp fp � �O O O Q o'� o) N O N N Y
W m m N ? Q N N Ci a < N (O N N
� a Q
o W
�
y � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N� ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m p 19 m m c� w o m r m �o v1 o w o t� o �
O� Q 0 t7 (O W 1� (O � O t� � N N O C m
[{)� m �p N N
Z
�
d m
a d
� U
z o ' o �
O h � Y
� m m l• = N U o , m � y m
d � L� N W m �l
0 �g � >> 0 'O p. C N l0 Y
ty = �� `3' m E tll 'c o K m g 1= `' c a a m
V 3� � 0 3 ? d R a S' � � c � m m U d
z �� �� d c L o Q m W m � m 2 �m (7 y = a ? ¢`
O � t 3'� � m w a o �� 2 a 'oe m
ZJ - 3 m �m >` m c � m v oi mc m m
°�' c 2 �'—° N � o m s � w � m � o a m �j a �_ c c c
a1 ❑— ;R o 3 2 c m �� v? a �. � l m N W = m
O m o `o � v� � c ` �, c c � O y, �d g tn U
$,a � 2�c � m r c m w c £ in m � m o< g t6 S °—' °o ° o. m =
�° ; ` B� L E � c ��n �� `m � p� _ 3 a � m y �
cm aw >� °"� $.� u- c E 3?� m`� c W� n � .�� � $ c
cW n � a a�i 2� o`n aa y m W ye � �
�� y� ] y T o Q m � wU a.Z.. C 2 w� a¢` � w`. •Tn= � m m
39
d m m m m m m m m m m m ,
m m u� m Z Z Z z z 2 2 Z i Z Z 2 2 Z Z Z
U CJ U U � a y a a a .o a a a - a a a a a a
n n a a o 0 o O o ' o 0 0 0 0 0 ' O o 0
0 0 0 0 -a � -+ �
�
y 3 � 3 � z 3 z g > > 3
0 0 o b o °m ° m m ° m -° b m ° b ° �y 3
_ - _ ' E E E E _ � _ _ _ c � � E
° o ° o °� g $
° < o ° o ° Z' c °'° °'°o � 2' t' °' a Z' �a
° °w or o° x° Zw �> os Zw Zm �� o> �i 2�� o �m o;` Z'm �m m� z rn�
y• 6• m� �� �j• �• �� >� >• L• m• �• >� O• �~ C.� �� OI� L• L•
� T • a. ' T ' T � T • .�. • a ' T � T � T � T ` T • `... • ? � > T • a ' T • T � T
.� i0 ... N �. t6 �. W ... m r W r@ .. m r m �. @ �. l6 �. m r t6 ... q � b �. 0 ... 0 �� . � l0
- 3 - 3 H3 'w 3 a 3 m; �3 w3 m3 - 3 m3 d+3 - 3 m 3 - 3 `3 3 - �3 w 3
C L C L C t C L C L C L� C L 'y' C L C L C L D L II C t C L g C t t L C L C L C C L t
mo. mw mm m�w ma mSoo mw Rw mm mm mmo �wo mw mm m,Q� ma ma mm mm Rm
�s r= rx rx t== r`xm r= r= rx i-i �=o, �=w Ci i==o. t=x �_ �= rx r= ri
? � > > > � � � > � ? �? � �
ay �4 M �n v c tV o m Y m m N m � m N m N
N f0 N N N C) N M N h �O N M Q � 1� t'� � b
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
�O Q N 0 Q m N a7 �O O/ h 1� m Q W O O O
ei m oi t` r m m m m m �o v v v v v v v a <
� •
�
a y ^
¢ m R ^
K C m a � � m � n
o `° _ � a m n'- v � `° y ° m
a
m "' v m 5 = 3 m �' ° m _ c '� m � m m �
q � L O O� O N �_ LL I� 0 � p m Q Q Q
m � fn ds � �� m 2 � i� z m Q � p Q � � a
y T QN C 6 y �� �Y .�i m0 U A W �i+ V m �N N Q Q
� � m � m > O m� � p `° , m c 0 p o ` m O O '� Q� O S a LL =
c �> c� �¢ mc �Ca o am > `m mw ¢ m m -'m as m
o 'm y °2 Sc � e 33 m° t $m =E 3 m mE o � � � 'm i.
L 0'6 CIS N0 4 JC ()J 0 0�,�' Lp Y V �O T C '� L�'J p C
z eo �. � (p � w. a a �o o m �o �
O N �p d ry O tt O O— C O. O 0 O O 0 � + �J O
z [��? �� <N. � w in,� ��? � aU zm a v� w°3 m x z �� z x
��
0 0 � o � � � � � $
Z= Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z 2
0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0
> > >
E
0 0 o i � o m o o �
_ �
y � p W �� 0� �j � p> W v O� p G g>
> m • > m • > q • L • m • W • � •
� T • T • T � T • T • T � T � T � T ' 'r
m 3 -� 'm 3 m 3 - 3 m� - 3 - 3 `w3
C L C C L C G C L C L D C C L C L C L 9
m[P N Oi � O� 6 m R O W Oi O @ d W m m m R m �
ri i=s r-= t== �_ �= r== Fi �_ �=
� > � � � � >
M O� N � � � m C w N
° w ° w ° n < � �X ° a � a °
�i [ti vi [6 v: vi ai ri vi �i
a
m �
a
`o m a �
� y m
y � � ° �
� Q d W q r d N J �
m 3
a ` m c -�e m ¢ �
� �� O � L 0 O v �
v m � a c = U m V 6 0
s
a m a o� n � o m 8 °-'
m c = s`x p. a d m d � m d
O L W C
a—
W W Z 2 v � �� � Y Z li
�
41
0
r
�
7
'
�
C
Z
V
�
0
N
0
� _ .
� �>
�?c
x ._
¢ `o �
— .xQ
� o �
��a
g"�
° � "d
2 �
Z Q F
- �
W O w
O
w
o � �
W 8
O d
x o n
� p '
W W V
� o �
o � �
� o
ui o
m 2 y
F �
C p
Q �a
� 1 $ �
$ Q
� ���
� o
a ���
9a„p
i � a
W � �
���g
=�
f aa
o��v
m �<�
> m$�
��=W
S 4 V �
ag��
a g��
� ��a
� o -
� � w
h � e a
n n
�o�a
� h 9 j
Q a a�a
e �+
����
a a
r a
o��§
_s
p 0 �
�Gl�i
p
'a =
��ao'
�<o�
3�g-
i � w g
L�Ko
w �w
O p6��
w a �.�
� o ' O
? ° �w
o � ° o
x q 2
� s � o
O O2
� E E
m � � W
a O �i
O � j
Mmo
>
�
�
a
�
a
i�
:
�
a
II
O
° o
�
�
ww
a�
II N
o �
O
0
�_
�
� g
� �
f
ao
� �
� a
s �
��
.� U
W Q
m �
> u
� �
o g
z
� �
S ¢
o °
�_
r11 4
f �.
0 �
Z �
' 'a
°�
��
o�
N
o �
� �
6 f
V 0
W Y
s a
u 4
e �
T �
¢ �
� J
Z W
�J S
i � �
g
s
0
z
�
�
U
¢
p
N
�
C
�
w
>
a
�
�
�
�
s
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
g
0
a
.§
z
�
F
�
�`c
�
0
$
5 0
a �
LL O
�
4 a
� F
�
�
5°
w �
o °
� �
o g
�
� �
m g
Q
�
m
0
0
a
m
�
N
�
0
0
Q
m
N 8
O
�
U
�
0
S
m
f
�
�
$
w
�
�
�
�
�
W
k�
Figure A.
Household Growth Forecasts by Planning Area, 1995-2020 �
Current Trend, Concentrated and Growth Centers Optians
mxies
Household grawth in thousands
Current Tread
Cancentrated
_ Growth Centers
42
�
�
�
�
�
,
'
,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
,
,
Figure B.
Household Forecasts by Planning Area, 1970-2020
Current Trend, Concentrated and �
Growth Centers Options
C�rrent Trend
Household numbers in thousands
1970
1995
� 2Q20
Concentrated
i�s'
93 2 *
Adjacent
Counries
Sx APPmd�zl
Table B
I
+o m a
va.
43
qC-�«
Growth Centers
�l
Figure C. �
Employment Growth Farecasts by Planning Area, 1995-2020
Current Trend, Concentrated and Growth Centers Options
Employment growtfi in thousands
Cunent Trend
Concentrated
_ Growth Centers
44
,
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
�
'
1
�
�
1
�
�
1
�
1
Figure D.
Employment Forecasts by Planning Area, 1970-2020
Current Trend, Concentrated and
Growth Centers Options
C�rrent Trend
Employment numbers in thousands
1970
1995
-�� 2020
45
�� ��g
Growth Centers
Concentrated
Figure E.
Metropolitan Sewage Disposal System
Current Trend Option
.�.�.rs
Treatment Plants
� Need expansiott
e Adequate capaciry
Q To be phased out
Interceptars
� Adequate capacity
�. Capacity sensitive
� Required improvements
� Maffimum service
area of e�sting
treatment plants
,,
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
'
'
'
�
,
,
r
�
�
,
�
'
Figure F.
Metropalitan Sewage Disposal System
Concentrated Option
TreaCment Plants
� Need e�ansion
fl Adequate capacity
d To be phased out
Interceptors
_u-�. Adequate capacity
�.� Capacity sensitive
� Required improvements
47
/
� �-�r�
� Maximum service
area of existing
treatment plants
�ater
rove
igs
Figure G.
Metropolitan Sewage Disposal System
Growth Centers Option
1Y111C3
Treatment Plants
� Need expansion
Q Adequate capacity
Q To be phased out
Interceptors
-� Adequate capacity
�� Capaciry sensitive
� Required improvements
� Maximum service
area of exisfing
treatment plants
m
,
,
,
�
�
,
,
�
�
,
,
,
,
L�
L�
�
,
�_�
Figure H.
Generalized Extent of the
Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer
"t��(G
� 49
r
�
�
�
,
L�
'
,
�, ,
�.;�.`
'
�
�
�
�
�
� Metropolitan
fiigfiway system
� Trausit sexvice
area
�
�
�
50
i
Figure I.
Metropolitan Transportation System
'
� Figure J.
Highly Congested Corridors as of 1992-93
�
�
u
�
'
�
'
�
�
,
�
�
1
�
�
�
,
� Metropolitan
highway system
� Congested
segments
51
�t L-���
Figure K.
Metropolitan Development Option Quadrants
Housing Permit Activity, 1970-1994
Percent of Tota2
�Vorth: 47.3%
Sout12: 44.6%
52
,
�
i
'
�
'
,
�
,
1
�
�
I
�
�
�
�
,
,
Figure L.
Single-Family Housing Units, 1970-1994
{Building Permits)
Top 15 Communities
{113,400 of 234,400 units)
Miles
53
Maple Grove
��-�� l
ury
age Grove
,
Figure M.
Multi-Family Housing Units, 1970-1994
{Building Permits)
To
tlz
f�
�
1
1
�
�
�
bury '
1
t
1
1
1
Miles
t
1
I
1
54 '
,
, Figure N.
Commercial-Industrial Building Permits, 1983-1987-
i Top 15 Communities
�
Top 15: $2.2 Billion
, Metro Area: $3.1 Billion
I Coon Ra ids
❑ ......::_ ::<>::::
<..�o:<:.:.,...
.....:,��:.�
Brookl n Park ��;`��:' �
' ``�>�: +�'�^.>2'��,�'�
Maple Grove : _���'>�" ;;�;: � Fridley
i `";r: <ex: � i'--�
t ° :p�';Y'"� �: ���° Roseville�
Plymouth ;.:<�;'�:�<
'" �� _ :����`:.
`<:;<: c` uis =- _ «::_;:,:�°:<.:�
` � � � � � �e � �� ���
� ' ��k,�� 3 � :��:L�
Minnetonka ;��� �� °�� �3 � =��� �
1 '� _ g -
�� � � �=¢ �a
Q � ��� .�� _._�
�;� _ _ ��
�_ °
� � �Eden Prairie �����m--�;-,-__ -,,:."'�`�"..
� ��,:..:_ ,,;
�- -� ���-�� ����, . ', :
p:�....e�m'� ii_ � _ �:i °�'_ .. °°>�`�:G°*�
- _ A'�� `�F�I: p.�`R.:>�So;.:
_ ..' `°:;;i;'3'z 'Ed'3"` i
I � � loomington>�'rv;�';=� �Eagan
,>
C�
� Burnsville
, �
` p 10 ?A 30
i i i
Miles
1
�
t
, 55
�
�
�i`-�L`�
Manlewood
�
� .
r❑
Figure O.
Commercial-Industrial Building Permits, 1488-1993*
Top 15 Communities
56
,
t
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
,
�
�
j
�
/
!
/
t
t
Figure P.
Residential Development Mi�
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1970-1995
1970-74
1975-79
j':� �
1985-89
1990-94
1995 (Jan-Oct)
1970-1495
57
� �-���
$0% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
a�
�
�
0
rn
�
r
�
z
W
�
�
�
Z
��
Q� �
N� r
�_ �
� �
ii Y �
� T
d
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
�
0
rn
T
0
�
rn
T
0
�
r
0
�
.-
0
rn
T
�
N
�
T
Q
T
�
T
0
�
�
r
•
•
• �•
�
O � G�O � N
T
,
�
!
t
1
t
t
i
t
1
�
1
j
,
�
�
i
�
!
Figure R.
Land Use Patterns
Connected
0
59
��"� ��
Separated
Based on the work of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk
Figure S
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET PATT'ERNS'
Gwu: Forms the structural core of hundreds of American towns and cities. it is a simpie system of
two series of parallel streets crossing at right angles to form a pattem of equal-sized square or
rectangle blocks — it is strongly interconnected, readily expandable, and offers a wide variety of
possible routes through it and of access points in and out. It maximizes infrastructure costs and offers
the shortest trip lengths and the largest number of route choices. If creates walkabie neighborhoods.
FRa�MErrr�n PaRn,LLeLS: In contrast to the Grid, blocks are reconfigured into long, narrow rectangies
and L-shapes. Streets, rather than being carried through, tend to be truncated at T intersections and
sometimes make L comers. This Iimits interconnection, route choices and access points in an out.
The long narrow block provide optimal frontage for residential lots.
WpRPeo PAizqu.ELS: Blocks become curvilinear in and effort to create a more "rural" character and to
shorten visual length of the street. Leftover spaces are fified in by occasional cui-de-sacs. The degree
of connection, route choices and access points are similar to fragmented parallel pattem, but the
curving sfreefs make user orientafion more confusfng.
LooPS aNO Louraoas: Greater emphasis on loops and cut-de-sacs creates a non-directional pattem
of streets that tend to loop back on themseives. Interconnection is limited to several through streets.
increased privacy is accompanied by timited route choices and few access points. It creates quiet
streets that are relatively safe for children. Pedestrian access is limited. Auto dependence is
irtcreased artd frips are concerttrated on the few arteriats, which causes traffic congestiott.
�Source: Michaei Southworth and Peter M. Owens. Joumal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 59, No. 3,
Summer 1993.
.1
,
t
�
�
,
L:
�
�
�
�
�
fi
u
�
�
�
��
�
�
Figure T
Household and Employment Dansities
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
(See Loose Map)
61
��-�� �
;J
,
Figure U. �
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and Contiguous Counties
�
0
62
,
, Figure V.
Growth (Jutside the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
�
�
,
L
��
�
i
1
�
1
`
C�
�3
/
�
�
�
�� Seven Counry TCMA
� 12 Contiguous Counties
� 5% Commuter Counties
63
�� ���
!l
Figure W. �
Housing Permit Activity in Contiguous Counties, 197Q-1994
(74,400 units} �
Percent of total activity
in adjacent counties
64
r,
I �
�
, Figure x.
Daily Work Trips into the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1990
� Percent of County Workers Commuting
i
t
1
�
t
i
1
t
C�
�
�
�
i
i
�
�
� Seven County TCMA
';0 12 Contiguous Counries
0 S% Commuter Counties
65
�l d"�q
�
Figure Y. ,
Percent of Loca1 Work Force Commuting into the Twin Cities
Metropalitan Area, 199Q t
>_ 60%
so-ss%
_ = 40-49%
� 30-39%
� 20-29%
� _20%
..
l_?
�
,
� . .
Figure Z.
Daily Work Trips From the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 199Q
Metra Area Warkers Commuting Outside the Region
�
' N�
wor
�
,
�
,
�
�
�
�
i
�
1
�
!
1
67
Figure AA.
Employment Forecasts by Quadrant, 1970-202Q
Current Trend Option �
s, ��
v
��,�,
n�
�Lak� Eik �
42 � R `"` 244a
0
4
a � P�;� p �
H�sLSOSD CP�B
6 ci.Me.
a c {1 �
—� R 47 � _
� 6
Q �
�� � � 9
17 41 �
�la
�
�
0
w��
��O
Central
Cities
wA1
SL Pad
1
:��
Employment numbers in thousands
1970
1945
_ 2020
0
C�f3
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
Figure BB.
Household Forecasts by Quadrant, 197Q-2020
Current Trend Option
� �.entrai
Cities
,
,
L
,
Hwsehold numbers in thousands
1970
1945
�� 2020
�
� G ��