Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.c. Comprehensive Plan/Housing DiscussionCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: November 12, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Plan/Housing Discussion AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AGENDA NO: 2C C ATTACHMENTS: Memo JAPPROVED BY: There are a variety of issues that have surfaced regarding the city's housing mix, the rate of growth, and the how these issues relate to the approved Comprehensive Guide Plan. There are three issues staff would like the Council to discuss and provide feedback and direction on: • The Comprehensive Plan goal of a 35/65 split between multi - family units and single family units within the community. • Development of the new Met Council Framework and the projected growth of the community to the 2030 time horizon. • The rate of growth in the community and its impact on development phasing and MUSA expansion as related to the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. hi the first item staff is requesting direction as to how the ratio is calculated. Staff would like to include all single family detached residences in the single family category regardless of whether the lot is a traditional size or smaller lot. This would be a policy change from previous Council direction. Staff would also like some discussion as to the philosophy of the Council in enforcing the adopted ratio. Is it an overall goal or a hard and fast rule. The second item deals with recent population, households and employment growth projections received by the City from Met Council. The projections are slightly higher than that adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan. However, recent growth would seem to indicate that the higher numbers might be more reasonable. The third item deals with the city's rate of growth and the phasing of development within the MUSA areas. Staff would like direction from the Council as to whether a steady rate of growth should be maintained, which would cause the MUSA to be opened sooner than the phasing plan projected in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Or should the city hold firm on the MUSA development phasing projections. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Provide direction on the approach for calculation of the housing mix ratio adopted in the city's Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2. Discuss and provide direction on the new population, household and employment estimates received from the Metropolitan Council. 3. Provide direction regarding the city's rate of growth and it's impact on the phasing plan and MUSA expansion within the community. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director RE: Comprehensive Plan Issues DATE: November 5, 2003 There are several comprehensive planning issues that have been emerging over the last several months. Staff is requesting Council direction on these items to help set our future work plan and also to provide better direction to developers and residents of the community. The three items are: The Comprehensive Plan goal of a 35/65 split between multi - family units and single family units within the community. Development of the new Met Council Framework and the projected growth of the community to the 2030 time horizon. The rate of growth in the community and its impact on development phasing and MUSA expansion as related to the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Housing Balance in the Community In the City's adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan under 2.3.4 Strategies G. the Plan states " Limit multiple family housing (units other than single family detached) to no more than thirty-five (35) percent of the city's total housing supply at an average density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre. Under the previous administration, calculations were made that put the multi - family /single family split very close to the stated strategy. At that time, the calculations differentiated between varying types of single family developments and categorized small lot, detached single family residences as multi - family. The estimated split under this calculation is 70.1% single family, 29.8% multi - family. As new development trends emerge, it has become clear that the market desires a variety of housing types. Many of the recent developments in the community have combined multi - family and single family units . Others, under the PUD approach, have explored smaller single family lots. The introduction of additional multi- family projects from that initially anticipated in the City's Land Use Plan has raised the issue about how much multi - family development is desirable. Additionally, staff is aware of several vacant parcels within the MUSA that may lend themselves more to townhouse development than single family development. Reasons for this determination are due to adjoining land uses, access concerns, lot shape, and parcel location. These situations may encourage additional multi - family housing projects to come before the Council in the near future. Staff is interested in two things; how the Council would like to calculate the 35/65 ratio and whether the ratio, as envisioned in the Comp Plan, should be treated as a hard and fast rule or rather an approximation of a reasonable housing mix for the community. Staff is interested in discussing the calculation methodology because it significantly impacts the multi - family /single family split. Staff has reevaluated the previous calculation and shifted small lot, detached single family homes to the single family housing number. What this means is that the current housing mix would be 77% single family 23% multi - family. Under this scenario, multi - family is defined as anything other than single family detached housing. Therefore, duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, rowhouses, apartments and condominiums would all be classified as multi - family units. Any property developed with a detached single family home, whether on a traditionally sized lot or smaller lot would be classified as a single family lot. Staff believes the new calculation is reasonable and addresses the primary concern that was the impetus of the Comp Plan strategy. The idea is to ensure a healthy mix of housing alternatives within the community, however, continue to have single family housing options prevail. This is also consistent with the 2003 resident survey where some residents expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of townhomes being constructed within the community. If the Council is comfortable with the new system for calculation of the mix, there is ample room within that framework to allow upcoming projects to move forward, such as the Brockway development. If the Council wants to continue categorizing small lot single family development as multi- family development, staff needs further direction regarding the implementation of the adopted strategy. As mentioned previously, there have been and will be several properties coming before the Council proposing multi - family projects that were not initially anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. Should staff be notifying these property owners that additional multi- family development would not be considered until additional single family development occurs. Or is the ratio more of a guide for the community and the Council recognizes that depending upon specific developments, the housing mix for the community will hover around the target ratio but may move up or down depending upon the specific time calculated. Framework Population Estimates The City received revised household, population, and employment numbers from the Met Council, with the intent that they would be incorporated into the new Framework document. The following illustrates the difference between the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and the new projections: 1 City of Rosemount Met Council 2000 2010 2020 Households 4,735 6,830 9,380 Population 14,150 18,600 25,500 Employment 6,800 8,300 9,900 Met Council Overall, the increase in households is projected at 1820 in 2020. That is the more significant figure, versus the population estimates. This is because it is harder to project changes in household size, which impacts the overall population estimate. Recent trends in the community indicate that growth is occurring somewhat more rapidly than projected in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is the main reason staff is inclined to accept the new projections. Obviously, it is very difficult to project to 2030 because there are so many factors affecting growth beyond the city's control. The public hearing for the new draft Framework is December 2, 2003. Staff will be bringing a comment letter to the Council for review and approval relating to the new Framework and its impact on the City in December. Comments are accepted until December 13, 2003. However, the Met Council has asked for concurrence on the projections before that time. Rate of Growth and MUSA Expansion The City's Comprehensive Plan defines the 2010 and 2020 MUSA. In recognition of the City's current rate of growth, the land within the 2010 MUSA will be either developed or have an approved project well before 2010. The new Met Council framework, as in the past adopted Blueprint, allows more flexibility for local government and permits something akin to the "floating MUSA ". It is staff's interpretation that the Met Council will allow expansion into MUSA areas earmarked for future development sooner, should the City choose that option. The caveat would be that the regional systems not be negatively impacted, sanitary sewer capacity being one of the main criteria. The question for the Council is whether they would entertain expansion into "future MUSA" areas prior to the timeline initially set in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. From a budgetary and staffing perspective, it makes sense for the community to continue on a steady rate of growth. Rapid growth, followed by a halt in growth, will have an impact on the City. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Council explore future MUSA expansion at an accelerated timeline to accommodate the some of the current demand in the community and maintain a constant rate of growth. The intent is not that the City will open it's doors to every project, or that the rate of growth would substantially increase from that currently occurring. 2000 2010 2020 2030 Households 4,742 8,000 11,200 13,500 Population 14,619 22,700 30,100 35,700 Employment 6,089 8,400 10,100 12,200 Overall, the increase in households is projected at 1820 in 2020. That is the more significant figure, versus the population estimates. This is because it is harder to project changes in household size, which impacts the overall population estimate. Recent trends in the community indicate that growth is occurring somewhat more rapidly than projected in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is the main reason staff is inclined to accept the new projections. Obviously, it is very difficult to project to 2030 because there are so many factors affecting growth beyond the city's control. The public hearing for the new draft Framework is December 2, 2003. Staff will be bringing a comment letter to the Council for review and approval relating to the new Framework and its impact on the City in December. Comments are accepted until December 13, 2003. However, the Met Council has asked for concurrence on the projections before that time. Rate of Growth and MUSA Expansion The City's Comprehensive Plan defines the 2010 and 2020 MUSA. In recognition of the City's current rate of growth, the land within the 2010 MUSA will be either developed or have an approved project well before 2010. The new Met Council framework, as in the past adopted Blueprint, allows more flexibility for local government and permits something akin to the "floating MUSA ". It is staff's interpretation that the Met Council will allow expansion into MUSA areas earmarked for future development sooner, should the City choose that option. The caveat would be that the regional systems not be negatively impacted, sanitary sewer capacity being one of the main criteria. The question for the Council is whether they would entertain expansion into "future MUSA" areas prior to the timeline initially set in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. From a budgetary and staffing perspective, it makes sense for the community to continue on a steady rate of growth. Rapid growth, followed by a halt in growth, will have an impact on the City. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Council explore future MUSA expansion at an accelerated timeline to accommodate the some of the current demand in the community and maintain a constant rate of growth. The intent is not that the City will open it's doors to every project, or that the rate of growth would substantially increase from that currently occurring. 1 Paired with the issue of development in the community is the ability to serve additional land with sewer. The City has had some preliminary meetings with Met Council Environmental Services about the capacity at the Rosemount Plant. Apparently, the plant has adequate capacity to the year 2008. After that time the plant may not be able to accommodate additional growth, particularly if the growth rate increases. The Met Council has looked at several options for serving the community on an interim and permanent basis. One option is to intercept the current flow to the Rosemount facility and reroute it to Pigs Eye. A second and interim option that the Met Council has indicated is being review is to send flows to the Empire Plant, utilizing excess capacity at the facility on a temporary basis. Staff is concerned that the Met Council needs to begin planning for the capacity expansion for the community. We do not want to have delays in projects caused by the inability to serve various properties. Further we want to ensure that all properties within the MUSA can be adequately served. The capacity issue could ultimately impact specific developments in terms of land use or phasing.