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.