The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.A.1. City of Shakopee Comments omn the Metropolitan Councils Draft Housing & Transportation Policy Plans Consent Business 4. A. 1• SHAKOPEE TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director DATE: 09/16/2014 SUBJECT: City of Shakopee Comments on the Metropolitan Council's Draft Housing and Transportation Policy Plans Action Sought Approval to submit the attached comment letter to the Metropolitan Council regarding the draft Housing and Transportation Policy Plans. Background The Metropolitan Council has issued the above-named draft policy plans for public comment. Because these plans once adopted will significantly impact the City of Shakopee' next update of its comprehensive plan it is appropriate to comment on the issues or deficiencies in these draft documents in the hopes that they may be modified before final adoption. Written comments are due later this month and early in October respectively. Recommendation It is suggested that the City Council authorizes submitting the comments for the official public hearing record. Budget Impact There is no budget impact from this item. Relationship to Vision This item relates to City Goal B. Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth development and change. Requested Action Approve submittal of the attached comment letter to the Metropolitan Council. Attachments: Met Council comment letter 1 Susan Haigh, Chair Metropolitan Council (Address) September_, 2014 RE:The City of Shakopee's official comment on the draft Transportation Policy Plan and Housing Policy Plan Dear Chair Haigh: The Shakopee City Council thanks the Metropolitan Council for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Housing Policy Plan and Transportation Policy Plan. This letter constitutes the Shakopee City Councils formal comment for the record on both. As you know the City of Shakopee commented on the"Thrive MSP 2040" document,and we believe it is worth reviewing the City's concern in preparation for the comments on the Housing and,Transportation Policy Plans (TPP). In the 1980s the Metropolitan Council designated the City of Shakopee as a "freestanding growth center." In the 1990s,as development of the suburbs reached out to meet the growth engine that was and is the City of Shakopee,the Metropolitan Council designating the City as "developing/MUSA community."In 1990 Shakopee's total population was just under 20,000. From about 1996-2006 Shakopee was the fastest growing city in the Region by rate. The City of Shakopee is now home to about 40,000 residents,double its 1990 population. As you can imagine, it was at best ironic to learn that under"Thrive MSP 2040"this city,which doubled in size in 24 years was being downgraded to the category of"suburban;..edge."We understand that the City's classification and "Thrive MSP 2040"are,now a fait accompli by virtue of its adoption. However,we believe it is important to understand the concerns which Shakopee (and other cities and counties)expressed because that document sets up goals and policies in the Housing and Transportation Policy Plans that will work at cross purposes with one another, t. Under the proposed Transportation Policy Plan it is clear that significant investments in transit will only occur in the core(Minneapolis and St. Paul) and those cities that are designated as suburb, and even then only where there are existing and designated future transitways. Unfortunately for Shakopee and the other cities in Scott County, as a result of the adoption of"Thrive"they are not within the first category. And,despite the regional importance of the TH 169 corridor from the Twin Cities to Mankato (40 percent of all Minnesota jobs are located within 10 miles of TH 169), and despite years of demonstrating that this corridor warrants designation of a future transitway,the TPP continues to ignore this corridor.This, per se, means that resources for transit investment for Shakopee and Scott County will be very limited at best through the 2028 comprehensive planning cycle. One could reasonably conclude that since the region does not contemplate transit investment in Shakopee and Scott County that it might be more circumspect about the land use changes,types of H:\CC\2014\Metropolitan Council Housing and Transportation Policy Plan letter draft.docx 2 housing and densities it expects from these communities. It has long been clear that increases in residential density and the supplies of affordable and life cycle housing strongly require more transit alternatives for those that are to occupy the housing. Because the TPP contemplates that there will be no additional transit investments in Scott County,this will not be possible. Comments Specific to the Draft Transportation Policy Plan: 1. Many of the concerns about the TPP are addressed on page one of this letter in the introduction. Specifically,the City's designation as a Suburban Edge Community without a designated transitway and in Transit Market Area IV means that no significant transit investments will be made in this part of the Region, and it will be largely limited to express bus service for years to come. Especially if the City is to, as suggested in the Housing Policy Plan, provide denser,and more affordable housing, efforts to do this will be seriously hampered and undermined. Such affordable housing development, if it is to be successful, must in turn offer better transit and transportations options to those who would occupy such housing in the future. Comments Specific to the Draft Housing Policy Plan: 1. The City is pleased to see that at page 12 of the draft the Council cites to specific evidence/authority that demonstrates that affordable housing has"...no long term negative impact on surrounding property values."The contention that affordable housing reduces other property values has long been the most heard criticism in communities of allowing affordable housing.The references cited to should be helpful in,answering such criticisms. 2. The draft asserts that"...the Council assists local comprehensive plans that advance local visions... ." To the contrary,the current draft housing policy doesn't present a framework for advancing the vision of individual communities, but rather sets forward a uniform framework and percentages for communities for providing affordable and life cycle housing moving forward. This is even more concerning because the draft does not include the proposed need and goal calculations so that they can be commented on. Instead it is proposed that the Housing Policy Plan be adopted long before the actual need and goal numbers are available for local review.That fact will leave very little opportunity for local governments to comment on, or even challenge these numbers at a later phase of the comprehensive planning process. 3. The Council's approach to affordable housing needs and goal numbers for cities continues to ignore the extent to which the provision of affordable and life cycle housing is a function of the private marketplace, instead suggesting that cities have a much greater ability than they in fact do.to "produce" affordable and life cycle housing.This is especially true for Shakopee and its neighboring city, Prior Lake,where thousands of acres of land are owned and controlled by the neighboring Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community(SMSC), and where the development of housing will be limited to housing for the members of the SMSC. 4. The draft housing policy plan clearly states that cities must expand their rental housing licensing and housing inspections programs, and well as the acquisition of land for"inclusionary housing.' (See page 29) These clearly imply that city land acquisition programs and staffs will need to be expanded H:\CC\2014\Metropolitan Council Housing and Transportation Policy Plan letter draft.docx 3 at a significant budgetary cost, and placing a significant burden on both homeowners and renters in the community.Yet, it is not clear that requiring this will meet the goal of preserving the existing affordable and life cycle housing in our communities. Again,the City of Shakopee appreciates the opportunity to comment on these two important regional documents.We hope that you will take our and other cities' comments very seriously, and amend these two policy plans so that they not only work together, but will, in fact, make it possible for cities like Shakopee to be real partners in meeting regional housing and transportation needs. Sincerely, • Ariti E v, H:\CC\2014\Metropolitan Council Housing and Transportation Policy Plan letter draft.docx