Laserfiche WebLink
S«pUmb«r 24, 1996 2:42 PM From: AMM Fax #: 281-1299 Pag« 2 of 2 <br />AMM FAX <br />NEWS <br />Mttifixnmh fdxii fdMaV)'{« iHM <br />d[y jBdngm jMmrtdfm. flu mfyund' <br />rm h araJddfd bi dimi mh aj}m <br />umimiitdfTa or id offddh dbrmt <br />tfmfmmimtf diyinua. <br />(fpmidig^ M <br />I4d Onhmit}Mmt UdT <br />k- Pml HN^poj io44 <br />Miphm up4<m <br />Fdx <br />tali: iiOcHdNm^^ulm <br />■mm^ <br />Ai(0(iation of <br />Metropolitan <br />Muninpalitiet <br />September 23-27. 1996 <br />Met Council's Growth Options <br />plan beginning to take shape <br />The Council continues to <br />I define the n'^ojor compo­ <br />nents of its Growth Option: <br />plan. While no decisions have <br />been finalized several major <br />consensus points en-terged ot <br />last Thursday's Con-^mlttee of <br />the Whole nteeting including: <br />• A 40-year urban grov-th <br />boundary (ulti-/ WIS A) based on <br />watersheds which create a <br />long terim urban reserve. <br />• Regional sevv er facilities sized <br />for the long tern-i growth <br />boundary. <br />• Porameters (overlay platting, <br />cluster design. et»2.) estobllshed <br />so remaining post-2020 urban <br />reserve lands can be urban- <br />izedwhen/ \USA staging <br />reaches then-i. <br />• Housing density benchnnarks <br />established to niake the urbon <br />reservt? last 40**^ yeors (diiynsities <br />higher than recer^t edge <br />patterns to accommodate 2/3 <br />of projected growth within <br />Current / \USA.) <br />• Transportation systen*^. <br />especially transit, used as a <br />land use shaper and concen­ <br />trated (fixed route transit <br />corridors encouraging nodes <br />along corridors.) <br />• 'Core area “ defined as a <br />specific geographic part of the <br />central cities with severe <br />problen^s and focus / \et <br />Council efforts on job and tax <br />base enhancen'ient as a <br />catalyst for “brownfield" (pol ­ <br />luted site i redevelopment. <br />THE TOOLS NEEDED <br />The tools needed to Imple ­ <br />ment the growth n^konogement <br />plan has re%::efved scant piubllc <br />discussion. Unfortunately. n"»any <br />of the Implen'entatlf^n devices <br />discussed so far fall into the <br />“stick" or regulatory n^ode as <br />opposed to incentives. Some <br />devices mentioned are: <br />• A process for override of <br />locol zoning to achieve in­ <br />creased residentiol densities in <br />urban area. <br />• / \et Council approval of TIP <br />districts. <br />• Fiscol Disparity monipulation. <br />Also, no realistic strategies for <br />dealing -.ith growth beyond <br />thto sever^-county metro oreo <br />have emerged. <br />THE SCHEDULE <br />The key dotes/events In the <br />public hearing schedule are: <br />• Oct. 10; Council action to <br />adopt documents for public <br />hearing and set public hearing <br />dotes. <br />• Week ot Oct. 21: Open <br />houses held around the region <br />to provide information about <br />growth option policy docu- <br />n'lents. <br />• Nov. 19-20: Public hearing. <br />• Dec. 6; Public hearing <br />record closes.