The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-08-14 NAC Memorandum to OPH Re WC Comprehensive Plan Review �N Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C O M M U N I T Y P L A N N I N G • D E S I G N • M A R K E T R E S E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Robertson FROM: Madhulika Singh / Scott Richards DATE: 14 August 1996 RE: Oak Park Heights - Washington County Comprehensive Plan Review FILE NO: 798.04 - 96.15 As per your request, we have reviewed the Washington County Comprehensive Plan in relation to potential impacts on Oak Park Heights and its planning process. The primary areas covered in the plan that affect the City include and use and transportation. The County land use plan does not specify the particular jurisdictions in its Generalized Land Use Plan map and does not show the City of Oak Park Heights expanding from its current configuration by 2015. The plan does state that jurisdictional boundaries are an issue between cities, not involving the County. The transportation plans are as expected for the area with no deviations from what has been discussed previously with the County. A review of the text, figures and tables from the plan that include Oak Park Heights are as follows: • The Comprehensive Plan projects retail growth and associated space needs by location for 1995 -2015. It is projected that Oak Park Heights will have an employment growth of 500 people, a 250,000 sf. space growth and 7.2 acres land requirement in the 20 -year period. (page 3 -5) • Some of the effects of road and bridge improvement (long -term effects of the proposed St. Croix River Bridge) on land use are: • Increased traffic on Highway 36 • Increase in the commercial value of adjoining properties. (page 4 -21) • Figure LU-6 illustrates the Generalized Land Use Plan for Washington County. The County 2015 land use plan does not show any significant change in land use for 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595- 9636•Fax. 595-9837 Oak Park Heights. The plan does show a transitional area west of Stagecoach Trail adjacent to Bayport, somewhat reflecting their Comprehensive Plan draft. • Figure LU -9 illustrates the Locally Planned Land Use in Washington County. • The Land Use Plan has identified general areas of development in the County. According to the Comprehensive Plan, transition areas are proposed on the land use plan map and include the township edges adjacent to the Cities of Stillwater, Bayport and Oak Park Heights, and Forest Lake. According to the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, these Cities and their adjacent townships should jointly agree upon the exact boundaries of the transition areas and the ultimate development plans for the areas (page 4 -31) • 1990 Roadway Capacity Deficiency is illustrated in Figure T -5. Note the references to Highway 5 and Oakgreen Avenue as having capacity deficiencies. • Public Transit Service locations have been identified in Oak Park Heights in Figure T -6. • Figure T -11 illustrates the Proposed •Functional Classification System for roadways in Washington County. • Figure T -12 illustrates Proposed Jurisdictional State Trunk Highway System. Highway 5 has been proposed to be deleted from the TH System and transferred to County Jurisdiction. • Figure T -13 illustrates Proposed Jurisdictional County Highway System. Oakgreen Avenue is proposed to be transferred from the local jurisdictions and added to the County system. • The following are Washington County 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan recommended jurisdictional changes; Roadways Current Jurisdiction Proposed Future Approximate length in Jurisdiction miles CSAH 21 from CSAH County Oak Park Heights 0.2 28 to CSAH 23 CSAH 23 from CSAH County Oak Park Heights / 1.0 21 to CSAH 24 Stillwater • Figure T -16 illustrates the Short Range Improvements 1995 -1999 Capital Improvements Program • Page A -13 states the City of Oak Park Heights Planning Framework. • Pages F -3 and F -4 illustrate the Washington County Improvement Program for Highways. • Figure NR -3 identifies contamination sites in and near Oak Park Heights. If you have any questions before the 20 August 1996 workshop session, do not hesitate to call. We would expect the City Council to endorse the Washington County Comprehensive Plan with their comments. Economic Base Overview TABLE E -2 WASHINGTON COUNTY PROJECTED RETAIL EMPLOYMENT, 1990 -2015 20 -Year 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Growth Retail Employ. 9,080 10,200 11,310 12,420 13,531 14,770 4,570 Source: Metropolitan Council, 1990. Contemporary standards of square feet per employee and site area coverage ratios were used to convert these employment projections to acreage needed to accommodate new retail construction. New construction of 2,285,000 square feet and about 291 acres of land will be needed to accommodate the projected retail growth. Some of this space could be built as part of a regional shopping center with the balance of space built as community or neighborhood shopping. Table E -3 identifies the communities with significant retail employment growth. These five locations are projected to accommodate over 95 percent of the total County growth during 1995 to 2015. TABLE E -3 PROJECTED RETAIL GROWTH AND ASSOCIATED SPACE NEEDS BY LOCATION, 1995 -2015 20 -Year Retail 20 -Year Retail (1) 20 -Year Retail (2) Location Employment Growth Space Growth Land Requirement Cottage Grove 450 225,000 SF 28.7 acres Oakdale 770 385,000 SF 49.1 acres Oak Park Heights 500 250,000 SF 7.2 acres Stillwater 220 110,000 SF 14.0 acres Woodbury 2,480 1,240,000 SF 158.2 acres Other 150 75,000 SF 34.2 acres TOTALS 4,570 2,285,000 SF 291.4 acres Notes: (1) Conversion of employment to retail space at 500 square fee per employee. (2) Conversion of retail space to land area requirements at .18 floor - area ratio. (Ratio of square footage of a building to its site.) Source: Metropolitan Council and BRW #21733 3 -5 February 1996 Land Use Issues I -94 AND TH 36 CORRIDORS What type of development should be allowed and encouraged along these major highways? How should such development be designed and regulated? These major highway corridors enjoy the best access and visibility of any part of the County. As north -south movement improves and County population grows, their function could shift from arteries for movement across the County to destinations for County residents. What would be the effects of this on traffic flow, image and economic development? Are these the most suitable locations for non - residential development? Should commercial and industrial growth be in continuous linear patterns along these roads or in clusters separated by housing? Can housing adjacent to non - residential development be adequately protected? What might be the implications, if any, of the policies set for these corridors on parallel routes such as Highway 96, Tenth Street or Bailey Road? EFFECT OF ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS If the County plan includes limitations on the rate or pattern of growth. can the County or the State improve cross -county traffic movement in ways consistent with the plan? Can traffic movement and safety be improved while maintaining the scenic beauty of particular routes? New or better roads which add traffic carrying capacity have a dramatic effect on land development as they reduce travel time and effort. This leads to lower density development, loss of cropland, more air and water pollution, loss of scenic resources, a general increase in travel time and miles driven, greater reliance on automobiles at the expense of transit and, in turn, more roads. Thus, road improvement programs should be considered in light of broader County aims. What would be the long -term effects of the proposed St. Croix River bridge on land use and economic development in Washington County? Is it consistent with achieving what the County sees as its role in the metropolitan area? What will be its effect on western Wisconsin? (Refer to the first issue, above). • The decision to allow or not allow the construction of this bridge will be an influential land use decision for generations. It will make access to Polk County much easier, thus exporting some development that might otherwise have occurred in Washington County. The desirability of that action depends on one's goals for the County's future. It would probably work toward making Washington County less of a metro edge and more of a central county, which may be viewed with either praise or alarm. The additional traffic on Highway 36 will increase the commercial t value of adjoining properties. The bridge will also have negative effects on the natural beauty of the St. Croix River Valley and, indirectly, on the valley ecosystem. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT What might be the effects of the alternative land use scenarios on air and water quality, scenic resources, wetland preservation, wildlife and agriculture? How important is the concept of "sustainability" when it comes to large -scale land use g21733 4 -21 February 1996 Generalized Land Use Plan Washington County 2015 Comprehensive Plan ?� - Suburban Housing -- ` 4 1t ® Transition Area f4`1 • Rural Residential (16 per 40 *) 1 I Semi Rural (8 per 40 *} r ; _ r . ;f General Rural (4 per 40 *) ? *;-1 ' ,„ Long -Term Agriculture (2 per 40 *) 1` ar 1 ® Long -Term Agriculture (1 per 40 *) , ' 1 ' 1 l • Major Parks and Natural Areas 1 } \' Commercialflndustrial * ,,, i .r, ` < • "t Airport i- _ „ ;L— 1 _ , J ' Metropolitan Urban Service Area - l f ti. • St. Croix Scenic River District r r . f't i sm ` t * liensity measured in dwelling units per acre. ;i I L I This generalized land use plan specifies . _' the average housing density allowed for ilk • each land use type. Each township will (' 7 ` 3 have a zoning ordinance that may specify — _ _ 'r x areas of higher or lower densities. — `' ` — t A 1 k 1 1 k 4 lt ' c � 5 1 v ]_ Y T4 F I ' 1 it : ' -..,_ 1 lc ;r4, ,'4 :! ,.` Washington County exercizes land use — - - ; c � "4'°�r - =- planning and zoning authority in , - - °_� I u ' I unincorporated areas. The land use Y 1=' fi - 3 on this map generally reflects the l It} ;i5 ; current land use plans of each city. ' '� Cities should be contacted for more _ ., .,."' detailed information. Washington County Planning and Public Affairs FIGURE LU -6 February 1996