The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4. Empire Township Comprehensive Guide Plan � , a • ' , '' City of Rosemount Executive Summary for Action City Council Meeting Date: Tulv 20, 1993 Agenda Item: Empire Township Comprehensive Plan Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS Prepared By: Lisa Freese Agend�i�q:-p� � Director of Planning 1 C IY1 7� Attachments: Proposed Letter, PC Review, Farmington Approved By: Letter, Empire Comprehensive Pla.n Empire Township has completed a Comprehensive Plan and has submitted it to the Metropolitan Council for formal review and action. As required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the Township has provided adjacent jurisdictions with a copy of their plan for review and comment. A copy of the Empire Comprehensive Plan is inciuded with the Council packet. Planning staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the Plan and are recommending that the City send a letter commenting on the plan to the Township and Metropolitan Council. The Planning Commission is recommending that a letter be sent jointly by the Commission and City Council based on the issues discussed in the July 13 Planning Commission review. Included in your packet is a letter drafted for your review and approval. If you have additional comments regarding the plan please feel free to incorporate them into the drafted letter. Recommended Action: A Motion to approve the comment letter as drafted regarding the Empire Comprehensive Plan and forward it to the Township o�cials and the Metropolitan Council. City Council Actiont � . , z�� o osemou�� PHONE (612)423-4411 2875-145th Street West,Rosemount,MinrresoW MAYOR FAX (612)4235203 Mailing Address: Edward 8.McMenomy P.O.Box 510,Rosamount,Minnesota 5506&0510 COUNCILMEM9ERS 7uly 21, 1993 sne��a K►�, James(Re�Staats Harry WiNcox Dennis Wippertnarm G.E. Stelzel, Chair Em ire Townshi Bo3rd n�nniNisrw�Toa p P Stephan Jiik 3385 197th Street West Farmington, MN 55024 RE: F.MPIRE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Dear Mr. Stelzel: The City of Rosemount has received and reviewed the Empire Township Comprehensive Plan. We wish to commend your effort in establishing a guide for your community which for the most part encourages sustainable agriculture in the Township. We acknowledge that there are tremendous growth pressures in the general regional and we are encouraged that the townslup is attempting to set standards to deter premature growth. The City is particularly encouraged by the following policies within the Plan: " Nonfarm residential development in Agricultural areas not exceeding one farm dwelling per quarter-quarter (40 acres). " Lot Divisions of more than one lot will require platting and lots less that 10 acres will require platting and eonveyance by register land survey. We hope that the township will proeeed immediately to implement these policies through incorporation into your zoning and subdivision regulations. There were several policies in the plan that the City of Rosemount had concerns and we would like to comment on those items for the record. '� Industrial Policv. The plan incorporates an industrial policy which states that industrial development should be limited, but the Township did not clearly spec�ed what was rneant by "limited". The CiCy would hope that the township would consider defining those uses better and providing more guidance as to what locations that such uses would be considered acceptable. ' �` Institutional Poiicv. The City of Rosemount would like to encourage the Township to take a stronger position with regard to non-University related uses on the University of Minnesota Research Center. The plan as worded seems to accept that if this type of development occurs on the University while the land is sti11 owned by the University that the Township would not be concerned. The City of Rosemount has been quite concerned about this type of activity occurring on the property and would seek the Township's support in adopting more restrictive policies similar to those in the City's recently adopted comprehensive plan. �verc��iszgs �oming �UC� �osemoun�� , . En�� Coivir��xs� FiArr � ' Page Two * Establishment of a Rural Center. The City of Rosemount understands the need to consider this area of Empire Township as a rural center to bring the existing development into conformance with regional policies. However, the City is concerned that the Comprehensive plan provides for expansion of this rural center. Given the fact that cities such as Rosemount, Fannington and Lakeville are within a few miles of this center, Rosemount questions whether or not Empire needs to expand this area in the future beyond thase developments that have been approved by the Township previously. * Expansion of Water and Sewer Facilities. The City is pieased that the Townstup has developed a policy for water and sewer facility expansion, but hopes that the Township will not extend such seruices unless there is a health issue. '� Rural Residential. The City is pleased that the township has adopted a 1 utut per 1Q acre requirement in the rural residential area, but we are concerned with only a l-acre minimum for septic developrnent and the potential for comrnercial development considered by the Townstup plan. Additionally we have identified a couple of areas that we feel should have been addressed in your plan, but were not discussed. �` Annexation policX. As growth continues in the general region, the Township will continue receive development pressure. As a bordering community we feel it would be very helpful if the township would address through a policy what the develapment threshold is that will result in the Township encouraging the annexation of land. The plan makes little or no mention of what that policy may be. A transition plan of this nature would be appreciated by Rosemount. �` Gravel Minin�. Little is mentioned in your plan about the various gravel mining operations within the Township. Since these operations have a profound affect on adjacent properties, the City of Rosemount would encourage the Township to develop more extensive policies pertaining to this use. Again, we thank the Township for the opportunity to comment on your Comprehensive Plan. We hape that your understand our concerns and will try to address them as you facus your efforts towards implementation. Sincerely, Cathy Busho, Chair Planning Commission E.B. McMenomy, Mayor City of Rosemount cc: Dottie Rietow, Metropolitan Council, Chair Craig Morris, Metropolitan Council, District 16 Richa.rd Thompson, Metropolitan Council, Principal Reviewer Jeff Connell, Resource Strategies Corporation i � ..e�.---�'s LAW OFP'IC£S BBIGGS AND MOAGAN � • PROFESSIONAL,ASSOCiATI01� 2200 FYBST ::A7IO2CAL BATH HUILDIh'O , SAI\T PAUL�MI2C2�ESOTA 8310! TELEPELONE (A121 2`z3-6fl00 PdCSIMILE 1912) 223-6450 ML'.'1�P.dPOLIS OPFICE . . � 2400 I D 5 CEATS� '' � wRZ2885 DI8EC2 DSAS 2:IIMBL'8 . : yTLily� 1.31 1993. . �Kv.T-�ous.xn.�.-��,.oa;os �, Tzisrsoaz a,ai�.•e+oo z.csixiu ai�i�ss-aeao ' (612) 223-6666 DELIVERY VIA MESSENGER Ms. Dottie Rietow, Chair Metropolitan Council 230 E. 5th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: City of Farmington xearing Request on Empire Township Comprehensive Plain Dear Chair Rietow: We arepresent the City of Farmington. Under the authority of Minn. Stat. §473 . 175, Subd. 2 , the City of Farmington requests the Metropolitan Council to conduct a hearing to allow the City and others to present its views on the proposed comprehensive plan for Empire Township dated June 8, 1993 . The City received the draft comprehensive plan from Empire Township on June 16, 1993 so this hearing request meets the 30 day requirement of Minn. Stat. §473 . 175, Subd. 2 . The City is requesting this hearing for two principal reasons. First, the City believes the comprehensive plan of Empire Township raises significant issues for the broader Farriington area community and for the Metropolitan Council as both strive to deternine how to manage urban growth, preserve rural and agricultural areas, and ensure the efficient delivery of public services. Second, the City has petitioned the Minnesata Municipal Board for annexation of portions of Empire and Castle Rock Townships and believes the - Council needs ta address annexation issues as part of its review of Empire Township's comprehensive plan. The City will be submitting detailed comments during the last week of July outlining its concerns with the Township' s draft comprehensive plan pursuant to Council guidelines for reviewing ' local comprehensive plan amendments. The City looks forward ta warking with you, other Council members, and Council staff in determining how to best to conduct the hearing and resolve the outst�nding issues. � • BRIGGS ,Axn MORGAN Ms. Dotty Rietow Page 2 July 13, 1993 , Please eontact me if you have any questions or desire additional information. Sincerely yours, BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A. . B - � Y Timothy .E. arx Attorneys for the City of Farmington TEM:cf cc: E. Craig Morris -- Council Member District 16 Peter Schmitz -- Empire Township Attorney James Sheldon -- Castle Rock Township Attorney Patrica Lundy -- Minnesota Municipal Board Jay Heffern --- Metropolita:� Council, General Counsel Richard Thompson -- Metrapolitan Council, Senior Planner Thomas R. Caswell -- Metropolitan Council Environmental Planner Thomas M. Melena -- Apple Valley City Administrator �bert Erickson -- Lakeville City Administrator ephan Ji1k -- Rosemount City Administrator Larry Thompson -- Farmington City Administrator� Charles Tooker -- Farmington City Planner ' G'ity of Roser�ount Executive Summary for Action Planning Commission Meeting Date. JuIY 13. 1993 Agenda Item: Ernpire Comprehensive Plan Review Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS Prepared By. Lisa Freese Agenda No.: Director of Planning ITIIVI NO. 12 Attachments: MDIF--Rural Centers, Empire PIan Approved By: (distributed previously) �ti�.p-Q-Q, At the previous meeting, copies of the Empire Comprehensive Plan were distributed, but we did not have an opportunity to discuss it. Currently, the Plan is being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. The City has until July 29th to subrnit comments on the Plan. I have reviewed the Plan and commend Empire in its efforts to put together a comprehensive plan. The plan establishes a 1/40 acre standard for nonfarm residences in the Agric�lturai areas which is a positive step tawards preseiving fa.rmland from premature development. There are some areas, however, that I think the City af Rosemount should be concerned about and may wish to comment on: 1) Establishment of a Rural Center. This designation allows residentiai development with utilities in the community. Currently the only zural centers that exist in the metro area are incorporated places such as Lake Elmo, Norwood and Young America. This would be the first time that the Metrapolitan Council allow a township this status. The concem that I see with this is that it may be more appropriate to consider annexation of this area to Farmington rather that provide this precedent setting desibnation. 2) Gravel Minin;. The plan does not discuss the gravel minuig operations and how they fit into the agricultural areas. 3) Institutional. The plan does not take a very strong stand with regard to the potential development of the University of Minnesota for non university related uses. 4) Industrial. The plan has an industrial policy which states that industrial development should be limited but it leaves open a windaw of opportunity for Ag related industrial uses on a case by cases basis. Rosemount should be concerned be it is really not clear what industry the Tawnship will consider and where the would allow it to occur. 5) Annexation. The plan does not formally address its policy on annexation as parts of the tawnship become pressured for urban development. If this type of policy were clearly laid out by the Township and the adjacent communities felt comfortable with its contents, it may red.uce the urgency to consider annexafion. � Please take the ti.me to review the pian. On Tuesday, I would ask that you make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the areas of the plan that Rosemount should cornment on. � Recommended Action: A motion to direct staff to prepare a ietter to the Metropolitan Council regarding the Empire Comprehensive Plan from the Planning Commission and City Council. Planning Commission Action: 07-13-93.OT2 � Development and InvestmeM Framework � the metro centers wi(1 receive the Council's RURAL SERVICE AR€A highest investment priority. Commercial Agriculturat Area Regionat Business Concentrations The commercial agricuitural area includes those 12.The Metropolitan Councit supports continued lands certified by local governments as eligible for growth and inc�eased densities in regional agricultural preserves under the 1980 Metropolitan business concentrations and will give invest- Agricultural Preserves Act.?his approach places the ment priority second only to the metro centers �Ponsibitiry for defining agricultural lands on local for the mai�tenance of inetropolitan systems $�rnments. With Council proteciion poli�ies for serving the concentrations. commercial agriculture focused only in areas where there are local grnrernment plans and protections, local a�d regional policies support one another. Futly Developed Area The amount of land induded in the commercial 13.The Metropolitan Countil supports the agricultural area is large, covering about 600,000 maintenance and upgrading of development acres in 1985.This constitutes over half the farmland and service facikities in the fuily developed �� the seven�ounry area. area. Reinvestmenf for maintenance and The geographic area defined as the commercial replacement of inetropotitan systems serving agricultural area is subjed to frequent change when existing devetopment in the tully developed tied to the Agricultural Preserves Act because {and area will take priority over investment for ex- can go into and out of certificatian when local pa�sion in the devefoping area. . g�Fnments decide to alter its status. Locaf govern- ments rnay replan and rezone certified areas if a Developing Area change in policy is desired,but this change must oc- , cur as a public process.For the purposes of this docu- 14.Urban ex ansion in the devela in area should ment,the commercial agricultural area is defined as � P p $ the area certified as of March 1 of each year. This � be planned, staged and general(y contiguous date is the end of each Council reporting year re- to existing development. The Metropolitan quired under the Agricultural Preserves Act. ► Council wiN work with the metropolitan agen- cies and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to provide metropolitan systems Under the Agricultural Preserves Act,a local govern- at the time,place and size needed to support ment passes a resolution certifying land eligibte for grawth based on regionat forecasts. protections and benefits and limiting housing den- siry to one unit per 40 acres. The certified area is � 15.System investment to serve additional residen- then considered long-term agricultural land. The tial land beyond regional forecasts will receive �Q�a) comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance � a lower priority than system investment to serve must reflect this land use and zoning, Farmers own- � unanticipated economic development. ' ing land within the certified area may then enter the � - program. land in the program is refe�red to as t � covenanted land:The Agriculture Preserves Act pro-. � Freestanding Growth Centers vides protection for the farmer from urban assessments, property taxes at development value 16.The Metropolitan Council supports urban- and confliding land uses in eacchange for a lega) density residential,commercial and industrial commitment to continue farming for at least eight development in freestanding growth centers. �a�• Since tE�ey are a microcosm of the Metropolitan Area,The Metropolitan Council wiil make in- Within the commercial agricultural area,all land has vestments in metropolitan systems serving been certified by local governments as eligible for freestanding growth ce�ters based on the fut- the agricufture preserves program. However, the ly developed and devefoping area poticies, as Council recognizes two levels of protection in the applicable. commercial agricultural area:primary and secondary protectian aceas. 22 _� � „ ,_ Primary protection areas are lands covenanted as residentiaC density on the basis of 40-acre pareels. agricultural pre�erves. They will receive the greatest This wiil prevent possible urban-density clusiering protection possible from incampatible uses because of a large number of homes on small minimum lot the greatest leve!of commitment to farming has been sizes, but within the overall density cap.The Coun- established. cil opposes such clustering because it tould resutt in the need for urban services,such as package sew�r Secondary protectian areas couer the farms in the dispo5al systems. area that have not yet formed agricultural preserves. The Cour,cil believes the commercial agriculture Existing Urban-Densiry Development area is a place rvhere agriculture is the best perma- Residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and nent use of the land. Long-term investments in farm clusters of moderate-densiry residential development equipment and in land preservation can be made atso exist in the general rural use area.They frequent with the con�dence that urban development is not ly demand urban services but are in locations where going ro destroy or limit these invesiments. urban services are ditfitutt or costly to provida The Councit's principal cQncern is the potential need for General Rural Use Area - . the costly extension of central sanitary sewer and par- titularly metropolitan sewer service. The Councif supports developmeni in the general rural use area The general rural use area is the area outside the ur- consistent with service levels appropriate for a rurat ban service area that is not designated for commer- area. Local governmenu with existing urban-density cial agriculture. Over 40 percent of the land in the development should address the operation and ' Metropolitan Area falls in this category.The area con- maintenance issues of on-site systems to avoid poten- tains a wide variety of land uses, including tial problems and the eventual need for costly 1oca1 agricultural, residential and urban-type facilities. investmenu. There are sizable parts of the generaf rural use area that host no particular kind of land use—land that Urban Uses is often called unused. Most of the area looks rural, but many of its residents are tied economically to Many facilities exist in the genera( rural use area that the urban area and many of its land uses provide ser- require isolated and spacious locations but serve vices to people living in the urban service area. primarily the urban public.These facilities include campgrounds and retreational vehicle parks, Fourmajor rypes of uses exist within the general rural re ional arks trails,waste dis use area. g p � posal installations, rac- ing facilities, gun clubs, festivals, mining sites and Genera) Farmland similar facilities.The general rura)use area is an ap- propriate location for these facilities.The Council's interest is that these facilities are adequately serv A large part of the general rural use area is devoted ed,consistent wiih local and regional plans,and to to agriculture. The Countil supports the continua- the extent possible, that they do not interfere with � tion of agriculture and encourages local ga,�ernments agricultural activities. ( to support it by zoning agricultural land at one unit � � per 40 acres. For farms within an area so zaned that subsequently sign up for the agriculture preserves Rural Centers program, the Council will reclassify them as part of the commercial agricultural area. Rural cente�s historically have served as retail ser- Rural Residential Develo ment �ice centers and transportation eenters for the sur- Q rounding n�ra)area. However,changes in agriculture and rapid urban expansion have changed the tradi- Rural residential development consists of homes on tional rural service roles of many of these small large lots in areas that are hilly, wooded or other- centers to residential areas for urban people and wise unsuited to agricultural production.The Coun- locations for industries with (ittle tie to local ci!considers rural residential development a perma- agriculture. The tatter make use of available labor nent land use and not an early stage of urbaniza- in rural areas and, by their nature, tend not to be tion. The Council supports this type of use as long dependent on close contact with otherfirms for their as the density does not exceed one housing unit per supplies or critically dependent on transportation. 10 acres of land. The Council will compute rural �� . . . -----�. , � Development artd tnvestment Framework The Council has identified 35 rural centers, with propriate,needed to serve it.Financing of neeessary populations ranging from just over 100 to morethan support services would be a lacal responsibility. S,OOQ. Some rural centers, such as Norwood and Areas of existing urban-tiensiry uses are likely can- Young America, encompass the entire corporate didates for selection as new rural centers. limits of the community.Others,such as Lake Elmo, ' • are small enclaves within a farger rural communiry. Rural centers should accommodate additional development consistent with their abiliry to finance Services available within rural centers vary. Some and administer services, including sewer, roads, have central sanitary sewer, others depend on on- waterand storrnwater drainage.lf additional land is site waste disposal systems.Some have central water needed to accommodate growth, rural centers systems.Some provide the fu19 range of convenience should extend serviees in a staged,contiguous man- retai!stores,while others have only a bar or gas sta- ner. Residential,commercial and industrial develop- tion. Same have small manufacturing or service ment at urban densities should be accommodated businesses;others are almost exclusively residential. only in rural centers with cent�al sanitary sewers that The Council does not wpport the extension of are meeting state and federal water qualiry standards. ; regional systemS to rural centers because of the Larger projects sfiould be (ocated in freestanding distance from the urban center and the small popula- growth centers that have a full range of servites. } tions of rural centers. _ , Rural locations in the past decade have been attrac- RURAt SERVICE AREA POLICIES ' tive and some, although not all, communities have � experienced an upsurge in growth, principally Commercial Agricuitura( Area � residential development. Deve(opment trends are I down from the highs noted in the early 1970s but 17. 7he Metropolitan Council supportsthe long- � continue at modest levels into the 1980s. term continuation of agricuiture in the rural service area.The Gouncif witl use the fotlow- s 6 Several services are important in adequately serving ing ranking in decisions to accommodate � � additional rural center development, but sewage facilities serving urban residents. � disposal is the most critical. Urban-cJensiry develop- t � ment in an unsewered rural center poses the risks 1. Primary protection area: Land covenanted ; of on-site sewage system failure, contamination of in agricutture preseroes wil! receive � groundwater and eventually the expense of new on- primary protection. Urban facilities should ( site or central sewer system insiallation. The be prohibited in this area unless there is � possibiliry also exists that remedying a pollution strong documentation that no other loca- � problem may require an extension of inetropolitan tions in the Metropolitan Area can ade- � sewer service through rural areas. Lack of sewer quately meet the siting and selection service is a serious constraint on the amount and criteria. rype of development that rural centers can safely accommodate. 2. Secondary protection area: Lands certified but not presently in agricultura! preserves Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area,espetially will receive a level of protection secondary } � Anoka Counry, are receiving large amounts of scat- to agricultura! preseroes. Urban facil'ities t tered urban development. This scattered develop- should not be located in this area unless ment poses service problems and may,at a later date, there is strong evidence xhat a proposed result in very high local service costs. The Council urban use cannotbe located in the genera( proposes a strategy that offers loca) govemment an rural use area. atternative way to structure this development by designating and creating a"rural center."These new centers wouldbe limited enclaves for urban-density General Rura( Use Area iand uses, facilities and services within the loca! governments' broader corporate boundaries. They 18. The Metropoiitan Councit supports long-term would not be coterminus with the entire corporate preservation of agriculturat land in tf►e limits. Under this strategy,a loca!government would general rurat use area. However,the Councif identify an area to receive urban-density residential, wiil also support residential development at commercial and industrial devefopment and the densities of no more than one unit per 10 facilities, including local central sewer, where ap- acres computed on a 40-acre basis (a max- 24 , t . � � . � . . � . �. . . . imum of four units per 40 acres),The Coun- center's ptans to accommodate additio�al cif witl not extend metropolitan systems to growth provided they are consistent with the serve urban-density residenfial development center's ability to finance and administer ser- in the general rurat use area. Where urban- vices, particular{y sewer service. The Courn density development a(ready exists, a Iocat cil supports rurai center 'service im- government shoutd address service issues in provements but not at regiona) expense. its ptan, particularty on-site sewer system operation and maintenance. 2 0. The Counci!will support a local government's plan for a new rural center and its requests far state and federal gra�ts,provided the locat Rural Centers government restricts urban densities from sur rounding rurat areas and rvill support the new 19. The Metropo[itan Council wil)support a rural center with necessary service imestments. { � � 4 � � � . . � . � � � � � � . � . . � . . . . . . . � � � : ft . l � � � � � � � . � . 1 � t4 t � i 25