HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.b. Interim Policy for MUSA ExpansionsCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 18, 1992
AGENDA ITEM:
Interim Policy for MUSA
AGENDA SECTION:
Expansions
DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS
PREPARED BY:
Lisa Freese,
Director of Planning
AGENDA N.—w „ � .Z, +
iV1
ATTACHMENTS:
Metropolitan Council Interim
AP OVYDY
Policy.
On June 25, 1992, the Metropolitan Council adopted an "interim
policy" for reviewing local comprehensive plan amendments
requesting an expansion to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
(MUSA). This policy will be used by the Metropolitan Council to
review MUSA expansion requests until the Metropolitan
Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) and the Water
Resources Management Plan, Part I are updated. These updates
should be completed in 1994.
According to the Metropolitan Council, the interim MUSA
expansion policy is not new and simply reflects existing
policies for expanding the MUSA. However, policies affecting
plan amendments requesting MUSA expansions are currently
scattered throughout several Council documents. The interim
policy identifies all those policies that are relevant to MUSA
expansion requests.
At your meeting on Tuesday, I will present a brief overview of
this interim policy. It is important for all of us to have an
understanding of the policies by which our plan will be
evaluated, as we fine tune the guide plan update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
NONE
8-18-92.001
'A' AA
AA
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul. AIN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 391-6550 77Y 612 291-0904
July 20, 1992
Dear Local Government Official:
On June 25, 1992, the Metropolitan Council adopted an "interim policy" for reviewing local
comprehensive plan amendments requesting an expansion to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
(MUSA). A copy of this policy is enclosed for your convenience. This policy will be used by the
Metropolitan Council to review MUSA expansion requests until the Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework (MDM and the Water Resources Management Plan, Part I are updated. These
updates should be completed in 1994.
The enclosed interim MUSA expansion policy is not new and simply reflects existing policies for
expanding the MUSH. However, policies affecting plan amendments requesting MUSA expansions
are currently scattered throughout several Council documents, making it difficult for local
governments to readily access them. The enclosed interim policy should make it easier for local
governments to find relevant Council policy regarding MUSA expansion procedures.
If you have questions about the enclosed interim MUSA expansion policy, contact Barbara Senness
(291-6419) or Steven Schwanke (291-6594).
Sincerely,
Mary . Anderson
Chair
MEA\kp
Enclosure
RECEIVED
AUG 10 1992
CITY OF RUStrriUUNT
CC
Qlrv� t J tea c �cQ O.
INTERIM POLICY FOR
REVIEWING METROPOLITAN
URBAN SERVICE AREA
EXPANSION REQUESTS
July 1, 1992
Steven Schwanke
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101
Publication No. 640-92-080
I. INTRODUCTION
Council staff is aware that several local governments are preparing comprehensive plan amendments
that may propose MUSA expansions to accommodate development beyond the year 2000 timeframe
of the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF). Council staff is recommending
the adoption of an interim strategy for local government MUSA expansion requests. The strategy
is based on the following: (1) the Council has no policy basis for entertaining MUSA requests beyond
the year 2000; (2) the Council is in the beginning of several major policy studies that could
dramatically change the delivery of future regional facilities and services; and (3) there is the question
of fairness and equity for local governments who recently processed year -2000 MUSA expansion
requests and the need for a consistent approach to future MUSA expansion requests.
If adopted by the Council, the. MUSA expansion strategy will be used by staff as we discuss proposed
plan amendments with local govnt
ernmes on an informal basis. It will also be used to formally
evaluate and prepare staff reports on plan amendments submitted for Council review.
The interim strategy affirms existing Council policies. Only year -2000 MUSA expansions that have
no impact on metropolitan system plans and do not substantially depart from Council system plans
should be considered by the Metropolitan Council. The interim strategy includes several options for
local Governments who want to plan facilities and services for a post year -2000 period. It is proposed
that the Council use this strategy to guide MUSA expansion decisions until several policy studies are
completed and the ;WDIF is updated.
IL THE NEED FOR AN INTERIM MUSA S'T'RATEGY
Three reasons exist for the Council to adopt an interim MUSA expansion stratcgy. The first is the
lack of a policy basis for responding to post year -2000 MUSA expansion requests. In our informal
discussions with local governments, Council staff is aware of several cities preparing major updates
to their comprehensive plans. These future plan amendments may contain ;MUSA expansion requests
with a planning horizon beyond the year 2000. The upcoming release of the Council's new forecasts
may prompt some post year -2000 requests. Ho%vever, the Council uses forecasts as only one of
several criteria for considering MUSA expansion requests. Other criteria include whether sufficient
regional and local services exist to support land development and the local government's rural densis}'
and special assessment policies.
At the present time, the Council has no policy basis to approve a plan containing a beyond the year
2000 MUSA. Council policies are based on year 2000 forecasts and are directed to the Council's
vision for the year 2000. A post year -2000 MUSA request may force the Council to prematurely act
on several important issues and make service and facility commitments without a sufficient policy
framework.
A second reason for an interim MUSA strategy is the Council's ongoing policy work. The Council
is currently engaged in several studies that consider the Fiscal and environmental aspects of providing
future regional facilities and services. Many of these studies will provide the policy framework for
future Council decisions on regional services and facilities. The studies include, but are not limited
to, the following:
* Council's Visioning Process
* 1990 Land Use Survey and Urban Land Supply Study
* Update of the MDIF
* Fully Developed Area Study
* MWCC's Sewer CentralizationlDecentralization Study
* Water Supply Studies and Legislation
Perhaps most critical of the above studies is the MDIF update. This update will incorporate many
of the findings from the other studies. It will also reflect critical environmental issues, evaluate the
costs to provide metropolitan services, and evaluate changes to the MUSA- The Council needs time
to conclude the MDIF update and related studies. These studies will define the fiscal and
env�ironmental issues that influence how the Council makes future regional facility and service
commitments. The proposed -interim strategy is designed to give the Council sufficient time to
complete these studies while providing local governments the flexibility to plan for the future.
A final reason for an interim MUSA strategy is the question of equity and fairness regarding MUSA
expansion requests. Several communities have recently requested MUSA expansions under the
Council's existing year -2000 planning horizon. A sample of these communities include Minnetrista,
Prior Lake, Lake Elmo, Oakdale and Inver Grove Heights. These and other MUSA requests were
prepared using the assumption of a year -2000 planning framework. To consider a post year -2000
MUSA request without a sufficient policy basis would raise questions of fair and equal treatment.
An interim MUSA strategy would also ensure that the Council is treating every local government
consistently regardless of the circumstances. This is important during the next two' years. During this
time the Council `will be making major policy decisions on how future regional facilities and services
will be provided.- Some local governments may perceive the Council as not following established
policy in making MUSA expansion decisions. The interim MUSA strategy will help the Council to
make consistent decisions during a period of major policy development.
III. THE EXISTING iV1USA POLICY
The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) is that part of the metropolitan area within which
regional and local government agencies are committed to providing the services necessary to support
urban development and redevelopment. The MUSA was established as a major tool to promote the
orderly and economic development of the region, and assist the Council and Metropolitan
Commissions in the programming and funding of regional service needs by identifying the areas of
greatest demand. Development should occur first in areas provided with the greatest combined
complement of metropolitan and local public services. New land should be timed and staged for
urbanization in a contiguous manner minimizing the need for additional public expenditures.
Paramount in this timing and staging is the orderly and economic provision of metropolitan and local
services such as sewers, roads, transit, water systems, schools and parks.
The original MUSA line was established when the Council reviewed local comprehensive plans
submitted in response to the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. The year -2000 MUSA line was
developed in 1956 with the MDIF update. The process of extending the line involved a review of
land supply and demand based on Council forecasts for each city along the urbanizing fringe of the
region. From this review, the Council found that the current land supply was more than sufficient
to meet forecasted needs.
The Metropolitan Council uses the following criteria to evaluate whether additional land is needed
to accommodate urban development when a local government requests a metropolitan urban service
area expansion or a change in its urban service area boundaries as part of a comprehensive plan
amendment. Three criteria exist and can found on pages 54 - 57 of the MDIF.
1. Increasing the size of an urban area: The Metropolitan Council will not agree to
expand a local urban service area unless there is demonstrated regional need and
adequate capacity available in the metropolitan sewer and highway systems. If the
regional facilities are inadequate and metropolitan investments would be required
immediately in order to honor service area commitments to other local governments,
the Council will deny the expansion based on the land planning act criteria that the
request represents a substantial impact on or departure from metropolitan system
plans. If regional facilities would be inadequate by the year 2000 or any updated
target year, the Council will deny the request on the same basis. If the local
government's land supply is below or approaching the five-year overage and regional
facilities are adequate, the Council will agree to a service area expansion.
2. Chanoin� the conficuration of an urban service area: The letropolitan.Council w111
consider land -trade proposals involving vacant, developable land adjacent to the urban
service area provided metropolitan systems are not adversely affected.
�. Incremental changes to the urban service area: The Metropolitan Council will review
a series of incremental changes to a local urban service area only if the affected local
government analyzes how the total number of proposed changes will affect regional
forecasts and system plans and operations.
If regional facilities are adequate and no metropolitan agency investments are
required, the Council may agree to the urban service arca expansion, provided that
the following conditions are met:
a. The local government's rural area densities are consistent ,vith Council policy;
b. Local timing and staging corresponds to allocated usage rather than design
capacity;
C. The local government has an up-to-date comprehensive sewer plan, including
on-site sewer management; and
d. The local government has assessment practices that limit creation of vested
development rights.
IV. POLICY BASIS FOR AN INTERIM STIZA'1'EGY ON MUSA EXTENSIONS
The Council has sufficient legislative and policy authority to develop and implement an interim
strategy on MUSA extensions. Below is a brief summary which highlights the Council's legislative
authority and policy basis supporting the timing and staging of MUSA extensions and supporting
regional facilities and services.
The Council has demonstrated that facilities and services needed to support urban development can
be provided at less public cost if the land area available for urban development at any one time is
defined and limited in amount (page 13, A'IDIF). Within thisyear-2000 urban service, or staging area
the Council makes a commitment to providing urban services such as sanitary sewer and highways.
The Council males no commitment to providing urban service beyond the year -2000 urban service
area. That is why the MDIF makes it clear that the Council's planning horizon and development
staging area is for the year 2000.
Policy 8 of the MDIF reinforces the year -2000 urban service area by affirming that regional
investments will be directed by the Council to provide urban services within an urban service area and
that this urban service area is the area open for urban development until the year 2000 (page 16).
The Council has even indicated how it prefers land development to occur within this urban service
area. Policy 14 of the MDIF states that within an urban service area urban expansion should be
"planned, staged and generally contiguous to existing development". The Council urges local
governments to provide for the orderly extension of services by identifying where and when they will
provide land within their local urban service arca with support facilities needed to initiate urban
development (page 20, i11DIF).
The Council is responsible for establishing "requirements and procedures to accomplish
comprehensive local planning with land use controls consistent with planned, orderly and staged
development and the metropolitan system plans." Minn. Stat. § 473.851. See. also. Minn. Stat. §
473.855(a) and Minn. Stat. § 473.859 Subd. 3, which states that a local government "public facilities
plan shall describe the character, location, timing, sequence, function, use and capacity of existing and
future public facilities of the local government units". Timing and sizing of public facilities is
important because public expenditures for facilities and services are more efficiently managed,
environmental impacts associated with land development are minimized and sufficient demand
remains to support fully developed areas of the metropolitan area.
Every time the Council expands the MUSA, the Council makes a commitment that it will provide
regional services to that area. In addition, the local government makes the commitment that it will
provide local services to that area. Policy 1-10A of the Council's Water Resources Nlana )el meet
Pla= mandates that the timing and sizing of metropolitan sewer services will be based on
population, housing and employment forecasts prepared by the Council not forecasts prepared by local
governments. It is the Council's responsibility to prepare forecasts which can be used by local
planners and by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC). The MWCC and the
Council use the Council's forecasts, to develop flow projections which gauge the adequacy of the
system to meet the projected future needs. (Pages 25 and 26, Water Resources Management Plan
Part 1.)
V. PROPOSED INTERIM MUSA STRATEGY
Year 2000 N'IUSA Expansion Requests
The Council will not review any request to expand the MUSA beyond the area needed to
accommodate year 2000 forecasted development until after the revision to the Metropolitan
Development and Investment Framework and the Heater Resources Management Plan, Part 1. This is
because the Council does not have a sufficient policy basis for reviewing MUSA expansions for after
4
the year 2000. The Council will, however, continue to entertain MUSA expansion requests based
on Council population, household and employment forecasts for the year 2000.
Criteria For Reviewing Year 2000 i11USA Expansion Requests
Year 2000 MUSA expansion requests that are based on Council year 2000 forecasts and do not have
a substantial impact on or departure from a metropolitan system plan will be approved by the
Council. The Council will require local communities to modify any year 2000 MUSA expansion
request that has a substantial impact on or departure from metropolitan system facilities and plans.
The Council will require that a local community modify its comprehensive plan to reduce the MUSA
expansion request to within planned facility and service capacity limits.
A local government plan may.include a "substantial departure" from metropolitan system plans if the
local plan proposes a level of development and regional services which is substantially inconsistent
with the level of development and regional services outlined in the metropolitan system plans. An
example of "substantial departure" might be a local government planning for greater sanitary sewer
flows than the Council has planned for in a metropolitan system plan. The result is an immediate
departure from the system plan that may not result in an immediate facility impact. However, a
future system impact may be avoided when local government land development decisions are timed
and staged in accordance with planned capacities of regional services and facilities.
For purposes of this interim strategy a "substantial system impact" occurs when all land within the
MUSA including any proposed expansion of the MUSA would at full development would have the
potential to have a substantial negative effect on the operation of a metropolitan system such as the
metropolitan sanitary sewer system. An example of "substantial system impact" might be proposed
development that will generate sanitary sewer flows beyond the capacity of an existing sewer facility,
or generate more traffic than an adjacent roadway or interchange can accommodate.
Cities submitting a year 2000 MUSA expansion request must meet existing MUSA expansion
principles found on pages 54 - 57 of the MDIF. These principles include demonstrating need for
urban land, land trade proposals, and incremental changes to the urban service area. For each of
these, the local government must demonstrate that its: rural area densities are consistent with
Council policy; local timing and staging of urban area corresponds to allocated usage rather than
design capacity; sewer plan is current; assessment practices limit creation of vested development
rights.
Existing Facility Constraints
It is possible that the Council may not be able to approve a year -2000 MUSA expansion request
because of facility and service constraints. The recent plan amendment by the city of Chaska is a
good example. The city recently submitted a plan amendment requesting a 100 -acre addition to its
year -2000 MUSA. The Council required the city to modify the plan amendment to delete the MUSA
expansion request because the Chaska wastewater treatment plant is near its hydraulic and organic
loading capacity. The Council could not adopt the 100 -acre MUSA expansion because of a system
impact based on limited sewer capacity, and because the city had an excess of urban land available
in its existing year -2000 MUSA.
I
The Council and implementing regional agencies will commit to addressing the facility and service
constraint issue even though a year -2000 MUSA expansion request cannot be adopted. Again,
Chaska is a good example. As part of its action to modify the plan amendment, the Council
requested the MWCC to work with Chaska to develop a short and long term solution to the
treatment plant capacity problem.
VI. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
If the Council receives a comprehensive plan amendment proposing a MUSA expansion that is
inconsistent with this strategy, and requires that the local government modify the amendment, the
local government would have several choices:
A. The local government could withdraw the amendment and resubmit it at a later date. The
Council will be revising its policies for expansion of the MUSA as part of the MDIF update.
Updated policies should be in place by the end of 1993.
B. ,The local government could modify its request for a MUSA expansion to limit it to the area
that when developed can be served with planned regional facilities before the year -2000.
C. As part of a modification, the local government could designate the area beyond that which
can be served with planned regional facilities before the year -2000 as a "transition area".
Transition areas are provided for under the MDIF policy amendments adopted in December,
1991. Some advantaLcs of' the transition area approach are:
it can permit the local government to plan for extension of local services to serve
urban development beyond the year -2000;
* it can help the local government to protect the transition area from incompatible
development and land uses in the interim; and
the Council would not commit to expansion of regional services into the transition
area.
For example, if a local government wishes to plan for expansion of its urban area based on the
Council's 2010 fore::asts, it might designate the area to be developed between the year -2000 and 2010
as a "transition area". The plan would show how local services would be provided and how
development would be staged in an orderly, staged and contiguous manner. Then, the plan would
be in place for incorporating such areas into the MUSA at the appropriate time, after the Council
has adopted new policies for MUSA expansions and plans for needed regional services are in place.
VII. CONCLUSION
The Metropolitan Council is at a watershed period. The Council is updating its policy framework for
making future regional service and facility decisions. An interim MUSA strategy is needed to ensure
assure existing Council policies are consistently applied while a new policymaking framework is
created and put in place. The proposed interim MUSA strategy is grounded in existing MDIF and
metropolitan system plan policies. It will ensure assure that the Council does not commit prematurely
to new system improvements beyond what is already planned. The proposed strategy ensures assures
ON
that the Council will consistently and fairly apply current policy when addressing local government
MUSA expansion requests.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION
That the Metropolitan Council adopt this report as its strategy for reviewing proposed IMUSA
expansions until new policies are adopted as part of the ATDIF and Heater Resources Management
Plan, Part I update.
7