Loading...
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