HomeMy WebLinkAbout13. Interim MUSA Policy'.4 City of Rosemount
Executive Summary for Action
Planning Commission Meeting Date: September, 8. 1992
Agenda Item: Interim Policy for Metropolitan Urban Service
Agenda Section:
Area (MUSA) Expansions
DISCUSSION
Prepared By: Lisa J. Freese
Agenda No.
Director of Planning
ITEM #13
Attachments: Metropolitan Council Interim Policy.
Approved fig ¢ —
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 (`MD1F) 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 'currentiy 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.
11 Recommended Action: NONE 11
11 Planning Commission Action:
A�L
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 Fast Fifth Street, St. Pard, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 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, Pan 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 101992
CITY OF RUSU MOUNT
CC
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 L)evelopment 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 governments 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 AIDIF is updated.
II. THE NEED FOR AN INTERIM MUSA STRATEGY
Three reasons exist for the Council to adopt an interim MUSA expansion strategy. 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. However, 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 density
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:
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 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 arca expansion.
2. Changing the confieuration of an urban service area: The Metropolitan Council will
consider land -trade proposals involving vacant, developable land adjacent to the urban
service area provided metropolitan systems are not adversely affected.
3. 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 area expansion, provided that
the: following conditions are met:
a. The local government's rural area densities are consistent with 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 FOIL AN INTERIM STRA'T'EGY ON MUSA EX'T'ENSIONS
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.
3
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 MUSA 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
principles found on pages 54 - 57 of the AfDIF. These principle
urban land, land trade proposals, and incremental changes to the
these, the local government must demonstrate that its: rural a
Council policy; local timing and staging of urban area correspon
design capacity; sewer plan is current; assessment practices limit
rights.
Existing Facility Constraints
meet existing MUSA expansion
s include demonstrating need for
urban service area. For each of
rea densities are consistent with
ds to allocated usage rather than
creation of vested development
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.
that the Council will consistently and fairly apply current policy when addressing local government
MUSA expansion requests.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION
That the Metrop6!litan Council adopt this report as its strategy for reviewing proposed MUSA
expansions until new policies are adopted as part of the MDIF and Water Resources Management
Plan, Part 1 update.
7