HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.b. Met Council Rural Service Area Policies t ..- ;
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EBECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COU:�SCIL MEETING DATE: November 20, 1990
RCENDA, ITEM: AGENDA SECTION:
Met Council Rural Service Area Policies New Business
PREPARED BY: Dean Johnson AGENDA
Director of Community Development �� � �
1���AC�MEhTS: Met Council Draft Document; APP D��BY:
� �
The Metropolitan Council has held three public meetings to rsview
proposed policies, affecting the Rural Service Area. The
majority of the Ci�y of Rosemount lies in the Rural Service Area
(RSA) . There are three "sub-areas" within the RSA: the Rural
Centers Policy Area, the Commercial Agricultural Policy Area and
the Gene�al Rural Use Policy Area. Rosemount is not affected by
the Rura1 Centers Policy Area. The vast majority af Rosemount's
RSA is classified as "general rural use" -- only a portion of the
City, located around Coates, is considered "commercial
agricultural. °
There are two primary issues that I see, related to our current
, planning efforts and potential land use policies :� residential
der.sities and commercial/industrial development in the general
rural use area. The proposed housing densities remain at one
home per forty acres . In spite of referencing _"transition areas°
that exist between the urban and rural service areas, thete is no
provision for greater densities, i.e. , one home per five acres .
In the near future the City will need to determine whether to
continue its °one per f ive" density in the transition area or
decrease density to "one per ten. ° We eurrently require one per
ten in most of the rural service area. The exception is our
Rural Residential area. Regarding businesses, Met Council has
actually expanded uses that are permitted in the rural service
area. One issue the City has discussed regards the potential for
utilities in eastern Rosemount. If a non-residential utility
district were proposed, it brings up an issue that these policies
don't address . If such an option were pursued, it would likely
require approval of a non-contiguous urban service area. We are
raisir.g this issue, among others, with Met Council staff an
Morday, November 19 . I '11 give a verbal update at our Regular
Meetir.g. :
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action unless the City Council wishes to make a specific
recommendation on the proposed policies.
�OiJIrSCIL 1�iC^sION:
None .
.� � s ,
�7' 1���
� ��-e. 12� l �go
NOTICE
: - - OF
. _ . .- METROPOLITAN COUNCIL � � -
PUBLIC MEETING
Proposed Metropolitan Council Policies
for the Rural Service Area
The Metropalitan Council's Metropolitan and Community Development Committee will hold three
public meetings to hear comments on recommended changes to its development policies for the
region's rural area. The policies are eontained in the Council's Metropoliran Development and
Investment Framework (MDIF). Both urban and rural communities in the region would be affected
by any changes in the Councii's rural area policies, because the policies are closely coordinated with
those for the region's urban,area. You are encouraged to participate in this meeting.
When it adopted the MDIF'in 1985; the lvietropolitan Couacil decided fo reexamine its policies for
the general rural use area for lands not suited for agriculture. Following a public meeting held in
June, at which comments and suggestions were received from a number of interested citizens and
local officials,the Couneil's Metropolitan and Community Development Committee(MCDC}charged
� its Land Us�Advisory Committee (LUAC)with developing specific poIicy altematives. The Council
will seek pubIic comment on LUAC's recommendations, as accepted by the MGDC, at a series of
public meetings. Following these meetings, the Committee will decide what recommendations should
be adopted as amendments to the MDIF and other Council policy plans.
The report explaining the proposed policy changes,entitled RuralArea Policy Changes,Pubtic Meeting
Document{October 1990, Publication No.64Q-90_155) is available from the Council's Data Center.
PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION
When and Where: Thursday, November 8, 1990, 2 p.m.
Council Chambers, Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul
- Wednesday, November 14, 1990, 7 p.m.
Scott County Court House
428 S. Holmes St.
Shakopee
Thursday,November 15, 1990, 7 p.m.
Bunker HiILs Activity Center
550 Bunker Lake Blvd.
Anoka
(over)
, r " �
� �
Wh0 Wlll
Be NotiGed: _ Rural and urban local govemment key contacts
� � : Metropolitan Council Land Use Advisory Committee
_ _ _ :� Interested citizens and community organizations �
How To
Participate: 1. You may attend the meeting and offer oral or written comments.
Please call the Community Outreach Division at 291-65Q0 if you wish
to register to speak. Advance registration is not necessary.
2. You may send a letter with comments by December 1, 1990 to:
Carl Ohrn
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Questions: Call any of the following staff of the Council's Research and Long-Range _ _ _ _
- _ . _- Planning DepartmenE:
�- - ----
Carl Ohm, 291-6507 Anne Hurlburt, 291-fi501
- Bob Overby, 291-6381
� f �
o v � � �
V I E 't�V
" :=_-�'roposed Metropolitan Council Policies
- - � � �� for the Rural Service Area �
RURAL SERVICE A.REA POLICIES
The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDI� is the plan that sets a general
direction for future development patterns in the seven-counry Metropolitan Area, and established
guidelines for rnaking decisions about major regional facilities, like sewers and highways, that are �
needed to support the commercial, industrial and residential development of the area. The MDIF
divides the regian into a metropolitan urban service area ("MUSA") and a rural service area. The
focus of the Council's strategy on directing growth in the region is to encourage development to
occur within the urban service area.
When the MDIF was adopted in 1986, the Metropolitan Counc� identified the need to reexamine
- its policies for the�general-rural use area for lands not suited for agriculture. This area camprises -
over 40 percent of the land in the Metropolitan Area.
Council policy supports agriculture in the general rural use area, and residential development at
, densities af no more than ane unit per 10 acres computed an a 40-acre basis (a maximum of four
units per 40 acres). Metropolitan systems (such as highways and sewers) will not be extended to
serve urban-scale development in the general rural use area. The comprehensive plans af local
governments must address these policies and the provision of services to any urban-density
development that already exists, particularly the operation and maintenance of on-site sewer systems.
The consistency of local comprehensive plans with Council policies is also a consideration in`review
of proposed expansions of the MUSA in communities on the edge of the developing area.
RECOMMENDED RURAL POLICY CHANGES
FolIowing a public meeting held in June, at which comments and suggestions were received from a
number of interested citizens and local officials, the Council's Metropolitan and Community
Development Committee (MCDC) charged its Land Use Advisory Cammittee (LUAC} with
devetoping specific palicy altematives. Recommendations for changes ta the policies for the rural
--., . . service area are summarized below. .The table compares the existing MDIF policy with the new
policy recommendations. The MCDC has approved these recommendations for discussion at pubiic
meetings to be held in November of 1990. Final policy recommendazions will then be formulated to
be incorporated into the MDIF, qny amendments to the MDIF or other Council poliey plans as
needed to implement the recommendations would occur following additional public hearings, yet tv
be scheduled.
(over)
ME7ROPOLIT,sIV COUNCtL,Mean Park Cenlre,.30 E FeJth St.,SL Pau{MN 53I01 612 291-6359
� t � �
Compariso� of.�iSting and Recommended Policy Options � -
for the Rural-Area= �
E�osting Policy Policy Recommendations
Preservation of I,oeal gavernmencs designate land for long-term No change; the Councit should reexamine the
Agricultur� agricuiwre use to be considered part of the agriculwral preserves legisiation to determine
"Commercial Agricutwral Area". This area how it might be modificd to be more effective
shouid be planned for a development density no in preserving all types of agricuiwral land.
greater than 1 dwelGng per 44 actes. Land is
cettified by tocal government as etigible for the
MetropoGtan Agricultural Preserves Program.
Primary protection areas are lands covenanted �
as agricultural preserves. Secondary protection
areas are areas certified but not covenanted.
, Land Uses Limited direction for Council and local Clarify and expand on the policc for `
gavemments regarding ►and uses beyond compatible land uses ia the rural area,
agriculture,single-family residential and a permitting moro flexibility. Additional land
- - -limited number of"urban-generated uses". uses wiil be subject to established ptanning
criteria and cammuniry plans and regutations.
Lot Size No minimum lot size recommended within No minimum lot size recommended, lot size is
. werap density limitation of 4/40. to be detetmined by performance standards for
adequate on-site sewage disposat systems.
On-Site Sewage Council standards for on-site systems are Increased performance standards:
Disposat Systems currentty found in the Wastewater Treatment • Al1 elemen[s of MPCA 7080 rules.
and Handling Poliry Plan. All communities • Al1 communities to adopi atl
shoutd adopc standards for. scandards in Wastewater Treatment
• Instailation and HandGng Policy Plan,including
• Permit record-keeping inspection programs,regardless of
• Correction of problems deveiopment density permitted.
' ���n8 • Require an alternative drainfield be
• Personnel to administer sited at the time of issuing a building
program permit, meeting soil and percolation
Communities permittiag densities greater than standards of the primary svstem.
4/40 are to implcment additional standards for. • Reqnire an adeauate weU-testing
' I�P��an program to detecr failing on-site i
• Data coliection sevvage disposal systems. '
- • Ordinance compliance • Require all communities to certify �
• Work records they havc met these standards prior
to approving lor,�l plan amendmencs
or approva!of any FFiA morcgage �
reViews.
Transitioa Areas No specific support ir, MDIF for planning for Council to adap: policies to protect the
transition areas outside of the current regionat interest in efficie:�tty expanding the ;
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSp), MUSA Most efficient way is to Gmit
development to very low densin•. aithough
"ghosi platting" may be utilize�. Provide
guidelines for designa[icn of trans9non areas in ,�
loeal comprehensrve pians.
. � , ,
F�dstin�Policy Pollry Recommeodations
Densiry One unit per ten acres,computed on the basi.s One unit per tea acres. 'I]�e Council should
� - of 40-acre parceLs. No required plan more closety monitor locai ptans to ensure they .
modifications when inconsistent communities canform and require amendmrnu to
submit plan amendments, except in cases inconsistent local pians due to the potential
invotving specific negative impacts on impact to the regional transportation and waste
metropolitan systems. water systems.
ClusteNng Densiry computed on the basis of 40acre Option A: Deosiry computed on the basis of
(quarter-quaner section}parcels (4/40). 160-acce (quarter-section) parceLs(16/160�
Option B: Density computed on thc basis of
640-acre (one section or square miie)pareels
(64/640).
Exciude only areas of lakes,regional highways
and land already developed for caicutating
aUowable units. State and regional parks and
wetlands may be used for calculating allawable
units.
Communfties with No excepcions or provisions for addressing Exceptions s6ouid be considered fo�
Inconsistent Poticies communities that may have developeci at communities that.cannot meet the poGry
densities exceeding Council policies. because of the ex�sting subdivision of land or ' -___
unprovements thcteon. The Counal shoutd
determine the content of the exception based
on how welt the community haz:
• Protected good agricultural land;
• Implemented the c�nn.site servage
disposal performance standards; and
• Adopted a comprebensive plan
consistent with all Metropolitan
Development Guide chaptecs,
especialty sewers, uansportation,
aviation and parks.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For more detailed information and meeting schedules, please contact any one of the following
Council staff inembers:
Carl Ohm, 291-6507 : �
Anne Hurlburt, 291-6501
Bob Overby, 291-6381 �
The report explaining the proposed policy changes,entitled Rural Area Poliry Changes,Public Meeting
Document (October 1990, Publication No. 640-90-155) is available from the Council's Data Center.
. ' r ,
RU�:AL A,REA :
PULICY CI�[��.NGES
PUBLIC MEETING DOCUMENT
DRAFT REPORT
OCTOBER 1990
Issued by the Metropolitan and Communiry Development Cammittee
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Sth Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. (612) 291-6359
Publication No. 640-90-155
. r � I �
. . . � V O�, , `L�ir/ . . . � . ..
AboutthisReport . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introdnction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Rural Service ,Area Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . �
Authority for and Origins of the GeneraI Rural Use Area Policy . . . . . . � • � � � � � � � , 4
Policv Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Policy Issues Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appropriate Rural Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , (
Development Densiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
WaterQuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Urban Sewer�ystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' _ • 11
Impact on Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Transportation - Highway Capacity and Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 14
Locating Large Scale Urban Uses in the General Rural Use Area . • 15
Efficiency of Transition Area Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . � � � � � l�
Transportation - Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Human Setvices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Local Government Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Lot Size and Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Transicion Area Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Recommendations . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Preservation of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
2. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. Lot Size/On-Site Sewage Disposal System Performance Standards • • , 26
4. Transition Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
6. Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Inconsistent Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1
Tables and Map
IvIDIFMap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
, Table 1, Summary of Land Use Recommendations for General Rural Use Area , . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2, Tndividual SAC Based on Cunent Requirements, 1/10 Base,
DollarandPercentage Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 3, Individual SAC Based on Current Requirements, 1/5 Base,
Dollar and Percentage Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4, Agricultural Preserves and Crreen Acres Participation, 19$9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 5, Units to be Acquired for Large-Scale Uses
forDensity Altemative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 6, Comparison of F.�sting and Recommended Policy Options
forthe Rural Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report summarizes the results of the CounciPs reexamination of policies contained in the
Metropolilan Development and Investment Framework (IvIDI� for the general rural usc geographic
policy area. The report has three sections. The Introduction explains the existing policies, the
abjectives of the study,the authority for and origin of the golicy, and the status of its implementation.
The second section, Policy Issues Analysis, outlines the work that was done to evaluate what land
uses are appropriate in the rural area, to evaluate five rural-density alternatives, to examine lot size
and clustering options, and to examine issues for areas that are currently rural hut will some day be
needed for urban development, "transition areas." The third section, Recommendations, describe..c
seven suggested changes to current Council policies.
The examination of rural area policies began with a series of issues papers that were prepared and
reviewed to examine how development in the rural area affected, or was affected by, sewer services,
highways, transit, housing, parks, natural resources, human services, solid waste and grants to local
government. The CounciPs Metropolitan and Community Development Committee{MCDC)charged
the Land Use Advisory Committee' with developing specific policy alternatives following a public
meeting held on June 7, 1990, at which comments and suggestions were received from a number of
interested citizens and local officials. This report summarizes the results of LUAC's work and
presents their recommendations as approved by the MCDC for public_ review and comment on
October 18, 1990. The Committee will seek public comment on these recommendations at a series
of public meetings in November 1990. This process will culminate in amendments to the IvIDIF to
be completed in 1991.
Background information on the examination of the general rural use area policies was summarized
in a publication entitled Rural Area Issue Papers (May 1990), publication No. 640-90-104, available
from the Council's Data Center.
INTRODUCTION
RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES
The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) is the plan that sets a general
direction for future development patterns in the seven-county Metropolitan Area, and establishes
guidelines for making decisions about major regional facilities, like sewers and highways, that are
needed to support the commercial, industrial and residential develapment of the area. Tne MDIF
divides the regian into a metropolitan urban service aiea ("ML7S�") and a rural service area. The
focus of the Council's strategy on directing growth in the region is to encourage development to
occur within the urban setvice area.
'The Land Use Advisory Committee(LUAC}was established by the Metropolitan Land Planning
Act (MLPA) to assist the Couneil in accomplishin� its responsibitities under the law. LUAC's 17
members are appointed by the Council to represent each of the Council's lb districts, plus one
additional member to ensure representation from each of the seven counties. At least half of the
members must be local elected officials.
1
When the MDIF was adopted to replace the Metropolitan Development Framework and Metropolitan
Investment Framework in 1986,the Metropolitan Council identified the need to reexamine its policies
for the general rural use area for lands not suited for agriculture. This area comprises over 40
percent of the land in the Metropolitan Area. The map on page 3 shows the 1vIDIF geographic
policy areas.
Council policy supports agriculture in this area, and residential development at densities of no more
than one unit per 10 acres computed on a 40-acrc basis (a maximum of four units per 40 acres).
Metropolitan systems (such as highways and sewers) will not be extended to serve urban-scale
development in the general rural use area. The comprehensive plans of local governments must
: address these policies and the provision of services to any urban�ensity development that already
exists, particularly the operation and maintenance of on-site sewer systems. The consistency of local
comprehensive plans with Council policies zs alsa a consideration in review of proposed expansions
of the MUSA in communities on the edge of the developiag area.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
During the last year, the Council's Metropolitan and Community Development Committee has
worked with its Land Use Advisory Committee on the follawing objectives:
• Examine how existing Council policies for the rural service area have been implemented
• • Examine the relationship and trends of development within and outside of the MUSA.
• Review the implications of development in the rural service area with respect to the impact on
preservation of agriculrural land, warer quality, the urban sewer system, transportation (highways
an�' rransit), human services and local govemment services.
• Clarify what land uses are appropriate in zhe rural area.
• Revier: the density standard that determines the amount of development that can be accepted
in rhe general ncral use area without adversely impacting the environment and the provrsion of
public services.
• Examine various approaches ro development {such as clustering and r lot-size policies) thai
might permir the overall densiry poliry to be more readily adapted 1a individual communiries in
the �'�serropoluan Area.
• Look at the unique issues faced b}�commur�ities on the edge of the developing area, which must
effectively plan for future expansion of the MI7SA into rhe rural service area.
2
-��� )
. � � .� . 1 ii-
■�'�
.- - ..-. �
� �
�- - .. !'`�"rt.•.�
� ,.
� . � �:�':����. ,
� �`��A�L`_l'� C���� �
� � '�\��' �f�? ..-� �
�� - �� r ,� ��-.:��'�`����i�� -�.
�"�,;�- _ �a� �"�- �
cr� ���;�""-.�,`"-' .,° _;��..�<. •
■ - - //,�/,���,.._. -�.''�.�.+a. '- a�1► e:s- '�b
�� ��+c"� ti.'-�"�!,'i;�?�'�'�. r,���e' �?•�
_ •��• ����i'�7'�Y� � ���"��_��'?T'1.Y'.�1 �jT��� ��a���' �r����
❑ ��/'�� 1-�i,ra��y 11"'.i�c'�_^f.��� �
y�y. '_t+�. .i+.._. a •., .�
�i/�i�a�'�i��I��L�..: t;�..`a1 �� _� � �, -z. 1!! `
:/� ���.., -...� ��,�°�a�tf;�:_.'� <.�V1
- . : - ,,� �y� �_�y:- �;�..�...
. - • ' ` _ �:� '.y,y• :?.:.�:,�� ��'�-"��
� • f-_�fjM F'`9 I
�/� � '�� ':9 �,�a�,s�5� r
� ��`�i, � C����� �
/�i. ,� �� : :+ �-
� S � � -- � � � �� r
� ��.C�'ri� . �"� •..
+�+- .
��l� • v d ' , _�" �J_�. �� �3 - �
!.,I �� —► I :.a 3t _.___ a��rl;.:--a � .�.-_-•--
`-��-,.`.i`::'_p';;s,+�„!� "r"e''' �
��/��� � Y ,�� ��•+-'.� - r
■`_�'- '.•�g.` L����"�'�~� /� E���' 4
,r i s� ,<�-
�"�'�'���1.����.C�'.i��� .i:.'9r�:a✓ .'.'� ���-
/� _��,� � � e�='�t•i*'� .. '6``a�: s
r � � ��/��i'�������° ,�:-,� � �:�-�.....��� t1�
,, ,i',.�'2:..,:..,v� ,e�.,,.;::.�_. -.r,,� ��
� � �� � � �
� ��,/� _�" �'S•' ys= �!_• •� �. �v
. �, ..,—.,�,� , ;;--`, ��., � �I.
� �•f�=�� �%,` � J` .�;•. • e� y� � '�d' '
//� /��it�/�/r%Z!� ���a� E, ^'.� �..
/' i .--� ��r-�- � _ _✓f��. , �°:��
�� � �1 �� ���1� ��+.a� •� �
?'�'�!'�.�%i.�'�;�//%..�,�"�•�' ���,.:a�3���. �
' .���i��� �4•"� �}�q, �--
w7f� _ _-aR
��r ,� Y�-.�=y_.
I � � I� ��� � � y���Ci M> , �
��/�6��;�� � � - �
��
//J � /�:`:� ������e .
� �,^ ����/.
%� �' ��� ' ��'���' �' .�
�..�''�/�. �,�'/� , �.�' ��.�� .
,�� .. �
��,� � ,�`/.,�,
� _ , �.� � � , �
.• .��:`�.._• __._,r . /'�'
� �.�.� �I. � �
��-''i��� ���� • %//iI�' ' �;��I/`1��/'.�`
, � � ��� .. �� ���/h�, `, ,�► � �.
� � /
- � : . �� � �'
� � �
� � �� ~� � � � ���
• / �/d'I��dI �// ��� �� . �1//I
I��I�
. % /�r �'�r��� �
�' •-- r�i
• � ��///�
. . ... . • - . .
. . . ..
. . . ... . .. . �
N /I/��. �
1
AUTHORITY FOR AND ORIGINS OF
GENERA►L RURAL USE AREA POLICIES
The Council has been given broad statutory authority by the Minnesota Legislature to develop and
implement policies for guiding the overall development of the Metropolitan Area. The rural area
density policies adopted by the Council must be reasonably related to legitimate regional interests and
must be suppcerced by adet�uate study and analysis. The Council's rural area density policies should
promote orderly and efficient urban development, but also recognize changing regional and lc�cal
needs as development and growth occur in the Metropofitan Area.
Since the formation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission in 1957, regional government in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has been concemed with the coordination, planning and guiding of
growth in the region. The state legislation that created the Metropolitan Council in 1967 called for
the establishment of a framework to promote the orderly and economic development of the area.
The Counci�'s policies for the rural areas of the region are part of that regional development
framework and are cunently embodied in the IvIDIF. The iegal authority for these policies has been
reexamined during this study of rural area policies. The Council's legal staff concluded that the
Council can adopt rural density policies that may temporarily restrict or delay urban development,
provided those restrictions do not prevent urban growth and are related to legitimate regional
-interests.-The policies should remain flexible and capable of responding to special needs�and�changes - �
in local units of govemment in the metropolitan region.
. Five policy c.oncerns dominate the various reports and studies that document the development of
Council policy for the rural area. These are the basic planning principles fram which the policies
have evolved, and which were revisited in this study:
1. An urban service area policy must be accompanied by a rural policy which restricts growth, The
purpose of the urban service area policy and the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)
boundary is to encourage orderly and economic development of the Metropolitan Area and
limit urban sprawL The Council has planned for providing urban services on the assumption
that a high percentage of the growth in the region will locate inside the MUSA.
2. Rural uses and agriculture are legitimate and permanent land uses. A common misconception
is that rural activities and agriculture are only temporary land uses. While some of the rural
area will eventually be needed for expansion of the MUSA, most of the rural area will not
be needed for urbaq development in the foreseeable future.
3. Urban density development in the rural area results in demand for local services and sometimes
for metropolitan urban services High density development outside the MUSA is not
appropriate because it can lead to premature and costly demands to extend regional services,
and does not take advantage of regional investments that have been mad� in the MUSA
_ And whiie existing service levels may be low in many rural cammunities, new residents soon
demand additional services.
4
4. Urban der�sity development in the rural area almost always has an impact on the "rural
characre�" of a communiry and on the preservation of agricultural land and land uses. The
concept of "rural character" can hold a variety af ineanings. Development in rural
communities can result in erosion of the naturaI and man-made environment that attracted
residents in the first place. The conIlicts between agriculture and exurban residents have
been well documented.
5. Urban densih� development in the rural area can have adverse impacts on the quality of the
nancral environment. Protecting and maintaining the quality of surface water and groundwater
is a key concern of the Council. The failure of on-site sewage disposal systems and the need
for planning to solve resulting pollution problems was a major factor in the creation of the
Council. While technological advances have improved on-site sewage disposal systems, their
proper installation and maintenance is still a critical concern.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Of 87 communities (cities and townships) in the regian surveyed (from a total of 97 communities that
are entirely or in part in the general rural use area), 27 have planned for densities consistent with
the cunent Council policy for a maximum four per 40 residential density outside of the MUSA. A
larger number (46) have planned some areas consistent with the policy, and planned other areas at
higher densities. Only 14 were found to have planned their entire rural area for densities inconsistent
with the policy.
A total of 1,235,109 acres in the rural area of the region was reviewed for consistency with the
,Council's density policy. Of that total, only 348,406 acres (or 28.2 percent) were planned or zoned
at densities inconsistent with Council policy,and$86,743 acres (or 71.8 percent)are planned or zaned
at densitie.� consistent with Council policy. Most of the area planned and zoned for densities greater
than the Council policy is found in areas that do not have the best soils for agriculture, which
includes much of northern Anoka and Washington Counties.
The amount of residential development in the rural portion of xhe Metropolitan Area was at a low
of 4.3 percent of total permits in 1984, but increased to 6.5 percent in 1987 and 7.9 percent in 1988.
The amount of development is still below the boom period of the early 19?Os, when the share of
annual permi�for the rural area(excluding Freestanding Growth Centers and Rural Centers)peaked
in 1973 at 17.; percent. The rurai use area appears to be an ongoing element of the housing market
that has existed for many years. It ebbs and flows with those eaternal factors that affect the total
housing market. Council policy has seemed ta have some dampening effect on housing growth in the
rural area since the late 1974s.
The number of residential building permits issued in counties adjacent to the Metropolitan Area was
also examined. The total number increased from a low of about 1,800 in 1982 to about 3,700 in 1988.
During the last 18 years, the IZ adjacent counties added b3,641 people; 52 percent located in
incorporated areas and 48 percent in rural parts of the counties. From the available data, it does not
appear the density controls imposed in the Metropolitan Area have caused residential development
to "move" to adjacent counties.
$
1
POLICY ISSLTES ANALYSIS
The Metropolitan and Community Development Committee (MCDC) asked the Land Use Advisory
Committee (LUAC) to develop policy recommendations on four issues: appropriate rural land uses;
residential development densities; implementation options, including lot size and clustering; and
planning for transition areas, areas now rural which will be needed for urban development in the
future. This section of this report summarizes the investigations of the committee into each of these
issues.
APPROPRIATE RURAL LAND USES
What land uses are appropriate in the rural service area of the region? The Metropotitan
Development and Investment Framework provides some guidance on what uses are appropriate from
a regional perspective, but is silent on a number of land uses that have been praposed by some
communities. There is a need to clarify what land uses are currently supported by Council policy,and
what other land uses could be supported to provide guidance for both the Council and local
governments.
It is important to remember that even though a particular land use may be acceptable in the rural
-area from a regional perspective, the Council will not recommend that every community provide for
every possible land use in its rural area if it would not be consistent withlocal plans. All uses would
also be subject to any permitting or licensing requirements. ,
Whether a land use is apprapriate for the rural service area depends on a number of facton:
• Whether or not it is compatible with other adja:.e,�t land uses;
� Whether it meets enviroamental quality standards;
• Whether it fits with the design scale of other land uses in the area;
• Whether a use requires a rural or urban level of support services;
• The need for an isolated or spacious location;
• If the use might change the "rural character" of the area; and
• If the area will be developed for urban uses in the future.
The MCDC and LUAC reviewed land-use policy for all parts of the rural service area. Their
conclusions and recommendations are summarized below and on Table L
The Commercial Agricnitural Policy Area is that part of the region which iocal governments have
certified eligi�Ie for agricultural preserves under the 198(} MetropoIitan AgriculturaI Preserves Act. �
The Council recognizes two levels of protection in the commercial agricultural area. The primary
protection area is that land protected by an agricultural preserves covenant. For such land, the Act
specifies what land uses are allowed. Land that is certified etig'ible, but not covenanted is considered
the secondary protection area. For thi.s area, the NIDIF supports a broad rang�: of agricultural
activities,with a residenEial density of no more than one single-famity detached dweiling pe-40 acres.
Commercial or industrial land uses are not supported by the MDIF'. In the category of institutional
land uses, the MDIF policy is that urban-generated facilities should be groh�bited in the primary
protection area unless no other locations can be found, and should not be located in the secondary
protectio„ area unless they cannot be located in the general rural use area. Some additional land
6
� � ! .
uses that could be supported by the Cauncil were identified, and are shown on Table L
The General Rural Use Poliey Area is that part of the rural area not designated for commercial
agriculture or as a rural center. It is this area that is primarily under scrutiny in this study. The
MDIF currently supports: all agricultural land uses that are allowed in the Cammereial Agriculture
Policy Area;up to four single•family detached dweIling units per 40 acres;urban-generated uses(such
as recreational vehicle parks, racetracks, festival sites,campgrounds,and gun clubs);certain industrial
uses (mining of sand and gravel, and urban-generated uses that require a spacious location away from
people); and institutional uses (such as waste disposal installations, parks, trails, open space, and
unique natural or conservation areas). Examples of additional land uses that could be supported by
re ional li were identified a
g Po �y nd are shown on Table 1.
The Rura1 Centers Policy Area includes the small towns that formerly served as centers for retail
services and transportation for the sunounding agricultural area, but now in many cases are
residential areas for urban people and locations for industry that have little or no connection to
agriculture. The MDIF supports all agricultural, residential, commercial, commerciaUrecreational,
industrial and institutional land uses, consistent with available services. No additional land uses have
been proposed for this policy area.
7
Table 1: Summary of Land Use Recommendations �
for the General Rural Use Area
Poticy Mea ,!,
I.and Uscs Currently Supported Ezamples of 4t6er Consisteni I.4nd Uses '
Commercisl Agricuitural: broad range of agricultural AgriculturaL• horsc boarding aad training
Agricultural Region land uses; for primary protection areas, • kennels • fish production and
uses consistent with 1980 Ap�icultural processing • storage areas or buiidin�
Preserves Act
ResidenciaL• single famity, 1/40 Residential: accessory apartments
Commercia!/industrial: Not supported, CommereiaUtndustriai: NONE
othet than small on-farm operations
normaily associated with farming
Institutional: Urban generated facilities, Institutional: NONE
such as waste disposa!facilities,prohibited
from primary procectioa areas unless no
other location available; prohibited from
secondary protection area unless no site in
genera! rural use area available.
_ General Rurai Use Agricultutal: All uses listed for Agricultural: Ali additional uses adopted .
�a Commercial Agricuitural Policy Area in the commercial agricuitural area • sod
farms • tree farms
Residential: Single famiiy,4/40 Residential: Twin homesiduplezes
(meeting density standard) • accessory
apanmencs • group-living homes with
shared cooking facilities
Commercial/Recreationat & Urhan- CommerciaURecreationat & Urban-
Generated Uses: urban-generated uses, Generated Uses:
induding recreationat vehicie parks, • neighborhood conveniencelservice/retaii
racetracks, festival sites,campgrounds, gvn uses,such as financial offices,video stores,
clubs • other similar facilities gasoline, groceries, daycare centecs •
commerciat/serviceJretail uses adjacent to
or served b�eadsting metro highways •
agricui.i:ai produc[s processin� • home
occupau�ns • daycare centers • bed and
breakfas: lodging facilities • urban
generated uses including private sirports,
salid waste fa�ilicies,auto satvage and
recycting • dentist and doctor offices •
landing areas for ultralight and model
airplanes • retreat facilities • golf courses
Industriai: sand and gravel mining • InduscriaL• smail manufacturing firms
urban-generated uses that require a originating from home occupations •
spacious, isolated loc:ation urban-generated uses such as oif or
gasaine storage tank farms,solid waste
transfer/processing facilities,refineries
Institutionai: urban-generated uses,such Institutional: schoots • churches •
as waste-disposal installacions • parks, cemeteri� • urban-generated uses
traiis, oper. space,other similar facilities • inciuding�ails, prisons, pubii:airports,
unique natural or conservation areas waste-dispc�sal instailations • human
service agency satellite offices
8
DEVELOPMENT DENSTTY
The MCDC directed the LUAC to analyze five altematives for the rural density policy. These were
selected to ensure that the broadest range of density altematives would be reviewed. The altematives
were:
1 acre or 40 units per 40 acres
2 12 acres or 16 units per 40 acres
5 acres or 8 units per 40 acres
10 acres or 4 units per 40 acres (current policy)
20 acres or 2 units per 40 acres
Each of the five alternatives was reviewed by the LUAC based on criteria reviewed and approved
by the MCDC. The criteria were selected to reflect issues raised in the rural area background papers,
the discussions of the LUAC the MCDC and the testimony presented at the June �, 1990, public
meeting. The criteria selected are Iisted below, in the order of priority recommended by LUAC:
Water Quality
Urban Sewer System
_ Impact on Agriculture
- ---- - _.
_ _
Transportation - Highway Capacity and Demand
Locating Large-Scale Urban Uses in the General Rural Use Area
Efficiency o£Transjtion Area Development
Transportation - Transit
Human Services
Local Government Services
� An effort was made to choose criteria that could be evaluated numerically. However, the nature of
severat of the criteria was such that they eould not be quantified in this manner. In these eases, each
altemative was evaluated according to their performance relative to eaeh other.
There was an attempt to develop additional criteria to evaluate the impact of the density policy on
the housing market and on school districts. An anaiysis of housing market issues for the rural area
showed that the outlook for rural housing appears to parallel that for the urban area. No data was
found that suggested that one of the density alternatives was "better" than the others. T3e decision
was made not to include housing market issues as specific criteria in the density anal��sis. Because
of school district boundaries, it was impossible to isalate data for analysis of impacts of various rural
densiry policies on school districts. The impact of development on school districts is more closely
related to whether new capitat facilities are needed to absorb additional students. Therefore, no
specific critena relating to school districts were used in the analysis.
Water Quality
As the rural area develops, it changes land use from some existing use to a rural residentiai,
commercial or industrial use. Depending on the previous type of land use and the intensity of the
new rural residential uses, the change in use can either increase or decrease the impacts on surface
water and groundwater. Water contamination can result from increased nutrient loadings (both
9 i
phosphorous and nitrogen compounds),increased organic loadings or increased pathogenic organisms.
Common sources of nutrients are fertilizers and weathered rock and soil. Common sources of
organics are soils, plant material and human and animal waste products. Heavy metals, volatile
organics, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and other hazardous wastes can also contaminate both
our surface water as well as groundwater from various activities of persons living on the land.
If the previous use of the land was undeveloped (natural}--the least intrusive land use type--the
amount of phosphorous that could be e�rpected to run off into nearby surface water would have a
range of 0.08- 0.26 pounds of phosphorous per acre per year. If the land was an active pasture, it
could be expected that four times this amount of phosphorous would run off. For high-intensity row
crops, the amount of phosphorous runoff could be 11 times higher than that of undeveloped land.
The amount of phosphorous that runs off into nearby lakes an� streams could dramatically change
from the average conditions reported above, degending on the soil types, the management practices
in place, the amount of precipitation, the proximity to surface water and a number of other factors.
In the case of rural residential development, none of the studies reviewed have differentiated
between various densities and changes in water-quality impacts. Most studies have defined rural
residential as lot sizes of about one acre. A typical house on a lot of this size would have between
10 and 15 percent impervious surface area that would allow water to run off very rapidly. Based on
various studies, a lot of this size would contribute about four_times.as much-.phosphorous to a lake
or stream as an undeveloped, natural lot. This is about the same amount of runoff as pasture land,
but three times less than intensively farmed row crops. ,
� As development becames less dense, the percentage of impervious surface decreases and the amount I�,
of runoff approaches that af undeveloped Iand. However, as lot sizes increase, there is a tendency
to use this land in some manner, for large gardens, hobby farming ar for raising horses. Depending
on the intensity of use, these practices will increase the amount of runoff and the amount of
contaminants and sediment in the runoff.
Both agricultural practices and rural residential development may cause groundwater contamination
if they are not done properly. Both types of land use will cause more contamination than
undevelaped land. In agricultural areas, fertilizers which contain nitrogen, phosphorous and
potassium, if applied in excess of crop requirements, can enter the groundwater system and cause
contamination. In addition to fertilizers, agricultural practices use many different chemicals that are
considered hazardous wastes. These chemicals must all be handled properly and disposed of properly
or both surface water and groundwater contamination can result.
In rural residential areas, septic-tank effluent is the main concem for groundwater contamination.
If septic tanks are properly designed, sited, installed, operated and maintained there is little threat
to groundwater cc�ntamination. However, if any one of these factors is not being correctly appiied,
grovndwater contamination can result. In addition to havin all of these facto i
rs n lace edu�ation
S P ,
of the septic-tank user is imperative. Households cAntain many different hazardous wastes that must
be managed properly. These materiaL cannot be flushed into the septic system without causing
problems. These materials cannot be poured ontc the ground without causing problems. As rural
area densities increase, the likelihood of something going wrong that can impact groundwater and/or
surface water greatly increases.
10
In all of the altemative densities that were considered, it was assumed that no develapment would
take pIace on environmentally sensitive land, e. . stee slo
g p pes, wetlands, high groundwater areas,
groundwater recharge areas, flood plains, etc. By leaving these areas vacant and undeveloped, major
portions of many cities and towns will not be developable. Regardless of the density, if development
occurs in environmentall}� sensitive areas, water quatity degradation will occur. Therefore, it is
imperative that these areas be reserved in arder to protect water quaIity.
Urban Sewer System
Approximately 95 percent of new development in the Metropolitan Area is expected to occur within
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Based on this assumption, the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission (MWCC) has constructed interceptors and treatmeni facilities to serve this future
population and has developed its rate structure to pay for these faciIities. One of the methods to pay
for these facilities is the service availabiliry charge (SAC). SAC is a connection fee that is paid by
local units of government for the reserve capacity portion of annual debt service payments. In its
implementation plan, the MWCC has estimated that SAC will increase over the next 20 years because
of additional debt service and the dramatic decline in new housing starts in the urban service area.
Even if more people start moving into the rural service area, the resultant decrease in urban sewer
needs and associated reserve capacity debt service will be minimally impacted. Between 19gp and
2005, the annual total SAC revenues will increase from $11,740,000 io $14,72Q,000,
If more housing starts occur in the rural area using on-site systems, a greater portion of this debt
service cost �111 be born by new construction in the urban area. Two different scenarios were
analyzed as part of this study. The first scenario assumed that the five percent moving into the rural
area was developing at one unit per 10 acres. The second scenaria assumed that this housing was
developing at one unit per five acres. For �ach unit assumed to be built in the one per ld scenario,
twa units were assumed to be built in the one per five scenario. The foliowing tables show the
average conditions in five-year increments, e.g. from 1990 to 1994 is shown as 1990, etc. Base3 on
Council demographic projections,annual sewered and unsewered households were calculated for each
alternative density. From the annual sewered households the total number of new units and
nonresidential, commercial and industrial, growth was calculated. The estimated SAC was then
calculated based on each densiry alternative for various time periods and the percentage change from
base conditions w•as calculated.
Under the first scenario (Table 2),SAC in 2005 could be reduced 2.4 percent if the develapment was
at 20-acre density and could increase 76 percent if 10 times the forecasted development occurred due
to the 1 unit/T acre density. The table also shows the corresponding percentage changes.
Many simptif,ying assumptions had to be made to calculate the changes in SAC. However, the relative
order of magnitude between each different densiry alternative is the important consideration and not
the specific number. It should be remembered that, regardless of the density standard, only a certain
number of people will ever want to live in the rural area so some of the growth prajections at lower
density alternatives may not be realistic. The highest level of rural growth reported in the region
since 1970 was about 17 percent. The maximums ir, the two scenarios discussed above range from
25 to 50 percent.
11
Table 2: Individual SAC Based on Curr�nt Requirements, 1/10 Base,
Dollar and Percentage Change
]J20 L10 1/S 1J2'/: 1/1
Base
Year
S 96 S S 96 S 96 S 96
1990 589 (23} 600 623 3.8 675 12.5 902 543 ��
1995 859 (24) 875 908 3.7 983 iv 130? 493
2000 1221 (2.3) iZ50 1311 4.8 1455 16.4 2162 72.9
20Q5 2929 (24) 3000 3151 SA 3506 16.8 5290 76.3
Table 3: Individual SAC Based on Current Requirements, 1/5 Base,
Dollar and Percentage Change
_ _ 1/20 1i]0 I/S 1/2�/: 1/1
Base
Year
S 9b S 96 S S 96 S 96
1990 583 (27) 589 (2.3) 600 6ti 3.8 704 17.4
1995 851 (2.7) 859 (24) 875 908 3.7 1025 17.2
2000 1207 (3.4) 12?1 (2.3) 1250 1311 4.8 153$ 23.1
2D05 2895 (3.6) 2929 (2.4) 30W 3151 5.0 3715 23.8
Impact on Agricutture
This criterion reviews the impact increased deve}opment might have on commercial agriculture.
There are a number of basic assumptions that underlie this issue. The first is tbat agriculture should
be protected. This has been established as a gaal b�•the Council and reconfirmed as recently as 198b,
when the MDIF was adopted. The second assumption is that there is agricultural activity to be
preserved. Tne third assumption is that the lower the density of development, the greater the
protection of agriculture.
Hennepin,Carver,Scott and Dakota Counties all include significant acreage that can be characterized
as typical,midwestem agriculture. Crops being grown include soybeans,wheat and com. These crops
all re uire lar e r
q g pa cels of flat farmland. In northem Washington and A,�oka Count�es there are few,
if any, large-scale grain farms. The agriculture nses tend to be apple orchards, tree farms,sod farms
and truck farms interspersed with wetlands, wooded areas and residential developments.
12
.
Farmland by county is recorded in Table 4 along with land certified as eligible for the Agricultural
Preserves Program, land in the Agricultural Preserves Program (covenanted) and land with an
expiration date set. With the exception of Ramsey, each county had a significant amount of land
farmed in 1987. The 84,000 acres in Anoka County represents over 3.5 standard townships.
The land in the Green Acres Program is aLso recorded in Table 4. While Carver County has a small
enrollment, this can be explained by the large acreage certified and covenanted for ag pr�erves. A
significant amount of land was enralled in green acres in Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott and
Washington Counties.
How effective are the five density altematives in protecting agricultural operations? The entire
exercise af evaluating rural area policy has tried to answer this question. The idea that 1ow density
could limit negative impacts on agriculture stems from the belief that more people in the rural area
witl foster conditions that make farming more costly or will in some other wa}�, hinder the operations
of farmers. Problems associated with increased development and people include:
1. Restricting hours of operation of farm equipment principally because of noise.
2. Restricting operation of farm equipment on public roads because of conflict with slow-moving
farm vehicles.
3. Restrieting farmers' use of pesticides or herbicides.
- 4. Increased taxes and assessments because of increased land values, increased number of local
services or increased quaiity of local services provided.
5. Complaints and restrictions on farm operation because of odors and dust.
6. Vandalism of farm equipment or crops.
All five alternatives will produce more people per given land area than the commercial farming
density of 1/40 and, therefore, increase the potential or negative impacts on farming. The one unit
per 20 acres will produce the fewest impacts due to the small number of people that would move into
a given area. At this density, it is very conceivable that those moving to the area have a serious
interest in activities or a life-style requiring a rurai setting. The families might want to raise horses
or dogs or to grow some type of fruits, vegetables or trees. Even if they only wanted a rural home
site, the land area is large enough to buffer these homes and their occupants from farming operations.
The five-acre density would represent eight units per 40 acres or 128 units per square mile, This
density is still far from that of normal suburban communities with three units pe: acre. Seeing a
neighbor's house would be gossible, although site planning could limit such views. The buffering
effect from farm noise and odor is reduced at this density.
With a one unit pe, one acre densiry, there could be 640 units per square mile. The oevelogment
would have larger lots, but would be difficult to charaeterize as rural. People moving to this area
v��ould have little interest in agricultural activities. Due to the limited buffering offered, noise, od�r
and dust could be significant problems if located adjacent ta farm operations.
In conclusion, with the exception of Ramsey, all counties have agricultural activities that should be
protected. The lower density standards provide more protection than the higher density alternatives.
13 �
Table 4: Agricultural Preserves and Green Acr�s Participation, 1989
:.
<.; ...�::.::::::..:::.>:;;>�:: ::. _ ,
::::<>;:;;:;::;.:.:;::;:::;:>::;::>: �.; ,�Pe�oenf oi _ ��,`
..'..::><::;::»>:>:;::><:>>:a:>::.:;�
' - ta
;
Acns o[ ` �lcr+es �F�mland , :: s�crss� Acres w�t� Creen :
,:Cougty ;Farmisad•. >: �C.�rtifted >_Certiifed Covuianted Expirations ,.
_ ..:Acr��a..
Ano�a 84,000 3,868 5 3,105. 1,310 71,118
Carver 194,000 228,584 ••118 85,203 34,807 4,540
Dakota 245,000 215,208 88 58,412 22,182 131,395
Hennepin 103,000 60,052 58 12,266 4,081 57,582
Ramsey 3,OU0 p _ � � �
Scott i75,000 84,170 48 8,940 2,109 95,4d9
Washingcon 124,000 19,312 16 12,524 1,908 82,182
Tatai : 928,000 611,234 66 180,450 6b,39'7 442,266
Source: Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1987
Census of Agriculture
Minnesota Departmeat of Revenue,June 26,-1990 -- - - - ---
'Definition: Any parcei which generates at least 51,000 of income in tbe sale of agicultural products.
•'Carver Counry: Acreage ceni5ed is larger than the acreage de5ned as farmland. This is possible because areas not
included ia t6e DOA's definition of farmland may be eligible for indusion in a metropolitan agricultural presern{such as
woodlands or wetiands).
Transportation - Highway Capacity and Demand
To estimate the present and future congestion of highways in the rural area, the d�mand was
compared to the capacity of inetropolitan highways. While there is peak-hour capacity available on
all metropolitan highways in the rural area given 1988 traffic levels,much of this capaciry is projected
to be used up by 2010. The 2010 foreeasted traffic includes the growth of traffic connecting outstate
Minnesota and the region as well traffic growth from the rural area. Faght of the 14 rnetropolitan
highways will have over 90 percent of the capacity used in the year 2010. At this percentage, the
level of service is significantly deteriorated. Therefore, any additional development that adds to the
demand on these highways will further deteriorate an already bad situation.
Truck traffic on these same hi�hways was also reviewed. On eight of the 14 highways, large trucks
represented over nine percent of the daily traffic. This data illustrates three points. First, the
highways are very important to allow existing economic interaction to take place between the Metro
Area, Greater Minnesota and the rest of North America. Second, as the demand reaches the
capacity of the metropolita� highways, it will slow goods movement and add to the cost of doing
business. In turn,this may reduce economic interaction. Third,truck traffic uses ug highway capacity
ar a much higher rate than other vehicles. Trucks accelerate slower and have more difficulty
maneuvering than automobiles. Therefore, routes with high levels of truck use have a lower level
of effective capacity.
14
In an attempt to illustrate the impact of increased development on these highways, three e�camples
were prepazed. For these examples, it was assumed that an addition of 2,3 TO acres of land over that
forecasted for the rural area woutd be developed over the next 20 years in the travel shed of three
highways. The 2,310 acres represents one-tenth of one standard township. Potential development
of this land was calculated at five density levels.
The highways analyzed were Interstate Highway 94 in Washington Cbunty, Trunk Highway(TH) 169
in Scott County and TH61 in Dakota County. Various assumptions had to be made concerning:daily
work trips per household; the time these trips occuned; the percentage of trips that would use the
metropolitan highways; the direction of the trip (either toward or away from the MUSA) and the
percent of ridesharing that would take place. The analysis concluded that the development at the
lowest densiry would cause little impact on the three highways. Development at 1 unit/5 acres and
1 unit/2.5 acres would contribute enough traffic to two- and four-lane arterials to cause significant
levels of congestion. Development of 1 unit/acre would bring about significant congestion on all
three highways.
In conclusion, eight of the 14 metropolitan highways that serve the rural area will have severe levels
of congestion in 2010 if only the development forecasted takes place. The percent of capacity that
w�iil be used for these eight highways range from 91 percent to 198 percent. The increased traffic
comes from both outside as well as inside thc region. No matter where these trips originate, the
congestion will reach very high levels if the forecasts are conect.
If we assume these forecasts are based upon rural area development at 1/10 density, the estimates
could be conservative. Many communities challenge Council estimates as too low. They believe they
will grow faster, partly because they permit densities higher than Council policies.
The remaining six highways have some capaciry that can b� utilized. The exampies illustrate that
depending on the road, the demand of the added development produced by the alternatives result
in different levels of congestion. The I-94 example is the most optimistic--since it is a six-lane
freeway and has relatively low congestior�forecasted in 201Q. All other roads have lower capacity and
will be using a higher level of their capacity in 2010. Therefore, these raads have less capacit�� to
accommodate added demand. The lower density altematives produce much lower demand since they
accommodate fewer homes and workers and, therefore, produce fewer peak hour trips.
Based on this criterion alone, the lower density alternatives are preferable since they produce the
lowest level of added demand on metropolitan highways.
Locating Large-Scale Public Uses in the General Rurai Use Area
Council policy reeognizes many public and private facilities exist in the general rural use area that
require isolated and spacious locations. These facilities include campgrounds and recreational vehicle �'
parks, waste-disposaI installations, airports, gun clubs and mining sites. The general rural use area
is an appropriate location far these facilities. The Cauncil's interest is that these facilities are
provided with adequate public services, consistent with local and regional plans, and to the extent
possible, that they do not interfere with agricultural activities.
15
As the intensity of development in the general rural use area increases, it will be more difficu}t and
expensive to acquire sites needed for these activities and for the buffer areas that are desirable. As
examples, the area needed for a regionally sited landfill and an intermediate airport are used below
to compare the five densiry alternatives. The minimum area required for a landfill, according to
Council standards, is 160 acres. This includes the active fill area as well as the buffer. An
intermediate airport will require about 2,000 acres. This land is required for runways, ta�ways,
hangars and parking. This estimate includes space for expansion. In addition, the required land-use
safet��zones are provided at the ends of the runways. The development in the safety zone must be
limited to uses that are not noise sensitive, do not concentrate people and are of such height as not
to penetrate the airspace of safety zones above the graund. These land area estimates, while not
overly generous,are intended to provide sufficient flexibility to contain some typical airport problems
on-site. Some of the land areas could be designated for associated airport use such as industrial
development, which is less noise sensitive.
The table below shows the number of housing units that would have to be acquired if the sites were
developed fully under each density altemative. These figures assume only single-family residential
units were developed.
Table 5: Units to be Acquired for Large•Scale Uses for Density Alternative
� Regionslly.Sit� Landfill InteTmediate Airport
< , _ �:
; .
Density Alfernative ;. 160 Acres (.z589 sc�::miles) .2,000.Acres (3'189 sq. miles) :
1 unit/acre 160 units 2,000 units
1 unitrL.S acres 64 units S00 units '
1 unit/5 acres 32 units 400 units I
1 unit/10 acres 16 units 20p units
1 unitf20 acres 8 units 100 units
The more units or. the site, the greater the acquisition and relocation cost and thc greater social
disruption. At some paint along this spectrum, site acquisition for these purposes might become'
impossible. It is very difficult for local, regional or state officials to approve projec�: that require the
dislocation of large numbers of families. How many families would elected officials be willing to
relocate for these public purposes? For a new park? For a waste incinerator? If fewer families have
to be relocated, the process of siting such facilities will be easier.
Other considerations must be recognized. Since there will only be a limited number of these larger
facilities located in the rural area, is it valid to restrict development in the entire general rural service
area to make it easier to locate such facilities? What are the future needs for as yet unanticipated
facilities? What other facilities such as highways,pipelines,electric transmission lines or power plants
that are sited by groups other than the Council will need to be located in the rural area?
On the basis of this criterion alone, the lowest density(1 unit120 acres)would be the most preferabie.
16
Efficiency of Transition Area Development
Transitional development areas are those land areas located outside af, but adjacent to,the MUSA
where the land uses and level of services may eventually change from a low-density, rural pattern to
a high-density urban pattem. This definition does not consider "transitional areas" where the
develapment and related land uses are between an urban development pattern and an agriculturaI
land use pattern. 'I'he primary reason for designating a transitional area for land use planning is to
facilitate a planned change from unsewered, low-density, rural land uses to sewered, higher-density,
urban land uses.
Local communities with land adjacent to the MUSA(or freestanding growth centers,or sewered rural
centers) need to consider if any of those areas should urbanize and how fast. Then they need to
adopt a future land use plan that maps aut the future urban service areas. They also need to adapt
a sewer plan and capital improvements plan that will schedule the phasing-in of urban services based
on the community's financing capacity. The LUAC's analysis asked: what development density
standard would not obstruct the rural-to-urbar, transition process and would make the provision of
urban services financially, pnysically and politically possible?
At a density of one unit/acre, the resulting development pattern is urban. This area could receive
public sewers and water, but it would be very expensive. Resubdividing would be very difficult. At
one unit2.5 acres, providing urban services would be very e�ensive and perhaps impossible for
homeowners to afford. Due to the land area per house, resubdividing is potentially possible. This
density would be the most difficult to convert to urban densiry and land uses unless it had been
preplatted, since the individual sewer and water services would be so costly. Land subdivided at a
one-unit/five-acre density could more readily be converted to urban densities, as it would be easier
to resubdivide larger lots.
A one-unit/10-acre density can be more easily resubdivided to a higher densiry, especially if it were
preplatted. The feasibiliry of efficient transition to urban densities at one unit/10 acres is second only
to the one-per-20 dersity, which is clearly rural. The large land parcels discourage urban small lot
development and make the feasibilit��of subdividing 20-acre parcels into small urban lots the greater
of t�e five alternatives.
Transportation - Transit
The area beyond the MUSA, be it commercial agriculture or general rural use, is not eligible to '�
receive either regular-route transit service such as that provided by MTC, or Metro Mobility Service.
These services are restricted to the urban area due in Iarge part ta the high cost of providin� such
service to a Iarge, low-density area. Transit in the rural area is provided in each county through a
variety of special transportation programs. These special transportation services are intended to serve
persons who are elderly,physically and mentally disabled, mobiliry limited and low income. The types
of trips served include medical, shopping, social service, congregate dining and recreation.
The funding for these sen�ices comes through the Regional Transit Board (RTB) and county social
service agencies from a variety of sources,including the rural area property tax dedicated ta exurban
transit serviee, and state and federal government assistance. Volunteers, including indi��i�uals,
community groups and businesses, contribute significantly to some of these systems.
17
The following analysis describes some of the transit services and demand that exists in the rural area
of the region and presents possible implications of tural development at various density� levels. It
complements the human services analysis (see next section) since the use of a variety of human
services is heavily dependent on transporting the user to the provider.
A re��iew of funding for each of the nine separate programs found that fares only produce four
percent of the revenue needed ta operate these systems. Subsidies are contributed in the following
manner: local government and others, 30 percent; federal, 8 percent; statc govemment, 36 percent,
and the exurban property tax, 22 percent. In manv cases, these programs use volunteers extensively.
Such volunteers may drive their own cars to take individuals to and from medical appointments or
xo act as dispatchers or provide other assistance. The volunteers generally receive reimbursement
for costs such as mileage and parking.
Various performance measures were reviewed. The appraximately 250,000 rides provided in 1989
cost an average of$6.84 each. The average fare received for these trips was 29 cents and the subsidy
was over$6.50 per ride. Since volunteers are used extensively to provide this service,the costs would
be much higher if paid staff were used exclusively.
The high cost and low revenues are not surprising. The low density of the rural areas served require
driving long disfances to pick up individuals and take them to shopping centers, senior centers and
medical clinics. In many cases, individuals need to go into the urban area for special medical
treatment not available in the rural area. Since the cost for this trip is not covered under most health
insurance plans, individuals seek out other options.
Conclusions:
• The more people that move to the rural area, the higher the number of potential users of special
transportation services. Due to the low density of the area, passenger miles will be higher,
resulting in a higher unit cost for service, which, in tum,will result in a higher subsidy.
• The average cost for special transportation trips in 1988 was about 56.85 per ride, while the
average subsidy was appro�mately �6.50 per ride. The costs are much lower than they would
be if it were not for v�lunteer drivers and other contributions. The level of volunteer activities
range from 100 percent of the service provided b��the Dakota Count}�Volunteer Transportation
Program, to no contributions by the Dakota Counry Area Resources for Seniors (DARTS)
program. More typically,volunteer contributions range fram the�l percent of the service hours
provide� by the'Senior CommLniry Services Program in Hennepin County, to the 69 perc�nt oE
the hour� provided in Anoka County. Volunteers accounred for 25 percent of xhe trip miles
provided by the Senior Transportation Program of Hennepin County to 6$percent in the Carvcr
Counry Rura1 Transportation Services Program. Without these contributions, the cost of the
average ride could be double or triple ihe average cos� (Of course, this is not true of the two
Dakota Count� programs.)
In comparison, the average total cost of a Metro Mobility ride today is about $1Q. This
represents a subsidy of about$8.50. Regular route transit service in the region costs an average
of$1.5? per ride, which includes a subsidy of about $1.10.
18
• The density of development in the rural area, even at the highest level evaluated (1 unit/1 acre),
is far from the density required to achieve cost effective use of regular route transit. Other than
using volunteer�, there is no inexpensive way to provide transit in the rural area.
• Based on this criterion alone, the lowest density alternatives are preferable, since they will hold
down demand for special transportation services.
Human Services
While the definition of "human services" can be quite broad, for the purposes of this analysis a
nanower interpretation was used that includes social welfare/support, medical and public health
services,but excludes speciat transit service,local government administration--fire,police,emergency,
etc., and local school facilities/education.
If public costs for human seivices are studied, population densities in the ranges considered in this
study (1/10 acres, 1/5 acres, 1/2.5 acres, 1/1 acre) are all at such low densities that there can't really
be any economies of scale achieved for most human services. For all these proposed densities, transit
problems are the greatest challenge. It is only at urban densities that sorne economies of scale for
mast human service design, administration and delivery can be reached. Therefore, there is probabIy
no clear, linear relationship between human-service�osts.and papulation density for the rural area.
Rather, the population characteristics of ia-migrants have the strongest effect on human-seivice
demands in new development--whether in the general rural use area, a freestanding growth center
or a rural:center. The variables that most likely affect human-service costs in the short-run include:
• Need for transportation (low income, youth, elderly)
• Any costs associated with creating and staffing satellite service sites{especially if the counties feel
pressure to open up local, accessible service centers)
• Self-selection of in-migrants from among persons with greater service need (e.g., welfare
recipients specificall5 selecting a home in a rural area to put their kids in rural schools and avoid
the stigma they feel in more affluent suburban schools)
• Self-selection af in-migrants from among person.e with higher service expectations (e.g., e�c-
urbanites who move to rural areas to escape "poor service" associated with urban areas)
• Different characieristics of persons who are attracted to different lands of hausing options
(contrasts Kbetween those who move to hobby farms and those who move to rural housing
developments; mobile home parlts or single houses on one acre).
19
Conclusions:
• In the short-term, there will be discrepancies between the new in-migrants and the indigenous
population in their level of expectation for human services. In-migrants'expectations for"formal"
services(i.e.,services provided by agencies and/or government--contrasted with"informal"services
provided primarily by family, neighbors and friends) are likely to be higher, resulting in potential
conIlicts about IeveLs of public service, taxes, etc.
• Unit costs for human services will be higher in rural areas than in urban areas, particularly if rural
area human-service workers demand wage parity with their urban counterparts. In sparsely
papulated areas,economies of scale are harder to achieve, and the ancillary cost of social-servic�
transportation (because of geographic distances) makes service more expensive.
• In the longer term, the need for human services in the rural areas will grow disproportionately
faster than historical rates because (1) the in-migrants will eventually age and need help to
maintain their iadependence, and (2} cunent trends in human services are to reduce the
concentrations of persons who are likely to use services--disabled, handicapped, elderly, etc.
• "Aging in place"and"mainstreaming"persons with disabilities (descn'bed above)wili make human
services increasingly dependent on adequate transportation services. Transit is the glue that holds
the human service system together--if the services are available, you will have to travel to get
them--or have them travel to get to you (this would also affect cost).
. • Different standards will be developed for human services in rural areas. For example, the
Council's health policies were developed aclrnowledging different standards for services in urban
and rural areas. Because of the population density and cast-efficiency factor, (a) availability of
seivices, (b) the types of services available, and (c) response times for emergency services are
different in urban and rural areas. It is proposed that persons who choose to live in rural areas
will have agreed to a different level and quality of services,commensurate with the resources and
constraints of a rural setting.
• The type of housing that is developed, and the kind of commercial development that is
accomplished will profoundly affect the characteristics of persons who choose to in-migrate.
Attracting affluent persons may result in higher service expectations and standards (and costs);
in-migrants who are raising families will increase the need for educational facilities and public
transit; in-migrants who are less aff:uent may be at higher risk of needing welfare services during
economic slow-downs; etc. All in-::ligrants will eventually get older anc� need some public or '
private assistance to remain independent
20
Local Government Services
Four local services were analyzed: fire protection, police, emergency medica] and solid•waste
collection. Due to the nature of these services, specific differentiation between the density
alternatives vvas not possible: Instead, the standards were included to allow a better understanding
of how these services compared to the urban area of the regior.. The followin� conclusions were
reached:
• Fire, police, emergency medical and solid waste services are aI1 available in the rural area.
• While services are available in the rural area, the level of service is less than in the urban area.
Resgonse times for fire, police and emergency medical setvice are longer. Some communities do
not have 24-hour police patrol service.
• Clearly, in the case of fire rotection,
P the cost of service in a rural area, reflected in fire
insurance premiums, is higher. Emergency medical service is also more expensive because of the
greater distances traveled.
An attempt was made to quantify the impacts the altemative development densities might have on
the levels of local govemment services that may be demanded. The changes in operating and debt-
service expenditures by local govemments for police,fire,streets and sewer and water were compared
to the increases in the number of households. Data for both rural and urban communities were
re�i�wed. No statistical evidence was found supporting the theary that more households wiil
automatically result in a higher per household level of expenditure for all services. The level of
service offered by local governments in the region varies widely, and is a function of many factors,
including a lot of"intangibles" like the cunent level of service that exists, political concerns, history
and expectations of residents. Anecciotal evidence suggests that if new residents with higher
ea-pectations move inco a community, it increases the likelihood that they will demand higher leveis
of service,such as paving a previously graveled road, faster snow removal ar new park and recreation
facilities.
LOT SIZE AI�'I? CLUSTERING
The regional densitv policy establishes the limit of how much development should occur in the rural
area. But how the densiry polic,y is imglemented is also very importani. The policie.s on lot sizes and
clustering that accompany the density standard provide for flexibiIity to meet local and regional
planning objectives.
Cunent Council policy for the general rural use area evolved from an earlier density policy, which
recommended a maximum residential density of one housing unit per ten acres,wit�: a minirnum lot-
size recommendation of 2.5 acres, The maximum area over which tne density could be calculated was
not specifed. In their comprehensive plans prepared in the early 1980s, a number of communities
proposed variations of the policy that calculated densitv on a community-wide basis. While the
Counci:found that clustering could preserve large areas of open rural land, it was concerned that the
densit}� limit x�as not tied to a specific land area and could allow large-scale development to
concentrate in one area.
21
The policy was reviserl in the 1986 Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF�.
The 2.5-acre minimum lot size was droppeci, and the requirement that densiry be calculated over 4Q
acres was added. Provided that the 1/10 density is not exceeded, there is fle�bility for local
governments to develop their own lot size and other zoning or subdivision regulations.
There is demand and justification for additional flexibility in the policy for a number of reasons:
• The policy needs to adapt to the diverse character of the rural landscape. Some areas have good
agricultural soils that are actively farmed. Some areas have lakcs,wetlands,wildlife areas, large
areas of public lands or diff'icult soil conditions.
• Clustering could encourage a more efficient and cost-effective development pattern.
• Homes on large lots may be more disruptive to agricultural operations than clustered
development or smaller lot sizes at the same density.
• More flexibility may improve acceptance of the overall density policy by local govemments.
Alternatives
_ _ ._.._ _ _ .. _ _. .
A wide variety of zoning flexibiliry devices that could be used to implement an overall density policy
were examined. They generally fell into the following categoriess
Minimum lot size: The simplest and most common zaning standard for implementing a densiry palicy
is a minimum lot size. A 10-acre minimum lot size would effectively implement a one per 10 density
policy. It is easy to administer. But it can result in an inefficient development pattem, and wastes
land because the lots are too large for the house but not large enough for another use such as
farming. Large lots also result in more land removed from agricultural production than if the lot size
were smaller. In fact, it rnay be desirable to control the maximum lot sizes if agricultural preservation
is the goal. The Council does not cunently recommend a minimum lot-size requirement as a method
to irnplement the density poIicy, nor does it recommend a maxirnum.
Performance zonin�: In its pure form, a performance zoning ordinance would establish maximum
permissible impacts which must not be exceeded by a development. If the standards are met, any use
is permitted. A disadvantage of this approach is that large data sets must be developed, maintained
and interpreted to determine land capabilities, which can require significant staff resources and
administrative burdens. Therefore, few communities use a purely performance approach to zoning,
but performance standards used i;a tandem with more traditional zoning is very common. An
important example of performance standards are requirements for on-site sewage disposal systems.
The required lot size may vary depending upon soil characteristics. A house may require only a one-
acre lot where soil conditions are excellent, but may require 5ve acres where soils are marginal.
Where soils are unsuitable for on-site systems, no development should be permitted.
The Council currently provides performance standards guidelines for on-site systems as part of its
Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan. Not all local comprehensive plans are consistent
with these requirements. And the extent to which communities actually enforce the standards they
adopted in their plans is not clear.
22
Transfer of development ri�hts (TDRI• TDR is an approach to zoning where the right to develop
�s separated from the property and may be transferred to another parcel. In some cases a TDR
development rights 'bank" is established to facilitate transfers to other owners, or the local
government itself might purchase development rights from some parcels. Administration of a TDR
system can be very complex. It is also a fairly new approach that may run counter to traditional
notions of property rights. Use o€TDR in Minnesota has been extremely rare, although limited
versions have been incorporated into cluster zoning concepts in a few communities.
Clustering and nlanned unit developments (PUD) In a c}uster development, individual lots may be
as small as practical,provided the number of units does not exceed that permitted byxhe density limit.
For example, on a 160-acre parcel with a 1 per 10 density limit, 16 units could be clustered on small
lots on one part of the site, with the remainder of the land reserved for open space or agricultural
use. Clustering provisions in zoning ordinances may be simple or complex FUD provisions are one
mechanism that may be used. 'I'he advantages of clustering are many. Homes can be sited to take
advantage of site amenities such as woods or lakeshare, or ta avoid development constraints such as
poor soils for septic systems or wetlands. Costs for public improvements such as streets and utilities
can be reduced, which may reduce the cost of housing and ongoing setvice costs. More land can be
ke�t in large parcels suitable for farming, or to profect sensitive environmental features. A primary
disadvantage of cluster development is that it is more complicated to administer then conventional
minimum lot-size zoning,
Issues that clustering policies must consider include:
• Defining developable land. Should public land areas be included when determining the permitted
number of units to be developed under a clustering approach? What about other undevelopable
land, such as wetlands or steep slopes?
• Maximum area for clustering. Cornputing derisity over larger areas would increase flexibility.
Options considered include clustering based on the current 40-acre standard, 160 acres,640 acres
or even a community-wide basis. As the size of the area and the number of tand owners increase,
clustering becornes more complex and rnay require the use of tools such as TDR. And, as the
size of the area increases, so does the number of units that can be clustered in a small area. The
resulting development might be out of character with a ruraI community, and may result in
demands for urban-level services.
• Minimurn area for clustering. A pan of any clustering scheme will be the miaimum amount of
land requireri for each unii. This could be determined by a lot size, or by performanceatandards.
Current Council policies would indicate that a minimvm should be determined by the standards
for indrvidual �n-site sewage disposal systems, The minimum size could possibly be decreased
with the use of community drainfields. Current Council policies, however, would support such
systems only to abate poIlution problems from existir�g developments. f�nd many communities
and homeowners may not find them acceptable. These issues were addressed in the
recommendations for a revised clustering polic5•, which are found in the following section of this '�
report.
��
TRANSITION AREA DEVELOPMENT
Local units of govemment need to consider whether urban development is going to come to the rural
service area of their communities. If communities do not plan for their future urban service areas
before development oc:.urs,it is possible that land uses and development patterns may later black the
contiguous, efficient and cost-effective extension of urban services. This can result in added costs at
the local level, and under-used metropolitan sewer interceptors with Iess urban density development
to pay the fees that 6nance the system.
Council staff researched local comprehensive plans and talked with local planners in a number of
Metro Area communities that have experienced th�urbanization of rural land,and prepared a series
of case studies. Their planning for the conversion of rural land to urban land generally fit into one
of three approaches:
(1) Large-lot or iow-densiry residential development; no urban development without public sanitary
sewers.
(2) Large-lot or low-densiry residential development,with"overlay"or"ghost"platting to demonstrate
how the lots can be re-subdivided into urban-size lots when publie sewer service is available.
(3) Small-lot subdivisions without central sanitary sewers.
: The first approach to transition area development is the most consistent with the Council's current
policy for the rural area. One advantage of this planning approach is'that iocal lar�d use eontrols
allow the community to provide urban services in urbanizing areas in a rational, orderly and
sequential manner. Requests for extension of urban services to land outside the MUSA are not
approved until the existing urban land supply is developed. If the land is in a future urban service
area, then the community's capital improvements'plan can schedule the extension of urban services
at the apgropriate time. Land uses and development patterns that migh: later obstruct the extension �
of urban services are not allowed. The case study communities that have used this planning approach
appe2r to have succeeded in keeping large, rural, undeveloped and unsezviced parcels of land intact
until they can be completely subdivided inte small lots and provided with urban senzces.
The second approach, "overlay" or "gfiost" platting, could alsa be workable but is dependent on the
resubdivision overlay plan. An advantage is that the approval of future urbar, develogment can be
made subject to the availabiliry of sewer serviee, and the communiry can allow� reasonable lan3 uses
ir. the �nterim period. Another advantage is that it can control the pattern of new and future
development, if there are stipuIations on the recorded plat. A disadvantage is the neeci to repeat the
subdivision process and deal with many property owners instead of one or two. This apgroach is
more complicated, requires more staff expertise and is more difficult to administer, and there is tittle
or no successful experience with it in the region. But even with an overlay p:at,there is no guarantee
that owners of land or homes in the subdivision will agree to have thei: neighborhood divided to
cr�ate small urbar. lots served by public sewer and water. When the re-subdivision plan and
assessments for the installation of public services are proposed, prapertS• owners ma�� block the
process of urbanization by fighting the service assessments. The result is higher costs, because
services are not eartended as planned.
24
The third approach, permitting small lots without central sanitary sewers, clearly has the mast
potential for creating problems. First, the small-lot development pattem encourages local residents
to think that this is a permanent development pattern that will never be urbanized. When the
proposal is made to extend sewer and wacer services into the area,homeowners find themselves faced
with very high assessments and unable to resubdivide their property into urban-sized lots. The locat
unit of govemment may find that it is politically impossible ar prohibitively expensive to install sewer
and water lines because of how the area was allowed to develop. The community's ptans for urban
development with urban services may be frustrated, or it may be necessary to skip over these areas
to provide services to more remote locations at a more expensive cost. Another potential
disadvantage of this planning approach is that the failure of on-site sewage disposal systems on these
small, contiguous lots can lead to the premature and expensive extensian of sanitary sewer service
if replacement drainfield sites are not available.
Land uses for the rural-to-urban transition area were also considered. Local govemments may want
to consider whether the land uses permitted in such areas would discourage or prevent urbanization
in the future. For example, a use that requires a spacious, isolated rural location should probabty not
be located where it is likely to be surrounded by incomgatible urban development in the future.
Transition areas are not cunently part of a separate policy area in the NIDIF, so there are no specific
land use or development policies recommended. There are potential regional impacts,as well as local
impacts,from improper development of areas that will be needed for future urban development. The
Council shauld provide guidance for regional as well as local govemment planning for transition areas
in the MDIF, and in its policy plans for the regional sewer and transportation sy�stems.
�
�caMMErrDaTTONs
Recommendations for changes to the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework(MDI�
policies for the nual seivice area are summarized below. Table 6 compares the eavsting MDIF policy
with the new poiicy recommendations. The Metropolitan and Comrnunity Developmenf Committee
has approved these recommendations for public meeting purposes.: Final policy recommendations
will then be formulated to be incorporated into the MDIF. Actual amendment of the IvIDIF will
' occur following additional public hearings yet to be scheduled. Some of the recommendations may
also require amendments to other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, such as the
policy plans far wastewater treatment or transportation.' The comments that follow each policy
statement provide additional information or background discussion.
1: PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURE
The Couacil should continue its efiorts to preserve land suitable for agricultnral activities. This
support should be ret]ected in the MDIF and other appropriate policy documents. The Councii
shouId re-examine the agricultural preserves legislation to determine how it might be modified to
be mare effective in preserving all types of agricuttural land in the region consistent with regianal
policies. _
_ _ _ - - _ _ __ _ . _ ,
The Council conrinues to strongly support the preservalion of cammercial agriculture and intentis '
all rural area policies to be compatible with this goal. The recommended revisions should not be
thought of as suggesting changes in the present planning and zoning for land enrolled in agricultural
preserves. All of the recommendations were made after consideration of how they might affect
agricultural activities.
2: LAND USE
The Council should clarify and expand on the explanation af compatible land uses in the rural
area.
Defining rural land uses compatible with the Council's general rural use area and agricultural
policies should not be interprered as a mandate to local government to allow or encoura�e such uses.
The Council onty intends to make i�easier forlocal government officirrls and residents to understand
Council poticies.
This poliry c1ariJ"rcation should not be iruerpreted thnt all cornparible land uses, located anywhere
in a communiry or of any size, will be acce�tnble to the Council. The planning and permuring of
all land use must conrinue in the same manner as always.
3: LOT SIZE/ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The Council should maintain its present policy of not requiring a minimum lat size in the rural
area if the affected communities adopt a set of procedures and standards that ensure the proper
design, location, installation, maintenance and oa-going monitoring of oa-site sewage dispasal
26
systems. Specifically, the following standards shonld be followed:
All elements oi MPCA 7080 rules should be follawed by the community.
A11 tacets of the Council's standards governing the design, location, instatlation,
maintenance and monitoring of septic taak system include:
o Installation
o Permit record keeping
o Correction of problems
o Licensing
o Personnel to administer pmgram
o Inspection
o Data collection
o Ordinance mmpliance
o Work records
The Council require that all communities require an aiternative drainfield to be sited at the
time of issuing a building permit that meets the soil and percolation tests of the primary
system.
- - The Council require communities to develop and implement an adequate well-testing -
program which wi11 detect problems with failing on-site sewage treatament systems. Such
programs should be consistent with and compatible with state requirements and standards.
The Council require all rnmmunities to certify they have met these standards prior to
approving lacal plan amendments or before the Council recommends approval of FHA
mortgage insurance.
The Council should review its existing policies concerning community on-site sewage
disposal systems and package treatment plants in the rural area given the recommendations
contained here and due to the improved technalogy which is or may become available in the
future.
The additional performance standards for on-site sewage disposal systems are included because
of the propased increased flezibiluy for clustering and the importance of protecting the region's
groundwater Qnd the health of rtual area residents. The revised policies would allow a
Sl
gnificant number o home
f s to be burlt quue close to one another. The performance standards
are inrended to provide a system to detecr problems early, provide methaLs ro cost eff'ecrively
correct problems, should they occur, and Io prorect against failing on-site systems
Communities that presentty have performance standards consistent with cu�rent Council policy
will need to put the adduional requiremen�r into effect.
The Council is also committed to providing an education program for homeowners concerning i
the proper use of and maintenance of on-site systems. The Cauncil will prepare guidelines
concerning what would be considered an adequate education program for this purpose, a�d help
prepare and distribute this information to local and county govemments slwuld these ch�nges
be adopted
27
4: TRANSITION AREAS
T�ie Council should adopt pol�cies to protect the regioaal interest in efficiently expanding the
MUSA into the rural area ia s staged and plaaned manner and to help local governments provide
for this transition.
The Council policy should ret7ect LUAC r�commendations that the most e�cient wa}•to allow this
transition to occur is for the local unit to limit development to a very low density. The Council
need not restrict communities from utilizing other tools, such as ghost platting, to address the
transitioa area. The Council should educate communities to the pros and cons of the various
techniques that might be used to proF�ide for the transition to occnr.
The Council may not need to map a specific transitional ares or designate it as a "geographic"
policy area in the MDIF. T'he policy should provide guidelines for designation of such areas by
locai governments in their comprehensive pIans.
The Council intends this policy to giue it direction as well as local communities. Given the
potential adverse impacts that improper development in transition areas can cause, the Council
will determine what may need to be ad�ed to the MDIF, wasrewater treatment and
-- - transportation policy plans to errsure proble»u do not occur. -
Since the majar thncst of the transition area effart will be to educate local officinls of the
potential problems and alrernative methads to deal with them, the Council could start working
on this effort without nmending any policy document. The Council will review its fzcture work
programs to determine how much of its resources can be commined to this effort ir. tne near
future.
5: DENSTTY
A density of no more thaa one unit per 10 acres should be maintained in a11 areas outside the �
MUSA. The Councii should continne to encourage coma►unities to plan and zone land suitable far
agriculture at one unit per 40.acres or lower density.
The Council should more closely monitor locat gavernments to ensure that their plans and
regulations are consistent with the density standard.
The Council should r�qnire amendments to locai plans that are inconsistent with the CounciYs
ciensity policies because of the potential impact to the regional transportation and wastewater
systems.
The commitment to the ezisting one unit per 1 D acre densiry in the general rural use area is
: made based on an eztensive ezaminarion of the potential impacrs of higher and lower density
levels. Ihe analysrs of the density alternatives illusrrated potenrial impac:� on merropolitan
systems from increased development in the rural area. Given us widespread use and
counterbalancing positive and negative impacts of the other densiry levels, it was determined that
the 10-acre densuy services both local and regionnl purposes.
28
6: CLUSTERING
The Couneil should change its clustering policp to provide the maximum ilexib€Iity ta communities
to protect agriculture, preserve naturaj areas and to meet the density standarc}s. Areas of Iakes,
regional highwa�ys and land already developed should be subtrac�ted irom the land area ior
csilculating allowable units. I,end in the MLJSA would not be part of this calculatioa. State snd
regional parks and preserves and wetlands may be used to calculate allowable units. The number
of units that exist in the rural area would have to be snbtracted irom the allowable units. The
intent of the policy is to allow communities to adopt clnstering that is appropriate for their goals
and characteristics,but the techniques must be consistent with their plans,zoniag and subdivision
ordinances.
Two alternatives for clustering are offered for public comment;
Option A:
Clustering should be permitted and calculated on a standard quarter-section (160 acres) basis.
Given the 1/10 density, and no minimum lot size, the allowable 16 units could be clustered on a
relatively small parcel of land within the quarter-section and the remaining land preserved. This
option wovld not prohibit clustering the allowable devetopment from two, three or four_quarter-
sections to occur in close proximity, although this is not encouraged.
Option B:
Clustering should be permitted and caleulated on a standard section (640 acres) basis. Given the
1i10 density, and no minimum lot size, the allowable 64 units could be clustered on a relatively
small parcel of Iand within the section and the remaining land preserved. This option would not
prohibit clustering the allowable development from twq three or four sections to occur in close
proximity, although this is not encouraged.
The suggestion ro modify the Council's clustering policy is made wirh the intent of further
prorecting agricultural activity and nntural areas in the rural area, by providing more flexibilit}�
to local governments to plan their communities. The LUAC analysis poinled ou1 that ihe 4/40
policy did not help preserve open space or farnu that did not qualify for agricultural preserves.
By allowing more clusterin� large contiguous areas can be protected.
The MCDC has chosen to provide two clustering alternatives for discussion at t�ie public -
m�erings. The two alternarives will help ensure that public'cornmerits adriress both the
advantages and disadvantages of clustering on smuller or larger areas.
7: I?�'CONSISTENT COhiMUNITIES
Some communities may rnd it impossible to meet the new policies for the general rural use area
due to their existing development pattern. The Council should accept that there will be instances
when an exception may be warranted. Exceptions should only be considered when communities
cannot meet the poiic;v t�ecause of the existing subdivision of land or improvements thereon. The
Council sbould determine the content of the exception based on how weli the community has:
29
A. Protected good agricuttural land;
B. Implemented the on-site sewage disposal pertormance standards;
C. Adopted a comprehensive plan consistent with all Metmpolitan Development Guide
Chapters, esgecially sewers, transportation, aviation and parks.
?�is procedure will only be used if a community cannot meet the new policies due to the
amount and location of eristireg development or permitted buildable lots, not because a political
agreement cannot be reached localty. It is not intended as a loophole to avoid the requirements
of the policy. A method of dealing with inconsistent communiries, given the present application
of FHA mortgage guidelines, is especially needed at this time.
30
Table 6: Comparison of Existing and Recommended Policy Qptions
for the Rural Aree
Eavsting Policy Policy Recommendatioas
Preservatioa of Local gwernments designate land for long-terrn No change; the Council should rearamine the
Agriculture agricutture use to be considcred part of the agricultural preserves legisiatipn to determine
"Commercial Agriculturai Area." 'Ihis area baw it might be modi6ed to be more effective
should be ptanned for a development density no in preserving ali types of agriculturat land.
greater than i dwelling per 40 acres. Land is
certi5ed by local government as eligible for the
Metropolitan Agriculcural Prescros Program.
Primary protection areas are lands covenanted
as agriculturai preserves. Secondary protection
areas are areas certified but not covenanted.
Land Uses Limited direction for Council and local Cla ' and e
nfy xpand on the p�liry for
govemments regarding land uses beyond compadble land uses ia the tnrai area,
agriculture,singte-famity residential and a permitdng more flexibility. Additionai land
timited number of"urban-generated uses." uses wi11 be subject to establis6ed planning
-- - _ criteria and community plans and reguiations.
Lot Size No minimum lot size recommended within No minimum lot size recommended,lot size is
overail density limitation of 4/40, to be determined
bY Perfotmance standards for
adequate on-site sewage disposal systems.
On-Site Sewagc Council standards for on-site systems are Increased performance standards:
Disposai Systems currently found in the Wastewater Treatment •
and Handling Policy Plan. Ail communities , a� elements of MPCA 7080 ru�es,
Ali communities to adopt all
should adop[standards for. standards in Wastewater Treatment
• Installation and Handting Policy Plan, including
• Permit record-keeping inspeaian programs, regardless of
• Correcpon of probiems development density permitted.
� �ce��g • Reqvire an altemative drainfietd be
• Personnel to administer sited at the time of issuing a building
P�O�� permic, meeu*�g soi!and percolation
Cammunities perm9tting densities greater than scandards of the rima
p ry system.
4/40 are ta implemen[ additional standards for. • Require an adequate well-tesung
� I��1On program to detect failing on-site
• Daca coilection sewage d'uposal systems.
• Ordinance c�mpliance • Require ali communicies to cenifv
• Work recards the}•have met ihese standards prior
co approving tocal plan amendments - ''
or approval of any FfiA mortgagc
reviews.
Transition Areas No specific support in MDIF for planning for Councii to ado t t�c�es eo
tnnsition areas outside of the curcent p � ��� �e
regional interest in efficientty expaadiag the
Metropoti[an Urban Service Area (MUSA)_ MUSA Most efficient way is to limit
development to very iow density,although
"ghast platting" may be utilized. Provide
guidelines for desigrsation of transition areas in
iocal comprehensive plans.
31
Existing Policy Policy Recommendations
Density One uait per ten acres,computed on the basis One unit per un acres. Tbe Couacil should
of 40-acre parcels. No required plan more ciosety monitor local plans to eciwre they :
modifications when inconsistent communities conform and require amendments to �
submit p►an amendments,except in cases inconsistent loca! pians due to the potential ,
imolving speci5c negative impacts on impact to the regioaai transpcxtation and waste �
metropolitan systecns. water systems. �
Clustering Density computed on the basis of 40-acre Option A: Densiry oomputed�the basis of +
(quarter-quarter section) parcels(4/40). 160-acre (quarter�ection)parcels (16/160).
Ophoa B: Density computed on tbe basis of
640-acre (one section or square mile)parceis
'(64/640).
�
Fxclude only areas of lakes, regianal tughw�ays
and land already developed for caiculating ;
ailowable unics. State and regional parks and
weUands may be used for calculating allawabie
units.
Communities with No exceptions or pravisions far addressing Fxceptions shouid be considered for
Inconsistent Policies communities that may have developed at ootnmunities thar cannat meet the poliry
__ - - - -
densities acceeding Council policies. because of the existing subdivision of iand or
improvemenrs thereon. The Council ahould �
determine the content of tb�exception based �
oa how well the community has:
� • Proteeted good agricultural land; �
• Implemented the on-sice sewage
disposai performance standards;and
• Adopted a comprehensive pian ;
consistent with all Metropolitan
Development Guide chapters,
especiaily sewers, transportation,
aviauon and parks.
n:llieraykesplfibkomppl.nley.amm�r
32