The URL can be used to link to this page

6. Comp Plan regarding minimum lot sizes 1 , i . 6 C ITYOF ,, I CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 • MEMORANDUM Abd by City Administer Endorsed—_V D' - fit I TO: Planning Commission modified Rejected Dety 5 / 2.-9 Z FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II Date Submitted to Commissblf I -l5 -mot SUBJ: Minimum Lot Size in the Rural Service Area Dete Submitted to Council LUP 92 -1, ZOA 92 -1 6 -- i & - 5 z_._ I DATE: March 2 1 0, 1992 iPi . % BACKGROUND -, 1 This item was discussed before the Planning Commission on March 4, 1992. During the meeting, there appeared to be two major areas of concern. The Commission and staff 1 concurred that this item should be tabled. The first;ssue was the Planning Commission felt that there should be a minimum lot` size of 15,000. square feet in the rural area. The / amendment as proposed stated that there was no minimum lot size. The only stipulation III was that the lot had to be large enough to handle the required two drainfield sites. This would be consistent with the city's minimum lot size. I The other major issue was the impact of reducing the minimum lot on the existing rural lot subdivisions. Staff is recommending that the land use and code amendments apply to those lots created after the adoption the ordinance. The . Standards of those rural lots currently 1 in -place would remain the same. ANALYSIS The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance need to be amended to reflect these changes. Staff would recommend the following changes to the Land Use Element of the 1 Comprehensive Plan, Residential - Large Lot (R -LL) section, which states: "Large -Lot residential developments are subject to a minimum lot sizo of 2.5 acres I with an overall density limitation of one unit per ten acres... The only means by which new lots can be created is from clustering 2.5 acre lots at a gross density of 1 home per 10 acres." itrt PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 I Planning Commission March 20, 1992 I Page 2 The 2000 Land Use Map shall be amended to reflect this same change. I The Zoning Ordinance should be amended in the following g areas: I 1. Article X. "A -2" Agricultural Estate District. Section 20- 575, Lot Requirements and Setbacks I The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "A -2" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: I (1) The minimum lot area is two and one -half acres, subject to Section 20 -906. (2) The minimum lot frontage is two hundred (200) feet, except that fronting on I a cul -de -sac shall be two hundred (200) feet at width at the building setback line. (3) The minimum lot depth is two (200) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul -de- sac shall be two hundred feet at the building setback line. (4) The maximum lot coverage is twenty (20) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. I (6) The maximum height is as follows : a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories /forty (40) feet. b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories /forty (40) feet. I (7) The minimum driveway separation is as follows: a. If the driveway is on a collector street: four hundred (400) feet. b. If the driveway is on an arterial street: one thousand two hundred fifty I (1,250). I r • r• r e :!1 •r s r ',fYf r �•� r • ,}j11� r . • t 4 � . � T. a ` i . . r r ' • • • •f s T a �� , ;T , rTl �iT" i „ �i�� iii : ,, • t ,"�.e�1 ./ i! J., I 1 4/ ° ;#. d'c • r . a " #Wrirr- r / 4 ill I l Planning Commission Meeting t • April 15, 1992 - Page 15 assume from all the comments it's oin to be approved and ' g g PP nd they 11 be coming in with a very detailed plan later on and there will be a public hearing on that detailed plan. Is that right Paul? Krauss: Yes, exactly. Emmings: And local landowners will be notified again so you'll get to see I it in a lot more detail at that time and have another change to make comments and so forth. Conrad: I'll make a motion that staff prepare a PUD submittal responding to the issues raised in this Teport. Staff recommends that the PUD concept plan for the conference /spa center be approved subject to the following conditions and that's where we prepare a formal PUD submittal in response to the issues raised in the report. While working with staff on the final development and point number 2 in the staff report, respond to issues raised in the conceptual review which are not too many. Emmings: I'll second it. Are there any discussions? Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the PUD Concept Plan for the Spa /Conference Center be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in this report, while working with staff on the plan development. 2. Respond to issues raised by the conceptual review. • All voted in favor and the action carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Krauss: Oh by the way, I should add that you might actually see one of these developments occur. I was talking to Don Halla and Don has approval I for 35 lots I believe it is under that old 2 1/2 acre zoning. He's been asking me if he would qualify to basically replat his project under this new guideline. I spoke to the City Attorney and we both agreed that sure, I it seems to be in everybody's best interest to do that. We would still restrict him to that 35 lots that he was allocated under that pre '87 subdivision that he had because he's got a density problem. Emmings: But if he repiats, wouldn't he have to, why wouldn't he have to be 1 in 10? Krauss: Well, that's where he becomes grandfathered in. He's entitled to I right now, until 1994, to plat out his 35, 2 1/2 acre lots. Since that is construed to be in nobody's interest, why not let him get this 35 lots in al smaller corner of his property. Now that's under his grandfathering. Planning Commission Meeting April 15, 1992 - Page 16 1 Emmings: Yeah. So you leave him the same number of lots but you let him develop it under these new ordinances. Okay. Erhart: How many acres does he have total? II Krauss: I honestly don't remember. I mean it's something like 70 or 80 acres. I Emmings: Well yeah, if it was 35 lots, they were all about 2 1/2 each weren't they? II Erhart: Oh yeah, and that was the worst scenario. I was wondering if there was some way to negotiate that down a little. Middle kind of thing. Krauss: Well I'm sure, well I don't know. With Don I don't know if I'd use that word. We indicated some receptivity with working with him on it. Erhart: I was just trying to think your elimination of 7. What happens if somebody decides he wants to come in and do a development for 5? How with the 1 in 10, he may not be so rushed to take out 7. Say he wanted to do 5 acre lots. Would those restrictions still have some relevance? Krauss: It's really something we deal with in the subdivision process. Neither we nor the State or the County would allow somebody to have 6 entrance permits within 100 feet of each other. You know we would make the II person put in a cul -de -sac or a street or whatever else. Erhart: You're comfortable with that? II Krauss: Yeah. ' Emmings: That same provision appears on page 2 under number 1 for the A -2. Krauss: Yes, but that's the existing 5 acre ones or 2 1/2 acre ones. II Emmings: But that you want. Okay. Erhart: Misspelled word on page 4. Under Article 23 it left out the "1" ' in leased. Conrad:. Are we comfortable that the language is clear on page 2 at the bottom? The last...the following setbacks shall apply and the first one II which is talking about the minimum lot size is 15,000. Krauss: It should probably read the following standards shall apply. 1 Conrad: Yeah. Standards in one but my main point is, when you say or sufficient. Can that mean less than 15,000? Or do we say the larger of I either 15,000 or sufficient to accommodate two septics? Krauss: Well, that doesn't get at your question either the way you just worded it. II Conrad: The larger of either? Planning Commission Meeting II - April 15, 1992 - Page 17 Emmings: Just say comma, whichever is larger. Minimum is whichever of those two are larger. , Erhart: I think Ladd's got a good point. Emmings: Yeah. I think just change the period to a comma and say whichever is larger, you've got it. Erhart: Also, put square feet in after 15,000. , Emmings: And site should be sites. There should be an s after it. You're talking about two. And all those same comments would apply to what's at II the bottom of page 3. Change setbacks to standards. Krauss: Right. Emmings: 15,000 square feet, sites and whichever is larger. Erhart: In fact the whole line 1 would probably read better if you just II said two potential septic system sites. I think that's what we're really trying to say. Farmakes: Where is that? ' Erhart: The first line in all those standards. Just say two potential septic system sites. , Krauss: Well one's not potential. Erhart: Yeah once you build the house then it's not potential anymore. , Emmings: Anybody else? This is a free for all. Since there's nobody else here so does anybody else got any comments? Anybody want to make a motion? ' Matt like to make a motion? Ladd says Matt wants to make a motion. Ledvina: I recommend that the Planning Commission amend the Comprehensive II Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the report subject to our discussion here. Is that good enough? , Emmings: I'll second that. Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Erhart: Is that clear that that includes the discussion over on the second section? , Krauss: Yes. Erhart: SO we don't have to vote on two things? ' 1 1 1 1 1 AMENDMENTS TO THE 1 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK 1 (MDI) POLICIES FOR THE RURAL SERVICE AREA 1 1 1 Adopted 1 December 5, 1991 1 1 1 1 Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre ' 230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Publication No. 640-92 -012 1 1 1 AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND I INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (MDIF) INTRODUCTION 1 On the pages that follow are amendments to the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) that were adopted by the Metropolitan Council on December 5, 1991. The 1 amendments affect three sections of the MDIF. New language is indicated by underlining. Language that was deleted from the MDIF is stricken (stricken). Pages 1 -9 of the amendments modify pages 22 -25 of the MDIF, beginning with the section titled 1 "Rural Service Area." This is part of the Geographic Policy Areas section of the MDIF, and contains the policy statements. Pages 10 -14 are modifications to pages 33 -35 of the MDIF section titled "Planning and I Investment Procedures: the Council and Metropolitan Systems." This section gives direction for future revisions of other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide; in this case, the I Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan and the Transportation Policy Plan. A small change was also made to the section on parks which relates to the rural area. This change is being made now in order to incorporate policy direction from the recently adopted - Regional Recreation Open Space Development GuidelPolicy Plan. It is consistent with discussions of urban - generated uses, held in connection with the rural policy study. 1 Pages 15 -16 are two new appendices to the MDIF. The first is "Criteria for Council Approval of Local Plans That Are Inconsistent With MDIF Rural Area Policies." The second is "Land Uses III in the Rural Area." This clarifies for the Council and local governments what land uses are appropriate for the commercial agricultural region as compared to the general rural use area. For additional copies of this document, for the Metropolitan Development and Investment 1 Framework itself, or for additional background information, contact the Metropolitan Council Data Center, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101; telephone 291 -8140. The MDIF costs $5; the I other documents are free. Questions about the policy amendments should be directed to Anne Hurlburt of the Council staff, 291 -6501. 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK ' (MDIF) ' PART ONE MDIF, Page 22 -25 RURAL SERVICE AREA The focus of the Council's growth- management strategy of encouraging growth within an urban ' service area requires an accompanying policy that limits growth in the rural area. Extensive development outside the metropolitan urban service area is not appropriate because it can lead to premature and costly demands to extend regional services such as sewers and highways, and does not take advantage of regional investments that have been made in the urban service area. Development outside the urban service area contributes to urban sprawl and increases the costs of services. Some services that require higher concentrations of people to be cost- effective, such as transit, may become prohibitively expensive. Development in the rural area also results in demand for local services, and can change the I character of rural communities. While existing service levels may be low, new residents are likely to demand additional services. Development can result in erosion of the natural and man -made environment that attracted residents in the first place. Conflicts often develop between new 1 exurban residents and residents who depend on agriculture for all or part of their livelihoods. Development in the rural area can have adverse impacts on the quality of the natural ' environment. Protecting and maintaining the quality of surface water and groundwater is a key concern of the Council. While technological advances have improved on -site sewage disposal = systems, their proper installation and maintenance is still a critical concern. A common misconception is that agriculture and other rural activities are only temporary land uses, just waiting for the land to be developed. Most of the rural area will not be needed for ' urban development in the foreseeable future. Agriculture and rural land uses are legitimate and permanent land uses in these areas. As the region grows, there will be a need to expand the urban service area into some areas that are currently rural. There are potential regional, as well as local, impacts from inappropriate development of the rural areas that may be needed to expand the urban service area. If communities do not plan for their future urban service areas before development occurs, it is 1 possible that land uses and development patterns may later block the contiguous, efficient and cost- effective extension of local and regional urban services. 1 1 1 1 , . I The cumulative negative impacts of development that is inconsistent with the Council's rural area I policies may have a substantial impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan transportation and wastewater treatment systems plans. Therefore, the Council may require communities to modify comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the policies. 1 Some communities cannot comply with all of the Council's policies for the rural area because they have existing development patterns that are inconsistent with the policy. In the past, the Council I has found these plans to be inconsistent with regional policies, but has not provided a procedure for making exceptions _to the policy where it may be warranted. Criteria for Council approval of inconsistent plans are provided in an appendix to this document. Commercial Agricultural Area The commercial agricultural area includes those lands certified by local governments as eligible for I agricultural preserves under the 1980 Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. This approach places the responsibility for defining agricultural lands on local governments. With Council I protection policies for commercial agriculture focused only in areas where there are local government plans and protections, local and regional policies support one another. The amount of land included in the commercial agricultural area is large, covering about 600,000 1 acres in 19851990. This constitutes over half the farmland in the seven -county area. The geographic area defined as the commercial agricultural area is subject to frequent change I when tied to the Agricultural Preserves Act because land can go into and out of certification when local governments decide to alter its status. Local governments may replan and rezone certified areas if a change in policy is desired, but this change must occur as a public process. For I the purposes of this document, the commercial agricultural area is defined as the area certified as of March 1 of each year. This date is the end of each Council reporting year required under the Agricultural Preserves Act. 1 Under the Agricultural Preserves Act, a local government passes a resolution certifying land eligible for protections and benefits and limiting housing density to one unit per 40 acres. The certified area is then considered long -term agricultural land. The local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance must reflect this land use and zoning. Farmers owning land within the certified area may then enter the program. Land in the program is referred to as covenanted land. The I Agriculture Preserves Act provides protection for the farmer from urban assessments, property taxes at development value and conflicting land uses in exchange for a legal commitment to continue farming for at least eight years. I Within the commercial agricultural area, all land has been certified by local governments as eligible for the agriculture preserves program. However, the Council recognizes two levels of protection in the commercial agricultural area: primary and secondary protection areas. 1 Primary protection areas are lands covenanted as agricultural preserves. They will receive the greatest protection possible from incompatible uses because the greatest level of commitment to I farming has been established. 1 2 1 1 I , 1 Secondary protection areas cover the farms in the area that have not yet formed been covenanted as agricultural preserves. 1 The Council believes the commercial agriculture area is a place where agriculture is the best permanent use of the land. Long -term investments in farm equipment and in land preservation 1 can be made with the confidence that urban development is not going to destroy or limit these investments. General Rural Use Area ' The general rural use area is the area outside the urban service area that is not designated for commercial agriculture. Over 40 percent of the land in the Metropolitan Area falls in this 1 category. The area contains a wide variety of land uses, including agricultural, residential and urban -type facilities. There are sizable parts of the general rural use area that host no particular kind of land use - -land that is often called unused. Most of the area looks rural, but many of its 1 residents are tied economically to the urban area and many of its land uses provide services to people living in the urban service area. 1 General Farmland 1 A large part of the general rural use area is devoted to agriculture. The Council supports the continuation of agriculture and encourages local governments to support it by zoning agricultural ' land at one unit per 40 acres. For farms within an area so zoned that are subsequently certified eligible sign -up for the agriculture preserves program, the Council will reclassify them as part of the commercial agricultural area. 1 Rural Residential Development Rural residential development may be an appropriate land use in 1 areas that are hilly, wooded or otherwise unsuited to agricultural production. The -- Getman urbanization. The Council supports this type of use as long as the density does not exceed one ' housing unit per 10 acres of land. The Council will compute rural residential density on the basis of 640 -acre parcels (one square mile or section based on the public land survey). This will prevent excessive clustering of a large number of homes on small minimum lots that sizes, It • -• - - : _ - -_ -. - • - - - - - - -. - -• - could result in the • need for urban services, such as package sewecag disposal systems. ' Some communities in the rural area have significant land area in public parks and open space, or wetlands that are legally restricted from development. Others have protected large amounts of agricultural land by designating it part of the commercial agricultural area. The Council will recognize this when it applies the density policy. Lower densities in areas restricted from development may be used to balance higher densities in sections without such limitations, provided it does not result in excessive clustering that would create demands for services (such as sewer and water systems, storm sewers, roads and other urban services) not typically needed in 1 3 1 rural developments. The only areas that will be excluded from this calculation are surface water 1 and major metropolitan highway rights -of -way. The Council encourages communities to implement the density standard through clustering where , appropriate and consistent with local planning objectives. Implementing the density standard as a 10 -acre minimum lot size is simple to administer, but may result in an inefficient development pattern and in more land removed from agricultural production than if smaller lot sizes are used. Clustering may aid in adapting the density policy to the diverse character of the landscape. Some areas have lakes, wetlands, wildlife areas, large areas of public lands or difficult soil conditions that make clustering more desirable. Other areas have good agricultural land that can be protected through clustering, and used to balance the density of development on areas less suited to agriculture. The Council does not recommend a minimum lot size. Lot sizes in the general rural use area , should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they shall ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. All residential development in the general rural use area must be subject to the standards for proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on -going monitoring provided by the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan to ensure against negative impacts on the environment and the metropolitan wastewater treatment system. Existing Urban - Density Development Residential subdivisions, mobile home parks and clusters of moderate - density residential development also exist in the general rural use area. They frequently demand urban services but are in locations where urban services are difficult or costly to provide. The Council's principal concern is the potential need for the costly extension of central sanitary sewer and particularly metropolitan sewer service. = - _ - - - - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . .. _ . _ . - ' - - ' - - - •-: - - - - ' - - - -. Local governments with existing urban - density development should address the operation and maintenance issues of on -site systems to avoid potential problems and the eventual need for costly local investments. Urban - Generated Uses ' Many facilities exist in the general rural use area that require isolated and spacious locations but may be intended to serve the urban or entire metropolitan area public. These facilities include campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks, regional parks, trails, waste disposal installations, racing facilities, gun clubs, festivals, mining sites and similar facilities, and are usually public or quasi - public in nature. The general rural use area is an appropriate location for these facilities. The Council's interest is that these facilities are provided with adequate public services afleeraotely se>, consistent with local and regional plans, and to the extent possible, that they do not interfere with agricultural activities. , Other Land Uses In addition to agriculture, single- family residential development, existing development and urban - generated uses, there are other land uses that may be appropriate in the general rural use area. Whether or not a land use is appropriate depends on whether it is consistent with local and 1 4 I regional plans and if it meets all environmental quality standards. An appropriate land use would not require urban -level support services (such as highways, transit or sewers). Uses should be of a I scale compatible with the services available and the need to serve local market demands. To the extent possible, they should not interfere with agricultural activities. l One category of land uses that may be appropriate in the rural area is neighborhood convenience retail, such as a grocery store or gasoline station. If it is of an appropriate scale to serve local residents and does not need urban sewers or highways, it may be appropriate in the general rural I use area. _ Even though a particular land use may be acceptable from a regional perspective, the Council will not recommend that every community provide for every possible land use in its rural area if it I would not be consistent with local plans. Each community must determine whether particular land uses would be compatible with existing uses, local standards and the goals of the community. All uses would be subject to any local, regional or state permitting or licensing requirements. 1 Examples of uses that may be acceptable are included in an appendix to this document. Lot sizes for all land uses should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they I should ensure at least two sewage disposal drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. All development in the general rural use area must be subject to the standards for proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on -going I monitoring provided by the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan to ensure against negative impacts on the environment and the metropolitan wastewater treatment system. 1 Rural Centers Rural centers historically have served as retail service centers and transportation centers for the I surrounding rural area. However, changes in agriculture and rapid urban expansion have changed the traditional rural service roles of many of these small centers to residential areas for urban people and locations for industries with little tie to local agriculture. The latter make use of available labor in rural areas and, by their nature, tend not to be dependent on close contact with 1 other firms for their supplies or critically dependent on transportation. The Council has identified 35 rural centers, with populations ranging from just over 100 to more I than 5,000. Some rural centers, such as Norwood and Young America, encompass the entire corporate limits of the community. Others, such as Lake Elmo, are small enclaves within a larger rural community. I Services available within rural centers vary. Some have central sanitary sewer; others depend on on -site waste disposal systems. Some have central water systems. Some provide the full range of I convenience retail stores, while others have only a bar or gas station. Some have small manufacturing or service businesses; others are almost exclusively residential. The Council does not support the extension of regional systems to rural centers because of the distance from the 1 urban center and the small populations of rural centers. Rural locations in the past decade have been attractive and some, although not all, communities I have experienced an upsurge in growth, principally residential development. Development trends are down from the highs noted in the early 1970s but continue at modest levels into the 1980s. 1 5 II Several services are important in adequately serving additional rural center development, but 1 sewage disposal is the most critical. Urban - density development in an unsewered rural center poses the risks of on -site sewage system failure, contamination of groundwater and eventually the expense of new on -site or central sewer system installation. The possibility also exists that remedying a pollution problem may require an extension of metropolitan sewer service through rural areas. Lack of sewer service is a serious constraint on the amount and type of development that rural centers can safely accommodate. 1 Some parts of the rural Metropolitan Area, especially Anoka County, are receiving large amounts of scattered urban development. This scattered development poses service problems and may, at a later date, result in very high local service costs. The Council proposes a strategy that offers local government an alternative way to structure this development by designating and creating a "rural center." These new centers would be limited enclaves for urban - density land uses, facilities and services within the local governments' broader ser-porate jurisdictional, boundaries. They would not be coterminous with the entire solver-ate jurisdictional limits. Under this strategy, a local government would identify an area to receive urban - density residential, commercial and industrial development and the facilities, including local central sewer, where appropriate, needed to serve it. Financing of necessary support services would be a local responsibility. Areas of existing urban - density uses are likely candidates for selection as new rural centers. Rural centers should accommodate additional development consistent with their ability to finance and administer services, including sewer, roads, water and stormwater drainage. If additional land is needed to accommodate growth, rural centers should extend services in a staged, contiguous manner. Residential, commercial and industrial development at urban densities should be - accommodated only in rural centers with central sanitary sewers that are meeting state and federal water quality standards. Larger projects should be located in freestanding growth centers that 1 have a full range of services. Rural -to - Urban Transition Planning 1 Rural -to -urban transition areas are areas that may eventually be needed for expansion of the urban service area but are currently part of the rural service area. While these areas will not be considered a separate regional policy area, the Council encourages local governments to plan for potential expansions of the urban service area in their comprehensive plans. Communities planning for transition areas should consider land characteristics (such as soils, 1 wetlands, watershed boundaries, agricultural soil capability), existing land use and development patterns, the transportation system, and long -range plans for expansion of local and regional utility systems. Transition areas should generally be contiguous to the existing urban service area. In most cases, it would not include the entire jurisdictional limits of the local government, but might if the community wishes to plan for the eventual urbanization of the area. Land in a transition area should be protected from incompatible development patterns and land uses that may later obstruct the extension of urban services. The most effective strategy to protect the transition area is to restrict development to very low - densitv (one per 40 or less) residential development or agricultural uses, which preserves large parcels intact until they can be subdivided into small lots and provided with urban services. If residential subdivisions are permitted, clustering should be encouraged. The large parcels remaining may later be efficiently 1 6 1 resubdivided, and the smaller, clustered lots can be more economically provided with services or bypassed if necessary. 1 Local governments should use caution in implementing "ghost platting" or similar methods for subdividing land into large lots with the intention of resubdividing them when services are to be ' provided. Resubdivision and installing utilities in existing subdivisions can be a very difficult process and result in higher costs. The development pattern established may not be appropriate or desirable when the area is incorporated into the urban service area. Local governments may also want to consider whether the land uses permitted in transition areas would discourage or prevent urbanization in the future. For example, a use that requires a spacious, isolated location should probably not be located where it is likely to be surrounded by ' incompatible urban development in the future. The Council will review local comprehensive plans that include plans for rural -to -urban transition areas, but will not commit to the future extension of metropolitan services to serve the area or to any time frame for expansion of services beyond the urban service area. The Council will continue to apply its policies and criteria for expansion of the urban service area when a regional ' need has been demonstrated. The Council will support local efforts to prevent development incompatible with future urbanization. The Council will examine the need to plan for rural -to -urban transition areas in its metropolitan systems plans. Local plans will be considered but will not determine the transition areas designated for regional purposes. 1 RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES ' 17. The Metropolitan Council does not support extensive development outside the urban service area because it can lead to the premature expansion of local and regional services, and fails to take advantage of regional investments that have been made in the 1 urban service area. The cumulative negative impacts of development that is inconsistent with the Council's rural area policies may have a substantial impact on or constitute a substantial departure from metropolitan transportation and wastewater treatment systems plans. Therefore, the Council may require communities to modify comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the policies. The Council will consider exceptions to the policies for local governments that cannot meet the policies because of existing subdivisions or land development. Commercial Agricultural Area 1 :8. The Metropolitan Council supports the long -term continuation of agriculture in the • rural service area. The Council will use the following ranking in decisions to accommodate facilities serving urban residents. ' 1. Primary protection area: land covenanted in agriculture preserves will receive primary protection. Urban facilities should be prohibited in this area unless there 7 1 is strong documentation that no other locations in the Metropolitan Area can , adequately meet the siting and selection criteria. 2. Secondary protection area: lands certified but not presently in agricultural , preserves will receive a level of protection secondary to agricultural preserves. Urban facilities should not be located in this area unless there is strong evidence that a proposed urban use cannot be located in the general rural use area. 1 General Rural Use Area 1819A. The Metropolitan Council supports long -term preservation of agricultural land in the general rural use area. However, the Council will also support residential development at densities of no more than one unit per 10 acres computed on a 640 -acre basis (a maximum of sixty four units per 40-acres square mile based on the public land survey). The Council will allow land area in public parks or open space, wetlands that are legally restricted from development, and agricultural land that has been designated as part of the commercial agricultural area to be used to balance higher densities in sections without such limitations, provided that it would not result in excessive clustering that would created demands for urban services. The only areas that will be excluded from this calculation are surface water and maior metropolitan highway rights -of -way. 19B. The Council encourages clustering of residential development, which will result in a 1 more efficient development pattern and help to protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands. Lot sizes in the general rural use area should be determined by performance standards. At a minimum, they shall ensure at least two sewage disposal 1 drainfields on each site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. 19C. The Council will not extend metropolitan systems to serve urban - density residential development in the general rural use area. Where urban - density development already exists, a local government should address service issues in its plan, particularly on -site sewer system operation and maintenance. 19D. In addition to agriculture, single family residential development, existing development and urban - generated uses, the Council will support other land uses in the general rural use area, provided that they are consistent with local and regional plans. Appropriate rural land uses must meet all environmental quality standards, not require urban -level support services, and be of a scale compatible with the services available and the need to serve local market demands. To the extent possible they should not interfere with • agricultural activities. Rural Centers 2019 The Metropolitan Council will support a rural center's plans to accommodate additional 1 growth provided they are consistent with the center's ability to finance and administer services, particularly sewer service. The Council supports rural center service improvements but not at regional expense. 1 8 1 II I '210. The Council will support a local government's plan for a new rural center and its requests for state and federal grants, provided the local government restricts urban I densities from surrounding rural areas and will support the new center with necessary service investments. I Rural -to -Urban Transition Planning 22. The Metropolitan Council will encourage Local governments to plan for rural -to -urban I - transition areas in their comprehensive plans and will support local efforts to prevent development incompatible with future urbanization. The Council will not commit to the future extension of metropolitan services to serve the area until such time as there is a I demonstrated, regional need to expand the urban service area in accordance with established Council policies and criteria. Local plans will be considered but will not determine transition areas designated for regional purposes. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 PART TWO MDIF, Page 33 -35 PLANNING AND INVESTMENT PROCEDURES: THE COUNCIL AND METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS The Metropolitan Council is concerned with managing metropolitan systems in ways that will help realize the objectives for long -term development of the region as reflected in this document's 1 discussion of the geographic policy areas. The following metropolitan system guidelines provide direction to the Council's systems for developing the more detailed policies and programs contained in the individual system plans. The metro governance process, discussed later, explains , the procedures for carrying out the guidelines through the actions of the metropolitan agencies. METROPOLITAN SYSTEM GUIDELINES The Council is committed to providing regional services and facilities within the urban service area. However, the Council will not support development of facilities substantially in excess of forecasted need. The challenge to the Council and commissions is to find the middle ground between overbuilding and undersizing essential facilities. Some facilities that deliver services to the urban service area will have to be physically located within the rural service area even though they primarily serve people living in the urban service area. This may result from land requirements, the location of natural resources or the need for interregional connections. For example, solid waste landfills with requirements for large acreages will likely be located in the rural service area; sand and gravel extraction and regional parks depend on the location of the resource and often occur in the rural service area; and highways, power lines and pipelines that tie this region to other parts of the state and nation will have to traverse the rural service area. When urban facilities must be located in the rural area, they will be located, developed and operated in a manner that minimizes interference with agriculture and the rural settlement pattern. Sewers Only land within the urban service area will receive regional sewer service. Service will be provided in accordance with regional and local staging of development as outlined in the Council's sewer policy plan and local comprehensive plans that are in conformity with the Council's regional plan. The Council will take the necessary actions to provide metropolitan sewer interceptors and wastewater treatment plants adequate to transport sewage generated by users in the urban service area and to treat it to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the national pollution discharge elimination system permit for each treatment plant. Central sewer service currently provided in rural centers can continue at levels consistent with each center's ability to finance and operate systems locally. In rural centers or any other part of the rural area receiving regional sewer service, the Council will determine regional service allocations for sewer flow using the same procedures that are used for other communities located within the metropolitan urban service area. 1 10 1 1 . . • 1 The Council will assure the continuation of service adequate to meet the needs of development currently receiving regional sewer service. In order to meet this commitment, the Council 1 emphasizes the need to monitor the condition of older sewers and sewers with a history of problems, as well as the trends in sewage volume as opposed to design capacity. l The Council will also work for increased coordination between the sewer and the solid waste system in the area of planning and project development of composting and co- composting. Recycling residuals from the waste treatment process with municipal solid waste may help resolve 1 disposal problems confronting both the sewer and the solid waste systems. The Council will establish standards for on -site sewage disposal systems in the rural area to I protect the region's groundwater and the health of rural area residents, and to prevent the need for premature extensions of the regional sewer system. All elements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards for on -site sewage disposal systems should be followed in all areas. All I communities shall require at least two sewage- disposal drainfields to be located on each building site, a primary drainfield and a replacement should the original system fail. Except in the commercial agricultural area, all facets of the Council's standards for the proper design, location, installation, maintenance and on -going monitoring of on -site systems should also be adopted. The I Council will require all communities to certify that they have met these standards prior to approval of local comprehensive plan amendments or making favorable recommendations in project reviews. I The Council will review its existing policies concerning community on -site sewage disposal systems and package treatment plants in the rural area in light of the Council's policy to encourage I clustering in the rural area and the improved technology which is or may become available in the future. I The Council will also consider whether monitoring of rural water supplies may be necessary to detect pollution from on -site sewage disposal systems. I Planning for the metropolitan sewer system should address the impacts on the system from development outside the urban service area; specifically, impacts on the service availability charge (SAC), and the underuse of metropolitan sewer facilities. 1 Planning for the metropolitan sewer system should also consider how local comprehensive sewer plans should address the rural -to -urban transition areas, and protect them from incompatible development that may later block the efficient extension of the sewer system. I Transportation 1 Metropolitan highway improvements will be planned and developed to serve the needs of residents in the urban service area, including the, freestanding growth centers. Highways will be provided in accordance with the Council's regional transportation policy plan and local I comprehensive plans that are in conformity with the Council's regional plan. Varying levels of highway service will continue to exist in the urban service area due to travel behavior, development patterns and the nature of highways facilities, but efforts will be made to provide a 1 reasonable level of metropolitan highway service throughout the urban service area. 1 11 The Council influences metropolitan highway development in a variety of ways. The Minnesota 1 Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) constructs and maintains most of the roads in the - - metropolitan system, and the ultimate authority for highway programming decisions rests with the I state commissioner of transportation. However, Mn/DOT seriously considers the Council's highway policymaking and project planning in virtually all metropolitan area highway priorities. The Council approves construction on controlled- access highways and develops guidelines for I setting highway priorities as well as guidelines for approval of interchange improvements. The Council is also responsible for endorsing Federal Aid Urban and Interstate Substitution funding priorities, which are set by local elected officials acting through the Council's Transportation Advisory Board. 1 - Highway planning is very important because the ability of people to take advantage of the opportunities the area offers and acquiring essential goods and services depend on having a good I highway system and on keeping it operating well. This means roads on the existing system must be able to provide the type and level of service designated in the Council's transportation policy plan. Traffic management strategies or new construction will be necessary when traffic volumes approach design capacities, when road conditions pose hazards and slowdowns, and when new developments are proposed that differ substantially from assumptions made in the regional transportation plan. Implementing traffic management strategies for metropolitan highways is a I state or regional responsibility that frequently has direct or indirect implications for local systems. Local governments will have primary responsibility for carrying out traffic management strategies on local systems. , New sources may share the responsibility for funding new construction with the traditional county, state and federal sources. New sources may include the region, local governments and the private I sector. With the potential for funding and operational limitations, denying access to the regional system may also be necessary for unanticipated new developments. Highway planning should also address air pollution caused by heavy concentrations of auto, truck 1 and bus traffic. Although this problem has traditionally been associated with the two metro centers, it is a growing problem in the regional business concentrations where highways are reaching capacity. 1 The relationship between metropolitan highways and outstate Minnesota is another consideration in highway planning. The Council recognizes the importance of outstate connections, particularly for economic development., . - - ... . = .. _ • _ _. _ .. •_ _ -- . • - _ . - _ . _ Metropolitan highways in the rural area will be planned to support a level of development 1 consistent with the Council's rural density policies. The Council will not plan for a level of . service that would support or encourage development greater than the policy except where an exception has been approved according to the guidelines of the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. Highway planning must also consider the rural -to -urban transition areas, and how rights -of -way for I the system of principal and minor arterials that will be needed in the future should be protected from incompatible development. I 12 1 1 Buses operating on streets and highways will probably dominate public transit service through the remainder of the century. This does not preclude the introduction of some fixed- guideway ' facilities in heavily traveled corridors, but costs and time constraints work against a massive shift in form over the next 15 years. Nevertheless, the Council will continue to seek creative, forward - looking solutions to transit service problems. 1 Locations with large numbers of households and /or high employment in relatively small areas offer good potential for public transit service. It is also important to provide transit to the people ' who have no other way to travel. This generally means elderly, handicapped, low- income and young people. Providing service to these people will probably involve above - average subsidies. ' Some parts of the urban service area with low - density development may be served only by paratransit on a demand basis. This is also true for some of the transit - dependent people who live in low - density areas or cannot use the public system. Regularly scheduled regional transit service will not be provided to the rural service area, but residents of the area can arrange for and finance public transit or public paratransit on their own if they so desire. This does not preclude the Council or the Regional Transit Board from becoming involved in planning for the special mobility needs of elderly and handicapped people in the rural service area or for the use of public 1 funds specially appropriated for this purpose. Transit planning will take into account the cost of providing transit services to low- density areas, 1 and how that may change over time as transit - dependent populations increase in these areas. Planning for highways and transit should consider the relationships among transportation needs, I population densities and the provision of human services including public schools, health and social services, employment opportunities and emergency services. ' Parks The regional parks and open space system includes facilities in both the urban and rural service areas. Regional recreation open space will be acquired to serve the needs of today's urban population and to preserve outstanding natural and recreation resources for the area's future population. Facilities will be developed according to priorities in the Council's regional park plan, which will emphasize the needs of residents in the urban service area. The development of regional park facilities that attract large numbers of users will generally occur in the urban service area, unless the demands cannot be adequately met. If it is necessary to 1 develop such facilities in the rural service area, adequate support services such as roads and sewers must be provided. 1 Airports Every effort will be made to get the maximum use out of the existing airport system, consistent 1 with the Council's airport policy plan. This is especially important for the "major" and "intermediate" airports, all of which are located in the urban service area. These facilities should continue to operate and to operate safely even if it requires substantial upgrading of existing 1 facilities and modifications or controls on nearby land uses and development proposals. Land use 1 13 1 compatibility is critical to ensure future as well as current adequate operations at the regional airports. If a new "minor" airport site is needed, lands in the commercial agricultural area as defined in this document should be avoided. In addition, the only facilities developed on or adjacent to the airport should be those directly involved with making it useable and safe. 1 Other Area Systems This framework focuses on the four metropolitan systems of sewers, transportation, regional parks and airports because the Council has special obligations and responsibilities for them under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Under the Waste Management Act, the Council's solid waste program has the same status in many respects as the four metropolitan systems and will receive the same level of protection as those systems. However. The Council also has planning responsibilities for several other systems that serve the residents of the Metropolitan Area. Currently, the Council has adopted plans dealing with housing, health, surface water management, juvenile justice and water resources, as well as major position papers on the aging, arts and development disabilities. All of these planning documents and the programs associated with them contribute to metropolitan resource management. The Council must direct attention to the 1 impact of this framework and metropolitan system plans on these other area plans and programs, as well as the extent to which the other plans and programs modify the development and investment framework and metropolitan system plans. 1 The Council also recognizes that numerous interrelationships exist among the other area system plans and the metropolitan system plans. Examples include aging and health, transportation and housing, and sewers, solid waste and water resources. For some of the other systems, the relationships are less obvious. However, all of the systems, whether designated as metropolitan or not, have the following in common: a) assumptions about future directions of area -wide growth and change and reliance on a uniform set of forecasts; b) accountability to Council legislative mandates; c) concern with orderly and economic development; d) adherence to the same process of regional planning and decision - making; and e) reliance on the area's population for most of their financial support. 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 • PART THREE MDIF, Appendices Appendix: Criteria for Council Approval of Local Plans that are Inconsistent 1 with MDIF Rural Area Policies Some communities in the rural area have existing development patterns that are inconsistent with ' Council policy. Specifically, some communities have already developed at - residential densities greater than one unit per 10 acres. This appendix provides criteria and procedures for review and approval of local comprehensive plans that are inconsistent with the density policy. Exceptions to the policies for the rural area will be considered only for communities that cannot meet the policy because of the existing subdivisions or land development. The Council may ' approve an exception as part of its review of a local comprehensive plan. The extent of the exception will be based upon how well the community will or has: I • protected good agricultural land; • protected wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas; • implemented performance standards for on -site sewage disposal systems that are consistent • with the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan; and adopted a comprehensive plan consistent with all Metropolitan Development Guide chapters, especially those for the metropolitan systems (sewers, transportation, aviation ' and parks.) In order for the Council to support an exception to the rural density policy, the community must provide the following as a part of its comprehensive plan amendment: 1. The total land area (acreage) of the community, adjusted for surface water and major highway rights -of -way. ' 2. The number of existing lots of record. 3. The amount and location of land owned by public agencies or occupied by institutional uses and restricted from development. ' 4. The amount and location of undeveloped land, with an analysis of its development potential based on current and proposed planning and zoning_ 5. The amount and location of land planned and zoned for uses other than agriculture and ' 6. residential development, with a description of uses that will be permitted. The amount and location of agricultural land uses, and any areas that will be certified eligible for the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves program. 7. The amount and location of wetlands, with information demonstrating how such areas will be protected from development. 8. Copies of all local ordinances relating to adoption of performance standards for on -site sewage disposal systems. ' 9. The location of any proposed rural -to -urban transition areas, along with plans and policies to protect such areas from premature or incompatible development. 10. Additional information that may be necessary to bring the local comprehensive plan into compliance with metropolitan systems plans. 11. Schedule for implementing the plan amendment. 15 Appendix: Land Uses in the Rural Area This appendix helps clarify what land uses may be supported by Council policy for the rural service area. and provides 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 with local plans. All uses would also be subject to any local, regional or state permitting or licensing requirements. Land Use Recommendations for the Rural Area Policy Area I Examples of Consistent Land Uses Commercial Agricultural: broad range of agricultural land uses, including horse boarding and Agricultural Region training, kennels, sod farms, tree farms, fish production and processing, storage areas or buildings; for primary protection areas, uses consistent with 1980 Agricultural Preserves Act Residential: single family residences at a maximum density of 1/40 acres, accessory apartments Commercial/Industrial: small on -farm operations normally associated with farming Institutional: urban generated facilities, such as waste disposal facilities; prohibited from primary protection areas unless no other location available; prohibited from secondary protection area unless no site in general rural use area available General Rural Use Agricultural: all uses listed for commercial agricultural policy area Area Residential: single family residences at a maximum density of 1/10 acres computed on the basis of 640 acre parcels (one square mile), twin homes /duplexes (meeting density standard), accessory apartments, group - living homes with shared cooking facilities Commercial/Recreational and Urban - Generated Uses: urban - generated uses, including recreational vehicle parks, racetracks, festival sites, campgrounds, gun clubs, private airports, solid waste facilities, auto salvage and recycling, other similar facilities, neighborhood convenience /service/retail uses, such as financial offices, video stores, gasoline, groceries, daycare centers, commercial/service/retail uses adjacent to or served by existing metro highways, agricultural products processing, home occupations, bed and breakfast lodging facilities, dentist and doctor offices, landing areas for ultralight and model airplanes, retreat facilities, golf courses Industrial: sand and gravel mining, urban - generated uses that require a spacious, isolated location, small manufacturing firms originating from home occupations, oil or gasoline storage tank farms, refineries, solid waste transfer /processing facilities Institutional: urban - generated uses, such as waste- disposal installations, jails, prisons, public airports, human service agency satellite offices, parks, trails, open space, other similar facilities, unique natural or conservation areas, schools, churches, cemeteries 1 bNibrary\respililkorapplam mdi[rupo 16 1 1