HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2008
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Mondav, February 4, 2008
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
None
5. Public Hearings
7:00 Dynamic Display Signs Moratorium Ordinance
6. New Business
Comprehensive Plan Update (Michael Martin - MFRA)
Introduction to Comprehensive Planning
Background Report (Commission members - please bring your copies to the meeting)
SWOT Analysis Results
7. Unfinished Business
None
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
February 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson
February 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Boeser
March 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler?? (was to be Mr. Walton)
March 24 Council Meeting:
10. Staff Presentations
11. Adjournment
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Planner
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - Background Report and
Information
January 30, 2008
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
As part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, city staff and the city-hired consultants
have prepared a draft background report for the planning commission to review. In addition,
at the request of the planning commission, staff has attached a copy of the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act and the Systems Statement for Maplewood as prepared by the
Metropolitan Council.
DISCUSSION
The planning consultant prepared the draft background report (dated January 29, 2008) for
use by the city to start the update of the comprehensive plan. We distributed this document
to the commission members at their January 29, 2008 meeting.
In addition, city staff and the consultants want the city council and the commission members
to have the enclosed information. These documents should help everyone understand the
planning process as required by state law and Maplewood's place in the metropolitan region.
RECOMMENDATION
Please bring your copy of the draft background report (dated January 29, 2008) to the
planning commission meeting. Also, be prepared to discuss the contents of the materials and
the SWOT Analysis during the next meeting.
P:compplanfcover memo - background information
Attachments:
1. Metropolitan Land Planning Act
2. Maplewood Systems Statement
Attachment 1
METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT
MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 473, SECTIONS 473.851 TO 473.871 (2007)
AND RELATED PLANNING STATUTES
473.145 DEVELOPMENT GUIDE.
The Metropolitan Council shall prepare and adopt, after appropriate study and such public
hearings as may be necessary, a comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area. It shall
consist of a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, programs, and maps prescribing
guides for the orderly and economical development, public and private, of the metropolitan area.
The comprehensive development guide shall recognize and encompass physical, social, or economic
needs of the metropolitan area and those future developments which will have an impact on the en-
tire area including but not limited to such matters as land use, parks and open space land needs, the
necessity for and location of airports, highways, transit facilities, public hospitals, libraries, schools,
and other public buildings.
* * *
473.175 REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.
Subdivision I. For compatibility, conformity. The council shall review the comprehensive
plans oflocal governmental units, prepared and submitted pursuant to sections 473.851 to 473.871,
to determine their compatibility with each other and conformity with metropolitan system plans.
The council shall review and comment on the apparent consistency ofthe comprehensive plans with
adopted plans of the council. The council may require a local governmental unit to modify any
comprehensive plan or part thereof if, upon the adoption of findings and a resolution, the council
concludes that the plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substan-
tial departure from metropolitan system plans. A local unit of government may challenge a council
action under this subdivision by following the procedures set forth in section 473.866.
Subd. 2. 120-day limit, hearing. Within 120 days following receipt ofa comprehensive plan
of a local governmental unit, unless a time extension is mutually agreed to, the council shall return
to the local governmental unit a statement containing its comments and, by resolution, its decision,
if any, to require modifications to assure conformance with the metropolitan system plans.
No action shall be taken by any local governmental unit to place any such comprehensive plan
or part thereof into effect until the council has returned the statement to the unit and until the local
governmental unit has incorporated any modifications in the plan required by a final decision, order,
or judgment made pursuant to section 473.866. Ifwithin 120 days, unless a time extension is mutu-
ally agreed to, the council fails to complete its written statement the plans shall be deemed approved
and may be placed into effect. Any amendment to a plan subsequent to the council's review shall be
submitted to and acted upon by the council in the same manner as the original plan. The written
statement ofthe council shall be filed with the plan of the local government unit at all places where
the plan is required by law to be kept on file.
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of StaMes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the pennission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version ofthe Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page I of 17 Pages
Subd. 3. Enforcement to get conforming plan. If a local governmental unit fails to adopt a
comprehensive plan in accordance with sections 473.851 to 473.871 or if the council after a public
hearing by resolution finds that a plan substantially departs from metropolitan system plans and that
the local governmental unit has not adopted a plan with modifications required pursuant to section
473.866 within nine months following a final decision, order, or judgment made pursuant to section
473.866, the council may commence civil proceedings to enforce the provisions of sections 473.851 to
473.871 by appropriate legal action in the district court where the local governmental unit is located.
***
LAND USE PLANNING
473.851 LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
The legislature finds and declares that the local governmental units within the metropolitan
area are interdependent, that the growth and patterns of urbanization within the area create the need
for additional state, metropolitan and local public services and facilities and increase the danger of air
and water pollution and water shortages, and that developments in one local governmental unit may
affect the provision of regional capital improvements for sewers, transportation, airports, water sup-
ply, and regional recreation open space. Since problems of urbanization and development transcend
local governmental boundaries, there is a need for the adoption of coordinated plans, programs and
controls by all local governmental units in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the resi-
dents of the metropolitan area and to ensure coordinated, orderly and economic development. There-
fore, it is the purpose of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 to (1) establish requirements
and procedures to accomplish comprehensive local planning with land use controls consistent with
planned, orderly and staged development and the metropolitan system plans, and (2) to provide as-
sistance to local governmental units within the metropolitan area for the preparation of plans and
official controls appropriate for their areas and consistent with metropolitan system plans.
473.852 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1. Terms. As used in sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871, the fol-
lowing terms shall have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. Advisory Metropolitan Land Use Committee or advisory committee. "Advisory
Metropolitan Land Use Committee" or "advisory committee" means an advisory committee estab-
lished by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to section 473.853.
Subd. 3. Applicable planning statnte. "Applicable planning statute" means sections 394.21
to 394.37 for counties and sections 462.351 to 462.364 for cities and towns.
Subd. 4. Capital improvement program. "Capital improvement program" means an itemized
program for a five year prospective period, and any amendments thereto, subject to at least biennial
review, setting forth the schedule, timing, and details of specific contemplated capital improvements
by year, together with their estimated cost, the need for each improvement, financial sources, and
the financial impact that the improvements will have on the local governmental unit.
Subd. 5. Comprehensive plan. "Comprehensive plan" means the comprehensive plan of each
local governmental unit described in sections 473.858 to 473.862, and any amendments to the plan.
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Mirmesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor ofStahrtes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 2 of 17 Pages
Subd. 6. Fiscal devices. "Fiscal devices" means the valuation of property pursuant to section
273.111, the designation of urban and rural service districts, pursuant to section 272.67, and the estab-
lishment of development districts pursuant to sections 469.124 to 469.134, and any other statutes au-
thorizing the creation of districts in which the use of tax increment bonding is authorized.
Subd. 7. Local governmental nnit or nnit. "Local governmental unit" or "unit" means all cit-
ies, counties and towns lying in whole or in part within the metropolitan area, but does not include
school districts.
Subd. 8. Metropolitan system plans. "Metropolitan system plans" means the transportation
portion of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and the policy plans, and capital budgets for met-
ropolitan wastewater service, transportation, and regional recreation open space.
Subd. 9. Official controls or controls. "Official controls" or "controls" means ordinances and
rules which control the physical development of a city, county or town or any part thereof or any detail
thereof and implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls may in-
clude ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, build-
ing codes and official maps.
Subd. 10. Private sewer facility. "Private sewer facility" means a single lot, multiple lot or
other sewage collection or treatment facility owned, constructed or operated by any person other than
a local governmental unit or the council.
Subd. 11. School district. "School district" has the meaning given it by section l20A.05, sub-
divisions 10 and 14, and includes any independent or special school district whose administrative
offices are located within the metropolitan area as of April 3, 1976.
473.853 ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
The council shall establish an advisory metropolitan land use committee pursuant to section
473.127, comprised of 16 members, one from each council district, and as many additional mem-
bers as are necessary to provide representation from each metropolitan county, plus a chair. At least
one-half of the members of the advisory committee shall be elected officials of local governmental
units. The members shall be appointed for the same period as the term of the council member for
the district in which the memberresides.
473.854 GUIDELINES.
The council shall prepare and adopt guidelines and procedures relating to the requirements and
provisions of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 which will provide assistance to
local govermnental units in accomplishing the provisions of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851
to 473.871.
473.855 [Repealed, 1996 c 310 s 1]
473.856 METROPOLITAN SYSTEM STATEMENTS; AMENDMENTS.
The council shall prepare and transmit to each affected local governmental unit a metropolitan
system statement when the council updates or revises its comprehensive development guide for the
metropolitan area in conjunction with the decennial review required under section 473.864, subdivi-
sion 2, and when the council amends or modifies a metropolitan system plan. The statement shall
contain information relating to the unit and appropriate surrounding territory that the council deter-
mines necessary for the unit to consider in reviewing the unit's comprehensive plan. The statement
may include:
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Stahrtes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the pennission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 3 of 17 Pages
(1) the timing, character, function, location, projected capacity, and conditions on use for ex-
isting or planned metropolitan public facilities, as specified in metropolitan system plans, and for
state and federal public facilities to the extent known to the council; and
(2) the population, employment, and household projections which have been used by the
council as a basis for its metropolitan system plans.
Within nine months after receiving a system statement for an amendment to a metropolitan
system plan, and within three years after receiving a system statement issued in conjunction with
the decennial review required under section 473.864, subdivision 2, each affected local governmen-
tal unit shall review its comprehensive plan to determine if an amendment is necessary to ensure
continued conformity with metropolitan system plans. If an amendment is necessary, the govern-
mental unit shall prepare the amendment and submit it to the council for review pursuant to sections
462.355,473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871.
473.857 SYSTEM STATEMENTS; RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES.
Subdivision 1. Request for hearing. If a local governmental unit and the council are unable to
resolve disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit may by resolution request
that a hearing be conducted by the advisory committee or by the state Office of Administrative
Hearings for the purpose of considering amendments to the system statement. The request shall be
made by the unit within 60 days after receipt of the system statement and shall be accompanied by a
description of the disagreement together with specified proposed amendments to the system state-
ment. If no request for a hearing is received by the council within 60 days, the statement shall be fmal.
Subd. 2. Within 60 days; report. A hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after the re-
quest, provided that the advisory committee or the administrative law judge shall consolidate hear-
ings on related requests. The 60-day period within which the hearing shall be conducted may be ex-
tended or suspended by mutual agreement of the council and the local governmental unit. The hear-
ing shall not consider the need for or reasonableness of the metropolitan system plans or parts
thereof. The hearing shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to testify and present evi-
dence. The advisory committee or administrative law judge may employ the appropriate technical
and professional services ofthe office of dispute resolution for the purpose of evaluating disputes of
fact. The proceedings shall not be deemed a contested case. Within 30 days after the hearing, the
advisory committee or the administrative law judge shall report to the council respecting the pro-
posed amendments to the system statements. The report shall contain findings of fact, conclusions,
and recommendations and shall apportion the costs ofthe proceedings among the parties.
Subd. 3. Final determination. Within 30 days of receipt of the report, the council, by resolu-
tion containing findings of fact and conclusions, shall make a fmal determination respecting the pro-
posed amendments. At any point in the reconciliation procedure established by this section, the coun-
cil and a local governmental unit may resolve their disagreement by stipulation.
473.858 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS; LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS.
Subdivision 1. No conflicting zoning, fiscal device, official control. Within nine months fol-
lowing the receipt of a metropolitan system statement for an amendment to a metropolitan system
plan and within three years following the receipt of a metropolitan system statement issued in con-
junction with the decennial review required under section 473.864, subdivision 2, every local gov-
ernmental unit shall have reviewed and, if necessary, amended its comprehensive plan in accor-
dance with sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 and the applicable planning statute
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min~
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version ofthe Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.Jeg.state.mn.us
Page 4 of17 Pages
and shall have submitted the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to section
473.175. The provisions of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 shall supersede the
provisions of the applicable planning statute wherever a conflict may exist. If the comprehensive
municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into
conformance with the plan by local government units in conjunction with the review and, if neces-
sary, amendment of its comprehensive plan required under section 473.864, subdivision 2. After
August I, 1995, a local government unit shall not adopt any fiscal device or official control which is
in conflict with its comprehensive plan, including any amendments to the plan, or which permits
activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans, as defined by section 473.852, subdivision 8.
The comprehensive plan shall provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of of-
ficial controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent
with the comprehensive plan. For purposes of this section, a fiscal device or official control shall
not be considered to be in conflict with a local government unit's comprehensive plan or to permit
an activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans if such fiscal device or official control is
adopted to ensure the planned, orderly, and staged development of urbanization or redevelopment
areas designated in the comprehensive plan pursuant to section 473.859, subdivision 5.
Subd. 2. Adjacent review, comment. Local governmental units shall submit their proposed
plans to adjacent governmental units, affected special districts lying in whole or in part within the
metropolitan area, and affected school districts for review and comment at least six months prior to
submission of the plan to the council and shall submit copies to them on the submission of the plan
to the council. For minor plan amendments, the council may prescribe a shorter review and com-
ment period, or may waive the review and comment period if the minor plan amendments involve
lands that are not contiguous to other local governmental units.
Subd. 3. When to conncil. The plans shall be submitted to the council following recommen-
dation by the planning agency of the unit and after consideration but before final approval by the
governing body of the unit.
Subd. 4. Status of old, new programs, plans, controls. Comprehensive plans, capital im-
provement programs, sewer policy plans and official controls of local governmental units adopted
prior to the requirements of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 shall remain in force
and effect until amended, repealed or superseded by plans or controls adopted pursuant to sections
462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. Existing comprehensive plans, capital improvement
programs, sewer policy plans, and official controls may be amended and new capital improvement
programs and official controls may be prepared and adopted prior to the submission to the council
of comprehensive plans required by sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871.
473.859 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTENT.
Subdivision I. Coutents. The comprehensive plan shall contain objectives, policies, standards
and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation
for all lands and waters within the jurisdiction of the local governmental unit through 1990 and may
extend through any year thereafter which is evenly divisible by five. Each plan shall specify ex-
pected industrial and commercial development, planned population distribution, and local public
facility capacities upon which the plan is based. Each plan shall contain a discussion of the use of
the public facilities specified in the metropolitan system statement and the effect of the plan on ad-
jacent local governmental units and affected school districts. Existing plans and official controls
may be used in whole or in part following modification, as necessary, to satisfy the requirements of
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Mjn~
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of StaMes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience ofthc reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 5 of J 7 Pages
sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. Each plan may contain an intergovernmental
coordination element that describes how its planned land uses and urban services affect other com-
munities, adjacent local government units, the region, and the state, and that includes guidelines for
joint planning and decision making with other communities, school districts, and other jurisdictions
for siting public schools, building public facilities, and sharing public services.
Each plan may contain an economic development element that identifies types of mixed use
development, expansion facilities for businesses, and methods for developing a balanced and stable
economic base.
The comprehensive plan may contain any additional matter which may be included in a com-
prehensive plan of the local governmental unit pursuant to the applicable planning statute.
Subd. 2. Land nse plan. (a) A land use plan shall include the water management plan required
by section 103B.235, and shall designate the existing and proposed location, intensity and extent of
use ofland and water, including lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, natural drainage courses, and adjoin-
ing land areas that affect water natural resources, for agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial
and other public and private purposes, or any combination of such purposes.
(b) A land use plan shall contain a protection element, as appropriate, for historic sites, the
matters listed in the water management plan required by section 103B.235, and an element for pro-
tection and development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
(c) A land use plan shall also include a housing element containing standards, plans and pro-
grams for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and re-
gional housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official controls and land use planning to
promote the availability of land for the development of low and moderate income housing.
(d) A land use plan shall also include the local government's goals, intentions, and priorities
concerning aggregate and other natural resources, transportation infrastructure, land use compatibil-
ity, habitat, agricultural preservation, and other planning priorities, considering information regard-
ing supply from the Minnesota Geological Survey Information Circular No. 46.
Subd. 2a. Application of subdivision 2, paragraph (d). Subdivision 2, paragraph (d), applies
only to land use plans adopted or amended by the governing body in relation to aggregate or when
the governing body is presented with a written application for adoption or amendment of a land use
plan relating to aggregate, from a landowner after August 1,2001, in the counties of Anoka, Carver,
Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington.
Subd. 3. Public facilities plan. A public facilities plan shall describe the character, location,
timing, sequence, function, use and capacity of existing and future public facilities of the local gov-
ernmental unit. A public facilities plan must be in at least such detail as may be necessary to establish
existing or potential effects on or departures from metropolitan system plans and to protect metropoli-
tan system plans. A public facilities plan shall contain at least the following parts:
(1) a transportation plan describing, designating and scheduling the location, extent, function
and capacity of existing and proposed local public and private transportation services and facilities;
(2) a sewer policy plan describing, designating and scheduling the areas to be sewered by the
public system, the existing and planned capacities of the public system, the standards and conditions
under which the installation of private sewer systems will be permitted, and to the extent practicable,
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the pennission of tile Revisor ofStahrtes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 6 of] 7 Pages
the areas not suitable for public or private systems because of public health, safety and welfare con-
siderations;
(3) a parks and open space plan describing, designating and scheduling the existing and pro-
posed parks and recreation open spaces within the jurisdiction; and
(4) a water supply plan as described in section 103G.29l, subdivision 3.
Subd. 4. Implementation program. An implementation program shall describe public pro-
grams, fiscal devices and other specific actions to be undertaken in stated sequence to implement
the comprehensive plan and ensure conformity with metropolitan system plans. An implementation
program must be in at least such detail as may be necessary to establish existing or potential effects
on or departures from metropolitan system plans and to protect metropolitan system plans. An im-
plementation program shall contain at least the following parts:
(l) a description of official controls, addressing at least the matters of zoning, subdivision, wa-
ter supply, and private sewer systems, and a schedule for the preparation, adoption, and administra-
tion of such controls;
(2) a capital improvement program for transportation, sewers, parks, water supply, and open
space facilities; and
(3) a housing implementation program, including official controls to implement the housing
element of the land use plan, which will provide sufficient existing and new housing to meet the
local unit's share of the metropolitan area need for low and moderate income housing.
Subd. 5. Urbanization and redevelopment areas. The comprehensive plans may designate,
when appropriate, five year urbanization areas and shall specify in the capital improvement program
the timing and sequence of major local public facilities and in the implementation program official
controls which will ensure that urbanization occurs only in urbanization areas and in accordance
with the plan. The comprehensive plans may designate, when appropriate, redevelopment areas and
may, as appropriate, specify in the capital improvement program the timing and sequence of local
public .facilities and in the implementation program the fiscal devices or official controls that will
ensure that redevelopment occurs in accordance with the plan;
Subd. 6. Plan review. The council shall, by January 1, 1994, prepare guidelines for the prepa-
ration of the water supply plans required in subdivision 3, clause (4). The plans must be submitted
to the council by January 1, 1996. The council shall review the plans under section 473.175, subdi-
vision 1, after submitting them to affected counties that have adopted groundwater plans under sec-
tion 103B.255 for their review and comment.
473.86 CITIES.
Except as provided in the metropolitan system statement, comprehensive plans of cities shall
include the matters specified in section 473.859.
473.861 TOWNS.
Subdivision 1. As in section 473.859. Except as provided in the metropolitan system state-
ment, comprehensive plans of towns shall include the matters specified in section 473.859.
Subd. 2. By 1976. By December 31,1976, each town within the counties of Anoka, Carver,
Dakota, Scott and Washington, authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364, or under special
law, shall by resolution determine whether it will prepare the comprehensive plan for its jurisdic-
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min~
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the pennission afthe Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 7 of 17 Pages
tion. Each such town also shall specify, pursuant to agreement with the county within which it is
situated, any parts of its plan and official controls, if any, the preparation of which it delegates to the
county .
Subd. 3. Use county. Towns within counties which have adopted comprehensive plans applicable
to the town shall, to the maximum extent, use county preparation of their comprehensive plans.
473.862 METRO COUNTIES OTHER THAN HENNEPIN, RAMSEY.
Subdivision 1. Contents of plan. Comprehensive plans of counties shall contain at least the
following:
(a) Except for the counties of Hennepin and Ramsey, a land use plan as specified in section
473.859, subdivision 2, for all unincorporated territory within the county;
(b) A public facilities plan which shall include all appropriate matters specified in section
473.859, subdivision 3, including a transportation plan, and a description of existing and projected
solid waste disposal sites and facilities;
(c) An implementation program, as specified in section 473.859, subdivision 4.
Subd. 2. Towns with no plan by 1976. Each county other than Hennepin and Ramsey shall pre-
pare, with the participation and assistance of the town, the comprehensive plan for any town within
the county which fails by December 31, 1976, to take action by resolution pursuant to section
473.861, subdivision 2 and shall prepare all or part of any plan delegated to it pursuant to section
473.861, subdivision 2.
Subd. 3. Towns that cannot plan. Each county other than Hennepin and Ramsey shall prepare,
with the participation and assistance of the town, the comprehensive plan for each town within the
county not authorized to plan under sections 462.351 to 462.364, or under special law.
473.863 [Repealed, lSp2003 c 16 s 11]
473.864 PLANS; ADOPTION; AMENDMENT.
Subdivision 1. When adopted. Each local governmental unit shall adopt its comprehensive
plan with required modifications within nine months following a final decision, order, or judgment
made pursuant to section 473.866.
Subd. 2. Decennial review. By December 31, 1998, and at least once every ten years thereaf-
ter, each local governmental unit shall review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive
plan and its fiscal devices and official controls. Such review and, if necessary, amendment shall en-
sure that, as provided in section 473.865, the fiscal devices and official controls of each local gov-
ernment unit are not in conflict with its comprehensive plan. Upon completion of review and, if
necessary, amendment of its comprehensive plan, fiscal devices, and official controls as required by
this section, each local government unit shall either:
(a) submit to the Metropolitan Council the entire current comprehensive plan together with
written certification by the governing body of the local government unit that it has complied with
this section and that no amendments to its plan or fiscal devices or official controls are necessary; or
(b)( I) submit the entire updated comprehensive plan and amendment or amendments to its
comprehensive plan necessitated by its review to the Metropolitan Council for review; and
(2) submit the amendment or amendments to its fiscal devices or official controls necessitated
by its review to the Metropolitan Council for information purposes as provided by section 473.865.
These statutory provisions are ClUTcnt through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modillcations consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minne~ota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 8 of] 7 Pages
Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, local governments shall consider, in preparing
their updated comprehensive plans, amendments to metropolitan system plans in effect on Decem-
ber 31, 1996. For metropolitan system plans, or amendments thereto, adopted after December 31,
1996, local governments shall review their comprehensive plans to determine if an amendment is
necessary to conform to the metropolitan system plans. If an amendment is necessary, the local
government shall prepare the amendment and submit it to the council for review by September 30,
1999, or nine months after the council transmits the metropolitan system plan amendment to the lo-
cal government, whichever is later.
The periodic review required in this subdivision shall be in addition to the review required by
section 473.856.
The Metropolitan Council may grant extensions to local government units in order to allow
local government units to complete the review and, if necessary, amendment required by this subdi-
vision. Such extensions, if granted by the Metropolitan Council, must include a timetable and plan
for completion of the review and amendment.
Amendments to comprehensive plans of local governmental units shall be prepared, submit-
ted, and adopted in conformance with guidelines adopted by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to
section 473.854.
473.865 ADOPTION; CONFLICTS, AMENDMENT OF CONTROLS, DEVICES.
Subdivision 1. Control copies to council. Each local governmental unit shall adopt official
controls as described in its adopted comprehensive plan and shall submit copies of the official con-
trols to the council within 30 days following adoption thereof, for information purposes only.
Subd. 2. No conflict with plans. A local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control
or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan or which permits activity in conflict
with metropolitan system plans.
Subd. 3. Amendments. If an official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the result of
an amendment to the plan, the official control shall be amended by the unit within nine months follow-
ing the amendment to the plan so as to not conflict with the amended comprehensive plan.
473.866 CONTESTED CASES; ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
The council's decision to require modification under section 473.175 may be contested by the
affected local governmental unit. The unit shall have 60 days within which to request a hearing on
the council's decision to require modification. If within 60 days the unit has not requested a hearing,
the council shall make its final decision with respect to the required modifications. If an affected
unit requests a hearing, the request for hearing shall be granted, and the hearing shall be conducted
within 60 days by the state Office of Administrative Hearings in the manner provided by chapter 14
for contested cases. The 60-day period within which the hearing shall be conducted may be ex-
tended by mutual agreement of the council and the affected local governmental unit. The subject of
the hearing shall not extend to questions concerning the need for or reasonableness of the metropoli-
tan system plans or any part thereof. In the report of the administrative law judge the costs of the
hearing shall be apportioned among the parties to the proceeding. Within 30 days after the receipt of
the report the council shall, by resolution containing findings of fact and conclusions, make a final
decision with respect to the required modifications of the comprehensive plan. Any party to the pro-
ceeding aggrieved by the decision of the council may appeal to the court in the manner provided in
chapter 14 for contested cases. The record on appeal shall consist of: (1) the administrative law
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of StaMes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
vCISion of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 9 of 17 Pages
judge's record and report, and (2) the findings, conclusions and final decision of the council. The
scope of review shall be that of section 14.69, provided that: (1) the court shall not give preference
to either the administrative law judge's record and report or the findings, conclusions and final deci-
sion of the council, and (2) the decision of the court shall be based upon a preponderance of the evi-
dence as contained in the record on appeal. The costs of the appeal shall be apportioned by the court.
473.867 PLANNING ASSISTANCE; GRANTS; LOANS.
Subdivision 1. Advisory materials, models, assistance. The council shall prepare and pro-
vide advisory materials, model plan provisions and official controls, and on the request of a local
governmental unit may provide assistance, to accomplish the purposes of sections 462.355, 473.175,
and 473.851 to 473.871. The council may also provide specific technical and legal assistance in con-
nection with the preparation, adoption and defense of plans, programs, and controls.
Subd. 2. Planning assistance fund. The council may establish a planning assistance fund as a
separate bookkeeping account in its general fund for the purpose of making grants and loans to local
governmental units under this section. The council shall adopt uniform procedures for the award,
disbursement and repayment of grants and loans.
Subd. 3. Loans, grants. Local governmental units may apply, contract for and receive loans
and grants as provided herein, and the provisions of chapter 475 shall not apply to loans made pur-
suant hereto. Applications for grants and loans shall be submitted to the council describing the ac-
tivities for which the grant or loan funds will be used; the persons which the grantee or borrower
plans to use in performing the grant contract; services and activities which will be paid for by funds
of the grantee or borrower; the grantee or borrower's need and ability to pay for the contract ser-
vices; and other information as the council may reasonably request. Grants and loans shall be made
subject to contracts between the council and the recipient specifying the use and disbursement of the
funds and, for loans, the terms and conditions of repayment, and other appropriate matters. In mak-
ing grants and loans, the council shall base its decisions on the recipient's demonstrated need and
available financial resources.
Subd. 4. [Repealed, 2000 c 493 s 25]
Subd. 5. Loan terms. Loans made by the council shall be payable onsuch terms and condi-
tions as the council determines appropriate, provided that no loan shall carry an interest rate nor be
for a term in excess of five years. Funds received in payment of loans shall be credited to the plan-
ning assistance fund and shall be used for additional loans or grants under this section.
Subd. 6. Assistance for plan updates. The council shall give priority for the use of loan and
grant funds available under this section to local governmental units for review and amendment of
local comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and official controls, as required by section 473.864,
subdivision 2. The council shall consult with affected local government units to evaluate the need
for technical and fmancial assistance.
473.868 [Repealed, 2007 c 113 s 20]
473.869 EXTENSION.
A local governmental unit may by resolution request that the council extend the time for fulfill-
ing the requirements of sections 462.355, subdivision la, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. A request
for extension shall be accompanied by a description of the activities previously undertaken by a local
governmental unit in fulfillment of the requirements of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Mjn~
nesota Statutes a" published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here fOf the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 10 of 17 Pages
473.871, and an explanation of the reasons necessitating and justifying the request. Upon a finding of
exceptional circumstances or undue hardship, the council may, in its discretion, grant by resolution a
request for extension and may attach reasonable requirements or conditions to the extension.
473.87 LEVY FOR INCREASED COSTS.
The increased costs to a municipality of implementing sections 473.175; 473.858, subdivi-
sions 1 to 3; 473.859 to 473.862; and 473.866 shall be deemed a levy and the proceeds of any tax
levied under this section shall be deposited in the municipal treasury in a separate fund and expended
only for the purposes authorized by this section.
473.871 NEW MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 the coun-
cil shall have no authority under this chapter to require a local govermnental unit to construct a new
sewer system.
These statutory provisions are ClUTent through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min~
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of StaMes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page II (if 17 Pages
SELECTED REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE
PLANNING STATUTES
473.121 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1. Terms. For the purposes of [Minnesota Statutes chapter 473], the terms de-
fined in this section have the meanings given them in this section, except as otherwise expressly
provided or indicated by the context.
* * * *
Subd. 12. Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission. "Metropolitan Parks and
Open Space Commission" means the commission established in sections 473.302 to 473.341.
Subd. 13. Park district. "Park district" means a park district created under chapter 398.
Subd. 14. Regional recreation open space. "Regional recreation open space" means land and
water areas, or interests therein, and facilities determined by the Metropolitan Council to be of re-
gional importance in providing for a balanced system of public outdoor recreation for the metropoli-
tan area, including but not limited to park reserves, major linear parks and trails, large recreation
parks, and conservatories, zoos, and other special use facilities.
* * * *
* * *
473.147 REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE SYSTEM POLICY PLAN.
Subdivision 1. Requirements. The Metropolitan Council after consultation with the Parks and
Open Space Commission, municipalities, park districts and counties in the metropolitan area, and
after appropriate public hearings, shall prepare and adopt a long-range system policy plan for re-
gional recreation open space as part of the council's Metropolitan Development Guide. The plan
shall substantially conform to all policy statements, purposes, goals, standards, and maps in devel-
opment guide sections and comprehensive plans as developed and adopted by the council pursuant
to the chapters of the Minnesota Statutes directly relating to the council. The policy plan shall iden-
tify generally the areas which should be acquired by a public agency to provide a system of regional
recreation open space comprising park district, county and municipal facilities which, together with
state facilities, reasonably will meet the outdoor recreation needs of the people of the metropolitan
area and shall establish priorities for acquisition and development. The policy plan shall estimate
the cost of the recommended acquisitions and development, including an analysis of what portion of
the funding is proposed to come from the state, Metropolitan Council levies, and cities, counties,
and towns in the metropolitan area, respectively. In preparing or amending the policy plan the coun-
cil shall consult with and make maximum use of the expertise of the commission. The policy plan
shall include a five year capital improvement program, which shall be revised periodically, and
shall establish criteria and priorities for the allocation of funds for such acquisition and develop-
ment. The legislature in each bonding measure shall designate an anticipated level of funding for
this acquisition and development for each of the two succeeding bienniums.
* * * *
These staMory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 12 (If 17 Pages
***
473.302 REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE SYSTEM; PURPOSE.
The legislature finds that the pressure of urbanization and development threatens valuable rec-
reational open space areas in the metropolitan area at the same time as the need for such areas is in-
creased. Immediate action is therefore necessary to provide funds to acquire, preserve, protect and
develop regional recreational open space for public use.
LOCAL WASTEWATER AND
COMPRHENSIVE SEWER PLAN
473.513 MUNICIPAL PLANS AND PROGRAMS.
As soon as practicable after the adoption of the first policy plan by the council as provided in
section 473.146, and before undertaking the construction of any extensions or additions to its dis-
posal system or the substantial alteration or improvement of its existing disposal system, each local
government unit shall adopt a similar policy plan for the collection, treatment and disposal of sew-
age for which the local government unit is responsible, coordinated with the council's plan, and
may revise the same as often as it deems necessary. Each such plan shall be submitted forthwith to
the council for review and shall be subject to the approval of the council as to those features affect-
ing the council's responsibilities as determined by the council. Any such features disapproved by
the council shall be modified in accordance with the council's recommendations. No construction of
new sewers or other disposal facilities, and no substantial alteration or improvement of any existing
sewers or other disposal facilities involving such features, shall be undertaken by any local govern-
ment unit unless its governing body shall first find the same to be in accordance with its compre-
hensive plan and program as approved by the council. At the time each local government unit
makes application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a permit to alter or improve its
disposal system it shall file with the council a copy of the application together with design data and
a location map of the project.
SELECTED SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT,
WATER SUPPLY AND CRITICAL AREA PLANNING STATUTES
103B.201 METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PURPOSE.
The purposes of the water management programs required by sections 103B.205 to 103B.255
are to:
(1) protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
(2) minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems;
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the pennission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at. www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 13 of 17 Pages
(3) identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater
quality;
(4) establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management;
(5) prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
(6) promote groundwater recharge;
(7) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
(8) secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water.
***
103B.235 LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS.
Subdivision 1. Requirement. (a) After the watershed plan is approved and adopted, or
amended, pursuant to section 103B.23l, the local government units having land use planning and
regulatory responsibility for territory within the watershed shall prepare or cause to be prepared a
local water management plan, capital improvement program, and official controls as necessary to
bring local water management into conformance with the watershed plan within the time period
prescribed in the implementation program of the watershed plan and, as necessary, shall prepare or
cause to be prepared amendments to the local comprehensive plan.
(b) Each town within the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott, and Washington author-
ized by general or special law to plan and regulate the use of land under sections 462.351 to
462.364 shall by resolution determine whether to prepare the local water management plan itself or
to delegate all or part of the preparation of the plan to the county.
(c) Towns within counties that have adopted comprehensive plans applicable to the town must
use county preparation of their plan to the maximum extent possible.
Subd. 2. Contents. (a) Each local plan, in the degree of detail required in the watershed plan,
shall:
(1) describe existing and proposed physical enviromnent and land use;
(2) define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff;
(3) identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance stan-
dards established in the watershed plan;
(4) defIDe water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance
standards established in the watershed plan;
(5) identify regulated areas; and
(6) set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as
appropriate, a capital improvement program.
(b) The Board of Water and Soil Resources shall adopt rules establishing minimum local plan
standards and a model environmental management ordinance for use by local government units in
implementing local water plans. The standards apply to plan amendments made to conform to
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Stahrtes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 14 of 17 Pages
changes in the watershed plans that are adopted under the board rules required by section 103B.23l,
subdivision 6.
Subd. 3. Review. After consideration but before adoption by the governing body, each local
unit shall submit its water management plan to the watershed management organization for review
for consistency with the watershed plan adopted pursuant to section 103B.231. If the county or
counties having territory within the local unit have a state-approved and locally adopted groundwa-
ter plan, the local unit shall submit its plan to the county or counties for review. The county or coun-
ties have 45 days to review and comment on the plan. The organization shall approve or disapprove
the local plan or parts of the plan. The organization shall have 60 days to complete its review; pro-
vided, however, that the watershed management organization shall, as part of its review, take into
account the comments submitted to it by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to subdivision 3a. If the
organization fails to complete its review within the prescribed period, the local plan shall be deemed
approved unless an extension is agreed to by the local unit.
Subd. 3a. Review by Metropolitan Council. Concurrently with its submission of its local wa-
ter management plan to the watershed management organization as provided in subdivision 3, each
local unit of govermnent shall submit its water management plan to the Metropolitan Council for
review and comment by the council. The council shall have 45 days to review and comment upon
the local plan or parts of the plan with respect to consistency with the council's comprehensive de-
velopment guide for the metropolitan area. The council's 45-day review period shall run concur-
rently with the 60-day review period by the watershed management organization provided in subdi-
vision 3. The Metropolitan Council shall submit its comments to the watershed management or-
ganization and shall send a copy of its comments to the local government unit. If the Metropolitan
Council fails to complete its review and make comments to the watershed management organization
within the 45-day period, the watershed management organization shall complete its review as pro-
vided in subdivision 3.
Subd. 4. Adoption and implementation. After approval ofthe local plan by the organization,
the local government unit shall adopt and implement its plan within 120 days and shall amend its
official controls accordingly within 180 days.
Subd. 5. Amendments. To the extent and in the manner required by the organization, all
amendments to local water management plans shall be submitted to the organization for review and
approval in accordance with the provisions of subdivisions 3 and 3a for the review of plans.
* * *
103G.291 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY APPROPRIATION DURING DEFICIENCY.
Subdivision 1. Declaration and conservation. (a) If the governor determines and declares by
executive order that there is a critical water deficiency, public water supply authorities appropriat-
ing water must adopt and enforce water conservation restrictions within their jurisdiction that are
consistent with rules adopted by the commissioner [of natural resources].
(b) The restrictions must limit lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation,
and other nonessential uses, and have appropriate penalties for failure to comply with the restrictions.
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min~
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They are reproduced here fOf the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.u5
Page 15 of 17 Pages
Subd. 2. Modification of appropriation for noncompliance. Disregard of critical water defi-
ciency orders, even though total appropriation remains less than that permitted, is adequate grounds
for immediate modification of a public water supply authority's water use permit.
Subd. 3. Water snpply plans; demand rednction. (a) Every public water supplier serving
more than 1,000 people must submit a water supply plan to the commissioner for approval by Janu-
ary 1, 1996. In accordance with guidelines developed by the commissioner, the plan must address
projected demands, adequacy of the water supply system and planned improvements, existing and
future water sources, natural resource impacts or limitations, emergency preparedness, water con-
servation, supply and demand reduction measures, and allocation priorities that are consistent with
section 103G.261. Public water suppliers must update their plan and, upon notification, submit it to
the commissioner for approval every ten years.
(b) The water supply plan in paragraph (a) is required for all communities in the metropolitan
area, as defined in section 473.121, with a municipal water supply system and is a required element
of the local comprehensive plan required under section 473.859. Water supply plans or updates
submitted after December 31, 2008, must be consistent with the metropolitan area master water
supply plan required under section 473.1565, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2).
(c) Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people must employ water use demand re-
duction measures before requesting approval from the commissioner of health under section 144.383,
paragraph (a), to construct a public water supply well or requesting an increase in the authorized
volume of appropriation. Demand reduction measures must include evaluation of conservation rate
structures and a public education program that may include a toilet and showerhead retrofit program.
(d) Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people must submit records that indicate
the number of connections and amount of use by customer category and volume of water unac-
counted for with the annual report of water use required under section 103G.28l, subdivision 3.
(e) For the purposes of this subdivision, "public water supplier" means an entity that owns,
manages, or operates a public water supply, as defined in section 144.382, subdivision 4.
* * *
116G.15 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL AREA.
(a) The federal Mississippi National River and Recreation Area established pursuant to United
States Code, title 16, section 460zz-2(k), is designated an area of critical concern in accordance with
this chapter. The governor shall review the existing Mississippi River critical area plan and specify
any additional standards and guidelines to affected communities in accordance with section l16G.06,
subdivision 2, paragraph (b), clauses (3) and (4), needed to insure preservation of the area pending
the completion of the federal plan.
The results of an environmental impact statement prepared under chapter l16D begun before
and completed after July 1, 1994, for a proposed project that is located in the Mississippi River
critical area north of the United States Army Corps of Engineers Lock and Dam Number One must
be submitted in a report to the chairs of the environment and natural resources policy and finance
committees of the house of representatives and the senate prior to the issuance of any state or local
permits and the authorization for an issuance of any bonds for the project. A report made under this
These statutory provisions are ClUTent through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Statutes. They arc reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 16 (if 17 Pages
paragraph shall be submitted by the responsible governmental unit that prepared the enviromnental
impact statement, and must list alternatives to the project that are determined by the enviromnental
impact statement to be economically less expensive and enviromnentally superior to the proposed
project and identify any legislative actions that may assist in the implementation of enviromnentally
superior alternatives. This paragraph does not apply to a proposed project to be carried out by the
Metropolitan Councilor a metropolitan agency as defined in section 473.121.
(b) If the results of an enviromnental impact statement required to be submitted by paragraph
(a) indicate that there is an economically less expensive and enviromnentally superior alternative,
then no member agency of the Enviromnental Quality Board shall issue a permit for the facility that
is the subject ofthe environmental impact statement, other than an economically less expensive and
environmentally superior alternative, nor shall any government bonds be issued for the facility,
other than an economically less expensive and enviromnentally superior alternative, until after the
legislature has adjourned its regular session sine die in 1996.
Source: Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota (2007)
MLPASTATS07
12126107
These statutory provisions are current through the 2007 First Special Session. For subsequent amendments or other modifications consult the Min-
nesota Statutes as published by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes are copyrighted by the Revisor of Statutes and are
reproduced with the permission of the Revisor of Stahrtes. They are reproduced here for the convenience of the reader only. The official published
version of the Minnesota Statutes is available from the Revisor of Statutes at: www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
Page 17 of 17 Pages
Attachment 2
System Statement
City of Maplewood
Following the January 2004 adoption ofth", 2030 Regional Development Framework, and
the more recent adoptions of the Transportation Policy Plan, the Water Resources
Management Policy Plan, and the Regional Parks Policy Plan, the Metropolitan Council
is issuing system statements pursuant to state statute.
Receipt ofthis system statement and the metropolitan system plans triggers communities'
obligations to review and, as necessary, amend their comprehensive plans within the next
three years. The complete text of the 2030 Regional Development Framework as well as
complete copies of the recently adopted metropolitan system plans are available for
viewing and downloading at httD://WWW.metrDcouncil.ora/Dlannino/framework/timeline.htm. Paper copies
are available by calling the Council's Data Center at 651-602-1140.
Metropolitan system plans are long-range comprehensive plans for the regional systems -
transportation and airports, wastewater services, and parks and open space, along with the
capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service, transportation and regional
recreation open space. System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system
plans for each individual community in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help
communities prepare or update their comprehensive plan, as required by the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act:
Within three years following the receipt of the metropolitan system
statement, every local governmental unit shall have prepared a
comprehensive plan in accordance with sections 462.355,
subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 and the applicable
planning statute and shall have submitted the plan to the
Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to section 473.175.
Local comprehensive plans will be reviewed by the Council for conformance with
metropolitan system plans, consistency with Council policies and compatibility with
adjacent and affected governmental units.
The system statement includes forecasts at densities that assure regional growth is
achieved consistent with adopted policies. These forecasted densities help ensure
regional services and costly regional infrastructure can be provided efficiently and cost-
effectively, and that development and growth within the metropolitan area occur in a
coordinated manner. The system statement also contains an overview of the
transportation and aviation, transit, wastewater, and regional parks system plan updates,
and system changes affecting each community.
Forecasts.
The following forecasts are part ofthe 2030 Regional Development Framework (adopted
January 14, 2004 and updated on August 24, 2005). They are used by the Council to plan
for its regional systems. Communities should base their planning work on these forecasts.
However, given the nature of long-range forecasting, the Council will maintain an on-
going dialogue with communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community
expectations about growth that may have an impact on regional systems.
Forecast of population, households and employment:
Revised Development Framework
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Population 30,954 35,258 37,500 38,100 39,300
Households 11,496 13,758 15,600 16,500 17,500
Employment 25,068 29,961 36,600 41,000 44,500
The Council forecasts growth at appropriate densities for communities in order to protect
the efficiency of wastewater, transportation and other regional system investments, and to
help ensure the metropolitan area can accommodate its projected growth by the year
2030.
Growth management.
The Regional Development Framework sets an overall minimum residential density
standard of 3 to 5 units per acre in developed and developing areas where urban service is
located or planned. The average minimum standard of 3 units per acre is important to the
efficient use of regional systems, including wastewater system investments. Communities
that significantly over-utilize or under-utilize regional systems can cause inefficiencies in
the use of regional resources. Additionally, achieving housing at these density levels may
help communities meet their obligations under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to
plan for and address their housing needs.
Geographic planning area.
The city of Maplewood is designated as a "developed community" geographic planning
area in the 2030 Regional Development Framework. Geographic planning areas are
shown on the 2030 Planning Area map. The planning area sets overall densities that the
planned development patterns in your community can be expected to achieve. (If there
are discrepancies between the 2030 Framework Planning Area map, and the metropolitan
systems plans because of adjustments that occurred subsequent to the adoption of the
2030 Regional Development Framework document, communities should follow the
specific guidance contained in this system statement.)
As Maplewood plans for current and future residents, it should focus on protecting
natural resources, ensuring sufficient public infrastructure, and developing transition
strategies to increase density and encourage infill development.
Specific strategies for developed communities are found on pages 24-25 of the 2030
Regional Development Framework.
2
System statement review process.
If your community disagrees with elements of this system statement, or has any questions
about this system statement, we urge you to contact your sector representative, Bob
Mazanec, 651 602-1330, to review and disquss potential issues or concerns.
The Council and local units and districts have historically resolved questions about
forecasts and other components of the system statement through discussions.
Request for hearing.
If a local governmental unit or school district and the Council are unable to resolve
disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit or district may by
resolution request that a hearing be conducted by the Council's Land Use Advisory
Committee or by the state Office of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of
considering amendments to the system statement. According to Minnesota Statutes
section 473.857, the request shall be made by the local unit or district within 60 days after
receipt of the system statement. If no request for a hearing is received by the Council
within 60 days, the statement becomes final.
System statement issue date:
The official date of the issuance of this system statement is September 12,2005.
3
Transportation System Statement -- Maplewood
Key Changes in the Plan
The revised Transportation Policy Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council in December 2004, is
the metropolitan system plan for airports and transportation with which local comprehensive plans
must conform. This system statement summarizes significant elements ofthe metropolitan system
plan and highlights those elements that apply specifically to your community. In addition to
reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire Transportation Policy
Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework and other pertinent regional planning and policy
documents, including the Aviation Policy Plan, to ensure your community's local comprehensive
plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan system plans. A PDF file of the entire
revised Transportation Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Local
Planning Handbook and other regional planning and policy documents of the Metropolitan Council
are available online at the Metropolitan Council's Web site:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/framework/timeline.htm. The Aviation Policy Plan, adopted
in 1996, is not available electronically, but a copy can be obtained by contacting the Metropolitan
Council's Data Center at 651-602-1140.
The revised Transportation Policy Plan incorporates the following changes:
. The planning period has been extended from 2025 to 2030
. No significant increase in the level of transportation funding was assumed.
. The expenditures shown in the Transportation Policy Plan must be constrained by the level of
funding that is anticipated. However, the revised plan also examined two alternative scenarios-
what could be built if highway revenues were increased by 30% over the next 25 years, and
what it would cost to provide enough additional capacity to hold congestion to the 1998 levels.
. The highway expansion projects shown in the plan have changed little since the 2001 plan, due
to this lack of additional resources. (See Fig 4-11 for highway expansion proposals.)
Metropolitan Highway System Plan investment priorities no longer contain the "Improvements"
category. Most improvement corridors are now designated "Management" corridors.
. The new investment timing provisions are contained in the Plan. Table 4-11 contains projects in
Mn/DOT's Highway Work Plan (scheduled in 2009-2013) construction, reconstruction, and
bridge replacement greater $10 million. Table 4-12 contains Regional Priority Project to move
into the 10-Year Highway Work Plan, if there are resources available in the 2005-2009 time
period.
. Funds have also been allocated to obtain right of way for new crossings of the Mississippi River
between NW Hennepin and Anoka Counties and of the Minnesota River in the vicinity of
Chaska. Construction dollars for these projects are not foreseen before 2030.
. Chapter 5 contains new policies and procedures on managing the scope, cost and revenue
sources of projects to insure that sufficient resources are available to implement the region's
transportation priorities as shown in this plan. This includes procedures to manage the use of
Federal High Priority Project (HPP) funds and matching funds for these federal dollars. The
T-l
Council and Mn/DOT will monitor scope and costs to ensure major projects continue to meet
regional objectives in a cost effective manner.
. The plan envisions significant improvements in the bus system, including new express bus
routes, arterial corridor enhancements, suburb-to-suburb service, transit stations, park-and-ride
lots and other features. The goal is to increase transit ridership 50 percent by 2020 and double it
by 2030.
. The plan proposes additional express commuter bus corridors as well as enhancement and
expansion of existing bus service in freeway corridors. Within each corridor, express bus routes
will be supported by park-and-ride facilities, circulator networks, and "transit advantages."
. The plan includes construction of five new "transitways" on dedicated rights-of-way by 2020 to
help slow the growth in traffic congestion and improve mobility, and three additional
transitways by 2030. Unlike the 2001 plan, the technology for each corridor was not identified
in the Plan; rather the most appropriate and cost-effective mode for any given corridor is best
determined after extensive study ofthe individual corridor. Figure 4-2 (attached) shows the
2030 Transitway System and Express Commuter Bus System.
. The plan now includes detailed information on the facilities needed for transit passengers, such
as stations and park and ride lots, as well as facilities needed to support the transit system, such
as garages and bus layover sites (Figures 4-5 and 4-6). Communities should plan for
development and redevelopment around stations and park-and-ride lots.
. Policy 18 (previously policy 17) on transportation and land use elements in local comprehensive
plans was rewritten and more detail provided in some strategies as to what the Council expects
in local comprehensive plans.
. The TPP now includes references to the regional aviation system as defined in the Aviation
Policy Plan. Th~ 1996 Aviation Policy Plan remains in effect with the exception of the Land
Use Compatibility Guidelinesfor Aircraft Noise. These guidelines have been updated and
included in the TPP as Appendix H.
System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community
1. Metropolitan Highways
Metropolitan highways and regional highway investment priorities for 2030 are shown in Figure 4-
11. The city should refer to Tables 4-9 through 4-12 for major highway projects and proposed
timing. The following metropolitan highways located within Maplewood are planned for
expansion:
. I-35E
. 1-694
2. Transit Routes and Facilities
Maplewood is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. The central portion of Maple wood
is within Market Area II; the remaining portion is in Market Area Ill. Service options for Market
Area II include regular-route locals, all-day expresses, small vehicle circulators, special needs
paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. Service options for Market Area !II include peak-only
T-2
express, small vehicle circulators, midday circulators, special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors), and
ridesharing.
Maplewood should identify existing transit servi~e (available on the Council's website) and desired
future transit service options consistent with the Transportation Policy Plan's transit system service
areas (Table 4-1 and Appendix M).
Maplewood should list transit corridors (express commuter bus corridors and dedicated right-of-
way corridors) and identify opportunities to promote higher density initiatives along dedicated
transit corridors (see Figure 4-2). Maplewood is located along the Rush Line Corridor.
Maplewood should identify existing transit passenger and support facilities and future
improvements to and expansion of these facilities. Passenger and support facilities include shelters,
transit centers, stations, and park-and-ride lots. Existing park-and-ride lots are located at Aldrich
Arena, Highway 61 & Country Road C, Maplewood Mall, and Hmong Church.
3. Aviation Plan and Facilities
The TPP/APP includes policies and text on protection of the region's airspace resources. The
airspace policy states that both Federal Aviation administration (FAA) and MnDOT Aeronautics
safety standards must be a major consideration in the planning, design, maintenance and operation
of air transportation facilities and services. There are no existing or planned aviation facilities
within Maplewood. However, each community has a responsibility to include airspace protection in
. its comprehensive plan. The protection is for potential hazards to air navigation including
electronic interference. Airspace protection should be included in local codes/ordinances to control
height of structures, especially when conditional use permits would apply. The comprehensive plan
should include policy/text on notification to the FAA as defined under code of federal regulations
CFR - Part 77, using the FAA Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration".
Instructions can be found at www.faa.gov/aro/ace/part77.cfin.
T-3
Figure 4-2
2030 Transitwav Corridors
Transitways on
Dedicated ROW
Tier 1
Northstar
Northwest
Cedar Avenue
1-35W
Central
Tier 2
Southwest
Rush Li ne
Red Rock
~ Transitw.olYS: 011 Dedicated ROW
Exp res:> Commu ter Bus Syste m
T-4
Figure 4-5
Transit Passenger Facilities
Active Park &. Ride Capacity (1212004)
.) Less than 100
Q 100 -500
Q Greaterthan 500
@ Programmed Park a Ride (2005-2008)
Transit Centms & Stations
G Current
lil Planned
o Transit Center and Park a Ride Facility
Custom Shelters
@ Existing
8 Future
Online Stations
. Existing
cg Future
r!iZ ']\1 Twn Cities C6Ds
fl Bus Stall on
""~"""
T-5
Figure 4-6
Transit Support Facilities
.........
':"\,-,,,,,,
o 1IilI€lll.,nUtrf30IIIII!J --)0- UIl1:lIypilU
[I FI\lln.U3]Ort.apu@rFallIlD!~ _SiOIUlfI..iUl!
C:J _u..flllleS'91llerL.lle
"
"
.
-I<
~.
fttlleGillagi!Elp;:mkll
FllIreNn.lOaRg<'l
1II111t11ll0! IJIIl & Ilal~
TliIlS1tC011ro10t1"r
~IDVIIU
..u.FltllttlOVlall
i"-ci.'''''
(,~,1Y"'.
=J
""""''''') .~',~>
,,-~e'<JI,w-_'?W
.:;-",,,r,,,,,. ;r,'~
""'.."mm
"""'''''.
F:l
'-,ili-W_"'''-AI'l
"~'."r":,M7,.p
<1.-":0\:1',,,.
T-6
Figure 4-11
2030 Constrained Metropolitan Highway System Plan Investment Priorities
~="",==",===,,,,=,= ~~"=--"'''''-"r-~?~~~-
~
.
C_~~"~ --="""",,,,,,,,,=,,,,,_+-"""='^=---=
Highway Investment Priorities
.......... 2005 . 2008 TIP Proj eet.
.-..... Manaeement
........... Expansion
........... flfJW Preservation
August 2004
o 3 6
12 Miles
I I I I
T-7
Table 4-9
Major Highway Projects Under Way or Included in 2005-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
Proiect Cost Current Assumed Project Description Status in Status and Other
Hil!hwav and Bridl?c Estimates program year 2001 Comments
(OOOs) years open to TPP
traffic
1. TI! 12 $60,000 2003 2006 Construct new limited access 2-1ane 102001- Contracts let
highway between Wayzata Blvd. to CR 2004 TIP
6 in Orono. Parallel to existing TII 12.
2. 1-35E, from TI! 13 $33,000 2002 2005 Replace and Expand Miss. River Bridge ill Contracts let
to Shepard Rd Bridge. Project let. 2001-
2004 TIP
3. 1-35W, HOV lane, $206,000 2006 2010 Reconstruct TH 62 and 1-35W and add 102001- Project redesign required by
from 66th S1. to 420d St. the HOV lane. Stage 1 (1-494 to 60th 2004 TIP legislature, to be let 2006
S1.) contracts let 4/99
4.. TH 36, S1. Croix $5,000 New 4-lane bridge and approaches. In 2001- $5M placeholder in '05.'08
Bridge Negotiation process underway. 2004 TIP TIP. Mediation process
Request for high priority funding has underway.
been made MN cost estimates from
$150-$227 M
The cost recorded here is !h
of the averal:!e.
5. TH 55, Hiawatha $129,000 2003 2004 Reconstruct the 4~lane arterial from In 2001- Contracts let
Av. Crosstown to 1-94. 2004 TIP
6. TH 100, from $146,000 2003 2004 Construction underway to rebuild as 6 In 2001- Contracts let
GlenwoodAv. to lane freeway. 2004 TIP
CSAH 152
7. 1-494fI'H 61 $250,000 2002 2009 Replace and widen 1 ~494 bridge, In 2001- Contracts let.
interchange, TII 61/ reconstruct interchange, reconstruct TH 2004 TIP
local access 61. Provide local access. First contract
let
T-8
Table 4.9 (continued)
Major Highway Projects Under Way or Included in 2005-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
Proiect Cost Current Assumed Project Description Status in 2001 Status and Otber
Hil!hwav and Bridl!c Estimates program year TPP Comments
(ODDs) years open to
traffic
8. 1-94, from Weaver $80,000 2001 2005 Reconstruct, add general use In 2001.2004 Contracts let
Lake Rd. to 3'd lane from Hemlock to TIP
HumboldtAv. Brooklvn Blvd.
9. 1-94 from McKnight $11,000 2005 2007 3rd lane, bridge widening Ruth Expansion
to TH 120 St. to Ramsev Co. line Corridor
10. 1-494 from TH 5 to $74,000 2003 2005 Add 3' lane, first contract let In 2001-2004 Contract let
Tl-lIOO TIP Described as 1-494, from TI-I
212 to T1-1100
11. Tl-l 610 from T1-1 $26,750 2004 2005 Continue construction of new Expansion
169 to CR 130 4-Iane freeway on new Corridor
alhmment
12. Tl-l 169 from $104,000 2005 2008 Reconstruct three intersections Corridor study
Minnesota River to as interchanges and recommended
Valley View Road reconstruct interchange with I~ '03-'06
494
13. 1-494 from TH 212 $130,000 2004 2006 Widen 1-494 to six lanes Expansion Described as 1-494, from TII
toTH55 Corridor 212 to 1.394
14. TII 212 from $259,000 2004 2006 Construct new four lane Expansion Described as TH 212, from
CSAH 4 to % mile west freeway on new alignment Corridor CSAH 4 to old alignment
ofCSAl-l147
15. 1-694 from west to $137.000 2004 2007 Reconstruct and add lanes to Expansion Described as 1-694, from W
east Junction IR35E eliminate bottleneck Corridor jet. 1-35E to E jct. 1-35E
(unweave the weave)
TOTAL $1,650,750
T-9
Table 4-10
Metropolitan Highway System Expansion Projects
2009-2030
Highway From To Length 2001 TPP Comment Recommended Facility Improvement
(miles)
1-35E TII 110 TII5 2.3 Improvement to be Defined Bridge Under Construction.
Add 3rd Lane.
I-35E** 1-94 1-694 5.6 Subarea Study Needed Add 3T and 4 Lane.
Connect Phalen Corridor, Reconstruct ea u a Brid e
I-35W** 461 S1. 1-94 5.3 Improvement Conidor Add HOV / transit priority lane and Lake Street
interchan e
1-494 TII 55 1-94 5.5 Description was I~394 to 1-94 Add 3T . Lane
1-494 TII77 TII 100 5.1 Description was from TH 77 to Build in Accordance with EIS Completed in 1997
TH 100
1-694** 1-35W W.Jct.I- 5.6 Add 3' Lane
35E
1-694 EJct.I- TII 36 5.5 Corridor Study Needed Add 3' Lane
35E
TH 36 S1. Croix New four lane bridge and mitigation
Brid e* 1.0
TII 36** 135W 1-35E 5.3 Description was 135W to I35E Add 3 Lane
TH41 TH 169 TH212 3.0 Right-of-Way Preservation New Bridge, New RjghH)f~ Way defined in on-going
,tud
New Miss. River TH 10 1-94 or TH 2.0 River crossing need recorded Preserve R/W after alignment is defined
Crossin 610
TII 100** 36 St. Cedar 1.0 Add 3 Lane
Lake Rd.
TII 252 73 TII 610 2.9 Corridor Needs Unclear Convert to 4-Lane Freeway
Av.
TII 610 CR 130 1.94 5.0 Complete 4-Lane Freeway
TOTAL 46.8
* The region asswnes it is responsible fOf one-half of the state's share.
** All or part of these projects are in the MnDOT IO-year (2004-2013) Work Plan
T-IO
Table 4-11
MnDOT Highway Work Plan, 2009-2013
Maior Construction, Reconstruction and BridO"e Renlacement Greater Than $10 Million
Proiect Cost Estimates
Design RIW Year-of- Construction Total
Project Construction Estimate Estimate Construction Engineering Project
Highwa Description Program Fiscal Year ($000) ($000) Estimate Estimate Cost
v ($000) ($000) ($0001
35E 1-94 to Maryland MC 2010 7,687 Limited 76,755 6,140 90,571
Ave. in St. Paul,
grading, surfacing,
brs., etc., including
Cayuga Br. and
Phalen Blvd.
connection
35W At Lake St. in MC 2009 1,160 Contin- 11,600 928 13,688
Minneapolis, liOUS/
reconstruct inter- Major
chau~elPh. I)
35W At Lake St. in MC 2010 1,785 Contin- 17,850 1,428 21,063
Minneapolis, nous/
reconstruct inter- Major
cha@e (ph. 2)
36 At Lexington Ave.. MC 2009 1,380 Limited 13,804 1,104 16,289
in Roseville,
replace Br. 5723
and reconstruct
interchanae
100 36"' St. to Cedar MC 2011 6,150 Contin- 61,500 4,920 72,570
Lake Rd. in St. nous!
Louis Park, Major
grading, surfacing,
Brs., etc. for 6-lane
freeway
169 . Near CSAH 6 in MC 2010 1,904 Limited 19,040 1,523 22.467
Belle Plaine,
grading, surfacing,
Br., etc. for new
interchanQ:e
694 E ofI35W in MC 2012 6,960 Minimall 69,596 5,568 82,123
Arden Hills to E of Spot
Lexington Ave.. in
Shoreview,
grading, surfacing,
Brs., etc. to add
third lane and
correct weave at
TH IOt51
TOTALS 27,015 270,145 21,611 318,771
T-ll
Table 4-12
Regional Priority Projects to Move into
10-Year Highway Work Plan, 2005-2009
Hi..hwav Proiect Descrintion
l-35E TH 110 to TH 5, add one throullh lane *
1-494 TH 55 to 1-94, add one throuI>h lane
TH 610 CSAH 81 to 1-94, Comolete four-lane freewav
Total: $ 300 million
T-12
Market
Areas
II
III
IV
Table 4-1
Transit Market Area Features and Improvements
Laud Use Pattern
I
Highest concen-
trations of activity,
housing and jobs
Moderate concen-
trations of jobs,
housing and
activities
Generally lower
concentrations with
intennittent pockets
of moderate
concentrations
(pockets would
receive highest
service levels)
Lowest
concentrations of
housing and jobs
Service Options
Regular-route locals, all-
day expresses, special
needs paratransit (ADA,
seniors,) ridesharing
Regular-route locals, all-
day expresses, small-
vehicle circulators, special
needs paratransit (ADA,
seniors,), ridesharing
Peak -only express, small
vehicle dial-a-ride, midday
circulators, special needs
paratransit (ADA,
seniors,), ridesharing
Dial-a-ride, volunteer
driver programs,
ridesharing
T-13
Service Characteristics
Frequencies: 5- I 5 minute local and
circulator
Span of Service: 18-24 hours, 7
days per week
Access: Locals spaced 0.25-0.5 mile
apart with 8- lObus stops per mile
Frequencies: 15-30 minute or 30-60
minute depending on land use
pattern
Span of Service: 12-20 hours per
day, 7 days per week
Access: Locals spaced 0.5-1.0 mile
apart with 6-8 bus stops per mile
Frequencies: peak-period-only
expresses, 1-2 hour midday
frequencies, dial-a-ride advance
registration
Span of Service: 10- I 4 hours per
day, weekdays and limited
weekends
Access: Services tied to park-and-
ride lots and hubs
Frequencies: As needed
Span of Service: 8-10 hours per
days, weekdays
Spacing: Services tied to park-and-
ride and park-and-poollots
Appendix M.
Regional Transit Standards
Transit Market Areas
While several factors irifluence the propensity to use transit, the primary predictors of transit
productivity are density of origination and destination. There are four categories of transit markets
in the metropolitan area. Transit markets in the Twin Cities are identified usingfour primary
criteria: 1) population density, 2) employment concentration and job density, 3) trip volumes and
patterns; and 4) transit dependent segments of the population. Different types and levels of transit
services should be used for each transit market area.
The region has four distinct market areas. Transit Market Area I has the highest density of
population and employment, and is able to effectively support frequent regular route transit service.
Because this is the most productive transit service area in the region, it should also be the area that
receives a prioritized investment of transit resources.
Transit Market Area Area Characteristics
Areal Population Density = IS or more persons/acre (or)
Job Densitv = 50 or more iobs/acre and 10,000 more contilmous iobs
Area II Population Density = 9 to 14.9 persons/acre augmented by contiguous High
Transit Denendencv areas
Area III Population Density = 5 to 8.9 persons/acre (excluding isolated pockets)
augmented by:
(a) Contiguous areas with Job Density = 10 to 49 jobs/acre and 3,000 or more
contiguous jobs
Or
(b) Contiguous areas with Major Travel destinations: 50 or more non-home
bound trios/acre
Area IV Pooulation Densitv less than 5 oersons/acre
Pockets Areas meeting at least one of the following:
1. Population Density ~ more than 5 persons/acre (isolated pockets only)
2. Job Density = 10 to 49 jobs/acre and 3,000 or more contiguous jobs
(isolated pockets only)
3. Major Travel destinations: 50 or more non-home bound trips/acre (isolated
pockets only)
4. High Transit Denendencv areas (isolated nockets onlv)
Transit Market Area II has high to moderate population and employment densities yielding a
market area that is conducive to regular route operations and also other forms of transit service
delivery.
The lower population and employment densities of Transit Market Areas III, IV, and Pocket areas
increase the complexity and challenge of matching transit service to transit need. Due to the lower
concentrated demand, it becomes more difficult to provide efficient transit service at reasonable
costs in these areas. In the longer term to meet transit needs in suburban and rural settings, we need
to promote the right type of land use and development densities that can sustain transit operations.
T-14
Transit Markets/Service Options
The table below identifies transit strategies that appear to be most appropriate for the different
transit markets that are in the metropolitan area. The service delivery strategies presented are only
illustrative and not exhaustive. Detailed analysis of specific communities within the metropolitan
area may generate other creative means of delivering effective transit services.
Transit Suggested Service Type Suggested Service Characteristics
Market Area
Area I Primary emphasis on big bus/regular route Orientation - Focus on both CBD's
service complemented by paratransit Availability - Up to 24 hours/day and 7
service. Downtown area circulators days/week
possible. Access - Route spacing (.25 - .50 miles)
with 8-10 bus stops per mile
Freauency - Generally 5 - IS minutes
Area II Primary emphasis on big bus/regular route Orientation - Link CBD's/suburban
service complemented by paratransit transit stations and centers
service. Neighborhood circulators should Availability - Up to 20 hours/day and 7
tie in with limited stop regular route days/week
service. Access - Route spacing (0.5 - 1.0 miles)
with 6-10 stops per mile
Freauencv- Generallv IS - 30 minutes
Area III A mix of big and small bus/regular route Orientation - Link CBD's/suburban
and community circulator service transit stations and centers
complemented by paratransit service. Availability - Up to 18 hours/day and Up
Community circulators should tie into to 7 days/week
regular route regional service at a transfer Access - Route spacing (0.5 - 1.5 miles)
point. with 6-10 stops per mile
Frequency - Generally 30 - 60 minutes
Area IV Primary emphasis on: I) small bus/dial-a- Orientation - Suburbto suburb and central
ride service providing county or rural cities
circulation, and 2) community bus service Availability - Peak-period express and
tied to major park-and-ride facilities to midday circulators; weekday only
create travel volumes. Access - Express routes tied to major
park-and-rides/circulators link to transit
stations and centers
Frequency - Advance registration for dial-
a-ride services
Pockets Primary emphasis on I) small bus service Orientation - Localized
providing community local or dial-a-ride Availability - Varies by pocket; primarily
circulation, and 2) commuter bus service weekday service
may have localized service in addition to Access - Door-to-door or modified
linking with major park-and-ride facilities circulation; express routes primarily tied
to create travel volumes. to park-and-ride facilities
Frequency - Up to 2 hours for circulator
services. Advance registration for dial-a-
ride
T-15
Transit Service Design Standards
A consistent set of transit service design standards ensures regional coordination and consistency.
Regional design standards are custom-tailored for each transit market area.
Area I Area II Area ill Area IV
Transit Service Options
Re nlar Ronte
Express
Radial
Crosstown
Circulator
Limited Sto
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mobili
Service Span
Re ular Route
General Availability
Express
Radial
Crosstown/Circulator
Limited Sto
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mobili
Service Levels
Re ular Route
Express
Radial
Crosstown/Circulator
Limited Sto
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mobili
Route Spacing
Re ular Route
Express
Radial
Crosstown/Circulator
Limited Sto
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mobili
Bus Stop Spacing
Services Considered:
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes No
Yes Yes Yes No
Downtown Neighborhood Community Specific
Yes Yes Yes No
No No Specific Yes
Yes Yes Yes No
Days and Times of Service: *
Up to 24 hours Up to 20 hours Up to 18 hours Up to 14 hours
PklDay/NtlWkend Peak/Specific Peak/Specific Peak Only
PklDay/NtlWkend PklDay/Nt/Wkend PklDay /Nt/Specific N/A
PklDay/NtlWkend PklDay/NtlWkend PklDay/Specific Specific
Peak/S ecific Peak/S ecific Peak/S ecific N/A
N/A N/A Specific PklDay /Specific
PklDa /Nt/Wkend PklDa /Nt/Wkend PklDa /NtlWkend S ecific
(Miinimum Frequency for New/Existing Routes: *+
15" Peakl60" Day 3 Pk Trips/60" Day 3 Pk Trips/Specific
15" Day/30" Night 30" Day/60" Night 60" Day/Specific
30" Day/60" Night 30" Day/60" Night 60" Day/Specific
S ecifich S ecific S ecific
2 Peak Trips
N/A
60" Day/Specific
N/A
N/ A N/ A Specific Specific
S ecific S ecific S ecific S ecific
* Minimum service levels must be justified; with loading standards/connectivity dictating frequer
+ In services with 15 minute or less frequency, clocked headways (or consistent departure times)
I Area I I Area II I Area III I Area IV I
Acceptable Range:
Specific
.25-.50 Miles
.50-1.0 Miles
S ecific
Specific
.50-1.0 Miles
1.0-2.0 Miles
S ecific
Specific
.50-1.5 Miles
Specific
S ecific
Specific
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Relates to local pick-up portion ofthe route
T-16
Re ular Route
Express
Radial
Crosstown/Circulator
Limited Sto
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mobili
Maximum Allowable:'
8 per Mile
8 per Mile
8 per Mile
S ecific
8 per Mile
8 per Mile
8 per Mile
S ecific
8 per Mile
8 per Mile
. 8 per Mile
S ecific
P&R or 8 per Mile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
, An allowable exception to standards may be CBD's and major traffic generators.
Near side stops are preferred in most areas. In CBD's and other high commercial density areas, when
are major impediments to smooth bus operations, far-side/mid-block stops are generally preferred. In
must be evaluated for: I) traffic conditions in area (i.e., right turns, merging, etc.); 2) curb availability
table below; and 3 eneral suitabili for sto i.e., curb cuts, ADA considerations, obstructions, etc.
Bus Sto Dimeusions+ Mixed Use Sto Small Bus Oul Sto
Near-side StoD 100 ft. 75 ft.
Far-side Stop 120 ft. 90 ft.
Mid-Block Sto 150 ft. 11 0 ft.
+ Bus stops which have multiple buses stopping at the same time require more space.
Passenger Waiting Shelter Warrant Central Cities All Other Areas
r Regular Route >40 peak hour boardings >25 peak hour boardings
T-17
Branch Warrant
Re ular Route
Express
Radial
Crosstown/Circulator
Limited Sto
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mobili
Directness
Re ular Route
Express
Radial
Crosstown/Circulator
Limited Sto
Area IV
Route productivity measured as passengers per revenue hour for express and pass. Per revenue mi
Minimum Re uirement:
Specific IS PPRH & 30"
1.5 rte. prod. & 30" 1.0 rte. prod. & 30"
1.5 rte. Prod. & 30" 1.0 rte. prod. & 30"
30" Peak Fre uenc IS PPRH & 30"
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Areal
Area II
Area III
IS PPRH & 30"
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Express service is measured from beginning of route and compared with average auto travel time
remote parking time). Local service is measured using passenger boardings per mile operated.
Minimum Requirement:
1.35 Avg Auto Time' 1.35 Avg Auto Time' 1.35 Avg Auto Time'
1.0 route product. + 1.0 route product. + 0.5 route product. +
1.0 route product. + 1.0 route product. + 0.5 route product. +
] .0 route roduct. + 1.0 route roduct. + 0.5 route roduct. +
, A vg. auto time includes assumption of 10 minute remote parking related time.
+ Increase in trip rides must be greater that thru rides inconvenienced (I.e.: new rides>thru rides).
than 3 minutes, new trip rides must exceed extra time for thru riders (I.e., new rides>(thru riders)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3-10" at hubs
N/A
IS PPRH & 30"
0.5 rte. prod. & 60"
0.5 rte. prod. & 60"
15 PPRH & 30"
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.25 A vg Auto Time'
N/A
N/A
N/A
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mohili
Network Transfer Connectivity
Re ular Route New Route Design Consideration: (includes peak and midday service only)
Express 3-15" wi all others Specific Specific 3-10" at hubs & P&R
Radial 3-15" wi all others 3-10" at hubs 3-10" at hubs N/A
Crosstown/Circulator 3-15" wi all others 3- ] 0" at hubs 3-10" at hubs 3-10" at hubs
Limited Sto S ecitic S ecitic 3-10" at hubs & P&R N/A
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mobili
T-18
N/A
N/A
3-10" athubs
N/A
Area IV
Customer "Peak Period" Load Guidelines
Guidelines are based on maximum load point of route and would be somewhat more flexible on jJ
Minimnm and Maximum Tar ets on a Consistent Basis:*
70- 100% of Seat Cap. 70- 100% of Seat Cap. 70- 100% of Seat Cap.
85-]25% of Seat Cap. 85-]25% of Seat Cap. N/A
75-] ]5% of Seat Cap. 50-100% of Seat Cap. N/A
80- ] 10% of Seat Ca. 80- ]] 0% of Seat Ca . N/ A
* Maximum customer load average over] 5 minute period.
Re ular Route
Express
Radial
Crosstown/Circulator
Limited Sto
Para transit
General Public
Metro Mobili
Area I
Area II
Area III
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Customer "Off-Peak" Load Guidelines
Guidelines are based on maximum load point of route.
Minimum and Maximum Tar ets on a Consistent Basis:+
65- 100% of Seat Cap. 60-] 00% of Seat Cap. 50-] 00% of Seat Cap.
60- 100% of Seat Cap. 60- 100% of Seat Cap. N/ A
50- 100% of Seat Cap. 50- 100% of Seat Cap. N/ A
65- 100% of Seat Ca. 60- 100% of Seat Ca. 50-] 00% of Seat Ca .
+ Maximum customer load average over 30 minute period.
Re ular Route
Express
Radial
Crosstown/Circulator
Limited Sto
Paratransit
General Public
Metro Mobili
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
T-19
70- 100% of Seat Cap.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50-] 00% of Seat Cap.
N/A
N/A
50- 100% of Seat Ca .
N/A
N/A
Transit Performance Standards
The primary performance standards to measure service are Subsidy per Passenger and
Passengers per In-Service Hour. Performance standards are used to evaluate the relative
productivity and efficiency of the services provided. To be responsible and dynamic, a transit
system must consistently measure and adjust service in unproductive routes and address
insufficient service in productive areas. The use of two regional performance standards provides
better insight into the operational and financial performance of individual routes and services.
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy or net cost is the difftrence between the total cost of providing service offset by revenue
from passenger fares. Subsidy per passenger represents the net cost divided by the number of
passengers using the service. This standard identifies services that are not operating within
efficiency ranges and focuses corrective actions for those services. Subsidy thresholds are
determined by calculating the non-weighted subsidy per passenger average within each service
classification plus fixed percentage deviations from that average.
Threshold No.
Level of Subsity per
Passen erPenormance
Monitoring Goal
Possible Action
1
2
3
20 to 35% over
36 to 60% over
For uick Review
Minor Modifications
More than 60% over
For Intense Review
Restructure/Eliminate
Passengers per In-Service Hour
The passenger per in-service hour standard establishes a minimum threshold of performance for
light rail transit, big bus fixed route service, small bus fixed route service and paratransit
operations. Passengers per in-service hour represents the total passengers carried divided by
the in-service time. This measure is most often calculated at the route level, but can also be
measured less rigidly at a trip level.
Type of Service Average Passengers per Minimum Passengers per
In-Service Hour In-Service Hour
Light Rail Transit >70 >50
Big Bus Fixed Route - All Dav >20 >15
Big Bus Fixed Route - Peak Onlv >20 NIA
Small Bus Fixed Route >9 >5
Small Bus Non-Fixed Route >3 >2
Other/Rideshare/Shared Ride Taxi <2 N/A
T-20
Wastewater System Statement -- Maplewood
Key Changes in the Plan
The revised Water Resources Management Policy Plan, adopted by the Metropolitan Council in
March 2005, is the metropolitan system plan for metropolitan wastewater services with which
local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant
elements of the metropolitan system plan and highlights those elements that apply specifically to
your community. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should
consult the entire Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development
Framework and other pertinent regional planning and policy documents to ensure your
community's local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan
system plans. A PDF file ofthe entire Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the 2030
Regional Development Framework, the Local Planning Handbook and other regional planning
and policy documents ofthe Metropolitan Council are available online at the Metropolitan
Council's Web site: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/frameworkloverview.htm.
The revised Water Resources Management Policy Plan incorporates the following changes:
. A coordinated approach to water supply planning in the metropolitan area with the goal of
providing for a sustainable, reliable and secure supply of high quality water to support orderly
economic growth and maintain the region's high quality oflife.
. An approach to surface water management that ties together the control of pollution from
point and nonpoint sources. Local surface water management plans will be reviewed for
impacts on the regional wastewater system.
. A policy under which the Council will consider acquiring and operating local wastewater
treatment plants in rural growth centers upon request where enough growth is projected to
make it economically feasible for the Council to become involved.
. A plan that provides for cities to reduce excessive inflow and infiltration (III) of clear water
into the metropolitan sewer system. A financial assistance/surcharge program is included that
will provide a funding mechanism to help solve the III problem.
. A policy that continues to require inspections of individual sewage treatment systems (lSTS)
at least once every three years by trained individuals. In addition, the Council has added
further clarification on what is needed in a community's locallSTS management program.
W - 1
System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community
1. Metropolitan Sewer Service
Forecasts:
The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for
Maplewood as contained in the adopted Water Resources Management Policy Plan are
listed below. These forecasts are for sewered development. The sewered housing
forecasts were estimated based on SAC data, annual city reports, current trends and other
information relating to your community. The wastewater flows are based on historical
wastewater flow data and the projected sewered housing and employment data.
Table 1
Year 2010 2020 2030
Sewered Population 37,500 38,100 39,300
Sewered Households 15,600 16,500 17,500
Sewered Emvlovment 36,600 41,000 44,500
Average Annual Wastewater Flow (MGD) 4.57 4.62 4.69
Allowable Peak Hourly Flow (MGD) 10.97 11.09 11.26
The flow projections represent the Council's commitment to a level of service, assuming
that the Council's underlying demographic forecasts are maintained. Adjustments may be
required based on verified growth or lack of growth. The city should contact Council
staff to discuss any proposed adjustments. Flow projections do not represent an allocation
of interceptor capacity except in the event a temporary system constraint occurs. The
community must strive to keep its wet weather flows within the allowable peak hourly
rate.
At a minimum the Council will reevaluate flow projections every five years. Moreover,
the Council will also continue to monitor each city's flow on a continuous basis and note
any significant changes. The Council will use these growth and wastewater flow forecasts
to plan all future interceptors and treatment work needed to serve your community. The
Council will not design future interceptor improvements or treatment facilities to handle
peak hourly flows in excess of the allowable rate for your city. Maplewood, through its
comprehensive planning process, must decide the location and staging of development,
and then plan and design its local wastewater collection system to serve this
development. If you plan a total wastewater flow from your community in excess of the
Council's forecasts, your assumptions will be analyzed by the Council for their potential
adverse effects on the capacity or operation of the metropolitan system.
You should also note that urban development at overall densities that are substantially
W - 2
lower than identified for your community in the Council's Growth Management Strategy
Section of the Systems Information Statement will also be analyzed by the Council for
their potential adverse effects on the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service.
Description of Metropolitan Disposal System Serving your Commuuity:
The attached map shows the location ofthe Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS)
serving your community. The following paragraphs contain information on the existing
and planned metropolitan facilities serving your community.
The wastewater flow from the City of Maplewood is treated at the Metropolitan WWTP
located within St. Paul, MN. There are many projects scheduled for the Metropolitan
WWTP through 2030. These projects will provide additional capacity at the plant as well
as improve its ability to meet required permit standards.
As can be seen from the attached map, the City of Maplewood is served by a multitude of
interceptors. Based on the city's 2004 Comprehensive Sewer Plan, the interceptor system
serving the city has adequate capacity to provide for the long-term needs of the city. The
Council has several proposed interceptor improvement projects scheduled to support the
long-term needs of the city. The Middle Beltline Interceptor relief to expand the capacity
within the system is scheduled for construction between 2005 -2010. The rehabilitation
ofthe North St. Paul Interceptor is scheduled to be completed in 2010. Finally, the
rehabilitation of the Battle Creek Interceptor in St. Paul is scheduled to be designed and
constructed within the 2005 -2010 time period. The city needs to verify its long-term
needs as part of its comprehensive plan update. If necessary, detailed information
regarding metropolitan facilities is available from the Council's Municipal Services
Section by calling the staff at (651) 602-1005.
Increases in growth rates and resulting increases in flow beyond those shown in Table 1
may result in short-term capacity limitations within the MDS.
Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Goal
The Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan states that the Council will
establish 1/1 goals for all communities discharging wastewater to the MDS. Communities
that have excessive III in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the
excessive III by 2012. The Council will begin the implementation of an III
assistance/surcharge program in 2007. The money collected from the communities with
excessive 1/1 may be used by those communities to remove 1/1 from their systems. The
Council will limit increases in service within those communities that have not met their
III goal(s) starting in 2013. The Council will meet with the community and discuss this
alternative before it is implemented. This time period may be shorter if excessive 1/1
jeopardizes the Council's ability to convey wastewater without an overflow occurring. In
this case the Council may limit increases in service within those communities that have
excessive 1/1 immediately upon notification to the community. The Council plans to
W - 3
implement a wastewater rate demand charge program, starting in 2013, for those
communities that have not met their III goals. These revenues will be used to help defray
the cost of providing attenuation within the MDS to recover the capacity lost to excessive
III.
The III goal established for the City of Maplewood is the allowable peak hourly flow rate
and varies based on annual average flow. The Council's metering program shows that the
city's 2004 annual average flow at meter M004 was 0.22 mgd. The current III goal for
your community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of 0.84 mgd. At meter
M005, the 2004 annual average flow was 0.24 mgd. The current III goal for your
community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of 0.91 mgd. At meter
M007, the 2004 annual average flow was 0.13 mgd. The current III goal for your
community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of 0.51 mgd. At meter
M007A, the 2004 annual average flow was 0.7 mgd. The current III goal for your
community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of 2.31 mgd. At meter
M008, the 2004 annual average flow was 0.32 mgd. The current III goal for your
community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of 1.15 mgd. At meter
MO 11, the 2004 annual average flow was 0.67 mgd. The current III goal for your
community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of2.2 mgd. At meter
MO l5A, the 2004 annual average flow was 0.29 mgd. The current III goal for your
community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of 1.07 mgd. At meter
MO 16, the 2004 annual average flow was 0.35 mgd. The current III goal for your
community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of 1.26 mgd. At meter
M25A, the 2004 annual average flow was 0.38 mgd. The current III goal for your
community at this location is an allowable peak hourly flow of 1.37 mgd.
Specific Requirements for the Sewer Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan
The Council has completed a review of the current information in the city's existing
comprehensive plan and has determined that the following information is needed to
update the sewer element of the city's comprehensive plan/local sewer policy plan:
. A sewer map showing the city's existing service area and proposed trunk sewer
system through 2030 and ultimate sewer service area.
. A table showing the projected population, households, employment and flow forecasts
by interceptor for the city for 2010, 2020 and 2030.
. A description ofthe city's III program. What efforts does the city make in the
maintenance of its sanitary disposal system? Does the city prohibit the connection of
sump pumps, rain leaders and passive drain tile from the sanitary sewer system?
2. Management of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems
The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires the sewer element (local sewer policy plan)
of the local comprehensive plan to describe the standards and conditions under which the
W- 4
installation of individual sewage treatment systems will be permitted and to the extent
practicable, the areas not suitable for public or private systems.
The new Water Resources Management Policy Plan states that the appropriate density
for development with individual sewage treatment systems depends on the suitability of
the soils to treat wastewater and whether space is available for a primary and back up
drainfield. It is the Council's position that all municipalities and counties allowing
individual sewage treatment systems should incorporate current MPCA regulations
(Minn. Rules Chapter 7080) as part of a program for managing individual sewage
treatment systems in the sewer eleme.nt oftheir local comprehensive plan and implement
the standards in issuing permits. Maplewood should adopt a management program
consistent with state rules. An overview of Maple wood's management program must be
included in the community's local comprehensive plan update. If adequate information
on the management program is not included; the comprehensive plan will be found
incomplete for review until the required information is provided to the Council.
3. Surface Water Management
In 1995, Minnesota Statutes section 473.859, subd. 2, was amended to make the local
surface water management plan required by Minnesota Statutes section 103B.235 a part of
the land use plan of the local comprehensive plan. Section 103B.235 provides that a local
surface water management plan should be prepared once a watershed plan for the area has
been approved. Section 103B.235 also generally identifies the content requirements for
the plan. The local surface water management plan must be submitted to both the
watershed management organization(s) within whose watershed the community is located
and to the Metropolitan Council for its review. For guidelines on the contents oflocal
surface water management plans, please refer to Appendix B2-b of the Water Resources
Management Policy Plan.
Council records indicate that Maplewood is in the Ramsey Washington Metro, Capitol
Region, Valley Branch and South Washington Watershed Districts (see attached map).
The Ramsey Washington Metro and Capitol Region watershed plans were approved by
BWSR in 1997 and 2000. The South Washington watershed plan was approved by BWSR
in 1997. Only recently was the East Mississippi River Watershed Management
Organization merged into the South Washington Watershed District. The South
Washington Watershed District is updating its plan to include the area formerly in the East
Mississippi Watershed. Finally, Valley Branch is updating its watershed plan and should
have an approved plan in 2006. Therefore, Maplewood should be required to update its
local surface water management plan by the end of 2008. The plan should be submitted to
the Council for its review concurrent with the review by the watershed management
organizations. Failure to have an updated local surface water management plan consistent
with the local surface water management plan content requirements found in Appendix B2-
b ofthe Water Resources Management Policy Plan will result in a metropolitan system
impact.
W- 5
The Council also updated its priority lake list that was first developed in the 1980s as part
of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan update. There is 1 priority lake, Phalen,
in Maplewood. The Council uses the priority lake list to focus its limited resources. The
list is also used in the environmental review process. Where a proposed development may
impact a priority lake, the project proposer must complete a nutrient budget analysis for the
lake as part ofthe environmental review process.
w- 6
" MCES Meter
- MCES Interceptor
Meter Shed
M002
D M004
M005
D M007
D M007A
D MOOB
DM010
MOll
D M015A
M016
M025A
DU001
D U010A
U018
U021
U035
U038
Fram ework 2030
Developed Area
w.'
.
Maplewood
...
fir 111
ear l.1Ike ... i.2
71511 JJ i;
:0
C.I
""
I
I
f
.!!'
~
"
~
~
"
~
:0
o
o
West St. Paul
if Q
{} ,Q
R.
w- 7
Maplewood
.
..
..
CAPITOL REGION
...IL
/ LOWE~1\91SSISSIPPI~~lrER
I I West St. Paul'l-
..., i .
I ,1"0., I
w*.
,
[:J \f\kItershed Management
fm:,:;':-'HW:';WI Prio rity Water Features
[~:=1 Community Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Service Area
w- 8
Regional Parks System Statement
City of Maplewood
Key Changes in the Plan
The 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council in June 2005 is the
metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open space with which local comprehensive
plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant elements of the metropolitan
system plan and highlights those elements that apply specifically to your community. In
addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire 2030
Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework and other pertinent
regional planning and policy documents to ensure your community's local comprehensive plan
and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan system plans. A PDF file of the entire 2030
Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Local Planning
Handbook and other regional planning and policy documents of the Metropolitan Council are
available online at the Metropolitan Council's website:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/frameworkltimeline.htm.
To meet the needs of the region in 2030, the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan includes the
following changes to the current regional parks system.
./ Designate two existing connty parks and three trails as "regional."
· In Washington County, Pine Point Park
· In Ramsey County, Tony Schmidt Park
· In Ramsey County/St. Paul, three regional trails - Trout Brook, Summit Avenue, and
Lexington Parkway
./ Acqnire and develop three new parks. Search areas inclnde:
. Northwestern Anoka County
· Empire Township in Dakota County. Please note that the Metropolitan Council approved a
park master plan and a boundary for the park has been established.
· Blakeley Township in Scott County
./ Acqnire and develop seven new trails. Search areas inclnde:
· The Crow River, in Carver County and Three Rivers Park District
. Both a north/south and an east/west trail traversing Dakota County
· An east/west trail traversing Scott County
· In Three Rivers Park District, a trail connecting parts of Baker Park Reserve; a trail
connecting Baker and Crow-Hassan Park Reserves; and a trail connecting Crow-Hassan
and Elm Creek Park Reserves
./ Acqnire land within the current boundaries of 30 existing parks and four trails.
./ Acquire natural-resource lauds adjacent to six existing parks and six existing trails.
P-I
To meet the needs of the region beyond 2030, the Council proposes four new regional parks or
reserves and three new trails be acquired. These parks and trails would not be developed until
after 2030, but the opportunity to acquire them will likely be lost if the lands aren't identified and
purchased before 2030. The goal is to complete the acquisition of the regional park system and
secure opportunities for future generations. Search areas include:
,/ Parks - Miller Lake area and Minnesota River Bluff and Ravines in Carver County;
southwestern Dakota County; and Cedar Lake area in Scott County.
,/ Trails - northwestern Anoka County; central to south Carver County; and Minnesota
River to Spring Lake in Scott County.
P-2
Fignl'e 1: AU additions and changes to Regional Park System Plan
Figure 1. Regional Parks System Statement
July 2005
2030 Regional Parks
Policy Plan
""';',,~"k
~f"-I""'''''''" 0"....,,,,
v,c,
-q
Reglol1::!! Park Search ArNs'
Regional Trail Se<lfchCorridors ,
o
o
.
.
BoundlllY Adjrntmont
P""ksandPreserves
Fedllflllland
Priv31oNon-PrQIil
!0!i~ Rogion~1
Sta\ollUlnd
!.akC1>lIfId MnjC11 RII'(lr:!
Bol.lfldaryAdju:!IIMnt
202DMUSA
RoeoElllltion QI Regionai
St(.l\U$
R9Ci1gniUOIlGfRtJgial131S11llUS
NltwUnk
Nc!wUril
RegJonalTraih,
Existing
Planood
Plopoood
StaloExisting
. S&f>>t/J aleM (pI1tk$.) atWCQ11kbr$ (lmJI$)
Ils~rO\'lflilrcforplilnllltIjJpIffIJOOfl8(l(lry
llndoffloolmdic<lll1<!!ofspeciflcplflpooeU
plllkj'olllldaoosorlmllQflgllmenro.
Co~klting 100 Syswm
Completing 1M System
~ ~~~~<;'.l:'_<;,~~t::~ Co,=-~=-~_l
"'~
P-l
1. Regional Park System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community
Regional parks and trails in yonr community
The following regional parks and trails within Maplewood as contained in the adopted 2030
Regional Parks Policy Plan are listed below.
Table 1: Regional Parks and Trails in Maplewood
Regional Park or Trail Unit Master plan boundary of Master plan boundary is not
Name unit is set. Comprehensive set. Comprehensive plan
plan should acknowledge should acknowledge general
boundary location with final boundary
or alignment subject to park
or trail master Dlan
Battle Creek-Indian Mounds X
Regional Park
Phalen-Keller Regional Park X
Bruce Vento Regional Trail X
Afton Bluffs Regional Trail X
Battle Creek-Indian Mounds Regional Park - This is an existing regional park with an
established park boundary. The park boundary as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in
the city's comprehensive plan. Greg Mack is the contact person for Regional Park System
facilities in Maplewood. He can be reached at 651-748-2500.
Phalen-Keller Regional Park - This is an existing regional park with an established park
boundary. The proposed park boundary as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the
city's comprehensive plan. Greg Mack is the contact person for Regional Park System facilities
in Maplewood. He can be reached at 651-748-2500.
Bruce Vento Regional Trail- This regional trail is partially complete and open to the public.
The section in the northern part of the city of Maple wood is to be completed in 2005. The trail
alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city's comprehensive plan. Greg
Mack is the contact person for Regional Park System facilities in Maplewood. He can be reached
at 651-748-2500.
Afton Bluffs Regional Trail- This is a proposed trail that would connect Battle Creek-Indian
Mounds Regional Park to the east with regional park facilities in Washington County. No master
plan has been prepared for this trail yet. Consequently, the general trail alignment as shown in
Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city's comprehensive plan. Greg Mack is the contact
person for Regional Park System facilities in Maplewood. He can be reached at 651-748-2500.
P-4
State lands
The Gateway State Trail, managed by the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources provides
outdoor recreation opportunities and natural resource conservation for the public and is
considered part of the regional recreation open space system. This facility as shown in Figure 2
should be acknowledged in the County's comprehensive plan. For more information about this
DNR site call 651-296-6157.
Figure 2 shows the location of all parks and trails listed above in Maplewood, plus any parks and
trails adjacent to the city's border.
P-5
Fignre 2: Map of Maplewood with regional parks and trails in the city and adjacent to the
city
Figure 2, Reg/onal Paries System Statement Map
Maplewood
July2DOS
COImdl
o 0,5 1
=
..,
2.'
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 (I 6.5
-
7.~ 8 8.5
9 9.5 10 to,S 11 Miles
-,
BoundllryAdjl,W~1lI
Booodilry Adjmln'Kml
Park$amlPtesorves;
Rlderalland
Pri~aIQ No:,Il-PrMi!
Re9l(>Jlal
StaleLal>d
Lo~a1aodCallntyUllld
ReglOl1alTralls
Exisllng
Planned
_Proposed
Slate Existlng
W4t1l1ncb(NWl)
lllkosandMajOrRiVers
MlnorR",orsllndSltoallls
TroulStreams
+
Rllglonal Park SllarchAro.::'ls'
Regional Trait Search Corridors ,
Rocognlllonof Roglonal
SlillU$
. NowUnl1
. COmpletingtha System
RCCll9flJl]O/JofRllgionolSt:.l11J5
.;/:'!:f.t:~~::. NowUnil
Complellngllle $)'$1$m
2020 MUSA
TLG$tlo~tConlefljl>lls{2OO5)
'SWn:llrnNs.(pIlf~S)iJ1IdCQtrldr.m1/ImIIs)
e~ $JIOW/J 11m (or plimnlng pl1l(JiJSeS O1lly
OOdilffl/lotlndiGlitiWoffifl'!'C1fl.::pl'Dpo,wd
pillkl}!)/ffldllfiesortrlJilallylll1WIlfS
PrvporedOOll/lffiJ/K1Sl'>itll/!IfNJrkS!.'iJrl;/1
IJrea~{J(:1!(!IlIglll<JSlerp/')/Ja/lPIO\I'.11iJ(e
1J!gII~yhfedC.=JIR)l:'lIcl1'
P-6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Chuck Ahl, Acting City Manager
Shann Finwall, Planner, AICP
Moratorium on Dynamic Display Signs
January 22, 2008 for the January 28 City Council Meeting
INTRODUCTION
On January 17, 2008, the city council directed staff to draft an interim ordinance that
would place a moratorium on the construction or installation of dynamic display signs
within the city. The moratorium is requested to allow the community design review
board, planning commission, and city council time to review, draft, and adopt a dynamic
display sign code that will address the new LED sign technology.
BACKGROUND
November 27 and December 4, 2007, the community design review board (CDRB) and
planning commission recommended approval of an off-site dynamic display sign code
amendment. The proposed amendment would allow for off-site dynamic display signs
with a conditional use permit and with the removal of an existing off-site static sign.
December 10,2007, based on the settlement agreement with Clear Channel and the city
attorney's interpretation of the city's sign ordinance in relation to the LED billboard signs,
the city council adopted an amendment to the city's prohibited sign ordinance as follows:
The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts: ...Signs that have
blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness or color. Signs
that give public service information, such as time and temperature are exempt.
The amended prohibited sign ordinance language not only allows Clear Channel and
other billboard companies to have off-premise LED signs. The prohibited sign code
amendment, while not intentional, also would allow on-premise signs with this
technology, as long as the sign does not blink, flash or flutter (i.e., changed from one
sign face to another without rapid movement). For this reason, the city should study and
review the sign code and adopt an amendment that would regulate or prohibit on-site
dynamic display signs.
January 29, 2008, the city council held first reading of the on-site dynamic display
moratorium. The city council approved the first reading of the attached moratorium on a
vote of 3 to 2.
DISCUSSION
The CDRB has begun studying on-site dynamic display signs at their January 8 and 22
meetings. They have requested additional information from staff on which to base their
recommendation including information and analysis on setbacks to residential, side yard
setbacks, display change-over times, maximum display size, etc. Once the CDRB drafts
the proposed on-site dynamic display ordinance, the planning commission will review the
ordinance and forward their recommendation onto the city council. City staff will present
the off-site dynamic display ordinance (previously recommended for approval by the
CDRB and planning commission) and the proposed on-site dynamic display ordinance to
the city council for approval.
During the city council's first reading of the moratorium, the two dissenting votes were
cast due to concerns about the proposed dynamic display sign for the community center.
This sign was approved by the city council as part of a settlement agreement with Clear
Channel. The city council members said that the city should wait on the construction of
this sign to ensure that it meets the new city sign reCluirements. For this reason, these
city council members wanted the community center sign included in the moratorium.
The settlement agreement states that Clear Channel will purchase and install the sign
within gO days of the city issuing them a conditional use permit to increase the height of
their billboard on Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue. This conditional use permit was
approved by the city council on December 27, 2007. Therefore, the gO-day deadline
would be March 26, 2008. The settlement agreement does not address where the sign
will be constructed or how the dynamic display can be operated.
The city attorney has stated that since the community center sign was part of a separate
agreement which was approved in October 2007 it should not be included in the
moratorium. Since it is the city's sign, however, we can include ourselves in the
moratorium and extend the 90-day deadline as allowed in the agreement. As such, this
is an issue that the planning commission should debate.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the attached ordinance that places a moratorium on the
construction or installation of dynamic display signs (both on-site and off-site) to allow
time for the city to prepare, study, and adopt a dynamic display sign ordinance. The
attached moratorium recommends a time-frame of six months or until the city council
adopts a dynamic display sign code. The city council's second reading of the ordinance
is scheduled for February 25, 2008.
P:ordldynamic display moratorium memo
Attachment: Moratorium Ordinance
2
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO._
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING
PROCESS AND DEVELOPING STANDARDS FOR DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGNS IN
THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
The Maplewood City Council ordains:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
a. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens.
b. A dynamic display sign is defined as any sign designed for outdoor use which is
capable of displaying a video signal, including, but not limited to, cathode-ray tubes (CRTs),
light-emitting diode (LED) displays, plasma displays, liquid-crystal displays (LCOs), other
technologies used in commercially available televisions or computer monitors.
c. There are within the City three off-site (billboard) dynamic display advertising sign
faces. Two of these signs are regulated by separate agreement with the City and one has
been the subject of ongoing negotiations with the City.
d. There is one on-site dynamic display sign contemplated at a location along White
Bear Avenue near the Maplewood Community Center. This sign was part of a settlement
agreement approved by the city council in October 2007 in relation to the above-mentioned
billboard dynamic display signs.
e. There also are several other on-site dynamic display sign faces in operation in
Maplewood that fall within the current City-allowed exceptions/guidelines to the general
prohibition on such signs.
f. The Maplewood City Council is concerned about the effects of dynamic display
signs upon the traveling public. Such signs pose a potential hazard to the traveling public
by the use of bright colorful lights and changing messages. These attention-getting and
eye-catching signs may threaten the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other
users of public streets and property by unnecessarily diverting motor vehicle drivers' and
others' attention away from the road. There are research studies that show the presence of
such signs can result in an increase in motor vehicle or other accidents. Persons have
contacted city officials complaining about these signs and the distraction they pose to the
traveling public who may take their eyes off the road to watch the colorful lights and
changing messages.
1
SECTION 2. Study
a. The City Council has authorized a study by the City Manager's Office, the City
Attorney's Office, and the Planning Department and other authorized bodies of the City,
e.g. the Community Design and Review. Board and the Planning Commission, for the
purpose of considering the amendment or adoption of official controls relating to the need
for additional land use regulations addressing dynamic display signs before any further
proliferation of such advertising schemes.
b. The City Council is concerned that the further placement of any dynamic display
signs during the above-mentioned study may compromise the results of that study and they
could harm the public's health, welfare and safety.
c. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subd. 4, authorizes the City to adopt interim
zoning ordinances applicable to all or a part of the City for the purpose of protecting the
health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Such an ordinance may regulate, restrict or
prohibit any use or development within the City for a maximum period not to exceed one
year, with a possible extension up to an additional period of 18 months.
d. It is hereby found and determined by the City Council that it is in the best interest of
the sound, aesthetic and efficient development of the City as a whole, and in the public's
health, safety and welfare interests, that the authority granted by the above-mentioned
Minnesota Statute be used by the City in conjunction with the above-authorized study.
e. The City hereby prohibits the issuance or approval of any zoning certificate, sign
permit, building permit or other land use official control for any dynamic display sign in the
City of Maplewood.
SECTION 3. ENFORCEMENT
Sections 1-1 through 1-25 of the Maplewood City Code of Ordinances, entitled
Enforcement Policy, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated
verbatim.
2