05-26-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i-i. \ * ;r'‘' t- a ^:v. 'f.;.5* li t • ** ;■•" ■ A', k U;- fe w The Council has mo5t ^'re^uently used the Vtem impact" criterion as the basis for requiring a community to modify us comprehensive plan. This has been narrowly interpreted to mean a direct impact on a regional facility, such as a highw or a sewer. However, the \fLPA does not limit the Counci! to managing growth only through tue system capacity/impact criterion; it also authorizes the Council to protect the metropolitan svstems from local policies which are not substantially consistent wjth metro system policies, therefore, the Council may require a pl<.n modification based on a "substantial departure" from a system plan even thougii the plan does not have a direct impact on the capacity of a metropolitan s\stem facility. A memorandum of 10/11/91 by Assistant Counsel Brian Ohm explains this broader interpretation of the MLPA. Although the Council uses the same guidelines and process for each plan amendment it receives. each plan amendment is unique and must be analyzed on a :ase-bv-case basis. If the amendment is inconsistent with the mral area policies, the Council will need to determine whether or not it represents a "substantial" departure from a system plan and if a modification should be required. Not every instance of inconsistency might be considered "substantial". For e.xample. a plan amendment that is in. onsistent with one very important policy or several less import, u aspects of the policy plan might be considered to be a substantial departure. Or. stated another way. a plan amendment that is consistent in every way except for one minor issue might not be considered a substantial departure from the plan. In such a case a community would not be required to modify the amendment. Until the system plans are revised, the Council must rely on the e.xisting systems plans in order to find a substantial departure or system impact. Tne revised system plans will include more detailed criteria to indicate a substantial departure related to the rural area policies. The following are examples of current system plan policies that the Council can use now to require modification of a local plan that is inconsistent with the new rural area policy: Policy 1-2 of the Council’s Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan states that; On-site sewage disposal systems are appropriate to serve single-family residences at development densities of 4 units per 40 acres or less, if governments plan for them and adopt a management and control system consistent with federal and state laws and Metropolitan Council guidelines". The Council could use this sewer system policy to require a local government to modify its comprehensive plan in cases where the plan allows rural residential density greafer than four units per 40 a^s - even if there is no direct impact on a metropolitan sewer interceptor or treatment facility. The s^er policy plan requires the local community to adopt additional controls fc- managing on-site systems when the local plan allows residential densities greater than four units per 40 acres. If the Council determines that a plan modification is needed, then the local government must modify and adopt the revised plan and must adopt reviseo official controls (in this case, on-site ordinances) that are consistent with the modified plan. * Policy 12 of the Council’s Transportation Policy Plan ^;TPF) states that; The Metropolitan Council will work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and local units of government to ensure the .metropolitan highway system and its supporting road system are built and designed to adequately serve travel demand to the extent possibh. to provide for the safety of users ana to minimize negative impacts on the environment.