HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 10-13-14
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, October 13, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. September 22, 2014
4. Public Hearing - None
5. Workshop Items
a. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT UPDATE DISCUSSION. The
Planning Commission will discuss the status of current development projects and
will review the City’s land use plan for the future sewer service areas. This
discussion is being conducted as an informational workshop and no decisions will
be made by the Planning Commission.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – September 7, 2014 meeting:
i. Hunter’s Crossing Development Contract
ii. Hammes West Final Plat and Development Contract
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
• October 14, 2014 - 7:00 p.m., Downtown Summit Workshop,
Christ Lutheran Church Atrium
• October 27, 2014 – Regular Meeting
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-22-14
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of September 22, 2014
Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Dodson, Kreimer, Larson, Lundgren, Dorschner
and Haggard
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt, City Planner Johnson, and
Planning Intern Casey Riley
Approve Agenda:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Approve Minutes: September 8, 2014
Dodson asked to clarify a statement he had made concerning the Inwood PUD.
M/S/P: Dodson/Lundgren move to approve the minutes as amended; Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Business Items: Hammes Estates – Final Plat
Johnson reviewed information concerning an application for the Hammes Estates Final
Plat. The final plat includes 57 single family lots that will be located west of Keats
Avenue and south of Goose Lake on property that was historically used as the Hammes
gravel operation. Johnson reviewed the critical approval issues that have been
identified by Staff, which included City Engineering review comments, DNR approvals for
Goose Lake restoration, Goose Lake Park design and improvements, and soil
contamination remediation. Johnson also reviewed the recommended list of conditions
for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Haggard asked for clarification concerning the conditions of approval. Haggard also
asked if the fire chief is the primary staff contact for environmental issues in the
community. Johnson noted that the fire chief is the City’s main public safety officer and
was contacted by the MPCA regarding the soil contamination .
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-22-14
Dodson asked if the plans would need to change in order for the applicant to comply
with watershed district requirements. Johnson noted that the conditions should be able
to be met without any changes to the plat, and also commented that the City Engineer
has reviewed these conditions as well prior to making his comments.
Dorchner asked if the City could require park fees for the entire plat be paid up front.
Johnson replied that the City may not be able to require land or fee dedications beyond
the land that is subject to the final plat. He stated that he would check with the City
Attorney on this matter.
The Commission reviewed the other conditions of approval as recommended by Staff.
Williams requested that Condition 15 be added to require that the proposed boardwalk
segment be designed to accommodate bicycle traffic. The Commission consented to the
addition of this condition.
Kreimer questioned why the northern trail segment could not be moved further to the
south and adjacent to the private lots within the development. Jo hnson replied that the
City Engineer is recommending that the trail be constructed in the planned location due
primarily to the topography of the site. If it is moved further to the south, the trail
would be lower in elevation than the proposed stormwater facilities, causing concern
about the subgrade of the trail. Kreimer requested that the trail be moved between the
two ponds.
Johnson stated that some of the City Engineering comments pertain to the western
portion of the site and fall outside the final plat area. The City is still working with the
applicant to resolve these issues as part of the final construction plan review.
The Commission generally discussed the process and timing for the construction of
various improvements within the subdivision.
Ryan Bluhm, Westwood Engineering, stated that it might be possible to move the
proposed trail between two ponds, and that a portion of this segment could be built as a
boardwalk. He noted that he would need to work with the City Engineer to determine if
this would be a viable option. There was a general discussion concerning the operation
of the storm water ponds and the City’s need for access.
Kreimer noted that the proposed trail heading east of Stonegate would go through a
grove of trees within the Stonegate subdivision. He asked if the Valley Branch
Watershed District would grant an exception to the wetland buffer rules in order to
preserve trees. Johnson replied that Staff would investigate any options that might
exist, but noted that the watershed is fairly strict in allowing any improvements within
wetland buffers.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-22-14
M/S/P: Dodson/Kreimer motion to include a condition that the developer inventory the
trees to be impacted along the northern boundary due to trail construction within the
buffer area, and that any impacted trees be replaced at the rate specified in the tree
preservation and protection ordinance (Section 154.257). Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Haggard noted that the conditions should include language that all conditions shou ld be
met prior to release of the final plat for recording.
Kreimer asked if signs noting private property boundaries should be required in cases
where public trails abut private property.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Dodson to recommend approval of the Hammes Estates Final Plat
with the findings of fact as drafted by Staff and with 16 conditions of approval as
amended and recommended by the Planning Commission. Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Haggard asked for clarification concerning the landscape islands and the plan for
plantings within these areas. Mark Sonstegard, Ryland Homes, responded that after
reviewing other islands that have been constructed by Ryland, he has concluded that
the planting of grass would be more appropriate for the space.
Kreimer expressed a strong preference for park location number two from among the
small park options presented by the developer.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren, motion to recommend to the Park Commission that the
potential tot lot location number two is the preferred location for this park due to its
central location and the lack of a stormwater pond adjacent to the site. Vote: 7-0,
motion carried unanimously.
The Commission requested that Staff research issues associated with marking private
property along public trails.
Business Item: Rural Area Analysis Presentation
Klatt introduced Casey Riley as the City’s Planning Intern and stated that she has
prepared a report concerning the City’s rural development areas. She reviewed a rural
development report, which includes information concerning some high level
development costs and other development issues pertaining to these areas.
Williams suggested that future versions of the report include a list of near-by streets or
other mechanisms to help locate each subdivision.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-22-14
Larson would like to see measures of things that were successful and unsuccessful in
each development. For instance trails, septic system, egress and ingress, etc.
Dorschner – Would like to see environmental impacts included such as what are the
impacts of adding more wells and private sanitary facilities to the City and can we
determine the public health impacts. Riley stated that she has a program that could run
some of that if we could get some of the construction documents.
Dodson – would argue that any community system is less expensive than public, but also
have to factor in environmental concerns.
Williams stated that it appears that small non-buildable lots are included in the statistics
and would throw off the overall numbers. These parcels should be excluded.
Dodson is wondering if plans for future sewer can be superimposed on sewer and water
maps. Haggard is wondering if this can be put on the website. Klatt stated that there
will be a new page on the website for current developments and this could be a sub
page.
Dorschner would like to see the 201 systems listed separately from the public sewer.
Business Item: Planning System Improvements
Klatt discussed Planning Commission Systems improvements. For development
applications, complete application and materials need to be submitted 2 weeks ahead
of the meeting to get on the agenda. The packet will be mailed out the Monday before
the meeting. Notification for public hearings will be expanded from 350 feet to 750
feet.
Haggard asked about critical issue versus technical correction. She feels that the
Planning Commission should be looking at all of that.
The Commission asked if the notification distance can be tailored based on where it
takes place.
Dodson stated that the developer should know their timelines and staff should not be
the ones calling them and asking for the information.
Updates and Concerns
Council Updates
1. Inwood PUD Concept Plan passed.
2. Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan passed.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-22-14
3. Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat passed.
4. Hunter’s Crossing Final Plat passed.
5. Savona 2nd Addition Final Plat passed.
6. Savona 2nd Addition Developer’s Agreement passed.
7. Wildflower at Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Amendment passed.
Williams stated that he feels that it needs to be explained to Council Members and
Planning Commission members that a PUD plan has exceptions and deviations from
City Code that may not go through the variance process, but are deviations from the
regular City Code.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. October 13, 2014
b. October 27, 2014
2. Currently there is nothing scheduled for the October 13th meeting and the Chair
may cancel.
3. October 14th 6:30 – 9:30 pm there will be a downtown summit meeting to look
at economic development issues, market study and planning issues that affect
downtown.
Commission Concerns – None
Meeting adjourned at 9:36 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 10/13/14
AGENDA ITEM: 5A – WORKSHOP ITEM
CASE – N/A
ITEM: Land Use Development Update/Comprehensive Plan Discussion
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director
REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
At the request of the Planning Commission Chairman, the Planning Commission is being asked to
conduct a workshop session with Staff to review the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the urban,
sewered portions of the community and to discuss the plan in the context of recent development
approvals. In order to facilitate this discussion, Staff has prepared the following report with
information about current developments and additional information concerning the City’s obligations
and requirements to implement a Comprehensive Plan.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City-initiated action for discussion
Request: Discuss the City’s Comprehensive Plan and development activities.
History: A brief history of the City’s Comprehensive Planning efforts is included below.
The City has been approving development proposals that are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan since it was adopted and implemented in 2013.
Deadline for Action: None
Applicable Regulations: Comprehensive Plan – Chapter III: Land Use Plan
Comprehensive Plan – All other Chapters
MN State Statutes 473.854 (Metropolitan Land Planning Act)
Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance – Articles 11 and 12 (Urban Districts)
WORKSHOP DISCUSSION POINTS
After completing of updates to the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2013, the Planning
Commission has been reviewing development proposals throughout the past year to year and a half
within the City’s planned urban (sewered) development areas. During its review of each
development, Staff has been including an analysis of the project density to determine whether or not
the densities proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has
been requesting an opportunity to take a larger picture look at the status of the Comprehensive Plan
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a – WORKSHOP ITEM
2
as it relates to current development projects, and the Commission’s upcoming meeting will provide
an opportunity for this discussion as a workshop topic.
In order to assist the Commission with its discussion on this matter and to provide Commissioners
with an update on the status of the City’s various development projects, Staff has prepared the
attached development status map, along with a development summary in the next section of this
report. Before presenting this information; however, Staff would like to make a few points that will
be critical to keep in mind during this discussion, which include the following:
• The 2005 Memorandum of Understanding between the Met Council and City of Lake Elmo
has been terminated and no longer exists. All REC (Residential Equivalency Connection)
unit counts, development timing, and penalties associated with this agreement are also gone.
The release from the MOU was accomplished because the City adopted a Comprehensive
Plan that is consistent with the Met Council’s regional plans and took steps to implement this
plan by adopting new zoning requirements and installing sanitary sewer to the City’s Stage 1
development areas. This release occurred only after the City presented development plans to
the Met Council to show evidence of implementation.
• If Lake Elmo had not been successful at terminating the MOU, the City would have been hit
with a waste water inefficiency fee of over $1,000,000 on January 31, 2016. This amount has
been adjusted based on the projections for housing construction in 2015 and takes into
account the 5-year extension previously granted by the Met Council. In addition to the fee,
the MOU included an automatic density increase that would have raised the City’s minimum
density for certain portions of the community to 6.5 units per acre. With the termination of
the MOU, these penalties are gone.
Other issues associated with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and its obligations under the State
Statutes (the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act) that the Planning Commission should also
consider include the following:
Comprehensive Planning and Regional Planning Issues:
1) The City adopted the bulk of the current Comprehensive Plan as part of its 2008 decennial
plan update, with updates in 2013 to the land use, housing, and other minor sections. The
document as a whole makes up the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan and as a whole has been
deemed compliant with the City’s regional planning obligations.
2) All development proposals being submitted to the City are being reviewed under the 2030
Plan, and all have been deemed consistent with this plan.
3) The Met Council releases system statements every ten years for each community in the
Metropolitan planning area, and these statements include various planning elements that each
community must incorporate into its Comprehensive Plan (i.e. land use, transportation, waste
water, and parks). The system statement for Lake Elmo was last updated in 2005, and is the
basis for the 2030 Plan. The next system statement for Lake Elmo will be completed in the
fall of 2015, which starts the process for the City’s next decennial Comprehensive Plan
update that will be due by the end of 2018.
4) Any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan prepared prior to the release of the 2015
systems statement will be reviewed under the current regulatory document (from 2005).
Staff has attached an interim planning document prepared by the Met Council that describes
WORKSHOP ITEM 5A
3
the process that will be used to review Comprehensive Plan amendments submitted in the
period between now and when the City updates its plan for 2018. Any revisions that are not
consistent with the regional plans will be rejected.
5) The 2005 systems statement (which is also attached) includes projections for a population of
24,000 population 8,727 households in Lake Elmo by 2030.
6) The 2015 systems statement that will be released in the fall of 2015 will include projections
for a population of 20,500 and 8,000 households in Lake Elmo by 2040.
Lake Elmo Planning Considerations
1) With the elimination of the MOU, the household and population numbers in the
Comprehensive Plan represent a projection of what is most likely to occur in the community,
and are no longer a mandate. However, the City’s plan must allow for development to occur
that will achieve the growth target at the minimum level (i.e. the City must be able to
demonstrate that its plan can accommodate a minimum of 8,727 housing units).
2) The City is able to control and regulate the staging of this development via the adoption of a
staging plan as part of the land use plan. The City did include such a plan in its land use
plan, which divides the future sewer service areas in the City into three distinct phases.
3) The City is obligated to plan for urban densities with a minimal level of three units per acre
throughout its sewer service areas. The City has chosen to allow development at densities
lower than three units per acre based on a plan that identifies other areas of the community
that are planned for denser development. The overall density throughout sewered areas must
not drop below three units per acre.
4) Based on the minimum densities specified in the regional plan, Lake Elmo must incorporate
areas for medium or high density housing otherwise the plan does not work from a minimum
density perspective. The separate classification of higher density areas has allowed the City
to tier its residential development so that the northern portions of the I-94 corridor can serve
as a transition area between commercial and denser residential development.
5) Most of the development approved to date falls below the three units per acre.
6) With the upcoming reductions in population and housing, the City has been taking action to
approve minor Comprehensive Plan amendments that have allowed for some functional
rebalancing of growth in the community. This rebalancing is possible as long as there are no
significant changes to the various land use categories or amount of land planned for future
development that would lead to a dropping of the City’s per unit density to less than three
units per acre or drop in population projections below a level deemed acceptable by the met
Council. The Met Council Staff has communicated that any significant decreases in
projections would be problematic.
7) The City will not be able to plan for the 2040 forecast numbers until later in 2014 when the
City’s updated systems statement is released by the Met Council.
WORKSHOP ITEM 5A
4
8) Even after the systems statement has been released, any significant changes to the Land Use
Plan will require a review of all other aspects of the plan (i.e. housing, transportation, water
supply, waste water, etc…) since these the other sections relate back to the land use plan.
9) In addition, the City has made a substantial investment in infrastructure to serve new
development, and moving away from the current Comprehensive Plan could bring in less
revenue to pay for these improvements. All of the cost analysis for the City’s sewer and
water projects use the City’s land use plan as the basis for future growth projections. Land
Use changes can (and will) occur but any larger changes should be reviewed on a holistic
basis to determine the appropriate impacts (especially when overall development numbers are
being reduced).
BACKGROUND/DEVELOPMENT UPDATE:
The City adopted updates to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in April of 2013 specific to the Land Use
and Housing Chapters. Later in 2013, the City also adopted a further amendment to the Land Use
Chapter to include the Village Area plan as a part of the overall Comprehensive Plan. The approval
of these amendments completed the City’s obligations concerning Comprehensive Planning that
stretched back to the court decision concerning the Met Council. These plans were prepared after an
extensive planning process with two distinct work groups reporting to the Planning Commission and
Council. The end result was a plan that not only met the City’s legal requirements under State Law,
but also led to the elimination of the MOU.
Staff has provided the Planning Commission with an up-to-date copy of the complete Land Use Plan
in advance of the workshop meeting, and has also attached additional information to this report to
further explain the City’s requirements for updating its plans in the future. These documents include
the City’s 2005 Systems Statement, an interim Comprehensive Plan Review procedures chart, and a
description of the regional Community designations that help shape the met Council’s metro-wide
planning policies.
In terms of current and planned development, the attached map depicts, on a high level, the number
of residential units in developments that have been approved to date (at either a concept plan or
preliminary stage) along with a general estimate of the undeveloped residential units that are
remaining within the City’s sewer service areas. The following is a summary of the information
depicted on the map:
I-94 Planning Area
Units Approved 1,272
(Minimum Units from Comp Plan) 1,340
Future Units 1,979
Total (Approved Plus Future) 3,251
To date, the City has approved 68 units less than the minimums specified in the Comprehensive Plan
for the I-94 Corridor.
WORKSHOP ITEM 5A
5
Village Planning Area
Units Approved 559
(Minimum Units from Comp Plan) 463
Future Units 545
Total (Approved Plus Future) 1,104
While the number of residential units approved for the Village area is somewhat higher than the
minimum levels specified in the Comprehensive Plan, these numbers fall well within the land use
ranges approved throughout this planning area. For instance, the maximum number of residential
units that could be developed using the maximum end of the Village density ranges (leaving the
mixed use area at 200 units) is around 1,400 units compared to the minimum amount of 1,100 units.
In addition, the City is still working through airport zoning issues with the affected parties, but it
does appear that the overall development within the northeastern portion of the Village will be lower
than was anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. Please also keep in mind that the developer of
Easton Village will be moving some of the planned park areas from the southern portion of the
Village to north of the tracks.
To date, the City has approved plans that would account for a little over 1/3 of the overall residential
units within the I-94 corridor, and these units correlate almost directly with the Stage 1 development
areas as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. There are no developments pending that would
require a major extension of sewer services, and all new developments within the I-94 Corridor are
either occurring adjacent to an existing sewered area or within an area that is being serviced via a
public improvement project.
The entire Village Planning Area is included in the City’s Stage 1 growth area, and sewer has now
been extended to the extreme southern limit of the Village along 30th Street. As development
proposals have come forward in the Village, the City has seen some clear advantages to opening up
all portions of the Village to development at the same time (rather than following a more prescribed
staging of sewer from the south). Specifically:
• Developers that own land in both the northern and southern portions of the Village have
been able to coordinate their storm water planning efforts to ensure that downstream
impacts are properly addressed. These owners, along with the City, are working with the
watershed district to consider broader plans to help improve water quality throughout the
planning area.
• Because developers north and south of Highway 5 are working on development projects,
the City has been able to coordinate with these developers to plan for the extension of
sewer service to the northern portion of the Village. Sewer is presently being installed
within 39th Street and will connect to the private line down to the lift station on 30th
Street.
• The City has been able partner with Washington County to develop plans for the
reconstruction of Lake Elmo Avenue in the Village, which will also address a majority of
the downtown flooding issues that have persisted for decades.
WORKSHOP ITEM 5A
6
• The City is currently working on projects to address airport safety zoning issues and to
identify the appropriate location for a new railroad crossing. The results of these studies
could have an impact on future developments, especially in the northeast portion of the
Village.
• Washington County is currently working on developing updated plans for Manning
Avenue, and has been able to coordinate right-of-way acquisition, access management,
storm water, and other planning matter with developers in conjunction with their projects.
Since the City adopted the updated Land Use Plan in 2013, there have been several amendments
brought forward to refine the overall plan in response to market demands or to make City-initiated
revisions to the land use plan to address specific issues. These amendments, in total, have reduced
the overall population and household numbers slightly lower from the original amounts, and
represent incremental, functional adjustments that have so far been deemed appropriate by the Met
Council. Staff will continue to look for ways to make these adjustments in advance of the next major
plan update and as issues arise during the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The minor amendments approved since the adoption of the final land use plan include the following:
• Landucci/Pratt Property (Lake Elmo Avenue) Amendment. This amendment changed the
land use designation of two parcels totaling approximately 35 acres from high and medium
density residential to medium and low density residential respectively. The corresponding
housing unit reduction of 122 units is reflected in the “number or units approved” in the
above I-94 chart.
• RAD-2 Elimination. Earlier this year, the City Council approved an amendment that
eliminated the RAD-2 land use category from the Future Land Use Map. Although not
specifically accounted for in this report, this action reduced the City’s household projections
by 241 housing units.
• Density Gaps. When the original land use plan was approved, the density ranges used for
residential land use categories included gaps between the various categories (which was
done to assure that minimum development thresholds would be achieved). The City
approved an amendment that eliminated these gaps and effective reduced the low end of the
medium density land use category from 4.5 to 4 units per acre. The estimated impact of this
action lowers the minimum number of medium density residential units by 195.
• Holliday Parcel Amendment. In order to clarify the future land use of the extreme southern
portion of the Village Planning Area, the City approved an amendment to change the future
land use designation of the Holliday parcel immediately north of 30th Street from rural
development to LDR – Low Density Residential. The preliminary plat approved for this
portion of the Village resulted in a net density increase of 21 units for this site.
• Wildflower Development. As part of the Wildflower (Engstrom) development proposal, the
development requested and received approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment that
added approximately 20 units into areas that were previously guided for rural development.
Taking all of the above actions into account, the City has through a series of minor land use
amendments reduced the number of planned households by roughly 500 units. In the interim, it is
likely that the City will be able to continue looking at these kinds of functional re-balancing of its
land use plan as long as they can be reviewed by the Met Council as a minor plan amendment. Any
WORKSHOP ITEM 5A
7
more significant amendments will likely need to wait until the 2015 systems statement has been
adopted.
FINAL POINTS
As a framework for its discussion on October 13th, Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission keep the following points in mind:
1) The City has the ability to control future growth and development by enforcing the current
staging plan. Specifically, any new development within the Stage 2 or 3 areas can be delayed
until there is more substantial build out in the Stage 1 planning area or the Council deems
that adequate services are available to serve these areas.
2) Staff is recommending that the City will be better served by re-evaluating the amount of land
dedicated for high density housing as part of its 2040 land use plan update rather than making
any changes to the current plan in advance of the 2015 systems statement. With the timing of
the transit planning currently taking place for the Gateway corridor (I-94), any future land
use plan updates will also be able incorporate a rebalancing of the high density areas to
address the final outcome of the Gateway process. In particular, there will be opportunities
to move and reduce the amount of high density housing along Manning Avenue to targeted
transit planning arears at key intersections.
3) The City will not be able to accomplish a major rebalancing of housing units until later in
2015. Any such changes would need to be reviewed in the context of the entire
Comprehensive Plan and not just the land use chapter.
4) The City is still operating under its 2030 Comprehensive Plan and 2005 Systems Statement,
and all amendments submitted until later next year will be reviewed for consistency with
these documents.
RECCOMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the attached staff report and associated
materials. As a workshop, the Commission is not being asked to take any action.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Lake Elmo Development Status and Location Map
2. Village Land Use Map with Parcel Areas
3. I-94 Corridor Planning Map (Including Planned Land Uses, Area, and REC Unit Estimates)
4. Met Council Guidance Document – Planning Prior to 2018
5. Met Council Community Designations
6. Lake Elmo Systems Statement (2005)
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director
- Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
WORKSHOP ITEM 5A
8
- Public Coments ................................................................................................ Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members
WORKSHOP ITEM 5A
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013
Map Date: October 9, 2014
Development Status and Location - Lake Elmo, MN
K
Hammes Estates(163)
Boulder Ponds(163)
Hunter's Crossing (51)Savona(310)
Inwood(537)
EastonVillage(217)
Village Preserve(97)
Wildflower at Lake Elmo(145)
Village Park Preserve(100)
Screaton/EastonVillage North(190)
Gonyea West(175)
Development/Approval Status
Final Plat
Preliminary Plat
Concept Plan Municipal Boundary
Devlopable Parcels
Under Contract EastonVillage(217)Known Figure
Gonyea West(175)Estimated Figure
Village Mixed Use(200)
Hammes East(244)
Knappogue Farm(309)
Kasperson TRS(103)Durrow(131)
Yik Chi Lo/Screaton(891)Diedrich (48)
Dale (200)
Cimarron (99)
58.36
18.87 19.76
39.81
98.57
3.73
2.68
0.53
5.01 5.01 4.57 5.09
31.75
13.2
6.81
33.82
33.14 38.22
48.80
34.86
23.78
14.75
L
a
k
e
E
l
m
o
Su
n
f
i
s
h
L
a
k
e
Sources: Washington County & Metro GIS10-9-2014
5
Village Planned Land UseLake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2030
Map 3-5
18.87
Planned Land UsesPublic/Park (P)Rural Area Development (RAD)Rural Single Family (RS)
Village Mixed Use (VMX)Commercial (C)
Village Urban Medium Density (V-MDR)Village Urban Low Density (V-LDR)Open Space Acreage: 592 AcresVillage Open Space OverlayVillage Boundary
Parcel Acreage
Federal RPZ
Saftey Zone A
Saftey Zone B
PLAN AHEAD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW THROUGH 2018
Now that Thrive MSP 2040 is adopted, what
does that mean for your comprehensive plan?
As directed by state law, the Council adopted a
new comprehensive development guide, Thrive
MSP 2040, in May 2014. We are updating our
regional plans for transportation (including
aviation), regional parks and open space, and
water resources. In addition, we are also drafting a
new housing policy plan. These system and policy
plans are scheduled for adoption later in 2014 and
in early 2015.
We will issue System Statements in the fall of 2015;
and your community will have until the end of 2018
to update your comprehensive plan. We recognize
that communities may need to amend their 2030
comprehensive plans prior to completing their
update. This is how we will consider and review
amendments to your current comprehensive plans:
1. From now until early 2015 when all of our
system and policy plans are adopted,
comprehensive plan amendments will be
reviewed under the 2030 Regional
Development Framework and 2030 system
plans.
2. From early 2015 (after the adoption of all of the
system and policy plans) until January 1, 2016,
you may choose to have your comprehensive
plan amendment reviewed under either:
a. The 2030 Regional Development
Framework and 2030 system plans
– OR –
b. Thrive MSP 2040 and its 2040 system plans
Please note that amendments under either
scenario must not create conformance issues
with 2040 metropolitan system plans.
3. From January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018, all
comprehensive plan amendments and updates
will be reviewed under Thrive MSP 2040 and its
system and policy plans.
4. Beginning July 1, 2018, we will no longer
accept amendments to 2030 comprehensive
plans. To be reviewed, an amendment must be
found complete before July 1, 2018.
5. Your 2040 comprehensive plan updates are
due to the Council by December 31, 2018.
What about changes to our forecasts?
When we adopted Thrive, we also adopted 2040
local forecasts of population, households, and
employment. We are using these adopted forecasts
for developing the systems and policy plans and
forecasting future demand for transportation,
transit, and sewer service. Later in 2014, we will
issue and adopt forecasts for 2020 and 2030
consistent with the adopted 2040 forecasts. In
2015, we will update regional and local forecasts to
reflect current national data and the policies
adopted in the Council’s systems and policy plans.
The System Statements issued in the fall of 2015
will include these updated forecasts.
Consistent with the timelines above, you may
continue to implement and amend your 2030
comprehensive plans, which use Framework
forecasts. Some proposed amendments might
include requests to change your local forecasts. In
the time period before System Statements are
issued in 2015, we will consider revisions to the
Thrive forecasted 2040 community totals as part of
our review of those amendments. Examples of plan
changes that could result in a revision to Thrive
forecasts include:
• Substantial changes in land supply, planned
land uses, and/or allowable density ranges
• Substantial changes in the extent of staging of
MUSA (or comparable municipal service area)
As addressed in Thrive MSP 2040, where 2040
sewer-serviced households or sewer-serviced
employment are lower than the Framework 2030
forecasts, you may continue to plan for urban
services in those areas that are authorized in your
local 2030 comprehensive plan.
Council staff will assist you in incorporating any
approved forecast changes into your 2030 plan.
Questions?
If you have questions, please contact your Sector
Representative, or Lisa Barajas, Local Planning
Assistance Manager, at 651-602-1895. We are
happy to explain
requirements and answer
any questions.
Page - 2 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Late 2014 –
Early 2015
Adoption of System
and Policy Plans
Fall 2015
System Statements
Issued
May 28, 2014
Thrive MSP 2040
adopted
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Review Standard Forecast Approach
We will consider
revisions to 2040
forecasts adopted with
Thrive and 2020/2030
forecasts adopted later
in 2014. We are no
longer revising 2030
Regional Development
Framework forecasts.
Comprehensive plan
amendments reviewed
under 2030 Regional
Development
Framework and 2030
system plans
You may choose to
have amendment
reviewed under either:
• 2030 Regional
Development
Framework and its
system plans
-- OR –
• Thrive MSP 2040
and its system
plans
Provided that the
proposed amendment
does not create
conformance issues
with 2040 metropolitan
system plans
January 1, 2016
July 1, 2018
Amendments and
updates reviewed under
Thrive MSP 2040 and
its system and policy
plans
We will no longer accept amendments to 2030
comprehensive plans. All amendments must be found
complete for review before July 1, 2018, for the Council to
take formal action on the amendment.
We will consider
revisions to updated
Thrive forecasts
included with System
Statements
2040 Comprehensive Plan Updates Due
December 31,
2018
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
91
2
0
4
0
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
92
Community Designations
The previous sections of Thrive MSP 2040 set forth outcomes and principles to
guide regional policies, investment, and activities. This section translates those
overall ideas into specific land use policies and strategies tailored to different
groups of communities. These community designations are used to plan and
implement regional policies at the local level through comprehensive plans.
The seven-county region contains a wide range of communities, from farming-
based townships to densely developed downtown neighborhoods. Recognizing
that one size does not fit all, the Council uses community designations to group
communities with similar characteristics in order to more effectively target
its policies.
The Council uses these community designations to:
• Guide regional growth and development to areas that have urban infrastructure
in place and the capacity to accommodate development and redevelopment.
• Establish land use expectations, including overall densities and development
patterns, for different community designations.
• Outline the respective roles of the Council and the individual communities and
strategies for planning for forecasted growth.
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
D
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
I
O
N
S
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
93
The Council assigns a community designation to each city and township on the basis of
existing development patterns, common challenges, and shared opportunities. Specific
characteristics used to define the community designations include:
• Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)
• The percentage of developable land committed to urban uses
• The age of the housing stock, which is a proxy for age of infrastructure and general
development patterns
• Intersection density, which indicates connectivity, urban form, and accessibility
• The Long-term Wastewater Service Area
Intersection density and the age of housing together describe the character of the overall
development patterns.
Although the characteristics of a community designation may not apply to every part of
every community, the designation represents the dominant character of each community.
Some communities have more than one designation because land use policies differ for the
portions of the community with and without current or planned regional sewer service.
Community designations describe the predominant character, development challenges and
opportunities in each community—all of which may evolve as development patterns change.
The Council encourages communities to plan and build towards the development patterns
of the community designation they aspire to be. The Council will consider requests to
redesignate communities through the local comprehensive planning process.
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
94
Metropolitan Urban Service and Rural Service Areas
The Council designates the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) as distinguished from
the Rural Service Area. Communities and land within the MUSA receive a higher level of
regional services. In return, the Council expects these jurisdictions to plan for and build the
higher levels of development that economically support those regional services. Conversely,
in the Rural Service Area, the Council discourages higher development densities to ensure
the orderly development of the region, promote the efficient use of regional investments,
and protect agricultural land, water resources, and the rural landscape. At the region’s
developing edge, some communities are split between the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
and the Rural Service Area.
While the Metropolitan Urban Service Area constitutes about half of the land in the region,
more than 90% of the population lives in this area. The Metropolitan Urban Service
Area includes a diverse set of communities ranging from the urban cores of downtown
Minneapolis and Saint Paul to edge communities planning for staged growth and
expansion. Developing at different times in the region’s history, these communities include a
variety of residential neighborhoods, housing types, and densities, as well as a varying mix
of commercial and industrial areas. The Council supports the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area through investments such as regional wastewater services, regional highways, transit
service, the Regional Parks System, and programs that support redevelopment. In turn, the
Council works with local communities to support growth that best capitalizes on regional
infrastructure and systems. To respond to this variation in development patterns, the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area is divided into five community designations:
• Urban Center
• Urban
• Suburban
• Suburban Edge
• Emerging Suburban Edge
About half of the land in the Twin Cities region is in the Rural Service Area. This area includes
a range of uses including cultivated farmland, vineyards, hobby farms, gravel mines,
woodlands, small towns, scattered and clustered housing, open spaces, and significant
expanses of the region’s natural resources. Aside from the investments in the Regional Parks
System, investments in regional service and infrastructure are limited in the Rural Service
Area. To protect the vital agricultural lands and natural amenities and accommodate desires
for rural and small-town residential choices, the Rural Service Area is divided into four
community designations:
• Rural Center
• Rural Residential
• Diversified Rural
• Agricultural
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
95
Community Designations
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
96
Urban Center: Growing vitality in the region’s core
The Urban Center includes the largest, most
centrally located, and most economically
diverse cities of the region. Anchored by
Minneapolis and Saint Paul, the Urban Center
also includes adjoining cities that share similar
development characteristics such as street
grids planned before World War II.
Downtown Minneapolis is a significant regional
center of finance and business services;
downtown Saint Paul is the seat of state
government; and the University of Minnesota
attracts tens of thousands of students,
faculty and staff to its three campuses in the
Urban Center. Centrally located industrial
concentrations in the Urban Center are well-
connected to export markets by river, railroad,
highway, and air travel. Investments in transit
and amenities have strengthened the Urban
Center as an attractive place to invest, live,
and do business.
The Urban Center also includes the
most visited regional parks, such as the
Minneapolis Chain of Lakes and Como
Regional Park, and is home to the region’s
premier cultural resources. While the Urban
Center includes some of the region’s wealthy
and historically notable areas, like Summit
Avenue, it also includes areas with significant
challenges, including many of the region’s
Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Racially
Concentrated Areas of Poverty.
Neighborhoods throughout the Urban Center
grew outward along a system of streetcars.
Because of more limited automobile
use during their initial development,
neighborhoods are more conducive to transit
use and walking for daily needs. Streets
are narrow and interconnected, sidewalks
are relatively common, and buildings are
oriented toward pedestrians, with smaller-
scale commercial uses often within a
short walking distance. Travel by transit,
walking, and bicycling remains common
here. Redevelopment, reinvestment, and
intensification are occurring in areas where
people have multiple transportation options
and commercial, cultural, and recreational
amenities are nearby.
Urban Center communities are experienc-
ing redevelopment attracted to their vitality
and amenities, often at significant densities.
However, they face many challenges includ-
ing pollution cleanup costs, land availability
for development and infrastructure improve-
ments, congestion, conflicting or competing
land uses, and the costs of retrofitting, replac-
ing, or new infrastructure.
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
97
Designated Urban Center communities are: Columbia
Heights, Fort Snelling, Hilltop, Hopkins, Minneapolis,
Richfield, Robbinsdale, South St. Paul, St. Louis Park,
Saint Paul, and West St. Paul.
Urban Center
Urban: Redeveloping to meet the needs of new generations
Urban communities developed primarily
during the economic prosperity
between the end of World War II and
the economic recession of 1973-75.
These cities, adjacent to the Urban
Center communities, experienced rapid
development to house the growing
families of the Baby Boom era.
Highway accessibility led to the
development of Urban communities
as centers of office, commercial,
institutional, and industrial uses, including
many of the region’s early major indoor
shopping malls. Many Urban communities
are served by highways that predate the
interstate system (e.g., Highways 100
and 36).
The development patterns of Urban
communities show the growing influence
of the automobile as miles and miles of
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts that the Urban Center area will add 162,000
residents, 80,000 households, and 142,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040. This represents
growth of 19% in population, 23% in households, and 25% in employment over the
three decades.
new limited-access highways accelerated
further automobile-oriented growth. After
World War II, the region’s two-lane roads
that extend out from the Urban Center were
improved and expanded, and new roads
and highways were built, making large tracts
of land available for development. Streets
are wider and include more curves. Lots are
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
98
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts
that the Urban area will add 56,000
residents, 29,000 households, and
87,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040. This
represents growth of 15% in population,
18% in households, and 29% in
employment over the three decades.
Urban
Designated Urban communities are: Bloomington,
Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Edina, Falcon Heights,
Fridley, Golden Valley, Lauderdale, Maplewood,
New Brighton, New Hope, Newport, North St. Paul,
Osseo, Roseville, and St. Anthony.
larger, parking is plentiful, alleys and sidewalks
are less common, and residential parking
is accessed via streets instead of alleys. In
many cases, local streets do not intersect with
higher volume roadways as more emphasis is
placed on traffic movement and circulation.
Over time, transit service has been extended
into these communities from local routes
originating in the Urban Center. Some new
services were introduced such as circulator
services often centered on the regional malls
and express buses serving major park-
and-rides that transport commuters to the
downtowns of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
Urban communities face the challenge of
redeveloping in ways that accommodate
a greater mix of uses, incorporate better
facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and
lay the groundwork for pedestrian-friendly
districts and improved transit services.
Examples include the Penn-American district
in Bloomington and the I-394 mixed-use
district in Golden Valley.
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
99
and Andover and regional assets like the
Minnesota Zoo in Apple Valley. Regular-route
bus service is generally less cost-effective in
the Suburban communities than in the Urban
Center and Urban communities, but express
bus service connects Suburban area park-
and-rides to Job Concentrations in the Urban
Center, such as downtown Minneapolis,
downtown Saint Paul, and the University
of Minnesota.
As the Suburban communities have grown
and as market preferences have evolved,
many of these cities are focusing attention on
developing places where people can gather.
These include town centers like downtown
Stillwater, Burnsville’s Heart of the City,
Minnetonka’s Village Center, downtown White
Bear Lake, and Apple Valley’s downtown.
These locations are intended to be more
walkable and include a mix of retail, higher
density housing, and civic, institutional, and
open space amenities.
Another new challenge for some
Suburban communities is realigning
development patterns around existing and
emerging transitways.
Suburban communities saw their
primary era of development in the 1980s
and into the early 1990s as the Baby
Boomers formed families and entered
their prime earning years. Many of these
cities fall along freeway corridors and
include growth along and outside the
I-694/I-494 beltway. This development
pattern also reached and incorporated
places that were once resort destinations
connected from Minneapolis and Saint
Paul by streetcar, such as communities
along Lake Minnetonka and White Bear
Lake. Similarly, communities along the
St. Croix River, such as Stillwater, have
development patterns in their downtown
and core areas that are similar to
other communities settled early in the
region’s history. Like other Suburban
communities, these cities experienced
continued growth and expansion during
the 1980s and early 1990s.
Many of the region’s corporate
headquarters are located in the Suburban
area. These include Thomson Reuters
in Eagan, UnitedHealth Group in
Minnetonka, and Land O’Lakes in
Arden Hills.
Development in Suburban communities
occurred at significantly lower densities
than in previous eras. Many residential
subdivisions include cul-de-sacs. Retail
areas often include big-box stores
and multi-tenant retail developments.
Because of the automobile-orientation
of this area’s development patterns and
high automobile ownership, walking or
bicycling for daily travel is less common,
but trails are often used for recreation and
commuting. Suburban area cities include
large regional parks such as Bunker
Hills Regional Park in Coon Rapids
Suburban: Cultivating places where people can gather
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
100
Designated Suburban communities are: Anoka,
Apple Valley, Arden Hills, Bayport, Birchwood
Village, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Champlin,
Circle Pines, Coon Rapids, Deephaven, Eagan,
Eden Prairie, Excelsior, Gem Lake, Greenwood,
Landfall, Lexington, Lilydale, Little Canada, Long
Lake, Loretto, Mahtomedi, Maple Plain, Medicine
Lake, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Minnetonka,
Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Mounds View, North
Oaks*, Oak Park Heights, Oakdale, Savage,
Shoreview, Shorewood, Spring Lake Park, Spring
Park, St. Bonifacius, Stillwater, Tonka Bay, Vadnais
Heights, Wayzata, White Bear Lake, White Bear
Township, Willernie, and Woodland.
*Listed in this designation but also has areas in
other designations.
Suburban
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts that the Suburban area will add 159,000 residents,
76,000 households, and 161,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040. This represents growth of
22% in population, 27% in households, and 43% in employment over the three decades.
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
101
Suburban Edge: Managing rapid growth and change
The balance of proximity to more developed
areas and a significant supply of developable
land presents an opportunity for the Suburban
Edge to develop new workforce housing.
Locating future development close to existing
urban services and infrastructure will use
regional investments efficiently. Connections
via roadway, transit, and trails to centers in
adjacent Suburban and Urban communities
will further integrate the Suburban Edge into
the regional fabric. Addressing walkability and
expanding local trail networks is important
for residential neighborhoods in order to
increase connectivity in existing and new
neighborhoods.
With water supply issues facing many
Suburban Edge communities, planning efforts
should focus on how to protect water supply
resources and identify viable alternative
sources of water. Similarly, with much of their
development yet ahead, Suburban Edge
communities can protect and preserve open
spaces, natural areas, and water recharge
capacity within future development patterns.
The Suburban Edge includes
communities that have experienced
significant residential growth beginning in
the 1990s and continuing to the 2010s.
At least 40% of the land in these cities
is developed, but significant amounts
of land remain for future development.
These communities generally no longer
contain large-scale agricultural areas.
The Suburban Edge includes region-
serving retail centers, like Maple Grove’s
The Shoppes at Arbor Lakes, as well as
more local and small scale centers, like
downtown Chaska, that serve the
local population.
The Suburban Edge tends to have auto-
oriented development and transportation
patterns. Neighborhoods are often self-
contained subdivisions characterized
by cul-de-sacs and limited access to
major thoroughfares for traffic movement.
Recent development has included
both subdivisions of single-family
detached homes, as well as townhome
developments offering more options
for housing affordability. Most cities
in the Suburban Edge have access to
regional trails and include some existing
residential neighborhoods with sidewalks
and connection to trails. Suburban Edge
cities are seeing increasing demand for
transit service from park-and-rides to
regional destinations.
An emerging challenge for some
Suburban Edge communities is aligning
today’s development patterns in
preparation for future transit expansions
and potential transitways.
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
102
Designated Suburban Edge communities are:
Blaine, Chaska, Cottage Grove, Inver Grove
Heights*, Lakeville, Maple Grove, Plymouth,
Shakopee, and Woodbury.
*Listed in this designation but also has areas in
other designations.
Suburban Edge
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts that the Suburban Edge area will add 181,000
residents, 79,000 households, and 92,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040. This represents
growth of 42% in population, 49% in households, and 52% in employment over the
three decades.
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
103
to more developed areas while retaining their
local rural character and protecting natural
resources. Commercial areas in the Emerging
Suburban Edge tend to be individual large
employers and smaller-scale commercial
centers serving the local population.
Although these communities have some
redevelopment potential in older areas
such as historic downtown districts, the
focus in the Emerging Suburban Edge is on
greenfield development. Greenfields present
opportunities to integrate natural resource
preservation into site planning prior to
development. Some of these communities
have land available within their jurisdiction
staged for future development, while others
are expanding through orderly annexation
agreements with neighboring townships.
This mix of uses, availability of undeveloped
land, and rich access to natural resources is
a characteristic unique to Emerging Suburban
Edge communities.
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts that
the Emerging Suburban Edge area will add
201,000 residents, 93,000 households, and
58,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040. This
represents growth of 66% in population, 87%
in households, and 66% in employment over
the three decades. Because most Emerging
Emerging Suburban Edge: Transitioning from rural to developed
The Emerging Suburban Edge includes
cities, townships, and portions of both
that are in the early stages of transitioning
into urbanized levels of development.
Strategically located between Suburban
Edge and Rural communities, the
Emerging Suburban Edge communities
offer both connections to urban amenities
and the proximity to open spaces that
characterizes a rural lifestyle. Often, the
cities and townships in the Emerging
Suburban Edge are in more than one
Community Designation. In the majority
of Emerging Suburban Edge
communities, less than 40% of the land
has been developed.
Communities in the Emerging Suburban
Edge have a mix of residential,
rural, and agricultural areas, often
including lower-density single-family
neighborhoods and small downtown
service centers. The growth patterns
in these communities demonstrate
the challenges of changing from rural
to suburban. New developments are
typically built in a traditional suburban
pattern, characterized by large curving
streets, limited through-roadways, and
auto-oriented street design. Emerging
Suburban Edge communities have access
to regional wastewater services (either
municipally owned or regional services),
access to the metropolitan highway
system, and include existing or planned
Regional Parks System facilities.
The Emerging Suburban Edge
communities provide a variety of
commercial activities along the main
transportation corridors, and most
encompass historic small downtowns
with small town characteristics. These
communities benefit from their proximity
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
104
Designated Emerging Suburban Edge communities
are: Andover*, Carver, Centerville, Chanhassen,
Columbus*, Corcoran*, Dayton, Empire Township*,
Farmington, Forest Lake*, Greenfield*, Hastings,
Hugo*, Independence*, Lake Elmo*, Lino Lakes,
Medina*, Minnetrista*, Orono*, Prior Lake, Ramsey,
Rogers*, Rosemount, St. Paul Park, Victoria, and
Waconia.
*Listed in this designation but also has areas in
other designations.
Emerging Suburban Edge
Suburban Edge communities also have areas designated as rural, these numbers are
approximations. These numbers may change during the upcoming comprehensive planning
process, which will more precisely delineate how much community growth belongs inside
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
105
Rural Centers are local commercial,
employment, and residential activity
centers serving rural areas in the region.
These small towns are surrounded by
agricultural lands and serve as centers
of commerce to those surrounding farm
lands and the accompanying population.
Although smaller in scale than more urban
communities, Rural Centers provide
similar development patterns and locally
accessible commercial services for the
surrounding area.
Rural Centers have wastewater treatment
services, some municipally owned and
others connected to the regional system
provided by the Council. The availabil-
ity of either local or regional wastewater
treatment supports denser land uses and
development patterns in these cities and
distinguishes them from neighboring rural
townships and other small towns.
Rural Centers provide a range of services
appropriate to serve a limited population
within a compact geographical area. Rural
Centers generally have a mix of housing
densities, strong commercial service
districts in a traditional downtown district
or along transportation corridors, and
residential neighborhoods surrounded by
farmland and agri-businesses. Growth
in Rural Centers should be orderly and
economical so as to best utilize existing
infrastructure and investment prior to
extension of new services outside of
Rural Centers.
At times, Rural Centers can connect
travelers and residents to other
communities in and outside the region,
particularly those that are well-served
by existing transportation infrastructure
Rural Centers: Serving the rural area as small town centers
of commerce
such as in Scott County along U.S. Highway
169. Largely situated along the edges of the
seven-county region, these Rural Centers are
often visited by travelers with a destination
in another part of the region. This spatial
connection to other locations in the region
supports the commercial and activity functions
of Rural Centers and provides growth
opportunities unique to these communities.
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts that
Rural Centers will add 45,000 residents,
21,000 households, and 9,000 jobs between
2010 and 2040. This represents growth of
93% in population, 123% in households, and
95% in employment over the three decades.
These numbers may change during the
upcoming comprehensive planning process,
which will more precisely delineate how
much community growth belongs inside the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area and inside
each rural designation.
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
106
Diversified Rural: Protecting land for rural lifestyles and
long-term urbanization
Diversified Rural communities are home to
a variety of farm and non-farm land uses
including very large-lot residential, clustered
housing, hobby farms and agricultural uses.
Located adjacent to the Emerging Suburban
Edge of the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area, the Diversified Rural Area protects rural
land for rural lifestyles today and potential
urbanized levels of development sometime
after 2040.
Large areas of high-quality natural resources
are located in these communities with some
of these natural areas protected in state lands
and regional parks, like Carlos Avery Wildlife
Management Area in Anoka County and
Carver Park Reserve in Carver County.
While these communities contain a mix
of uses, large portions of communities in
the Diversified Rural area contain prime
agricultural soils, located primarily in Scott
and Washington counties. Although these
communities are not designated Agricultural
communities, the Council supports the
preservation of agricultural land in these areas.
Agricultural uses in Diversified Rural
communities benefit from their proximity
to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
and Rural Centers, but face challenges to
their long-term continued use, including
incompatible uses developing nearby and
increased development pressures.
The Council discourages urbanized levels
of residential development in Diversified
Rural communities to avoid the premature
demand for expansion of metropolitan
systems and other urban public services.
Rural Centers
Designated Rural Centers are: Belle Plaine, Bethel,
Cologne, East Bethel*, Elko New Market, Hamburg,
Hampton*, Jordan, Mayer, New Germany, Norwood
Young America, St. Francis*, Vermillion*, and
Watertown.
*Listed in this designation but also has areas in
other designations.
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
107
Regional investments in infrastructure, such as roads, focus on rural levels of service, while
recognizing the need to include transportation infrastructure consistent with market access
and the business needs of the area. Some Diversified Rural communities are also located
within the Long-term Wastewater Service Area. These areas are designated to ensure land
availability to accommodate growth post-2040 at the edge of the urbanizing area. The
remaining Diversified Rural communities are considered long-term rural areas.
There is a portion of the region’s population that is interested in rural and small-town living.
For communities in the Diversified Rural area, the Council supports the clustering of homes
to meet that demand, designed in a manner that protects high-quality and locally prioritized
natural areas and open spaces and also preserves lands in areas identified for potential
post-2040 urban development.
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts that the Rural Service Area outside of Rural
Centers—including Diversified Rural, Rural Residential, and Agricultural areas—will add
16,000 residents, 12,000 households, and 7,000 jobs between 2010 and 2040. This
represents growth of 14% in population, 31% in households, and 50% in employment
over the three decades. These numbers may change during the upcoming comprehensive
planning process, which will more precisely delineate how much community growth belongs
inside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and inside each rural designation.
Diversified Rural
Designated Diversified Rural communities are: Afton,
Andover*, Baytown Township*, Belle Plaine Township*,
Blakeley Township*, Cedar Lake Township, Coates,
Columbus*, Corcoran*, Credit River Township*,
Dellwood, Denmark Township, East Bethel*,
Forest Lake*, Grant, Greenfield*, Grey Cloud Island
Township, Helena Township*, Hugo*, Independence*,
Jackson Township, Laketown Township*, Linwood
Township, Louisville Township, Marine on St. Croix,
May Township, Medina*, Miesville, Minnetrista*, New
Market Township*, New Trier, Nowthen*, Oak Grove*,
Orono*, Randolph, Randolph Township*, Ravenna
Township, Rogers*, Sand Creek Township, Scandia,
Spring Lake Township*, St. Francis*, St. Lawrence
Township, and Stillwater Township*.
*Listed in this designation but also has areas in
other designations.
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
108
Rural Residential: Limiting unsustainable growth patterns
Rural Residential communities have residential
patterns characterized by large lots and do
not have plans to provide urban infrastructure,
such as centralized wastewater treatment.
Many of the communities in the Rural
Residential Area have topographic
development limitations and a historic
development pattern with lot sizes that
generally ranged from 1 to 2.5 units per acre.
These residential densities do not support
economical extension of wastewater services.
In Anoka County, the Rural Residential Area
includes communities that have a large
number of wetlands and existing lot sizes of
2.5 acres or less. These areas are typically
portions of a community, while the remaining
part of the community is usually Emerging
Suburban Edge, Suburban Edge, or Diversified
Rural. Some communities are split between
community designations where wastewater
services are available (typically Suburban Edge
and Emerging Suburban Edge) and the Rural
Residential area where neither the Council nor
the city plans to provide wastewater services.
In most cases, the Rural Residential area
is existing single-family residential housing
within a residential portion of a community.
If the Rural Residential area includes the
whole community, other uses typically have
developed such as agricultural uses, including
sod farming and horticulture, commercial uses
to serve local needs, and commercial and light
industrial along transportation corridors.
Rural Residential development precludes
providing urbanized infrastructure in an
effective, connected, and efficient manner.
Rural Residential development does not
advance the Council mission of ensuring
orderly and economical development and
in some cases increases the potential for
damage to the environment. These areas need
to accommodate minimal growth while
protecting natural areas, water quality
and quantity, and ensuring sufficient
public infrastructure. The Council
discourages the expansion of the Rural
Residential areas.
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts
that the Rural Service Area outside of
Rural Centers—including Diversified
Rural, Rural Residential, and Agricultural
areas—will add 16,000 residents, 12,000
households, and 7,000 jobs between
2010 and 2040. This represents growth of
14% in population, 31% in households,
and 50% in employment over the three
decades. These numbers may change
during the upcoming comprehensive
planning process, which will more
precisely delineate how much community
growth belongs inside the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area and inside each
rural designation.
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
109
Agricultural: Preserving large swaths of farmland
Agricultural communities encompass
areas with prime agricultural soils that
are planned and zoned for long-term
agricultural use. These communities are
home to the bulk of contiguous lands
enrolled in the Metropolitan Agricultural
Preserves and Green Acres programs
or cultivated for commercial
agricultural purposes.
In the Agricultural area, agriculture is the
development. The Council supports the
preservation of agricultural land to
protect the region’s agricultural economy,
provide economic opportunities
for farmers, and to promote local
food production. These long-term
uses support the region’s economic
competitiveness as they provide
opportunities for local agricultural-
and food-based industry clusters and
production for local food consumption.
The preservation of long-term agricultural
uses and the integration of best management
practices in farm operations also contribute
to regional sustainability. The incorporation
of best management practices, such as
conservation tillage and carbon sequestration,
can improve soil fertility, reduce soil erosion,
Rural Residential
Designated Rural Residential communities are: Andover*,
Baytown Township*, Credit River Township*, Ham Lake,
Inver Grove Heights*, Lake Elmo*, Lake St. Croix Beach,
Lakeland, Lakeland Shores, New Market Township*,
North Oaks*, Nowthen*, Oak Grove*, Pine Springs,
Spring Lake Township*, St. Mary’s Point, Sunfish Lake,
and West Lakeland Township.
*Listed in this designation but also has areas in other
designations.
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
110
Agricultural
Designated Agricultural communities are: Belle
Plaine Township*, Benton Township, Blakeley
Township*, Camden Township, Castle Rock
Township, Dahlgren Township, Douglas Township,
Empire Township*, Eureka Township, Greenvale
Township, Hampton*, Hampton Township, Hancock
Township, Helena Township*, Hollywood Township,
Independence*, Laketown Township*, Marshan
Township, Minnetrista*, Nininger Township,
Randolph Township*, San Francisco Township,
Sciota Township, Vermillion*, Vermillion Township,
Waconia Township, Waterford Township, Watertown
Township, and Young America Township.
*Listed in this designation but also has areas in
other designations.
and improve overall soil and water quality.
Long-term agricultural uses can also
contribute to the region’s air quality by
reducing local food transportation distances
and related greenhouse gas emissions.
The Council discourages urban levels
of development in rural areas to reduce
development pressure on agricultural lands
and to avoid the premature demand for
expansion of metropolitan systems and other
urban public services. Regional investments in
infrastructure such as roads and wastewater
treatment will focus on rural levels of service,
while recognizing the need to include
transportation infrastructure consistent with
market access and the agricultural needs of
the area.
As of May 2014, the Council forecasts
that the Rural Service Area outside of
Rural Centers—including Diversified
Rural, Rural Residential, and Agricultural
areas—will add 16,000 residents, 12,000
households, and 7,000 jobs between
2010 and 2040. This represents growth of
14% in population, 31% in households,
and 50% in employment over the three
decades. These numbers may change
during the upcoming comprehensive
planning process, which will more
precisely delineate how much community
growth belongs inside the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area and inside each
rural designation.
COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
111
THRIVE MSP 2040 COMMUNITY DESIGNATIONS
112
The Council supports the preservation
of agricultural land to protect the
region’s agricultural economy, provide
economic opportunities for farmers, and
to promote local food production.
System Statement
City of Lake Elmo
Following the January 2004 adoption of the 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 of this 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 http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/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 as efficiently as
possible, 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 of the 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.
2
Forecast of population, households and employment:
Revised Development Framework
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Population 5,903 6,863 9,952 18,403 24,000
Households 1,973 2,347 3,619 6,324 8,727
Employment 1,011 1,636 2,250 7,200 14,000
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 Lake Elmo is designated partially as a “developing community” and partially
as a “diversified rural” 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.
Diversified rural areas include a mix of a limited amount of large-lot residential and
clustered housing with agricultural and other rural uses. Growth in the diversified rural
areas should be consistent with regional forecasts, at densities of no more than 1 housing
unit per 10 acres.
As Lake Elmo 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. Developing communities are also
encouraged to preserve areas for post-2030 growth, where appropriate.
Specific strategies for developing communities and diversified rural areas are found on
page 27-28 and page 32 of the 2030 Regional Development Framework.
3
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 discuss 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.
T-1
Transportation System Statement -- Lake Elmo
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 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 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
T-2
Federal High Priority Project (HPP) funds and matching funds for these federal dollars. The
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 of the 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. The 1996 Aviation Policy Plan remains in effect with the exception of the Land
Use Compatibility Guidelines for 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. There are no expansion plans for the metropolitan highways located within the city of
Lake Elmo.
2. Transit Routes and Facilities
Lake Elmo is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. The western portion of Lake
Elmo is within Market Area is III and the eastern portion is in Market Area IV. Service options
for Market Area III include peak-only express, small vehicle circulators, midday circulators,
special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. Service options for Market Area IV
include dial-a-ride, volunteer driver programs, and ridesharing.
T-3
Lake Elmo should identify existing transit service (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). General public dial-a-ride is provided Human
Services Inc.
Lake Elmo 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).
Lake Elmo 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. An existing park-and-ride lot is located
at Laverne & Highway 5. Demand for future park-and-ride spaces was identified in the Park-
and-Ride Facility Site Location Plan
(www.metrocouncil.org/parkridefacilitysitelocation/plan.htm) in the area of I-94 & Keats
Avenue.
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 Lake Elmo. 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/arp/ace/part77.cfm.
Flying in the metro region involves all types of aircraft including amphibian and float-equipped
planes. Communities should recognize, for purposes of safe use of surface waters and
compatible land use, that certain public waters within the seven-county metro area are designated
by MnDOT Aeronautics as permitted seaplane use areas under state Rules. For a listing of
authorized operating areas and other relevant information please refer to the following web site:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8800/2800.html.
The City is within the Influence Area of the Lake Elmo Airport. Therefore, it is affected by
planning considerations potentially involving the following items: airport zoning, environmental
mitigation, airport development and economic impacts, ground access needs, infrastructure
requirements and general land use compatibility. .The airport is owned and operated by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) including responsibility to prepare/maintain a long-
term comprehensive plan (LTCP) for the facility and development implementation. The Lake
Elmo Airport functions as a general aviation reliever for MSP International Airport, and will
T-4
continue its regional system role as a "Minor" airport. MSP is defined as the region's "Major"
airport and is expected to fulfill that role for many years to come. A proposed MSP 2020
development plan is being examined and the city should monitor that planning process for
potential implications it may have for the Lake Elmo Airport communities.
The TPP/APP identifies the region-wide need for additional runway and hangar area
improvements for traditional general aviation users, and the new light sport aircraft that will soon
be joining the aircraft fleet. Some of that growth is expected to use the Lake Elmo Airport;
projects associated with this demand should be reflected in future capital improvement programs.
The airport's airspace must be protected from potential obstructions and electronic interference to
aircraft operations by meeting state requirements. These include formation of a joint
airport/community zoning board, defining an airport zoning district, and implementing an airport
zoning ordinance including land use safety zoning. The zoning needs updating and to be put in
place by Lake Elmo Airport communities in coordination with Washington County and the
MAC. In preparing the ordinance the city should review the recent changes to MnDOT Rules
Chapter 8800.
The Council approved the Lake Elmo Airport 2010 long-term comprehensive plan in 1994. The
LTCP included a proposed new main-wind runway and eliminated a parallel crosswind runway.
No land acquisition was needed but part of Blackwoods Lane would be relocated on airport
property. A new east and north hangar building areas were identified; at this time the north area
is fully developed and an Environmental Assessment (EA) completed for development of the
east building area. The east area project still needs funding. Regional policy calls for all airports
are to be connected to central sewer service when it is available. It is expected that regional
sewer service may be provide to the old town center of Lake Elmo but the feasibility of
providing a connection to the airport has not yet been determined. The MAC is currently
evaluating on-site airport parcels for potential new [non-aeronautical] revenue opportunities. In
addition, the MAC has a task force reviewing their reliever airports, examining such issues as a
revenue funding plan, use of outside management, and ability to close and/or sell airports. The
city should be involved in those discussions. It is expected that the MAC will also be updating
the long-term comprehensive plan and ALP to a new 10 year planning horizon. The city should
participate in that process to ensure local input to the aviation planning process.
T-5
Figure 4-2
2030 Transitway Corridors
T-6
Figure 4-5
Transit Passenger Facilities
T-7
Figure 4-6
Transit Support Facilities
T-8
Figure 4-11
2030 Constrained Metropolitan Highway System Plan Investment Priorities
T-9
Table 4-1
Transit Market Area Features and Improvements
Market
Areas
Land Use Pattern Service Options Service Characteristics
I Highest concen-
trations of activity,
housing and jobs
Regular-route locals, all-
day expresses, special
needs paratransit (ADA,
seniors,) ridesharing
Frequencies: 5-15 minute local and
circulator
Span of Service: 18-24 hours, 7
days per week
Access: Locals spaced 0.25-0.5 mile
apart with 8-10 bus stops per mile
II Moderate concen-
trations of jobs,
housing and
activities
Regular-route locals, all-
day expresses, small-
vehicle circulators, special
needs paratransit (ADA,
seniors,), ridesharing
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
III Generally lower
concentrations with
intermittent pockets
of moderate
concentrations
(pockets would
receive highest
service levels)
Peak-only express, small
vehicle dial-a-ride, midday
circulators, special needs
paratransit (ADA,
seniors,), ridesharing
Frequencies: Peak-period-only
expresses, 1-2 hour midday
frequencies, dial-a-ride advance
registration
Span of Service: 10-14 hours per
day, weekdays and limited
weekends
Access: Services tied to park-and-
ride lots and hubs
IV Lowest
concentrations of
housing and jobs
Dial-a-ride, volunteer
driver programs,
ridesharing
Frequencies: As needed
Span of Service: 8-10 hours per
days, weekdays
Spacing: Services tied to park-and-
ride and park-and-pool lots
T-10
Appendix M.
Regional Transit Standards
Transit Market Areas
While several factors influence 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 using four
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
Area I Population Density = 15 or more persons/acre (or)
Job Density = 50 or more jobs/acre and 10,000 more contiguous jobs
Area II Population Density = 9 to 14.9 persons/acre augmented by contiguous High
Transit Dependency 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 trips/acre
Area IV Population Density less than 5 persons/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 Dependency areas (isolated pockets only)
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-11
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
Market Area
Suggested Service Type Suggested Service Characteristics
Area I Primary emphasis on big bus/regular route
service complemented by paratransit
service. Downtown area circulators
possible.
Orientation – Focus on both CBD’s
Availability – Up to 24 hours/day and 7
days/week
Access – Route spacing (.25 – .50 miles)
with 8-10 bus stops per mile
Frequency – Generally 5 – 15 minutes
Area II Primary emphasis on big bus/regular route
service complemented by paratransit
service. Neighborhood circulators should
tie in with limited stop regular route
service.
Orientation – Link CBD’s/suburban
transit stations and centers
Availability – Up to 20 hours/day and 7
days/week
Access – Route spacing (0.5 – 1.0 miles)
with 6-10 stops per mile
Frequency – Generally 15 – 30 minutes
Area III A mix of big and small bus/regular route
and community circulator service
complemented by paratransit service.
Community circulators should tie into
regular route regional service at a transfer
point.
Orientation – Link CBD’s/suburban
transit stations and centers
Availability – Up to 18 hours/day and Up
to 7 days/week
Access – Route spacing (0.5 – 1.5 miles)
with 6-10 stops per mile
Frequency – Generally 30 – 60 minutes
Area IV Primary emphasis on: 1) small bus/dial-a-
ride service providing county or rural
circulation, and 2) community bus service
tied to major park-and-ride facilities to
create travel volumes.
Orientation – Suburb to suburb and central
cities
Availability – Peak-period express and
midday circulators; weekday only
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 1) small bus service
providing community local or dial-a-ride
circulation, and 2) commuter bus service
may have localized service in addition to
linking with major park-and-ride facilities
to create travel volumes.
Orientation – Localized
Availability – Varies by pocket; primarily
weekday service
Access – Door-to-door or modified
circulation; express routes primarily tied
to park-and-ride facilities
Frequency – Up to 2 hours for circulator
services. Advance registration for dial-a-
ride
T-
1
3
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
A
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
s
e
t
o
f
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
e
n
s
u
r
e
s
r
e
gi
o
n
a
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
.
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
are
cu
s
t
o
m
-
t
a
i
l
o
r
e
d
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
m
a
r
k
e
t
a
r
e
a
.
Ar
e
a
I
A
r
e
a
I
I
A
r
e
a
I
I
I
A
r
e
a
I
V
P
o
c
k
e
t
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
:
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Ra
d
i
a
l
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Li
m
i
t
e
d
St
o
p
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
No
No
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Ye
s
Yes
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
S
p
a
n
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
Da
y
s
a
n
d
T
i
m
e
s
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
*
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
U
p
t
o
2
4
h
o
u
r
s
U
p
t
o
2
0
h
o
u
r
s
U
p
t
o
1
8
h
o
u
r
s
U
p
t
o
1
4
h
o
u
r
s
U
p
t
o
1
4
h
o
u
r
s
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
P
k
/
D
a
y
/
N
t
/
W
k
e
n
d
P
e
a
k
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
ea
k
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
e
a
k
O
n
l
y
P
e
a
k
O
n
l
y
Ra
d
i
a
l
P
k
/
D
a
y
/
N
t
/
W
k
e
n
d
Pk
/
D
a
y
/
N
t
/
W
k
e
n
d
Pk
/
D
a
y
/
N
t
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
P
k
/
D
a
y
/
N
t
/
W
k
e
n
d
P
k
/
D
a
y
/N
t
/
W
k
e
n
d
P
k
/
D
a
y
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Li
m
i
t
e
d
S
t
o
p
Pe
a
k
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
e
a
k
/
S
pe
c
i
f
i
c
P
e
a
k
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
N/
A
N/
A
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pk
/
D
a
y
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
k
/
D
a
y
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Me
t
r
o
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
P
k
/
D
a
y
/
N
t
/
W
k
e
n
d
P
k
/
D
a
y
/
N
t
/
W
k
e
n
d
P
k
/
D
a
y
/
N
t
/
W
k
e
n
d
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
L
e
v
e
l
s
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
(M
i
i
n
i
m
u
m
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
f
o
r
N
e
w
/
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
u
t
e
s
:
*
+
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
1
5
”
P
e
a
k
/
6
0
”
D
a
y
3
P
k
T
r
i
p
s
/
6
0
”
D
a
y
3
Pk
T
r
i
p
s
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
2
P
e
a
k
T
r
i
p
s
2
P
e
a
k
T
r
i
p
s
Ra
d
i
a
l
15
”
D
a
y
/
3
0
”
N
i
g
h
t
3
0
”
D
a
y
/
6
0
”
N
i
g
h
t
6
0
”
D
a
y
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
N/
A
N/A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
3
0
”
D
a
y
/
6
0
”
N
i
g
h
t
3
0
”
D
a
y
/
6
0
”
N
i
gh
t
6
0
”
D
a
y
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
6
0
”
D
a
y
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
6
0
”
D
a
y
/
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Li
m
i
t
e
d
S
t
o
p
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
h
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
N/
A
Specific
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
N/
A
N/
A
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Specific
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
*
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
j
u
s
t
i
f
i
e
d
;
w
i
t
h
l
o
a
d
i
ng
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
/
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
d
i
c
t
a
ti
n
g
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
a
b
o
v
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
.
+
I
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
1
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
o
r
l
e
s
s
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
,
c
l
o
c
k
e
d
h
e
a
d
w
a
y
s
(
o
r
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
t
i
m
e
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
d
.
T-
1
4
Ar
e
a
I
A
r
e
a
I
I
A
r
e
a
I
I
I
A
r
e
a
I
V
P
o
c
k
e
t
s
Ro
u
t
e
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
Ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
R
a
n
g
e
:
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
ec
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Ra
d
i
a
l
.2
5
-
.
5
0
M
i
l
e
s
.
5
0
-
1
.
0
M
i
l
e
s
.
5
0
-
1
.
5
M
i
l
e
s
N/
A
N/A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
.
5
0
-
1
.
0
M
i
l
e
s
1
.
0
-
2
.
0
M
i
l
e
s
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
N/
A
Specific
Li
m
i
t
e
d
St
o
p
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pu
b
l
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
Re
l
a
t
e
s
t
o
l
o
c
a
l
p
i
c
k
-
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
r
o
u
t
e
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
:
*
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
P&
R
o
r
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
P
&
R
o
r
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
Ra
d
i
a
l
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
N/
A
N/A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
8
p
e
r
M
i
l
e
N/
A
8 per Mile
Li
m
i
t
e
d
St
o
p
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pu
b
l
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
*
A
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
m
a
y
be
C
B
D
’
s
a
n
d
m
a
j
o
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
.
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
S
i
t
i
n
g
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
Ne
a
r
s
i
d
e
s
t
o
p
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
i
n
m
o
s
t
a
r
e
a
s
.
I
n
C
B
D
’
s
a
nd
o
t
h
e
r
h
i
g
h
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
a
r
e
a
s
,
w
h
e
r
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
m
a
j
o
r
i
m
p
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
s
m
o
o
t
h
b
u
s
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
f
a
r
-
s
i
d
e
/
m
i
d
-
b
l
oc
k
s
t
o
p
s
a
r
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
.
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
t
o
p
s
i
t
e
s
mu
s
t
b
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
:
1
)
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
a
r
e
a
(
i
.
e
.
,
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
s
,
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
,
e
t
c
.
)
;
2
)
c
u
r
b
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
s
e
e
s
t
o
p
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
ons
ta
b
l
e
b
e
l
o
w
)
;
a
n
d
3
)
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
u
i
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
s
t
o
p
(
i
.
e
.,
c
u
r
b
c
u
t
s
,
A
D
A
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
.
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
+
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
S
t
o
p
S
m
a
l
l
B
u
s
O
n
l
y
S
t
o
p
Ne
a
r
-
s
i
d
e
S
t
o
p
10
0
f
t
.
75
f
t
.
Fa
r
-
s
i
d
e
S
t
o
p
12
0
f
t
.
9
0
f
t
.
Mi
d
-
B
l
o
c
k
S
t
o
p
15
0
f
t
.
1
1
0
f
t
.
+
B
u
s
s
t
o
p
s
w
h
i
c
h
h
a
v
e
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
b
u
s
e
s
s
t
o
p
p
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
t
i
m
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
o
r
e
s
p
a
c
e
.
Pa
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
W
a
i
t
i
n
g
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
C
i
t
i
e
s
Al
l
O
t
h
e
r
A
r
e
a
s
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
≥40
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
≥25
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
T-
1
5
Ar
e
a
I
A
r
e
a
I
I
A
r
e
a
I
I
I
A
r
e
a
I
V
P
o
c
k
e
t
s
Br
a
n
c
h
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
Ro
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
a
s
p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
p
e
r
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
h
o
u
r
f
o
r
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
a
n
d
p
a
s
s
.
P
e
r
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
m
i
l
e
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
:
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
1
5
P
P
R
H
&
3
0
”
1
5
P
P
R
H
&
3
0
”
1
5
P
P
R
H
&
3
0
”
1
5
P
P
R
H
&
3
0
”
Ra
d
i
a
l
1.
5
r
t
e
.
p
r
o
d
.
&
3
0
”
1
.
0
r
t
e
.
p
r
o
d
.
&
3
0
”
0
.
5
r
t
e
.
p
r
o
d
.
&
6
0
”
N
/
A
N/A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
1
.
5
r
t
e
.
P
r
o
d
.
&
3
0
”
1
.
0
r
t
e
.
p
r
o
d
.
&
3
0
”
0
.
5
r
t
e
.
p
r
o
d
.
&
6
0
”
N
/
A
N/A
Li
m
i
t
e
d
S
t
o
p
3
0
”
P
e
a
k
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
1
5
P
P
R
H
&
3
0
”
1
5
P
P
R
H
&
3
0
”
N/
A
15 PPRH & 30”
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pu
b
l
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Di
r
e
c
t
n
e
s
s
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
o
f
r
o
u
t
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
u
t
o
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
1
0
m
i
n
.
re
m
o
t
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
)
.
L
o
c
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
b
o
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
p
e
r
m
i
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
.
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t:
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
1
.
3
5
A
v
g
A
u
t
o
T
i
m
e
*
1
.
3
5
A
v
g
A
u
t
o
T
i
m
e
*
1
.
3
5
A
v
g
A
u
t
o
T
i
m
e
*
1
.
2
5
A
v
g
A
u
t
o
T
i
m
e
*
1
.
3
5
A
v
g
A
u
t
o
T
i
m
e
*
Ra
d
i
a
l
1.
0
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
1
.
0
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
0
.
5
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
N
/
A
N/A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
1
.
0
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
1
.
0
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
0
.
5
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
N
/
A
N/A
Li
m
i
t
e
d
S
t
o
p
1
.
0
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
1
.
0
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
0
.
5
r
o
u
t
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
.
+
N
/
A
N/A
*
A
v
g
.
a
u
t
o
t
i
m
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
r
e
m
o
t
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
i
m
e
.
+
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
r
i
p
r
i
d
e
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
at
t
h
r
u
r
i
d
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
d
(
i
.
e
.
:
n
e
w
r
i
d
e
s
>
t
h
r
u
r
i
d
e
s
)
.
I
f
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
m
o
r
e
th
a
n
3
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,
n
e
w
t
r
i
p
r
i
d
e
s
m
u
s
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
e
x
t
r
a
t
i
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
ru
r
i
d
e
r
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
n
e
w
r
i
d
e
s
>
(
t
h
r
u
r
i
d
e
r
s
X
e
x
t
r
a
t
i
m
e
)
)
.
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
Ne
w
R
o
u
t
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
e
a
k
a
n
d
m
i
d
d
a
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
l
y
)
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
3
-
1
5
”
w
/
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
&
P
&
R
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
&
P
&
R
Ra
d
i
a
l
3-
1
5
”
w
/
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
N/
A
N/A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
3
-
1
5
”
w
/
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
hu
b
s
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
&
P
&
R
Li
m
i
t
e
d
S
t
o
p
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
&
P
&
R
N
/
A
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
&
P
&
R
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
N/
A
N/
A
3-
1
0
”
a
t
hu
b
s
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
3
-
1
0
”
a
t
h
u
b
s
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
T-
1
6
Ar
e
a
I
A
r
e
a
I
I
A
r
e
a
I
I
I
A
r
e
a
I
V
P
o
c
k
e
t
s
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
“
P
e
a
k
P
e
r
i
o
d
”
L
o
a
d
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
l
o
a
d
p
o
i
n
t
o
f
r
o
u
t
e
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
m
o
r
e
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
o
n
f
r
i
n
g
e
o
f
p
e
a
k
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
a
n
d
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
T
a
r
g
e
t
s
o
n
a
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
B
a
s
i
s
:
*
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
7
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
7
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
7
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
7
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
7
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
Ra
d
i
a
l
85
-
1
2
5
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
8
5
-
1
2
5
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
N
/
A
N/
A
N/A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
7
5
-
1
1
5
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
N
/
A
N/
A
N/A
Li
m
i
t
e
d
S
t
o
p
8
0
-
1
1
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
8
0
-
1
1
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
N
/
A
N/
A
N/A
*
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
l
o
a
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
v
e
r
1
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
“
O
f
f
-
P
e
a
k
”
L
o
a
d
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
l
o
a
d
p
o
i
n
t
o
f
r
o
u
t
e
.
Re
g
u
l
a
r
R
o
u
t
e
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
a
n
d
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
T
a
r
g
e
t
s
o
n
a
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
B
a
s
i
s
:
+
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
6
5
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
6
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
Ra
d
i
a
l
60
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
6
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
N
/
A
N/
A
N/A
Cr
o
s
s
t
o
w
n
/
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
o
r
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
N
/
A
N/
A
N/A
Li
m
i
t
e
d
S
t
o
p
6
5
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
6
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
5
0
-
1
0
0
%
o
f
S
e
a
t
C
a
p
.
+
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
l
o
a
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
v
e
r
3
0
m
i
n
u
t
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
Pa
r
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
Me
t
r
o
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
N
/
A
T-17
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 difference 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
Passenger Performance Monitoring Goal Possible Action
1 20 to 35% over peer average For Quick Review Minor Modifications
2 36 to 60% over peer average For Intense Review Major Changes
3 More than 60% over peer average For Significant Change 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
In-Service Hour
Minimum Passengers per
In-Service Hour
Light Rail Transit ≥70 ≥50
Big Bus Fixed Route – All Day ≥20 ≥15
Big Bus Fixed Route – Peak Only ≥20 N/A
Small Bus Fixed Route ≥9 ≥5
Small Bus Non-Fixed Route ≥3 ≥2
Other/Rideshare/Shared Ride Taxi ≤2 N/A
T-18
Table 4-11
MnDOT Highway Work Plan, 2009-2013
Major Construction, Reconstruction and Bridge Replacement Greater Than $10 Million
Project Cost Estimates
Highway
Project
Description
Program
Construction
Fiscal Year
Design
Estimate
($000)
R/W
Estimate
($000)
Year-of-
Construction
Estimate
($000)
Construction
Engineering
Estimate
($000)
Total
Project
Cost
($000)
35E I-94 to Maryland
Ave. in St. Paul,
grading, surfacing,
brs., etc., including
Cayuga Br. and
Phalen Blvd.
connection
MC 2010 7,687 Limited 76,755 6,140 90,571
35W At Lake St. in
Minneapolis,
reconstruct inter-
change (Ph. 1)
MC 2009 1,160 Contin-
uous/
Major
11,600 928 13,688
35W At Lake St. in
Minneapolis,
reconstruct inter-
change (Ph. 2)
MC 2010 1,785 Contin-
uous/
Major
17,850 1,428 21,063
36 At Lexington
Ave.. in Roseville,
replace Br. 5723
and reconstruct
interchange
MC 2009 1,380 Limited 13,804 1,104 16,289
100 36th St. to Cedar
Lake Rd. in St.
Louis Park,
grading, surfacing,
Brs., etc. for 6-lane
freeway
MC 2011 6,150 Contin-
uous/
Major
61,500 4,920 72,570
169 Near CSAH 6 in
Belle Plaine,
grading, surfacing,
Br., etc. for new
interchange
MC 2010 1,904 Limited 19,040 1,523 22.467
694 E of I35W in
Arden Hills to E of
Lexington Ave.. in
Shoreview,
grading, surfacing,
Brs., etc. to add
third lane and
correct weave at
TH 10/51
MC 2012 6,960 Minimal/
Spot
69,596 5,568 82,123
TOTALS 27,015 270,145 21,611 318,771
T-19
Table 4-12
Regional Priority Projects to Move into
10-Year Highway Work Plan, 2005-2009
Highway Project Description
I-35E TH 110 to TH 5, add one through lane
I-494 TH 55 to I-94, add one through lane
TH 610 CSAH 81 to I-94, Complete four-lane freeway
Total: $ 300 million
W - 1
Wastewater System Statement -- Lake Elmo
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 of the entire Water Resources Management 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/overview.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 of life.
• 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 (I/I) 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 I/I problem.
• A policy that continues to require inspections of individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS)
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 local ISTS management program.
W - 2
System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community
1. Metropolitan Sewer Service
As shown on the 2030 Regional Development Framework Planning Areas Map, portions
of Lake Elmo are to be guided for either diversified rural or as a developing community.
The diversified rural area needs to accommodate growth to not exceed the Council’s
forecasts for unsewered development and cluster development not to exceed one unit per
ten acres.
Forecasts:
The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for Lake
Elmo 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 4,200
10,300
14,300
Sewered Households
1,515
3,500
5,200
Sewered Employment 1,000
7,200
14,000
Average Annual Wastewater Flow (MGD) 0.34
0.95
1.81
Allowable Peak Hourly Flow (MGD) 1.22
3.04
5.25
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
W - 3
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. Lake Elmo, 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
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 Community:
The attached map shows the location of the 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 Lake Elmo is treated at both the Metropolitan and
Eagles Point WWTP’s located within the City of St. Paul and the City of Cottage Grove
respectively. There are many projects scheduled for both plants through 2030. These
projects will provide additional capacity at the plants as well as improve their ability to
meet required permit standards.
As can be seen on the attached map, the City of Lake Elmo will be is served by two
interceptors. Interceptor 1-WO-500 will provide wastewater service to the western
portion of the city and will be designed for an average design capacity of 0.5 mgd. The
interceptor to the Eagles Point WWTP will provide service to the city for an average
design capacity of 1.78 mgd. 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.
Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Goal
The Council’s Water Resources Management Policy Plan states that the Council will
establish I/I goals for all communities discharging wastewater to the MDS. Communities
that have excessive I/I in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the
excessive I/I by 2012. The Council will begin the implementation of an I/I
assistance/surcharge program in 2007. The money collected from the communities with
excessive I/I may be used by those communities to remove I/I from their systems. The
W - 4
Council will limit increases in service within those communities that have not met their
I/I 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 I/I
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 I/I immediately upon notification to the community. The Council plans to
implement a wastewater rate demand charge program, starting in 2013, for those
communities that have not met their I/I goals. These revenues will be used to help defray
the cost of providing attenuation within the MDS to recover the capacity lost to excessive
I/I.
The I/I goal established for the City of Lake Elmo is the allowable peak hourly flow rate
as shown in Table 1 and varies based on annual average flow.
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 current plan satisfies the wastewater
requirements for the sewer element of the city’s comprehensive plan/local sewer policy
plan update.
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
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 element of their local comprehensive plan and implement
the standards in issuing permits. Lake Elmo should adopt a management program
consistent with state rules. An overview of Lake Elmo’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. Management of Private Wastewater Treatment Plants (Cluster Systems)
W - 5
Small private treatment plants are located throughout the metropolitan area serving such
developments as individual industries, mobile home parks, and other urban type uses.
The Council will not provide financial support to assist communities if these systems fail.
Lake Elmo should include in the sewer element (local sewer policy plan) of its local
comprehensive plan the conditions under which private treatment plants would be
allowed. The use of private wastewater treatment plants must be consistent and
compatible with the long-term regional wastewater system plan.
4. 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 of local
surface water management plans, please refer to Appendix B2-b of the Council’s Water
Resources Management Policy Plan.
Council records indicate that Lake Elmo is in the Browns Creek, South Washington and
Valley Branch Watershed Districts (see attached map). The Browns Creek and South
Washington watershed plans were approved by BWSR in 2001 and 1997 respectively. The
Valley Branch watershed plan is currently out for review and anticipated to be approved by
BWSR in 2005 or 2006. Therefore, Lake Elmo will be required to update its local surface
water management plan by the end of 2007 or 2008. The plan should be submitted to the
Council for its review concurrent with the review by the watershed districts. 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 of the Water Resources
Management Policy Plan will result in a metropolitan system impact.
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 are four priority lakes,
DeMontreville, Olson, Jane, and Lake Elmo, in Lake Elmo. 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 of the environmental review
process.
Advisories
1. Water Supply Planning
W - 6
Minnesota Statutes section 473.859, subd.3 requires cities with a municipal water supply
system to develop a water supply and conservation plan and submit it to the Council for its
review. Communities serving more than 1,000 people are required by Minnesota Statutes
section 103G.291 to submit the emergency and conservation plan to the Department of
Natural Resources. The guidelines for water supply plan updates were released in 2005.
Lake Elmo needs to update its local water supply plan consistent with the new guidelines
and submit the water supply plan to the Council for its review. For contents of local water
supply plans, please refer to Appendix B2-c of the Council’s Water Resources
Management Policy Plan.
W - 7
W - 8
P-1
Regional Parks System Statement
City of Lake Elmo
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/framework/timeline.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.
9 Designate two existing county 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
9 Acquire and develop three new parks. Search areas include:
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
9 Acquire and develop seven new trails. Search areas include:
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
9 Acquire land within the current boundaries of 30 existing parks and four trails.
9 Acquire natural-resource lands adjacent to six existing parks and six existing trails.
P-2
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:
9 Parks – Miller Lake area and Minnesota River Bluff and Ravines in Carver County;
southwestern Dakota County; and Cedar Lake area in Scott County.
9 Trails – northwestern Anoka County; central to south Carver County; and Minnesota
River to Spring Lake in Scott County.
P-3
Figure 1: All additions and changes to Regional Park System Plan
P-4
1. Regional Park System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community
Regional parks and trails in your community
The following regional parks and trails within Lake Elmo as contained in the adopted 2030
Regional Parks Policy Plan are listed below.
Table 1: Regional Parks and Trails in Lake Elmo
Regional Park or Trail Unit
Name
Master plan boundary of
unit is set. Comprehensive
plan should acknowledge
boundary
Master plan boundary is not
set. Comprehensive plan
should acknowledge general
location with final boundary
or alignment subject to park
or trail master plan
Lake Elmo Park Reserve X
Washington County Greenway
Regional Trail
X
Lake Elmo Park Reserve – It has an approved master plan that defines the boundaries of the
park reserve. The park reserve boundaries as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the
city's comprehensive plan. Jim Luger, Washington County Parks Director is the contact person
for Washington County Regional Park facilities in the City of Lake Elmo. He can be reached at
651-430-4325.
Washington County Greenway Regional Trail - This proposed regional trail will connect the
city of Hastings to Cottage Grove Regional Park, Lake Elmo Park Reserve and Big Marine Park
Reserve. No master plan has been approved for it yet. The county will conduct a master planning
process for this trail in the future. The county will include the City of Cottage Grove and others
in this process. The general alignment of the trail as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged
in the city's comprehensive plan. Jim Luger, Washington County Parks Director is the contact
person for Washington County Regional Park facilities in Cottage Grove. He can be contacted at
651-430-4325.
State lands
The following state park and open space unit 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 city's
comprehensive plan.
- Gateway State Trail – Minnesota DNR
For more information about this DNR site, call 651-296-6157.
Figure 2 shows the location of all parks and trails listed above in Lake Elmo, plus any parks and
trails adjacent to the city's border.
P-5
Figure 2: Map of Lake Elmo with regional parks and trails in and adjacent to the city