Jordan, other Scott County cities warn Met Council decision could prompt ‘disorderly development’

Leaders in several communities on the southwest fringes of the Twin Cities metro area are voicing opposition to a recent Metropolitan Council land-use decision they say promotes “disorderly development” and threatens cities’ ability to plan for growth.

At issue: the Met Council’s approval of an amendment to Scott County’s long-term development plan and allow a township near the city of Jordan to be recategorized from urban to mostly rural “business reserve,” allowing for development of warehouses, offices and manufacturing facilities. The change also means a 430-acre parcel in Sand Creek Township, about 35 miles southwest of Minneapolis, will be served by septic systems and private wells — even though Jordan has already spent about $7 million expanding city systems into the broader area.

Leaders in Jordan, which has long planned to eventually annex portions of the township, say the Met Council’s move effectively blocks the small city’s ability to grow on its north side — and sets a problematic precedent for all metro-area cities.

Jordan Mayor Mike Franklin said the Met Council’s action “completely undermines” comprehensive planning. All cities, counties and townships in the seven-county metro are required to create a comprehensive plan outlining future growth every 10 years.

Scott County has planning and zoning authority in all 10 townships, meaning township officials or landowners must apply to the county to make changes related to how they use their property. Two property owners requested the township to pursue the change.

“Hey, we all agreed to this plan — city, county, township — less than four years ago. That should have some staying power,” Franklin said. “The fact that it didn’t in our case, we’re concerned about what that means going forward.”

Mayors from Belle Plaine, Prior Lake, New Prague and Credit River echoed those concerns in a letter to then-Scott County Board Chair Tom Wolf: “Promoting disorderly development in one location sends the signal to developers that the county does not value the stability and predictability of its comprehensive plan.”

But Scott County Commissioner Barb Weckman Brekke, who represents Sand Creek and other Scott County townships, downplayed the potential for wider impact, saying the situation was unique. She noted that the township has made significant infrastructure improvements in the area, including planning for a highway interchange nearby. The updates made the area better suited for rural businesses; those altered circumstances are criteria for a change to the comprehensive plan, she said.

Nonetheless, “It caused me tons of pause, it caused me tons of heartburn,” she said of the decision. “It was difficult.”

Sand Creek Township is already home to a rural industrial park — already designated “rural business reserve” — that includes businesses such as By the Yard, Cemstone and Herman’s Landscape Supplies, said township board Chair Chad Sandey.

The changed designation of the parcel in question, of which only about 115 acres is developable due to wetlands, allows it to match the industrial park, he said.

Sandey said he met with Jordan officials, who told him they didn’t plan to develop the area until after 2040. The township board, however, wondered, “Why don’t we do it now?”

When the township wanted to discuss a draft orderly annexation agreement with Jordan officials in 2017, “the city put it on the back burner and they didn’t pay any attention to it,” Sandey said.

Franklin said Jordan could not annex the parcel because of an adjacent landowner’s opposition, along with the lack of an annexation agreement. He had hoped Scott County would tell Jordan and Sand Creek officials to try again to create an agreement. Jordan is best positioned to serve the area, with its sewer treatment plant only hundreds of feet away, he said.

“There is no reason this couldn’t be an urban development,” Franklin said.

Sandey said the two developers of the parcel intend to build warehouses and small business facilities, allowing the area to remain less dense and “provide an excellent tax base” for the township. Neither developer wanted the added cost of hooking up to city water and sewer, he said.

“All we wanted to do was what made the most sense for our residents and [create] a great transition into a community I love,” he said.

Meanwhile, there’s some disagreement over whether the township or the city is best equipped to handle the parcel’s delicate, sandy terrain. Sandey says he think the township is the best steward of the land, given that it can just “sprinkle buildings” in the area to accommodate the wetlands, and the sand is well-suited to septic systems.

But Met Council Member Wendy Wulff, who noted that the area was “environmentally fragile” at a recent Met Council meeting, said the area would be better served by city water and sewer.

“The groundwater is very, very close to the surface so there’s a lot of danger of contamination of the aquifers because it’s so shallow,” she said.

The Met Council authorized the amendment of Scott County’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in mid-March. Such plans can be changed at any time and for a variety of reasons, said Lisa Barajas, executive director of the Met Council’s community development division. This is Scott County’s fourth amendment to its 2040 plan.

It’s uncommon for a city to make long-term plans to serve an area with water and sewer without an annexation agreement in place, she said.

Additionally, the Met Council lacked the authority to reject the Comprehensive Plan amendment; council members are only allowed to review and comment on a change unless it conflicts with one of the council’s system plans, Barajas said.

Wulff said the case has exposed a gap in the Met Council’s comprehensive planning process and policies that officials will review before the next round of comprehensive planning.

“We don’t have the authority right now, which is unfortunate, because it’s a bad idea,” Wulff said of the change involving Sand Creek Township.

Communities that are investing in city water and sewer systems “need the same assurance we do that once you make that investment, there’s going to be the connections for the long-term service,” Wulff said.

If a township can make a Comprehensive Plan amendment like this one, there’s little incentive for cities and townships to work together on annexation agreements: “They’ll just keep all that land for themselves and for their tax bases,” Wulff said.

Prior Lake Mayor Kirt Briggs said his city was facing a similar situation in 2023, but in the end the County Board voted down a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed for Spring Lake Township. Prior Lake had already invested $7 million to extend city water and sewer there, he said.

“If indeed those plans can be altered when one party brings forward a request ... that sends a shiver [to] anyone who is making an investment,” he said.