Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor PlanAGENDA ITEM: Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Plan AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks Recreation Director AGE If. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution and Trail Plan APPROVED BY:ad RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the attached resolution adopting the Rosemount Interpretive Corridor Trail Plan. 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: February 7, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND For the past several months staff have been working with land owners to try to identify a corridor that creates a scenic and educational trail connection from downtown Rosemount to the Mississippi River /Spring Lake Regional Park. Multiple stop -off locations and interpretive sites are being proposed for the trail corridor The importance of having involved and informed land owners is to gam support of having the trail near their property. The main goal of this project is to provide a pedestrian connection from the heart of Rosemount to the Mississippi River /Spring Lake Regional Park and a future Regional Trail connection. Second, we are hoping to provide interpretive and educational opportunities for trail users by creating stop -off areas along the trail Third, we are identifying opportunities for the preservation and restoration of natural resources along the trail to benefit the environment and make it a more enjoyable area to bike, walk, run or roller blade The trail will be constructed as development occurs. Staff predicts that we would most likely start developing the trail from west to east. As industrial or other development occurs in the east, we will work to gain the necessary easements for future trail construction Because this is a long term plan and will most likely take many years to complete, we are expecting changes to take place with regards to the final placement of the trail The interpretive stop -off locations are also concepts and are meant to be used at this time to inspire more discussion and refinement of the interpretation at each stop when the time comes to build them At that tine, development will better define the acrual words and illustrations that go on the signs. SUMMARY Staff held a community open house on Monday, November 14, 2005, to allow the pubhc to review and comment on the plan Sixteen people attended the open house and had favorable comments regarding the plan The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the final draft of the plan on December 23, 2005 and recommended sending the plan on to the City Council for the final review and adoption. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount has been working with Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) and Hotstngton Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi) to develop concept-level plans for an interpretive trail corridor that will provide City residents with a connection to the Mississippi River and that will tell the story of Pine Bend and the Mississippi River. The trail corridor will begin in downtown Rosemount and connect City trails to the future Mississippi Regional Bike Trail and to hikmg trails planned for Spring Lake Park, and WHEREAS, this unique approach to trail design integrates functional use, scenic value, historical and environmental interpretation, and ecological restoration; and WHEREAS, each aspect of the project builds upon the others to enhance the experience of the trail user as well as allowing them to derive more value from the trail investment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount adopts a resolution adopting Rosemount Interpretive Corndor Plan. ADOPTED this 7th of February, 2006. ATTEST Linda Jenttnk, City Clerk William Droste, Mayor Motion by: Second by: Voted m favor: Voted against: Member(s) absent 4 ROSEMOLNT MINNESOTA THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" Prepared by: Friends of the Mississippi River Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc November 14. 2005 ©0 0' Rosemount Corridor Trail Concept Planning Project Summary December 15, 2005 Project Overview The City of Rosemount has been working with Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) and Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi) to develop concept -level plans for an interpretive trail corridor that will provide Citv residents with a connection to the Mississippi and that will tell the story of Pme Bend and the River The trail corndoi will begin in downtown Rosemount and connect City trails to the future Mississippi Regional Bike Trail and hiking trails planned for Spring Lake Park. In essence, the notion of this project is to use the creation of a trail as a catalyst or a sprmgboard for celebratmg several community values. This unique approach to trail design integrates functional use, sceruc value, historical and environmental interpretation, and ecological restoration. Each aspect of the project builds from the others to enhance the experience of the trail user as well as derive more value from the trail investment Summary of Activities Identified Corridor Alignment Fall 2003 The project partners (City staff, FMR and HKGi) identified several possible trail corridor ahgnments and participated in a corridor tour The ahgnments were selected based on physical topography, existing infrastructure and anticipated future land uses. An effort was made to align the trail with ridges, small wetlands and other natural features that were identified in the Mississippi River Grecnway Strategic Plan, in order provide scenic and interpretive opportunities along the trail HKGi compiled this information and developed a draft corridor map to present to local landowners. Conducted Outreach to Local Landowners and Stakeholders Spring /Summer 2004 Sohating input from landowners along the proposed trail corridor was an unportant value for the project partners Tom Lewanski, FMR's conservation duector along with Dan Schultz and Tom Schuster of Rosemount's Parks and Recreation Deparnnent met face to face with representatives of the industrial landowners along the trail route to inform them about the project and the proposed route, and to sohcit questions, comments, and concerns. Generally these meetings were very positive The primary concern of these industrial landowners was to make sure that the trail users were separated from the industrial processes that take place at these facilities Face -to -face meetings took place with representatives from Flint Hills Resources, Endres Processing, Metropolitan Council, SKB Environmental, and Stonex /Vesterra City Parks and Recreation staff contacted local developers within the MUSA portion of the corridor and facilitated ongoing communication with City planning staff regarding the trail corndor and how it rnight interface with new development Other adjacent and potentially affected landowners were contacted by phone and mail regarding the project and how to participate m the review process Stakeholders, such as Dakota County, were also contacted to review the draft corridor. It was made clear to each landowner that potential trail and conservation easements on then property were completely optional and the City endeavors to work collaboratively with property owners in planning and implementation of the new trail corridor A list of landowners and other stakeholders contacted to participate m review of the trail corridor is included m this report. Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Trail Project Sum nary December 14, 2005 Refined Corridor Maps; Drafted Interpretive Concepts Fall 2004 /Winter 2005 Based on input from Flint Hills Resources and other key landowners, HKGi refined the corndor map in preparauon for stakeholder review FMR staff added refinements to the corridor based on ecological cntena and local greenway plans, and created a supporting map that lughhghted natural features and included a 300 foot wide trail corridor outside of developed areas that could support wildlife habitat and migration. HKGi identified six character zones for the corridor to represent the changing landscapes and land uses that the trail corridor passes through For each character zone, FMR staff pulled together background information on potential interpretive themes, such as local history, land use patterns and wends, natural features, and ecological restoration. HKGi utilized the background information and photos taken within the corndor to develop a senes of six interpretive design vignettes one for each character zone. The interpretive design vignettes are included in this packet Coordinated Stakeholder Review Session Spring 2005 All landowners along the corndor were notified by mail and /or email inviting them to participate in a stakeholder review session on May 2, 2005 Approximately 15 stakeholders, including City of Rosemount, Dakota County and Metropolitan Council staff and several local landowners and development representatives attended and reviewed the proposed trail alignment, restoration recommendations and draft interpretive concepts The trail corridor concept was generally well received, but several landowners expressed concerns about the coindor width recommended for ecological funcuons and the economic impacts this could have on residential development Follow -up to the stakeholder review included another site visit with SKB Environmental to discuss alternate routes, and further refinements to the map and interpretive design vignettes. City staff reviewed the project and the draft concepts were presented to the Rosemount Parks and Recreation Commissioners. Refined Ecological Restoration Opportunities Summer /Fall 2005 FMR staff further refined ecological data and identified and mapped four priority areas for natural resource protection and /or restoration A summary of restoration opportunities and recommendations for the pnonty areas is included m this report. Coordinated Public Open House Fall 2005 A public open house was planned and coordinated by the project partners A press release about the trail corridor and meeting was sent to local and regional newspapers and a story appeared m the Rosemount Town Pages, the Rosemount Sun Current and the Rosemount Thisweek. FMR promoted the open house to its members and volunteers through their electronic newsletter and a postcard mailing to 150 local residents and stakeholders. Approximately 20 people attended the open house on November 14, 2005 Presented Project Deliverables December 2005 The following items were identified as deliverables to the City upon completion of the project, and are included with this report Schematic plan identifying corridor location and suggested character zones withm the corridor. "Packages" of drawings /notes /budget parameters depicting up to five character zones Digital versions of all materials prepared Large format boards as needed for meeting and open house presentations Summary of all landowner outreach activities and the results Summary of restoration opportunities and recommendations within the corndor Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Trail Pi olect Summary December 14, 2005 Prepared by: RiENDS MISSISSIPPI RIVER Friends ofthe Mississippi River 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" (if i4 $v'r4 Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc November 14.2005 Rosemount Corridor Trail Concept Planning Project Summary December 15, 2005 Project Overview The City of Rosemount has been working with Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) and Hoisington Koeglet Group, Inc (HKGi) to develop concept -level plans for an interpretive trail corridor that will provide City residents with a connection to the Mississippi and that will tell the story of Pine Bend and the River The trail corndor will begin in downtown Rosemount and connect City trails to the future Mississippi Regional Bike Trail and hiking trails planned for Spring Lake Park In essence, the notion of this project is to use the creation of a trail as a catalyst or a springboard for celebrating several commurnty values. This unique approach to trail design integrates functional use, scenic value, histoncal and environmental interpretation, and ecological restoration Each aspect of the project builds from the others to enhance the experience of the trail user as well as derive more value from the trail investment. Summary of Activities Identified Corridor Alignment Fall 2003 The project partners (City staff, FMR and HKGi) identified several possible trail corridor alignments and participated m a corridor tour The alignments were selected based on physical topography, existing infrastructure and anticipated future land uses An effort was made to align the trail with ridges, small wetlands and other natural features that were identified m the Mississippi River Greenway Strategic Plan, m order provide scenic and interpretive opportunities along the trail HKGi compiled this information and developed a draft corridor map to present to local landowners Conducted Outreach to Local Landowners and Stakeholders Spring /Summer 2004 Soliciting input from landowners along the proposed trail corridor was an important value for the project partners Tom Lewanski, FMR's conservation director along with Dan Schultz and Tom Schuster of Rosemount's Parks and Recreation Department met face to face with representatives of the industrial landowners along the trail route to inform them about the project and the proposed route, and to solicit questions, comments, and concerns. Generally these meetings were very positive The primary concern of these mdustnal landowne, was to make sure that the trail users were separated from the industrial processes that take place at these facilities Face -to -face meetings took place with representatives from Flint Hills Resources, Endres Processing, Metropolitan Council, SKB Environmental, and Stonex /Vesterra City Parks and Recreation staff contacted local developers within the MUSA portion of the corridor and facilitated ongoing communication with City planning staff regarding the trail corndor and how it rmght interface with new development Other adjacent and potentially affected landowners were contacted by phone and mail regarding the project and how to participate in the review process. Stakeholders, such as Dakota County, were also contacted to review the draft corridor It was made clear to each landowner that potential trail and conservation easements on their property were completely optional and the City endeavors to work collaboratively with property owners in planning and implementation of the new trail corridor. A list of landowners and other stakeholders contacted to participate in review of the trail corndor is included in this report. Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Trail Project Sununary December 14, 2005 Refined Corridor Maps; Drafted Interpretive Concepts Fall 2004 /Winter 2005 Based on input from Flint Hilo Resources and other key landowners, HKGi refined the corridor map in preparation for stakeholder review. FMR staff added refinements to the corridor based on ecological criteria and local greenway plans, and created a supporting map that highlighted natural features and included a 300 foot wide trail corridor outside of developed areas that could support wildhfe habitat and migration HKGi identified six character zones for the corridor to represent the changing landscapes and land uses that the trail corridor passes through. For each character zone, FMR staff pulled together background information on potential interpretive themes, such as local history, land use patterns and trends, natural features, and ecological restoration. HKGi utilized the background information and photos taken within the corridor to develop a senes of six interpretive design vignettes one for each character zone The interpretive design vignettes are included in this packet. Coordinated Stakeholder Review Session Spring 2005 All Landowners along the corridor were notified by mail and /or email inviting them to participate m a stakeholder review session on May 2, 2005. Approximately 15 stakeholders, including City of Rosemount, Dakota County and Metropolitan Council staff and several local landowners and development representatives attended and reviewed the proposed trail alignment, restoration recommendations and draft interpretive concepts The trail corridor concept was generally well received, but several landowners expressed concerns about the corridor width recommended for ecological functions and the economic impacts this could have on residential development Follow -up to the stakeholder review included another site visit with SKB Environmental to discuss alternate routes, and further refinements to the map and interpretive design vignettes City staff reviewed the project and the draft concepts were presented to the Rosemount Parks and Recreation Comimssioners. Refined Ecological Restoration Opportunities Summer /Fall 2005 FMR staff further refined ecological data and identified and mapped four priority areas for natural resource protection and /or restoration A summary of restoration opportumttes and recommendations for the pnonty areas is included in this report Coordinated Public Open House Fall 2005 A public open house was planned and coordinated by the project partners. A press release about the trail corridor and meeting was sent to local and regional newspapers and a story appeared m the Rosemount Town Pages, the Rosemount Sun Current and the Rosemount Thisweek FMR promoted the open house to its members and volunteers through their electronic newsletter and a postcard mailing to 150 local residents and stakeholders. Approxuately 20 people attended the open house on November 14, 2005. Presented Project Deliverables December 2005 The following items were identified as deliverables to the City upon completion of the project, and are included with this report: Schematic plan identifying corridor location and suggested character zones within the corridor. "Packages" of drawings /notes /budget parameters depicting up to five character zones. Digital versions of all materials prepared. Large format boards as needed for meeting and open house presentations. Summary of all landowner outreach activities and the tesults Summary of restoration opportumues and recommendations within the corridor. Rosemount Interpretive Trail Comdor Trail Project Summary December 14, 2005 First Name 'Last Name Organization /Role Andy Brotzler City of Rosemount Jason Lindahl City of Rosemount Dan Schultz City of Rosemount Tom Schuster City of Rosemount Al Singer Dakota County Steve Sullivan Dakota County Parks and Rec Kurt Chatfield Dakota County Planning Mary Jackson Dakota County Planning Harland Hiemstra DNR Central Region Suzann Willhite DNR Trails and Waterways John Montoya Endres Properties Susan Carter Flint Hills Resources Don Kern Flint Hills Resources Cammy Johnson Met Council Brian McDaniel Met Council Daniel Wolter Met Council Michael McDonough Met Council Jim Roth Met Council Environmental Services Joe Atkins Minnesota Legislature Rick Hansen Minnesota Legislature James Metzen Minnesota Legislature Dennis Ozment Minnesota Legislature Lynn Wardlow Minnesota Legislature Lisa Freese MN DOT Susan Overson National Park Service MNRRA Jim Von Haden National Park Service MNRRA Jan Morlock Office of University Relations Cliff Private Landowner LaFavre Private Landowner McMenomy Private Landowner Betsy McMenomy Private Landowner Terry McMenomy Private Landowner John McMenomy Private Landowner Mike McMenomy Private Landowner Mike Baxter Rosemount City Council Mark DeBettignies Rosemount City Council Kimberly Shoe Corrigan Rosemount City Council Phillip Sterner Rosemount City Council Bill Droste Rosemount Mayor Leslie Defries Rosemount Parks and Recreation Mike Eliason Rosemount Parks and Recreation Mark Jacobs Rosemount Parks and Recreation Eric Johnson Rosemount Parks and Recreation Kelly Sampo Rosemount Parks and Recreation Don Chapdelaine SKB Environmental John Chadwick Stonex LLC /Vesterra LLC Jonathan Wilmshurst Stonex LLC /Vesterra LLC Todd Bodem Tollefson Development John Kline U.S. House of Representatives Phil Larsen UMORE Park Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Stakeholder List z F 1 m 0 A rn ti O O C a Z o a A Z 1 m z Xi 70 g rn H m n 0 70 70 0 70 1.11 C 0 C c H y Overview Rosemount Interpretive Corridor a 10 Haile journey OVERALL INTERPRETIVE 1 HEME "Celebrating our Connection to the River" Trail users will learn ho m difere laid uses and community practices effect the Mississippi Raver and learn abort the way S 11 which their conimiamty can and does protect and enhance the river corridor Natural and cultural connections between Rosemount and the Mississippi River How Cdy connects to river through a variety of landscapes /land uses developed, developing a dustial, agricultural, natural, park, nver How each relates to and can impact and /or enhance the Mississippi River Why the river is an important resource to Rosemount 'a3 II IDA I O'. to LNF I. Inteipretne Stops Seatmo and the stop area will take the roan of a circular cistern The circular walls will be formed by different materials an each segment depending on segment thence Seating may he incorporated into the mrcular walls or be sepal ate tnterpretise sign with segment specific information, trail map 'frail pavement matenal at the stop will be selected to support the interpretive theme of the stop Native plantings to support the interpretation theme at the stop Locating cnterta lnterpreme stops will be located within each segment determined by m'erpreta- tion theme Views from Interpretative stop will be very important and war need to be field checked Future land uses will need to be considered in how they wall effect views 2. Waytinding Markers Wa,findrng markers will have a basic form of stacked stones with the stones becoming smoother on the markers as one gets closer to the nvei The top stone would hate the nnlage and trail name engraved m 1 Concrete pavement would Include an engraved quote about tl.e land of the aver Native plants would be featured varying at each site Optional idea for commissioned art piece at each marker Locatrng cr net ra Wayfmding markers should be used to help denote trail crossings at key roadways, at trail links, and along long spans between interpretive stops (about every 1/4 rule) 4. Plantings Special neuve plantings along trail to educate and emphasize the plant communi- ties of each seanent aid any restoration efforts that may be in process 5 Other Considei aborts; Roadway Crossings Each situation will need to be addressed appropriately Signage for both trail users and vehicular traffic, roadway strrpmg pavement changes, flashing lights should all be considered Ti ad Standard Trail construction to meet regional trail specificati 1 Crt binar, sous with 5ft obstacle clearance on each side Target grades not to exceed 5% "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR Typical elevation and plan of Interpretive Stops Typical plan and devatwn of walfinding markers 3 &delitioual Intel pretrve Signs Signaee should he installed at restoration sites, greenways, buffers, and other points of interest alone trail O r ���U DRAFT Concepts October 14, 2005 4 Segment 1 Historic Village and Settlement 0.67tntles INTERPRETIVE TOPICS FOR SIGN Historical context /tnnelme (city, farming, industry, regional park, expanding development, trail/corridor connection) Natural Heritage pre settlement landscape conditions Opportunity to connect with the river that borders their city LNTERPRETIVE STOPFEATURES Location Trailhead in park Overview of trail, segments and stops with map Explanation of interpretive theme and variety of landscapes trail users will see Explanation of each segment and how It relates to Rosemount and Mississippi River Seating, water pump, bike parking, etc THROUGHOUT CORRIDOR Iran] wayfindmg markers Stacked rough stone carrion (w /trail logo and milage engrav ed), quotes about river engraved on concrete tract pavement section, native plantings Downtown trail wayfinding marker Stacked cut stone w /nap and "this way to Mississippi River' arrow Downtown 4ihyfurdorg marker op. Eft contree walk, 6ft hivd wfight poles! 1 r STRUCTURE CHARACTER Historic cultural artifacts cistern, water pump, water runnels art O i wl� Cl i s r -i 0 4r, 11, z. i owdor limited to and easement width This segment takes trail users from the heart of downtown Rosemount though the spacious city park to the edge of traditional neighborhood It is about celebrating settlement and gathering A trail head in the park offers a place to gather, net informed about the corridor and use services before moving through the whole corridor to the River The corridor width will be limited to trail easement only, with room for the trail head within the city park The theme will focus history of area and its relationship to the land and river INTERPRETIVE STOP PT 1N SECTION aft nail off Zhfr corridor nail Statures rgneaenturg the era other mterprcnse stops are displayed aro the circle wtnterprenve message Trial users atop here re fill water bottles at maim, eices water tans through Juni to s..ulptures A seating circle numr a caste; n, afferurg a place fro groups to oaths 'c greet Native plantings surround the seating area, educating ,saors about the local plant species they will seem the restoration areas of the corridor "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR S'udpturc crumple for slop 6 reprnennng the crawl') migratory bird corridor of the riser sculpture Bike racks water primp t%-1 I ;'va., t. DRAFT Concepts October 14, 2005 Segment 2 Traditional Growth 0 85 miles INTERPRETIVE TOPICS FOR SIGN How traditional land use patterns and stonnwater treatment works- curb Batter, bag stormponds City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Mississippi Watershed your yard drams to the river Watershed friendly lawn care practices Stormwater facts (quantity, etc INTERPRETIVE STOP FEATURES Locate at overlook for storm pond Mark an adjacent drain inlet (water capacity)- watershed size and surface types Storm water quality monitoring made visible invertebrates, sediment, etc Seating made from cut stonn culverts Street curbing contains stop area, acts as bike stand Trail moves through huge culvert (tunnel) Demonstrate how home owners can improve water quality Canopy trees capture rainwater THROUGHOUT CORRIDOR Signs at dram inlets descnbmg quantity and size of watershed Wayfinding markers STRUCTURE CHARACTER Stormwater infrastructure curbs, culverts, drams IUJFIP MO WASTE DRAINS TO STREAMI ...under belted nail uasemert v'sdth "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR This segment will typically be wham a roania casement through ed_to -al neighborhood developments with their curb and gutter and large storm pondmg methods of dealing with rainwater This is an opportunity to demonstrate the scale of stormwater quantities, watershed surface effects, and how homeowners fit in The theme will focus on the "awesome" quantities and larger scale ponding treatment techniques and ways in which homeowners can help maximize water quality The city' Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be presented to illustrate how the city is addressing stormwater issues INTERPRETIVE STOP PLAN AND SECTION 10ft corridor trail Trail users trio el through grant culverts, demonstrating the huge amounts of cto ,nwater that is transferred-in-tins. tylre of spstern Circular seatong wall rsrnade from giant culvert The object unpr m ire an the pavement dins tea'tbe tppe of pollutants thatahe their wiry into the drain, .t street inlets labeled with its watershed size and quantity of wafer that enter rn a typical storm a cur 'r. blvdtnees capture Ear; anwa¢ts f ratan ater ol Interpretive sign overlooks a large voornearer pond DRAFT Concepts October 14, 2005 Segment 3 Integrating Settlement Natural Systems 1.68 miles THOUGHOLIT CORRIDOR Irail canldor up to 300' wade Rainwater gardens in 'wales off trail Savanna restoration m trail corridor Way finding markets Restoration areas signed Pe.vlous p,r.et surface Rainwater garden at interpietaaon stop oardwalk nail allows had users the experience of being Y Upland Rainwater .0' WI I Srvaana drags to ear den drams in nn:oration in water rainwater frail corridor garden Borden Trail will have rarnwatei g,.rdens to capture runoff and restored savanna throughout the corndor segment Interp etive corridor up to 300' wide, width vanes INTERPRETIVE STOP TOPICS FOR SIGN Wetlands (WITEP program commurny based monrtonng Conservation design (combines on ironmental integrity. economic prosperity and community Inability) Creating greenery corndms to preserve landscapes through a combination of techniques (parkland dedication, easements etc Rainwater garden infiltration based stormwater management INTERPRETIVE STOP FEATURES Located to Os erlook a WHEP wetland Pervious surfacing at stop Rainwater demonstration gardens Gateway to boardwalk trail through wetland cnlonS paver ave like colored bands through the hail r, rune "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR Thus segment .vdh Its less densev ao■ eloped edges, nil] have a a_ ties to incorporate restoraticnipreservatimt efforts alone its length The con- dor winds through rolling terrain of rural homesteads, farm fields, and some high quality natural habitats The theme will focus on nahiral ways to preserve eater quality, lake wetlands rainwater gardens, and illustrating bust development practices /conservation design twat the city Is encouraging to preserve this valu- able landscape TNTERPRETIVF STOP- PLAN& EIEVATTON wetland bullet plantings Rainwater Seat -wall garden rnterprenve stop acts as a eatewav for a boardwalk trough a wetland allowing nail users the expenence ofbeurg in a q wetland ry N tcrprcttve sign th.RREP onitonne data ttstrated Vies to WIMP w ed an d Wettandbuffer plantings Trail Fe11 atcr demonstration orders surround terpanve stop Perforated stone/ concrete seat -wall to teinfame the idea that water mnln ates through porous materials Seat -wall Ramnater Savanna garden restoration plantings 15ews to savanna torauon area and Ism de elop- ent/canscn anon elopments DRAFT Concepts October 14, 2005 Segment 4 Progressive Preservation 210 miles THROUGHOUT CORRIDOR Wayfmding markers Nesting structures Restoration areas with menage Featured plantings alone side trail .1-` IMWY1l.i�9�� INTERPRETIVE TOPICS FOR SIGN Greenways providing wildlife corridors that connect to the river Farmland and Natural Areas Program local land protection efforts Ecological restoration efforts and opportunities (Wiklund, Flint Hills) Local agnculture and best management practices INN ERPRETIVE STOP FEATURES Locate at views of farm fields and greenway Best farming practices /Greenway Ditches compared to swales along side trail Trail through created wind row Map of proposed /planned greenways STRUCTURE CIIARACTER Agriculture Trough, ditches, water pump, windmill, water tanks, cistern, wind rows Create tau /breaks for n'LR f, trail bisects section for Interpretation "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR lnteipreave This less densely daveIoped segment will also haee opportundies to incorporate comdor op to 300' mile, Nidth apes restoration/preservation efforts along Its length The corridor winds through rolling terrain of rural homesteads, farm fields, and some high quality natural habitats The theme will focus on ways the city is workrhg to preserve these valuable and vaned landscape resources through part: dedication, coordination with other agencies to create larger, more effective greenway corridors and preserving the productive farmland and using best farming practices like windrows, buffers, cover crops, etc INTERPRETIVE STOP PI AN AND SECTION 10ft corridor trail Seatmg hall nzadefronr silo blocks Trellis reflects the form of pis oral ungation Water represented by recessed artwork in concrete pavement Monts are planted m mnmar row tcchrngae Interpi eimove Sign Trellis reflects the form f pvvatal 'negation DRAFT Concepts October 14, 2005 Segment 5 Integrating Industry Natural Systems 3 30 Wailes INTERPRETIVE TOPICS FOR SIGN Greenways can be incorporated in industrial lands Compare types of energy Historic and current transportation of goods by nver, rail and truck INTERPRETIVE STOP FEATURES Locate at Flint Hills Os erlook Circular seating made from oil container Discuss how greenways can be incorporated rn industrial lands Compare energy sources, (sun, wind, water, oil) and associated environmental issues Historic and current transportation of Roods (truck, barge, rail) and associated environmental issues THROUGHOUT CORRIDOR Wayfindma starkers Nesting structures Restoration areas and signage Featured plantings along side trail STRUCTURE CHARACTER Industrial relics, railroad, recycled products, utility Ines, oil drums Corndor up to 300' mode, width 'ones "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR IOf corridor trail Circle made from od tank, with r rndewt ud to 'bred memo Ride iratna stor> hose 0 f a seating on With sid^, rfrat- Three modes of goads transporratmn are compared for energy concnmptmn, environmental conaderanans speed, and loads Nth or-A of Images ar e graved in concrete paicxmN CYasked limestone walk Interpretation sign ut nendows interpret mum of local industries IYmdows direct news Stone Anse for seating INTERPRETIVE STOP PLAN AND SECTION This segmb it runs through tie industrial part of the region, down to the floocp a.n of the Mississippi River While industrial uses do not Typically benefit the environment, this seg neat interpretation looks at how the two can coexist together The interpretive stop will demonstrate the environmental benefits of Greenways through industrial lands, balancing energy alternatives and limiting our consumption An opportunity to interpret the impacts of historic material transport methods (rail, trucking, barge) will also occur at this stop DRAFT Concepts October 14, 2005 Segment 6 Linking to the River and beyond 1.47 miles C 'sdnr hnuted to tail te c ment, may be e‘paanon opportunities This last seement is a proposed section of the Mississippi River Regional Trail South, and ncludes routing through Spring Lake Regional Park to get to the shores of the Mississippi River The corridor trail will rot along the exist roadway anti] it turns into the park The interpretive stop will focus on the River and it importance as a Nanoaal Flyway (and associated habitat), a transportation route, aid a 1scsel" for all the watersneds draining to it How do we preserve the habitat and water quality with so many user neeose Take the corridor 100 000 gallon quiz and find out how many gallons of water you can keep clean before you reach the River INTERPRETIVE TOPICS FOR SIGN River facts size, number of species, etc Critical migratory bra corridor River habitats prairie, savanna, woodlands, floodplam Rrverfront land protection and restoration efforts Pine Bend Bluffs, Spring Lake Park MNRRA Mississippi National River and Recreation Area LTERPRETTVE STOP FEATURES Locate at base of ravine. OR at arnval of flood plain of river National flyway and associated resting/feeding habitats Transportation of goods corridor dams, dredging, senlements Uplard cramage flooding, water quality Map of Spring Lake Park Trails (or master plan) THROUGHOUT CORRIDOR Wayfindmg markers Ncsung structures Restoration areas and signage Featured plantings along side trail STRUCTURE CHARACTER River, iloodplam, barges, ravines, dams, sandbars Gubum walls charnel stream SectmdE. Mad enters cancrete pm man "darned" area where the f and barges me arnRrcc(ly engraved n' p cement Washed up logs act as scan hrserpreme signs Guhum walls hold boos the trail and u dmnnefued deeper rail "Celebrating Our Connection with the River" ROSEMOUNT INTERPRETIVE CORRIDOR INTERPRETIVE STOP PLAN 7D SECTIONS I n t carrulor trot Trail tiepins to meat; and sandbars form Sections. \,,A7111N11 It I ire 1 IFe Y 0 4 ae t it Section 44 through "dredged" rwei trail Section 1313 th1 nugh candbais Section C 0 through outer of tad DRAFT Concepts October 14, 2005 Significant Natural Features and Ecological Restoration Opportunities Rosemount Trail Corridor Significant Natural Features and Ecological Restoration Opportunities The Rosemount interpretive trail, m addition to serving as a recreational amenity for area residents, also presents a unique opportumty to enhance wildlife habitat in the corridor. The proposed trail route aligns closely with greenway corridors that were identified dunng the plannmg phases of the Mississippi River Greenway and the Northern Dakota Greenway projects Restored natural areas along the trail will serve to link Important habitat areas in Rosemount. In turn this will improve the habitat for many types of wildlife and plants, help protect water resources, and enhance the esthetic qualities of the trail for its users. A 300 -foot wide corridor of native vegetation restored in conjunction with the trail development would have many beneficial impacts. This corridor width would provide habitat requirements for a diversity of species, allow wildlife to maintain a comfortable distance from trail users, increase nesting success, allow movement in the landscape m response to fire or other disturbance, while protecting water quality m the numerous wetlands and ponds in the corridor. There are sigmficant natural features that currently exist along the trail and which, if restored, could serve as particularly Inviting points of destination and as the backbone of a larger trail -wide restoration project The following places are these "natural jewels From an ecological point of view it makes the most sense to begin restoration efforts at these sites In addition to describing each site, brief restoration recommendations are provided Before such work begins more complete restoration plans will need to be developed for each site 1. Western Wetlands. This area is located m the southwestern quadrant of the trail corridor, just northeast of the intersection of Bacaidi and 135` St E It contains several ponds and wetlands, which are important because. a. Dakota County has lost 80% of it's wetlands. b. They provide habitat for many birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. c They provide flood control by absorbing run off and slowly releasing into the groundwater or area streams. d. They filter out sediment, nutrients, and chemicals before they reach ground water or enter streams Prior to European settlement, these wetlands were part of a wetland /prairie /oak savanna complex, a diverse system that supported a diversity of wildlife species Though degraded, the wetlands are still present and provide an excellent opportunity to restore a diverse assemblage of native species Such a feature is not only attractive to wildhfe, but highly sought after by humans as well for the aesthetic beauty and wildlife viewing opportunities. Natural communities restored to this area would also provide an important linkage allowing species that rely on these wetlands to migrate between them Roads and houses with manicured lawns can serve as barriers to these movements 2. Northern Woodlands. At nearly 200 acres, this is the largest remaining contiguous woodland in the trail corridor, and it harbors at least one rare plant species Like most woodlands in the metro area, it contains a large amount of invasive species that threaten its long -term health A concerted effort should be made to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the invasive plants in this woodland Construcuon of the trail corridor should include restoranon of that segment to native savanna or woodland vegetation. In addition to providing wildlife habitat it will provide an interesting Stopping point for trail users to view birds and other species 3. Central Savanna Ridge. This ridge contains woodland, savanna, and two wetlands and connects with a large ecological corridor to the south through the UMORE facihty. This area presents an opportunity to restore natural communities that will provide habitat and serve as a natural attraction to trail users that will be traveling m a landscape dominated by agricultural and industrial uses The current open areas described as non native dominated grassland could be restored to oak savanna. this would be accomplished by removing exotic and invasive plant species, sowing native grasses and forbs, and planting scattered oak trees. The woodlands m this area contain exotic invasive woody species, which should be removed to improve the ecological health of the area 4. Wetland /Prairie Ridge. This trail seg.nent is an ecologically diverse area, that includes a high quahty wetland /grassland complex, and a south -facing ridge (identified as the Rosemount Ridge on the Mississippi River Greenway opportunities map) Historically, prairie and savanna communines occupied the ndge, and some native prairie species still remain there, though it is highly degraded. This wetland is well known locally for the excellent vanety of nesting and migratory bird species that can be found there Rare and unusual species are seen there on an annual basis Restoring wet and mesic prairie m the vicinity of the wetland would enhance the habitat value and water quality of the wetland while providing a natural amenity for trail users. The ndgeline that runs adjacent to 140`" St is currently covered by grassland dominated by non -native herbaceous species and a degraded woodland. Restoration to savanna would include exotic species removal and re- estabhshment of native species. Public Comments Please rate each of the following on a scale of 1-5 (1= worst, 5 =best) and provide comments: Trail corridor alignment and location 1 2 3 4 Interpretive concepts and graphics 1 2 3 4 /7-71-1/ Ecological corridor and restoration opportunities Open House quality of presentation, handouts, etc. 1 2 3 4 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Open House November 14, 2005 1 2 3 4 Other Comments C iL66_ A 4 Use reverse side if needed. Please turn this form in tonight or mail it to: Irene Jones, Friends of the Mississippi River, 46 E 4 St, Suite 606, St Paul, MN 55101 o 9,411 Please rate each of the following on a scale of 1 -5 (1= worst, 5 =best) and provide comments: Trail corridor alignment and location Other Comments a s an v i `e, COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM Rosemount Interpretive Trail Con Open House November 14, 2005 1 2 n i OH] >o /I 3 C�J Ecological corridor and restoration opportunities 1 2 6c art GdM %nrJ Gib c/ 1 ye z°S 5 o fi o I it/a id 7 Le, 7 5 `i 5 /ops ff `{G %e s Interpretive concepts and graphics 1 2 3 4 '4-E TIfv TA f 12 V e %a s 5 Open House quality of presentation, handouts, etc. 1 2 3 5 Use reverse side if needed. Please turn this form in tonight or mail it to: Irene Jones, Friends of the Mississippi River, 46 E 4 St, Suite 606, St. Paul, MN 55101 Please rate each of the following on a scale of 1 -5 (1= worst, 5 =best) and provide comments: Trail corridor alignment and location Eoo o 1" tor_et l '-Pohl Other Comments COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Open House November 14, 2005 1 2 3 5 Ecological corridor and restoration opportunities 1 2 3 4 C]/ Open House quality of presentation, handouts, etc. 1 2 3 4 Use reverse side if needed. Please turn this form in tonight or mail it to: Irene Jones, Friends of the Mississippi River, 46 E 4`" St, Suite 606, St. Paul, MN 55101 Interpretive concepts and graphics 1 2 3 G 5 t i�/I r tA�r cs i6i4 S P i tJc, viwoLLATED, f}S k= Las f_ M 0 6 peb m ei N41Ne4-4- A-es 6 fri&fD r Pu2M i r Pf o l4k I V 5 6 ,4J0 t-M&1 &tOV 1,.147 VE QA-c SAS go& you c� rot. A440 E ►4--&I9e erY6 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Open House November 14, 2005 Please rate each of the following on a scale of 1-5 (I= worst, 5 =best) and provide comments: 3 a 5 are u And 6\hoya Trail corridor alignment and location 1 2 1 l elrfvve /1 ,s i s aL Y,Q draw AlDrt (-1 h W Rose ,not10f r-ecident0. Interpretive concepts and graphics 1 2 3 4 5 Ecological corridor and restoration opportunities 1 2 3 4 .eo /o /of 0 Open House quality of presentation, handouts, etc. 1 2 3 4 �(1 -pawl insYroot hV.e, Other Comments Use reverse side if needed. Please turn this form in tonight or mail it to: Irene Jones, Friends of the Mississippi River, 46 E 4t St, Suite 606, St. Paul, MN 55101 8 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Open House November 14, 2005 Please rate each of the following on a scale of 1 -5 (1= worst, 5 =best) and provide comments: Trail corridor alignment and location Interpretive concepts and graphics i /J//On, c V� 1 2 rot 4 5 KidA 5 mss 14a_ `1 q ccfi V j s }Len-e lam- a l roc i G 2 1 2 3 5 At /oLeL( ((I/U Ecological corridor and restoration opportunities 1 2 3 4 Open House quality of presentation, handouts, etc. 1 2 3 4 l Other Comments A- t(( I s' melt iv-iere shy/ a wrl l Port- St (l 4 god- ho+ C4�5( of w(66(4/ e 4 pwbKl y a (0 Ad vJc w ll Use reverse side if needed. Please turn this form in tonight or mail it to: Irene Jones, Friends of the Mississippi River, 46 E 4` St, Suite 606, St. Paul, MN 55101 Trail corridor align e t and loca on Ecological corrido Other Comments COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Open House November 14, 2005 Please rate each of the following on a scale of 1-5 (1=worst, 5 =best) and provide comments: Interpretive concepts and graphics 1 2 3 4 5 Open House quality of presentation, handouts, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 M019 7) On." aj litah Use reverse side if needed. Please turn this form in tonight or mail it to: Irene Jones, Friends of the Mississippi River, 46 E 4` St, Suite 606, St. Paul, MN 55101 Please rate each of the following on a scale of 1 -5 (1= worst, 5 =best) and provide comments: Trail corridor alignment and location 1 2 3 4 A `L_ L Cs&(s Crbzz Interpretive concepts and graphics 1 2 3 4 tS i p5 Ecological corridor and restoration opportunities 1 2 3 4 Open House l 3 ouse quality of presentation, handouts, etc. 1 2 3 4 {)tG,t Cis .P R- Sf 1- �O`"`6`Sf Other Comments COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FORM Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor Open House November 14, 2005 Use reverse side if needed. Please turn this form in tonight or mail it to: Irene Jones, Friends of the Mississippi River, 46 E 4 St, Suite 606, St. Paul, MN 55101 ATTEST: Linda 3 entink, City Clerk City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Rosemount Famz /y Townhomes THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone the property located on north of Connemara Trail and west of South Robert Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota, from RR, Rural Residential, to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned Unit Development, legally described as follows: That part of the following description of property lying north of Connemara Trail: That part of the South 736.06 feet of the North one -half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19 lying Westerly of the occupied right -of -way of State Highway 3 that hes North of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter, thence North 00 degrees, 21 minutes, 21 seconds West assumed bearing along the West assumed bearing along the West line of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 252 29 feet to the point of beginning of said hne to be hereinafter described: thence South 71 degrees, 53 minutes, 11 seconds East a distance of 262.15 feet to the Westerly right -of -way lute of State Highway Number 3 and said hne there terminating, Dakota County, Minnesota. Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said Ordmance No B as that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be repubhshed to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and pubhcation according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 7 day of February, 2006. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H Droste, Mayor Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2006. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR ROSEMOUNT FAMILY TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Dakota County Community Development Agency requesting a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan approval concerning property legally described as That part of the following description of property lying norh of Connemara Trail. That part of the South 736.06 feet of the North onehalf of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19 lying Westerly of the occupied rightof -way of State Highway 3 that hes North of the following descnbedhne Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North onehalf of the Southeast Quarter, thence North 00 degrees, 21 minutes, 21 seconds West assumed bearing along the West assumed beating along the West line of said North one-half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 252 29 feet to the point of begmmng of said line to be hereinafter described- thence South 71 degrees, 53 nunutes, 11 seconds East a distance of 262 15 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway Number 3 and said line there terminating, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Planned Umt Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Fanuly Townhomes, and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission tabled the action to January 24, 2006 to review additional information for the site access issues, and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Planned Umt Development Concept Plan, subject to conditions, and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations; and. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Umt Development Concept Plan, subject to: 1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Urban Residential by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Final development of the parcel is contingent of City approval of a site plan, PUD Master Development Plan and execuuon of a PUD agreement 3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including: The street entering the development shall be pubhc and located within a 60 ft. right -of way and included on the plat. The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed crossmg or grading of the pipeline casements. The applicant will grade the future northern road connection as part of their project and provide a cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction. No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall be provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. Additional storm water management detail is required including: a. Infiltration calculations b. Outlet elevations from ponds and control structures as noted c. Maintenance plan for the ram gardens Payment of connection and trunk fees required. 4. Park dedication m the form of cash m lieu of land in the amount of $90,000. (30 units x $3,000 per unit) based upon the 2005 fee schedule. 5. Approval and receipt of pernuts from the Minnesota Depaiuuent of Transportation as needed 6. Seventeen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon 15 for the 30 units and 2 for the office 7. The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and the private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking This requirement is m recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units 8. The northwest buildmg must be re- oriented to create a more acceptable setback to the anticipated public street right -of -way, as well as increase the distance to the southerly building cluster inside the street loop. 9. Additional screening landscaping shall be installed along the Highway 3 right -of -way and along the western edge of the development, including both coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs. 10 The Scotch Pines specified m the landscapmg plan shall be relocated elsewhere on the site, and conformance with sight triangle standards for visibility at intersections will be required for all public and private intersections within the development 11. The applicant provide an acceptable public street access to the site consistent with alternative 1 or 2 as defined m the WSB traffic study. 12. The applicant obtain final building elevation approval including brick detailing on the front facades. RESOLUTION 2006- ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Jentmk, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor Motion by: Second by: Voted m favor: Voted against Member absent 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR ROSEMOUNT FAMILY TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an apphcation from Dakota County Community Development Agency requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning approval concerning property legally described as That part of the following description of property lying north of Connemara Trail: That part of the South 736.06 feet of the North one -half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19 lying Westerly of the occupied right -of -way of State Highway 3 that hes North of the following described hne. Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter, thence North 00 degrees, 21 minutes, 21 seconds \Vest assumed bearing along the West assumed bearing along the West line of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 252 29 feet to the point of begmnmg of said hne to be hereinafter described. thence South 71 degrees, 53 minutes, 11 seconds East a distance of 262 15 feet to the Westerly right -of -way hne of State Highway Number 3 and said line there terminating, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a pubhc hearing and reviewed the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use for the property from Transition Residential to Urban Residential, and rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned Umt Development for Rosemount Family Townhomes; and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission tabled the action to January 24, 2006 to review additional information for the site access issues; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the land use of the property from Transition Residential to Urban Residential, and rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations; and. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguidmg the property from Transition Residential to Urban Residential, subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned Unit Development and will adopt an Ordinance to rezone the site. RESOLUTION 2006- ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Jentmk, City Clerk William H Droste, Mayor Motion by: Second by: Voted m favor: Voted against Member absent: 2 H = N y.i N C V E = Y U c O a m d z o a; few N vi ai �• > e C v m a W ;00•®00.0 I /i" � aaeoaa 77 .._._. I._..._._.... .+ —1. _.� _._. PE tld9 b.. _. _. _._._�. _- _.___ From: Behm family[SMTP BEHMACHINE @USFAMILY NET] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 2 01 50 PM To: Rosemount City Council Subject: In support of affordable housing Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Mayor and Council Members, We are writing in support of the proposal to build town homes in the Connemara Ave and Hwy. 3 area of Rosemount We feel that there is a need for more affordable, lower cost housing for people in our community We have served on committees and school functions with several of you at Rosemount High School We appreciate your service to the city as Council Members Our city has had a significant increase in building recently and most has been high -end residential developments One reason we were happy about our move to Rosemount in 2000, was that our children would attend school with students from a variety of backgrounds We see people like ourselves, and some who are different from us, at school functions, the grocery store, and at church We do not want Rosemount to become a "cookie cutter community where all homes and people are the same Our city, county, and state are becoming more diverse every day with people moving in from the city and even from other countries We need to celebrate that, value diversity, and welcome them into the fabric and life of the community To protest the building of such a housing development strikes us as wrong People who cannot afford a large home with 3 car garage, hardwood floors, or granite countertops deserve to have welcoming neighbors as much as any other They will be good neighbors and contributing members of the community I would hope that the people who are against this proposal will see that and not worry about the their property value over the quality of life of other people. We plan to attend the Council Meeting on Tuesday Feb. 7. Supporting this proposal is just the right thing to do Sincerely, Marcia and Jim Behm From: kbruins To: Mark DeBettignies ci rosemount mn us Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 9 55 PM Subject: Say yes to affordable housing Dear Mr. DeBettignies, Hello Neighbor! As a person of faith, and a resident of Rosemount, I stand firmly behind the effort to bring affordable housing to our community. I encourage you and the city council to be strong and courageous and stand for affordable housing at this Tuesday night's city council meeting. I realize that there has been a vocal effort to put down this effort. Please know that there are many of us who stand with you in your efforts to bring affordable housing to Rosemount. My husband and I will be at the meeting on Tuesday night. We would be glad to speak in favor of affordable housing in Rosemount. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. Sincerely, Rev. Karen Bruins Rosemount United Methodist Church Micah 6:8 sHe has told you, 0 mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God. Message Page 1 of 1 Pearson,Rick From: Opstad Family [opstad ©lightblast net] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 5 59 PM To: Pearson,Rick, Rosemount City Council, Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: Rosemount Urban Development Plan I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposal to place rental units at the northwest corner or Connemara Trail and County Road 3 My primary concern with this proposal is the increased density and negative impact to the city's tax base Given the positive efforts to revitalize downtown Rosemount, I question if this is the best choice to support the city's vision that has been communicated to the residents Given the location of this property, I think there are other development options that have better potential for the future success of the City of Rosemount, A secondary concern, given the increased traffic on County Road 3, I also question the decision to place high density housing in this location. Regards, Stan Gayle Opstad This e -mail has been scanned by FTTH Communications/Lightblast, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. 2/6/2006 Rosemount City Council Members, My name is Phil Smith. I live at 13420 Cormack Circle in Rosemount. I moved from Colorado to Minnesota in January 2005 after accepting a position with Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union in St Paul. After several months of looking for homes in the southern part of the Twin Cities, my wife and I decided to purchase a new DR Horton home in Rosemount (Heath Haven subdivision). We have a six -year old son, so buying a home near an elementary school was very important to us. In the end, we spent much more than we had anticipated for our new home in order to be within walking distance of Shannon Park Elementary. I was disappointed to learn that the City is considering a CDA project in our neighborhood. Having only lived in Rosemount since April, I find it hard to believe that the City views adding a low -end housing development along Robert Trail as a greater need than adding more retail services. How about a Byerly's or Kowalski s in our city? Frankly, I am growing wearing of spending my hard earned dollars in Apple Valley and Eagan for basic services while knowing that a property tax bill in excess of $5,000 has my name on it! I will be in attendance at Tuesday's City Council Meeting. Please know that your vote on this project will impact MY VOTE in subsequent City Council elections. I trust you will do the right thing for our community and look for an alternative designation /usage for this site in addition to alternative locations for the proposed CDA development. Regards, Phil Smith Vice President Lending Strategies Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union St. Paul, MN 651- 312 -9266 (Direct) From: Jacki Pettit[SMTP'JACKIPETTIT @YAHOO COM] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 5 17.04 PM To: Rosemount City Council Subject: Request for Rezoning for Approval of a Planned Unit Development at Connemara Trail and County Road 3 Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Rosemount City Council (Mayor William Droste, Council Members Mark DeBettignies, Michael Baxter, Kimberly Shoe Corrigan and Phillip Sterner), My name is Paul Pettit and my wife Jacki and I and our two sons are City of Rosemount residents I am writing this message to you, our elected city officials and representatives, to express my deep concern and opposition to an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that will be brought before the City Council on February 7, 2006 This amendment calls for changing the land use designation of a 4 5 acre site located on the northwest corner of Connemara trail and South Robert Trail from its current designation of Transitional Residential to Urban Residential and includes a proposed ordinance that would rezone the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD I am also writing you to express my opposition to parallel motions that will be considered by the City Council on February 7 which call for approval of a preliminary plat as well as a Planned Unit Development Concept that would result in final development of the parcel into a 30 unit townhouse development owned and maintained by the Dakota County Community Development Agency. Recently I had the opportunity express to Mayor Droste my strong support of Dakota County efforts and initiatives to substantially increase the inventory of affordable housing available to the citizens of our area That said, my opposition to the above described proposals stem from my belief the site under consideration is not a feasible or logical location for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as evidenced by the numerous and significant variances that would have to be approved in order to implement the CDA 30 unit townhouse development The considerable variances that would have to be implemented for the PUD to take effect constitute a strong body of evidence that suggests such a planned development would not be the most appropriate use of the land and site under consideration These variances include: A) variance from the normal garage requirement from two garages to one garage, B) variation of drainage to dram excess water off -site due to lack of adequate on -site drainage capability and would result in off -site ponding in the adjacent Glendalough development, C) street access variances that raise serious and worrisome public safety issues concerning access to and from the PUD and which would result in a significant Increase in vehicle traffic on Connemara Trail and the streets of the adjacent Glendalough development, D) change in the utility easement, E) variation of the storm water management, F) relaxation of set back requirements, G) variance of parking per unit standards, and H) payment of cash rather than the normally required park land set aside In summation, I believe that the proposed PUD is a very unwise choice concerning the most appropriate use of the site. Rather than further increasing the housing density in the area surrounding the Glendalough and larger Evermoor des elopments, I humbly suggest that the most logical use of the site would be the construction of additional single family homes that would complement those in existence In addition, I would fully support CDA and City of Rosemount efforts to find a more feasible and suitable location for the construction of additional affordable housing in our community. Please feel free to contact me at (612)202 4044 should you desire to speak with me further regarding this matter I look forward to attending the City Council meeting on February 7 and again ask that you vote not to approve the PUD related proposals that will be placed before the City Council. Sincerely, Paul R Pettit 13426 Cormack Circle Rosemount, MN 55068 From: T Dean SmithtSMTP TDSMITH2@COMPUSERVE COMj Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11 50 59 PM To: Rosemount City Council Subject: City Council Meeting Input 2/7/06 #2 of 2 Auto forwarded by a Rule PLEASE ENSURE THIS IS COPIED AND PROVIDED TO THE MAYOR AND ALL CITY COUNCIL PERSONS Second of two emails this one addresses "the issue" Mayor Bill Droste, Council Member Mike Baxter, Council Member Mark Debettignies, Council Member Kim Shoe Corrigan and Council Member Phillip Sterner: This is the second of two emails addressing both the process and the decision to be made on the Agenda Items before the City to allow the CDA Project for Rosemount Family Townhomes to go forward (reference Public Hearing Number 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comprehensive Plan Amendment /Rezoning PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan). I am requesting that you either Table this Agenda Item, or, better yet, Reject it. Please send it back to the CDA and Ms. Linguist for possible alternate location consideration. My objections and reasons for this request/recommendation are sixfold: 1) The appropriateness of this density for this parcel. While attainable, is not wise. It is so dense that variances are being requested for a) off site drainage (into /on the adjoining Glendalough development); b) core density levels that are too high (30 units on 4.8 developable acres 6.6units /acre); and c) it is a challenge to put the requested number of units on this footprint without other variances such as necessitating a non standard reduction from two car garages to one car garages because of space limitations, which makes them "inconsistent with ordinance standards (Executive Summary, pages 3, 8 and 10). 2) "Adjoining Zoning/Use." One of the primary purposes of zoning is to ensure that a "gradual" change occurs from one area to another. Not a discordant transition. It is my contention, and that of many others, that this is altogether too abrupt a change from the single family homes of Glendalough (immediately adjacent to this parcel), as well as the zoning compliance standards imposed on CPDC during the Evermoor zoning process It would be disingenuous to step across a foot of ground and say that all of those requirements no longer exist. 3) The number of variances required. Although Ms. Lindquist has "dismissed" questions about the number of variances required, they are numerous as shown on pages 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11). There comes a point where our leaders should ask if there are not too many variances needed to allow a project to go forth. 4) City costs proposed. According to the recent article in the local paper, one of the proposed methods to allow street access would require a lowering of the pipeline that runs under a part of the parcel. When this was noted at the first public hearing, it was explained that when such an engineering undertaking was done previously by CPDC, it was at their expense because they were developing the land. In the newspaper article, it was mentioned that any such "lowering" would be paid for by the City. Why is there no consistency here? Is it because the developer, with the assistance of the City, is attempting to decrease their costs? If it is normally the developer's responsibility, why are we now being asked to foot the bill? 5) Effect on property values. Several seasoned, long time real estate agents in the area are of the opinion that this development will lower the values and desirability of nearby residences. While I am certain tax rates will not decrease, the values of our properties will be negatively impacted. Lundgren Builders is so certain that their properties adjacent to this project will be negatively affected, that at the recent meeting where the Planning Commission approved this proposal, an alternate building site was offered for consideration by Lundgren. I believe that these items constitute "proof positive" that this project will negatively affect our property values. 6) Rental properties versus owner occupied. One of the reasons that most of us moved to Evermoor is the fact that we are /were convinced that the surrounding properties would be maintained in a like manner That homeownership by our neighbors was a strong motivator to ensure well maintained surroundings. According to the Star Tribune, the City of Minneapolis is trying to move away from low- income rental housing to low income `owner occupied" housing. They cite that both exterior maintenance as well as the number of "authority contacts" is better with "owner occupied" housing. And I do not refer only to the outside maintenance of the building itself. I am hopeful that you will consider all of these inputs from myself and the other residents of your city and make the decision that this Agenda Item before you is not the best way to go forth at this time. That this should go "back to the drawing board" and better choices made to provide this housing. For example, I am sure that a better location could be considered (perhaps the Lundgren offered location, or even as an extension of the upcoming new Downtown area) one where the number of variances would not be necessary. In closing, I would like to thank you for your time and your efforts on behalf of the citizens of Rosemount. Sincerely, T. Dean Smith 3458 Cromwell Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 (651) 344-3311 Kasel,Mike From: Pearson,Rick Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:12 AM To: Kasel,Mike Subject: FW. Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA) Project Attachments: Rosemount _City_Council_letter_0207206 doc From: Roger Tippett [mailto:rtippett@lightblast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:20 AM To: Rosemount City Council Cc: Verbrugge,Jamie; Pearson,Rick Subject: Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA) Project City Council Members I am unable to attend the City Council meeting on February 7th as I am traveling out of state today on business. However the attached letter outlines the reasons why I oppose the zoning changes associated with the Rosemount Family Townhomes project Thank You Roger Tippett 13070 Crolly Path Rosemount This e-mail has been scanned by FTTH Communications /Lightblast, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. 2/7/2006 Page 1 of 1 TO: The Rosemount City Council 13070 Crolly Path Rosemount, MN 55068 February 7, 2006 I am a resident of Rosemount and I am writing to you regarding the Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA) project that will be discussed at the February 7 2006 meeting Unfortunately, I will be leaving town today on a business trip and I will be unable to attend the meeting, so I wanted to let you know why I oppose the rezoning application. 1. The CDA PUD development would be better suited to a location either close to downtown Rosemount or close to the community college. While claims have been made that this site is the only possible location for the CDA project, it was clear at the last planning commission meeting that other potential sites exist and this should be explored before rushing to make both rezoning and comp. plan amendments to allow this project to move forward. 2. The land is currently zoned as Rural Residential, which allows for a very low density of housing (one home per 5 acres). The current proposal is to change this to a 30 unit development on 6 acres. This increases the intended housing density by 2400 %II This will not provide the transition in housing density that was identified in the 2020 Comprehensive plan. The 2020 comprehensive plan already shows a significant area zoned as urban residential area within Rosemount without changing the designation of this particular parcel. 3. It has been claimed that it will be difficult/impossible to find other suitable uses for the land due to its location adjacent to Route 3 However I would ask that you take a ride through Eagan on Route 3 and you will see that they were able to develop other lower density housing alternatives close to this road. 4. The City is undergoing an extensive multi -year downtown redevelopment plan. This will enhance Rosemount's positive image. However the majority of cars will drive through the downtown on Highway 3. This corridor is the gateway to the city from the North When entering the city from the North on Highway 3 you will see the high density Harmony Town Homes, a trailer park, condominiums and now potentially a high density PUD development. This is in stark contrast to the golf course and trees that were present until recently While some level of development is inevitable, this does not appear to be a well- managed plan that will leave visitors to Rosemount with a positive image 5. The density of this housing will make it difficult to develop the lots to the North with anything other than high- density housing. So by allowing this rezoning you are in effect committing to further rezoning in the future. 6. Once rezoned the PUD designation will allow a tremendous amount of freedom to develop a site. However in this case there are still a significant number of variances that will be needed to allow this project to take place. 7. 1 am concerned that the cost of the pipeline lowering has not been settled. It was stated by City staff that it was hoped that CDA and Lundgren would "work this out Can we be assured that no taxpayer money will be used or that no other development fees that the City will charge for the development of this site (e.g. parks fee) will be used for this task? 8. I am also concerned about the Road access alternatives that have currently been proposed. Due to the location of the site a portion of the traffic from this development will now spill into the side- roads of the Glendalough development. For example the shortest and likely fastest route from this location to the local elementary school will be via these side streets. In summary I would remind you that the purpose statement in the zoning ordinance sets out nine objectives. The Rosemount Family Townhomes proposal fails to meet five of these objectives. It fails to assist in the implementation of the 2020 Comprehensive plan (the zoning change would require a concurrent changing in the Comp Plan It fails to create compatibility of residential uses. It fails to promote the orderly transition of rural to urban uses It fails to protect natural resources in the city It fails to create a safe effective pedestrian system As elected officials of Rosemount, I would urge you to represent the interests of the current residents of Rosemount and request that you do not allow this rezoning for the reasons cited above. Sincerely, Roger Tippett Mayor Droste Fellow City Council Members, I would like to communicate to all of you my strong concerns about the location of the proposed CDA townhouse development 05 -50 -CP I attended the Planning Commission meeting on January 24th where numerous, valid concerns and issues were expressed by residents of Rosemount You are probably aware of many of these issues and concerns, so I won't enumerate them here Taken collectively, they raise the question. Is this the best, or proper, location for a high density townhouse development? I learned at the Planning Commission meeting that several variances will need to be granted in order to build 30 units on such a small plot of land, bordered on 3 sides by roads Have the City Planner and Community Development staffs fully investigated and evaluated site alternatives? There was insufficient information available at the Planning Commission meeting for me to determine what alternatives were considered and the shortcomings of each However, a representative of the parent company of Lundgren Brothers offered land at County Road 42 and Akron Ave for the construction of these CDA townhouses I strongly encourage the City Council to consider their land offer, as well as other potential sites, for the CDA development rather than trying to "shoehorn" it into the site on Highway 3 and Connemara Trail I was a homeowner in Eagan for 26 years My wife and I moved to Rosemount 15 months ago, drawn by the small town atmosphere and the strong building covenants in Evermoor I feel very strongly that the property at the corner of Highway 3 and Connemara Trail is best suited for a park area Or at most, low density housing This would help present a positive image when entenng Rosemount from the north on Highway 3 and entering Evermoor I know that I am not alone among the residents of Evermoor who would be willing to contribute monies to a fund to purchase the property in question and then donate that land to the City of Rosemount as a park area This would be a far more fitting use for that very visible corner lot than building high density housing Before routinely approving the proposed townhouse development, please address and consider my concerns, as well as those of the other 100+ people in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting The Mayor and City Council are elected by us, citizens of Rosemount, to represent our interests With so very many people having concerns about this development, it is incumbent upon all of you to fully address the issues and follow the wishes of your constituents. I, like many others, plan to attend the February 7 City Council meeting when this topic is scheduled to be on your agenda Thank you. Keith Myhre 3522 Crumfield Path TO L `7 („7:;? —2--6(7 FROM: Name Name At (Company) /Telephone 17 o 2sc nr' 612- 317 7 yY4 Facsimile 65' /2 rvoy Date February 7, 2006 Totals Pages (including cover) 02/07/06 NAVITAIRE® TUE 11:23 FAX This facsimile may contain privileged and /or confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering to the person addressed, notify us by telephone. Thank you. COMMENTS: Tech nology thatliberacos LC4000 /4) 7 _mac /Jr7 Gv /17_ „._oh£ /S A'f If any problems result with this transmission, please call (612) 317 -7675. Thank you. "497-cir Facsimile 901 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -3210 USA Phone: (612) 317 -7000 Facsimile: (612) 317 -7575 www.navitaire.con 1.0 001 02/07/06 TUE 11:23 FAX Mr Mayor, Council Members, LC4000 Our names are David and Maureen Bartz, and we live at 13566 Crompton Court. We would like to start by apologizing for sending this note at the last rninute T would. also like to say that although we are not opposed to the CDA development, we feel obligated to ensure that this rezoning is done in accordance with Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance One of the proposals before you tonight, Planning Cases 05- 50 -CP, 05- 51 -RZ, 05-52 PUD 05 -53 PP calls for a rezoning to R -2PUD. The development proposed is single family attached dwellings As you are aware, the zoning ordinance is very specific about what uses are appropriate conditions to allow PUD status. Paragraph 5 of section 6.7 details those permitted uses for R.-2 zoned properties: E. Uses Permitted by PUD: 1. Manufactured home Parks, subject to Section 4.19 of this Ordinance. 2. Single Family Detached Dwelling Cluster Developments. 3. Mixed Use Developments. The proposed development for this property is a Single Family Attached Dwelling and clearly does not meet any of the 3 criteria specified in Ordinance B for PUD classification. As a result, this cannot be zoned R -2PUD and comply with Ordinance B. R -2 is however a legitimate rezoning, as stated in 6.7.8.4. Permitted Uses: B. Permitted Uses: 1. Essential Service Facilities except electrical substations and switching stations. 2. Licensed Child Day Care for twelve (12) or fewer persons. Unlicensed child day care shall comply with the requirements for customary home occupations in Section 416 of this Ordinance. 3. Residential Facilities, licensed by the State of Minnesota, serving six (6) or fewer persons 4. Single- Family Attached Dwellings, subject to Section 418, of this Ordinance. 5. Single Fancily Detached Dwellings, subject to Section 4.1 5, of this Ordinance. 6. Two Family Dwellings. Additionally, there were significant flexibilities with the ordinances that were recommend by Staff as part of rezoning to R -2PUD staff communicated in earlier meetings that PUD classification allows a level of ordinance flexibility to achieve overall goals. Since R -2PUD is not a legal rezoning for this particular proposal, a rezoning to R- 2 would not allow these flexibilities. Some of the flexibilities included 1) Number of units allowed per building flexibility was granted to allow 5 units per building where R -2 ordinance states 4 max per building J002 02/07/06 TOE 11:24 FAX LC4000 2) Density Density of 6 units per acre flexibility was granted to allow 30 units where 28 are allowed (6 4.86 acres) 3) Garages flexibility to allow one car garages was granted 2 car garages with 440 sq ft plus an additional 150 sq 11 of storage area are required in R -2 4) Setbacks flexibility was granted with setback building units will need to maintain required setbacks for R -2 zoning While you could simply deny the rezoning to R -2PUD and approve the remaining motions with an R -2 zoning, I would urge that you view the multiple motions before you tonight as a single entity and either deny them all or send them back to City Staff to put together a plan that is in line Ordinance B. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Dave and Maureen Bartz 651 344 3313 (home) 612 317 -7446 (work) We can appreciate that you may not have time to pull a copy of the ordinances, so we have included pages 57 -59 of Ordinance B which deal with the R -2 Moderate Density Residential District. Page 57 6.7 R -2 MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A. Purpose and Intent: This is a low to medium density residential district which is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and is primarily, but not exclusively, intended to accommodate attached single family dwellings. Dwelling units within this District are intended to be connected to the public sewer and water systems. Page 58 B. Permitted Uses: 1. Essential Service Facilities except electrical substations and switching stations. 2. Licensed Child Day Care for twelve (12) or fewer persons. Unlicensed child day care shall comply with the requirements for customary home occupations in Section 4.16 of this Ordinance. 3. Residential Facilities, licensed by the State of Minnesota, serving six (6) or fewer persons. 4. Single Family Attached Dwellings, subject to Section 4.18, of this Ordinance. 5. Single- Family Detached Dwellings, subject to Section 4.15, of this Ordinance. 6. Two Family Dwellings. C. Accessory Uses: 1. Cemeteries accessory to Churches and Places of Worship. 2. Gazebos and Screened Porches. 3. Home Occupations, subject to Section 4.16 of this Ordinance. If(J U U.3 02/07/06 TOE 11:24 FAX LC4000 4. Private Detached Garages. 5. Private Outdoor Recreation customarily associated with a residence. Swimming pools shall be subject to Section 5 -3 -1 of the Rosemount City Code. 6. Roomers, a maximum of two (2) per dwelling unit. 7. Satellite Dishes and Solar Collectors, subject to Section 4.12 of this Ordinance. D. Conditional Uses: 1. Child Day Care, Montessori Schools, and Nurseries, within churches, places of worship, and elementary and secondary educational institutions. 2. Churches and Places of Worship regardless of religious affiliation. Churches and Places of Worship must have direct access to or be within three hundred (300') feet of a collector, minor arterial or principal arterial street. Page 59 3. Community Playfields /Athletic Complexes owned and operated by a government unit, including recreational facilities and structures consistent with the public area. 4. Elementary and Secondary Educational Institutions and Facilities. 5. Recreational Vehicle Storage. Recreational Vehicle Storage accessory to multiple family development shall be subject to Section 6.8.D.5. of this Ordinance. 6. Transmission Facilities greater than one fourth (3) mile in length. 7 Public Parks, owned and operated by a government unit, including recreational facilities and structures consistent with the public area. E. Uses Permitted by PUD: 1. Manufactured Home Parks, subject to Section 4.19 of this Ordinance 2. Single Family Detached Dwelling Cluster Developments. 3. Mixed Use Developments. F. Minimum Lot Requirements and Setbacks (see Supplemental Yard Regulations): Z004 s CLL- 27509Sv1 RS215 -4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, PLACING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF USES THAT INCLUDE OUTDOOR STORAGE IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT W &tac, -tom THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Background. 1.01. Rosemount Zoning Code, section 6.15.F (recodified as 11- 4- 15.F1) allows outdoor storage in BP -I zoning districts of the City provided such use is incidental or accessory to a principal use contained within a building. The Code does not further define the terms incidental or accessory. 1.02. On February 9, 2005, the Council considered a proposed use of property in a Business Park zoning district for a lumber sales business that would have involved substantial outdoor storage. The Council provided direction to staff that for outdoor storage use to be accessory or incidental to a principal use contained within a building, such storage must occupy less space than the area of the building. 1.03. Standards for outdoor storage in C -3 and C4 General Commercial zoning districts were updated between May and November of 2005. In October of 2005 City staff began work on new standards for Business Park zoning districts, including outdoor storage. 1.04. On November 22, 2005, the Rosemount Planning Commission discussed proposed amendments to the Business Park zoning standards. Among other changes these standards would eliminate outdoor storage as an allowed accessory use in Business Park zoning districts Discussion of such standards continued on December 13, 2005. On January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the proposed amendments, which hearing was continued until February 28, 2006. 1.05. On November 23, 2005, the City received an application for site plan review of a proposed development that included outdoor storage The outdoor storage area proposed by the applicant greatly exceeds the area of the principal structure. Nevertheless, the applicant has asserted that under his interpretation of current zoning code provisions, such use would be permitted. This interpretation is not consistent with that of the City Council, which leads the Council to conclude that there is a need to clarify and limit the permissible extent of outdoor storage under the Code. 1.06. Outdoor storage is, or may be, incompatible with other uses permitted in the Business Park districts. 1 1.07. In connection with consideration of planning for the use and development and redevelopment of parts of the City zoned for business park use, the Council has determined that current land use controls do not adequately address the land use concerns noted above. 1.08. Therefore the Council has determined that there is a need for further hearings to be conducted and concluded so that the City may adopt such amendments to its official controls as are deemed necessary or expedient to ensure protection of the public, health, safety and welfare. The Council has directed that such hearings be conducted and completed. 1.09. Due to the pendency of applications and proposals to substantially expand outdoor storage, the Council has further determined that there is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Section 462.355, Subd. 4, for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City, and ensuring that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and the protection sought to be afforded by, the City's comprehensive plan and official controls until the hearing process is complete and any modifications to the City's official controls become effective. Section 2. Properties Subject to Moratorium. 2.01. Properties subject to the provisions of this moratorium include all properties in the City that are zoned BP -I Section 3. Prohibition. 3.01. Except as provided in Section 4, during the period this interim ordinance is in effect, the use and development of properties subject to the moratorium shall be subject to the following limitations: a) no properties may be developed or redeveloped for any use that includes outdoor storage; b) no new uses that include outdoor storage may be established; c) no existing outdoor storage uses may be expanded or enlarged to occupy a greater area of land; and d) no site plan approvals, rezonings, plattings or rcplattings, planned unit development, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits, or building permits will be considered, approved or granted by the City for uses that include outdoor storage. Section 4. Exception. 4.01. This ordinance shall not apply to: a) issuance of buildmg permits for projects that do not involve the establishment, expansion or enlargement of an outdoor storage use; or CLL- 275098v1 2 R5215 -4 b) final plats or subdivision approvals that have received preliminary plat approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance, provided all conditions of preliminary plat approval have been satisfied. Section 5. Effect on Pending Applications. 5.01. All applications subject to this moratorium that are pending or that are received during the time this ordinance is in effect shall be deemed to be denied for purposes of Minnesota Statutes. Section 15.99. The City Administrator shall cause notification of such denial to be given to all applicants citing the adoption of this ordinance as the reason therefor. Fees paid in connection with such applications shall be retumed or refunded to the applicant Section 6. Effective and Termination Dates. ATTEST: CLL- 275098v1 RS215 -4 6.01. This ordinance shall be effective on the date following its publication. 6.02. This ordinance shall be repealed without further action by the City Council on May 1, 2006, unless earlier amended, repealed or extended by ordinance duly adopted by the City Council. Linda Jentink, City Clerk 3 William H. Droste, Mayor February I, 2006 To Rosemount City Council City Administrator Re. City Project #393 -132nd Court West Street Utility Improvements A NO vote on this project would be appropriate Respectfully, arrest and Fern Krogh 132nd 0. W. B O This letter is in opposition of the City project #393 and also a follow up from the letter to the City Engineer dated August 26, 2005 The meeting on January 4, 2006 provided information to the home owners on the proposed project showing 50% in fax or and 50% against the project. This information seemed to be gathered by the residents living on 132nd Ct. W The gathering of information from the residents was improperly handled by the City Engineer Each home owner should have been sent a project outline from the city asking the owners opmion for or against the project As this was not done, a divided neighborhood thus sent their own petition picking residents who they thought could be convinced Some owners were not reached to have a written opportunity on the petitions The letter written August 26 2005 (copy enclosed), stated two residents out of compliance. Now the city has the authority to burden those who have updated their septic system and wells. Several home owners are retired and living on fixed incomes Is it fair to put these home owners in a financial crisis because of two home owners? The answer is NO. The city has done little to lower the cost of the project only to offer low Interest rates This does not change the cost of the project Maybe it will benefit future developers or the project on the Brockway land We were also told at the Janurary 4th meeting if the project is completed, 132nd 0. W. could be rezoned When asked by residents, if this would raise our taxes, the answer was, "It could Where does it end to burden residents who do not want or need the project' The assesment cost is extremely high along with the required fees There is no guarantee of the estimated cost of the project, there is no cap on the assesment charges This project will not improve our property. Before the city reaches a decision, written information as to existing wells, septic systems, inside plumming and all other involved expenses should be given to home owners by the city and not the responsibility of the home owner to research. 0 6 August 26, 2005 To City Engineer Andy Brotzler Re: City Serivces 132nd Court W, This is a follow up from the meeting August 17, 2005 at City Hall. Several people were interested in the proposal and the cost. The figures are very costly and staggering. The total cost of the project could range between 522,000- $30,000 per resident. We have two residents out of compliance while the other residents are in compliance, thus making the project not necessary to proceed. The two residence that are not in compliance can be brought up to compliance with many dollars saved by them and other residence who are compliant. Many of the residence have spent many dollars already to stay compliant as, should the two residence who are out of compliance. Resident at 2655 has a mound system that will last indefinite. Due to great friendship, teaming with the resident at 2625 who is not in compliance, are now canvasing for the sewer. Yes, even cities have problems with sewer lines. Has ing city sewer and water does not make for a perfect system for ever. We still want to drink our water which is much better tasting than city treated water. Allowing only for out side use of our current wells is not a fair practice regardless of the reasons given by the city. If a petition once again is brought to the residence, this should be generated by the city and not just a few residences of 132nd Ct. W. This project has divided the longevity of a stable neighborhood. At an earlier meeting, ss a v, ere told residence on Ctv. Rd 38, had to hook up and now at the last meeting told they could vote. What is it? Too many variables and questions left unanswered. It is in the best interest of the residents of 132nd Ct. W to eliminate this project and have the non compliant systems updated like the remainder of the court has already done. Respe fully, "�F`o�rresti afi ern ogh 132nd, Ct. W. cc: Mayor Droste Council members Andrew I. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer City of Rosemount Rosemount, MN 55068 Public Hearing on 132 Court West Street Utility Improvements, City Project No. 393 As we will not be able to attend this meeting, Aim sending this letter to express our opinion on this matter. We have no objechons to what is being proposed and to the feasibility report Our objection is to the price that is being forced upon us to take care of the problems of two of our neighbors. We have lived at our present address for 35 years and just received our latest compliance letter from the city for our septic system and m 2002 we had new well installed. I might add we did not go to the city to have the whole neighborhood put in waterlines. I feel that there should be some relief for Senior citizens in this case. My husband has been retired for 15 years due to a medical problem and I have been retired for 10 years. If this had been forced upon us in our early years of retirement it would have been easier to justify spending the money. We have intended this to be our final retirement home, but with a rise in our property tax of 16.6% this year and the rising cost of health insurance which is a must with heart disease it will be putting us in a bind that one does not need at this stage of life. We feel the city should offer some kind of alternate plan for Seniors. If it was not for the Seniors in Rosemount there would not be a Rosemount. Stop and think about that! Respectfully, dw dwin ai Ahrens 2665 132 Ct. W Rosemount, MN 55068