The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.a. Request to Approve the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Submit the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for ApprovalAGENDA ITEM: Request to Approve the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and submit the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for their Approval AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. •q- ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; Comprehensive Land Use Plan; Summary Agencies' Comments and Response Letter; Excerpt from the March 24 Planning Commission Minutes; Individual Comment Letters Received; Provided on CD: Active Living Plan; Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area Plan; Parks and Open Space Plan; Comprehensive Water System Plan; Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan; Transportation Plan including the Transit Plan. APPROVED BY: ow RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Motion to authorize staff to submit the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting Date: May 19, 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUMMARY The City has spent the last three years preparing the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan to address the growth anticipated in Rosemount in the period between 2008 and 2030. The process included numerous public meetings, including six open houses to garner input from the public on specific issues such as housing, transportation, and parks. On April 21 and May 27, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted two community hearings to receive public comments from Rosemount residents and subsequently recommended that the City Council release the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for th required six month agency and public review period. On August 19, 2009, the City Council approved the release of the Comprehensive Plan for the six month period, which ended on February 19, 2009. During the six month review period, the City received numerous comments from the surrounding communitics, several State agencies, and the Metropolitan (Met) Council. Staff and the Planning Commission developed responses to the comments received. On March 24, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted the formal public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan and recommended that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan. The attached Comprehensive Plan and other supporting plans are provided in a redline format to illustrate what changes were made by staff and the Planning Commission from the review document distributed in August, 2008. The most significant change to the Comprehensive Plan from its public release draft is a reduction in the 2030 population by 3,500 people to a forecasted population of 42,000 people. The change was the result of a negotiation with the Met Council staff prompted by the fact that the City will not meet the 2010 forecast population of 29,600 people. As part of that discussion the issue regarding Agriculture Preserves property raised by the Met Council staff was also resolved. The remaining process for the Comprehensive Plan adoption is for the City Council to adopt a resolution approving the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and authorizing staff to submit the Comprehensive Plan to the Met Council for their approval. The Met Council is required to review the Comprehensive Plan following the 60 Day Statute (the same rule the City is under for planning applications) but because of the amount of plans they are reviewing, it is anticipated that the Met Council will take the full review time allowed. The Met Council is allowed to extend the review period an additional 60 days to a full 120 days of review by administratively sending us a letter. It would be anticipated that the Met Council would approve the plan late in the summer. Following the Met Council approval, the City Council will need to address any of the conditions placed on the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the City will be required to revise its Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and other applicable Codes to bring them into compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. MARCH 24, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING At their March 24, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Only one person spoke during the hearing, Irene Beberg on behalf of her mother, Olga Treise, who resides at 12391 Dodd_ Boulevard. Ms. Treise's land is currently zoned RR: Rural Residential and has a RR: Rural Residential land use designation in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the current condition. Ms. Beberg requested that her mother's land be re- guided to a more intense land use, such as commercial and high density residential, to allow development of the property. Ms. Beberg stated a number of reasons for her request, such as the site is located on the corner of South Robert Trail and County Road 38, that the housing market for estate homes similar to those in the rural residential zoning is weak, and there is an economic hardship due to changes in the State's Green Acres program. No one else spoke at the public hearing. Following the public hearing, Chairperson Messner addressed Ms. Beberg comments by stating that the property is located about a mile from the City's metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) boundary and that the City conducted an open house during the Comprehensive Plan process in which a majority of the land owners within the rural residential area expressed a desire to stay rural. The existing City standard of an average density of one unit per five acres. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan with a unanimous vote. ISSUES The City received nine responses to the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan, seven of which contained comments and two responses indicating no comment. The actual comment letters are attached to this executive summary and the following paragraphs describe staffs recommended responses. MnDOT The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) provided three comments to the transportation section of the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan, one commenting on the number of crashes at South Robert Trail (Mn Hwy 3) and Canada Avenue, and two addressing the status of two interchanges within the transportation plan. MnDOT has requested that the accident data at Canada Avenue be submitted to them, but the City has previously requested funds to improve this intersection. The staff recommended response is that the City will continue to request a cooperative agreement to fund the improvement necessary at this intersection. MnDOT also comments that the future interchange at CSAH 42 and US Highway 52 has funding only for the acquisition of right -of -way, not construction, and that MnDOT has not identified funding for an interchange at CSAH 42 and Mn Hwy 3. The staff recommended comment is that the City will continue to work with Dakota County and MnDOT on locating the funding for these interchanges. Lakeville Lakeville had two comments on the Transportation Plan, first that the Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line will operate through Lakeville and second that the UMore and Air Cargo facilities are not included within the traffic forecast. The staff recommended response is that the City will include the suggested text on the BRT and that the City is currently working with the University of Minnesota, Dakota County, and Empire Township on a transportation study of the UMore development. The Air Cargo facility is not a project that the City is pursuing at this time. Significant changes in the operations at the airport, and a change on direction from the State would be needed to jumpstart the Air Cargo project. Lakeville also had a couple of comments regarding the Parks and Recreation Plan, including that Lakeville residents participate in the Rosemount Area Athletic Association (RAAA) and that parks and open space be included in the development of UMore. The staff recommended response is that Rosemount and Lakeville will continue to work cooperatively to provide recreational opportunities to our residents and that the City is working with the University of Minnesota to ensure that recreation opportunities are provided within the future development of UMore. Inver Grove Heights The City of Inver Grove Heights (IGH) provided four comments: first, that the IGH has added a new land use designation of Industrial Open Space adjacent to our northern border; second, that there is a trail that IGH has designated that does not connect to a trail in Rosemount; third, IGH has not shown the extension of 120` Street but will discuss it with us; and fourth, that the land within the Mississippi River Corridor be preserved, protected and regulated. The staff recommended responses are that the City understands that IGH is making a buffer between heavy industrial and rural residential with the Industrial Open Space land use designation but that Rosemount has not created a similar "buffer" land use; that the City will revise its trail map to provide a connection with the IGH trail; that the City will work with IGH to discuss the extension of 120 Street when development warrants; and that the City has an approved Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor plan. Eagan The City of Eagan had one comment that the two Cities should work cooperatively (with other applicable agencies) to address transportation corridor needs as development occurs. The staff recommended response is that the City will work cooperatively with Eagan, Dakota County, MnDOT and other applicable agencies to address the needs of the major transportation corridors. 3 Cottage Grove The City of Cottage Grove requested that Rosemount recognize the possibility of a third Mississippi River crossing. Cottage Grove's Comp Plan discusses a river crossing (bridge) running east to west in the vicinity of Upper Grey Cloud Island. This would indicate that the crossing would land on the Dakota County shoreline somewhere in the vicinity of 117 Street in IGH. The staff recommended response is that the City will work cooperatively with Cottage Grove, Washington County, IGH, Dakota County, and any other applicable agencies to discuss the need and possibility of a third river crossing but that Rosemount does not anticipate that crossing to occur within Rosemount. Dakota County Dakota County provided a number of comments on the topics of parks and open space, roadways, transit, nonmotorized transportation, environment, historic preservation and reuse, housing, and economic development. The parks comments generally point out typos or ask to include information that has been updated since the Comp Plan was created. The staff recommended response is to correct the typos and add the most up to date information. The roadway comments generally point out typos and ask to include information that has been updated since the Comp Plan has been created. In addition, one comment asks for the accesses in the County Road 42 Corridor Study located west of Biscayne Road to be included in the Comp Plan, and another comment asks to include language about the value of the local street system to the regional transportation system. The staff recommended response is to correct the typos and update the information, but the other two comments will require a response. First, the City will add all the accesses to County Road 42, but will repeat the conditions of approval that requests additional full accesses in exchange for the limited accesses within eastern Rosemount. Second, the City acknowledges that a well planned local street network does benefit the regional transportation system, but that this acknowledgement is why the County and other agencies should assist in development of a well planned local street network either through funding or through flexible access spacing that complements the local street network. The transit comments complement the plan and do not suggest any changes. The nonmotorized transportation comments call for adding text related to active living. Appendix A, The Active Living Plan has been added to the Comprehensive Plan. The environmental comments are complimentary of the draft text but also request additional language, such as to consider additional energy efficient guidelines for residential construction, adopting sustainable building guidelines for city facilities, and establishing an environmental advisory committee. The staff recommended response to these comments is that the City anticipates evaluating these issues in the near future but it is currently unclear if the value of the benefits received from fulfilling Dakota County's recommendations would be greater than the additional costs incurred by residents and the City. Additional analysis will need to be conducted by the City before policy decisions, such as those offered by Dakota County, are adopted. 4 The historic preservation and reuse comments compliment the City for its past efforts but also suggest additional policies, such as the establishment of the historic preservation commission. The staff recommended response is that the City values and celebrates its over 150 years history, as is described in the Comp Plan, but there are few remaining historic buildings and almost all of them are within the Downtown. The Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount, approved in 2004, discusses and recommends the preservation and reuse of the buildings in Downtown that are historically significant. Staff does not believe that the establishment of a historic preservation commission would provide benefit above that already described in the Framework and the current Comp Plan text. The housing comments pointed out some typos and mentioned that the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) will not meet all the affordable housing needs in Rosemount. The staff recommended response is that the typos will be fixed and that while the CDA does not construct all the affordable housing within Rosemount, they are a valuable partner in providing affordability beyond only the units that they construct and own. Many of the private developments that contain affordability have included public financing assistance, either through the CDA such as Waterford Commons or through the City such as Harmony. The Comp Plan demonstrates that the affordable housing needs of Rosemount will be met through a number of measures including, but not exclusively, partnerships with the CDA. The economic development comments provided state the economic development projections and needs of the City. The staff recommended response is that the City agrees with the Dakota County's comments and that information is included in the Comp Plan and will be achieved through the land uses designated and the policies created. Metropolitan Council The Met Council has provided comments regarding historical resources, housing, parks, water supply, aggregate resources, airports, critical area, forecasts, implementation, individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS), land use, residential densities, agricultural preserves, sewers, solar access, surface water management, and transportation. Staff has prepared adequate responses or clarification for all of these issues except three: concern that the sewer plan design was exceeding the Met Council infrastructure; the request to maintain an Agricultural land use designation for all land enrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program; and the population forecasts may be inflated since the market slow down is preventing Rosemount from meeting its 2010 population forecast. On May 11, City staff met with the Met Council to resolve these three issues. Staff described the issues that arise from developing in the southeast corner of the City, including the limited accesses onto County Road 42, the sewer service requiring a north to south development pattern to orderly develop, and a discussion that the Agricultural Preserve land cannot be avoided and provide orderly development. To compromise, City staff prepared an alternative that adjusted the locations on which the sewer connected onto the Met Council system and that reduced the residential development by removing 240 acres of low density residential land including 120 acres that is in the Agriculture Preserve program. Removing the 240 acres of residential land lower the 2030 population forecast to 42,000 people from the original request of 45,500 people. Met Council staff agreed that this alternative fully addressed the sewer and population forecast issues and compromised on the Agricultural Preserve issue since the alternative reduced the impact on long term agricultural land. Met Council staff stated that they would support the alternative land use map that reduced the residential land by 240 acres and the population forecast by 3,500 people. 5 Year Population Households 2000 14,619 4,742 2010 29,600 10,200 2020 38,400 13,700 2030 45,500 16,850 Year Population Households 2000 14,619 4,742 2010 23,750 8,050 2020 33,050 11,800 2030 42,000 15,500 Vermillion Township Vermillion Township stated that they have no comments about the Comp Plan. The staff recommended response is to thank Vermillion Township for their review of the Comp Plan. University ofMinnesota The University of Minnesota thanks us for the inclusion of their previously provided comments into the Comp Plan and look forward to continuing to work with the City on the development of UMore. The staff recommended comment is to thank them for their previous involvement in the Comp Plan and share looking forward to working with the University on UMore. Agencies not providing Comments A number of communities and agencies did not provide comments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, including the Cities of Apple Valley and Coates, the Townships of Empire and Nininger, and the school districts. The draft Comprehensive Plans were mailed to these agencies on August 21, 2008 and a reminder notice was mailed to the same agencies in early February 2009. Staff is recommending that we treat this lack of response as though those agencies have no comment to the City of Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan. UPDATE Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Revisions There are three changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map since it was released for public and agency review, one for Harmony, one for CF Industries, and one as a result of a staff meeting with the Met Council. On July 15, 2008, the City approved the amendment to the Harmony Planned Unit Development to remove the apartments and senior housing and replace them with townhouses. To accommodate this change, the High Density Residential land use designation in Harmony was changed to Medium Density Residential land use designation to recognize this change in housing type and density. On January 20, 2009, the City approved the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for the CF Industries facility. The Concept Plan requested a series of dry fertilizer storage warehouses located on the north side of Pine Bend Trail. To reflect this approval, 12 acres of land were changed from the Agricultural land use designation to the General Industrial land use designation. On May 14, 2009, City staff met with Met Council staff to discuss their concerns. As a result of the compromise reached with the Met Council staff, 240 acres of low density land was removed from the southeast corner of the City. This change decrease the population forecast for the City of Rosemount as follows: Orieinal Estimates Compromise Estimates Staff is supportive of this compromise. The current population for Rosemount is estimated at 22,000 people, which would mean that the City would have to grow by nearly 7,600 people to met the original 2010 estimate. The comprise estimate anticipates an additional 1,750 people within the 6 next year, which a much more reasonable goal. The compromise estimate plans for about 3,700 new households per decade, or the construction of 370 new homes each year. This growth projection provides a good average growth rate compared with our peak construction year of 550 units in 2004 and the 240 units constructed last year. Approval Schedule The remaining schedule for the Comprehensive Plan Approval is: May 19, 2009 May 29, 2009 Summer 2009 City Council Adoption Comprehensive Plan Submittal to the Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Council Review and Approval RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the authorization to submit the Comprehensive Plan to the Met Council for their review and approval. 7 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2009 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ROSEMOUNT 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 473.864 requires the City of Rosemount to adopt a Comprehensive Plan describing the City's growth through the year 2030; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, with assistance from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Port Authority and the Utility Commission, constructed the Comprehensive Plan through a series of public meetings held during 2007, 2008, and 2009; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount gathered additional public input from six public open houses, numerous newsletter articles and mailings, the City website, and written public comments; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2008 and May 27, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted community hearings on the proposed Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2009, the City Council authorized the release of the Comprehensive plan for a six month review and comment period and distribution of the Comprehensive Plan to the neighboring jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the six month review period ended February 19, 2009 and the City received comments from the neighboring communities, State agencies, and residents; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2009, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the comments received regarding the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan. ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 2009, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk RESOLUTION 2009- Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: 2 Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan Comments and Responses Below is a summary of the comments received regarding the Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City's response to the comments. MnDOT: 1. Page 7 notes an inordinate number of accidents at TH 3 and Canada Avenue. This information has been forwarded to Mn /DOT Traffic Section for further review and analysis. Response The City submitted a Municipal Cooperative agreement application in September 2008 for improving this intersection. As the project was not selected for funding in FY 2010, the City will continue to work with MnDOT and submit a Municipal Cooperative agreement application for safety improvements to this intersection. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. 2. Page 14, and other areas in the Transportation Section, note that the interchange at TH 52 /CSAH 42 is slated for reconstruction in 2009. Please note that at this time, only design work and right -of -way acquisition from willing sellers is being tasked. Response The Transportation Plan will be revised based on these comments and note that the anticipated timeline for the project is determined by Dakota County. 3. Page 14 also notes an interchange at TH 3 /CSAH 42. Please note that Mn /DOT has not identified funding for an interchange at this location. Response The City understands that finding is not identified for an interchange at TH 3 and CSAH 42. This interchange was identified by Dakota County in previous plans and the City supports planningfor a future interchange at this location. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. City of Lakeville: Transportation Plan: At the bottom of Page 7 of the Transit Plan the text should be changed to state the BRT will operate from `Bloomington to CSAH 70 (215 Street) in Lakeville In addition, the transit plan may be updated with the current federal Urban Partnership Agreement grant initiatives that include a park and ride site near 179 Street and Cedar Avenue for operation in 2009. Response The Transit Plan will be revised based on these comments. The forecasted traffic counts in the Transportation Plan do not anticipate traffic from UMore Park or from the Air Cargo property. If improvements occur on these sites a detailed traffic analysis should be completed. Response A corridor study is currently in process through Dakota County for the UMore Park area in the city of Rosemount and Empire Township. Furthermore, an environmental review is anticipated to be completed for the proposed UMore Park development which will include a detailed traffic analysis. The Air Cargo facility is not proposed in the immediate future and the development of a facility will ultimately depend on State legislation. Should this or any other major land use be proposed in the City of Rosemount, detail traffic studies will be required. 1 Any results of these traffic studies will be included as supplements to the Cites Transportation Plan. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Lakeville has no comments regarding the sanitary sewer, water and drainage plans. Reiponse Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is 1 equired. Land Use Plan. Lakeville has no comments regarding the Land Use Plan. The proposed land use designations in Rosemount, adjacent to the City of Lakeville, are consistent with Lakeville's proposed land use designations as shown on the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Response Thankyou foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Parks and Recreation Plan. The City of Rosemount and the City of Lakeville touch borders at the intersection of 160 Street and Diamond Path. There is no linear connection between the two communities. As such, Rosemount's park system planning does not directly affect the City of Lakeville. However, Lakeville is affected with respect to cross over participation between participants in youth athletic association. Many residents living in northeast Lakeville attend the Rosemount School District. Those students tend to be associated with the Rosemount Athletic Association for all major youth sports. With that, some priority usage of Lakeville facilities are offered for use by the Rosemount Athletic Association. To date we have accommodated Rosemount's request for facilities such as outdoor ice, lacrosse, soccer, baseball and softball without incident. Reiponse Staff agrees with comment and requests that the topic of shared fields be reviewed on an annual basis. Rosemount's Park Plan uses national standards and provides for a typical smaller suburban park system. Rosemount also shows the necessary trail corridors and future greenways associated with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council's long range plans. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required Future preservation of undeveloped land owned by the University of Minnesota (UMore Park) may be beneficial to Rosemount and Lakeville residents as sections are designated for public open space and recreational opportunities. Reiponse Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. City of Inver Grove Heights: Land Use The Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights Land Use Plans do not indicate any major changes along our mutual boundary with the exception of a new land use designation within the City of Inver Grove Heights located around Rich Valley Boulevard towards Akron Avenue (see attached map for location). The new land use designation is called Industrial Open Space and was created to act as a buffet around the heavy industrial uses in the area (such as the landfill and Flint Hill Refinery) and the rural residential uses. The existing and proposed land uses of the two cities are compatible with one another. 2 Response The City understands Inver Grove Heights desire to buffer heavy industrial uses of Flint Hills and Pine Bend Landfill from its residential land uses, but Rosemount intends to provide this separation in a different manner than Inver Grove Heights. Rosemount has chosen to bzeer heavy industrial uses by placing more intensive (but generating fewer nuisances) industrial and commercial uses between the heavy industrial uses and Rosemount's planned residential land uses. Parks and Open Space There is one area in the two cities' park and trail plans that are not compatible. The Inver Grove Heights Park Plan shows a trail connection in the southwest part of our city extending to the mutual boundary whereas the Rosemount plan does not show a trail connection in this area (see attached map). Inver Grove Heights requests that the City of Rosemount consider a future connection in this area. Response The City of Rosemount will include identing a trail link from future park search area C- 2 on Rosemount's plan connecting to the trail identified in the Inver Grove Heights plan. Transportation The transportation plans of Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights are compatible. The Rosemount Transportation Plan demonstrates a future roadway (120 Street) along the mutual city boundaries located in the southwest portion of Inver Grove Heights. Inver Grove Heights does not represent the 120 Street improvement in our Comprehensive Plan but would be willing to consider it further with the City of Rosemount once more information becomes available. Response The of Rosemount will continue to work with the City of Inver Grove Heights on this and other mutual transportation issues. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Mississippi River The preservation and protection of sensitive environmental features and the regulation of land uses along the Mississippi River is a major concern of Inver Grove Heights. To that extent, we appreciate Rosemount's plans for the preservation, protection, and regulation of the Mississippi River Corridor. Response Appendix B; The Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area Plan addresses the preservation, protection, and regulation of the Mississippi River corridor. City of Eagan: The City of Eagan recognizes that pressure for development will result in continued development in the City of Rosemount and other communities to the south and east of Eagan. The City is concerned about the traffic impacts of continued development that will affect Highway 3, Highway 52, and Highway 55 and believes that there is a need for the cities, Dakota County, the region, and the state to cooperatively address the need for transportation improvements in this part of the County and region between County Road 42 and I -494. Response The City of Rosemount is supportive of a Regional Transportation Study to further address future transportation impacts and issues in the area south of 1494 in Dakota County. The City does however believe that the southern limit should be CSAH 46 not CSAH 42, which would include the future UMore property. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. 3 City of Cottage Grove: The only comment on the plan that we are forwarding is related to the potential future Mississippi River crossing that is briefly covered in the Dakota County draft comprehensive plan, but not in your document. The recent construction and reconstruction of the existing bridges that span between Washington and Dakota Counties highlight the importance of these links within our counties' common transportation system. The possibility of a third regional river crossing occurring sometime in the future seems to be a reality as population growth and transportation needs increase. The City of Cottage Grove would welcome the opportunity to participate jointly in any future planning discussions that would occur on this topic. Response The City of Rosemount is supportive of participating in a study discussion of a future river crossing. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Dakota County: Parks and open space The Rosemount Parks and Open Space Plan provides clear direction and addresses future growth- related park needs. The underlying park system analyses and public engagement activities provide an excellent base for proposed system enhancements. Dakota County staff looks forward to collaborating with Rosemount on greenways and trails within the City. Strengthening connections from City parks, trails and neighborhoods to regional parks and greenways are priorities we share. County staff are very interested in working further with the City on alignments of regional trails identified in the Metropolitan Council System Statement. The Rosemount Interpretive Trail to Spring Lake Park Reserve and the North -South Greenway between Lebanon Hills and the new regional park in the Vermillion Highlands complex are vital links that advance an interconnected greenway system. We offer the following comments: Showing generalized corridors for trails proposed on page 20 would be a helpful addition to Appendix D, the Rosemount park, trail and open space plan map. Response Proposed trail connections will be added to the plan where applicable. Differentiating the parks in the map of existing parks by the classifications shown on Page 19 would help the reader visualize the system. Response Park classifications will be added to the map of existing parks It appears that Appendix C, Functional Classification and Ped Crossing Areas, shows the functional classification of roadways and pedestrian crossings but does not include a legend for road classes. Response A legend will be added to the Functional Classification and Ped Crossing Areas Map (Appendix C). The plan addresses regional facilities in the Metropolitan Council System Statement by including a County prepared map illustrating the collaborative greenway concept (Appendix A). This map is now outdated and could be improved to include the new regional park in Empire Township and should include labeling of major regional facilities if it is used as a regional context map. County staff will supply an updated version to Rosemount. Response The City will request an updated map from Dakota County. 4 Text on Page 6 refers to the regional context map as Appendix A, although this map is actually presented in Appendix B and listed thus in the table of contents. The map of existing parks is incorrectly referenced as Appendix B in the text on Page 7. Response The City will correct the description in the plan. The numbering identified in the table of contents is inconsistent with the plan's page numbering Response The Ciy will correct the page numbering in the plan Roadways Page 2 Please consider adding a statement that Dakota County has access spacing guidelines for County highways under the City's primary strategies. Response The Counties access spacing guidelines are shown and discussed in Section 5, Table 5.2. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Page 5 CSAH 38 is shown as a collector in Figure 2.2 but is missing from the list of collector streets; please include the road in the list. Response The collector section of CSAH 38 has been turned back to the Ciy and has been renamed Bonaire Path. Bonaire Path is on the collector list in Section 2, page 5. Page 9 The City's transportation plan lists various strategies to address mobility and access issues along TH 3 and CSAH 42. The city should also consider adding an additional strategy to support future six -lane right of way needs on CSAH 42 (west of TH 3) as development and redevelopment opportunities arise. Response A fifth bullet point will be added stating the following— `As development occurs west of TH 3 along CSAH 42 the City will work with Dakota County to identf opportunities for the reasonable acquisition of sight -of -way for a fiuture six lane roadway." Page 14 Please note Dakota County is updating its travel demand model and its transportation policy plan in 2009 /2010. Thus, updated information regarding roadway capacity (and 2030 forecast traffic levels, Figure 4.2) will be available in 2009. Response This comment is noted. The Ciy's 2030 forecasts are based on Metropolitan Council forecasts and fiuture land use projections within the Ciy. The Ciy will work with Dakota Count' during the development of their Transportation Policy Plan update and 2030 forecasts. Page 14 The City may wish to include the Rosemount Empire UMore Area Transportation System Study in the list of multi- jurisdictional planning studies. This effort could also be referenced as part of the overall North -South Principal Arterial Study identified in the current County transportation plan. Response At the time the Draft Transportation Plan was produced, this study had not been started. A reference will be made to the study in Section 3.2. Page 16 The City may wish to note it has officially mapped the TH 52 CSAH 42 interchange to preserve right of way and that recent interchange modifications likely will prompt additional official mapping. Response A statement will be added indicating that the TH 52 CSAH 42 area has been officially mapped. 5 Figure 4.2 2030 traffic forecasts for CSAH 38, CSAH 71 and CR 73 are much higher than the County's forecasts for 2025. County staff understands the City has developed land use projections since the time of the County's projections. Staff anticipates working closely with the City in identification of future land uses and development of the County's travel demand model update to occur in 2009. Response This comment is noted. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Figure 5.2 Staff suggest that this figure show the entire CSAH 42 Access Plan for the City and not just for segments east of TH 3. This would include the identification of: Full access intersection at Diamond Path (CSAH 33) Full access at Shannon Parkway Partial access between Shannon Parkway and Chippendale Avenue Full access at Chippendale Avenue Partial access at Canada Avenue Grade separation at TH 3 Partial access at Business Parkway Full access at Biscayne Avenue Res -Figure 5.2 will be revised to include the access plan for CSAH 42 through the City. Language will also be added to clarify that the city's acceptance and adoption of the County Road 42 Corridor Study in 1999 was conditional upon as noted in Resolution 1999- 11. Figure 5.2 incorrectly shows the CSAH 42 access at Auburn Avenue as a full access intersection. The updated recommended roadway improvements for Segment 15 (from TH 3 to TH 52), approved in 2007, identifies the intersection as a partial access. Response -Figure 5.2 will be modified to reflect this change. Page 23 A figure showing the existing approved roadway functional classification system would be helpful in comparison to Figure 5.3 depicting the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification. Response -The Existing Roadway Functional Classification is shown in Figure 2.2. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Staff suggests that the plan include additional language to stress the importance of connectivity and completeness of local street networks. Developing a good system of local streets is a major factor in accomplishing: reduced trips through signalized intersections, thereby reducing delay for all travelers reduced exposure to crashes in general reduced need to access higher speed and higher volume roadways, thereby reducing the likelihood of injury crashes reduced trip lengths, travel times and fuel usage reduced emergency response times by police, fire and ambulance increased for travelers as issues arise (roadway construction, congestion, emergency closures, etc.) increased options for pedestrian and bicycle trips 6 Response The City feels that the current Transportation Plan does stress the connectivity and completeness of the local street network through the discussions in the Introduction Chapter 1.0. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Transit The Rosemount Transit Plan does a good job identifying: Transit issues affecting the City, including the issue of service equity among communities with growing populations and more mature communities. The Robert Street Corridor Study and its potential impacts to the City of Rosemount and the proposed UMore development. The potential positive impacts of connecting the Cedar Avenue Transitway and the Robert Street Corridor Transitway with County Highway 42. The importance of transit oriented development. Response These comments are noted. No changes to the Transit Plan are required. Nonmotorized transportation Staff supports the City's Active Living language and initiatives found throughout the plan. Staff looks forward to continuing to work with the City as our Active Living partnership continues. Response The City has added an Active Living Plan asAppendixA of the Comprehensive Plan. Environment Dakota County staff supports Rosemount's inclusion of sustainability in its plan. The City could further its commitment by: Considering (as the plan suggests) sustainable energy efficient building programs and guidelines to ensure continued affordability and occupancy in residential development, similar to development guidelines for commercial development outlined in the plan. Response The City anticipates evaluating energy- efficient building programs following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, but staff believes that it is premature to require guidelines before that evaluation, including the cost ffectiveness of the programs and their effect on the cost of home construction, is completed. 7 Adopting sustainable building guidelines, such as Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, for all City -owned facilities in addition to the sustainable building guidelines outlined for commercial (re)development. Response Similar to the response above, it is anticipated that the City will evaluate building guidelines, but staefeels it is premature to adopt building guidelines before their impact is fully evaluated and vetted County staff are encouraged by the City's engagement of the community in environmental management planning, implementation and education. County staff looks forward to working with the Environmental Advisory Committee on future efforts, as appropriate. Response If the City does establish an Environmental Advisory Committee, its activities and effort will involve and be open to the general public, including Dakota Count. As Rosemount continues to develop industry, it is progressive for the City to look toward clean industry and "green jobs" to develop the economy while promoting community well being. Response Thank you for the comment, no change is required to the Plan. Dakota County has similar natural resource, waste reduction and recycling goals and strategies as the City. County staff welcomes opportunities to partner and offer assistance to the City as education and outreach is developed. Response Thank you for the comment, no change is required to the Plan. County staff support Rosemount's plan as it relates to surface water. Staff looks forward to continuing to work with the City in its efforts to improve surface water quality and quantity. Response Thank you for the comment, no change is required to the Plan. Numerous contaminated sites exist throughout Dakota County and in the City of Rosemount. When planning redevelopment or new development projects, please contact the County Water Resources Department at (952) 891 -7000 for assistance in identifying whether such sites exist in the project vicinity so cleanup can be addressed. Response The City has worked with Dakota County cooperative in the past regarding contaminated sites and is appreciative of their assistance. The anticipates calling on the technical expertise and assistance of Dakota County when planning the redevelopment of an contaminated sites. Historic preservation and reuse Comments from Dakota County Historical Society staff The draft comprehensive plan for Rosemount addresses historic preservation and reuse through active partnership with the Rosemount Area Historical Society. It appears this partnership has produced positive results. The next step for the City of Rosemount is to develop a historic preservation commission and /or adopt local ordinances that will legally protect historic sites that might be overlooked by either the City or Society. Dakota County Historical Society staff suggests that Rosemount consider the following additional actions if the City wants to advance historic preservation: Establish a historic preservation commission Maintain support materials for property owners and developers, including information regarding national, state and local historical preservation agencies Study and develop community appropriate policies and initiatives Revise the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate plans developed by the historic preservation commission (if formed) Response City staff not anticipate establishing a Historic Preservation Commission at this time. While the City has over 150 years of history, the vast majority of the structures and site that have historic value in the City are located in Downtown. In 2004, the City adopted the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount that describes the historic properties to be saved or redeveloped. Additional historic issues and efforts can be adequately addressed through the Planning Commission and /or City Council. Resources available to the City should it want to consider historic preservation include: Farmington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, City of Farmington Donovan D. Rypkema, "The Economics of Historic Preservation," National Trust for Historic Preservation "Feasibility Assessment Manual for Reusing Historic Buildings," National Trust for Historic Preservation 8 Housing The text reference to the recent Maxfield housing study should be corrected from "Maxwell" to say "Maxfield The city may also wish to add the most recent Metropolitan Council population, household, and building permit data to the tables and figures. Response The correction will be made. During 2011 -2020, the household growth projection shows an increase of 3,500 units. During that same period, the Metropolitan Council has identified Rosemount's affordable housing needs to be 923 units, or 26 percent of those additional units. To meet this in 10 years, an average of 92 affordable owner and /or rental units would be constructed each year. The paragraph on affordable housing states Rosemount should be able to meet this need in cooperation with the CDA and continued development of multiple- and small single family housing. During that time, the CDA might construct one or two more affordable family townhomes of 30 -40 units each and one more affordable senior building of 50 -70 units. This would be 110 -150 units of the total need of 923, so a majority of affordable housing must be provided within non -CDA developments. Response —First, the City wishes to recognitie the extraordinary contribution that the CDA provides to both Rosemount and Dakota County. That being said, the understands that the CDA will not construct and own 923 housing units between 2010 and 2020, but the CDA, as well as the numerous other entities sited in the Housing Element, is involved in may affordable housing projects in addition to the ones they construct and own. Recently, the CDA has been involved in the financing of the Waterford Commons project that will provide 21 affordable units, as well as the CDA has been involved in rehabilitation and esthetic improvements in older affordable housingprojects. The City also has been involved in a number ofprojects that provide affordable housing, such as Waterford Commons and the Harmony development. The City does not expect nor anticipate that the CDA would be the sole provider of affordable housing, but leveraging all available resources and partnership (including the CDA) will allow the City to meet its affordable housinggoalr. Section 4 of the Housing Element Goals and Policies should not refer to the Dakota County cluster; it no longer exists. Response Section 4 will be corrected. Economic development The City might wish to include employment estimates and projections to the plan. For reference, the City's 2000 -2007 employment growth was 17.6 percent, compared with the County's growth of 15.8 percent. The Metropolitan Council's projections show 8,400 in 2010, 10,100 in 2020 and 12,200 in 2030 for Rosemount. The City's estimated growth rate from 2010 -30 is 45 percent, compared with that for Dakota County at 19 percent. Response Table 7.1 describes the employment projections, as well as the housing and population projects, for the City through the year 2030. We note that the wage information provided by four Rosemount industries shows a significantly lower average wage in Rosemount compared with the metro area. This may indicate a need to provide support for future higher wage jobs to locate in Rosemount as well as support the need for additional affordable housing. 9 Response The City's Goals include provide jobs that provide wages that can support an entire household The City would appreciate any assistance that the County can provide in achieving this goal. Metropolitan Council Historical Resources (Patrick Boylan 651 602 1438). The Update includes text and policies describing historical resources and therefore is complete. The Update references working with the Rosemount Historical Society. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Housing (Linda Milashius 651 602 1541). The Update is complete and fulfills the affordable housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Update acknowledges the City's share of the region's affordable housing need for 2011 -2020 which is 933 units. To provide opportunities to meet this need, the Update indicates that approximately 171 acres of land will be available for medium density residential development at 5 -10 units per acre and 20 acres are designated for high density residential development at 10 -24 units per acre. In addition, the Update includes a new land use category call Downtown, which will consist of 65 acres intended to provide for a variety of land uses that will include a mixed use zoning district, along with medium and high density residential. The Update provides the implementation tools and programs the City will use to promote opportunities to address its share of the region's housing need. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Parks (Jan Youngquist 651 602 1029). The Update is complete for regional parks review purposes, but does not completely conform to the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan (Parks Policy Plan). The Update includes a map that depicts a regional greenway trail that was not identified as part of the regional parks system in the Parks Policy Plan. Response Dakota County provided the City with the greenway trail map. City staff will contact Dakota County to get new map. Appendix B, the Regional Context map, appears to be an excerpt from Dakota County's draft comprehensive plan. The map includes a regional greenway trail connecting the Vermillion Highlands Greenway Regional Trail to Spring Lake Park Reserve. This is a trail that Dakota County is proposing to add to the regional system. The County could seek regional status for the trail during the next Parks Policy Plan update; however, the Council does not guarantee that the trail corridor will be incorporated into the regional system. Therefore, it must not be shown as a regional greenway trail in the comprehensive plan update. Response The City will correct the plan by labeling trails as regional only if identified as such by the Metropolitan Council. Appendix B also includes some suggested city greenway trails. It is not clear whether the City is endorsing these local greenway trails, since they are not addressed in the Update. Response The City will add language in reference to the greenway trails in Appendix B. Council staff recommends that instead of using the excerpt from Dakota County's draft comprehensive plan to show the regional park facilities in Rosemount, the Update needs to include a 2030 Park Plan Map that incorporates both local and regional park elements. The map needs to include the existing local parks and park search areas, the Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor, any proposed city greenway trails, as well as the regional park facilities, which include: 10 Spring Lake Park Reserve, the Mississippi River Regional Trail, ant the Vermillion Highlands Greenway Regional Trail (North /South Regional Trail Search Area). This would help show the interrelationship and connectivity between local and regional parks, trails and greenways. Response Staff will add a map to the plan that includes local and regional park elements. Water Supply (Sara Smith 651 602 1035). The Update is complete and the City's Water Supply Plan (WSP) is consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan. The Council recommends that the City continue to implement conservation programs targeted at reducing residential water use. Response Thankyou foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. The city's average residential per capita demand over the page 5 years was 92.76 gallons /day, which is slightly higher than the 2002 metropolitan average of 75 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The city's maximum to average day ratio, which is 2.8, is also higher than the 2.6 benchmark. The conservation section of the plan describes programs designed to lower this demand. The Council encourages the city to continue implementing its programs and potentially expanding its programs targeted at reducing water use during peak periods. For more information on water conservation programs the Council invites the city to visit the Council's water conservation toolbox (http: /www.metrocouncil.org/ environment WaterSupply /conservationtoolbox.htm). Response- The Ci y notes this comment and will continue to implement water conservation programs. Aggregate Resources (Jim Larsen 651 602 1159). Minnesota Geological Survey Information Circular 46 indicates the presence of viable aggregate resources within the City. The Update acknowledges that aggregate resources are present. Extraction standards are presented in City Code Title 11, Chapter 10 -4, accessible on the City's website. The City encourages mining (considered to be incompatible with residential neighborhood development) to occur prior to urbanization, utilizing an interim use permit process for lands outside the 2020 MUSA. A reclamation plan is required of all applicable interim uses to ensure that orderly development can occur after the interim use has ceased to operate. Response Thankyou foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. The final Update submission needs to be revised to incorporate a land use map identifying the presence of the available aggregate resource areas, including their types, in accordance with Section 3, pages 3 -10 of the Council's Local Planning Handbook guidance. Airports (Chauncey Case 651 602 1724). The Update portion that pertains to aviation is incomplete. The text needs to be revised on page 10 of the Transportation Plan section. The last sentence in the paragraph needs to delete the text within the brackets, and substitute the following language in order to be consistent for review navigation... "...the FAA and MnDOT should be notified at least 30 days prior to any proposed project over 200' AGL This notification and height control text needs also to be included in the local ordinance. The City needs to refer to the Handbook and links for further clarification. Response Section 2.2 will be updated to reflect the revised language suggested above. Critical Area (Victoria Dupre 651 602 1621). The Update states that the critical area and MNRRA plan are "incorporated into Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan as Appendix (page 38 of submitted document)." Appendix was not part of the submittal. 11 Response The Mississippi River Critical Corridor Plan is provided as Appendix B. If any portion of a municipality is located within the metropolitan Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor, that portion must be managed in such a way that land use meets federal and state guidelines. The City should review their Critical Area plans to ensure consistency between the guidelines and their land use plans and updates. Municipalities may also review and reconsider the protection and enhancement requirements of Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Plan as part of the comprehensive plan update process. http: /www.dnr.state.mn.us /waters /watermgmt section /critical area /map.html Response Appendix B: The Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area Plan addresses these issues. Forecasts (Todd Graham 651 602 1322). The Update is incomplete for forecast related material. Forecasts allocated to Transportation Analysis Zones are not included in the Update. The Update includes a City- requested revision of households and population forecasts in 2030. In January 2008, Council staff agreed to include these forecast revisions in Council Staff report and proposed action on the Update. Metropolitan Council's forecasts will be officially revised, as shown below, effective upon Council approval of the Update. Population Households Employment 2010 2020 2030 29,600 10,200 8,400 38,400 13,700 10,100 45,500 16,850 12,200 The forecasts above are consistently presented in Tables 2.1 and 7.1 of the Update. Elsewhere, one inconsistency needs to be corrected: Table 3.7 does not include the City's proposed forecast revision for 2020 -2030. Response Table 3.7 will be revised to be consistent with the agreed forecasts. Advisory comment: the Update states: "...the City anticipates that the potential future development of UMore Park will be in addition to the growth depicted within the 2030 Land Use Plan The City expects that the population, households and employment forecasts will need to be increased due to the magnitude of this development." (pages 31 and 57) Council staff acknowledges that the 2030 Update may be amended in the future, and forecast revisions will be considered accordingly. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Implementation (Patrick Boylan 651 602 1438). The Update is incomplete for Implementation. It includes information on a Capital Improvement Plan, but needs to include a copy of the existing zoning ordinance or a detailed description of the zoning districts. Patrick Boylan can provide a sample. Response A detailed description of the _zoning districts will be provided within the Land Use Element similar to the example provided by Patrick Boylan. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) aim Larsen 651 602 1159). The Update is incomplete for ISTS review. The Update indicates that there are approximately 384 ISTS in operation in the City. Properties served by ISTS are shown on Figure 5.2. The Update further indicates that property owners served by ISTS are required to connect to the City collection 12 system within ten (10) years of City service becoming available or when the City has determined the ISTS has failed, whichever is earlier Current City Code Title 9, Chapter 6, available on the City's website addresses ISTS installation, operation and maintenance. The ordinance is consistent with MPCA Chapter 7080 Rules and Council policies. The final submission of the Update needs to be revised to include a discussion of the City's tracking and notification program, indicating how homeowners are notified of their need to obtain a residential maintenance permit to have their ISTS inspected or pumped each three -year period, or if this function has been delegated to Dakota County. Response Text has been added to the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan to address the process the City conducts to ensure that ISTSs are inspected or pumped every three years. Additionally, Section 301.01 of the Council's Waste Discharge Rules (Rules) require that within 24 months after a public sewer is connected to the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) becomes available to a property served by a private sewage disposal system or treatment works, a connection shall be made to the public sewer in accordance with the Rules. The City needs to update its Code to be in conformance with the Council's Waste Discharge Rule connection policy, available at: http: /wwwmetrocouncil.org/ environment /IndustrialWaste /index.htm. Response Staff understands that the MCES is planning to review and likely revise the regulations requiring the connections to the MDS. The City will monitor the review and revise its regulation in accordance with the revised regulations. Land Use (Patrick Boylan 651 602 1438). The Update is incomplete for review of land use. The Update does not address the Council's geographic planning area designations. The Council designates the City as a "developing community" and partially as an "agricultural" community. The Update needs to address these geographic designations. Response A map (Figure 7.1) has been provided to show the derent Metropolitan Council Geographic PlanningArea Designations. Text will be added to the Comprehensive Plan to describe the impacts to these designations as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The Update does not include an existing land use map or accompanying table showing acreages in each land use category. If the City does not have this information, it can be obtained from the Council. The Update does include a future land use map with accompanying table with the same land use categories, land use category descriptions with density ranges and tables showing 5 -year staging. Response A map (Figure 7.2) has been provided to show the existing (as of 2005) land uses. A table will be added to the Land Use Element to show the amount of land used by each land use. The Update includes detailed land use category descriptions for all land uses proposed in the City through 2030. In addition, it includes land use descriptions for residential categories and density ranges. The Update includes table 7.3, 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations and Table 7.3, 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations for each land use category. Residential density issues: Table 7.4: New Residential Land Uses in the 2030 Land Use Map attempts to demonstrate that the City can meet the Council's density requirement of 3.0 units per acre overall between 2020 and 2030. Using the minimum densities for each land use category, it comes out neatly to 3.00 units per acre. This table then shows 2,537 total residential units being created 2020 -2030. 13 Response The table number has been revised to Table 7.5. The Ciy has revised its population forecasts and land use map. As a result of these revisions, the densiy between 2020 and 2030 has increased. The Update goes on to provide tables that stage development in five -year increments. For these tables, the Update departs from the lowest density in the range, and applies an units per acre somewhere within the range, but not the lowest part of the range. Using a number of units above the minimum number in the range yields densities in excess of 3.00 units per acre. However, applying the lowest number in the range yields densities lower than 3.00 units per acre. For example, Tables 7.9 2021 -2025 and 2026 -2030 Residential Development show fewer than the 845 acres called out as developable between 2020 and 2030. (The difference may be due to not including the year 2020 in the calculation.) Nevertheless, applying the minimum densities to these acres provided yields less than 3.00 units per acre. The City in the Update needs to clarify how exactly it will meet the 3.00 units per acre requirement. Response —The tables describing the five year development periods have been revised and the overall density from 2020 to 2030 is greater that the required 3 units per acre. According to the forecasts requested by the City and agreed to in this report by the Metropolitan Council, the City will grow by 3,995 households between 2020 and 2030. Using the City's forecasted growth will yield 3,530 households during this period. Using the minimum density for each category will yield only 2,078 units during this period. Response —The tables have been revised. The City needs to revise these tables to assure that it will meet not only the Council's density requirements but also the household forecasts requested by the City. Patrick Boylan is available to meet and discuss this issue further at your convenience. Response —The table have been revised. Agricultural Preserves: The City has parcels enrolled in the Agricultural Preserves Program under the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. These are located generally in the southeast portion of the City, north of 160th Street and both east and west of Emery Avenue and south of 135 Street and east of Akron Avenue. The Update contains policies for agricultural preserves, but the future land use map does not show all of those parcels as guided for agricultural preserves at one unit per 40 acres (Figure 7.3); some of the parcels enrolled in the program are guided for non agricultural uses. Response Figure 7.3 has been renumbered to Figure 7.5. The Ciy has meet with Met Council staff on May 11 and presented a revision to the land use map that includes a removal of 120 acres ofAgricultural Preserve land from non agricultural land uses. Met Council staff indicated that there is support for maintain the Ci y's non agricultural land use for the remaining land enrolled in the Agricultural Preserve prvgram. Cities that exercise planning and zoning authority over lands enrolled in the Agricultural Preserves Program, must certify lands that are eligible for designation as agricultural preserves. Until lands are removed from the Program pursuant to the statutory processes, the City's Update needs to identify the parcels enrolled in the Agricultural Preserves Program as agricultural and protect those parcels through guiding of one unit per 40 acres. Response See the comment above regarding the May 11 meeting with Met Council staff 14 Sewers (Roger Janzig 651 602 -1119 Kyle Colvin 651- 602 1151). The Plan, in its current version would represent significant system impacts, requiring modifications. The following comments are offered: 1. The growth projections are higher then those provided to the City as part of their system statement. However they are generally consistent with the revised projections the Council had agreed to with the City. Response The growth projections agreement is acknowledged. 2. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP) states that the City requires property owners to connect to the sanitary sewer system within 10 years after it becomes available or when their on -site treatment system would fail The Council's current Waste Discharge Rule and Regulations require the connection within 24 months after it becomes available. However, these regulations are currently being revised and will include language which defines "availability." Response Staff understands that the MCES is planning to review and likely revise the regulations requiring the connections to the MDS. The City will monitor the review and revise its regulation in accordance with the revised regulations. 3. The Plan as submitted represents a system impact. The ultimate average capacity of the Council's newly completed lift station L-74 is 4.0 MGD. On page 21 of the sanitary sewer plan the City has provided flow projections to our interceptors by connection point. Based on this table the capacity of L -74 will be reached between 2020 and 2025.The City's flow projections are based on wastewater generation rates that are nearly double those found in other areas of the metropolitan areas with similar development patterns. The Plan also shows that portions of the Central District are provided service through existing interceptor 7112. Portions of the Central District service area will need to be served through connection(s) to the new interceptor located along Co. Rd. 42. Although the Council recognizes that the City needs to base the sizing of its trunk and lateral sanitary sewer system on generation rates it feels is appropriate, the Council will base its level of service commitment on more regionally based flow generation rates. Response The sewer plan has been revised to adjust the connection points onto the Met Council system in accordance with the data provided by Bryce Pickart. In addition, the future waste water flows have been revised based on 800 gpad. 4. On page 26 of the CSP the City indicates that they as proposing to provide wastewater services to the Southwest Central Sewer Shed, post 2030, via lift station and force main connection to the Empire interceptor on Co. Rd. 42. The Empire interceptor has limited capacity starting at lift station L -75 and extending downstream for approximately half a mile from L -75. The City needs to construct its system within the Southwest Central service area to connect to that portion of the Empire Township interceptor along Biscayne Avenue downstream of the capacity limitation. Response The sewer plan has been revised to adjust the connection points onto the Met Council system in accordance with the data provided by B yce Pickart. In addition, the future waste water flows have been revised based on 800 pad. 15 Solar Access (Patrick Boylan 651 602 1438). Update does not have required policies addressing solar access. Response Solar Access policies has be added to the Comprehensive Plan. Surface Water Management (Jim Larsen 651 602 -1159 and Judy Sventek 651 602 -1156) The Update is incomplete for surface water management. Rosemount lies entirely within the Vermillion River watershed. The Vermillion River Joint Powers Board's Watershed Management Plan was approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in 2005. Rosemount prepared a comprehensive storm water management plan (CSWMP) in 2007. The Update references the City's CSWMP and states it is included as an appendix. The CSWMP is not included as an appendix and therefore it is not possible to determine its adequacy in meeting the requirements for local water management plans. Response The provided a copy of the CSWMP to the Metropolitan Council for their review in 2007. The same CS 'IV1MP was not sspplied to the Metropolitan Council again because it would be a redundant review. The CSWMP needs to be included so Council staff can determine if the plan is the same as the plan reviewed by the Council in 2007 or if changes have been made to address the comments sent to the City under separate letter for the CSWMP. Following is a summary of the comments sent to the City on the CSWMP in 2007. The Mississippi River is impaired in the stretch that borders Rosemount. Spring Lake is impaired for nutrients and mercury and also borders Rosemount. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is completing the total maximum daily load study (TMDL) for Lake Pepin which should also include recommendations for Spring Lake. The results of the TMDL study may have a major implact on all NPDES permittees in the Metro Area. The City should be engaged in the TMDL efforts for these water bodies and be aware of the potential need to amend their local water management plan based on the implications and requirements of the Lake Pepin TMDL. Response The City looks forward to continuing to follow the status and becoming engaged in the Lake Pepin TMDL and will consider methods to address additional requirements if needed pursuant to the Lake Pepin TMDL when these requirements become formally identified within these reports. Section IV subsection IV-A has been revised to reference the ongoing TMDL studies. Related to the bullet above, section IV, page 1 states that there are no impaired waters in Rosemount. Both the Mississippi River and Spring Lake border the City and have been listed as impaired. The plan should be changed to reflect this. Response Section IV-A.1 has been revised to identify the ongoing TMDLs including the following updated text, `As necessary, consider the need to collect data and conduct water quality monitoring related to anticipated implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies and reports when and if they are required by the MPCA. The 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan requires local water management plans to incorporate information required in their SWPPP on nondegradation into local water management plans. This information is not in the plan. 16 Response A summary of the City's SIFPPP is provided in Appendix L and has been referenced in Sections IV and V of the Plan. The Nondegradation Report has been identified in Subsection A of Section IV and the water quality treatment subsection of Section V. It is suggested that the City use the infiltration rates recommended in Chapter 12 of the Minnesota Storm Water Manual as a guide for sizing infiltration practices. Response Infiltration rates have been revised pursuant to VRIVJPO standards. (See Section V, page 10) The plan does not include specific quantifiable goals for the lakes in the community. The City is encouraged to establish numerical standards for each lake in the City. Numerical standards are needed to provide quantifiable goals for the water resources in the community. Response Plan has been revised to include MPCA's ecoregion eutrophication standards in Appendix S. Section V of the Plan has been revised to establish a process for the City to consider development of waterbody Eutrophication standards (see Section V, page 10). The City has plans to monitor lake levels in Keegan lake. Council staff encourages the City to gather water quality information for Keegan Lake and any other lakes where lake goals are established. Response The Plan already includes a program to consider establishment of a cost -share program for volunteer monitoring program on critical waterbodies (Table VI -2, SMP 12) The plan does a good job of assessing the problem areas and including corrective actions needed to fix the identified problems. Response Thank you for the acknowledgement. The City's current code requires peak runoff rates for proposed development to not exceed the 10 and 100 -year storm events. It is recommended that the code be amended to require peak runoff rates not to exceed the 1 -year storm event as well as the 10 and 100 -year storm events, which would be consistent with the Minnesota Storm Water Manual guidelines and the Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization's requirements. Response The Current City requirement to store runoff from the 100 year, 24 -hour storm event (without discharge) for new development exceeds the VRWJPO standard for Peak Runoff Rate Control Critetia 2. Transportation (Ann Braden 651 602 1705). The Council will be asking separately for TAZ forecasts for 2020. They may want to have their consultants prepare these at the same time as other work being done in this area. Response The City will work with the Metropolitan Council or their consultant in providing the data necessary when it is requested. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. The plan does not describe what transit market area the city is in. Below is text from their system statement, which would help answer this omission. Rosemount is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. The western portion of Rosemount is within Market Area III; the eastern portion in Market Area W. Service options for Market Area III include peak -only express, small vehicle circulators, midday circulators, special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. Service options for Market Area IV include dial -a -ride, volunteer driver programs, and ridesharing. Response The description of the Transit Market Area will be revised based on the above comment. 17 The Handbook requires a policy that the municipality will work with the Metropolitan Council or with an opt -out transit provider to determine future transit services consistent with the municipality's transit market area and its associated service standards and strategies. Response The City is aware of this requirement and will work with Metropolitan Council and MVTA to coordinate the proposed transit service within the City. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Transit funding chart: p. 2, shows that property taxes have gone to MVTA, this is incorrect. Property taxes go to the Council to pay for capital cost of the transit system, not the operating costs to MVTA. Response -This statement will be revised in the Transit Plan. On page 9, the Robert Street study found no financially viable rail or BRT with a dedicated right -of -way in the Robert Street corridor. The current transportation plan does not call for any intensive investments in this corridor between now and 2030. The transportation plan that was adopted January 14, 2009 calls for a study for Arterial Bus Rapid Transit for Robert Street. This BRT would function in mixed traffic. Response At the time the Draft Transportation Plan was prepared the Robert Street Study was not completed. The description of the findings of the Study on Page 9 will be updated according. There are many other transit funding sources other than those in figure 4.0. The Motor Vehicle Sales Tax, State General Funds and federal funds are the major source of operating subsidy. There are four federal programs (New Starts, CMAQ /STP, discretionary funds and formula funds), several state sources (trunk highway bonds, general bonds, MVST and state general revenues), and regional transit capital and CTIB as local funds. I am unsure what this is contributing to the City's comprehensive plan, however. Response Section 4.0 of the Transit Plan will be updated to reflect a more comprehensive list of available transit finding sources. The Cities purpose of including this discussion, was to ident for City decision makers the possible funding opportunities they may e.r plore for Transit related improvement. 18 EXCERPT OF MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2009 5.a. Conduct a Public Hearing for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and make a Recommendation to the City Council. Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the staff report including the comments received from various entities and the recommended responses to same. Mr. Zweber reviewed the timeline for the remaining approval process including the motion for approval at tonight's meeting, followed by the April 15` City Council work session to resolve a few policy issues, and finally the May 5t City Council meeting for approval to submit to the Met Council. Chairperson Messner asked if the map at Figure 3.8.B. within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Plan identified the zoning or guiding of those areas. Mr. Zweber replied that the map does identify the underlying zoning, but stated that the comp plan map may be the more appropriate map rather than zoning. With respect to the Ag Preserves issue, Chairperson Messner asked about the areas that have already been guided to designations other than Agricultural or Agricultural Preserves. He asked what has changed in the statute as it relates to those areas and whether or not those areas need to be changed. Mr. Zweber replied that it is the Met Council's current interpretation of the same statute that was then in effect. He stated other cities have had past comp plan amendments approved with no comment. Further, he stated he may use a current land use map and a future intended map and staff will continue to work on this issue. The public hearing was opened at 7:16p.m. Irene Beberg, daughter of Olga Treise, owner of approximately 54 acres at the corner of McAndrews and Highway 3, approached the Commission. She had spoken to the Commission before and still maintains that to obtain the best use for her property, she needs to be provided sewer and water. Ms. Beberg stated her property should be developed to help benefit the City's tax base. She stated her difficulty with the changes the State legislature made with respect to green acres wherein she would have to pay seven years in back taxes on any wetlands or low lands taken out of green acres. She asked if the property could possibly be mined as it is high in gravel density and she has been approached by mining companies in the past. In addition, Ms. Beberg mentioned that her mother paid assessment fees when the City constructed McAndrews Road and there was agreement that a cut -in onto the Treise property was to be constructed in the event they ever developed. She stated her mother also donated easements for drainage during the road construction. Ms. Beberg stated her family feels they should receive some consideration in the treatment of their parcel to help in development. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Howell to close the public hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 5. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:29p.m. Chairperson Messner stated his appreciation for Ms. Beberg's request but stated his concern that even though the property is close to the City of Eagan, it is a distance from the City of Rosemount's current MUSA line and would be quite an expense to provide her sewer and water. In addition, the general consensus of area residents has been to keep as much property as possible rural residential, and therefore, he stated he would not be in favor of changing the zoning of the Treise parcel for commercial or higher density development. MOTION by Schwartz to recommend approval of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan with the proposed revisions and responses within the Response Letter. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion approved. As follow -up, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go before City Council at a work session on April 15, 2009, and tentatively at their regulax meeting on May 5, 2009. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Twin Cities Campus Office of the Vice President for Statewide McNamara Alumni Center Strategic Resource Development 200 Oak Street S.E. Suite 450 Minneapolis, MN 55455 Office: 612- 624 -5387 Fax: 612- 624 -4843 February 23, 2009 Mr. Eric Zweber, Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: City of Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Zweber: Thank you for your recent letter noting the deadline for comments on the Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As you know, members of our UMore Park consulting team worked with your office last May to suggest language for the Comprehensive Plan update that clearly articulates the University's intent to develop the property over the next 10 to 20 years. You and other Rosemount staff were gracious in taking our suggestions and adding them to 'various sections of the plan including the land use and housing chapters. As a result, we are confident that the current plan clearly identifies our collective interest in seeing the property develop in the years ahead. Consistent with the language in the Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan dram, we look forward to initiating efforts in the next couple of months that will lead to further modifications to the Plan to guide the development of the UMore Park site. We envision this process as well as required environmental reviews occurring throughout 2009 and into 2010. We look forward to working with you and other Rosemount staff members on this exciting endeavor. Sincer ly, Z/ Charles C. Muscoplat Vice President c: Carla Carlson Mark Koegler Larry Laukka Driven to DiscoversM ■tA Es0t Minnesota Department of Transportation 2 a Metropolitan District e Waters Edge o l-Fte 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 -3174 February 25, 2009 Kim Lindquist Community Development Director City of Rosemount City Hall 2875 —145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 4997 SUBJECT: City of Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan Mn/DOT Review CPA09 -004 City Wide Rosemount/Dakota County Control Section: 1921 Dear Ms. Lindquist: Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Mn/DOT has the following comments: 1. Page 7 notes an inordinate number of accidents at TH 3 and Canada Avenue. This information has been forwarded to Mn/DOT Traffic Section for further review and analysis. 2. Page 14, and other areas in the Transportation Section, note that the interchange at TH 52 /CSAH 42 is slated for reconstruction in 2009. Please note that at this time, only design work and right -of -way acquisition from willing sellers is being tasked. 3. Page 14 also notes an interchange at TH 3 /CSAH 42. Please note that Mn/DOT has not identified funding for an interchange at this location. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Ken Johnson, Mn/DOT's Area Engineer, at (651) 234 -7718. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7797. Sin -re Wi Senior Planner An equal opportunity employer It Metropolitan Council October 23, 2008 Janelle Miersch Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 Re: Water Supply Plan City of Rosemount Metropolitan Council File Referral No.20341 -1 Metropolitan Council District 16 Dear Ms Miersch: The Metropolitan Council (Council) has completed its review of Rosemount's water supply plan as required under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.859, subd.3. As agreed upon, please include the following comments with the Department of Natural Resources' comments on the water supply plan. The city's average residential per capita demand over the past 5 years was 92.76 gallons/day, which is slight higher than the 2002 metropolitan average of 75 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The city's maximum to average day ratio, which is 2.8, is also higher than the 2.6 benchmark. The conservation section of the plan describes programs designed to lower this demand. The Council encourages the city to continue implementing its programs and potentially expanding its programs targeted at reducing water use during peak periods. For more information on water conservation programs the Council invites the city to visit the Council's water conservation toolbox http: /www.metrocouncil.org/ environment/ WaterSupp )y /conseivationtoolbox.htm This letter completes the Council's review process. Should any questions arise on the Council's review comments or on the process it followed, please feel free to contact Sara Bertelsen at (651) 602 -1035. Sincerely, Keith Buttleman Assistant General Manager, Environmental Quality Assurance Cc: Rick Cook, City of Rosemount Brian McDaniel, Metropolitan Council Member, District 16 Patrick Boylan, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative www.metrocouncil.org Environmental Services 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 (651) 602 -1005 Fax (651) 602 -1477 TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer October 2, 2008 Eric Zweber, Senior Planner Rosemount City Hall 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 RE: City of Lakeville Review Comments City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan. Dear Mr. Zweber: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft City of Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Overall, the plan is well written and very comprehensive; however the City of Lakeville has the following review comments: Transportation Plan. At the bottom of Page 7 of the Transit Plan the text should be changed to state the BRT will operate from "Bloomington to CSAH 70 (215 Street) in Lakeville In addition, the transit plan may be updated with the current federal Urban Partnership Agreement grant initiatives that include a park and ride site near 179 Street and Cedar Avenue for operation in 2009. The forecasted traffic counts in the Transportation Plan do not anticipate traffic from UMore Park or from the Air Cargo property. If improvements occur on these sites a detailed traffic analyses should be completed. Lakeville has no comments regarding the sanitary sewer, water, and drainage plans. Land Use Plan. Lakeville has no comments regarding the Land Use Plan. The proposed land use designations in Rosemount, adjacent to the City of Lakeville, are consistent with Lakeville's proposed land use designations as shown on the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Parks and Recreation Plan. The City of Rosemount and the City of Lakeville touch borders at the intersection of 160 Street and Diamond Path. There is no linear connection between the two communities. As such, Rosemount's park system planning does not directly affect the City of Lakeville. However, Lakeville is affected with respect to cross over participation between participants in youth athletic associations. Many residents living in northeast Lakeville attend the Rosemount School District. Those students tend to be associated with the Rosemount Athletic Association for all major youth sports. With that, some priority usage of Lakeville facilities are offered for use by the Rosemount Athletic Association. To date we have City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Phone (952) 985 -4400 FAX (952) 985 -4499 www.lakevillemn.gov accommodated Rosemount's request for facilities such as outdoor ice, lacrosse, soccer, baseball and softball without incident. Rosemount's Park Plan uses national standards and provides for a typical smaller suburban park system. Rosemount also shows the necessary trail corridors and futures greenways associated with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council's long range plans. Future preservation of undeveloped land owned by the University of Minnesota (UMore Park) may be beneficial to Rosemount and Lakeville residents as sections are designated for public open space and recreational opportunities. If you have any questions regarding the above review comments please contact me at 952 -985- 4424 or by e-mail at akuennen Thank you again for the opportunity to review the draft City of Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Sincerely, Al tfi G. Kuennen, AICP Associate Planner cc: Steve Mielke, City Administrator Daryl Morey, Planning Director Dave Olson, Community and Economic Development Director Keith Nelson, City Engineer Steve Michaud, Parks and Recreation Director February 19, 2009 Eric Zweber Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Mr. Zweber, City of Inver Grove Heights www.ci.inver-grove-heights.mn.us RE: REVIEW OF ROSEMOUNT'S 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Inver Grove Heights appreciates the opportunity to review the draft City of Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan and offers the following comments: Land Use The Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights Land Use Plans do not indicate any major changes along our mutual boundary with the exception of a new land use designation within the City of Inver Grove Heights located around Rich Valley Boulevard towards Akron Avenue (see attached map for location). The new land use designation is called Industrial Open Space and was created to act as a buffer around the heavy industrial uses in the area (such as the landfill and Flint Hill Refinery) and the rural residential uses. The existing and proposed land uses of the two cities are compatible with one another. Parks and Open Space There is one area in the two cities' park and trail plans that are not compatible. The Inver Grove Heights Park Plan shows a trail connection in the southwest part of our city extending to the mutual boundary whereas the Rosemount plan does not show a trail connection in this area (see attached map). Inver Grove Heights requests that the City of Rosemount consider a future connection in this area. Transportation The transportation plans of Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights are compatible. The Rosemount Transportation plan demonstrates a future roadway (120th Street) along the 8150 Barbara Ave. Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 -3412 Telephone: 651 -450 -2500 Fax: 651 450 -2502 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan February 18, 2009 Page 2 mutual city boundary's located in the southwest portion of Inver Grove Heights. Inver Grove Heights does not represent the 120th Street improvement in our Comprehensive Plan but would be willing to consider it further with the City of Rosemount once more information becomes available. Mississippi River The preservation and protection of sensitive environmental features and the regulation of land uses along the Mississippi River is a major concern of Inver Grove Heights. To that extent, we appreciate Rosemount's plans for the preservation, protection, and regulation of the Mississippi River Corridor. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on Rosemount's Draft Comprehensive Plan, the City of Inver Grove Heights looks forward to working with your city as our two communities continue to grow. Sincerely, CI OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS f eather Gotten Associate Planner City of Eapll Mike Maguire MAYOR Paul Bakken Cyndee Fields Meg Tilley COUNCIL MEMBERS Thomas Hedges CITY ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL CENTER 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 -1810 651.675.5000 phone 651.675.5012 fax 651.454.8535 TDD MAINTENANCE FACILITY 3501 Coachman Point Eagan, MN 55122 651.675.5300 phone 651.675.5360 fax 651.454.8535 TDD www.cityofeagan.com THE LONE OAK TREE The symbol of strength and growth In our community. February 13, 2009 ERIC ZWEBER CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 145TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 RE: City of Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan Dear Eric, Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on Rosemount's Comprehensive Guide Plan Update. As you are aware, the Highway 3 corridor study is currently underway and there are known capacity issues at the Highway 55 149 intersection. Further, the City of Eagan restates the following comment authorized by the Eagan City Council at its meeting of October 18, 2005: The City of Eagan recognizes that pressure for development will result in continued development in the City of Rosemount and other communities to the south and east of Eagan. The City is concerned about the traffic impacts of continued development that will affect Highway 3, Highway 52, and Highway 55 and believes that there is a need for the cities, Dakota County, the region, and the state to cooperatively address the need for transportation improvements in this part of the County and region between County Road 42 and I -494. If you have any questions concerning the Council action or this letter, please let me know. Sincerely, Jon Hohenstein Community Development Director cc: Tom Colbert, Director of Public Works Mike Ridley, City Planner FEB VglUTI[11 1 7 2009 By Physical Development Division Dakota County Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 -8579 952.891.7000 Fax 952.891.7031 www.dakotacounty.us Environmental Mgmt. Department Farmland Natural Areas Program Office of GIS Parks Department Office of Planning Surveyor's Office Transit Office Transportation Department Water Resources Office February 6, 2009 Eric Zweber, Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Dear Mr. Zweber: Sincerely, Enclosures (2) Lynn Thompson, Director Physical Development Division FEB 1 7 2009 By Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Rosemount's comprehensive plan. Dakota County staff reviewed the City's plan through the lens of five guiding principles that shaped the Dakota County Comprehensive Plan: Sustainability; Living in ways that do not place undue burdens on the environmental, economic or social systems of future generations; Connectedness; Completeness of systems and recognition of the complexity of relationships among systems; Collaboration; Working together with private and public entities to advance shared goals; Economic Vitality; Having a well- trained, well- educated workforce and the infrastructure needed to compete in a global economy; Growing and Nurturing People; Delivering services in such a manner that all residents are enabled to live healthy, fulfilling lives. We are pleased to see the City included the spirit of these guiding principles throughout its comprehensive plan. Enclosed are our comments on the plan. Please contact Kurt Chatfield (kurt.chatfield co.dakota.mn.us, 952.891.7022) if you have any questions or if we can supply any more information. We look forward to working with the City to achieve our shared objectives. cc: Commissioner Willis E. Branning, Seventh District Brandt Richardson, County Administrator Patrick Boylan, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative Dakota County Staff Comments on Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan February 6, 2009 Parks and open space The Rosemount Parks and Open Space Plan provides clear direction and addresses future growth related park needs. The underlying park system analyses and public engagement activities provide an excellent base for proposed system enhancements. Dakota County staff look forward to collaborating with Rosemount on greenways and trails within the City. Strengthening connections from City parks, trails and neighborhoods to regional parks and greenways are priorities we share. County staff are very interested in working further with the City on alignments of regional trails identified in the Metropolitan Council System Statement. The Rosemount Interpretive Trail to Spring Lake Park Reserve and the North -South Greenway between Lebanon Hills and the new regional park in the Vermillion Highlands complex are vital links that advance an interconnected greenway system. We offer the following comments: Showing generalized corridors for trails proposed on page 20 would be a helpful addition to Appendix D, the Rosemount park, trail and open space plan map. Differentiating the parks in the map of existing parks by the classifications shown on Page 19 would help the reader visualize the system. It appears that Appendix C, Functional Classification and Ped Crossing Areas, shows the functional classification of roadways and pedestrian crossings but does not include a legend for road classes. The plan addresses regional facilities in the Metropolitan Council System Statement by including a County prepared map illustrating the collaborative greenway concept (Appendix A). This map is now outdated and could be improved to include the new regional park in Empire Township and should include labeling of major regional facilities if it is used as a regional context map. County staff will supply an updated version to Rosemount. Text on Page 6 refers to the regional context map as Appendix A, although this map is actually presented in Appendix B and listed thus in the table of contents. The map of existing parks is incorrectly referenced as Appendix B in the text on Page 7. The numbering identified in the table of contents is inconsistent with the plan's page numbering. Roadways Page 2 Please consider adding a statement that Dakota County has access spacing guidelines for County highways under the City's primary strategies. 1 Dakota County Staff Comments on Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan Page 5 CSAH 38 is shown as a collector in Figure 2.2 but is missing from the list of collector streets; please include the road in the list. Page 9 The City's transportation plan lists various strategies to address mobility and access issues along TH 3 and CSAH 42. The city should also consider adding an additional strategy to support future six -lane right of way needs on CSAH 42 (west of TH 3) as development and redevelopment opportunities arise. Page 14 Please note Dakota County is updating its travel demand model and its transportation policy plan in 2009/2010. Thus, updated information regarding roadway capacity (and 2030 forecast traffic levels, Figure 4.2) will be available in 2009. Page 14 The City may wish to include the Rosemount Empire UMore Area Transportation System Study in the list of multi jurisdictional planning studies. This effort could also be referenced as part of the overall North -South Principal Arterial Study identified in the current County transportation plan. Page 16 The City may wish to note it has officially mapped the TH 52 CSAH 42 interchange to preserve right of way and that recent interchange modifications likely will prompt additional official mapping. Figure 4.2 —.2030 traffic forecasts for CSAH 38, CSAH 71 and CR 73 are much higher than the County's forecasts for 2025. County staff understand the City has developed land use projections since the time of the County's projections. Staff anticipate working closely with the City in identification of future land uses and development of the County's travel demand model update to occur in 2009. Figure 5.2 Staff suggest that this figure show the entire CSAH 42 Access Plan for the City and not just for segments east of TH 3. This would include the identification of: Full access intersection at Diamond Path (CSAH 33) Full access at Shannon Parkway Partial access between Shannon Parkway and Chippendale Avenue Full access at Chippendale Avenue Partial access at Canada Avenue Grade separation at TH 3 Partial access at Business Parkway Full access at Biscayne Avenue Figure 5.2 incorrectly shows the CSAH 42 access at Auburn Avenue as a full access intersection. The updated recommended roadway improvements for.Segment 15 (from TH 3 to TH 52), approved in 2007, identifies the intersection as a partial access. Page 23 A figure showing the existing approved roadway functional classification system would be helpful in comparison to Figure 5.3 depicting the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification. 2 Dakota County Staff Comments on Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan Dakota County has similar natural resource, waste reduction and recycling goals and strategies as the City. County staff welcome opportunities to partner and offer assistance to the City as education and outreach is developed. County staff support Rosemount's plan as it relates to surface water. Staff look forward to continuing to work with the City in its efforts to improve surface water quality and quantity. Numerous contaminated sites exist throughout Dakota County and in the City of Rosemount. When planning redevelopment or new development projects, please contact the County Water Resources Department at (952) 891 -7000 for assistance in identifying whether such sites exist in the project vicinity so cleanup can be addressed. Historic preservation and reuse Comments from Dakota County Historical Society staff The draft comprehensive plan for Rosemount addresses historic preservation and reuse through active partnership with the Rosemount Area Historical Society. It appears this partnership has produced positive results. The next step for the City of Rosemount is to develop a historic preservation commission and /or adopt local ordinances that will legally protect historic sites that might be overlooked by either the City or Society. Dakota County Historical Society staff suggest that Rosemount consider the following additional actions if the City wants to advance historic preservation: Establish a historic preservation commission Maintain support materials for property owners and developers, including information regarding national, state and local historical preservation agencies Study and develop community- appropriate policies and initiatives Revise the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate plans developed by the historic preservation commission (if formed) Resources available to the City should it want to consider historic preservation include: Farmington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, City of Farmington Donovan D. Rypkema, "The Economics of Historic Preservation," National Trust for Historic Preservation "Feasibility Assessment Manual for Reusing Historic Buildings," National Trust for Historic Preservation Housing The text reference to the recent Maxfield housing study should be corrected from "Maxwell" to say "Maxfield The city may also wish to add the most recent Metropolitan Council population, household, and building permit data to the tables and figures. During 2011 -2020, the household growth projection shows an increase of 3,500 units. During that same period, the Metropolitan Council has identified Rosemount's affordable housing needs to be 923 units, or 26 percent of those additional units. To meet this in 10 years, an average of 92 affordable owner and /or rental units would be constructed each year. The paragraph on affordable housing states Rosemount should be able to meet this need in cooperation with the CDA and continued development of multiple- and small single- Dakota County Staff Comments on Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan Staff suggest that the plan include additional language to stress the importance of connectivity and completeness of local street networks. Developing a good system of local streets is a major factor in accomplishing: reduced trips through signalized intersections, thereby reducing delay for all travelers reduced exposure to crashes in general reduced need to access higher speed and higher volume roadways, thereby reducing the likelihood of injury crashes reduced trip lengths, travel times and fuel usage reduced emergency response times by police, fire and ambulance increased for travelers as issues arise (roadway construction, congestion, emergency closures, etc.) increased options for pedestrian and bicycle trips Transit The Rosemount Transit Plan does a good job identifying: Transit issues affecting the City, including the issue of service equity among communities with growing populations and more mature communities. The Robert Street Corridor Study and its potential impacts to the City of Rosemount and the proposed UMore development. The potential positive impacts of connecting the Cedar Avenue Transitway and the Robert Street Corridor Transitway with County Highway 42. The importance of transit oriented development. Nonmotorized transportation Staff support the City's Active Living language and initiatives found throughout the plan. Staff look forward to continuing to work with the City as our Active Living partnership continues. Environment Dakota County staff support Rosemount's inclusion of sustainability in its plan. The City could further its commitment by: Considering (as the plan suggests) sustainable energy- efficient building programs and guidelines to ensure continued affordability and occupancy in residential development, similar to development guidelines for commercial development outlined in the plan. Adopting sustainable building guidelines, such as Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, for all City -owned facilities in addition to the sustainable building guidelines outlined for commercial (re)development. County staff are encouraged by the City's engagement of the community in environmental management planning, implementation and education. County staff look forward to working with the Environmental Advisory Committee on future efforts, as appropriate. As Rosemount continues to develop industry, it is progressive for the City to look toward clean industry and "green jobs" to develop the economy while promoting community well- being. 3 Dakota County Staff Comments on Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan family housing. During that time, the CDA might construct one or two more affordable family townhomes of 30 -40 units each and one more affordable senior building of 50 -70 units. This would be 110 -150 units of the total need of 923, so a majority of affordable housing must be provided within non -CDA developments. Section 4 of the Housing Element Goals and Policies should not refer to the Dakota County cluster; it no longer exists. Economic development The City might wish to include employment estimates and projections to the plan. For reference, the City's 2000 -2007 employment growth was 17.6 percent, compared with the County's growth of 15.8 percent. The Metropolitan Council's projections show 8,400 in 2010, 10,100 in 2020 and 12,200 in 2030 for Rosemount. The City's estimated growth rate from 2010 -30 is 45 percent, compared with that for Dakota County at 19 percent. We note that the wage information provided by four Rosemount industries shows a significantly lower average wage in Rosemount compared with the metro area. This may indicate a need to provide support for future higher wage jobs to locate in Rosemount as well as support the need for additional affordable housing. 5 City of Cottage Grove J Minnesota 7516 80th Street South Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 -3195 651 -458 -2800 Fax 651 458 -2897 www.cottage- grove.org TDD 651 -458 -2880 August 28, 2008 Mr. Eric Zweber Senior Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 RE: City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Zweber: The City of Cottage Grove has reviewed the Rosemount draft comprehensive plan that was submitted as required. The only comment on the plan that are forwarding is related to the potential future Mississippi River crossing that is briefly covered in the Dakota County draft compre- hensive plan, but not in your document. The recent construction and reconstruction of the existing bridges that span between Washington and Dakota Counties high- light the importance of these links within out counties' common transportation system. The possibility of a third regional river crossing occurring sometime in the future seems to be a reality as population growth and transportation needs in- crease. The City of Cottage Grove would welcome the opportunity to participate jointly in any future planning discussions that would occur on this topic. Good luck on the rest of your comprehensive planning process. Ri gards, t-- tkA Jbh i M. Burbank, AICP Senior Planner EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Office of the Clerk 9090 170` Street East Hastings MN 55033 Eric Zweber City of Rosemount 2875 145 St W Rosemount MN 55068 Dear Mr. Zweber: After reviewing your 2030 Comprehensive Plan update, Vermillion Township does not have any comments. Sincerely, Maryann Stoffel Vermillion Township Clerk Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan Comments and Responses Below is a summary of the comments received regarding the Rosemount 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the City's response to the comments. MnDOT: 1. Page 7 notes an inordinate number of accidents at TH 3 and Canada Avenue. This information has been forwarded to Mn /DOT Traffic Section for further review and analysis. Response The Ci y submitted a Municipal Cooperative agreement application in September 2008 for improving this intersection. As the project was not selected forf finding in FY 2010, the Ciy will continue to work with MnDOT and submit a Municipal Cooperative agreement application for safety improvements to this intersection. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. 2. Page 14, and other areas in the Transportation Section, note that the interchange at TH 52 /CSAH 42 is slated for reconstruction in 2009. Please note that at this time, only design work and right -of -way acquisition from willing sellers is being tasked. Response The Transportation Plan will be revised based on these comments and note that the anticipated timeline for the project is determined by Dakota Count'. 3. Page 14 also notes an interchange at TH 3 /CSAH 42. Please note that Mn /DOT has not identified funding for an interchange at this location. Response The Ci y understands that funding is not identified for an interchange at TH 3 and CSAH 42. This interchange was identified by Dakota Coun y in previous plans and the City supports planning for a future interchange at this location. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. City of Lakeville: Transportation Plan: At the bottom of Page 7 of the Transit Plan the text should be changed to state the BRT will operate from "Bloomington to CSAH 70 (215 Street) in Lakeville In addition, the transit plan may be updated with the current federal Urban Partnership Agreement grant initiatives that include a park and ride site near 179 Street and Cedar Avenue for operation in 2009. Res The Transit Plan will be revised based on these comments. The forecasted traffic counts in the Transportation Plan do not anticipate traffic from UMore Park or from the Air Cargo property. If improvements occur on these sites a detailed traffic analysis should be completed. Response A corridor study is currently in process through Dakota County for the UMore Park area in the cry of Rosemount and Empire Township. Furthermore, an environmental review is anticipated to be completed for the proposed UMore Park development which will include a detailed traffic analysis. The Air Cargo facili y is not proposed in the immediate future and the development of a faciliO will ultimately depend on State legislation. Should this or any other major land use be proposed in the City of Rosemount, detail traffic studies will be required. 1 Any results of these Ira c studies will be included as supplements to the Cites Transportation Plan. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Lakeville has no comments regarding the sanitary sewer, water and drainage plans. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Land Use Plan. Lakeville has no comments regarding the Land Use Plan. The proposed land use designations in Rosemount, adjacent to the City of Lakeville, are consistent with Lakeville's proposed land use designations as shown on the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Parks and Recreation Plan. The City of Rosemount and the City of Lakeville touch borders at the intersection of 160 Street and Diamond Path. There is no linear connection between the two communities. As such, Rosemount's park system planning does not directly affect the City of Lakeville. However, Lakeville is affected with respect to cross over participation between participants in youth athletic association. Many residents living in northeast Lakeville attend the Rosemount School District. Those students tend to be associated with the Rosemount Athletic Association for all major youth sports. With that, some priority usage of Lakeville facilities are offered for use by the Rosemount Athletic Association. To date we have accommodated Rosemount's request for facilities such as outdoor ice, lacrosse, soccer, baseball and softball without incident. Response Staff agrees with comment and requests that the topic of shame be reviewed on an annual basis. Rosemount's Park Plan uses national standards and provides for a typical smaller suburban park system. Rosemount also shows the necessary trail corridors and future greenways associated with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council's long range plans. Response Thank you foryour review, rzo change to the Plan is required. Future preservation of undeveloped land owned by the University of Minnesota (UMore Park) may be beneficial to Rosemount and Lakeville residents as sections are designated for public open space and recreational opportunities. Response Thankyou foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. City of Inver Grove Heights: Land Use The Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights Land Use Plans do not indicate any major changes along our mutual boundary with the exception of a new land use designation within the City of Inver Grove Heights located around Rich Valley Boulevard towards Akron Avenue (see attached map for location). The new land use designation is called Industrial Open Space and was created to act as a buffer around the heavy industrial uses in the area (such as the landfill and Flint Hill Refinery) and the rural residential uses. The existing and proposed land uses of the two cities are compatible with one another. 2 Response The City understands Inver- Grove Heights desire to buffer heavy industrial uses of Flint Hills and Pine Bend Landfill f om its residential land uses, but Rosemount intends to provide this separation in a different manner than Inver Grove Heights. Rosemount has chosen to buffer heavy industrial uses by placing more intensive (but generatingfewer nuisances) industrial and commercial uses between the heart' industrial uses and Rosemount's planned residential land uses. Parks and Open Space There is one area in the two cities' park and trail plans that are not compatible. The Inver Grove Heights Park Plan shows a trail connection in the southwest part of our city extending to the mutual boundary whereas the Rosemount plan does not show a trail connection in this area (see attached map). Inver Grove Heights requests that the City of Rosemount consider a future connection in this area. Response The City of Rosemount will include ident f ng a trail link from future park search area C- 2 on Rosemount's plan connecting to the trail identified in the Inver Grove Heights plan. Transportation The transportation plans of Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights are compatible. The Rosemount Transportation Plan demonstrates a future roadway (120 Street) along the mutual city boundaries located in the southwest portion of Inver Grove Heights. Inver Grove Heights does not represent the 120 Street improvement in our Comprehensive Plan but would be willing to consider it further with the City of Rosemount once more information becomes available. Re The City of Rosemount will continue to work with the City of Inver Grove Heights on this and other mutual transportation issues. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Mississippi River The preservation and protection of sensitive environmental features and the regulation of land uses along the Mississippi River is a major concern of Inver Grove Heights. To that extent, we appreciate Rosemount's plans for the preservation, protection, and regulation of the Mississippi River Corridor. Reponse Appendix B; The Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area Plan addresses the preservation, protection, and regulation of the Mississippi River corridor. City of Eagan: The City of Eagan recognizes that pressure for development will result in continued development in the City of Rosemount and other communities to the south and east of Eagan. The City is concerned about the traffic impacts of continued development that will affect Highway 3, Highway 52, and Highway 55 and believes that there is a need for the cities, Dakota County, the region, and the state to cooperatively address the need for transportation improvements in this part of the County and region between County Road 42 and I -494. Response The City of Rosemount is supportive of a Regional Transportation Study to further address f rture transportation impacts and issues in the area south of I -494 in Dakota Coungr. The City does however believe that the southern limit should be CSAH 46 not CSAH 42, which would include the future UMore property. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. 3 City of Cottage Grove: The only comment on the plan that we are forwarding is related to the potential future Mississippi River crossing that is briefly covered in the Dakota County draft comprehensive plan, but not in your document. The recent construction and reconstruction of the existing bridges that span between Washington and Dakota Counties highlight the importance of these links within our counties' common transportation system. The possibility of a third regional river crossing occurring sometime in the future seems to be a reality as population growth and transportation needs increase. The City of Cottage Grove would welcome the opportunity to participate jointly in any future planning discussions that would occur on this topic. Response The City of Rosemount is supportive of participating in a study discussion of a future river crossing. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Dakota County: Parks and open space The Rosemount Parks and Open Space Plan provides clear direction and addresses future growth- related park needs. The underlying park system analyses and public engagement activities provide an excellent base for proposed system enhancements. Dakota County staff looks forward to collaborating with Rosemount on greenways and trails within the City. Strengthening connections from City parks, trails and neighborhoods to regional parks and greenways are priorities we share. County staff are very interested in working further with the City on alignments of regional trails identified in the Metropolitan Council System Statement. The Rosemount Interpretive Trail to Spring Lake Park Reserve and the North -South Greenway between Lebanon Hills and the new regional park in the Vermillion Highlands complex are vital links that advance an interconnected greenway system. We offer the following comments• Showing generalized corridors for trails proposed on page 20 would be a helpful addition to Appendix D, the Rosemount park, trail and open space plan map. Response Proposed trail connections will be added to the plan where applicable. Differentiating the parks in the map of existing parks by the classifications shown on Page 19 would help the reader visualize the system. Response Park classifications will be added to the map of existing parks. It appears that Appendix C, Functional Classification and Ped Crossing Areas, shows the functional classification of roadways and pedestrian crossings but does not include a legend for road classes. Response A legend will be added to the Functional Classification and Ped Crossing Areas Map (Appendix C). The plan addresses regional facilities in the Metropolitan Council System Statement by including a County prepared map illustrating the collaborative greenway concept (Appendix A). This map is now outdated and could be improved to include the new regional park in Empire Township and should include labeling of major regional facilities if it is used as a regional context map. County staff will supply an updated version to Rosemount. Response -The City will request an updated map from Dakota County. Text on Page 6 refers to the regional context map as Appendix A, although this map is actually presented in Appendix B and listed thus in the table of contents. The map of existing parks is incorrectly referenced as Appendix B in the text on Page 7. Response The City will correct the description in the plan. The numbering identified in the table of contents is inconsistent with the plan's page numbering. Response -The Ciy will correct the page numbering in the plan Roadways Page 2 Please consider adding a statement that Dakota County has access spacing guidelines for County highways under the City's primary strategies. Response -The Counties access spacingguidelines are shown and discussed in Section 5, Table 5.2. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Page 5 CSAH 38 is shown as a collector in Figure 2.2 but is missing from the list of collector streets; please include the road in the list. Response The collector section of CSAH 38 has been turned back to the Ciy and has been renamed Bonaire Path. Bonaire Path is on the collector list in Section 2, page 5. Page 9 The City's transportation plan lists various strategies to address mobility and access issues along TH 3 and CSAH 42. The city should also consider adding an additional strategy to support future six -lane right of way needs on CSAH 42 (west of TH 3) as development and redevelopment opportunities arise. Response A fifth bullet point will be added stating the following– "As development occurs west of TH 3 along CSAH 42 the Ciy will work with Dakota County to ident opportunities for the reasonable acquisition of right -of -way for a future six lane roadway." Page 14 Please note Dakota County is updating its travel demand model and its transportation policy plan in 2009 /2010. Thus, updated information regarding roadway capacity (and 2030 forecast traffic levels, Figure 4.2) will be available in 2009. Response This comment is noted. The COI's 2030 forecasts are based on Metropolitan Council forecasts and future land use projections within the Ciy. The City will work with Dakota Coun y during the development of their Transportation Policy Plan update and 2030 forecasts. Page 14 The City may wish to include the Rosemount Empire UMore Area Transportation System Study in the list of multi- jurisdictional planning studies. This effort could also be referenced as part of the overall North -South Principal Arterial Study identified in the current County transportation plan. Response At the time the Draft Transportation Plan was produced, this study had not been started. A reference will be made to the study in Section 3.2. Page 16 The City may wish to note it has officially mapped the TH 52 CSAH 42 interchange to preserve right of way and that recent interchange modifications likely will prompt additional official mapping. Response A statement will be added indicating that the TH 52 CSAH 42 area has been officially mapped. 5 Figure 4.2 2030 traffic forecasts for CSAH 38, CSAH 71 and CR 73 are much higher than the County's forecasts for 2025. County staff understands the City has developed land use projections since the time of the County's projections. Staff anticipates working closely with the City in identification of future land uses and development of the County's travel demand model update to occur in 2009. Response -This comment is noted. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Figure 5.2 Staff suggest that this figure show the entire CSAH 42 Access Plan for the City and not just for segments east of TH 3. This would include the identification of: Full access intersection at Diamond Path (CSAH 33) Full access at Shannon Parkway Partial access between Shannon Parkway and Chippendale Avenue Full access at Chippendale Avenue Partial access at Canada Avenue Grade separation at TH 3 Partial access at Business Parkway Full access at Biscayne Avenue Response -Figure 5.2 will be revised to include the access plan for CSAH 42 through the City. Language will also be added to clarify that the city's acceptance and adoption of the County Road 42 Corridor Study in 1999 was conditional upon as noted in Resolution 1999- 11. Figure 5.2 incorrectly shows the CSAH 42 access at Auburn Avenue as a full access intersection. The updated recommended roadway improvements for Segment 15 (from TH 3 to TH 52), approved in 2007, identifies the intersection as a partial access. Response -Figure 5.2 will be modified to reflect this change. Page 23 A figure showing the existing approved roadway functional classification system would be helpful in comparison to Figure 5.3 depicting the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification. Response The Existing Roadway Functional Classification is shown in Figure 2.2. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Staff suggests that the plan include additional language to stress the importance of connectivity and completeness of local street networks. Developing a good system of local streets is a major factor in accomplishing: reduced trips through signalized intersections, thereby reducing delay for all travelers reduced exposure to crashes in general reduced need to access higher speed and higher volume roadways, thereby reducing the likelihood of injury crashes reduced trip lengths, travel times and fuel usage reduced emergency response times by police, fire and ambulance increased for travelers as issues arise (roadway construction, congestion, emergency closures, etc.) increased options for pedestrian and bicycle trips 6 Response The City feels that the current Transportation Plan does stress the connectivity and completeness of the local street network through the discussions in the Introduction Chapter 1.0. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Transit The Rosemount Transit Plan does a good job identifying: Transit issues affecting the City, including the issue of service equity among communities with growing populations and more mature communities. The Robert Street Corridor Study and its potential impacts to the City of Rosemount and the proposed UMore development. The potential positive impacts of connecting the Cedar Avenue Transitway and the Robert Street Corridor Transitway with County Highway 42. The importance of transit oriented development. Reiponse These comments are noted. No changes to the Transit Plan are required. Nonmotorized transportation Staff supports the City's Active Living language and initiatives found throughout the plan. Staff looks forward to continuing to work with the City as our Active Living partnership continues. Reiponse The City has added an Active L iv ng Plan as Appendix A of the Comprehensive Plan. Environment Dakota County staff supports Rosemount's inclusion of sustainability in its plan. The City could further its commitment by: Considering (as the plan suggests) sustainable energy efficient building programs and guidelines to ensure continued affordability and occupancy in residential development, similar to development guidelines for commercial development outlined in the plan. Response The City anticipates evaluating energy iczent building programs following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, but staff believes that it is premature to require guidelines before that evaluation, including the cost effectiveness of the programs and their ffect on the cost of home construction, is completed. Adopting sustainable building guidelines, such as Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, for all City -owned facilities in addition to the sustainable building guidelines outlined for commercial (re)development. Response Similar to the response above, it is anticipated that the City will evaluate building guidelines, but staff feels it is premature to adopt building guidelines before their impact is fully evaluated and vetted 7 County staff are encouraged by the City's engagement of the community in environmental management planning, implementation and education. County staff looks forward to working with the Environmental Advisory Committee on future efforts, as appropriate. Response If the City does establish an Environmental Adviso y Committee, its activities and effort will involve and be open to the general public, including Dakota Cou nty. As Rosemount continues to develop industry, it is progressive for the City to look toward clean industry and "green jobs" to develop the economy while promoting community well- being. Response Thank you for the comment, no change is required to the Plan. Dakota County has similar natural resource, waste reduction and recycling goals and strategies as the City. County staff welcomes opportunities to partner and offer assistance to the City as education and outreach is developed. Response Thankyou for the comment, no change is required to the Plan. County staff support Rosemount's plan as it relates to surface water. Staff looks forward to continuing to work with the City in its efforts to improve surface water quality and quantity. Response Thank you for the comment, no change is required to the Plan. Numerous contaminated sites exist throughout Dakota County and in the City of Rosemount. When planning redevelopment or new development projects, please contact the County Water Resources Department at (952) 891 -7000 for assistance in identifying whether such sites exist in the project vicinity so cleanup can be addressed. Response —The Ciy has worked with Dakota Count' cooperative in the past regarding contaminated sites and is appreciative of their assistance. The Ci y anticipates calling on the technical expertise and assistance of Dakota Count' when planning the redevelopment of an contaminated sites. Historic preservation and reuse Comments from Dakota County Historical Society staff The draft comprehensive plan for Rosemount addresses historic preservation and reuse through active partnership with the Rosemount Area Historical Society. It appears this partnership has produced positive results. The next step for the City of Rosemount is to develop a historic preservation commission and /or adopt local ordinances that will legally protect historic sites that might be overlooked by either the City or Society. Dakota County Historical Society staff suggests that Rosemount consider the following additional actions if the City wants to advance historic preservation: Establish a historic preservation commission Maintain support materials for property owners and developers, including information regarding national, state and local historical preservation agencies Study and develop community appropriate policies and initiatives Revise the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate plans developed by the historic preservation commission (if formed) Response Ciy staff does not anticipate establishing a Historic Preservation Commission at this time. While the Ciy has over 150 years of histoiy, the vast majority of the structures and site that have historic value in the City are located in Downtown. In 2004, the Ciy adopted the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount that describes the historic properties to he saved or redeveloped. Additional historic issues and fforts can be adequately addressed through the Planning Commission and /or Ciy Council. 8 Resources available to the City should it want to consider historic preservation include: Farmington Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, City of Farmington Donovan D. Rypkema, "The Economics of Historic Preservation," National Trust for Historic Preservation "Feasibility Assessment Manual for Reusing Historic Buildings," National Trust for Historic Preservation Housing The text reference to the recent Maxfield housing study should be corrected from "Maxwell" to say "Maxfield The city may also wish to add the most recent Metropolitan Council population, household, and building permit data to the tables and figures. Response The correction will be made. During 2011 -2020, the household growth projection shows an increase of 3,500 units. During that same period, the Metropolitan Council has identified Rosemount's affordable housing needs to be 923 units, or 26 percent of those additional units. To meet this in 10 years, an average of 92 affordable owner and /or rental units would be constructed each year. The paragraph on affordable housing states Rosemount should be able to meet this need in cooperation with the CDA and continued development of multiple- and small single family housing. During that time, the CDA might construct one or two more affordable family townhomes of 30 -40 units each and one more affordable senior building of 50 -70 units. This would be 110 -150 units of the total need of 923, so a majority of affordable housing must be provided within non -CDA developments. Response —First, the Ci y wishes to recognitie the extraordinary contribution that the CDA provides to both Rosemount and Dakota Coun y. That being said, the Ci y understands that the CDA will not construct and own 923 housing units between 2010 and 2020, but the CDA, as well as the numerous other entities sited in the Housing Element, is involved in many affordable housing projects in addition to the ones they construct and own. Recently, the CDA has been involved in the financing of the lVaterford Commons project that will provide 21 affordable units, as well as the CDA has been involved in rehabilitation and esthetic improvements in older affordable housing projects. The Ci y also has been involved in a number of projects that provide affordable housing, such as Waterford Commons and the Harmony development. The Ciy does not expect nor anticipate that the CDA would be the sole provider of affordable housing, but leveraging all available resources and parinership (including the CDA) will allow the City to meet its affordable housinggoals. Section 4 of the Housing Element Goals and Policies should not refer to the Dakota County cluster; it no longer exists. Response Section 4 will be corrected. Economic development The City might wish to include employment estimates and projections to the plan. For reference, the City's 2000 -2007 employment growth was 17.6 percent, compared with the County's growth of 15.8 percent. The Metropolitan Council's projections show 8,400 in 2010, 10,100 in 2020 and 12,200 in 2030 for Rosemount. The City's estimated growth rate from 2010 -30 is 45 percent, compared with that for Dakota County at 19 percent. Response Table 7.1 describes the employment projections, as well as the housing and population projects, for the Ci y through the year 2030. We note that the wage information provided by four Rosemount industries shows a significantly lower average wage in Rosemount compared with the metro area. This may indicate a need to provide support for future higher wage jobs to locate in Rosemount as well as support the need for additional affordable housing. 9 Response The City's Goals include provide jobs that provide wages that can support an entire household. The City would appreciate any assistance that the County can provide in achieving this goal. Metropolitan Council Historical Resources (Patrick Boylan 651 602 1438). The Update includes text and policies describing historical resources and therefore is complete. The Update references working with the Rosemount Historical Society. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Housing (Linda Milashius 651 602 1541). The Update is complete and fulfills the affordable housing planning requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Update acknowledges the City's share of the region's affordable housing need for 2011 -2020 which is 933 units. To provide opportunities to meet this need, the Update indicates that approximately 171 acres of land will be available for medium density residential development at 5 -10 units per acre and 20 acres are designated for high density residential development at 10 -24 units per acre. In addition, the Update includes a new land use category call Downtown, which will consist of 65 acres intended to provide for a variety of land uses that will include a mixed use zoning district, along with medium and high density residential. The Update provides the implementation tools and programs the City will use to promote opportunities to address its share of the region's housing need. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Parks Gan Youngquist 651 602 1029). The Update is complete for regional parks review purposes, but does not completely conform to the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan (Parks Policy Plan). The Update includes a map that depicts a regional greenway trail that was not identified as part of the regional parks system in the Parks Policy Plan. Response Dakota County provided the City with the greenway trail map. City staff will contact Dakota Coun y to get new map. Appendix B, the Regional Context map, appears to be an excerpt from Dakota County's draft comprehensive plan. The map includes a regional greenway trail connecting the Vermillion Highlands Greenway Regional Trail to Spring Lake Park Reserve. This is a trail that Dakota County is proposing to add to the regional system. The County could seek regional status for the trail during the next Parks Policy Plan update; however, the Council does not guarantee that the trail corridor will be incorporated into the regional system. Therefore, it must not be shown as a regional greenway trail in the comprehensive plan update. Response The City will correct the plan by labeling trails as regional only if identified as such by the Metropolitan Council. Appendix B also includes some suggested city greenway trails. It is not clear whether the City is endorsing these local greenway trails, since they are not addressed in the Update. Response The City will add language in reference to the greenway trails in Appendix B. Council staff recommends that instead of using the excerpt from Dakota County's draft comprehensive plan to show the regional park facilities in Rosemount, the Update needs to include a 2030 Park Plan Map that incorporates both local and regional park elements. The map needs to include the existing local parks and park search areas, the Rosemount Interpretive Trail Corridor, any proposed city greenway trails, as well as the regional park facilities, which include: 10 Spring Lake Park Reserve, the Mississippi River Regional Trail, ant the Vermillion Highlands Greenway Regional Trail (North /South Regional Trail Search Area). This would help show the interrelationship and connectivity between local and regional parks, trails and greenways. Response Staff will add a map to the plan that includes Local and regional park elements. Water Supply (Sara Smith 651 602 1035). The Update is complete and the City's Water Supply Plan (WSP) is consistent with the policies of the Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan. The Council recommends that the City continue to implement conservation programs targeted at reducing residential water use. Response Thank you foryour review, ITO change to the Plan is required. The city's average residential per capita demand over the page 5 years was 92.76 gallons /day, which is slightly higher than the 2002 metropolitan average of 75 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The city's maximum to average day ratio, which is 2.8, is also higher than the 2.6 benchmark. The conservation section of the plan describes programs designed to lower this demand. The Council encourages the city to continue implementing its programs and potentially expanding its programs targeted at reducing water use during peak periods. For more information on water conservation programs the Council invites the city to visit the Council's water conservation toolbox (http: /www.metrocouncil.org/ environment/ WaterSupply /conservationtoolbox.htm). Response- The City notes this comment and will continue to implement water conservation programs. Aggregate Resources Gim Larsen 651 602 1159). Minnesota Geological Survey Information Circular 46 indicates the presence of viable aggregate resources within the City. The Update acknowledges that aggregate resources are present. Extraction standards are presented in City Code Title 11, Chapter 10 -4, accessible on the City's website. The City encourages mining (considered to be incompatible with residential neighborhood development) to occur prior to urbanization, utilizing an interim use permit process for lands outside the 2020 MUSA. A reclamation plan is required of all applicable interim uses to ensure that orderly development can occur after the interim use has ceased to operate. Response Thank you for your review, no change to the Plan is required. The final Update submission needs to be revised to incorporate a land use map identifying the presence of the available aggregate resource areas, including their types, in accordance with Section 3, pages 3 -10 of the Council's Local Planning Handbook guidance. Airports (Chauncey Case 651 602 1724). The Update portion that pertains to aviation is incomplete. The text needs to be revised on page 10 of the Transportation Plan section. The last sentence in the paragraph needs to delete the text within the brackets, and substitute the following language in order to be consistent for review navigation... "...the FAA and MnDOT should be notified at least 30 days prior to any proposed project over 200' AGL This notification and height control text needs also to be included in the local ordinance. The City needs to refer to the Handbook and links for further clarification. Response Section 2.2 will be updated to reflect the revised language suggested above. Critical Area (Victoria Dupre 651 602 1621). The Update states that the critical area and MNRRA plan are "inco into Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan as Appendix (page 38 of submitted document)." Appendix was not part of the submittal. 11 Res The Mississippi River Critical Coi rzdorArea Plan is provided as Appendix B. If any portion of a municipality is located within the metropolitan Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor, that portion must be managed in such a way that land use meets federal and state guidelines. The City should review their Critical Area plans to ensure consistency between the guidelines and their land use plans and updates. Municipalities may also review and reconsider the protection and enhancement requirements of Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Plan as part of the comprehensive plan update process. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt section /critical area /map.html Response Appendix B: The Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area Plan addresses these issues. Forecasts (Todd Graham 651 602 1322). The Update is incomplete for forecast related material. Forecasts allocated to Transportation Analysis Zones are not included in the Update. The Update includes a City- requested revision of households and population forecasts in 2030. In January 2008, Council staff agreed to include these forecast revisions in Council Staff report and proposed action on the Update. Metropolitan Council's forecasts will be officially revised, as shown below, effective upon Council approval of the Update. Population Households Em loyment 2010 2020 2030 29,600 10,200 8,400 38,400 13,700 10,100 45,500 16,850 12,200 The forecasts above are consistently presented in Tables 2.1 and 7.1 of the Update. Elsewhere, one inconsistency needs to be corrected: Table 3.7 does not include the City's proposed forecast revision for 2020 -2030. Response Table 3.7 will be revised to be consistent with the agreed forecasts. Advisory comment: the Update states: "...the City anticipates that the potential future development of UMore Park will be in addition to the growth depicted within the 2030 Land Use Plan. The City expects that the population, households and employment forecasts will need to be increased due to the magnitude of this development." (pages 31 and 57) Council staff acknowledges that the 2030 Update may be amended in the future, and forecast revisions will be considered accordingly. Response Thank you foryour review, no change to the Plan is required. Implementation (Patrick Boylan 651 602 1438). The Update is incomplete for Implementation. It includes information on a Capital Improvement Plan, but needs to include a copy of the existing zoning ordinance or a detailed description of the zoning districts. Patrick Boylan can provide a sample. Response A detailed description of the tioning districts will be provided within the Land Use Element similar to the example provided by Patrick Boylan. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) aim Larsen 651 602 1159). The Update is incomplete for ISTS review. The Update indicates that there are approximately 384 ISTS in operation in the City. Properties served by ISTS are shown on Figure 5.2. The Update further indicates that property owners served by ISTS are required to connect to the City collection 12 system within ten (10) years of City service becoming available or when the City has determined the ISTS has failed, whichever is earlier. Current City Code Tide 9, Chapter 6, available on the City's website addresses ISTS installation, operation and maintenance. The ordinance is consistent with MPCA Chapter 7080 Rules and Council policies. The final submission of the Update needs to be revised to include a discussion of the City's tracking and notification program, indicating how homeowners are notified of their need to obtain a residential maintenance permit to have their ISTS inspected or pumped each three -year period, or if this function has been delegated to Dakota County. Response Text has been added to the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan to address the process the City conducts to ensure that ISTSs are impeded or pumped evey threeyears. Additionally, Section 301.01 of the Council's Waste Discharge Rules (Rules) require that within 24 months after a public sewer is connected to the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) becomes available to a property served by a private sewage disposal system or treatment works, a connection shall be made to the public sewer in accordance with the Rules. The City needs to update its Code to be in conformance with the Council's Waste Discharge Rule connection policy, available at: http: /wwwmetrocouncil.org/ environment /IndustrialWaste /index.htm. Response Staff understands that the AICES is planning to review and likely revise the regulations requiring the connections to the MDS. The City will monitor the review and revise its regulation in accordance with the revised regulations. Land Use (Patrick Boylan 651 602 1438). The Update is incomplete for review of land use. The Update does not address the Council's geographic planning area designations. The Council designates the City as a "developing community" and partially as an "agricultural" community. The Update needs to address these geographic designations. Response A map (Figure 7.1) has been provided to show the derent Metropolitan Council Geographic Planning Area Designations. Text will be added to the Comprehensive Plan to describe the impacts to these designations as a result of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The Update does not include an existing land use map or accompanying table showing acreages in each land use category. If the City does not have this information, it can be obtained from the Council. The Update does include a future land use map with accompanying table with the same land use categories, land use category descriptions with density ranges and tables showing 5 -year staging. Response A map (Figure 7.2) has been provided to show the existing (as of 2005) land uses. A table will be added to the Land Use Element to show the amount of land used by each land use. The Update includes detailed land use category descriptions for all land uses proposed in the City through 2030. In addition, it includes land use descriptions for residential categories and density ranges. The Update includes table 7.3, 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations and Table 7.3, 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations for each land use category. Residential density issues: Table 7.4: New Residential Land Uses in the 2030 Land Use Map attempts to demonstrate that the City can meet the Council's density requirement of 3.0 units per acre overall between 2020 and 2030. Using the minimum densities for each land use category, it comes out neatly to 3.00 units per acre. This table then shows 2,537 total residential units being created 2020 -2030. 13 Response The table number has been revised to Table 7.5. The City has revised its populationJorecasts and land use map. As a result of these revisions, the density between 2020 and 2030 has increased. The Update goes on to provide tables that stage development in five -year increments. For these tables, the Update departs from the lowest density in the range, and applies an units per acre somewhere within the range, but not the lowest part of the range. Using a number of units above the minimum number in the range yields densities in excess of 3.00 units per acre. However, applying the lowest number in the range yields densities lower than 3 00 units per acre. For example, Tables 7.9 2021 -2025 and 2026 -2030 Residential Development show fewer than the 845 acres called out as developable between 2020 and 2030. (The difference may be due to not including the year 2020 in the calculation.) Nevertheless, applying the minimum densities to these acres provided yields less than 3 00 units per acre. The City in the Update needs to clarify how exactly it will meet the 3.00 units per acre requirement. Response —The tables describing the five year development periods have been revised and the overall densi y from 2020 to 2030 is grrater that the required 3 units per acre. According to the forecasts requested by the City and agreed to in this report by the Metropolitan Council, the City will grow by 3,995 households between 2020 and 2030. Using the City's forecasted growth will yield 3,530 households during this period. Using the minimum density for each category will yield only 2,078 units during this period. Response —The tables have been revised. The City needs to revise these tables to assure that it will meet not only the Council's density requirements but also the household forecasts requested by the City. Patrick Boylan is available to meet and discuss this issue further at your convenience. Response —The table have been revised. Agricultural Preserves: The City has parcels enrolled in the Agricultural Preserves Program under the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act. These are located generally in the southeast portion of the City, north of 160th Street and both east and west of Emery Avenue and south of 135 Street and east of Akron Avenue. The Update contains policies for agricultural preserves, but the future land use map does not show all of those parcels as guided for agricultural preserves at one unit per 40 acres (Figure 7.3); some of the parcels enrolled in the program are guided for non agricultural uses. Reiponse —Figure 7.3 has been renumbered to Figure 7.5. The City has meet with Met Council staff on May 11 and presented a revision to the land use map that includes a removal of 120 acres of Agricultural Preserve land from non- agricultural land uses. Met Council staff indicated that there is support for maintain the City's non- agricultural land use for the remaining land enrolled in the Agricultural Preserve program. Cities that exercise planning and zoning authority over lands enrolled in the Agricultural Preserves Program, must certify lands that are eligible for designation as agricultural preserves. Until lands are removed from the Program pursuant to the statutory processes, the City's Update needs to identify the parcels enrolled in the Agricultural Preserves Program as agricultural and protect those parcels through guiding of one unit per 40 acres. Reiponse See the comment above regarding the May 11 meeting with Met Council staff. 14 Sewers (Roger Janzig 651- 602 -1119 Kyle Colvin 651- 602 1151). The Plan, in its current version would represent significant system impacts, requiring modifications. The following comments are offered: 1. The growth projections are higher then those provided to the City as part of their system statement. However they are generally consistent with the revised projections the Council had agreed to with the City. Response —The growth projections agreement is acknowledged. 2. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan (CSP) states that the City requires property owners to connect to the sanitary sewer system within 10 years after it becomes available or when their on -site treatment system would fail. The Council's current Waste Discharge Rule and Regulations require the connection within 24 months after it becomes available. However, these regulations are currently being revised and will include language which defines "availability." Response Staff understands that the MCES is planning to review and likely revise the regulations requiring the connections to the MDS. The City will monitor the review and revise its regulation in accordance with the revised regulations. 3. The Plan as submitted represents a system impact. The ultimate average capacity of the Council's newly completed lift station L -74 is 4.0 MGD. On page 21 of the sanitary sewer plan the City has provided flow projections to our interceptors by connection point. Based on this table the capacity of L -74 will be reached between 2020 and 2025.The City's flow projections are based on wastewater generation rates that are nearly double those found in other areas of the metropolitan areas with similar development patterns. The Plan also shows that portions of the Central District are provided service through existing interceptor 7112. Portions of the Central District service area will need to be served through connection(s) to the new interceptor located along Co. Rd. 42. Although the Council recognizes that the City needs to base the sizing of its trunk and lateral sanitary sewer system on generation rates it feels is appropriate, the Council will base its level of service commitment on more regionally based flow generation rates. Response The sewer plan has been revised to adjust the connection points onto the Met Council ystem in accordance with the data provided by Bryce Pickart In addition, the future waste water flows have been revised based on 800 gpad. 4. On page 26 of the CSP the City indicates that they as proposing to provide wastewater services to the Southwest Central Sewer Shed, post 2030, via lift station and force main connection to the Empire interceptor on Co. Rd. 42. The Empire interceptor has limited capacity starting at lift station L -75 and extending downstream for approximately half a mile from L -75. The City needs to construct its system within the Southwest Central service area to connect to that portion of the Empire Township interceptor along Biscayne Avenue downstream of the capacity limitation. Response The sewer plan has been revised to adjust the connection points onto the Met Council system in accordance with the data provided by Bice Pickart In addition, the future waste water flows have been revised based on 800 gpad. 15 Solar Access (Patrick Boylan 651 602 1438). Update does not have required policies addressing solar access. Response Solar Access policies has be added to the Comprehensive Plan. Surface Water Management Qim Larsen 651 602 -1159 and Judy Sventek 651 602 -1156) The Update is incomplete for surface water management. Rosemount lies entirely within the Vermillion River watershed. The Vermillion River Joint Powers Board's Watershed Management Plan was approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in 2005. Rosemount prepared a comprehensive storm water management plan CSWMP) in 2007. The Update references the City's CSWMP and states it is included as an appendix. The CSWMP is not included as an appendix and therefore it is not possible to determine its adequacy in meeting the requirements for local water management plans. Response —The City provided a copy of the CSWMP to the Metropolitan Councillor their review in 2007. The same CSWMP was not supplied to the Metropolitan Council again because it would be a redundant review. The CSWMP needs to be included so Council staff can determine if the plan is the same as the plan reviewed by the Council in 2007 or if changes have been made to address the comments sent to the City under separate letter for the CSWMP. Following is a summary of the comments sent to the City on the CSWMP in 2007. The Mississippi River is impaired in the stretch that borders Rosemount. Spring Lake is impaired for nutrients and mercury and also borders Rosemount. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is completing the total maximum daily load study (TMDL) for Lake Pepin which should also include recommendations for Spring Lake. The results of the TMDL study may have a major implact on all NPDES permittees in the Metro Area. The City should be engaged in the TMDL efforts for these water bodies and be aware of the potential need to amend their local water management plan based on the implications and requirements of the Lake Pepin TMDL. Response -The City looks forward to continuing to follow the status and becoming engaged in the Lake Pepin TMDL and will consider methods to address additional requirements if needed pursuant to the Lake Pepin TMDL when these requirements become formally identified within these reports. Section IV subsection IV -A has been revised to reference the ongoing TMDL studies. Related to the bullet above, section N, page 1 states that there are no impaired waters in Rosemount. Both the Mississippi River and Spring Lake border the City and have been listed as impaired. The plan should be changed to reflect this. Response Section IV-A.1 has been revised to identibl the ongoing TMDLs including the following updated text, `As necessary, consider the need to collect data and conduct water quality monitoring related to anticipated implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies and r epor is when and if they are required by the MPCA." The 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan requires local water management plans to incorporate information required in their SWPPP on nondegradation into local water management plans. This information is not in the plan. 16 Response A summary of the City SIVPPP is provided in Appendix L and has been referenced in Sections IV and V of the Plan. The Nondegradation Report has been identified in Subsection A of Section IV and the water quality treatment subsection of Section V. It is suggested that the City use the infiltration rates recommended in Chapter 12 of the Minnesota Storm Water Manual as a guide for sizing infiltration practices. Response Infiltration rates hare been revised pursuant to VRWJPO standards. (See Section V, page 10) The plan does not include specific quantifiable goals for the lakes in the community. The City is encouraged to establish numerical standards for each lake in the City. Numerical standards are needed to provide quantifiable goals for the water resources in the community. Response Plan has been revised to include MPCA ecoregion eutrophication standards in Appendix S. Section V of the Plan has been revised to establish a process for the City to consider development of waterbody Eutrophication standards (see Section V, page 10). The City has plans to monitor lake levels in Keegan lake. Council staff encourages the City to gather water quality information for Keegan Lake and any other lakes where lake goals are established. Reiponse The Plan already includes a program to consider establishment of a cost -share program for volunteer monitoring program on critical water bodies (Table 17I -2, SMP 12) The plan does a good job of assessing the problem areas and including corrective actions needed to fix the identified problems. Response Thank you for the acknowledgement. The City's current code requires peak runoff rates for proposed development to not exceed the 10 and 100 -year storm events. It is recommended that the code be amended to require peak runoff rates not to exceed the 1 -year storm event as well as the 10 and 100 -year storm events, which would be consistent with the Minnesota Storm Water Manual guidelines and the Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization's requirements. Response The Current City requirement to store runoff from the 100 year, 24 -hour storm event (without discharge) for new development exceeds the VRIVJPO standard for Peak Runoff Rate Control Criteria 2. Transportation (Ann Braden 651 602 1705). The Council will be asking separately for TAZ forecasts for 2020. They may want to have their consultants prepare these at the same time as other work being done in this area. Reiponse The City will work with the Metropolitan Council or their consultant in providing the data necessary when it is requested. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. The plan does not describe what transit market area the city is in. Below is text from their system statement, which would help answer this omission. Rosemount is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. The western portion of Rosemount is within Market Area III; the eastern portion in Market Area IV. Service options for Market Area III include peak -only express, small vehicle circulators, midday circulators, special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. Service options for Market Area IV include dial -a -ride, volunteer driver programs, and ridesharing. Reiponse The description of the Transit Market Area will be revised based on the above comment 17 The Handbook requires a policy that the municipality will work with the Metropolitan Council or with an opt -out transit provider to determine future transit services consistent with the municipality's transit market area and its associated service standards and strategies. Response The City is aware of this requirement and will work with Metropolitan Council and M VTTA to coordinate the proposed transit service within the City. No changes to the Transportation Plan are required. Transit funding chart: p. 2, shows that property taxes have gone to MVTA, this is incorrect. Property taxes go to the Council to pay for capital cost of the transit system, not the operating costs to MVTA. Response This statement will be revised in the Transit Plan. On page 9, the Robert Street study found no financially viable rail or BRT with a dedicated right -of -way in the Robert Street corridor. The current transportation plan does not call for any intensive investments in this corridor between now and 2030. The transportation plan that was adopted January 14, 2009 calls for a study for Arterial Bus Rapid Transit for Robert Street. This BRT would function in mixed traffic. Response At the time the Draft Transportation Plan was prepared the Robert Street Study was not completed. The description of the findings of the Study on Page 9 will be updated accordingy. There are many other transit funding sources other than those in figure 4.0. The Motor Vehicle Sales Tax, State General Funds and federal funds are the major source of operating subsidy. There are four federal programs (New Starts, CMAQ /STP, discretionary funds and formula funds), several state sources (trunk highway bonds, general bonds, MVST and state general revenues), and regional transit capital and CTIB as local funds. I am unsure what this is contributing to the City's comprehensive plan, however. Response Section 4.0 of the Transit Plan will be updated to reflect a more comprehensive list of available transit funding sources The Cities purpose of including this discussion, was to ident for City decision makers the possible funding opportunities they may elplore for Transit related improvement. 18 *DRAFT 2030 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN May, 2009 4 ROSEMOUNT City Council William Droste, Mayor Mike Baxter Mark DeBettignies Kim Shoe Corrigan Phillip Sterner Planning Commission Jason Messner, Chair Valerie Schultz Dianne Howell Jay Palda Jeanne Schwartz Port Authority Mike Baxter, Chair William Droste Mark DeBettignies Phillip Sterner Mary Riley Bruno DiNella Jay Tentinger Community Development Staff Acknowledgements Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Eric Zweber, Senior Planner Jason Lindahl, Planner For further information, contact: Community Development Department ATTN: Eric Zweber 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 6 CHAPTER 3: HOUSING 11 CHAPTER 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 18 CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT 29 CHAPTER 6: ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 38 CHAPTER 7: LAND USE 48 CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION 777474 I LIST OF TABLES i LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF FIGURES ii 3 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Rosemount adopted the Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan (2020 Plan) on February 15, 2000. Realizing that the 2020 Plan was not addressing the level of residential development that the City was experiencing, the City began a major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that was titled the County Road 42 -US Highavay 52 Corridor Plan (42 -52 Plan). The 42 -52 Plan resulted in four major changes to the 2020 Plan. 1. Residential development west of Akron Avenue. 2. A medium density residential land use category. 3. A commercial district at the County Road 42 and US Highway 52 interchange. 4. Increased population and household forecasts by the Metropolitan Council. The 42 -52 Plan was adopted by the City Council on July 19, 2005 by Resolution Number 2005 -84. Since its adoption, the City has created an alternative urban areawide review (AUAR) for the residential areas north of Bonaire Path and east of Akron Avenue. In 2007, the City approved the first preliminary plat within the AUAR that included 50 acres of commercial property and 583 residential units. The City has used the planning work done during the 42 -52 Plan as the basis for the Land Use Plan of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council charged the Planning Commission (with important help from the other City committees, commission, and the public) to create the Comprehensive Plan. To guide the creation of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council determined nine over arching goals. Nine Over arching Goals 1. Maintain a manageable and reasonable growth rate that does not adversely impact the delivery of services but allows the community to grow and become more diverse from now until 2030. 2. Preserve the existing rural residential areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan and increase housing opportunities in the community to attain a balance of life cycle housing options. 3. Promote commercial renewal and rehabilitation in the Downtown and along Hwy 42 while accommodating new commercial development along appropriate transportation corridors such as Akron Avenue and County Hwy 42; County Hwy 46 and MN Hwy 3; and County Hwy 42 and US Hwy 52. 4. Encourage additional high quality and tax base generating industrial development in the northeast portion of the community and within the Rosemount Business Park. 4 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 5. Preserve natural resources and open space within the community and ensure development does not adversely impact on -going agricultural uses until urban services are available. 6 Promote use of renewable resources by creating sustainable development and building green. 7. Collaborate and provide connections between the City and surrounding Cities, Townships, Dakota County and public and private schools in the area. 8. Work with the University of MN to create a neighborhood that can successfully integrate into the community while achieving goals of health, energy, and education. 9. Collaborate and provide services (such as libraries, community center, senior center, etc.) to all groups of residents. The Planning Commission conducted numerous public meetings throughout 2007 and 2008 to review the various issues addressed within the Plan. The Utility Commission created the Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission created the Parks and Open Space Plan. The Port Authority created the Economic Development chapter. To gather public input throughout the creation of the Comprehensive Plan, the City conducted six public open houses. At these open houses, specific issues were presented to the public and the public provided comments to guide the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The dates of the six open houses and the topic discussed are listed below. Public Open Houses Date April 10, 2007 June 18, 2007 July 23, 2007 October 9, 2007 January 10, 2008 April 3, 2008 Topic Comprehensive Plan Kick -off Meeting Rural Residential Northwest Rosemount Parks and the Environment Industrial East Side Housing and Economic Development Draft Comprehensive Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan provides detailed descriptions of the goals of the City and its expectation of future development. The majority of these goals and expectations are similar to those as those expressed in the 2020 Comprrbensive Plan and the 42 -52 Plan. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan expands other previous plans in three major areas: No significant changes are proposed to the existing developed areas. Residential development is expected east of US Highway 52 after 2020. Additional detail is provided for the types of commercial development expected. 5 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY BACKGROUND Rosemount History The first settler of European ancestry was William Strathen who arrived in the Rich Valley of Rosemount in 1853 and claimed land within the northeast quarter of Section 13, which is located by the present day Flint Hills Refinery. Other settlers followed. The first religious service being conducted in 1854 by Reverend Kidder. Andrew Keegan, a surveyor was the first postmaster 1855. In 1857, the Rich Valley post office was established, with C.H. Carr serving as postmaster. In 1858, the Board of County Commissioners official designated Township 115 North, Range 19 West (the portion of the present City located west of US Highway 52) by the name Rosemount. The portion of the present City east of US Highway 52 was annexed by an act of legislation in 1871. The name Rosemount was chosen to honor a village in Ireland. A small school was also constructed in 1858. In the 1860's, 52 men served in the Civil War. The village of Rosemount was formally platted in 1866 by James A. Case and in 1867 the first grain elevator was constructed by the railroad. The Village of Rosemount was incorporated in 1875 and the first town hall was constructed a year later. The 1880's saw The Village of Rosemount became a viable business area. Many businesses opened and 2 story brick building were built. In 1881 Rosemount erected the first gas street lamps in the downtown area. The first school district building was built is 1896 and taught grades 1 through 8. In 1918, the first high school was built and taught grades 1 through 12. In 1922, the school had 50 high school students and began the football program. The high school building still exists today and is a part of the Rosemount Middle School complex on the northwest corner of 143` Street West and South Robert Trail. Dakota County technical College opened 1970 with the first graduating class in 1971. Rosemount Middle School With WWII in full swing, the War Department of the federal government, in 1942, acquired 11,500 acres of farmland within Rosemount and Empire Township for the construction of the Gopher Ordnance Works. The plant was built to produce white smokeless gunpowder. 6 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 1900 807a 1950 1,375 a 1960 2,012 a 1970 4,034' 1980 5,083 1990 8,622 2000 14,619 2010 X9023,750 b 2020 33 05038,100 b 2030 42.00045-,90 b At the end of the war, the government found the ordnance work unnecessary and sold some of the property to farmers, but the majority of the property was sold to the University of Minnesota for research. The property is currently called UMore Park, while it is still owned and managed by the University. Rosemount has a long and successful business history. The First State Bank of Rosemount was granted a charter in 1909. Rosemount Engineering was established in 1955 as a result of the aeronautical research conducted at the University research facilities. Rosemount Engineering first made total temperature sensors and eventually additional aeronautical components. Rosemount Engineering first relocated to Bloomington, then renamed to Rosemount Inc. and is located worldwide. Brockway Glass, which was located east of South Robert Trail between Connemara Trail and Bonaire Path, began operation in 1961, but closed in 1984. The Harmony subdivision now exists at the former Brockway Glass site. Great Northern Oil Refinery began construction in 1954 and began operation in September of 1955 at an operating capacity of 25,000 barrels per day. The refinery was purchased by Koch Industries in 1969 and renamed Flint Hills Resources in 2002. The crude oil processing capacity of the refinery in 2007 was about 320,000 barrels per day. The facility primarily refines Canadian crude into petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, propane and butane. The Township and Village of Rosemount merged in 1971 and the City Hall was moved to the 1300 block of 145t Street East, directly north of the Dakota County Technical College. In 1972, the first Comprehensive plan and Zoning ordinance were adopted. In 1975, Rosemount became a statutory city with a mayor council form of government. In 1987, the current City Hall at 2875 145` Street West was constructed and in 1992 the Rosemount Community Center /National Guard Armory was built Rosemount Population and Resident Demographics The City of Rosemount has experienced continual growth throughout it history. The City nearly doubled its population from 1990 to 2000, and is anticipated to double its population again from 2000 to 2010. The expected population 2030 is 425 0500, more than double the 2006 population estimate of 20,207. i. Table 2.1: Population Year Population Combined Rosemount Village and Rosemount Township populations 7 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JC ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Under 5 Years Old 939 10.9% 1,380 9.4% School Age (5 -17) 2,026 23.5% 3,751 25.6% College Age (18 -24) 808 9.4% 914 6.3% Young Workers (25 -44) 3,266 37.9% 5,332 36.5% Mature Workers (45 -64) 1,230 14.3% 2,458 16.8% Retired and Semi retired (65 and Older) 353 4.1% 784 5.4% Total Population 8,622 100% 14,619 100% Population in Households 8,613 14,609 Total Households 2,779 4,742 Average Persons per Household 3.10 3.08 The population of Rosemount is predominately young families. Table 2.2 shows that more than one third of the population is between 25 and 44, with an additional one quarter of the population being their school aged children. The population of retirement age is a small proportion of the City at approximately 5 but their percentage of the total population is expected to increase over time as the existing population ages. This trend is shown by their share of the population increasing by 1.3% during the 1990s. One age group that is consistently lower than the others is the number of college age adults within the community. One factor that causes this characteristic is the lack of four -year colleges in the area. High school students who graduate from Rosemount often leave the area to attend college. This is a concern to Rosemount if these young adults do not return to Rosemount after attending college. This trend is commonly referred to as a `brain drain" because the bright students taught at Rosemount High School end up living in other communities without returning the benefit of their quality education to the community. These population trends are common of a growing suburban community. ii. Table 2.2: Age Groups Awe Grou 1990 2000 Source: US Census Bureau Rosemount is a community of young families, as shown in Table 2.3 by its high average persons per household. In 2000, Rosemount's households averaged 3.08 persons per household, while in comparison Dakota County averaged 2.70 and Minnesota averaged 2.52 persons per household. As Rosemount's population ages, the average person per household is expected to decline, but the number is expected to remain higher than average as long as Rosemount remains a growing community. iii. Table 2.3: Persons per Household 1990 2000 Source: US Census Bureau 8 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Household Type Total Number of Households Households with Children Households without Children $41,992 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 Families Married 1,990 3,326 1,226 2,045 764 1,281 Families Mother Only 283 430 234 329 49 101 Families Husband Only 75 176 50 113 25 63 Total Families 2,348 3,932 1,510 2,487 838 1,445 Non Family Households 428 810 N/A 76 N/A 734 Total Households 2,779 4,742 2,563 2,179 Per Capita Income $14,931 $23,116 Median Household Income $41,992 $65,916 Median Family Income $43,726 $68,929 Percent of Individual below the Poverty Line 5.0% 3.3% No High School Diploma 495 10.2% 508 5.9% High School Diploma 3,393 70.0% 5,573 64.8% Bachelor's Degree 750 15.5% 2,000 23.3% Graduate or Professional Degree 214 4.4% 518 6.0% Table 2.4 shows that Rosemount's households predominately have children with over 52% of households having children residing in the homes. This number is similar to the amount in 1990 when 54% of households that had children residing in the homes. This figure is expected to decline over time as the population ages and children grow up and move out to start their own families, but households with children will likely remain a significant portion of the population. iv. Table 2.4: Household Type Source: US Census Bureau Rosemount has a highly educated population with almost 19 of 20 adults having high school diplomas in 2000. This is a significant increase from 1990 when less than 9 of 10 adults had high school diplomas. The number of college graduates has also increased significantly with almost 3 of 10 adults having a bachelor's degree in 2000, while less than 1 in 5 adults had degrees in 1990. v. Table 2.5: Highest Level of Education' 1 Persons 25 years or older Source: US Census Bureau Rosemount residents have relatively high incomes. The median family income in 2000 was $68,929 compared to median Minnesota family income of $56,874. The median Dakota County family income was slightly larger than Rosemount's at $71,062. The amount of Rosemount residents with incomes below the poverty line dropped from 5.0% in 1990 to 3.3% in 2000. vi. Table 2.6: Income Source: US Census Bureau 9 1990 1990 2000 2000 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Work from Home 239 5.2% 176 2.3% Less than 15 Minutes 1,171 25.5% 1,785 23.4% 15 to 29 Minutes 1,838 40.0% 2,949 38.6% 30 to 44 Minutes 967 21.0% 1,861 24.4% 45 Minutes or More 380 8.3% 863 11.3% The amount of time that people spend in their cars traveling to work has increased. In 1990, nearly 70% of residents spent more than 15 minutes in travel time to work, with almost 30% of residents traveling more than 30 minutes. In 2000, over 74% of residents spent more than 15 minutes in travel time to work, with over 35% of residents traveling more than 30 minutes. Due to the increased congestion on roadways over the last two decades, this may not mean that Rosemount residents are working farther from home than in the past, but may mean that it is just taking resident longer to get to the same destination due to the increased congestion. This trend may continue in the future as congestion is expected to continue to increase. The number of Rosemount residents working from home in 2000 decreased both in number and percentage from 1990. This may partially have to do with the number of farms that have been developed during that period because farmers typically make up a large portion of the population who work from home. It is anticipated that the number and percentage of the population who work from home will increase in the future due to the advances in technology that may allow people to telecommute to work. vii. Table 2.7: Travel Time to Work' 1 Persons 16 years or older Source: US Census Bureau 1990 2000 10 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Year Single Family Units Multiple Family Units Total Units 2000 130 155 285 2001 201 103 304 2002 181 149 330 2003 261 179 440 2004 300 251 551 2005 189 265 454 2006 100 124 224 2000 -2006 1,362 1,226 2,588 Year Population Households 2000a 14,619 4,742 2001 15,270 4,997 2002 16,110 5,289 2003 16,794 5,571 2004 17,740 6,004 2005 19,418 6,508 2006c 20,207 6,805 2007` 20 7 Rosemount Housing Characteristics Rosemount has grown by 43% from 2000 to 2006. Rosemount has been stable in its housing growth with a vacancy rate of only 2.1% in 2000. Many of the residents of the new housing are young families, as depicted by the average household size of 3.08 persons per household, higher than the average household size of the entire Dakota County at 2.59 persons per household. CHAPTER 3: HOUSING Rosemount has experienced significant levels of growth during the early 2000's, as shown by the continued increase in the number of building permits issued, from 285 residential building permits in 2000 to a high of 551 residential building permits in 2004. Growth in residential permits was also setting record numbers both regionally and nationally. Residential construction stayed steady in 2005 with 454 building permits, but building permits have significantly declined since 2006 due to the national decline in housing sales. Housing experts expect building permits to stay low while builders are selling excess inventory homes. Inventory homes are homes that were built without a homeowner by the developer on speculation that the housing market would continue to stay strong. It is anticipated the number of building permits will rise after the excess inventory homes are sold, but probably not returning to the record national levels of 2004. Rosemount expects an average of between 350 and 400 residential building permits between the period of 2007 to 2020. viii. Table 3.1: Population and Households U.S. Census Bureau as of April 1 b Metropolitan Council estimate as of July 1 Metropolitan Council estimate as of April 1 ix. Table 3.2: Residential Building Permits 11 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Type of Housing In 2000, Rosemount was predominately a community of single family houses. Multiple family housing primarily consisted of townhouses along 151' St W; townhouses on the northeast corner of Biscayne Ave and County Road 42; townhouses and apartments in the triangle formed by Dodd Blvd, 145 St. W and Shannon Pkwy; and the senior apartment building downtown. From 2000 to 2006, Rosemount has experienced near equal construction of single family and multiple family housing. In the last seven years, multiple family housing has consisted of townhouses within the Bloomfield neighborhood, along Chippendale Avenue south of County Road 42, or within a /a mile of the intersection of Connemara Trail and South Robert Trail. High density housing consisted of the two 55 -unit four story buildings of Bard's Crossing. Apartments have received preliminary approval within the Harmony neighborhood, but have yet to be constructed. x. Table 3.3: Tune of Housin Tenure Tenure is a term to describe the difference between a house that the owner resides in and a house that the owner rents to another family. Rosemount's tenure by housing type is projected to be single family homes consisting of 96% ownership and 4% rental, and multiple family homes consisting of 42% ownership and 58% rental. xi. Table 3.4: Tenure per Tyne of Communi Growth Communities in Dakota County are Apple Valley, Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville and Rosemount Census 2000 Tenure: 88.3% Homeownership and 11.7% Rental Tenure of the 2000 -2006 growth: 70.4% Homeownership and 29.6% Rental 2007 Tenure: 82.1 Homeownership and 17.9% Rental Tenure of the 2007 -2030 growth: 65.0% Homeownership and 35.0% Rental 2030 Tenure: 72.8% Homeownership and 27.2% Rental 12 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Single Family Units Multiple Family Units Total Units Year Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 2000 3,757 77.6% 1,086 22.4% 4,843 100% 2007 5,119 68.9% 2,312 31.1% 7,431 100% Type of Housing In 2000, Rosemount was predominately a community of single family houses. Multiple family housing primarily consisted of townhouses along 151' St W; townhouses on the northeast corner of Biscayne Ave and County Road 42; townhouses and apartments in the triangle formed by Dodd Blvd, 145 St. W and Shannon Pkwy; and the senior apartment building downtown. From 2000 to 2006, Rosemount has experienced near equal construction of single family and multiple family housing. In the last seven years, multiple family housing has consisted of townhouses within the Bloomfield neighborhood, along Chippendale Avenue south of County Road 42, or within a /a mile of the intersection of Connemara Trail and South Robert Trail. High density housing consisted of the two 55 -unit four story buildings of Bard's Crossing. Apartments have received preliminary approval within the Harmony neighborhood, but have yet to be constructed. x. Table 3.3: Tune of Housin Tenure Tenure is a term to describe the difference between a house that the owner resides in and a house that the owner rents to another family. Rosemount's tenure by housing type is projected to be single family homes consisting of 96% ownership and 4% rental, and multiple family homes consisting of 42% ownership and 58% rental. xi. Table 3.4: Tenure per Tyne of Communi Growth Communities in Dakota County are Apple Valley, Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville and Rosemount Census 2000 Tenure: 88.3% Homeownership and 11.7% Rental Tenure of the 2000 -2006 growth: 70.4% Homeownership and 29.6% Rental 2007 Tenure: 82.1 Homeownership and 17.9% Rental Tenure of the 2007 -2030 growth: 65.0% Homeownership and 35.0% Rental 2030 Tenure: 72.8% Homeownership and 27.2% Rental 12 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Rental Homeownership Dakota County Growth Communities Dakota County Growth Communities Single Family 4.5% 3.7% 95.5% 96.3% Multiple Family 51.8% 63.4% 48.2% 36.6% Type of Housing In 2000, Rosemount was predominately a community of single family houses. Multiple family housing primarily consisted of townhouses along 151' St W; townhouses on the northeast corner of Biscayne Ave and County Road 42; townhouses and apartments in the triangle formed by Dodd Blvd, 145 St. W and Shannon Pkwy; and the senior apartment building downtown. From 2000 to 2006, Rosemount has experienced near equal construction of single family and multiple family housing. In the last seven years, multiple family housing has consisted of townhouses within the Bloomfield neighborhood, along Chippendale Avenue south of County Road 42, or within a /a mile of the intersection of Connemara Trail and South Robert Trail. High density housing consisted of the two 55 -unit four story buildings of Bard's Crossing. Apartments have received preliminary approval within the Harmony neighborhood, but have yet to be constructed. x. Table 3.3: Tune of Housin Tenure Tenure is a term to describe the difference between a house that the owner resides in and a house that the owner rents to another family. Rosemount's tenure by housing type is projected to be single family homes consisting of 96% ownership and 4% rental, and multiple family homes consisting of 42% ownership and 58% rental. xi. Table 3.4: Tenure per Tyne of Communi Growth Communities in Dakota County are Apple Valley, Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville and Rosemount Census 2000 Tenure: 88.3% Homeownership and 11.7% Rental Tenure of the 2000 -2006 growth: 70.4% Homeownership and 29.6% Rental 2007 Tenure: 82.1 Homeownership and 17.9% Rental Tenure of the 2007 -2030 growth: 65.0% Homeownership and 35.0% Rental 2030 Tenure: 72.8% Homeownership and 27.2% Rental 12 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Condition of the Existing Housing Stock Due to the significant growth that has occurred over the last three decades, the majority of the housing stock within Rosemount is relatively new. Only about 12% (898 units) of Rosemount's housing stock is over 35 years old, the age at which major maintenance efforts need to take place such as furnace or roof replacements. Over the next twenty years, the amount of houses over 35 years old will increase by about 1,800 homes. The City will need to monitor carefully the condition of the aging housing stock to ensure that it is maintained. Housing on Individual Septic Systems There are approximately 600 homes in Rosemount that are on their own individual septic system. Predominantly, these homes are located in the rural residential area in northwest Rosemount. Most of the rural residential area has lots that are 2.5 acres or larger, but there are a number of lots that are less than one acre in size. The 2.5 acre plus lots are large enough to provide multiple drain fields should any one system fail, but the lots less than one acre would have difficulty locating a secondary drain field should their existing septic system fail. The City would assist the neighborhoods with less than one acre lots to hook onto a municipal system should the neighborhood request the assistance. Rosemount Senior Housing In 2006, Rosemount had 410 senior focused units, ranging from the two 55- unit four story buildings of Bard's Crossing to the 150 detached townhouses units of Evermoor Crosscroft. 44 of the 410 units are owned by the Dakota County Community Development Agency as affordable senior housing. In addition, a 60 unit senior apartment building is planned within the Harmony neighborhood and 136 (67 detached townl� omes and 69 tri -plex units) senior focused units are proposed within the Prestwick Place neighborhood. Rosemount expects additional senior units Bards Crossing 13 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Number Percent 2000 2006 2,588 34.8% 1990 —1999 2,139 28.8% 1980 —1989 1,265 17.0% 1970 —1979 541 7.3% 1960 —1969 473 6.4% Before 1960 425 5.7% Condition of the Existing Housing Stock Due to the significant growth that has occurred over the last three decades, the majority of the housing stock within Rosemount is relatively new. Only about 12% (898 units) of Rosemount's housing stock is over 35 years old, the age at which major maintenance efforts need to take place such as furnace or roof replacements. Over the next twenty years, the amount of houses over 35 years old will increase by about 1,800 homes. The City will need to monitor carefully the condition of the aging housing stock to ensure that it is maintained. Housing on Individual Septic Systems There are approximately 600 homes in Rosemount that are on their own individual septic system. Predominantly, these homes are located in the rural residential area in northwest Rosemount. Most of the rural residential area has lots that are 2.5 acres or larger, but there are a number of lots that are less than one acre in size. The 2.5 acre plus lots are large enough to provide multiple drain fields should any one system fail, but the lots less than one acre would have difficulty locating a secondary drain field should their existing septic system fail. The City would assist the neighborhoods with less than one acre lots to hook onto a municipal system should the neighborhood request the assistance. Rosemount Senior Housing In 2006, Rosemount had 410 senior focused units, ranging from the two 55- unit four story buildings of Bard's Crossing to the 150 detached townhouses units of Evermoor Crosscroft. 44 of the 410 units are owned by the Dakota County Community Development Agency as affordable senior housing. In addition, a 60 unit senior apartment building is planned within the Harmony neighborhood and 136 (67 detached townl� omes and 69 tri -plex units) senior focused units are proposed within the Prestwick Place neighborhood. Rosemount expects additional senior units Bards Crossing 13 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Name Location Number of Units Bard's Crossing SW Comer of Connemara Trail and S. Robert Trail 110 Evermoor Crosscroft Connemara Trail and Evermoor Parkway 150 Harmony Senior Housing' NE Corner of Connemara Trail and S. Robert Trail 60 Rosemount Plaza 145 Street and Burma Ave. 21 Rosemount Plaza 2n Add. 146 Street and Burma Ave. 39 Cameo Place Cameo between 146 and 147 44 Wachter Lake Chippendale Avenue south of 150 (County Road. 42) 46 to be constructed in the future as the baby boomers retire and current Rosemount residents age. xiii. Table 3.6: Location of Senior Housin 1 Harmony Senior Housing has received Planned Unit Development approval but has not been constructed to date. Affordable Housing The Metropolitan (Met) Council estimated that there were 1,010 affordable housing units (14% of all units) within Rosemount in 2005. The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) estimated that there were 298 affordable rental units within Rosemount in 2006, 44 of which are CDA owned senior units and 32 CDA owned family units. The Met Council determined Rosemount's share of the regional affordable housing need at 9-3-3 -1.000 new affordable units between 2011 and 2020. Rosemount should be able to meet this need in cooperation with the CDA and the continued development of multiple family housing and small single family homes within planned unit developments (PUDs). Projected Housing Growth The Metropolitan (Met) Council projects that Rosemount will construct 3,500 additional housing units between 2010 and 2020. In 2005, the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) hired MaxwcllMaxfield Research to create a Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for all of Dakota County. The "Maxfield Research findings for Rosemount are provided on Table 3.7. These projections show an increasing percentage of multiple family homes over the next 25 years. This trend is consistent with the observation that communities develop with more density as they grow and land becomes more valuable. These MftweellMaxfield projections are used to construct the projected housing demand within Rosemount through 2030. xiv. Table 3.7: Housin Growth Projections 14 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA Dakota County Community Development Agencyl Met Council Single Family Multiple Family Total Total Number Percent Number Percent Number 2000 -2010 1,850 -1,950 54% 1,515 -1,680 46% 3,365 -3,630 5,458 2010 -2020 1,350 -1,450 43% 1,765 -1,945 57% 3,115 -3,395 3,500 2020 -2030 650 -725 30% 1,545 -1,670 70% 2,195 -2,395 0 2000 -2030 3,850 -4,125 44% 4,825 -5,295 56% 8,675 -9,420 8,958 to be constructed in the future as the baby boomers retire and current Rosemount residents age. xiii. Table 3.6: Location of Senior Housin 1 Harmony Senior Housing has received Planned Unit Development approval but has not been constructed to date. Affordable Housing The Metropolitan (Met) Council estimated that there were 1,010 affordable housing units (14% of all units) within Rosemount in 2005. The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) estimated that there were 298 affordable rental units within Rosemount in 2006, 44 of which are CDA owned senior units and 32 CDA owned family units. The Met Council determined Rosemount's share of the regional affordable housing need at 9-3-3 -1.000 new affordable units between 2011 and 2020. Rosemount should be able to meet this need in cooperation with the CDA and the continued development of multiple family housing and small single family homes within planned unit developments (PUDs). Projected Housing Growth The Metropolitan (Met) Council projects that Rosemount will construct 3,500 additional housing units between 2010 and 2020. In 2005, the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) hired MaxwcllMaxfield Research to create a Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for all of Dakota County. The "Maxfield Research findings for Rosemount are provided on Table 3.7. These projections show an increasing percentage of multiple family homes over the next 25 years. This trend is consistent with the observation that communities develop with more density as they grow and land becomes more valuable. These MftweellMaxfield projections are used to construct the projected housing demand within Rosemount through 2030. xiv. Table 3.7: Housin Growth Projections 14 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA 1 Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for Dakota County, Minnesota (Nov. 2005) for the Dakota County Community Development Agency prepared by Maxfield Research 2 Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework Revised Forecasts, January 3, 2007 Rosemount expects to construct 8 new housing units between 20087 and 2030. The breakout of the expected housing types constructed is 3,068765 single family units, 3,774960 townhomes, and 1 apartments units. The term "apartment" is used generally to apply to all multiple story residential buildings regardless of rental apartment units or ownership condominiums The information on Table 3.8 will be used within the Land Use Element to determine the proper location of these additional housing units. Additional Hous Units 15 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MIMNESOT. Single Family Townhouses Apartments Total 20087 -2010 3181,275 191775 10838 6202,180 2010 -2020 1,640538 1,760645 3509,5 3750548 2020 -2030 1.110940 1,820510 770058 3 700450 20087 -2030 3,068705 3,774949 1,2281-9-5 8 ,070530 1 Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment for Dakota County, Minnesota (Nov. 2005) for the Dakota County Community Development Agency prepared by Maxfield Research 2 Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework Revised Forecasts, January 3, 2007 Rosemount expects to construct 8 new housing units between 20087 and 2030. The breakout of the expected housing types constructed is 3,068765 single family units, 3,774960 townhomes, and 1 apartments units. The term "apartment" is used generally to apply to all multiple story residential buildings regardless of rental apartment units or ownership condominiums The information on Table 3.8 will be used within the Land Use Element to determine the proper location of these additional housing units. Additional Hous Units 15 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MIMNESOT. Housing Element Goals and Policies 1. Design subdivisions to create independent neighborhoods. A. Facilitate neighborhood planning for improvements which reinforce neighborhood unity, safety, and identity. B. Natural corridors or buffer yards shall be utilized along boundaries of dissimilar housing types and densities by maximizing the use of existing landforms, open space, and vegetation to enhance neighborhood identity and integrity. C. All transitional residential areas shall provide a unique urban /rural character with a mixture of housing types, but with a relatively low average net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre, with a lower density along areas guided for rural residential use. D. Encourage the use of planned unit developments to protect and enhance natural features, open space, and to provide appropriate neighborhood transitions. 2. Provide recreational opportunities within and between neighborhoods. A. Implement the Parks System Plan when locating parks and recreational facilities within neighborhoods. B. Incorporate pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with sidewalks and trails as important design elements. C. Provide pedestrian and recreational trail connections with the adjacent land uses. D. Trails shall be planned to connect public areas and create pedestrian pathways within natural corridors. E. Design medium density housing with private amenities and open space for the residents of the medium density housing 3. Design neighborhoods to incorporate the existing environment and natural resources. A. Streets shall be designed to follow the natural contour of the property and shall provide necessary vehicle connections throughout the geographic area. B. Steep slopes shall be protected from development. C. Development near wetlands and woodlands shall follow the Wetland Management Plan and Tree Preservation Ordinance to ensure their preservation /protection and incorporation into the natural landscape design of each development. D. Clustering of housing units shall be designed into planned unit developments and the transitional residential area to conserve the land's natural resources. 4. Provide a mixture of rental and homeownership opportunities to provide life cycle housing. A.Maintain the city's partnership with thc Dakota County cluster for thc Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA). B-A. Encourage the construction of a variety of single family home sizes and styles to increase home ownership opportunities. GB. Encourage the development of owner occupied medium density housing. I C. Provide ownership opportunities for seniors with access to transit and public /institutional facilities. FD. Provide rental opportunities for young adults and recent college graduates returning to Rosemount. 16 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA F71'1. Provide an opportunity for student housing near Dakota County Technical College. 1i. Implement a rental inspection program to ensure that rental properties are maintained. 5. Locate the different housing styles within the appropriate areas. A. Disperse medium density residential throughout the community to avoid entire neighborhoods of medium density residential. B. Disperse high density residential in appropriate areas throughout the community to avoid entire neighborhoods of high density residential. C. Locate high density residential with access to the collector and arterial street network. D. Locate high density residential in conjunction with downtown and the commercial areas along County Road 42 to create mixed use neighborhoods and transit oriented districts. E. Provide opportunities for seniors to live near their children and families. 6. Provide workforce and affordable housing opportunities through cooperative effort with other agencies. A. Work with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and other state and federal agencies to provide workforce and affordable housing opportunities. B. Work with Habitat for Humanity and similar organizations, along with Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and other state and federal agencies, to provide affordable housing opportunities and to redevelop and rehabilitate older homes in the City. 7. Maintain the rural character of northwest Rosemount. A. Discourage the placement of structures on top of exposed ridge lines. B. Allow clustering where natural areas and active agriculture can be retained. C. Maximize the retention of vegetation, maintain natural landforms, and minimize lawn areas. D. Define, during the platting process, building envelopes that avoid the location of structures in areas needing to be preserved. E. Protect open space or conservation areas with conservation easements. These tools are intended to be used for environmental and scenic resource protection, not public access. 17 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JCROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA Flint Hills Resources Oil Refining 850 Independent School District #196 Education 767 Dakota County Technical College Education 300 Cannon Equipment Metal Manufacturing 150 Wayne Transports Trucking 140 Webb Properties, LLC Advertising 131 Spectro Alloys Aluminum Smelting 109 Endres Processing Recycled Food Products 90 Greif Brothers Paper Multiwall Bags 85 City of Rosemount Municipal Government 80 Source: City of Rosemount CHAPTER 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Rosemount Employment Base and Resident Employment Rosemount is uniquely situated in the Twin Cities with the four lane, north to south running, US Hwy 52 connecting Rosemount with the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport and downtown St. Paul; the four lane, east to west running, County Road 42 connecting Rosemount to Hastings and Burnsville and connecting to the major routes leading into downtown Minneapolis; and the Mississippi River on Rosemount's northeast boundary, including three barge terminals. The location of Rosemount's economic base is also uniquely situated compared to its population base. The majority of Rosemount's households are located in the western third of the City, while Rosemount businesses, industry, and institutions are spread through the community. Taking advantage of these economic development opportunities during the next 20 years will be the purpose of the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Table 4.1 shows the ten businesses and institutions that employ the most workers within Rosemount. Two of the top three employers are the educational institutions of Independent School District #196 and Dakota County Technical College. It will be important for Rosemount to maintain cooperative relationships with these institutions, not only because of their importance as employers within the City, but also to ensure that their education programs prepare trained workers for current and future Rosemount businesses. Table 4.1 also shows that seven of the remaining eight employers are manufacturing or industrial in nature. This illustrates the importance of industrial business for employment within the community, but also should caution the City that Rosemount is currently dependent on one sector of the economy. Rosemount should encourage additional retail commercial and professional office commercial into the community to provide balance to the economic landscape. vi. Table 4.1: Rosemount Top Ten Employers in 2007 Product or Service Emnlovees 18 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Table 4.2 shows that 7,929 Rosemount residents were employed in 2004 while there were only 6,144 jobs offered by the businesses within Rosemount, which results in almost 1,800 people required to leave Rosemount to find employment. In looking at the various industries in which residents are employed, the disparity between where residents work and what employment opportunities are available in Rosemount is most prevalent in four industries: Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Finance, Insurance and Real Estate; and Professional, Scientific, Management and Administration. Within the wholesale trade industry, there are 1,639 Rosemount residents employed while there are only 221 jobs available within the city, creating an employment pool of 1,418 workers. Table 4.3 shows the average yearly wage in Rosemount for a worker in wholesale trade is $45,335, while the metro area average yearly wage is $62,299. Wholesale trade businesses would typically be located within the business park and industrial /mixed use land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. Within the transportation, warehousing and utility (transportation) industry, there are 555 Rosemount residents employed while there are only 236 jobs available within the city, creating an employment pool of 319 workers. Table 4.3 shows the average yearly wage in Rosemount for a worker in transportation is $48,675, while the metro area average yearly wage is $51,490. Transportation businesses would typically be located with the general industrial land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that Rosemount currently has a significant amount of transportation businesses in town that have some less desirable land use characteristics, such a low employee to land area ratio and high demand for outdoor storage. Within the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) industry, there are 1,034 Rosemount residents employed while there are only 110 jobs available within the city, creating an employment pool of 924 workers. Table 4.3 shows the average yearly wage in Rosemount for a worker in FIRE is $32,261, while the metro area average yearly wage is $74,294. FIRE businesses would typically be located with the commercial or corporate campus land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. Within the professional, scientific, management and administration (professional) industry, there are 517 Rosemount residents employed while there are only 231 jobs available within the city, creating an employment pool of 286 workers. Table 4.3 shows the average yearly wage in Rosemount for a worker in a professional field is $30,894, while the metro area average yearly wage is $58,288. Professional businesses would typically be located with the commercial, corporate campus or business park land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. The City should recruit businesses in the wholesale trade, FIRE and professional industries to locate within Rosemount, while providing land for additional warehousing and utility businesses. There is a significant amount of Rosemount residents employed in these fields from which new businesses could draw their employees. The establishment of these businesses would create jobs that can support households and provide a market for other local businesses. 19 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 9 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting and Mining 26 32 -6 Construction 715 811 -96 Manufacturing 1,246 1,264 -18 Wholesale Trade 1,639 221 1,418 Retail Trade 191 325 -134 Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 555 236 319 Information 107 75 32 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 1,034 110 924 Professional, Scientific, Management and Administrative 517 231 286 Educational, Health and Social Services 1,103 2,240 -1,137 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and Food Service 427 439 -12 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 141 117 24 Public Administration 228 43 185 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting and Mining 4 32 $1,846,751 $1,127 $57,711 Construction 59 811 $46,605,926 $1,105 $57,467 Manufacturing 23 1,264 $89,294,259 $1,359 $70,644 Wholesale Trade 23 221 $10,019,071 $871 $45,335 Retail Trade 34 325 $7,118,038 $422 $21,902 Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 14 236 $11,487,253 $936 $48,675 Information 6 75 $2,210,703 $564 $29,476 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 30 110 $3,548,670 $620 $32,261 Professional, Scientific, Management and Administrative 68 231 $7,136,551 $594 $30,894 Educational, Health and Social Services 39 2,240 $74,420,020 $639 $33,223 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation and Food Service 32 439 $4,450,177 $195 $10,137 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 28 117 $2,340,009 $384 $20,000 Public Administration 3 43 $2,279,736 $1,020 $53,017 xvii. Table 4.2: Comparison of Employees to Employers within Rosemount in 2004 Rosemount Residents Employed by each Industry Number of Employees in Rosemount Businesses by Industry 7,929 6,144 Source: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development and US Census Bureau xviii. Table 4.3: Rosemount Industries in 2004 blislaments Emolovees Total Waees 363 6,144 $262,757,164 Source: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Deficiency of Jobs within Rosemount to match Resident's Place of Employment Average Weekly Wa $822 1,785 Average Yearly Wa $42,766 20 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Rosemount Port Authority In 1979, the City of Rosemount established the Rosemount Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) which conducted a number of projects, most notably the Rosemount Plaza block located southeast of the intersection of 145 Street West and South Robert Trail. In 1991, the City converted the HRA into the Rosemount Port Authority for the purpose of undertaking housing, economic development and redevelopment activities within the City. The Port Authority has seven members consisting of the Mayor, three City Council members, and three appointed residents. The Port Authority sets the economic development policy for the City, acquires and demolishes buildings on blighted and underutilized land for redevelopment, and recruits new businesses to locate within Rosemount, among many other responsibilities. Many of the programs described within the Economic Development Element, such as Downtown Redevelopment and the establishment of the Rosemount Business Park, have been or are being accomplished through the work of the Port Authority. The Port Authority is responsible for implementing the Goals and Objectives of the Economic Development Element, as well as continuing to monitor the economic health of the City while recruiting new business and encouraging the growth of existing businesses. Downtown Redevelopment The City of Rosemount adopted a redevelopment plan for downtown Rosemount in 2004 entitled the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount. The Framework covers the properties in the historic downtown, roughly described as the blocks on both sides of South Robert Trail from 143 Street West on the north to approximately 148 Street on the south. The Framework addresses eight focus areas within downtown: St. Joseph's Church, Crossroads North; Crossroads South; Core Block West; Core Block East; Legion Block; Genz -Ryan; and Fluegel's. To help accomplish the downtown redevelopment, the City has established the Downtown Brockway Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. The TIF district uses the increased tax income (also known as tax increment) from the former Brockway Glass factory redevelopment into the Harmony residential neighborhood to pay for t he land acquisition, land clearing, and infrastructure costs associated with downtown redevelopment. 21 Harmony Neighborhood Brockway Glass Factory TIF funds have been instrumental in land assembly in Core Block East and will be used for infrastructure and parking space construction for the proposed redevelopment. 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA The City has received almost $1 6 million from the Metropolitan Council's Livable Community Demonstration Account (LCDA) grant for land acquisition costs and infrastructure improvements for the Core Block East project. The Core Block East project is a three story mixed use building with 106 apartment units and 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the South Robert Trail frontage and is being developed by Stonebridge Development and Acquisition. The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) is providing bonding for the project with the requirement that 20% (21 units) of the 106 units will be affordable from persons making less than Core Block East, May 2008 50% of the metro area median income. Additional LCDA and CDA grant opportunities will be explored as future downtown redevelopment projects are proposed. The City owns the former Genz -Ryan property located on the west side of the 14700 block of South Robert Trail. The property is currently used as short term office and storage space for numerous businesses within Rosemount. The Framework development concept for this block is for new office commercial space. The City has, and will continue to, solicit requests for proposals (RFPs) for the redevelopment Genz -Ryan block. The City has been active in the redevelopment of other focus areas to improve the lifestyle and work setting of downtown Rosemount. The City has purchased the former St. Joseph's Church and School. The church has since moved to the southeast corner of Biscayne Avenue and Connemara Trail, but the school will remain downtown through 2011. The City has given the south half of St. Joseph's to Dakota County for the construction of the Robert Trail Library. The existing church and school building are planned to be converted into a multiple use community space, such as a senior, teen, and cultural center. In addition, the City applied for federal SAFETYLU funds for the construction of a park and ride or transit station in the location of the Legion focus area. has St. Joseph's Church Rosemount Mixed -Use Development Northwest Pespective Robert Trail Library BKV 22 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA The City has established the Downtown Code Improvement Program that provides grant funding for improvements to bring the existing downtown buildings into compliance with the building code. The program is available to any business or property owner whose building is listed within the Framework and is making exterior and facade improvements to the building in accordance with the Downtown Rosemount Design Guidelines. To encourage the reinvestment in the facade improvements, business and property owners who pay with their own funds for the facade improvement can request grant funds to pay for code improvements to their building. Business Recruitment, Assistance, and Retention The City participates in the Twin Cities Community Capital Fund (TCCCF), which is a cooperative venture by numerous metropolitan Cities and development financing organizations. Through the TCCCF, revolving loan funds and other economic development funds are pooled together to have the ability to issue larger loans and funding than what would be available independently. Loans, with participation from a financial institution, generally range from $50,000 to $1,000,000 for fixed assets, including land and building purchase, building construction, leasehold improvements and renovations, acquisition, renovation or moving machinery and equipment. The City advertises the economic development opportunities available through a number of mechanisms, including direct mailings to business and commercial brokers; advertisements in trade journals; CD and paper newsletters containing recent growth statistics and available commercial space; and video presentations of the City's economic development programs. In addition, the City has solicited for a number of RFPs for projects such as Core Block East and Genz -Ryan. The City's relationships with the educational institutions within Rosemount, such as Rosemount School District #196 and Dakota County Technical College, and the greater region, such as Inver Hills Community College and the University of Minnesota, are important for business recruitment and the health of the local economy. Businesses that are looking to locate within Rosemount have concerns that there is an existing base of well educated employees to recruit from, as well as local educational institutions that have training programs to create new worker and provide continuing training and education to existing employees. It is important for Rosemount to work with the local educational institutions to ensure that their training programs will support needs of the existing businesses within Rosemount and provided a well educated employee pool for future businesses to draw from. Rosemount Business Park The City has established the Rosemount Business Park, which contains about 280 acres of contiguous land roughly bounded by County Road 42 to the north, a line one quarter of a mile north of County Road 46 to the south, Biscayne Avenue to the east, and the Union Pacific rail line and South Robert Trail to the west. The Rosemount Business 23 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JC ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Park was initiated with the City purchasing the northern 80 acres of the business park and establishing a TIF district to provide the initial infrastructure to the park The original 80 acres have since been developed with seven new buildings housing businesses such as Webb Advertising, Cannon Equipment, and Associated Wood Products. In 2005, the TIF district was retired and the remaining 195 acres of the business park will be developed with private financing Retail Commercial The City currently has about 100 acres of land developed with retail commercial uses. The retail businesses are predominately located either in downtown Rosemount or in a district west of South Robert Trail and south of County Road 42. The retail businesses are predominately small service retail businesses, several restaurants, and two grocery stores. The vacant retail commercial space in town is located within several downtown buildings, small portions of newly constructed multiple tenant commercial strips, and the former Knowlan's grocery store. There are no general merchandise, home improvement, or other types of big box stores in Rosemount. For this reason, most Rosemount residents are required to leave the city to fulfill their daily or weekly shopping needs, typically to the communities to the west and north, such as Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville, and Lakeville. Recent efforts to solicit big box businesses to Rosemount have been unsuccessful for a number of reasons, but businesses most commonly cited the lack of direct controlled access to major roads and the lack of residential households. Nearly 9,000 additional households are expected to be constructed by 2030, which is an increase of 120% over the nearly 7,500 households within Rosemount today. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan should consider locating future retail commercial land uses near these new households and adjacent to controlled accesses to major roads. Office Commercial Rosemount has minimal office space, with the current office supply normally occupied with either professional office, such as dentists or insurance agents, or associated with existing manufacturing or industrial businesses. In 2007, a 25,000 square foot multiple tenant office building was constructed on the southeast corner of Chippendale Avenue and Carrousel Way. The only other significant office construction in Rosemount during 2007 occurred in conjunction with the maintenance shop expansion at Flint Hills Resources. As shown in Table 4.3, there are over 1,000 Rosemount residents who are working in the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) field, while Rosemount FIRE businesses employ only 110 people. This deficiency of about 900 residents who need to leave Rosemount to work in the FIRE field would indicate that there is a need for additional office space within Rosemount. Table 4.3 also shows a deficiency of almost 300 residents who need to leave Rosemount to work in the professional, scientific, management, and administrative field. The Comprehensive Plan should designate commercial and corporate campus land not only to support independent stand -alone office buildings, but also to ensure the ability to provide office space needed in conjunction with manufacturing and industrial businesses as well. 24 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan IS ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Industrial Rosemount has a long history of industrial development, from manufacturing facilities near the downtown, such as Greif Paper and the former Brockway Glass factory, to heavier industrial on the east near US Hwy 52, such as Flint Hills Refinery (formerly known as the Great Northern Oil Refinery and the Koch Refinery), Continental Nitrogen, and CF Industries. More recently, junk car parts and propane storage industrial development has occurred near the intersection of South Robert Trail and County Road 46; office/ warehouse and manufacturing industrial within the Rosemount Business Park; trucking terminals near the intercl °ange with US Hwy 52 and County Road -'2; and smelting and food recycling businesses along Minnesota Highway 55. Rosemount has become increasingly concerned about its image within the region due to the heavy industrial uses on the east side of Rosemount and the proliferation of low tax base industrial sites requiring large amounts of outdoor storage, such as truck terminals and junk car pants providers. Within the last five years, the City has changed its general industrial zoning to limit the amount of outdoor storage and require a minimum building size and has implemented a heavy industrial zone that will allow the existing heavy industrial uses to invest in their businesses but discourage a proliferation of new heavy industrial uses. While Rosemount is discouraging new heavy industrial or other industrial businesses that require significant amounts of outdoor storage, Rosemount does encourage new manufacturing, warehousing, and trade industrial businesses to locate within Rosemount. These businesses bring jobs that can support an entire family while providing a significant industrial property tax base. In addition, Table 4.3 shows that more than 1,400 Rosemount residents in the wholesale trade field need to leave Rosemount to work everyday, as well as over 300 people in the transportation, warehousing, and utility fields. Providing sufficient business park and industrial /mixed use land within the Comprehensive Plan would allow these businesses to locate within Rosemount. Flint Hills Resources UMore Park The University of Minnesota owns about 5,000 contiguous acres of land, 3,000 acres of which is located in southern Rosemount and 2,000 acres of which are located in northern Empire Township. The University currently uses the land as a research farm named the University of Minnesota Outreach, Research and Education (UMore) Park. Within this Comprehensive Plan, UMore Park will continue to be designated as Agricultural Research, but the University has begun planning efforts to evaluate the possible development of a mixed use, full service community. 25 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA For the first step of the planning process, the University hired Sasaki and Associates to develop the UMore Park Strategic Plan. The plan that Sasaki generated proposes a community of 16,000 households mixed in with retail commercial, employment centers, and institutional uses. The Sasaki plan calls for approximately 2,500,000 square feet of commercial and industrial (500,000 square feet of retail, 1,000,000 square feet of office, and 1,000,000 square feet of industrial) development, mostly located on the eastern third of UMore Park. The University has initiated the second phase of the planning by hiring Design Workshop, based in Denver, Colorado, to construct a design guidebook to facilitate the development of the mixed use community. The City is working in cooperation with the University and the other interested parties to ensure that the plans for the development of UMore Park are compatible with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. This work will not be completed in time to be submitted with this Comprehensive Plan. Before the University chooses to proceed with development, the City will submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment and required environmental review documents covering the proposed development for approval by the Metropolitan Council and other applicable agencies. The City shall determine the appropriate environmental review process based on the magnitude of the development, the potential impacts, and State agency guidance on the appropriate level of review. Fiscal Disparity In the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan (metro) area, the tax base gained from new commercial or industrial growth is shared by the entire metro area, not solely by the community in which the economic development occurs. This commercial and industrial (C /I) tax base sharing program is called fiscal disparity. Since 1971, 40% of the tax base of any new C/I development is taken from the local community and given to a common metro area pool. This common pool is then redistributed to all the communities based on their total tax base (commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural). Essentially, fiscal disparity takes tax base from communities that have seen significant economic development since 1971 and gives it to communities in which post -1971 commercial /industrial development is a small percentage of their total tax base. Various justifications are given for this program, most notably to discourage individual communities from competing for the same new businesses. Fiscal disparity generally takes C/I tax base from the first and second ring suburbs along the I -494 and I -694 strip that have seen significant growth since 1971 (Bloomington, Minnetonka, Eagan) and gives it to the inner cities that had significant C/I tax base before 1971 (Minneapolis and Saint Paul) or to suburban communities that have lower levels of C/I tax base compared to their total tax base (Cottage Grove, Apple Valley, Prior Lake) Table 4, attached to this executive summary, shows that Minnetonka lost $6 8 million in tax base while Saint Paul gained $19 million and Cottage Grove gained $2.1 million in tax base due to fiscal disparity. Rosemount is affected fairly neutrally by fiscal disparity, receiving only about $100,000 in tax base. 26 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 9it ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA $278,935 $1,328,800 $22,294,144 21,156 $1,360,601 5.96% $537,275 $3,721,645 $28,043,619 31,774 $2,118,313 13.27% $1,215,214 $8,574,915 $55,545,397 49,097 $1,277,635 15.44% $1,113,396 $8,269,598 $52,279,631 48,875 $1,434,275 15.81% $702,215 $3,929,398 $21,645,806 17,740 $101,288 18.15% $25,299,251 $42,687,458 $224,854,823 287,410 $19,039,665 18.98% $56,441,944 $81,946,785 $387,469,064 382,400 $6,799,501 21.15% $3,361,788 $25,599,440 $90,431,553 51,480 $6,851,418 28.30% $2,654,377 S25,160,598 $85,077,507 65,764 $4,186,797 29.57% xix. Table 4.4: Fiscal Disparity of Select Cities Payable in 2006 Prior Lake Cottage Grove Lakeville Apple Valley Rosemount Saint Paul Minneapolis Minnetonka Eagan Fiscal Pre -1971 C/I Post -1971 C/I Total 2006 2004 Disparity Tax Base Tax Base Tax Base Population Tax Base Adjustment Source: Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department Post -1971 C/I Tax Base as a percentage of Total 2006 Tax Base Economic Development Element Goals and Policies 1. Provide local shopping opportunities for residents to purchase their daily and weekly needs within Rosemount. a. Work with the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce to recruit more retail commercial businesses to locate within Rosemount. b. Provide retail commercial land adjacent to planned controlled accesses onto major roads. c. Provide retail commercial land near existing and planned households. d. Continue to use the Downtown Code Improvement Plan, Twin Cities Community Capital Fund, and similar programs to assist businesses to improve existing retail commercial buildings. e. Continue to actively market Rosemount to commercial brokers and retail businesses through the Rosemount marketing strategy to expand the retail opportunities within the City. 2. Expand Rosemount's employment base to provide jobs that can support an entire household. a. Provide office commercial land to support businesses with the financial and professional fields. b. Provide additional light industrial land to support wholesale trade, warehousing, and utility businesses. c. Work cooperatively with the Dakota County Technical College and Rosemount School District #196 and other educational institutions within Dakota County to train workers with the skills needed for existing and future Rosemount businesses. d. Pursue outside funding sources to develop or redevelop land for commercial and industrial uses, such as Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account, Dakota County Community Development Agency, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, and other applicable grants. 27 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA e. Continue to actively market Rosemount to commercial brokers and appropriate businesses through the Rosemount marketing strategy to recruit businesses that provide wages to support an entire household. 3. Expand Rosemount's employment base to provide employment opportunities for all residents. a. Provide land that would support a variety of commercial and industrial businesses to ensure a sufficient mix of employment opportunities for all skilled Rosemount residents. b. Work cooperatively with the Dakota County Technical College and Rosemount School District #196 and other educational institutions within Dakota County to train workers with the skills needed for existing and future Rosemount businesses. c. Pursue outside funding sources to develop or redevelop land for commercial and industrial uses, such as Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account, Dakota County Community Development Agency, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, and other applicable grants. d. Continue to actively market Rosemount to commercial brokers and appropriate businesses through the Rosemount marketing strategy to recruit additional businesses. 4. Balance economic growth within the overall tax base of Rosemount. a. Provide land available for a balance of commercial and industrial businesses, including expanding the retail and office commercial sectors while continuing to support industrial businesses. b. Work cooperatively with the Dakota County Technical College, and Independent School District #196 and other educational institutions within Dakota County to train workers with the skills needed for existing and future Rosemount businesses. c. Continue to provide for additional residential growth to serve as an expanding employee pool for Rosemount business, a growing market to attract additional retail establishments, and balanced tax base when considering the regional Fiscal Disparity program. 5. Provide for economic development opportunities that create a vibrant Downtown that maintains a home town feel. a. Continue Port Authority involvement in redevelopment projects that implement the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount. b. Pursue outside funding sources to redevelop downtown properties, such as Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account, Dakota County Community Development Agency, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, and other applicable grants c. Continue to use the Downtown Code Improvement Plan, Twin Cities Community Capital Fund, and similar programs to assist businesses to improve existing retail commercial buildings and implement the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount and Downtown Design Guidelines. 28 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT City of Rosemount Facilities Community Center and National Guard Armory The mission of the Rosemount Community Center is to provide a central gathering place, a focal point for the citizens of Rosemount and the surrounding communities to experience social, cultural, educational and recreational opportunities which enhance community wellness and promote growth. The Community Center has a multi- purpose arena, banquet room, auditorium, gymnasium, and classrooms that can accommodate groups and gather from 25 to 1,000 people. Common activities at the community center include hockey and broomball games, wedding, anniversaries, reunions, trade and craft shows. The Minnesota National Guard Armory shares the same building as the Rosemount Community Center. The Armory is the headquarters and Main Command Post for the 34 Infantry Division of the Army National Guard, also known as the "Red Bulls The Red Bulls has brigades in eight states and its 1st Brigade has distinction of the longest continuous deployment of 16 months during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Family Resource Center In 1998, the City of Rosemount constructed the Family Resource Center and leased the facility to the Community Action Council (CAC). The CAC is a nonprofit dedicated to helping families in crisis get back on their feet, through the work of over 2,000 volunteers working out of more than 50 locations in Dakota and Scott counties. The CAC lease to the Family Resource Center states that the facility will be used for serving children and families in the community through services such as crisis intervention, providing food, clothing, housing assistance, parenting support, and academic support through mentorship, child care assistance, violence prevention, outreach and recreation. City Hall /Police Station housed at the Fire Stations and the Parks Community Center. City Hall and the Police Station are currently housed jointly in a two -story building located at 2875 145 St. W. The City Hall is located on the upper level and the Police Station in the lower level. City Hall houses all the City Departments other than the Police Department, Public Works, Fire Department, and Parks and Recreation. The Police Department is housed in the lower level of the same building and Public Works is housed in the adjacent Public Works Garages. The Fire Department is and Recreation Department is housed in the 29 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA As the City grows, it is expected that all City Departments will need additional facilities to serve the needs of the growing population. Short tern growth may be accomplished by expansions of current facilities. Long term growth may require the relocation of one of three facilities (City Hall, Police Station, or Public Works Garage) to accommodate the growth of the other two facilities. Fire Stations The City currently has two fire stations. Fire Station #1 is located at the northeast corner of Dodd Blvd and Shannon Parkway and is situated to serve the developed western portion of the City. Fire Station #2, constructed in 2006, is located at Connemara Trail and Azalea Ave and is situated near the Connemara Trail bridge over the Union Pacific rail line to allow fire protection to the east side of the City without needing to wait at a railroad crossing if a train is running through town. Future fire population. Fire Station No. 2 stations will be sited as needed to serve the future Former St. Joseph's Complex The City purchased the former St. Joseph's complex on South Robert Trail in 2004. The southern third of the site has been subdivided for the construction of the Robert Trail Library. The City formed the St. Joseph's Task Force to study the future of the former school and church buildings. Public Works Facilities The Public Works Department has two facilities, the Public Works Garage located northwest of City Hall on Brazil Ave. and the Public Works Storage Yard located at the former Village of Rosemount Dump west of South Robert Trail and north of Canada Cir. The Public Works Garage houses all the public works employees and equipment, while Public Works Storage Yard houses the large quantity of supplies needed by the City, such as sand, gravel, and mulch. The City is considering the development of the former dump along with the adjacent land into light industrial uses. Should this development occur, a new location will need to be found for the storage yard. Consideration should be given to find a central location to house a common Public Works Garage and Storage Yard that will support needs of the City through its ultimate development. Public Schools The City of Rosemount is a part of four school districts, Independent School District (ISD) #196, ISD #199, ISD #200, and ISD #917. 30 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JC ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA ISD #196 Rosemount -Apple Valley Eagan ISD #196 serves the majority of the City of Rosemount. ISD #196 has two elementary schools (Rosemount and Shannon Park), one middle school (Rosemount) and one high school (Rosemount) within the City of Rosemount. All Rosemount middle and high school students attend Rosemount Middle School and Rosemount High School. According to 2006 -2007 attendance boundaries, Rosemount elementary students are split among four elementary schools. Generally, students north of 145t St. W. and east of Biscayne Ave attend Red Pine Elementary in Eagan, while students south of County Road 42 and around downtown attend Rosemount Elementary. Generally, the remaining students attend Shannon Park Elementary, while a small neighborhood west of Shannon Parkway and between County Road 42 and 145 St. W. attends Diamond Path Elementary in Apple Valley. ISD #196 officials believe that they do not need to construct a new middle school nor high school within the timeframe of the Comprehensive Plan. Eagan's student population is declining and Apple Valley's student population is stagnant which leads school officials to anticipate changing middle and high school attendance boundaries rather than constructing new facilities. New elementary school construction will be dependant on the rate of growth and increases in student population within the new neighborhoods. ISD #199 Inver Grove Heights ISD #199 covers parts of the Flint Hills refinery and the industrial area directly east of the refinery. Any students within this area attend Pine Bend Elementary, Inver Grove Middle School or Simley High School. Rosemount is not expected to add any significant number of housing units within the ISD #199 area during the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. ISD #200 Hastings ISD #200 covers about 320 acres in the extreme southeast corner of Rosemount. Any students within this area attend Pinecrest Elementary, Hastings Middle School or Hastings High School. Rosemount is not expected to add any significant number of housing units within the ISD #200 area during the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. ISD #917 ISD #917 is an educational partnership to provide vocation and special education to students of need from the Burnsville, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Randolph, Rosemount, South St. Paul, and West St. Paul school districts. ISD #917 is proposing to construct a school at the location of the former Dakota County Public Works Garage on the east side of Biscayne Ave and south of the railroad tracks. The school will be constructed for approximately 100 students and house offices for itinerate teachers. The itinerate teachers specialize in Braille, ISD #917, May, 2008 31 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA sign language, or other skills needed by students with special needs. These itinerate teachers spend most of their time at the different schools of the member school districts, but will have their offices within the ISD #917 school in Rosemount. Dakota County Technical College The Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) is currently a two -year community college and technical school and is a part of the Minnesota State Colleges and University System. DCTC is located at the southeast corner of Akron Avenue and County Road 42. Currently, DCTC has a full time equivalent enrollment of 2,245 students and offers student athletics including baseball, soccer, softball, and wrestling, but no student housing. DCTC has only one softball field located on the north side of County Road 42 and plays most of its games at other facilities. DCTC has a long term expansion plan that includes the possibility of additional athletic fields, student housing, and development of four -year college programs. University of Minnesota The University of Minnesota has one facility within Rosemount, the University of Minnesota Outreach, Research, and Education UMore) Park. UMore is 7,686 acres, approximately 3,300 of which are located within Rosemount and the remaining acres are located south of the city in Empire Township. UMore is the research and outreach component of the College of Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resource Sciences. UMore also houses the Rosemount Research Center which is a self supporting department that leases land to local farmers, police departments, other University departments and private entities. The University is currently performing strategic planning for the future use of the land within UMore. In 2006, Sasaki and Associates created the UMore Park Strategic Plan that plans for a mixed use community on approximately 5,000 acres within Rosemount and northern Empire Township. The Sasaki study contains development scenarios of approximately 16,500 dwelling units and 41,000 residents at full development. Currently, there is no commitment by the University to implement the Sasaki recommendations. If the University chooses to go forward with the development of a community, Rosemount will submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council. 32 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 1 Figure 5.1 Community Facilities 33 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Private Schools Currently, there are two private schools within the City of Rosemount. The First Baptist Church, located at the northeast corner of 145t St. West and Diamond Path, operates a kindergarten through 12 grade school. St. Joseph's Catholic Church operates a kindergarten through 8 grade school. The St. Joseph's school is currently located at the former church location on the southwest corner of 143` St. W. and South Robert Trail, but the school is scheduled to move to the current church location at the southeast corner of Biscayne Ave. and Connemara Trail for the 2009 -2010 school year. Churches Community of Hope Church The Community of Hope Church is a mission congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. In 2001, congregations from Burnsville, Lakeville, Eagan, and Apple Valley committed to combine resources to create a church in Rosemount. Community of Hope Church began worshipping at the Rosemount Middle School in 2002 and moved to the current location at the northwest corner of 145 St. W. and Biscayne Ave. in 2005. First Baptist Church First Baptist Church began in 1959 with services in the old St. John's Lutheran Church. In 1970, First Baptist constructed its current church at the northeast corner of 145 St. W. and Diamond Path. In 1971, the First Baptist School began, initially as a kindergarten through 4 grade. Currently, the school serves students from kindergarten through 12 grade. Lighthouse Community Church Over 100 years old, the church was founded as St. John's Lutheran Church. In the 1990's, the church became St. John's Lighthouse, then the Lighthouse Community Church. T ighthouse Community Church is an inter- denominational Christian church under the apostolic covering of the International Ministerial Fellowship. Lutheran Church of Our Savior Our Savior held its first worship services in 1964, and constructed its first church on the corner of Diamond Path and County Road 42 in 1967. The church has had two building additions since 1967, including the most recent in 2006 to add a gymnasium and remodeling the education wing. The church offers a Christian preschool that presently serves 140 students ages three through five. Rosemount United Methodist Church Formal incorporation took place in 1868 under the name German Methodist Episcopal Church with services in private homes. In 1874, a church was constructed at the corner of 146 St. W. and Burma Ave. In 1962, an adjacent 2.5 acres were purchased and the current church was constructed in 1963. The official of the church was changed to the Rosemount United Methodist Church (RUMC) in 1968. RUMC is currently planning for a $3.5 million expansion to double the size of the church. 34 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JS ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 2 Figure 5.2 Major Utility Corridors 35 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JCROSEVIOUNT MINNESOTA St. John's Lutheran of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession St. John's Lutheran Church was founded in 1911 at the corner of Blaine Ave. and 145 St. E. (County Road 42) as a member congregation of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The current church was constructed in 1977 and the 1911 church was moved 1/2 mile east to property owned by a member of the congregation. St. Joseph's Catholic Church Founded in 1856 with services in private homes, the first church building was constructed in 1868 about three miles southwest of Rosemount. After the first church was destroyed by a cyclone, the second church was constructed in 1881 on the east side South Robert Trail south of 143` St. W. in downtown Rosemount. In 1924, the brick church was constructed at the same site. St. Joseph's Parish School was constructed in 1953. St. Joseph's moved to its current location at the southeast corner of Connemara Trail and Biscayne Ave. in 2003. The school is expected to move to the site of the new church in 2010. Private Recreation Providers The Irish Sport Dome is a private recreation provider that is located on the grounds of the Rosemount High School, directly west of the Rosemount Community Center /National Guard Armory. The Irish Sports Dome is enclosed within an inflatable fabric roof that allows for multiple configurations that includes softball, baseball, soccer, and football. The Rosemount High School uses the facility for practices during the school year, while youth recreation leagues use the facility during the remaining times. The Irish Sports Dome has a long term lease for the school property and the Rosemount High School will receive the dome at the completion of the lease. The City will encourage additional private recreational providers to locate within Rosemount, particularly for indoor recreation. The City will also evaluate partnerships with other entities, such as ISD #196, the Boys and Girls Club, and the YMCA, to provide additional community facilities when it benefits all parties. Community Facilities Goals and Objectives 1. Provide community facilities for all age groups. F. Encourage indoor recreation by private providers or public /private partnerships. G. Work with ISD #196, the Boys and Girls Club, the YMCA and other interested agencies to evaluate the feasibility of a teen center. H. Annually review the services provided for seniors and explore partnerships opportunities with other agencies. I. Periodically review the community interest of an aquatic center. J. Periodically review the community interest of a multi- purpose arena with the capability for additional sheet(s) of ice. K. Work with Dakota County to construct the Robert Trail Library and License Center. L. Explore possible developers of or partnerships for a conference center. 36 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA M. Work with Dakota County, churches, and civic organizations to provide services for residents in need. N. Locate community facilities near their target population. 2. Encourage the reuse or redevelopment of historic or culturally significant buildings. A. Evaluate the reuse or redevelopment of the St. Joseph's Complex on South Robert Trail for public benefit. B. Work with the Rosemount Historical Society to record and document historic and culturally significant buildings and artifacts. 3. Provide municipal services that meet the needs of our growing population. A. Evaluate expanding or relocating City Hall when service demands warrant. B. Locate fire and emergency services to provide responsive service to urban residents. C. Evaluate the police facilities needed to meet the demands of the community. D. Determine the appropriate location for a centralized public works garage and storage yard. 4. Encourage the establishment of citywide coverage of private utilities. A. Encourage the installation of state of the art telecommunication infrastructure into business parks and commercial areas to facilitate high technology businesses to locate within Rosemount. B. Encourage the establishment of private utilities that allow residents to work from home, telecommute, or otherwise reduce the need to commute to work. 5. Locate private utilities where they have the least impacts. A. Install new utilities underground and bury existing utilities where possible when land is developed. B. Encourage future utility transmission facilities or expansions to co- locate within existing utility corridors to limit encumbrances on property owners and future development. C. Encourage private utilities to co- locate or joint trench to limit the need for utility easements and maximize the use of private property. 37 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA CHAPTER 6: ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the management of the community's environment and natural resources. This plan makes the case for protecting environment and natural resources, develops a context for establishing Rosemount's environment and natural resource vision, provides a generalized Natural Areas Assessment, recommends goals and objectives and concludes by identifying tools and strategies to implement the community's environment and natural resources vision. Importance of Environment and Natural Resource Protection Minnesota in general, and Rosemount specifically, has an abundance of natural resources. Lakes, rivers, wetlands, woodlands, prairies and bluffs define the area's landscape and are the basis for why we live, work and play in this community. These natural areas and their associated benefits contribute to the community's popularity and are a key factor its growth. However, this same popularity and growth if not managed wisely could threaten many of these same natural features and negatively impact the community's overall quality of life. Managing the community's growth in such a way as to preserve, protect, and restore its environment and natural resources offers numerous benefits including: increasing property values, supporting overall economic growth while reducing our depends on foreign energy sources, providing low -cost storm water management and flood control, supplying a purification system for drinking and surface water, providing habitat and biological diversity, contributing to air purity, and creating a sense of place and identity for the community. Rosemount's Environment and Natural Resource Vision Rosemount's vision describes the community's environment and natural resource values and how the community wants to utilize these resources as it grows. To assist local communities in the developing their own unique vision, the Metropolitan Council established the overall goal of "working with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources." More commonly, residents may define their goals as clean air and water, parks and open space, and the preservation of wildlife habitats and other natural features. Rosemount's environment and natural resource vision is mostly clearly identified in two of the community's nine over arching goals, which are: Preserve natural resources and open space within the community and ensure development does not adversely impact on -going agricultural uses until urban services are available. Promote use of renewable resources by creating sustainable development and building green. With these two over arching goals as a guide, this plan identifies five (5) specific environment and natural resources goals to further define Rosemount's natural resource vision. Two key challenges to realizing this vision include balancing it with the community's 38 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA continued growth and development and protecting natural systems that cross municipal, state and even national boundaries. Roseinount's Environment and Natural Resources Plan strives to use the community's resources in a sustainable way to promote economic development. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT The natural resource assessment establishes the foundation for creating the environment and natural resources plan. This assessment is broken into three sections: the community's special natural resource areas, key environmental resources, and a generalized inventory of existing natural areas. Special Natural Resource Areas The Environment and Natural Resources chapter identifies two (2) special natural resource areas within the City of Rosemount. These resources are the Mississippi National River Critical Area and the Vermillion River Watershed. Each resource is described below. Mississippi River Critical Area. The Mississippi River Critical Area was created in 1973 by the Minnesota State Legislature and encompasses 72 miles of the Mississippi River, four miles of the Minnesota River and 54,000 acres of adjacent lands. The Area extends from the communities of Dayton and Ramsey on the north to the southern boundary of Dakota County on the west /south side of the river and the boundary with the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway on the east /north side of the river. The portion of the Critical Area within Rosemount is located east of Highway 52 and north of Highway 55. Mississippi River Critical Area/MNRRA liallumf AOMPAboadmy *Mks This special natural resource is governed by the Mississippi River Critical Area Program, a joint local and state program that provides coordinated planning and management of this area of recreational and statewide public interest. The Mississippi River Critical Area Program works in partnership with the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area MNRRA), part of the National Park System In response to these programs, the City of Rosemount adopted a Critical Area Plan and Ordinance in 1980. During the City's 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update, the City replaced the Critical Area Plan with its own MNRAA Plan. The MNRAA Plan is incorporated into Rosemount's Comprehensive Plan as Appendix B. The MNRAA Plan together with the Critical Area Ordinance and the underlying zoning districts serve as the development standards for the area. All three documents should be consulted when reviewing any development proposal in the Mississippi River Critical Area. 39 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA The Vermillion River Watershed. Watersheds are areas of land that drain to a body of water such as a lake, river or wetland. The Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization GPO) encompasses the Minnesota, Mississippi and Vermil lion River hydrological watersheds and includes 335 square miles. It is the dominant watershed in the county containing 21 communities in Dakota and Scott Counties; 90% of the area is agricultural but rapid urban development is occurring in the upstream reaches. The Vermillion River has 45.5 miles of designated trout stream. The major environmental issues associated with this feature include storm water runoff quality and quantity and trout habitat protection. According to Trout Unlimited, the Vermilion River is the only world class trout stream within a major metropolitan Area in the United States. In the spring 2006, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Twin Cities chapter of Trout Unlimited completed a survey of the trout population in the Vermillion River and found the number of trout hatched was higher than in previous years. It is the intent of this plan that the City should work with the JPO and other interested stakeholders to protect this unique natural resources area. Key Environmental Resources This plan identifies two (2) key environmental resources within the community including surface water and open space. These resources are major environmental systems that extend throughout the community. As such, these resources are both effected by and have an effect upon environmental resources within and beyond the City limits. Additional resources worthy of consideration in this section include woodlands, prairies, soils and bluff areas. Surface Water (Lakes, Streams and Wetlands) Management. Rosemount's surface water management plan includes both the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan and the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. These plans are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan Appendix and The Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan includes the layout of the trunk storm sewer system and ponding areas for the entire City. The ponding areas have been designed with a regional approach in order to control run -off and minimize flooding. The general objectives of the plan are to reduce the extent of public capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of run -off, to prevent flooding, and to improve water quality. The Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan was originally adopted in 1998 and subsequently amended in both 1999 and 2005. This plan includes an ordinance that outlines the use of lawn and garden chemicals and buffer zones around wetlands and their effect on groundwater recharge. Use of the plan's provisions will maximize the benefit that surface waters can provide to Rosemount residents. The plan also includes an inventory and assessment of wetlands in Rosemount. Open Space. Residents often cite open space as one of Rosemount's most important and desirable characteristics. Open space consists of undeveloped sites that do not qualify as natural areas (see Natural Areas Inventory below), but still provide habitat, scenery and other community benefits. Examples of open spaces include: farm fields, golf courses, utility corridors, woodlots and simple view sheds with no developments or parkland. The 40 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA community's open spaces are significant resources worthy of preservation. Several potential methods for protecting the community's open spaces are outlined in the Implementation Tools and Strategies section below. Natural Areas Inventory In 2006, the City retained the consulting firm of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc (HKGi) to inventory the community's natural areas. This inventory consolidated natural areas into three categories: Highest Priority, Lower Priority, and Other Natural and Greenway Planning Efforts. These three categories are characterized below and illustrated on the attached Natural Areas map. This map and its associated data are intended to serve as a resource for the City to identify natural areas to be preserved, protected or restored during the development process. Additional information about this map, including landownership data and the criteria used to classify an area as either highest or lower priority, may be obtained from the City's GIS Department. Highest Priority. The Highest Priority classification are areas that are the most important water quality and habitat resources in the City. This classification includes six (6) items: open water, wetlands, seventy -five (75) foot buffer around open water and wetlands, land within the 100 and 500 year floodplains, Natural Community Land (as identified by the Minnesota County Biological Survey), and Natural /Semi Natural land cover (induding at least one of the following land with native vegetation, presence or habitat for a state endangered or threaten animal or plant, or land within 300 feet of a lake, stream, or water body). Lower Priority. The Lower Priority classification areas are natural areas that have habitat and water quality value but have experienced some disturbance or are dominated by non- native species. Lower Priority areas includes three (3) items: Natural /Semi Natural land that does not meet the criteria outlined in the High Priority category, land having man -made impervious surface of less than twenty -five (25) percent and at least fifty (50) acres in size, and areas of significant tree cover (as identified by the City's Parks and Recreation staff). Other Natural Area and Greenway Planning Efforts. This category includes three proposed greenway or trail locations: the Mississippi River Greenway, the Northern Dakota County Greenway and the Rosemount Interpretive Corridor. The City should work with landowners, adjacent cities and Dakota County to implement these greenways. According to the American Planning Association's Planning and Urban Design Standards, Greenways are lands set aside for preservation of natural resources, open space and visual aesthetic /buffering. Greenways also provide passive -use opportunities, most often in the form of trails and occasionally nature centers. The key focus is on protecting ecological resources and providing wildlife corridors. In the broadest application, greenways form a network of interconnected natural areas throughout a community. They function as part of a borderless system that links together parks, natural open space and trail corridors. Future/Expanded Natural Areas Inventory. The 2006 Natural Areas Assessment and associated map represent a good generalized inventory of the community's environment and natural resources. However, a goal of this plan should be to expand on this inventory to include additional resources both within and outside Rosemount. An expanded assessment 41 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA should work to identify additional important resources, classify criteria for ranking important resources, and categorize criteria to create a priority map. Additional important resource could include any of the following nine items: open space /recreation opportunities, bluff areas and slopes, soils (including aggregate), ground water, wildlife /endangered species, woodland /forested areas, non -woody upland vegetation, solar, and wind. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN The plan section outlines five (5) environment and natural resources goals and their associated objectives. It also identifies tools and strategies to help implement the community's vision, goals and objectives. Goals and Objectives 1. Preserve, protect and restore the natural environment with emphasis on the conservation of needed and useful natural resources for the present and future benefit of the community. A. Protect wetlands the natural resources identified in the Natural Resource Assessment from environmentally insensitive development. B. Establish an Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) to advise the City Council on environment and natural resource issues. C. Encourage and support tree planting and restoration efforts especially plantings of native, non invasive species. D. Work with development and redevelopment to reduce the use of non renewable resources and to reduce pollution. E. Identify methods to quantify and reduce the community's Carbon Footprint. 2. Utilize natural resource areas to provide an overall open space system that satisfies the physiological and psychological needs of both individuals and the community. A. Expand the Natural Resources Assessment to identify additional important resources, classify criteria for ranking important resources, and categorize criteria to update the priority map. Connect and coordinate existing natural resources areas through a continuous greenway network creating a more ecological system of open space. Encourage through development incentives, the preservation and management of all natural resource amenities. B. C. D. Develop partnerships with non -profit or private organizations, neighborhood groups or other interested parties for the purpose of acquiring targeted open spaces. 42 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA E. Support the construction of soft, permeable, low impact trail in natural areas when feasible. 3. Create a livable community where future development respects and integrates the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the community while maintaining or enhancing economic opportunity and community well being. A. Study the development of "Clean Industry" such as Biofuel /Biomass, solar, and wind energy production. B. Use natural resource open space to physically separate uses which are incompatible by scale or function. C. Conduct a sustainability audit to identify and develop how the city can enhance livability through sustainable practices. D. Promote environmentally friendly design standards such as Active Living, Smart Growth, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and the like. E. Study the feasibility and economic viability of creating a Green Fleet of City vehicles. 4. Encourage activities that reduce the consumption of finite resources and ensure there are opportunities to re -use or recycle natural resources. A. Encourage activities that conserve energy and result in less /no pollution output such as waste reduction, alternative transportation modes, alternative energy sources and composting. B. Encourage and support sustainable farming practices including Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture's `Best Management Practices" for specific crops. C. Encourage limited and responsible use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers on residential and public lands. D. Reduce the waste stream and create a sustainable environment by continue to provide and encourage curbside recycling of reusable waste materials through educational events, promotional materials and volunteer efforts. E. Reduce City government's use of scarce and non renewable resources and actively support similar efforts throughout the community. 5. Work with federal, state, regional, and local governments as well as with residents' groups and nonprofit organizations to protect natural resources both within and around the City of Rosemount. 43 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA A. Continue implementation of the Mississippi River Recreation Area (MNRRA) plan. B. Support and encourage community efforts in environmental awareness, education and stewardship. C. Establish and maintain conservation areas for wildlife management and education and scientific purposes. D. Work with Dakota County Technical College and the University of Minnesota at U More Park to promote environmental education. E. Promote the extension of natural resource corridors into adjacent jurisdiction. Implementation Tools and Strategies The environment and natural resources implementation tools and strategies are divided into eight (8) categories, each of which is detailed below. These are intended to provide examples of tactics to realize this plan. Each category should be reviewed and implemented in compliance with this plan. 1. Advisory Committee Establishment. The Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) would serve as an advisory board to the City Council on environment and natural resource issues. The EAC could review land use and development proposals and recommend policies, ordinances, and procedures to enhance the City's environment and natural resources. The EAC could also provide direction regarding creation of greenways, protection of cultural and ecological assets within the community and guidance concerning community -wide education programs. The City Council could appoint the members of the EAC from residents, members of existing advisory boards or the City Council. 2. Future /Expanded Natural Areas Assessment. An expanded assessment should work to identify additional important resources, classify criteria for ranking important resources, and categorize criteria to update the priority map. Additional important resource could include any of the following nine items: open space /recreation opportunities, bluff areas and slopes, soils (including aggregate), ground water, wildlife /endangered species, woodland /forested areas, non -woody upland vegetation, solar, wind 3. Economic Development. Natural Resources are a vital component of economic activity. Uses for natural resources range from raw materials for industrial activity to environments for active and passive recreational opportunities for both residents and tourists. Balancing environmental needs with economic growth is a vital component of environment and natural resource planning. One strategy to attempt this would be to promote the development of "Clean Industry" or "Green Collar" jobs including Biomass /Biofuel, solar, and wind production. Development of these industries could serve to compliment and diversify Rosemount's existing agriculture and fuel refining industries. 44 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 'ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 4. Design Guidelines. Design guidelines are supplementary documents that further define the community's vision by identifying desired elements for a given development topic or special planning area. For example, Rosemount has already developed design guidelines to help direct the redevelopment of downtown. Other development topics or special planning areas to consider include: Energy- Efficient Development, Green Infrastructure, LEED ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Design), State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, Growth Management, Smart Growth and Active Living. Once guidelines are developed they could be used to create specific zoning standards (see Ordinance Development below). While Active Living policies are further defined in Appendix A, the City should study development of these other tools as part of comprehensive plan implementation. 5. Ordinance Development. To date, the City of Rosemount has created several ordinances to implement the community's environment and natural resources vision. These ordinances include: Agriculture Preserve, Shoreland Management, Floodplain, Tree Protection, Wetland Protection and Individual Sewage Treatment ordinances. Additional items for the City to research and consider include: Open -Space Preservation or Clustering, Wellhead Protection, Aggregate Resources Protection and Natural Resource Overlay Ordinances (see Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Model Ordinance). 6. Open Space Preservation. The rationale for creating open -space or cluster standards is to guide development to preserve contiguous open space and protect natural resources that would otherwise be lost through the typical development process. Examples of these zoning techniques include: Conservation Easements, Transfer of Development Rights, Purchase of Development Rights, Preferential Taxation, Property Acquisition and Land Banking. The intent of these methods is not to alter the overall density of a project but rather to transfer density from desired preservation areas to other developable areas. The result being that private property owners are granted reasonable economic use of their property without adversely impacting the natural or open space resources desired by the community as a whole. 7. Education Outreach. Education outreach is an essential yet often underutilized component of environment and natural resource planning. While environmental issues have become more mainstream, many people do not realize how their daily personal habits impact the environment. To this end, the City should develop educational materials and resources for residents in the areas of composting, recycling, landscaping, energy use, personal consumption and other conservation issues. In addition, the City should develop partnerships with organizations whose mission is to educate the public about environmental protection and natural resource management. Potential partners and resources for these two strategies include the Department of Natural Resources, Friends of the Mississippi River, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network, the University of Minnesota (U More Park), Dakota County Technical College, Home Owners' Associations and District 196 schools as well as the Environmental (Zoo) School. 45 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan RJR ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 8. Intergovernmental Cooperation. Environmental resources span across local, state and international boundaries. Examples of this include the Mississippi River which runs through Rosemount to several other states and into the Golf of Mexico or the air pollution produce by Rosemount residents and industry which flows into the surrounding region. While Rosemount's impact on the world's water and air resources is relatively small, these examples serve to illustrate the interconnection between local decisions and global environmental resources. As a result, the City of Rosemount should develop partnerships with others (local, regional, state, national and international) groups and agencies committed to environmental and natural resource preservation, protection and restoration. 46 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA Connemara Tr •ifsYy; G 7 II ssissippi River Greenway trategic Plan, 2001 160th tE HIGHEST PRIORITY Natural areas that are the most important water quality and habitat resources in the City w.'� 1. open water Data Swans: CayafRosemount 2. wetlands 0 Data Sou ce: CaycfR eeeo mt I 3. A buffer up to 75' aramd open water and wetlands Data Source: City qfRomaaso WedmdMmtagaasent and Protection Rgwrmema 4. Land within the 100 and 500 year floodplains. Data Soma: FEW esources 5. The area has been identified by the Minnesota County Biological Survey as i Natural Community. It Communities Data Soa Dnkom CwmrySodand WndCwwroaea DLwitDakoa Coen PrMri Natural Areas 6. Natural/semi-natural land cover* with at least one of the following characters a Lend with native vegetation. b. Presence or habitat for a date endangered, threatened special concern plant or animal. c. Land is within 300' of a lake, stream or water body. Data Source: Dakota Coma ySail and WaterCanarmcoe DLO:et Dakota CosentyPrd Natural An. "Naarollasta nmaral lad macaw elaojjda the Mamma aL dCoveraavplm for Dakota Camay developrdbytladAMR Natural Areas Map Fig 2006 Rosemount Natural Area Identificatk Vermillion Twp. 1,500 750 0 Feet 0.5 1 Miles Hoisington Koegler Group, inc. 3 Figure 6.1 Natural Areas Map 47 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA CHAPTER 7: LAND USE Recent Land Use Planning The City of Rosemount adopted the Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan (2020 Plan) on February 15, 2000 by Resolution Number 2000 -08. The 2020 Plan is shown in Figure 7.1. The 2020 Plan expected 7,345 housing units by 2010 (a number that Rosemount has reached in 2007) and 10,200 housing units by 2020 (the number of units in the current Metropolitan Council forecast for 2010). The 2020 Plan predicted that urban residential growth through 2020 would not occur east of Akron Avenue nor north of Bonaire Path (Old County Road 38). The residential land uses that receive City sewer and water service were limited to two designations, Urban Residential (typically single family housing) and High Density Residential (typically multiple story apartment or condominiums). Realizing that the 2020 Plan was not addressing the level of residential development that the City was experiencing, the City began a major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that was titled the County Road 42 -US Highway 52 Corridor Plan (42 -52 Plan). The 42 -52 Plan is shown in Figure 7.2. The 42 -52 Plan resulted in four major changes to the 2020 Plan. First, residential development was expected to occur north of Bonaire Path and east of Akron Avenue. Second, a Medium Density Residential designation was created that would typically be attached townhomes. Third, additional commercial and industrial land was expected east of US Highway 52 in anticipation of an improved County Road 42 and US Highway 52 interchange. Fourth, the Metropolitan Council forecast was revised to expect 10,200 housing units by 2010 and 13,700 housing units by 2020. The 42 -52 Plan was adopted by the City Council on July 19, 2005 by Resolution Number 2005 -84. Since its adoption, the City has created an alternative urban areawide review (AUAR) for the residential areas north of Bonaire Path and east of Akron Avenue. In 2007, the City approved the first preliminary plat within the AUAR that included 50 acres of commercial property and 583 residential units. The City has used the planning work done during the 42 -52 Plan as the basis for the Land Use Plan of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Metropolitan Council Regional Development Framework The Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework Areas shown on Figure 7.1. Rosemount has about half of the corrununity within the Developing Area category and about half within the Agricultural Area category. The Developing Areas are located in the urban area west of Akron Avenue and the industrial area of east Rosemount located along US Highway 52. Rosemount anticipates generally developing within the Developing Area before 2020. but development between 2020 and 2030 will occur the Agricultural Area north of County Road 42 and southeast of the intersection of US Highway 52 and County Road 42. The City requests that the Metropolitan Council change the designation of these two post 2020 development areas to the Developing Area in the Regional Development Framework. 48 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Land Use Area Percentage Single Family Residential 2.555 11.3% Multi Family Residential 320 1.4 0 Farmsteads 160 0.7 Commercial 140 0.6% Mixed Use 35 0. Industrial 1.700 7.5% Extractive 180 0.8% Institutional 375 11.7% Parks Recreation, and Preserves 910 4.0% Ma jor Vehicular Right of Way 335 1.5% Railways 50 0.2 0 Airports 0 0.0% Open Water 1.155 5.1% Agriculture 9.270 41.1% Undevelop 5.365 23.8% Total 22.550 100.0% Population 14,619 21,950 29,600 38,400 15,50038.400 Households 4,742 7,430 10,200 13,700 13.70016,850 Employment 6,356 7,780 8,400 10,100 12,200 Existing Land Uses Generally, Rosemount can be summarized into three land uses areas: the urban area of western Rosemount; the industrial area of eastern Rosemount, and the agricultural area of southern Rosemount. The 2005 generalized land uses is shown on Figure 7.2. The urban area includes a range of different residential densities, retail commercial and businesses, and the public and institutional uses that form the fabric of the community. The industrial east side is concentrated north of County Road 42 and on both sides of US Highway 52. The agricultural area is predominately located south of County Road 42 and east of Biscayne Avenue or north of County Road 42 between Akron Avenue and Rich Valley Boulevard. xi tin Land Uses $ource:.Vletropolitan Council Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts According to the 2000 Census, the City of Rosemount had a population of 14,619 people within 4,742 households. Using data from the City of Rosemount Building Division, the City created an additional 2,688 housing units between 2000 and 2006, resulting in a January 1, 2007 household count of 7,430 and an estimated population of 21,950. xx. Table 7.21 Metropolitan Council Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts 2000 2007b 2010c 2020c 2030c US Census Bureau b City of Raremount, as of December 31, 2007 Metropolitan Council 49 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 4 Figure 7.34 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 50 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 11111111111n■ -n c CD C 0 0 0. 0 UP CD CD 3 0 3 0 Ci) 111:imir::-'11:1::.°111111.111111111 gi'ls1.11111F111111 JP"' f"..f.7:4_ 11164v lalltAgailiall: ".1::1"1111111.11.11111111F 111 lllll 0.0 t; ‘...k.1110, L! ini: E 411/1111 17 L bigt Itlys.* 1: l l 31 1 :1 11 0 1 aux. or vrel l I F I ilk a I mm 101. V.11 Itte r Ll °iii IliliniiiiiillI "ail hang st •P- /11'► �r j .1 !thrill? .t ME r ipms re kin 4wmaingh N-9 0111i1r111 !�1 �ti *FEW „�o� i 111■ aohn /11111111111114 MI. 1 411! N D 5 G) G) 7J X 0 N C FE; a Ei co 0) v 0 1 -0 6 p c o C 3 u) cn X 7 1L O 0 n 0 3 0 0 0 v 3 rn a N 0 0 CO r ii t f lor 114 3 PI �i�IIN�� :Illlllr IV r�i -o t I1 i Aoki 4 3 inpre- imporfe■ allow' 4k a 'II it I m1111A/ 11x!1 ild V 1411111 VI 0 A pm., In' 19 r, I I �r i 1 cQ m v o 7 0 3 0 Cn Cn D 1 CD 0 7 cp v a) 7. o_ 0 o 3 0 m o m x N m 3 a m m Co w. m co O S CO 0) 0 c cu (a a. a 6• N 7 v N 3 (D 00 O 0 D D r r Figure 5 Figure 7.42 County Road 42 US Highway 52 Corridor Land Use Plan 51 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 9ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA Transitional Residential 155 2.00 310 Low Density Residential 270548 2.35 6354499 Medium Density Residential 150 7.00 1,050 High Density Residential 30 20.00 600 Population 14.619 21.950 23.750 33.050 42 Households 4.742 7 8.050 11 15.500 Employment 6.356 7 780 8 400 10.100 12 In 2005, the Metropolitan Council provided forecasts for each community within the seven county metropolitan area to be used during the creation of each community's Comprehensive Plan. The forecasts for Rosemount included 10,200 households by 2010 and 13,700 households by 2020, both of which were forecasts determined during the 42 -52 Plan approval. The Metropolitan Council did not determine a 2030 household estimate in its original forecast. The City of Rosemount is proposing 15,550 households in 2030, 1,800 households more than the Metropolitan Council had forecast in 2020. To achieve this increased household growth, Rosemount has added an additional 605 acres of residential land, which is shown on Figure 7.5 and Table 7.3. Rosemount has reviewed the Metropolitan Council forecasts and determined that the City will not meet the 2010 forecast of 10,200 households. Review the local and regional housing markets, the believe that a reasonable 2010 housing forecast would be 8,050 households generating a population of 23,750 people. Rosemount has produced a 2030 Land Use Map (Figure 7.5) that can accoinmoidate at least 7,450 additional household beyond the 8,050 households anticipated in 2010. The City forecasts a 2020 household count of 11,800 and population of 33,050, as well as a 2030 household count of 15,500 and population of 42,000. The City believes these forecast are comparable to the overall growth anticipated in the Metropolitan Council forecast and will not have an impact on the regional systems. has planned for an additional 3,150 households from 2021 t 2030, f r a total 16,850 households in 2030. The household figure was Comprehensive Land Usc Plan, which is shown n Figur Council Staff has reviewed the forecast of 16,850 housch ids in 2030 and instructed the City The population forecast of 42.05300 people and 15,5006,850 households in the year 2030 has been used within the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Parks and Open Space Plan, the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, and the Comprehensive Municipal Water Plan of this 2030 Comprehensive Plan. xxi. Table 7.32.: Additional Housing Units Developed from 2020 to 2030Added to the 2030 Land Use Map Land Us Desi ty (U Acres Total Residential Development Based on actual development densities per the Plat Monitoring data. Densi nits /Acre 1 Units 2 59534§9 xxii. Table 7.4: City of Rosemount Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts 2000a 2007" 2010c 2020c 2030c ['S Census Bureau o C'i(y II as of December 31. 2007 52 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Agriculture AG 5,340 0 5,340 Agricultural Research AGR 3,200 0 3,200 Rural Residential RR 1,540 290 1,830 Transitional Residential TR 740 190 930 Low Density Residential LDR 2,510 1,130 3,640 Medium Density Residential MDR 0 290 290 High Density Residential HDR 70 40 110 Commercial C 175 525 700 Business Park BP 120 725 845 Light Industrial LI 35 900 935 General Industrial GI 1,675 905 2,580 Waste Management WM 240 0 240 Public /Institutional PI 410 0 410 Parks and Open Space PO 52.5 0 525 Floodplain (and Mississippi River) FP 975 0 975 CiF} of emimn Existing Land Uses The City of Rosemount currently has 4,860 acres of developed residential land, 295 acres of developed commercial or business park land, 1,950 acres of developed industrial land, and 935 acres developed as institutional or recreational. The developed areas of Rosemount are predominately located in the western third of the City. The development located within the eastern two thirds of the City is generally limited to the Dakota County Technical College, the Flint Hills refinery, and the industrial uses along Minnesota Highway 55. The 2020 Plan, as amended by the 42 -52 Plan, has 1,460 acres of undeveloped residential land within the existing metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) boundary Additionally, there are 1,250 undeveloped acres of commercial and business park land and about 1,400 undeveloped acres of industrial land within the MUSA. The Land Use Plan generally supports the land uses that currently exist within the developed portions of the City, with the exception of the Downtown area and the commercial properties along South Robert Trail. Some of the land use designations within this plan have been changed from the 2020 Plan, but most often they reflect the actual development that has occurred during the last ten years. Downtown Rosemount will be encouraged to redevelop as depicted in the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount. The existing commercial uses along South Robert Trail between County Road 42 and County Road 46 are typical auto oriented or light industrial in nature. The City will encourage redevelopment of these properties into a retail commercial or professional office when appropriate. x Table 7.53: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Developed Undeveloped Land Areal Land Areal Acres (Acres Land Use Designation Land Use Abbreviation Total Land Area (Acres) 53 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 9ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA Total Land Uses 17,555 4,995 22,550 1 As of 12/31/2007 2030 Planned Land Uses To accommodate the additional growth that is expected by 2030, the Land Use Plan proposes an additional 12 70510 acres of land for development. Of the 1548 acres, 605545 acres are designated for additional residential development, while the remaining 665 acres are designated for various levels of commercial and industrial uses. The distribution of land uses within the Land Use Plan is shown in the Figure 7.55 and Table 7.65. The land uses of 1,270510 additional acres of developable land are generally consistent with the land uses of the 42 -52 Plan, with the boundaries between the land uses generally located along the major roadways depicted within the Transportation Plan as shown in Figure 7.64. The east side of Rosemount is the area of biggest change between the 2020 Plan and the 2030 Land Use Plan. The 2030 Land Use Plan maintains the Commercial node at the intersection US Highway 52 and County Road 42, but the majority of the County Road 42 frontage between US Highway 52 and Emery Avenue is expected to develop as professional offices and office showrooms of the Business Park designation. Surrounding the intersection of Emery Avenue and County Road 42 is a commercial node expected to develop as retail commercial, personal services and professional offices. 54 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 1 1 i O O N 01 O 01 J1 N 0 i 1��. /I '1I I,r \..�\1I'II %I. Q-imm 11 n z 0 D O 00 —+G) O u z 0 D g m (D o (o f°. co' D o o c w o c n o m O o 3 o o_ 9 (D O m a. 3 a v 3 v. m n 0 r r n o_ cn w 1 D 0 CO m c x m. rn 7 (D 5 0, "o w w 0 a m w N D m 2] 2] 2] 33) TJ (D cn Q (D 0) 1 1 i e i1 +hAir: !111110 uuuuI Agriculture AG 3 790608 0 3 750608 Agricultural Research AGR 3,200 0 3,200 Rural Residential RR 1,540 290 1,830 Transitional Residential TR 740 170 910 Low Density Residential LDR 2,105510 1,510358 3,615790 Medium Density Residential MDR 2108 480698 690 High Density Residential HDR 5578 70 12540 Downtown DT 65 0 65 Neighborhood Commercial NC 5 10 15 Community Commercial CC 125 475 600 Regional Commercial RC 0 370 370 Business Park BP 120 1,485 1,605 Light Industrial LI 35 580 615 General Industrial GI 1,675 1,085 2,760 Waste Management WM 240 0 240 Public /Institutional PI 470 0 470 Parks and Open Space PO 675 0 675 Floodplain (and Mississippi River) FP 975 0 975 Total Land Uses 16,0245 6,5205 22,550 450694 acres of residential land uses are planned east of US Highway 52 and south of County Road 42. The residential development is focused around two mixed residential neighborhoods, one located along Emery Avenue and the other located along a future major collector roadway which will have a full access onto County Road 42. This pattern of residential development supports the Housing Goals of designing subdivisions to create independent neighborhoods, providing a mixture of rental and ownership opportunities to provide life cycle housing, and locating different housing styles within appropriate areas. xxivxxivxxiii. Table 7.6 .3: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations Developed Undeveloped Land Areal Land Areal (Acresl Acres Land Use Designation 1 As of 12/31/2007 Land Use Abbreviation Total Land Area (Acres) Metropolitan Council MUSA Implementation Guidelines The Metropolitan Council is determined to enforce its minimum urban density standard of three (3) to five (5) units per acre within the areas planned for sanitary sewer service daring the approval of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. To enforce this level of development, the Metropolitan Council approved on September 12, 2007 a set of guidelines to determine minimum urban density. The Metropolitan Council guidelines that affect Rosemount are: The lowest allowable density shall be used for each residential land use designation. The City may be credited on a one for one basis for the number of housing units that have been platted in excess of three units per acre. Only residential land that has been re- guided from the 2020 Land Use Plan or new residential land to be developed from 2020 to 2030 needs to be calculated. 57 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan J`ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA Transitional Residential 0_1-5 2 30 Low Density Residential 145151 2.35 3413-5-5 Medium Density Residential 24 7 168510 I ligh Dcnaity ResielentialDowntowna 48 20 0108 Units over 3 un /ac since 2000 Total Residential 176213 3.5084 617925 Transitional Residential 155 1.00 155 Low Density Residential 27051- 1.00 270510 Medium Density Residential 150 5.00 750 High Density Residential 30 10.00 300 Units over 3 un /ac since 2000 n/a n/a 822 Table 7.74 shows that the minimum urban density of the 2030 Land Use Plan, per the Metropolitan Council guidelines, shall develop at a 3.8 units per acre, well apove the minimum of three (3) units per acre. xxvxxvxxiv. Table 7.74: New Residential Land Uses in the 2030 Land Use Map Total Residential Development 605845 The lowest allowed density per the Metropolitan Council guidelines. Acres Densi (Units /Acre 3.8080 xxvi<xxvixxv. Table 7.8$: 2007 2010 Residential Development Acres Develo Units per Acre The Downtown land use designation allows High Density Residential development. hWaterfnrd Commons was approved on 03 /18/2008 for 108 apartment units. Units 2 9 7537 Growth and Development between 2007 and 2030 The Land Use Plan shows two MUSA boundaries: a 2020 MUSA that is expected before 2020 and a 2030 MUSA which is expected to develop between 2021 and 2030. The 2020 MUSA includes the currently developed areas of Rosemount; the developable land north of County Road 42 and west of US Highway 52; the general industrial land south of Minnesota Highway 55; and the land surrounding the intersection of County Road 42 and US Highway 52. The 2030 MUSA includes the general industrial land between Minnesota Highway 55 and Pine Bend Trail; the industrial and commercial land south along US Highway 52 and east along County Road 42; and residential property located approximately one mile east of US Highway 52 and three quarters of a mile south of County Road 42. Residential development between 2008 and 2010 is expected to occur generally south of Bonaire Path and west of Akron Avenue. The majority of the development will likely occur in subsequent phases of previously developed subdivisions, such as Evermoor, Harmony, and Prestwick Place. Number of Units Residential development between 2011 and 2020 is expected to occur north of Bonaire Path (between Bacardi Avenue and Akron Avenue) and west of Akron Avenue (between Bonaire Path and County Road 42). The area north of Bonaire Path is a mixture of farm fields, wetlands, and trees. This area is designated Low Density Residential and will most likely be single family homes. The area west of Akron Avenue is predominately farm fields with some trees, mostly in windrows along the property lines. This area is designated a mixture of Low Density, 58 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA LAl1l. Vote. L..oa�u »...v.. Transitional Residential r 70 2 140 Low Density Residential 317290 2.35 745680 Medium Density Residential 171120 7 1197840 171120b High Density Residential 2015 20 400300 High Density Residential Total Residential 578495 4.0841 21851 960a 1.303.96 Total Residential 57$495 1.293.96 Transitional Residential r 70 2 0 140 Low Density Residential 317290• 2.35 Medium Density Residential 745680 7 Medium Density Residential 171120b 7 High Density Residential 1195840 20 High Density Residential 2015 20 4.0841 400300 Total Residential 57$495 1.293.96 2A 801.960c a_ 1010 Transitional Residential 0 2 0 Low Density Residential 231340 2.35 558800 Medium Density Residential 131190 7 915840 High Density Residential 15 20 300 Total Residential 580475 4.0841 17651.940a Transitional Residential 0 2 0 Low Density Residential 2343-90• 2.35 550800 Medium Density, and High Density Residential. These neighborhoods are intended to provide a wide variety of housing types for residents of all age groups. This area provides the densities to meet the Metropolitan Council density and affordable housing guidelines. xxviiviixxvi. Table 7.97: 2011 2015 Residential Development Units per Acre 1'11 a r of l nd curr n e Includes 60 acres of land currently enrolled in the Agriculture Preserve Program which is set to exrire an .Aunust 29. 2010. o Includes a 5 vacancy rate to generate 1,850 households. Inc! enrol 111 or Includes a 5 °'o vacancy rate to oenerate 1.850 households. ture t'rea eec w 0 xxviiixxviiixxvii. Table 7.10$: 2016 2020 Residential Development Units per Acre Number of Units Number of Units Residential development between 2021 and 2030 is expected to occur predominately east of US Highway 52 and south of County Road 42. This large area is divided into two mixed residential neighborhood, one centered on Emery Avenue, and the other centered along a future major collector street between US Highway 52 and Emery Avenue. The future major collector will likely be the only street with a full access intersection of County Road 42 between US Highway 52 and Emery Avenue. These neighborhoods are intended to provide a wide variety of housing types for residents of all age groups. There is an opportunity for a mixed use development along Emery Avenue similar to a transit orientated district, but no transit service is anticipated east of US Highway 52 within the timeframe of the 2030 Land Use Plan. This area provides the densities to meet the Metropolitan Council density and affordable housing guidelines. xxixx xxxviii. Table 7.11 2021 2025 Residential Development nits per Acre Number of Units Includes a 5% vacancy rate to generate 1.850 households. xxxxxxxxix. Table 7.120: 2026 2030 Residential Development is per Acre Number of Units 59 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINkEEOTA Medium Density Residential 131120b 7 94-5840 High Density Residential 15 20 300 Total Residential ;58475 4.08£4 4-76.51 940c Includes 160 acres of land that is currently enrol ed in the Agriculture Preserve program. h Incl des acre~ .f land hat is curr ti enrolled in the A?riculture Preserve r am Includes a 5% vacancy rate to generate 1.350 households. Affordable Housing Need from 2011 -2020 The Metropolitan Council has determined that 51,030 new affordable housing units are needed for the seven county metropolitan area between the years 2011 and 2020, which is equivalent to 30.6% of the 166,547 total housing units expected during the same period. The Metropolitan Council has determined that Rosemount's share of the region's affordable housing need is 1.000 units. The Metropolitan Council has defined an affordable unit as a housing unit that is priced at or below 30% of the gross income of a household earning 60% of the Twin Cities median family income. Land Use Plans determine residential designations based on density and housing type, not housing unit costs or pricing. Low Density Residential housing units are typically single family homes, Medium Density Residential units are typically townhomes, and High Density Residential units are typically multiple story apartment or condominium units. Generally,, single family homes are the most expensive housing units and apartments are the least expensive, but some small lot single family homes can be affordable and some multiple story condominium buildings can have units in excess of $500,000. While increased density does not equal affordability, the Metropolitan Council has chosen density to serve as a proxy for affordability. The Metropolitan Council has stated that residential land designated for densities in excess of six (6) units per acre will be determined as affordable units. Tables 7.97 and 7.108 demonstrate that the Land Use Plan will develop 240312 acres of Medium Density Residential land and 3040 acres of High Density Residential land between 2011 and 2020. The Medium Density Residential land is anticipated to develop at an average of seven (7) units per acre for a total of 2,3951,680 units, while the High Density Residential land is anticipated to develop at twenty (20) units per acre for a total of 6800 units. From 2011 to 2020, the Land Use Plan anticipates developing a total of 3,1952.280 units in excess of six (6) units per acre, well exceeding the 1 000934 affordable units that the Metropolitan Council has determined for the City of Rosemount. 60 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Ji ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Land Use Designations Agricultural (AG) Purpose: This land use designation is intended for the majority of the land that is located outside the MUSA. Rosemount has a long history of agriculture, but the community is rapidly urbanizing. The City must balance the needs of the continued farming operations with the expansion of the urban landscape. Location Criteria: Outside the MUSA. Minimum Requirements for Development Development is discouraged in the agricultural land use designations. Construction activities should be limited to expansions of farming operations and housing for farm families. Utilities: Private wells and septic systems are required. Typical Uses: Crop and livestock farming; farmstead housing; churches; recreational open spaces; parks; and public buildings. Density: One (1) unit per forty (40) acres Appropriate Zoning: AG Agricultural Limited Secondary Zoning: AGP Agricultural Preserve for property enrolled in the agricultural preserve program; P Public and Institutional for churches, parks, or open space. There are a number of agricultural properties within the City that are enrolled in the Agricultural Preserve, Green Acres, or other property tax relief programs. The City will continue to support enrollment of active agricultural properties within these programs provided that it does not inhibit the orderly development of the City. The City discourages the use of these programs by land owners to reduce the holding costs of land before the property develops or the use of these programs to defer assessments of public infrastructure on properties that are to be developed in the near future. Agricultural Research (AGR) Purpose: This land use designation is used solely for the UMore Park property that is owned and operated by the University of Minnesota. It is anticipated that, after the UMore Park Master Plan is created and adopted, a major Comprehensive Plan amendment will be conducted to re- designate the land to its appropriate land use category. Location Criteria: Within the UMore Park property owned and operated by the University of Minnesota. Minimum Requirements for Development: Land uses that support the educational and research missions of the University of Minnesota are exempt from local land use regulations. Utilities: Private wells and septic systems are required. Typical Uses: Agricultural production; research laboratories; classrooms; offices; and conference rooms Density: One (1) unit per (40) acres Appropriate Zoning: AG Agricultural Limited Secondary Zoning: None The University of Minnesota is currently preparing a Master Plan for the development of the UMore Park property into a mixed use urban neighborhood(s). The City of Rosemount, Empire Township, Dakota County, and other relevant parties are working with the University of Minnesota in the creation of the Master Plan. The Master Plan will not be 61 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 9ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA completed in time for inclusion in the 2030 Land Use Plan, which is required to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by December 31, 2008. The City will maintain the Agricultural Research designation on the UMore Park property for the submittal of the 2030 Land Use Plan. The City anticipates that a major Comprehensive Plan amendment will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council following the completion of the Master Plan. The City expects that the UMore Park Master Plan will be a unique development that will have its own resources and marketing that is beyond that available to the typical urban developer. For that reason, the City anticipates that the potential future development of UMore Park will be in addition to the growth depicted within the 2030 Land Use Plan. The City expects that the population, households, and employment forecasts will need to be increased due to the magnitude of this development. The City and the University of Minnesota are partnering (along with other agencies) in the creation of a Master Plan for the development of the UMore property into a mixed use neighborhood(s). Before the University chooses to proceed with development, the City will submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment and required environmental review documents covering the proposed development for approval by the Metropolitan Council and other applicable agencies. The City shall determine the appropriate environmental review process based on the magnitude of the development, the potential impacts, and State agency guidance on the appropriate level of review. The development of the UMore property within Rosemount into a mixed use neighborhood is expected to comply with the City Code and adopted policies. Rural Residential (RR) Purpose: Northwestern Rosemount is characterized by a rolling, wooded landscape that includes numerous lakes and wetlands. To preserve this natural landscape, the City has designated this land as rural residential to provide residential housing while preserving significant areas of wetlands and woodlands. The keeping of horses is anticipated within the rural residential area, but the farming of other livestock is discouraged. Location Criteria: Located in northwest Rosemount, generally described as north of 132n Street West and west of Akron Avenue. Minimum Requirements for Development: Street frontage and a buildable area outside of wetlands and wetland buffers. Being rural in nature, it is not expected that urban features such as sidewalks, neighborhood parks, or a grid pattern of streets will be installed when the land is developed. Trail corridors (for pedestrian, bicyclists, and /or horses) shall be encouraged to provide the connection of the rural residents with each other, as well as to the City as a whole. Utilities: Private wells and septic systems are required. Typical Uses: Single family homes; hobby farm; churches; recreational open spaces; parks; and public buildings. Density: One (1) unit per five (5) acres Appropriate Zoning: RR Rural Residential Limited Secondary Zoning: AG Agricultural for lots that are greater twenty (20) acres in size. 62 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA The City conducted an open house with the rural residential land owners on June 18, 2007 and asked them if they were supportive of the one (1) unit per five (5) acre standard in the Rural Residential designation. The City received 55 responses to this question and 87% of them were supportive of the one (1) unit per five (5) acre standard. Residents overwhelmingly want the rural residential character of northwest Rosemount to be maintained. The majority of the parcels that is designated Rural Residential is five (5) acres or less in size, meaning that no further subdivision would be allowed. There are a small number of parcels that are twenty (20) acres or larger in size that are suitable for further subdivision. The development of these parcels will need to be sensitive to the wetlands, trees, and other natural resources unique to this area. Transitional Residential (TR) Purpose: This land use designation is intended to transition between the rural residential area of northwest Rosemount and the urban development of greater Rosemount. Transitional residential areas are intended to receive urban services sometime in the future, while it may not be within the timeframe of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Development that occurs within the transitional residential designation is intended to have urban densities, but generally at a lesser density than the other residential land use designation. Location Criteria: Areas within the MUSA that have a rolling, wooded landscape similar to the rural residential northwest; developed residential neighborhoods with lots less than one (1) acre in size outside of the MUSA. Minimum Requirements for Development: The extension of urban service is needed for the further development of the Transitional Residential area. Transitional Residential land within the MUSA is currently suitable for development. The subdivision of property is expected to provide the full range of urban infrastructure, such as sidewalks, neighborhood parks, and streets with good access and interconnectivity. Utilities: Private wells and septic systems are required for rural residential land. Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required for land to be developed at urban densities. Typical Uses: Single family homes; churches; parks; and public buildings. Duplexes or townhomes with four (4) or less units per building may be considered as a part of a planned unit development provided that the overall density does not exceed three (3) units per acre. Density: One (1) unit per five (5) acres without municipal water and sanitary sewer. One (1) to three (3) units per acre with municipal water and sanitary sewer. The Transitional Residential area along Dodd Boulevard between 132n Street West and Connemara Trail may be considered to exceed three (3) per acre to transition between the multiple family housing to the south and east and the single family housing to the west. Appropriate Zoning: RR Rural Residential for parcels without municipal water and sanitary sewer; R1 Low Density Residential for parcels with municipal water and sanitary sewer. 63 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROS ivIOUNT MINNESOTA Limited Secondary Zoning RL Very Low Density Residential for neighborhoods of existing non conforming rural residential lots if municipal water and sanitary sewer is provided; AG Agricultural for lots that are greater twenty (20) acres in size There are two major areas of undeveloped or underdeveloped Transitional Residential designated land within the 2030 Land Use Plan that are within the 2020 MUSA. The first is the area bounded generally bounded by Dodd Boulevard, South Robert Trail, Connemara Trail and 132n Street West (Dodd Blvd Area). The second area is generally bounded by the Progress Rail rail line, Bonaire Path, Bacardi Avenue, and 130 Street West (Bacardi Area). The Dodd Blvd Area is bounded by townhouses and multiple family housing to the south and the east, single family housing to the west, and rural residential homes to the north. The property is expected to transition from townhouses along the South Robert Trail frontage to single family housing towards the Dodd Boulevard frontage. It is expected that the development of this area would require the reconstruction and reconnection of Dodd Boulevard to Connemara Trail and 132n Street West to provide direct access to the development without requiring the long term use of the single family neighborhood to the east for access. It is anticipated that this level of development may create a density of greater than three (3) units per acre for the Dodd Blvd Area. The Bacardi Area is bounded by single family homes to the south, a mixed residential neighborhood to the southwest, an existing rural neighborhood of single family homes with lots about one (1) acre in size to the north, and anticipated Low Density Residential development to the east. The area is within the shoreland district for Kegan Lake and therefore has an ordinance requiring open space and additional setbacks from the lake. It is anticipated that the area will develop predominately with single family homes to transition from the urban levels of development to the south and east to the rural neighborhoods to the north. Small lot single family homes or multiple family units less than four (4) units per building may be considered if that form of development provides for increased open space preservation and wetland /shoreland protection while not exceeding a gross density of three (3) units per acre. The Transitional Residential land outside of the MUSA is not anticipated to be developed within the 2030 Land Use Plan provided the individual septic systems continue to function without causing health concerns for the wells and wetlands. The City has a plan for providing municipal sanitary sewer service to the Transitional Residential land outside the MUSA if health concerns from failing septic systems arise. It is anticipated that the underdeveloped properties within the Transitional Residential areas would develop to urban densities if municipal sanitary sewer service is installed to supplement the costs of providing services to the existing Transitional Residential residents. Low Density Residential (LDR) Purpose: Low Density Residential housing is the predominant land use by area within the MUSA boundary. Low Density Residential housing is typically single family housing or townhouses with few units per building. The houses usually contain multiple bedrooms, bathrooms, and garage stalls per unit. Low Density Residential land provides housing 64 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan *ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA suitable for families with children, and as such, should be located close to schools, churches, public parks, and neighborhood commercial Location Criteria: Street frontage and within the MUSA. Minimum Requirements for Development: Low Density Residential subdivisions are expected to be provided with the full urban infrastructure, such as sidewalks, neighborhood parks, and streets with good access and interconnectivity. Attention should be paid to pedestrian and bicycle transportation to provide access for children to schools, churches, and public parks. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Typical Uses: Single family homes; duplexes; townhomes with four (4) or less units per building; churches; elementary and secondary schools; private recreation spaces maintained by homeowner associations; and public parks. Density: One (1) to five (5) units per acre Appropriate Zoning: R1 Low Density Residential Limited Secondary Zoning: R2 Moderate Density Residential; R1A Low Density Residential within subdivisions that were developed prior to 1980 Single Family Housing In Harmony Addition Medium Density Residential (MDR) Purpose: Medium Density Residential land uses provide almost half of the total housing units that will be developed between 2008 and 2030, while providing only a quarter of the currently undeveloped residential area. To provide the level of density within Medium Density Residential neighborhoods, individual yards outside of the units are typically not included. As opposed to Low Density Residential, these developments incorporate many common features outside the units, such as yards, driveways, maintenance, and recreational space. Location Criteria: Frontage onto collector and local streets and within the MUSA. Medium Density Housing works well in mixed uses development and adjacent to all land uses except industrial. Minimum Requirements for Development: Common private recreational opportunities should be provided within each residential development to compensate for the lack of private yard space per housing unit. Due to the density, individual garages should have access to private streets or driveways to limit the number of curb cuts onto public local street. Limiting the number of curb cuts will provide the maximum amount of public parking spaces on the public street frontages. Residential subdivisions are expected to be provided with the full urban infrastructure, such as sidewalks, neighborhood parks, and streets with good access and interconnectivity. Attention should be paid to pedestrian and bicycle transportation to provide access for children to schools, churches, and public parks. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Carbury Hills, May 2008 65 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Typical Uses: Single family homes or detached townhomes on smaller lots; duplexes; townhomes with three (3) of more units per building; churches; elementary and secondary schools; private recreation spaces maintained by homeowner associations; and public parks. Density: Five (5) to ten (10) units per acre Appropriate Zoning: R3 Medium Density Residential Limited Secondary Zoning: R2 Moderate Density Residential High' Density Residential (HDR) Purpose: The intent of the High Density Residential district is to accommodate many of the life cycle housing options not addressed within the Low Density or Medium Density Residential land uses. Senior and assisted living development for the increasing aging population, along with affordable rental or ownership units for new graduates or young families, often require greater densities than are allowed within the low or medium density neighborhoods. High density residential housing shall be constructed of the same or better building materials and have access to the same recreational, institutional, and commercial amenities as the other residential uses. Location Criteria: Frontage onto collector and local streets and within the MUSA. High Density Housing works well in mixed uses development and adjacent to most land uses except industrial. Minimum Requirements for Development: Common private recreational opportunities should be provided within each residential development to compensate for the lack of private yard space per housing unit. Care will need to be taken to buffer between high density and low density residential due to the difference in scale of the uses. Residential subdivisions are expected to be provided with the full urban infrastructure, such as sidewalks, neighborhood parks, and streets with good access and interconnectivity. Attention should be paid to pedestrian and bicycle transportation to provide access for children to schools, churches, and public parks. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Typical Uses: Townhomes with six (6) to twelve (12) units per building; multiple story apartment or condominium buildings; churches; elementary and secondary schools; private recreation spaces maintained by homeowner associations; and public parks. Density: Ten (10) to twenty -four (24) units per acre Appropriate Zoning: R4 High Density Residential Limited Secondary Zoning: R3 Medium Density Residential Downtown (DT) Purpose: This land use designation is intended to provide for the variety of land uses that make a successful downtown. These uses include the civic functions of government, education, and gathering spaces, as well as the variety of uses that would allow residents to live, work, shop and recreate all within downtown. The focus of this land use designation will be to regulate the performance standards of properties and buildings (such as building materials and appearance; shared parking; and pedestrian focused streets and building frontages) over the segregation of land uses that typically occur in the other land use designations within the Comprehensive Plan. 66 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Location Criteria: The downtown area is roughly bounded from one block west of South Robert Street, to the railroad tracks on the east, and from 143` Street East on the north to just short of County Road 42 on the south. Minimum Requirements for Development: This land use designation is more concerned about the appearance and performance of buildings and properties within downtown rather than the uses that actually occupy the buildings. Land uses that can meet the performance standards described by the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount, the Downtown Design Guidelines, and the Zoning Ordinance should be allowed to develop downtown. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Typical Uses: Public buildings; elementary and secondary schools; libraries; churches; gathering places; parks; townhouses; apartments; condominiums; retail; restaurants; bars; and offices. Appropriate Zoning: A newly created DT Downtown or MU Mixed Use zoning district; C2 Downtown Commercial; P Public and Institutional; Limited Secondary Zoning: R3 Medium Density Residential; R4 High Density Residential; C4 General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Purpose: This land use designation is intended to provide areas for commercial businesses that focus their services to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Location Criteria: The size of each Neighborhood Commercial district is intended to be less than five (5) acres in size. The district should be located adjacent to collector or arterial streets, but the access to the commercial area should be equally focused on pedestrians and bicyclists as the automobile. Minimum Requirements for Development: The development of these commercial areas is dependant on an existing or developing residential neighborhood, a developed street network, and a system of sidewalks and trails. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Typical Uses: Restaurants; retail; gas stations; convenience stores; and personal services. Appropriate Zoning. C1 Convenience Commercial Limited Secondary Zoning: C4 General Commercial Community Commercial (CC) Purpose: This land use designation is intended to provide retail, professional offices, and personal services that serve the daily and weekly needs of the residents of Rosemount. Location Criteria: The size of each Community Commercial district is intended to be at least 50 acres or greater in size. Close proximity to arterial streets is needed for visibility while individual business accesses shall be provided predominantly from collector, local, or private streets. Minimum Requirements for Development: Traffic patterns within the Community Commercial district are intended to be served through frontage roads, backage roads, and 67 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 9ROSENIOUNT MINNESOTA cross access easements that supplement the collector and local street network. Traffic patterns should also be designed to adequately serve automobiles, delivery vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the district. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Typical Uses: Retail; offices; personal services; restaurants; gas stations; and auto oriented businesses not requiring outdoor storage. Appropriate Zoning: C4 Community Commercial Limited Secondary Zoning: C3- Highway Commercial Regional Commercial (RC) Purpose: This land use designation is intended to provide commercial opportunities for businesses that have a regional draw; businesses that have a product that residents need to purchase, rent, or lease annually or less often; or auto oriented businesses that require outdoor storage. Location Criteria: The size of districts intended for auto orientated businesses may be as small as 10 acres, while the size of districts intended for businesses with a regional draw should be a minimum of 50 acres. Auto orientated business district should be located along arterial roads, while regional draw districts should be located at the intersections or interchanges of principal arterial roads. Minimum Requirements for Development: Frontage and backage road systems. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are required. Typical Uses: Hotels; theaters; big box retail; post secondary education; vehicle sales and rentals; auto repair garages; tool repair; machinery sales; contractor yards; and retail. Appropriate Zoning. C3 Highway Commercial Limited Secondary Zoning: C4 General Commercial Two Regional Commercial districts are provided within the Land Use Plan: an approximately 20 acre district bounded by South Robert Trail, Canada Circle, and the Union Pacific rail line; and an approximately 350 acre district surrounding the intersection of County Road 42 and US Highway 52. The 20 acre Regional Commercial district is intended for auto oriented businesses. This district provides an area for the auto orientated businesses currently located downtown, or the contractor businesses located southwest of County Road 42 and South Robert Trail, can be relocated. The 350 acre Regional Commercial district is intended for businesses with a regional draw or with products that are sold annually or less often. Big box retail, theaters, or hotels are appropriate uses in this area, as well as an area for existing vehicle sales businesses in other parts of the City to relocate. 68 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan ',ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA Business Park (BP) Purpose: The intent of the Business Park district is to develop businesses with a large number of employees, wages that support an entire family, and constructed of high quality buildings that provide both beauty and tax base to the community. Establishments within the business park are intended to have little or no outdoor storage, with the majority of the business activities occurring completely indoors. Location Criteria: The size of each Business Park district is intended to be greater than 150 acres in size. The district should be located adjacent to heavily traveled arterial roads to provide both visibility and access to these major employment centers. Minimum Requirements for Development: Within the MUSA and with an improved access to a collector and /or arterial road to serve the district. The street network within the business park should be designed to accommodate truck and freight traffic while also providing sidewalks and pedestrian improvements for employees to use during breaks and lunch periods. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are encouraged. Private well and septic systems may be permitted as an interim system before municipal water and sanitary sewer are available provided an appropriate septic area is located and infrastructure is installed to connect to when utilities are at the development's boundary Typical Uses: Office; retail and office warehouses; research laboratories; post secondary education; distributors; and manufacturing. Appropriate Zoning. BP Business Park Limited Secondary Zoning. C4 General Commercial near intersections of major roads; LI T ight Industrial adjacent to industrial planned areas Webb Company, Rosemount Business Park Light Industrial (LI) Purpose: The intent of the Light Industrial district is to provide an opportunity for high paying manufacturing, assembly, or wholesaling jobs that require less intense land development along with some outdoor storage. Light industrial businesses are expected to be constructed of quality building materials and for uses that do not generate the external noises, smells, vibrations, or similar nuisances normally associated with medium or heavy industrial uses. Location Criteria: Light Industrial land uses are intended to buffer general industrial lands uses from commercial or residential. The size of each Light Industrial district is intended to be a minimum of 60 acres in size and located with access to arterial and major collector roads. Minimum Requirements for Development: Within the MUSA and with an access to an arterial or major collector road. The street network should be designed to accommodate truck and freight traffic. Pedestrian access shall be accommodated through the city, county or regional trail corridors. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are encouraged. Private well and septic systems may be permitted as an interim system before municipal water and sanitary sewer are 69 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA available provided an appropriate septic area is located and infrastructure is installed to connect to when utilities are at the development's boundary. Typical Uses: Manufacturing; assembly; professional services; laboratories; general repair services; contractor offices; post secondary trade or vocational schools; public buildings; and warehousing Appropriate Zoning: LI Light Industrial Limited Secondary Zoning: BP Business Park adjacent business park, commercial, or residential planned areas; GI General Industrial adjacent to general industrial planned areas. General Industrial (GI) Purpose: The intent of the General Industrial designation is to provide an opportunity for employment with wages that can support an entire family while the businesses typically have a lower tax base per acre than other commercial and industrial uses. General industrial businesses normally generate noises, smells, vibrations, and truck traffic that can be disturbing to non industrial land uses. General industrial land should not be located next to residential developments. Topography, landscaping, less intense land uses, or other forms of buffering shall be used to transition between general industrial property and residential, recreational, or institutional land uses. Location Criteria: The size of each General Industrial district is intended to be greater than 400 acres in size. Access to the district should occur along arterial or major collector roads. To provide the greatest buffer to the residents traveling the arterial or major collector roadways from the nuisance generated by the industries, the least intense and highest quality buildings and structures should be located adjacent to the roadways. Minimum Requirements for Development: Development is encouraged to occur within the MUSA, but is not required. Due to the large size of each industrial facility, it is anticipated that the majority of the traffic circulation shall occur on private roads within the industrial sites. Any public streets constructed within the general industrial district should be designed to accommodate truck and freight traffic. Any rail service to general industrial businesses shall be designed with switching and storage yards interior to the site to minimize the number of rail crossings of public streets and the frequency of train schedules. Pedestrian access shall be limited to the city, county or regional trail corridors with appropriate safety and security measures. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are encouraged. Private well and septic systems may be permitted as an interim system before municipal water and sanitary sewer are available provided an appropriate septic area is located and infrastructure is installed to connect to when utilities are at the development's boundary. Typical Uses: Manufacturing; assembly; laboratories; contractor offices; trucking and freight terminals; warehousing; and wholesaling. Appropriate Zoning: GI General Industrial Limited Secondary Zoning: LI Light Industrial adjacent to other land uses; HI Heavy Industrial shall be provided sparingly and only to allow the development or improvement of the four heavy industrial businesses. Heavy Industrial zoning is limited to developed areas of the four heavy industrial businesses. The City does not desire to expand the number of heavy industrial business beyond four, but it does desire the four businesses to redevelop and expand as needed to stay economically 70 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA viable. If any of the four heavy industrial businesses desire to expand its Heavy Industrial zoning district, a Planned Unit Development master plan for the business expansion must first be approved. The Planned Unit Development master plan shall concentrate the heaviest uses to the center of the site; provide a transition of the lesser intensity uses to the perimeter of the site; and ensure the efficient use of the existing heavy industrial property to prevent premature expansion of the zoning district. The rezoning of additional property to Heavy Industrial shall only occur immediately prior to an expansion of the business per its approved Planned Unit Development master plan. Waste Management (WM) Purpose: The intent of the Waste Management district is to accommodate the need for the management of waste generated by society while regulating the inherent environmental problems associated with waste management. It is in the public interest to explore all available options of waste management before expanding the waste management district for additional landfilling. Location Criteria: In an appropriate location to address the problems and nuisances associated with waste management. Minimum Requirements for Development Waste management practices that meet or exceed all county, state, and federal waste management regulations. Utilities: Private wells and septic systems are required. Typical Uses: Landfills; recycling centers; and waste -to- energy production. Appropriate Zoning. WM Waste Management Limited Secondary Zoning: None Public/Institutional (P1) Purpose: The intent of the Public /Institutional district is to accommodate the civic, religious, governmental, and educational needs of the community. Often, institutional uses are constructed at a much larger scale than the surrounding residential uses. Care is needed to buffer the conflicts between the uses while maintaining accessibility from the neighborhood. Performance measures such as setbacks, landscaping, site grading, and quality building materials may need to be increased compared to the surrounding uses to provide the needed buffering. Location Criteria: There is no size requirement for a Public /Institutional district and the districts are anticipated to be dispersed throughout the community, particularly adjacent to residential uses. Institutional uses should be located adjacent to collector or arterial roads. Minimum Requirements for Development: Development is encouraged to occur within the MUSA. The main access to the institutional use should occur directly from a collector or minor arterial roadway. Pedestrian access to and throughout the site should be emphasized to allow the surrounding neighborhood access to the site. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are encouraged. Private well and septic systems may be permitted for institutions that have an appropriate area for septic management. Central Park Bandshell 71 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Typical Uses: Schools (elementary, secondary, or post secondary); churches; cemeteries; public buildings; civic uses; recreational open spaces; and public parks Appropriate Zoning- P Public and Institutional Limited Secondary Zoning: R1 Low Density Residential in areas adjacent residential planned uses Parks and Open Space (POS) Purpose: As Rosemount becomes more urbanized, it is particularly important to ensure that residents have an opportunity to recreate outdoors and in open spaces to connect with nature. The Parks and Open Space designation is intended to provide a wide variety of recreational and open space opportunities from ball fields to nature preserves. Location Criteria: Dispersed throughout the residential neighborhoods. Land that contains significant or unique natural resources should be considered for open space preservation. Minimum Requirements for Development: Varies per type of recreational opportunity. Community parks and outdoor recreational complexes are encouraged to be located along collector streets and served with municipal sewer and water, while neighborhood parks or mini -parks may only require local street connections. Non recreational open space may only require an unimproved driveway to the site. Utilities: Municipal water and sanitary sewer are encouraged. Private well and septic systems may be permitted for large parks or recreational centers that have the appropriate land area. Typical Uses: Recreational open space; non recreational open spaces such as nature preserves or wildlife management areas; and public parks. Appropriate Zoning: P Public and Institutional Limited Secondary Zoning: The zoning district of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Connemara Park Floodplain (FP) Purpose: The intent of the Floodplain district is to regulate the land that is inundated during the 100 year flood event of the Mississippi River. It is in the public interest to limit the uses within the floodplain to minimize property damage and public safety concerns during flood events. Location Criteria: Within the 100 year flood elevation of the Mississippi River. Minimum Requirements for Development: Development within the floodplain is limited to river dependent commercial operations or the recreational use of the river. Utilities: Utilities are discouraged with the floodplain except for major transmission crossings. Typical Uses: Barge facilities, recreation facilities, accessory uses for businesses and residences (such as parking lots, lawns, porches, and docks) Density: No residences are allowed within the floodplain Appropriate Zoning: FP Floodplain T .imited Secondary Zoning: None 72 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROS 34OUNT MINNESOTA Redevelopment The City of Rosemount has over 150 years of history and, as a result, there are many properties within the City that have been impacted by previous development. Downtown Rosemount, the South Robert Trail corridor, UMore Park (the former Gopher Ordnance Works), and the industrial east side are all areas that have fifty or more years of development history. Abandoned and demolished buildings, former dump sites, and other environmental concerns exist in these areas. It is in the public interest to address, clean up, and redevelop these areas instead of ignoring them and developing only farm fields and vacant sites. The City, in cooperation with other government agencies, has an interest in seeing that the sites with environmental concerns are addressed and redeveloped into their full potential. The redevelopment of these properties not only eliminates the environmental concerns from worsening in the future, but also adds tax base, employment opportunities, and housing to the community. The City will work with the other governmental agencies to assist land owners in redeveloping their properties that have environmental issues. Interim Uses There are a number of uses that are beneficial to a growing community, such as aggregate mining or asphalt plants, that may create nuisances that are incompatible with residential neighborhoods. These uses can often occur on property that is years away from developing, but the City has the interest to ensure that the incompatible uses cease or relocate as development approaches. In other cases, land owners are looking for a use that can make a profit other than agriculture before development occurs, such as paint ball courses, golf courses, or other outdoor recreation operations. These uses can often be approved through an interim use permit which allows the uses to occur on a temporary basis, which can be in excess of ten years. The City shall discourage incompatible interim uses from locating within the 2020 MUSA and shall require that all interim use permits for incompatible uses can expire when development approaches. A reclamation plan shall be required of all applicable interim uses to ensure that orderly development can occur after the interim use has ceased to operate. Agricultural Preserve Program State Statute 473H allows land owners to enroll land that is guided and zoned for long term agriculture into the Agricultural Reserve program in exchange for reduced property tax rates. Approximately 880 acres of land within Rosemount is currently enrolled in the Agriculture Reserve program. as shown on Figure 7.7. Approximately 150 acres of enrolled land is located on the southeast corner of Bonaire Path and Akron Avenue within the 2020 MUSA boundary and is set to expire on August 29, 2010. Approximately 120 acres of enrolled land is located north of the City of Coates and west of US Highway 52 within the 2030 MUSA boundary. The land owner of the 120 acres has not applied to withdrawal the land from the Agricultural Reserve program. 73 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA The remaining 610 acre of land enrolled in the Agricultural Reserve program is located in the southeast corner of the City along Emery Avenue. None of these land owners have applied to withdraw their land from the program. Approximately 200 acres of this land is located within the 2030 MUSA boundary and the remaining 410 acres is not anticipated to develop within the before 2030. Minnesota Statute 473H.08 Subd. 3 provides the City the ability to initiate the withdrawal of land from the Agriculture Preserve by changing the land use designation to some use other than agriculture. The City has designate the 120 acres north of Coates as Business Park and has designated the 200 acres within the 2030 MUSA in the southeast as either Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential. This 320 acres of land is expected to develop after 2025 and the City does not need to initiate the eight year waiting to withdraw from the Agriculture Preserve program at this time. The City monitor the Agriculture Preserve status of this land and act as needed to ensure that this land is available for development post -2025. Aqqreqate Resources The Metropolitan Council has studied the location of the aggregate resources within the metro area and the location of the aggregate resources within Rosemount is shown on Figure 7.8. The predominate areas of aggregate resources in Rosemount are located in central and southeastern Rosemount. There are a number of gravel mines currently excavating excavating_a_w_e_gate from these areas. As stated with the Interim Use section above, the City of Rosemount has prepared regulations that permit the extraction of these resources provided it does not prohibit the orderly of the land within the 2020 MUSA boundary. Solar Access Minnesota Statutes Section 473.859, Subdivision 2, requires that local governments in the Metropolitan Area include an element for protection and development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems in the Comprehensive Plan. The rationale for including a solar access protection element in the Comprehensive Plan is to assure the availability of direct sunlight to solar energy systems. According to the Metropolitan Council, "a major share of energy consumed in Minnesota is used for purposes that solar energy could well serve such as space heating and cooling, domestic hot water heating and low temperature industrial processes. Collection of solar energy requires protection of a solar collector's skyspace. Solar skyspace is the portion of the sky that must be free of intervening trees or structures for a collector to receive unobstructed sunlight." According to the Minnesota Energy Agency, "simple flatplate collectors have the potential to supply one half of Minnesota's space heating. cooling, water heating and low temperature industrial process heat requirements." The City will take the following measures to ensure protection of solar access where appropriate: Within Planned Unit Developments, the City will consider varying setback requirements in residential zoning districts, as a means of protecting solar access. The City will encourage the use of solar energy and other systems using renewable energy in new public buildings. 74 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JC ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 1 1 CD 0 0 N Z 0i 0 G) M "0 X C J 1 0 0 (1) F3 1 O 0 1 O m x a 6 3 rn• (t. su a) ca 0 tn o LUL�tJI 11 0 O 0 O 0 a 3 3 z 3 (Y) 0) 0) 0 23 3 a 0) 2J 5: co 0) CO CD co cn o 0) CD co' 0 0 3 3 co a 0) 0 0 0 CD 7 5: ID cii O -a 0 o. J1-) rri 0 Land Use Element Goals and Policies 1. Manage the rate of development that occurs within the City. a. Discourage the development of property that would require the extension of urban service through undeveloped properties. b. Deny the subdivision or rezoning of land that lacks adequate infrastructures, such as collector streets, public utilities, parks, or public safety services. 2. Ensure that Interim Uses allow for productive use of land before development occurs but does not prevent or inhibit the orderly development of land. a. Gravel mining operations shall be required to have an approved reclamation plan that allows development to occur per the Land Use, Transportation, Utilities, and Parks and Open Space Elements. b. Asphalt plants and similar potentially incompatible interim uses shall be adequately screened, buffered, and /or located as fax from residential property as possible and may be required to relocate when residential property is developed per the Land Use Plan. c. Discourage Interim Uses from locating within the 2020 MUSA. 3. Create specific neighborhood plans to guide the development expected in unique areas of the City. a. Implement the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount. b. Work with the University of Minnesota and its consultants and /or development partners to create a plan for the potential mixed used redevelopment of the UMore Park property. c. Create a specific area plan for the development and redevelopment of the commercial properties along South Robert Trail from County Road 42 to County Road 46. d. Create a specific area plan for the development of the area surrounding the intersection of US Highway 52 and County Road 42. e. Consider the development of additional specific area plans as opportunities with large land owners become available or if residential development is imminent east of US Highway 52. f. Encourage the preparation of environmental review documents to evaluate large land areas for environment and infrastructural impacts and find a solution before development occurs. 4. Provide appropriate land uses to create a diversified economy. a. Encourage the development of office buildings within the Business Park and Community Commercial designations to provide a high intensity of employees and tax base per acre. b. The four Heavy Industrial businesses within the City shall submit Planned Unit Developments to the City that illustrate the development plans of their businesses. c. The Heavy Industrial zoning district shall only be expanded when a Heavy Industrial business expands in conformance with adopted Planned Unit Development. 75 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEN_OLINT MINNESOTA 5. Provide appropriate transitions between land uses. a. General Industrial land uses should not be located next to residential development. Topography, landscaping, less intense land uses, or other forms buffering shall be used to transition between General Industrial land and residential, recreational, or institutional land uses. b. The area of transitional residential between Dodd Boulevard, South Robert Trail, and 132n Street West will transition between the medium density residential to the south and east; the low density residential to the west; and the rural residential to the north. It is anticipated that this area may exceed three (3) units per acre in density. c. The transitional residential area may receive a Municipal Urban Service Area expansion if the residents request the expansion or if there are septic system failures that create health concerns. d. Landscaping, topography, additional setbacks, or other forms of buffering shall be used between conflicted land uses and along major collector or arterial street frontages. 6. Encourage the redevelopment of blighted, nuisance, contaminated, or underdeveloped property. a. Work with Dakota County Environmental Management, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, Department of Employment and Economic Development, or other applicable agencies to leverage funds, resources, and expertise to redevelop property with environmental concerns. b. Work with the University of Minnesota, the Department of the Army, Dakota County Environmental Management, and other applicable agencies to ensure that UMore Park and the former Gopher Ordnance Works have their environmental issues addressed during any potential UMore Park development. c. Use the resources available to the City through its City Council and Port Authority to redevelop blighted, nuisance, contaminated, or underdeveloped property. d. Encourage the creation of development response action plans (DRAP) per the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines for former dumps and other properties with environmental concerns. 7. Encourage and promote sustainable development, green building, and resource conservation. a. Consider requiring green building standards or energy conservation practices for developments that receive public funding and /or assistance. b. Provide education and resources to residents and businesses about available energy conservation and resource management measures. c. Encourage the use of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Minnesota GreenStar, Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, EnergyStar, or other sustainable building practices during development. 76 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Pursuant to Metropolitan Land Use Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473, this chapter addresses the Implementation Program requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. Minnesota Statute 473.858 Subd. 4 requires that the Implementation Program consist of three elements: (1) (2) (3) CHAPTER 8: IMPLEMENTATION a description of official controls, addressing at least the matters of zoning, subdivision, water supply, and private sewer systems, and a schedule for the preparation, adoption, and administration of such controls; a capital improvement program for transportation, sewers, parks, water supply, and open space facilities; and a housing implementation program, including official controls to implement the housing element of the land use plan, which will provide sufficient existing and new housing to meet the local unit's share of the metropolitan area need for low and moderate income housing. OFFICIAL CONTROLS The City of Rosemount has numerous official controls to ensure that the Goals and Policies within the Comprehensive Plan are implemented. These controls include Rosemount's Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Additionally, there are a number of ordinances and plan that protect the City's natural resources, such as the Shoreland Ordinance, Stormwater Management Plan, Wetland Management Plan, Wetland Management Ordinance and Overlay District, and the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plana and Overlay District. The City will review these plans and ordinance to ensure to they implement the Comprehensive Plan and will make amendment to the official controls as necessary. The Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Housing and Land Use chapters, identify a number of areas in which the official controls should be reviewed. The characteristics of each land use designation are described in great detail, including their appropriate zoning districts, within the Land Use chapter. The City will review its official controls to ensure to they implement the Comprehensive Plan and will make amendment to the official controls as necessary. 77 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JCROSE.vIOUNT MINNESOTA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) Background Historically, the City of Rosemount has usually had some form of 5 -year CIP in place to utilize for its capital improvements. There have been times where just a single year's capital improvements have been addressed and funded. As the City continues to grow, we believe that the careful development and continuous utilization of a realistic Capital Improvement Plan is essential to the proper management of the City. As we looked at developing a new 5 -year CIP, it became apparent that the dilemma that the City of Rosemount faces is one of continued growth combined with restoration /reconstruction of the older portions of our city. This being the case, it was almost impossible to develop a plan for a 5 -year period that was very realistic. As work continued on the plan, we decided to explore the possibility of looking out farther and developing a longer plan that would more realistically allow us to plan for the City's future. What has evolved is the following 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan. We believe that great strides have been made to more accurately plan for the future of the City of Rosemount. This document is only a working guide that is utilized by the City Council and its staff to prepare for the future. The first year of the plan will be included as part of the formal budget that is prepared yearly as part of our Truth -in- Taxation process with the following years developed as a working tool for future years' discussions. General /Administrative Description The CIP provides for specific funding of items, the nature of which is not considered "current" in their use or life expectancy. These items are generally of a higher estimated cost than $5,000 and will have a life expectancy of 3 years or greater. The source of funding for these expenditures is typically the general tax levy. In some instances, other funding is utilized. For example, beginning in 1996, revenues received from user fees are being designated in various CIP funds for capital improvement /equipment purchases. If these revenues are realized, the equipment or project will be completed and if the revenue is not realized the equipment will not be purchased. Individual departments are designated for each item proposed for purchase in this plan. Types of Capital Improvement Funds Another area of change for the CIP is the implementation of three separate funds to isolate and better track the types of capital improvements being planned for. The following briefly describes each of the three: Building CIP Fund This fund is used to account for the on -going capital improvements and possible additions to government buildings. Street CIP Fund This fund is used to account for the on -going street construction and reconstruction projects within the City and all other major maintenance items related to both paved and unpaved streets including, but not limited to, street lights, signal lights, sidewalks and gravel road resurfacing. Equipment CIP Fund This fund is used to account for the on -going replacement of and additions to City equipment. 78 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan JC ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA ltllll, I I r '4112,1! nu 0 co' 6 11 Z7 r r ZI 0 0 CD a 73 (D 7 fD N (U co 6) 0 N 0 O 3 3 C 0 O 3 3 m 0 0) 55 0. N (U IJ m 0 (n N 0 0 0 7 (D C) (D 0 O 3 3 co a. D er a'E' 1111111111111111111111113 pji:IIUHhIIIIIHHI I flflflIflIllflflIfl flflflIIflflhII Y wI a lIIIIIlIIIIII H hIIIIIIIlIIHhIflhIH 1011 I :z1. IiiiiiiiigillIllggill =Ow III A 1 i �s;..: I q i li d A:ii 1 i I 1 jp .1 Ili tit: t 1 ��E7 omeeom o o�om cD 0 immummommuccommoso IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH J uuIuIIIIIIIuIuIuIIIIu uI IIIIIIuIIII IIIllhI nIN I MYtl i'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIuhuIIIIIIIIIIIIIh TllllllIElIIllIHhIIII1IIHflhIIIIflIllh11i a I I I INIENNIM11111011111MMEN i 16 u uuluIuIuIIuhluIuII IuluI s IIIIHhIH IIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIII 4� IIII i� ip 11 1IIHhII HllhlIIIIIIllhIIJHIIIlIIIi i k _11111111111111111111110111111111E l 1 II I INNWWWWWWWWWWWWONNWINH011 a 0.-00.0000.000.00. 051L9 000'55 000'01 0 o O m o CO LO o 0 0 N[. o 0S o o 0 N o 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0. O O N. O 0 000 C, 0_0_0_ O N M 1 d a rc a al it it R 3t 10,0001 tt nnn Do 0 0 co 000000 No 0 0 0 o 0,0i r I 604,429 0 00 6 o I I I I I I 0 o 1 11 00 g 1 1 300,000 0 h N 2,250,000 op p O O N 000'009 r 1 r I I I I r I I 11 O O SS pp O W h O i N r- 88§8§88 O O O T r N< Y O N HMI S I 544,000 0 0:0, 000 1 1 I A N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 oo0'i'z euery iossaiduoo aoeidaa 0 .000Uit 0 0 2007 Equipment Certificates (5 -Years) Council 2008 Equipment Certificates (5 -Years) Council 2009 Equipment Certificates (5 -Years) Council 2010 Equipment Certificates (5 -Years) Council c ii iL !b tL ir_c9aaaaaaaa m m N 0 0 0 0 0 >_aaaaaaaaaaa 0 1 G I:gNY o .dUCC Ig. wY9 i m d N y' R£ d& g ZU: m 'c gig.Re N c- 1n d O N c N.* c o m gm Z E 5 v E j o Y m V Et r 11 o U to U 0 N o A j e V Q etg 'v 8. o 0 2 0 c> -5 A r y C V i w c m o v $U .a-a. K 7 m 5 K xxYx s o 1- 1- `g' d a'.-. n 5 ma g. o `o 1- 1- co 2 m° 24 a? 0g 0i2> N slelol NN N Npp N- N.,-- -NN-NN NN -NN 1100 i N p NN N O N N N N pp N N N N N N N N N N N a N N N N N N N N N N N N N O t 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Total Levy Year 2011 MINNESOTA iiu 1011111111111111EREEHEME iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 1111111111111111111131111111111E 1 HHNhIUHIH H flI U HH I HI b in um �i IIII11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIHILII °1° IHHhIIIIIIIIIIIIHhIIIIIIIIIIb I IP! r41ll E IMIMIMMEIMMINMIll w Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii0111 IIIIIAIIUIHhIIEIIIS 1111E1111111111111111111110 1 IHIHHIH IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH IIMIMIMMIMMILIL iiiiiiiMEMLIMML r ieREMBEINIMEnniii s P IMMINIMMIIMMEN111 IiiiiiiifiNNNINNUNINNNNNNIII r S- s E evis T, 5 H 0 0 o 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Total Levy Year 2014 MINNESOTA g O 0 W 0 N 0 O au 0 O 0 .n 0 0 o S€ o¢ 0 m 0 0 o co 0 r ago 0 N 0 e, c• 0 0 v o o 8 N o oo N 4 0 C o o oo R 88Sg8 0 co p N c=. Oa pp O 8 000'001 S O O O O O o O 8 O O O "C OS. CS c iiiii 000'112 g 3 o 000'00L O p O 't 000'42 d y 1 C a ��jCS 9 a a a 0- a 2009 Equipment Certificates (5- Years) 2010 Equipment Certificates (5 -Years) 2011 Equipment Certificates (5- Years) 2012 Equipment Certificates (5 -Yeas) 2013 Equipment Certificates (5- Years) Rnhirhish SCRA Compressor (2004 Compressor) City-Wide Software Replace 2 Lasers Replace Department Long Guns Squad Set Up and Equipment Installation Replace Squad Laptops (4) Replace Video Equipment in Squads (4) 3 Squads (Sell Back 3 *1130,1140 950) PW Budding Addition Lease/Purchase (Year 16 of 20) Pavement Management Program RN Kubota (Replace *8401) Tractor (Replace *6408) 112 -Ton Extended Cab Pickup (Replace *6436) 1 -Ton Pickup (Replace *8315) 1 -Ton Pickup wlDump (Replace *8340) slelol N.0 C4 0 0- N N N N N N N r V' N f N •C N f 01 41 N .31 N Q N Y N s 04 pp V N p Y p N N N r S- s E evis T, 5 H 0 0 o 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Total Levy Year 2014 MINNESOTA i:uiiio:iini:i::::::ii IIIIHh IHhuuIIu IIuI IIII III IIIIuuIuu1uu1uIIuIIII zIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIuIIu uuIuI 1 NINWNNNIINNNIWINNINNNNNNWIll 8 as W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWIIII v PIA AlE1 iiiuiuiiaiiiii:::::iuuiiu Milli 1111E1E111M EMI11111111111111111301 IIIUllIUIIIIIIIIIII]O g IIIIIIIIIIllhIEJIIIIIIII IIIOhuIIIIIIIEjIHhIuII IIuI IHhIIHhIIIIIIiIII IHHHIIOHIIIHIIIHIH IIIIIuIHhIIIIIIIIflhIHhI IIIIIIIHHhIIIIIIIIIIiuII �1HIHI111111111111111I11) 11111Iflf111111flIflhifll I _IIIILQ I IIIHHhuII J. and Vse Categories Density Rural Residential 0.2 units per acre or less Transitional Residential 1 to 3 units per acre Low Density Residential 1 to 5 units per acre Medium Density Residential 5 to 10 units per acre Iqi h Density Residential 10 to 24 units per acre HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The Housing Implementation Program is described within the over arching goals in the Executive Summary, the Housing Chapter, the residential land uses in the Land Uses Chapter, and the Land Use Map. Over arching Goal 2 states to provide increased housing opportunities and a balance of life style housing. The Housing Chapter describes the existing and needed housing types, including senior housing and housing at all densities. The Housing Goals and Policies, particularly Goals 4, 5, and 6, describe the programs and policies that the City will implement to achieve the increased housing opportunities and life style housing. The residential land use designation descriptions describe which type of housing are appropriate in which designation and how they are expected to be developed. The Land Use Map shows the areas in which the various residential land uses are allowed. The 2030 Land Use Map shows a mix of low density, medium density, and high density residential land use throughout the City. Within the Land Use Element, it is demonstrated that the amount and mixture of residential land uses show on the map with met, and often exceed, the Metropolitan Council residential density requirements and Livable Community Act requirements. The City looks forward to working with the Metropolitan Council to achieve the housing needs within Rosemount, particularly through the use of the Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants and other programs. The City hopes that the Metropolitan Council continues to support local housing effort through their programs and encourages the metropolitan Council to expand the fiscal resources available through these programs. ZONING DISTRICTS The City is divided into the zoning districts shown on the zoning map (Figure 8.1). Rosemount has chosen to use five residential land use designation as shown in Table 8.1: Rural Residential (RR); Transitional Residential (TR); Low Density Residential (LDR); Medium Density Residential (MDR); and High Density Residential (HDR). Rosemount will make any revision necessary to the Zoning_Code within nine months of the approval of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update by the Metropolitan Council. 1 Rural Re idential does not receive municipal sewer or water service. The definitions of the residential zoning districts and their 2008 densities are described below: AR: Rural Residential District Purpose And Intent: It is the purpose of this district to provide for a large lot rural residential lifestyle which is separate from and not in conflict with commercial agricultural i ithin these districts .ublic sewer and water s stems are no available and on site systems shall meet the city's minimum requirements. 89 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA Minirnum Lot Area: 2.5 acres Maximum Gross Density: one (1) unit per five (5) acres VL: Very Low Density Single Family Residential District Purpose And Intent: The purpose of this district is to allow low density residential development within the metropolitan urban service area while minimizing negative environmental impacts on areas with greatest physical amenities (rolling topography., forest, wildlife habitat, water bodies). Single family detached dwelling cluster development will be encouraged as a tool to protect unique physical features and restrict development to the most suitable locations. The twenty thousand (20,000) square foot minimum lot size will accommodate larger homes than the R -1 (10,000 square foot minimum lot size) district, will mandate increased structure separation and will allow for more selective siting of homes. The lower maximum density of one dwelling unitper acre will result in preservation of natural amenities within the context of providing urban services. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 square feet Maximum Gross Density: one (1) unit per one (1) acre R -1: Low Density Residential District Purpose And Intent: This is a low density residential district that is intended to accommodate newer single- family detached housing development within the metropolitan urban service area. Dwelling units within this district are intended to be connected to the public sewer and water systems. Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet (interior lots); 12,000 square feet (corner lots) Maximum Gross Density: 2.5 units per acre R -1A: Low Density Residential District Purpose And Intent: This is a low density residential district that is intended to preserve the character of existing single family neighborhoods platted on or before 1979 within the metropolitan urban service area. Dwelling units within this district are intended to be connected to the public sewer and water systems. Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 square feet (interior lots); 12,000 square feet (comer lots) Maximum Gross Density: 2.5 units per acre R -2: Moderate Density Residential District 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. Minimum Lot Area: 12,000 square feet (single and two family); 18,000 square feet (multiple family) Maximum Gross Density: six (6) units per acre 90 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA R -3: Medium Density Residential District Purpose And Intent: This is a medium to high density_ residential district which is intended to be located within or near the Rosemount central business district (CBD) where streets and utilities are sufficient in capacity to accommodate higher density development and where shopping and recreational facilities are available within close walking or driving distance. Housing types include apartments, condominiums and townhouses. It is intended that this district provide a blend of housing, recreation and open space opportunities. Minimum Lot Area: 22,500 square feet Maximum Gross Density: twelve (12) units per acre R -4: High Density Residential District Purpose And Intent: This is an exclusively high density residential district which is primarily intended to accommodate high rise apartments and condos and senior citizen housing. It is the intent of this title that this district be within or adjacent to the Rosemount CBD to provide for the maximum convenience and accessibility for residents. Minimum Lot Area: 22,500 square feet Maximum Gross Density: forty (40) units per acre 91 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 9CROSIMOUNT MINNESOTA LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Population 7 Table 2.2: Age Groups 8 Table 2.3: Persons per Household 8 Table 2.4: Household Type 9 Table 2.5: Highest Level of Education' 9 Table 2.6: Income 9 Table 2.7: Travel Time to Work' 10 Table 3.1: Population and Households 11 Table 3.2: Residential Building Permits 11 Table 3.3: Type of Housing 12 Table 3.4: Tenure per Type of Community 12 Table 3.5: Age of Housing Unit 13 Table 3.6: Location of Senior Housing 14 Table 3.7: Housing Growth Projections 14 Table 3.8: Additional Housing Units 15 Table 4.1: Rosemount Top Ten Employers in 2007 18 Table 4.2: Comparison of Employees to Employers within Rosemount in 2004 20 Table 4.3: Rosemount Industries in 2004 20 Table 4.4: Fiscal Disparity of Select Cities Payable in 2006 27 Table 7.1: Population, Household, and Employment Forecasts 491918 Table 7.2: Additional Housing Units Developed from 2020 to 2030 525251 Table 7.3: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations 535352 Table 7.3: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations 575755 Table 7.4: New Residential Land Uses in the 2030 Land Use Map 585856 Table 7.6: 2007 2010 Residential Development 585856 Table 7.7: 2011 2015 Residential Development 595957 Table 7.8: 2016 2020 Residential Development 595957 Table 7.9: 2021 2025 Residential Development 597 Table 7.10: 2026 2030 Residential Development 59957 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5.1 Community Facilities 33 Figure 5.2 Major Utility Corridors 35 Figure 6.1 Natural Areas Map 47 Figure 7.1 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 50 Figure 7.2 County Road 42 US Highway 52 Corridor Land Use Plan 51 Figure 7.3 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 555554 I Figure 7.4 2030 Land Use Plan with Roadway Network 565655 ii 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA ■AVOW Nnm�a Nr.► 10N VI *404101 ON V10o O AVOW 3 0 0 T y to e N T (11 4 ROSEMOUNT To: Mayor and Council Members From: Dwight Johnson�Gity Administrator Date: May 19, 2009 Subject: Council Agenda Update ADMINISTRATION M E M O R A N D U M 1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: PUBLIC HEARING 7.a. Reassessment Hearing, City Project #387. Attached is a revised draft resolution including the new assessment amount of $21,371.02. �l�✓�s �Ic CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REASSESSMENT FOR PARCEL 340211001051 OLD COUNTY ROAD 38/132 COURT WEST STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #387 WHEREAS, by Resolution Number 2007 -98, adopted on November 7, 2007, the Council approved the levy of special assessments for City Project #387; and WHEREAS, such assessments included an assessment for Parcel 340211001051 in the amount of $54,930.00 (the "Original Assessment and WHEREAS, on the advice of legal counsel, the Council has determined, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.071, Subd. 2, that the Original Assessment may have been invalid to the extent it exceeded $35,000; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the assessment should be reduced to $35,000; and WHEREAS, payments of installments of the Original Assessment have been made or will be made; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that an appropriate adjustment for payments of installments made or to be made in 2009, result in an assessment in the amount of $21,371.02 payable in installments commencing in 2010 as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed reassessment for Old County Road 38/132 "d Court West Street and Utility Improvements, City Project #387. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, as follows: (1) Such proposed assessment in the amount of $21,371.02, a copy of which is in Clerk's File dated 5 -19 -09, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement. (2) Such assessments shall be as follows: a. The assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of eight (8) years, the first of said installments to be payable with general taxes for the year 2009, collectible with such taxes during the year 2010. b. To the first installment shall be added interest at the rate of 5.9659% per annum on the entire principal amount of the assessment from December 31, 2009 until December 31 of the year in which such installment is payable. To each subsequent installment, when due there shall be added interest for (3) ADOPTED this 19th day of May, 2009. A.1 EST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk 2 William H. Droste, Mayor Resolution 2009 one year at said rate on the unpaid principal amount of the assessment. c. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment or the first installment thereof to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the principal amount of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the date hereof; and such property owner may at any time prior to November 15 of any year pay to the County Auditor the entire principal amount of the assessment remaining due with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which said payment is made. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate copy of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the tax list of the County. Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted against: TO: MAYOR WILLIAM DROSTE, CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND THE CITY CLERK OF ROSEMOUNT: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned property owners of that certain real property described on the Property Re- Assessment Roll for City Project No 387, Old County Road 38/132 °a Court West Street and Utility Improvement as follows: Date: May 19, 2009 NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO RE ASSESSMENT PID NO: 34- 02110- 010 -51 acting pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.061 and 429.081, do hereby object to the amount of the proposed re- assessment contained in the Property Assessment Roll, for City Project No. 387, as noticed for public hearing on May 19, 2009. George Nov :'ek munissiE u�u enc: Es sailiww, 34- 02110- 010 -37 34- 02110- 010 -35 34- 02110- 010 -33 34- 02110- 010-09 34- 02010- 010 -09 34-02010-010-06 PIN 13 N Map Ref. Northern Natural Gas Co Property Tax Department PO Box 3330 Omaha, NE 68103 Nieland Family Limited Partnership' armcrship %Eliz abeth Nash Gannon 2414 Hemlock Lane N Plymouth. MN 55441 21.39 Northern State Power Co Property Tax Dept 414 Nieollet Ave I. 3/ Minneapolis. MN 55401 -1993 Douglas J Young 1741 Bonaire Path Rosemount. MN 55068 -3012 /3. William Bonita Rohr 2813 Bonaire Path .5 Rosemount, MN 55068 Joseph B Pannkuk 17098 Forbes Ct Farminston. MN 55024 Owner Address A CKE6 737 277 425 Front Footage 1.00 1.00 Existing Driveways $110 $110 $110 1110 Roadway vo W 0 0 r 73.10 ROW 4•0 02 LA 401 CO la 401 00 la $183.10 Total woo $4,000 Roadway ROW $4,450.50 OVM le;uew elddng $5,278.50 Supple- mental SAC 19,155 $134,945 $50,719 $77,818 $4,000 PAID IN FULL $13,729 Total Assessment mmmm22 SIIISSPIR inininMzi ZXXXc rMr cggl=m I m I i '41 rn g 0 0 D y m WI Jed MD mmmm22 mm (n (n (n W (n O fin mm d 9 w m VW 0°0 N M g M S E ®°zog o 2 o n o g g g V VN C) V .°i V w O C m 0 c m a. N. 0 a m Z o HM m 0 m go Z g V 1 O 3 at X 11 m Q cncncn2nmm m mmm mcgxam im0Eg q�A3 Eo v a �p N m fA m w N a iiiiii m lil N ��N 2 C oga`' z Cx 0) m 0 c e M a v a o m to 73 S 3 �v a i a 34- 45601- 010 -00 34- 44300 100 -01 34- 44300- 090-01 34-44300-080-01 34 -44300 070-01 PIN 12 W 33 32 31 Map Ref. ATL, INC. 294 Grove Lane C, Suite 190 Wayzata, MN 55391 V L/ Todd R Hendry 2605 Bonaire Path 8 Rosemount, MN 55068 Ramona R Mars 2615 132nd Court West Rosemount, MN 55068 r 7 Dale R Lois M Jahns 2625 132nd Court West Rosemount, MN 55068 3 Laxman S Sundae 2635 132nd Court West Rosemount, MN 55068 .36 Owner Address Ac■Qe3 1,539 Front Footage 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Driveways $110 Roadway ROW $110.00 Total $10,657 $6,657 $6,657 X6,657 Roadway ROW Supple- mental WAC Supple- mental SAC $169,290 $10,657 $6,657 $6,657 $6,657 h Total Assessment y OO mmmm« vi�nw�mm 3333 zz -I -4 -4 E m y Enm i m g m m to Tvz cn m cn cm N 15 Rya 1 0 3 3 Sr c E n 1 xi k N V g ER CaO 2 c C1 a O o c m. a e CO m W 9. m c V C N O 0 3 g I 34- 02110- 018-31 34- 02110 016-31 J 34- 02110- 013 -31 34- 02110- 012 -01 34- 02110 011 -34 34- 02110- 010-51 PIN 21 14 so 18 Map Ref. Joan Anderson 2295 Bonaire Path 17-a9 Rosemount, MN 55068 -3400 Marvin G Verene J Fritz 2316 Bonaire Path 3 Rosemount, MN 55068 -3432 Richard J Lamotte 2318 Bonaire Path Rosemount. MN 55068 -3432 h Q (J 7 Norman Sharon Brucker 1665 Bonaire Path /5`00 Rosemount, MN 55068 Henry E Sue E Nieland 2067 Bonaire Path j ig Rosemount, MN 55068 -3425 George A Judy L Novak 2058 Bonaire Path Rosemount. MN 55068 -3424 c7. 76 Owner Address NIE5 973 590 589 344 300 Front Footage Existing Driveways si10 $110 $110 $110 Roadway $73.10 $73.10 $73.10 $73.10 ROW $183.10 $183.10 $183.10 $183.10 Total $26,235 $26,235 Roadway $17,434 $17,434 ROW Supple- mental WAC Supple- mental SAC $178,156 $43,669 $43,669 $107,846 $62,986 $54,930 Total Assessment mm tn w gp tnmm 25 25 ZZ W ;m oiw i O 6) M r m El 3 tiij a 73 o 3 1 m o 0 "1Q3 C M N O C 00-4 1 Oa Z CM 0 N O V ITI a -0 o S C c 'A1 v 1 o 1 c wri m 9. xo C 0 a 3 a a N 0 W cn Ioz Co go•�a m s 3 3 Q ocnc, c or gi c m V Z 000 xi -i O 70 70 00� p rO CAI C iv a-I a O S r 0 W 4 e go c 4 3 3 0 0 DAKOTA COUNTY TAX/VALUE INFORMATION SYSTEM Requested on 65/19/2009 at: 13:27:47 For PROPERTY ID Number: 34 62110- 010-51 Faxed to 651 423 -1157 Phone: not entered Ext: skipped Reglt: 98628 G.I.S. PIN Number: 21 115 19 5 1 0007 Information Last Updated: 2009 -05-18 SCHOOL DISTRICT/WATERSHED /SUB DISTRICT:196/V /00 CITY OR TOWNSHIP NAME:ROSEMOUNT CITY PARCEL STATUS:Active 88/28/03 OWNER NAME:Fee NAME GEORGE A JUDY L NOVACEX 2858 BONAIRE PATH W ROSEMOUNT HOMESTEADED: PAY 2009 YES HOMESTEADED: PAY 2010 YES TIF PROJECT: Special Asmnts on Parcel CURR TAX SPCL AS3MNTS DUE NET TAX: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: TAX SPCL ASSMKfS: TAX SPCL ASSMNTS PAID: TAX SPCL ASSMNTS DUE: MARKET VALUE INFORMATION: PAYABLE YEAR: ESTIMATED LAND: ESTIMATED BUILDING: ESTIMATED TOTAL -TAXABLE: LIMITED LAND: LIMITED BUILDING: LIMITED TOTAL -TAXABLE: MARKET VALUE INFORMATION: PAYABLE YEAR: ESTIMATED LAND: ESTIMATED BUILDING: ESTIMATED TOTAL TAXABLE: LIMITED LAND: LIMITED BUILDING: LIMITED TOTAL TAXABLE: GREEN ACRES /OPEN SPACE: GA /OS LIMITED -HIGH VALUE: GA /OS ESTIMATED -HIGH VALUE: OLD HOUSE EXEMPT VALUE: PROPERTRY CLASS(ES):. NH RES SNG nnmmflN NAME MN 55068 IN: 2089 3,600.94 8,442.42 12,843.36 6,821.68 6,821.68 404% 2 2810 118,20o 171,480 289,608 118, 288 171,400 289,608 2810 15,300 43,000 58,308 15,388 43,008 58,380 3g TOTAL ACRES NOT INCLUDING ROAD EASEMENTS: OR LOT SIZE IN SQ FEET NOT INCLUDING ROAD EASEMENTS: PLAT /LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 21 TWN 115 RANGE 19 N 572Ff OFE300 1/4 OF SW 1/4 EX COM NE COR S 128 FT W 85 FT TO BEG COMT W90FTS98FTE90 FT N 90 FT TO BEG 21 115 19 haw► 2 2809 124,488 192,780 317,100 124,480 192,700 317,188 .i 0. X, k 2808 124,488 280,480 324,800 113,800 183,208 297,888 2009 2888 16,198 16,188 49,800 58,980 65,188 67,880 16,100 16,188 49,008 50,980 65,100 67,880 3g2I260 39 .19 8,100