HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Update � CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
, ,
City Council Meeting Date: November 16, 1999
AGENDA ITEM: Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. AGENDA SECTION:
Old.$usiness.
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA N
ATTACHMENTS: Alternative 2020 Land Use&Map Excerpts, APPROVED BY:
Sept. 14 &28 PC. Minutes; Met Council and
.Neighborhood Correspondence
Planning Commission Action: No recommendation due to split vote
SIJNIMARY
Revisions of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan have been prepared with the objective of being mutually acceptable by the
City Council and the Met Council. City staff have met with the staff of the Met Council to discuss the substance of
compromise while adhering to the direction provided at the October 20 Committee of the Whole work session.
The land use designations between STH 3,Ala�on Avenue and north of 135th Street West are proposed as follows:
1. 300 acres of Rural Residential north of White Lake Acres and west of Stonebridge in the heavily wooded areas of
higher environmental sensitivity.
2. 640 acres(gross)of Urban Residential land on the one mile square area east of Bacardi Avenue and north of
135th Street as a Phase III(post 2020)urban growth area.
3. 120 acres (gross) of eastern Keegan Lake to Bacardi Avenue,between Bonaire Path and 130th Street would be
Transition ResidentiaL
The other issues of the Comp Plan involve housing mix and affordable housing. Met Council staff are expecting the City
to adhere to the originally adopted goals of the Livable Communities Act. Given the distribution of the housing
anticipated up to 2010,Rosemount will meet those numbers already published in the plan document. However,the plan
does not specifically designate sites available for attached housing.
In response,the 2020 Land Use Map has been revised to include potential and planned attached housing site general
locations without designating specific properties.
Last of all,vacant land designated for Industrial use in the Pine Bend area has been reguided for Agricultural use if it is
located in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor or owned by Koch Refining Group and located in the refinery buffer
area. �
RECOMIVIENDED ACTION:
Motion to recommend that the City Council revise the draft Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan concerning land
between STH 3,Ala�on Ave., 135th& 120th Street West:
1. Placing approximately 640 acres of land located into Urban Residential Phase III;
2. Designating approximately 120 acres for Transitional Residential use;
3. 300 acres south of Gun Club Road(120th Street Alignment)designated rural residential;
4. Indicating land available for attached housing on the Land Use Map as potential or planned and adding text
explanation in the Comp Plan Document; and,
5. Reguiding land in the Pine Bend area for Agricultural use if it is in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor or part
of Koch Petroleum Group's buffer area.
CITY COUNCII.ACTION:
' � . y 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
3.3 Housing Plan
3.3.1 Background
The 1990 Census showed that Rosemount had a total of 2,779 households; the
1995 estimate is 3,783. The estimated housing mix in 1995 was 82% single
family and 18% multi-family. By the end of 1998, the City estimated a housing
mix of 77% single-family and 23°/a multi-family units. Of all housing units in 1990,
nearly 20% were renter occupied. The City has experienced moderate housing
growth as follows:
1970-79 = 50 units per year average
1980-89 = 125 units per year average
1990-98 = 200 units per year average
Due to Rosemount's location, the pace of development is expected to increase
for the following 10-year period with a modest increase in the last 10-year period.
The average rate of 270 housing units per year from 2000-2020 is shown as
follows:
2000-09 = 250 units per year average
2010-19 = 285 units per year average
3.3.2 The Future
The City desires to keep single-family detached housing as the dominant housing
type with all housing at an overall (net) density near 3.0 dwelling units per acre.
This will be done by establishing a target level of 72 percent of all new housing
units as single family detached compared to 28 percent as multi-family housing
(twinhomes, townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and mobile homes).
Rosemount's prominent rural residential areas in the northwest portion of the City
will retain that status without municipal sewer and water services. The City is
designating 300 acres contiguous with two existing areas that total 55 lots west
of Akron Avenue and north of County Road 38 for rural residential areas. Some
smaller rural lots east of Highway 3 and west of Bacardi Avenue may require
municipal service within the planning time period 1995-2020.
Multi-family housing includes two dominant types: "urban attached" for
townhomes less than 6 dwelling units per acre and "high density" for
condominiums and apartments near 10 dwelling units per acre. Urban attached
housing may be placed at locations that make good transitions between
detached housing and other more intensive land uses. High-density housing is
targeted to three locations: in the commercial downtown area, within a future
redevelopment site formerly known as Brockway Glass, and south of County
45
City of Rosemount . , �
Road 42 either adjacent to or on the technical college property (student housing
only). Multi-family housing will be a higher percentage of all housing units in the
first half of the planning period due to their close proximity to the core commercial
area of Rosemount. This type of housing will decrease after 2010 due to land
proximity closer to the rural edge of Rosemount as shown below, which identifies
the mix of all new housing units from 1995 to 2019.
The City has committed to establishing housing mix goals in accordance with the
Livable Communities Act. Figure 3.3-A illustrates the distribution of Single and
Multi-family housing mix through 2020. Ending at 2009, the distribution of the
projected housing mix averages 59% Single-Family and 41% Multi-family, which
exceeds the adopted Livable Communities Goals of 65% and 35%, respectively.
The projected overall mix of 72% and 28% through the year 2019 reflects the
��� current values of the community. Changing demographics and market influences
may cause the long-term mix proportion to align more closely with the ongoing
trends.
Currently, development is occurring on land that is more conducive for higher
densities, primarily because of proximity to established transportation corridors
and commercial districts. The period beginning in 2010 anticipates land
� developing in remote areas which are comparatively isolated from transportation
corridors and have a higher degree of environmental and land use transitional
sensitivity.
Begin-End ' Singie Multi-
Famil Famil ''
1995-1999 55% 45%
2000-2004 54% 46%
2005-2009 68% 32%
2010-2014 81% 19%
2015-2019 94% 6%
1995-2019 72% 28%
. Figure 3.3-A
3.3.3 Land Use Categories
The residential land uses are divided into four general categories, including Rural
Residential (RR), High Density Residential (HR), Urban Residential (UR), and
Transition Residential (TR). Each category is intended to offer different housing
opportunities to satisfy a diverse market need within the regional population.
These four residential categories are defined as follows:
Rural Residential (RR) This category is intended to have a distinct
rural character with single family detached housing, located outside of the
MUSA. Corresponding land features include the distinct northwest portion
46
' , , , 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
of the City with rolling topography, upland hardwood trees and moraine
wetlands that match the development standards for a rural estate lifestyle.
The Rural Residential areas maintain a minimum gross density of 1.0
dwelling unit per 5 acres and a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Due to
agricultural preservation needs in other parts of the City, this density
standard will continue to apply in Rosemount despite its difference with
the Metropolitan Council's density objective of 1.0 dwelling unit per 10
acres.
Urban Residential (UR) This category is intended to be located
entirely within the MUSA and serviced by public sewer and water. This
designation correlates to the developed and developing residential
neighborhoods west of Highway 3 as well as the planned areas east of
Highway 3. A range of single family detached and attached housing will
be accommodated within this category at average net densities of 2.4 for
detached and 5.8 dwelling units per acre for attached housing (twinhomes
and townhomes). Attached housing within the Urban Residential areas
will be located in logical transition areas from higher to lower intensity land
uses, at the edge of a defined neighborhood, and/or planned to sufficiently
integrate within a large planned development area.
High Density Residential (HR) This category is intended to provide
housing types (condominiums and apartments) that meet the needs of
renters, smaller households, and senior citizens. An average net density
of 10 dwelling units per acre is expected for this type of housing. A fairly
small number of High-Density housing is planned between 1995-2020 at
10-15 units per year, or 315 total units. This represents a modest 5.0
percent of all new housing units constructed within that planning time
period. The City intends to discourage large concentrations of high
density housing over 100 total units in any one location. Three separate
locations are designated for High Density Residential: in the commercial
downtown area, within a future redevelopment area formerly known as the
Brockway Glass site, and south of County Road 42 either adjacent to or
on the technical college property (student housing only).
TranSitlon ReSidential (TR) This category is a new one for the
comprehensive plan, although it closely resembles the former Planned
Development Residential (PD-R) category. It is intended to provide
unique housing opportunities in areas that are environmentally sensitive
and are adjacent to the City's established Rural Residential areas. Two
major areas include the 500+ acre Kelley Trust property and a smaller
area north of 135th Street and east of Highway 3. Another smaller area
includes rural residential lots of 0.5 to 5 acres in Birchview Terrace and Le
Foret Additions. The City will allow the clustering of housing units in areas
in order to avoid impacts to natural features, allowing smaller lots within
the clustered areas at a maximum net density of 2.4 dwelling units per
47
City of Rosemount , -
acre for single-family detached and 5.8 for single-family attached housing,
while maintaining an average net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre.
Some of these areas will also get city sewer only if warranted based on
need and cost factors. (See the Transition Residential District section
3.3.10 at the end of this chapter.)
Business Park (BP) This category is primarily intended to provide
land for office and clean "high tech" or light industrial use. However,
Multiple Family residential use of up to 10 dwelling units per acre is
allowed by Planned Unit Development. Business Park land available for
residential use is either adjacent to existing or guided residential uses, or
contains natural amenities or features that may provide opportunities for
multiple family or attached housing with high standards of architectural
and site design, which effectively mitigates potential land use
incompatibility. As of 1999, 121 attached housing units are approved with
�� another 36 imminently anticipated on Business Park land.
Redevelopment of the Brockway plant for residential use in addition to
other suitable Business Park land could yield several hundred additional
attached or multi-family housing units.
;
j Agriculture — Research (AR) Multiple family housing is anticipated
� in the vicinity of the Dakota County Technical College. While this project
� has not been planned, the City acknowledges the most appropriate
� location for this housing to be south of the campus on the University of
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Housing in this area may
serve the University as well as the Technical College. Therefore, the
anticipated form of the development would consist of apartments rather
+ than dormitories.
i___
3.3.4 Housing Assumptions
The City's housing estimates are based on the following assumptions. These
assumptions are based on current housing demand, the amount of land available
for residential development, and the City's core values and goals.
• Housing Mix. The mix of housing units from 1995-2020 will be 72% single
family detached and 28% multi-family (compared to 62%/38% targeted by the
Metropolitan Council).
• Residential Portion. Future residential development from 1995-2020 as a
percentage of all land uses will be 60% (compared to 52% by the
Metropolitan Council).
• Housing Densifiy. Future net density for all housing types combined from
1995-2020 will be 2.9 dwelling units per acre, or 2.9 du/ac (compared to 3.0
by the Metropolitan Council).
48
. , � .
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 14,1999
Page 2
Di ssion continued. Mr.Pearson explained that if a building is abando or over six �
month a prior non-conforming use cannot be restored. _
Commissioner e-Corrigan repeated her interpretat at the ordinance pertains to car and
equipment sales and not exclude the retail of automotive parts. While she supported
the desire of the Downtown ing Co ' ee, she felt the ordinance should be chan�ed if it
does not conform.
MOTION by Tentinger t verturn the staff retation of the zoning ordinance prohibition of .
retail automobile p sales in the C-2, Community ercial Center. Seconded by Shoe-
Corrigan. Ay . hoe-Corrigan and Tentinger. Nays:`ti'ei sel and Droste. Motion failed.
C ' erson Droste recessed the meeting unti17:00.
Public Hearing: 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of
Posting of a Public Hearing Notice on file with the City.
Mr.Pearson summarized the Met Council's preliminary revie tionfor the area between STH 3,
Comprehensive Plan. At issue is the Rural Residential designa
Akron Avenue and north of 135th St.W., excluding Stonebridge,White Lake Acres, and other
platted areas. Mr.Pearson provided background information on the 2020 plan, explainin�
population projections,Rosemount's role in regional plans, and restrictions imposed by the
University of Minnesota and the Koch buffer zone. He explained the proposal to place
approximately 900 acres into Urban Reserve,wherein the area would remain zoned for
Agricultural use and brought into the MUSA and rezoned in the future.
Discussion continued. Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing.
Laxman Sundae,2055 128th St. W., commented on the connection of sewer&water services to
existing properties`vhich have working septic systems and the cost for such services,resulting in
n
a financial hardship to some residents. Mr. Sundae also noted his concern for the preservation o
natural features and wildlife, stating an increase in population would put stress on the�vildlife.
Mr. Sundae presented a copy of the Met Council recommendations,which was entered into the
Clerk's record. .
Joanne Varey, 12920 Biscayne Ave., asked how the implementation of city services would
. � ` '
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 14, 1999
Page 3 �
impact properties on Biscayne Avenue. Mr.Pearson explained the application process for sewer
&water. �
Connie Fadden, 12231 Biscayne Ave., asked how development further north would affect
property owners located south of the development. Mr.Pearson explained that"leap frog"
development is not allowed and that development would occur from the south to the north.
Joan Anderson,2295 Bonaire Path, expressed her concerns for the protection of wildlife and the
wet an s, an she noted the ciry is forced to listen to the U of M wishes. She is concerned that
transitional zoning would have higher density development next to it and that development
would affect the lakes. Mr.Litterer explained the city monitors the lake levels and that
stormwater management is in place. Commissioner Shoe-Corrigan stressed the importance of
citizen participation in the protection of wetlands and noted organizations available to citizens to
preserve greenways.
Marilyn Radtke, 12550 Danbury Way, feels the University of Minnesota and the Met Council are
o ing t e crtizens as hostages.
Karin Penrod, 1065 121st St.W., asked how this proposed rezoni.ng would benefit the
an owners. Mr.Pearson explained this is a regional issue and that urbanization is vital to the
downtown.
Mike Mortenson,2026 128th St.W., suggested that the burden of assessments for improvements
�e p ace on e property rather than the owner. This would allow repayment on a long-term
basis.
Aina Wiklund, 12110 Bacardi Ave., asked if there is a timetable for the rezoning. She is also
concerne a out land preservation and requested information on citizen involvement.
Brad Wallace, 12171 Biscayne Ave. W., also inquired about a timeframe for development. He
as ce t e city to look at other areas in Rosemount for urban development, such as the area west
of Hwy. 3,north of CR 38. Mr.Pearson explained the difficulties in developing other areas.
Rich Lamotte,2318 Bonaire Path,commented there are three pipelines through his property and
�iat sewer�water lines could not nui across the pipelines. Mr.Litterer responded.
Kevin Mueller, suggested the U of M lease land from Koch.
C � , I .
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 14, 1999
Page 4 �
Cindy Beamish, 12164 Biscayne Ave., suggested the city go back to the Met Council and say
t eir requests ca�not be done because of the Koch and U of M restrictions. Mr.Pearson
explained this has akeady been done.
Jeff Fadden, 12231 Biscayne Ave., stated he moved here to avoid urban spra.wl, feels he is �
getting mixed information on when city services would be brought into the area and on
assessments, and asked what the Met Council is holding over us to have such power.
Reid Hansen, 122490 Canada Court, appeared on behalf of a client who wishes to develop
pro—perty�'or residential use but is unable to because the city council reguided the property for
public use. Mr.Hansen requested the Comp Plan be revised to designate his client's property
urban residential,which will respond to the Met Council request. Mr.Hansen presented a letter
explaining his proposal,which was entered in the Clerk's record.
Arlen Evenson, 2693 132nd Ct. W., inquired about a survey that was to be done of residents as to
w et er ey would support sewer and water services. Mr. Litterer will follow up with this
inquiry to see if a survey was ever done.
Ray Barton, 2175 128th St. W., has concems that the Met Council or City Council would come
up wi h a an to condemn all on-site septic systems which would require residents to hook up to
city sewer&water. He also expressed concerns that the transfer of density concept would result
in high density or affordable housinj on buildable land.
Deborah Klecatsky, 1375 121st St. W.,wondered where they would go to find recreational open
space a er eve opment of the area,particularly for horses.
7ack Gillespie,2322 Bonaire Path, stated the city controls its own destiny and should push for the
m o crty t e residents want. . .
MOTION by Droste to continue the public hearing to September 28, 1999. Seconded by
Tentinger. Ayes: Weisensel, Tentinger,Droste, and Shoe Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
The meeting was recessed and reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
Public Hearing: RHl3, Inc. Lot Split
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the Ri�, Inc.Lot Split. The recording
secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public
Hearing Notice on file with the City.
Pla.n.ning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes September 28, 1999
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,the Regular Meeting of the Planni g Commission was
du eld on Tuesday, September 28, 1999. Chairperson Bill Droste ed the meeting to order
at 6:35 p. .with members Jay Tentinger, Jeffery Weisensel an Shoe-Corrigan present.
Also in atten ce were City Planner Rick Pearson and Ci ' ngineer poug Litterer.
There were no addition r corrections to the ag a.
MOTION by Weisensel to appro th eptember 14, 1999 Regular Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes. Seconded by T i r. Ayes: Tentinger,Droste, Shoe-Corrigan and
Weisensel. Nays: O. Motion 'ed.
Department A ouncements
Commissio rs noted the actions taken by the City Council on Septe er 21, 1999.
M ION by Droste to recess the meeting unti17:00 p.m. Motion carried unani ously.
Public Hearin�: Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Contd.
Mr.Pearson summarized the Comprehensive Guide Plan update process and the purpose of the
plan. He further explained the role of the Metropolitan Council. There is currently
approximately 1300 acres of undeveloped land in Rosemount,which will be developed in the
next 13-15 years. This land must be developed prior to expansiori of MUSA. Mr. Pearson
described the existing interceptor layout and options for future expansion of city services. .
Mr. Litterer indicated a survey seeking information on the condition of existing septic systems
and resident interest in city sewer and water will be sent out in November, 1999. The results of
the survey will be reviewed at an open house in December or January.
Discussions continued concerni.ng the expansion of development from Eagan into northem
Rosemount and city policy on connection to city services.
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission
, Regular Meeting Minutes
September 28, 1999
Page 2
Tim McDonnel�, 1150 124th Ct. W.,feels that urban development will take away from the ,
quality of life in Rosemount and does not see any benefits it would bring to the residents. Rural
residential zoning is consistent with surrounding development.
Aina Wiklund, 12110 Bacazdi Ave., stressed the importance of preserving the land for future
generations. Ms.Wiklund presented a letter to the Planning Commission and a newspaper article
addressing the issue of public housing in the suburbs,which was entered into the Clerk's record
as Attachment#3.
Trac�Dou�herty, 12370 Blanca Ave., read her letter addressed to the Planning Commission,
which was entered into the Clerk's record as Attachment#4. Ms. Dougherty expressed her
� concern that planned development achieve the goal of the city to maintain a small town
atmosphere.
John Remkus, 13040 Alffon Avenue, indicated the Met Council is an advisory body and has no
legal standing. The estimated 20 years before urban development would occur is a short period
of time which will go by quickly. Just say"no"to the Met Council.
Lois Muellner,2320 Bonaire Path,indicated she moved from the downtown area to get away
from vandalism. She is concerned that urban development will bring an increase in taxes and the
crime rate.
Jerr�Anderson, 2295 Bonaire Path, suggested the city look at urban development on the Koch
buffer property to the immediate east and on property on the eastern border near Nininger
Township.
Deb Williams, 1225 Biscayne Avenue, indicated children are taught to take care of the
environment and wildlife. They feel safe in the area and want the open space.
Denise Travers, 12467 Biscayne Avenue, expressed concerns about preserving the protected
wetlands, open land, and wildlife for our children. Residents have a large inveshnent in their
homes and she feels the city is taking this too lightly. Ms. Travers presented a DNR map and an
article on sewage treahnent systems, entered into the Clerk's record as Attachment#5.
Discussions continued concerning development in the northern portion of Rosemount from
Eagan and the hearing process this would involve.
Cmdi Beamish, 12164 Biscayne Avenue,requested the city say"no"to the Met Council.
Pete Peterson, 12781 Bacardi Avenue,presented a Petition rejecting the Met Council's request,
which was entered in the Clerk's record as Attachment#6.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 28, 1999 �
Page 3
Sharon Tavlor, 1350 121st St. W., indicated she was crowded out at prior addresses. The,area
supports wildlife and ponds. If development occurs,it should be in larger parcels; there is no
value in over developing.
Dan Helwi�, 2145 126th St.W., opposes the Met Council request, as it will lower the quality of
life. He urged the city to represent the residents and not the Met Council.
Diane Schnoor, 12246 Biscayne Ave.,urged the city to save the land for tomorrow.
Rich Carlson, 1330 121st St.W.,referenced the issue with tree preservation in development of
Stonebridge Addition. He expressed concern with the nurriber of trees that would be cut down as
a result of urban development. He believes the market currently demands 5 acre lots, and that 20
years is a long time to wait for someone who wants to sell their property. .
Richard Cliff, 12523 Akron Ave.,owns property south of Stonebridge Addition and planned to
se115-acre lots. The proposed zoning change will not allow him to se115-acre sites. This will
create a hardship for him.
Jeff Fadden, 12231 Biscayne Ave.,had questions concerning development of 120th Street and
the tax base.
Bob Hawkins, 1110 124th Ct.,previously lived in the southeast corner of Eagan and was forced
out because of taxes and assessments as a result of development.
Discussions continued concerning the hearing process on the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and that public comment would not be allowed at the city council meeting. Chairperson Droste
explained the public hearing process at the Planning Commission level. Additionally,public
involvement in the ongoing process of the Comprehensive Guide Plan update was reviewed.
Jim Uttlev of the Metropolitan Council was present at the meeting. Mr.Uttley explained the role
of the Met Council in reviewing city plans and commenting on them. If a plan is found to be
inconsistent with regional policies,then the Met Council does have the authority to tell the cities
to revise the plans to bring them into conformance with the policies. The regional policies are
intended to support highways, airports,parks, and sewer treatment. If a plan creates an impact
on systems, the Met Council is required to direct the city to change its plan.
Mike Beamish, 12164 Biscayne Ave.,wondered what consequences the city would face if it
doesn't go along with the Met Council.
Hank Nieland,2067 135th St. W.,noted the importance of the quality of life in this area.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 28, 1999
Page 4
Connie Fadden, 12231 Biscayne Ave., indicated the city is not ready to make a decision at this
time. She does not feel there is full representation by the city council.
Brad Wisherd, 12890 Biscayne Ave.,had questions conceming the water treatment plan. Mr.
Pearson described the existing infrastructure and options for expansion.
Steven Kreitz, 1785 W. 120th St.,indicated the Met Council needs to realize that most residents
grew up in Rosemount and continued to raise families here. This is a unique area where
residents have established roots.
Denise Travers, indicated she spoke with John Consemius of the Met Council,who said the Met -
Council couldn't require the city to comply, only to make recommendations. Ms. Travers shared
pictures of the area,which were entered into the Clerk's record.
Deb Williams, suggested a compromise, allowing expansion in 5-10 acre parcels.
Bob Na�el, 2400 126th St., objected to the process that does not allow public comment to the
city council.
Dan McNultv, 15670 Cicerone Path, asked which cities do not participate with Met Council
policy and whether they have had funds withheld. Mr.McNulty suggested the city say"no" and
see how the Met Council responds.
Aina Wiklund, feels it is wrong to squeeze development into this area because of the amount of
land controlled by Koch and the University of Minnesota.
MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Second by Tentinger. Ayes: Droste, Shoe-
Comgan,Weisensel, and�Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Chairperson Droste recessed the meeting at 9:25 for 5 minutes.
Commissioners discussed options for development for those residents who want to se115-acre
parcels. The suggestion that development occur in eastem Rosemount was discussed and the
constraints of Koch and the industrial comdor were pointed out. The Commission responded to
residents' concerns about protection of the environment with an explanation of the wetlands and
, tree preservation ordinances.
Commissioner Shoe-Corrigan indicated her support for Met Council projections and the city's
responsibility to regional goals. Residents have an opportunity to participate in the planning
process to preserve open spaces. She suggested resubmitting the plan with a Rural Residential
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 28, 1999
Page 5
designation and updating the plan later after reviewing the issues. While she supports urban
development of this area, she feels it necessary for the market to drive it,not the Met Council.
Commissioner Weisensel noted the city has been proactive in the planning process and has the
wetland ordinance and tree preservation ordinance as tools to preserve the environment. The city
is part of a region and it is important to work within that framework. Resident involvement is
critical.
Chairperson Droste referred to the city's rich history and that the existing wetland and tree
preservation ordinances will preserve the pristine areas. This Comp.Plan amendment would not
change zoning at this time,but guide it for 20 years in the future.
I
Commissioner Shoe-Corrigan commended the city on its plans for the Kelley Trust development,
including transitional zoning,buffering, clustering,wildlife comdors and innovative..
urbanization,which shows the city can accomplish its goals by maintaining open space. She felt
the residents would better understand how development could work if given the opportunity to
observe the Kelley Trust development. Commissioner Shoe-Corrigan supports the amendment
to the Comp. Plan but wants it delayed for approximately two yeazs.
MOTION by Tentinger to recommend that the City Council revise the draft Rosemount 2020
Comprehensive Plan conceming land between STH 3,Akron Ave., 135th& 120th Street West:
1)Placing approximately 900 acres of land into Urban Reserve; 2)Designating approximately
140 acres for Transitional Residential use; and 3)The Stonebridge Addition and White Lake
Acres would remain Rural Residential. Seconded by Droste. Ayes: Tentinger and Droste;Nays:
Shoe-Corrigan and Weisensel. Motion failed.
P lic Hearin : Flue el Elevator Site Plan Review
Chairp n Droste opened the public hearing on the Site Pl eview for Fluegel Elevator. The
recording se tary has placed the Affidavit of Public ' ,Affidavit of Mailing, and Affidavit
of Posting of a P �c Hearing Notice on file wi e City.
Mr. Pearson presented the si an fo roposed 4,458 sq.ft. addition to the retaiUstorage
facility of Fluegel Elevator. Buil levations were reviewed. NIr. Pearson indicated the
proposed metal siding is not rmitted on side facing the public right-of-way and is allowed
up to 50% of the rema' � g surfaces. The appli must substitute the metal siding with another
material. Some or zation is necessary for parking. .Pearson explained landscaping
options.
Cha' erson Droste opened the floor to the Applicant. Greg Fluegel was pr t and addressed
' ues related to parking and landscaping.
,
�' . , „
MEMO
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: BUD OSMUNDSON, CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
RE: NORTH CENTRAL AREA URBAN RESERVE
The City has received a number of questions regarding the development of Urban
services, meaning sanitary sewer and potable water to the north central area that
is being contemplated for Urban Reserve in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Currently the City's MUSA boundary (or area which can be provided City sewer
service) is limited to south of County Road 38 east of Trunk Highway 3. This area
has enough room for Urban development for at least the next ten years. However,
this does not prevent a landowner, a group of landowners, or a neighborhood from
requesting that the City provide sewer and water into the Urban Reserve area. If a
request was made, the City Planning Commission, the Utility Commission and City
Council would be required to make a number of decisions that would effect the
entire City. No requests for sewer have yet been made.
The following are a list of a few issues which require some explanation and about
which I have talked to some residents. .
1 . The North Central Sanitary Sewer Study (NCSS). This Study was completed
in 1997 for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that most of
Rosemount is provided sanitary sewer service treatment by the Rosemount
Wastewater Treatment Plant east of U.S. Highway 52. The sewage flows
to that plant through a large pipe located just north of CSAH 42 in what is
now being developed as the Bloomfield Addition. The NCSS Study was
done to make sure that the piping that is going to be completed in the next
few years would have sufficient capacity to serve the north central part of
the City if or when it did require sanitary sewer service.
Secondly the new laws requiring the updating of existing private septic
systems brought forth a number of issues in the north central area. There
are four or five areas where privately owned septic systems exist on small
1
�
lots and it may be very difficult and expensive to repiace or repair these
existing systems. The NCSS Study was done to analyze whether or not
sewer service could be provided to these areas, and what would be the
most economical plan to provide sewer services to these areas.
The NCSS Study provided the City with an overall blueprint on how this
area could be provided sanitary sewer service. It provided cost estimates
on a broad overview for the alternative ways of providing service, but will
require extensive further engineering review.
2. Survev. A survey of residents has been talked about for sometime. This
survey would ask for information such as the condition of existing septic
tanks, whether or not City sewer and water is desired, etc. Staff was going
to complete this survey last spring and be prepared to have a open house
meeting to discuss some of the issues with septic systems and sanitary
sewer service. However, last Spring our Building Official, who is the most
knowledgeable Staff inember on septic systems, left the City and the new
Building Official did not arrive until the height of the construction season. A
survey will be sent out in November of 1999 and an open house meeting
will be held in either December or January to review these issues.
3. Assessments. There have been rumored assessment amounts passed
around as to what assessments would be for sanitary sewer to be provided
to individual sites. At this point the Engineering Department does not have
a clue as to the individual resident assessments if sewer service was
provided to an area. The whole issue of providing sewer to existing homes
or vacant land will need to be discussed in a number of public meetings
prior to any decisions being made on bringing sewer into the area.
A number of policy decisions have to be made such as:
• If sewer is provided to an area do existing homeowners have to
connect within two years as existing ordinances require? What if the
homeowner spent 55,000 updating his septic system three years
ago?
• How are the costs going to be assessed? Does the City pay for part
of the cost, and if so, how much? Where is the City portion going to
come from, general taxes or the sewer (or water) utility?
2
• if sanitary sewer is.brought into an existing neighborhood, should
water be brought in aiso?
• Some neighborhoods have poor storm drainage facilities; should they
be upgraded and how is that paid for? The same situation exists for
streets. Where is all of this funding going to come from?
At this time the City does not have answers to all of these policy questions
for areas such as the north central area. It will take a lot of time to develop
these policies, but they will be addressed prior to development of plans for
this north central area.
cc: Mayor & City Council
Tom Burt, City Administrator
Rick Pearson, City Planner
Doug Litterer, Civil Engineer
3
� ' Executive Summary
Regional Growth Policy Agenda item: VI-A
R
Committee
Meetin date: �Au ust 18, 1999
. � � � � � • �
Date: August 3, 1999
Subject: Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update-- Referral File No. 16999-1
District(s),Member(s): Metropolitan Council District 16(John Conzemius, 507-263-2545)
Policy/I..egal Reference: Minn.Stat. §473.864,Subd.2 and § 473.175, Subd. 1
Craig Rapp,Director of Community Development Div. 651-602-1615
Staff PreparedlPresented: Jim Uttley,Principal Reviewer,. 651-602-1361
Division/Department: Community Development Division/Planning and Growth 1Vlanagement Dept.
Proposed ActionlMotion
None, information for discussion purposes only.
Issue(s)
• Is Rosemount's plan consistent with Council forecasts and the Regional Growth Strategy?
• Does Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update contain a substantial departure from the
metropolitan system plan for wastewater services?
• Should the Council require Rosemount to modify its plan?
- Overview and Funding
In 1997,the Council approved a major expansion of Rosemount's MLJSA,adequate to accommodate growth in the
city to 2010. Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update proposes to accept 1,600 fewer households than the
Council forecasts through 2010 and 3,000 fewer households by 2020. The city's urban area is substantially
constrained by the University of Minnesota and Koch Refinery,each of whom o�vn more than 3,000 acres of land in
the city and appear interested in continued agricultural use of their lands. Ho�vever,northeast of the urbanizing part
of Rosemount there are more than 1,300 acres of land that are mostly in agricultural use at the present time and
could be placed in urban reserve,which would be consistent with the Regional Gro�vth Strategy. Instead,the city .
proposes to change the land use to permanent rural and allow rural residential development on lots as small as 5
acres. Such action would have the effect of eliminating possible future urbanization of the azea,the only large area
of potential urban land available in the community in the foreseeable future,as well as con�ibuting to sprawl in this
subregional area by forcing market demand into other,more rural communities.
� • •
H Infrastructure: adequate existing highway capacities;plan makes inefficient use of existing wastewater treatment&
interceptor capacities as proposed �
H Quality of life: plan proposes large-lot estates in an area that could be urbanized;Regional Growth Strategy suggesu
need to reserve the available land for more compact growth where regional infrastructure is already available;expansion of
MUSA in heavy industrial area near Koch Refinery to serve existing and future heavy industry will help reduce chances of
pollution
C Communication/constituency building: Would contribute to sprawl as proposed
0 Alignment: Critical Area��MNRRA plan previously approved;linkages to Dal:ota County park plan to provide
continuous trail alonQ the Mississi i
ATTACPMENT A:REVIEW RECORD � .
REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT CONIPREHENSIVE PLAN
BACKGROUND ' �
The city of Rosemount is a fast growing suburban edge-city located in easf central Dakota County,
immediately east of Apple Valley and south of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. The city is 22,600 acres
.(36 square miles)in area. In 1996,Rosemount had 12,272 people in 3,963 households,and served as an �
employment center for 5,608 people. According to Council forecasts,Rosemount should plan to
accommodate 8,537 additional households and 4,292 additional jobs beriveen 1996 and 2020. The city's
2020 Comprehensive Plan Update establishes policies to guide growth to the year 2020 and replaces the
former comprehensive plan, adopted in 1993.The plan identifies development constraints to expanding
the city's MUSA in three areas: southeast--where the University of Minnesota owns approximately 3,200
acres used primarily for agricultural research; east--where Koch owns approximately 3,000 acres that are
used for its refinery and for buffers to its operations;and northeast--where existing rural development
pattems and moraine topography make urban development difficult.
In 1997,the Council approved a major expansion of Rosemount's MUSA,which was considered adequate
to accommodate growth in the city to 2010. Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update proposes to
deviate from Council growth forecasts by approximately 1,600 fewer households by 2010 and 3,000
fewer households by 2020. While the city's urban area is substantially constrained by the University of
Minnesota and Koch Refinery both of whom own more than 3,000 acres of land in the city and appear
interested in continued agricultural use of the land,there are more than 1,200 acres of land northeast of
the urbanizing part of Rosemount that is in agricultural use at the present time and could be placed in
urban reserve. This would be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Instead,the city proposes to
change the land use to permanent rural and allow rural residential development on lots as small as 5 acres.
Such action would have the effect of eliminating possible future urbanization of the area,
the only large
area of potential urban land available in the community in the foreseeable future.
The plan also proposes a major change in the location and size of the previously approved 2010 MUSA in
the eastem industrial area of the city. The proposal will permit sewering of some existing,large industr-ial
users north and east of the original MLTSA location,and provide public sewer to a newly developing
industrial area immediately south of Co.Rd.42 adjacent to STH 52 where the city proposes to install a
new municipal water system. The proposed 2010 changes to the MUSA in this area are acceptable,but
the proposed 2010-2020 expansion should be withheld at this time. The city should plan to apply for a
post 2010 MUSA expansion in 2005.
In addition,the plan is not in conformity with the regional recreation open space system plan because the
plan.text and maps do not properly identify,label and discuss two regional recreation open space facilities .
located in the city. This represents a.departure from the regional system plan and should be corrected.
City staff have agreed to make the necessary corrections,but as the city council has not yet done so,�the
Council review should request the city to amend its plan to sho�v the correct Iocation and full extent of,
and properly label the aforementioned maps and text to show Spring Lake Park Reserve and that part of
the Dakota County Mississippi River(southern segment)Regional Trail located in Rosemount. Specific
boundaries of Spring Lake Park Reserve as approved by the Metropolitan Council need to be identified on
all maps. �
AUTHORITY FOR REV�V�'
'The Metropolitan Land Use ol�h 1Counc 1 for review and closmment(MI�TeStat�. §4.731864, Subd 2)1VThe
plans and plan amendments
A-1
Council reviews the plans to determine their conformity with metropolitan system plans,apparent .
consistency with other adopted plans of the Council, and compatibility with the plans of other local
jurisdictions in the Metropolitan Area. The Council may require a local govemmental unit to modify any
comprehensive plan or part thereof,which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial
departure from metropolitan system plans(Minn. Stat. §473.175, Subd. 1).
FUNDING IMPLICATIONS: None
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: ,
The Council reviewed the former comprehensive plan in 1993 and since that time has reviewed eight plan
amendments including a 1997 plan amendment that eicpanded the city's MLTSA to accommodate growth
through 2010. On June 23, 1999,the Council recommended to the DNR that the Rosemount
Comprehensive Plan be found consistent with the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Executive
Order 79-19 standards and guidelines and forded findings of consistency with the Mississippi National
River and Recreation Area(�vIl�]RRA)to the National Park Service(Referral File#16923-1).
ANALYSIS -
Staff reviewed the plan update for conformity with regional system plans for aviation,recreation open
space,transportation and wastewater services,for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other
chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide,and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent
governmental units and school districts. Materials received for review included:
• City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan 1998,dated February 16, 1999,which included chapters
dealing with land use,housing,park and open space,transportation, sewers,surface water
management,water supply,and capital improvement program.
• City ofRosemountMississippi River Corridor CriticalArea Plan,which was submitted with the
comprehensive plan update and reviewed separately by the Council on June 23, 1999(Referral File
No. 16923-1).
• City of Rosemount Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide I991.
� North Central Sanitary Sewer Study,prepared by WSB&Associates,Inc., dated March 1997
• Stormwater Management Plan,prepared by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik&Associates, dated Feb.
1998
• Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan,prepared by the city,adopted July 1998
• Water Supply&Distribution Plan,prepared by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik&Associates,dated
Sept.1997
• Conservation and Emergency Management Plan for the Rosemount Water System,prepared by
Progressive Consulting Engineers,Inc.,dated May 1996.
• supplemental materials—pertaining to housing,zoning,and ISTS management ordinances
Regional Blueprint (7im Uttley,AICP,Planning&Growth Management,651-602-1361) �
The Regional Growth Strategy identifies the city of Rosemount as a rapidly growing suburban-edge
community with a small part of the city designated Urban(nside the existing 2000 MLTSA)and the
remainder shown as Urban Reserve. A portion of the Urban Reserve area,immediately east of the
urbanized part of Rosemount is shown as Illustrative 2020 MIISA on the Regional Growth Strategy.
In this situation,cities are expected to plan to accommodate Council forecasted growth with densities of
at least 3 units per developable acre. Protecting agricultural uses and limiting nonfarm residential uses to
1 units per 40 acres should protect those areas not rteeded for urbanization through 2020 for possible
A-2
future urbanization. Rosemount's plan proposes an overall density in new MUSA areas of 2.97 units per
developable acre,which rounds to 3 units/acre and thus meets Council's minimum density standard.
Rosemount has some significant constraints on future development at least in the short term with large
tracts of land owned by the U of M and.Koch. These constraints, coupled with rolling forestlands north
of the existing city center and excellent land for urban development near the existing city center,offer the
city an opportunity to undertake some truly innovative planning.
Rosemount has based its plan on its own forecasts for population,households and employment,which are
shown in the following table.The city's forecast for employment is the same as the Council's. However;
the city proposes to accommodate 1,600 fewer households by 2010 and over 3,000 fewer households by
� 2020 than the Council forecasts that the city needs to accommodate. These represent 19 percent fewer
households by 2010 and 24 percent fewer households by 2020, significant deviations from Council
forecasts.
The Council's forecasts for household growth are significantly higher than historical growth trends would
suggest,and are based on the assumption that neighboring high growth cities like Apple Valley and
Eagan,will be filling up during the next decade and tcau e itkmap shift market demand o are s where
Rosemount's small growth forecast is problemahc be Y
there is insufficient existing regional infrastructure in place to support it or push it out into rural growth
centers in Dakota County,where encroachment of housing on permanent agricultural lands is more likely
to occur. If the city changes its plan for the 1,300-acre area northeast of the existing urbanized portion of
Rosemount from rural residential use to urban reserve or agricultural use, it would have sufficient land to
accommodate Council forecasts if the market demand happens as it is expected to do. This approach
would allow the city to postpone making decisions about further expansion of its MUSA beyond that
already in the plan until market demand warrants.
; Compar�so'n of Gitysand Council Forecasts_ `";"� ' ' `��� "`�
�-` ° ' � y . -� � 1996 . .. .�, 'r .2000 . _ .�. -,20100 - �202
_0
population __ � �99� , ,-,� � 14,7�0 20,0 26,250 �
Rosemount 8,622 12�2�2
14,400 23,600 33,900
Council 8,622 12,272 . ;;,
Hous,eholds .�;_��,,'��`�,E� �. �.':, ,�"� <"�3�`_. �. �=�` ' " 9,485
3,963 4,835 6,915
Rosemount 4 2�779 4,800 8,500 12,500
Council 2,779 3,963 , , �� d,�,�,� :;
r�.,s,°� �-� � .: . �.�_.�-�`'�?a��3�'t�
;Employuient�.��;������-.,.�r��������''s,���� .. �
5,608 6,800 8,300„N� 9,900
Rosemount 4,114 (,800 8,300 9,900
Council 4,114 • 5,608
Instead of planning for lower growth,the city could plan to meet Council forecasts while at the same time
� strengthening its downtown center and maintaining its"small town" atmosphere. It could,for example,
plan to actively encourage medium to higher density e downtowneand the rrewtBusne stP k south of
high density residendal near the downtown and betw
downtown. This would put more people close to jobs and provide retailers with an expanded local
market, strengthening the vitality of the downtown. A similar area could be considered immediately east
of downtown.
Land Use and Local Urban Service Area and Development Staging �
Eighty.two percent of the city's existing resideestate-evee�developmengwith ndyv dual sewage treatment
approximately 300 units--are in large-lot rural typ
systems(ISTS). While large lot(rural residential)estates account for only 8 percent of the existing
A-3 .
residences in the community,they use approximately 50 percent more land(1,698 acres)than all of the .
remaining 3,600 units use(1,033 acres). Multiple family residential uses presently occupy approximately
0.6 percent of the land in the community.
The city's planned residential density is 2.97 units per net developable acre,which rounds to 3 units per
- acre for areas in the MLTSA expansion area[2000-2020]. This compares favorably with the Regional
. Growth Strategy minimum density for new MUSA development of 3.0 units per acre that the Council
established as the baseline.
. LAND.�iI�E,''� ,��E-g�����.���'�r,� , E�stingAcres .- ``% � 20Z0 Acres ._ %,s �;
. ._._.v. _,.�, _. . .... 1_. . , ._.. . �, , ,.: � .,.r _ � .., _.. . : _ . -- ..
Residential-Multiple Family 140 0.6
Residential-Rural(RR) 1,698 7.5 2,364 10.5
Residential-Transitional(TR) 750 3.3
Residential-Urban(UR) 1,033 4.6 2,222 9.8
Residential-High Density(HR) 38 0.2
IndustriaUCom'1 Mixed Use(IlVi) 912 4.0
Business Park(BP) 455 2.0
Commercial (C) 98 0.4 139 0.6
General Industrial(Gn 2,769 123 2,859 12.6
Waste Management(WM) included in GI 235 1.0
Parks&Open Space(PO) 853 3.8 713 3.2
Public/Institutional(PI) 414 1.8 400 1.8
Rights of Way 1,542 6.8 1,542 6.8
Water 1,012 4.5 1,012 4.5
Agriculture(AG) 9,956 44.1 5,876 26A
Agriculture-Research(AR) 3,086 13.7 3,086 13.7
TOTAL 22,601 100.0 22,601 100.0
The Rosemount plan proposes that rural residential estate development should continue to be the largest
residential land use, increasing from 7.5 to 10.5 percent of the land in the city. The plan creates a couple
of new categories of residential land uses: transitional (single family&townhomes; averao ng 2
units/acre)and urban(single family,townhomes and manufactured homes; averaging 2.75 units/acre).
High density residential(multiple family apartments and condos)are proposed to decrease in actual
acreage(from 140 to 38 acres)and as a percentage of total land use(from 0.6 to 0.2 percent). Residential �
land use accounts for a total of 12.7 percent of the city today, and is proposed to increase to 23.8 percent
of the community by 2020. TYiis compares with an average of 58 percenf residential land use inside the
MUSA in 1990.
The plan proposes to designate most of the land north of Co.Rd.42,east of STH 3, and west of Ala�on �
Avenue as rural residential to allow large-lot rural estate development. This is an area of approximately
1,310 acres excluding the finger of area(100 acres)located between STH 3 and Biscayne Avenue,which
the plan proposes to add to the MUSA. At 5 acres per lot,the average of a�newly approved rural
residential subdivision,the 1,310 acres could accommodate 262 homes. If the same area were to be
developed at minimum urban density,the 1,310-acre area could accommodate 3,930 homes and easily
accommodate Council housing forecasts. If agricultural lands are to be developed at all,it is good public
policy to minimize that development as much as possible. At minimum urban density of 3 units per acre,
3,000 households will use 1,000 acres of land. At Rosemount's rural estate density of 1 unit per 5 acres,
the same 3,000 households will use 15,000 acres of land. This exceeds the total of existing agriculture
. and agriculture-research lands in the city. .
A-4
��� �-�;;rn����-� .�;;:��������,�;,,'�E�shng �.�:�` =RGS Assumpho�s Proposed Plan
�._:�1.�. Kt��.,,,x
Housing Mix
• Single-family 82 percent 62 percent 75 percent
• Multiple-family 18 percent 38 percent 25 percent
Density �
• Single-family 1.2 units/acre 2.3 units/acre 2.5 units/acre .
• Multiple-family 5.1 units/acre 10.0 units/acre 10 units/acre
Overall 1.4 units/acre 33 units/acre 3.0 units/acre
Commercial and business uses are proposed to increase from 0.4 percent of the land today to 6.6 percent �
of the land in 2020. This compares with a regional average of 5.9 percent of the land in commercial uses
in 1990. Industrial uses are proposes to increase from 12.7 percent to 13.6 percent of the land. This
compares with a regional average of 8.7 percent in MUSA communities in 1990. .
The plan proposes a two-stage MLJSA. The stages are 1998-2010 and 2010-2020. The Council approved
the 1998-2010 MUSA expansion in 1997. It has approximately 1,800 net vacant developable acres(2,640
gross acres),mostly in western Rosemount,but included 235 acres of industrial waste storage located
immediately east of the Rosemount WWTP,which was approved in 1992. In 1997,the"industrial area"
MIJSA in eastern Rosemount was expanded by 500 acres for the period 1997-2010.
The city's plan proposes to redraw the MUSA in the industrial area to exclude 160 acres west of US 52,
adding approximately 500 acres of additional general industrial and 500 acres of industrial/mixed use land
the 2010 MUSA, and an additional 800 acres to the"industrial area"MtTSA after 2010. (See Figures 9
and 10). The change in MLJSA location is intended to allow sewer service to some existing indusfies
(CF Industries,Continental Nitrogen,Endres Processing,etc.)in eastern Rosemount as well as to provide
service to a new area of industriaUmixed use located near the intersection of Co.Rd.42 and US 52.
These are areas that the city is proposing to serve with municipal water,and where public sewer appears
to be good public policy.
It is recommended that the Council should approve the proposed 2010 redrawing and expansion of the .
MLTSA in eastern Rosemount at this time,but withhold approval of the proposed 2010-2020 expansion
for at least 5 years.
Sub-Regional Analysis:
Rosemount is part of a subregion that includes much of northern and central Dakota County,including the
cities of Apple Valley,Burnsville,Eagan,Farmington,Lakeville and Inver Grove Heights. As yet,the
Council has reviewed only the Inver Grove Heights plan. In both the regional and the sub-regional
context,Rosemount is a relatively high-growth community. It is expected to have more household
growth according to Council forecasts than any of its neighboring communities in Dakota County except
Lakeville.
Transportation access to Rosemount is very good. US 52/STH 56,STH 55,and CSAH 42 are designated
as principal arterials serving the community at the present time. All other major roads aze currently�
classified as A-minor arterials. The primary development issues faced by Rosemount are its huge heavy
industry center dominated by Pine Bend Refinery and the U of M agricultural experiment station,which
occupies approximately 3,200 acres in the south central part of the community. From the regional
perspecrive,Rosemount has excellent lands for accommodating urban development. It has chosen to
accommodate significantly less than what might be�perceived as its fair share of regional residential
. A-5
growth though 2020,and proposes to convert a significant area of urban reserve into large lot rural � -��
residential use,which will have the effect of preventing future urbanization of the area.
Historic Site Preservation; Solar Access Protection
' The Rosemount plan contains a table that presents Rosemount history from 1832 to present. However,
there is no historic "site"preservation discussion or policy. The plan does not address solar access • �
protection.
�Plan Implementation
Local Controls: The city will evaluate and update its zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to
eliminate inconsistencies and to implement the comprehensive plan.
Capital Improvement Program(CIP):The plan includes a CIP,which the city calls a Capital Improvement
Plan. It goes beyond the requirements of MN Stat.473.859,subd.4 extending from 1999 to 2008.
Regional Systems -
Aviation (Chauncey Case,Transportation and Transit Development,651-602-1724)
The plan is in conformance with the Aviation Policy Plan.The closest metropolitan aviation facility to the
city of Rosemount is Fleming Field in South St.Paul,which is located about five miles to the north.
Airlake Airport and M.S.P.International Airport are approximately 7 miles away. The city is not within
the airport influence areas,but is within the region's general airspace that needs to be protected from
potential obstructions to air navigation. The city has agreed to include a notification element in the
comprehensive plan alerting MnDOT Aeronautics of any projects potentially creating hazards to
navigable airspace over the community. The airport element also addresses heliports and seaplanes.
Recreation Open Space(Phyllis Hanson,Planning and Gro«-th Management Department,651-602-
1566) �
Rosemount has two regional recreation open space facilities: Spring Lake Regional Park Reserve and
Dakota County Mississippi River Regional Trail(southem segment). The park reserve was one of the
original proposals in the regional recreation open space system plan adopted by the Council in 1974. Park
acquisition is still in process,as land is acquired only when it becomes available on the market. The exact
date when acquisition will be completed is unlrnovsm. Major portions of the park have been acquired and
the park is partially developed as this time.The Mississippi River regional trail has been in the regional
trail plan since the early 1980's. Dakota County will be submitting a Master Plan for the trail, which runs
from So. St.Paul to Hastings,in the fall of 1999. It will identify potential trail alignments,staging and
acquisition and development costs.
• Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update incorporates it� 1991 Park System Plan by reference.
Both documents were reviewed by Council staff. The plan is not in conformity with the regional
recreation open space system plan because the existing land use map(Figure 3.1-B),the 20201and use
plan map(Figure 3.1-C),the Parks and Greenways map(Figure 4.3-C),and the text on pages136 and 137
do not adequate identify and label the regional facilities,or show their location and extent. This
represents a departure from the regional system plan and should be corrected. The Council should request
the city to amend its plan to show the correct location and full extent of,and properly label the
aforementioned maps and text to show Spring Lake Park Reserve and that part of the Dakota County .
Mississippi River(southern segment)Regional Trail located in Rosemount. Specific boundaries of
A-6
Spring Lake Park Reserve as approved by the Metropolitan Council need to be identified on all maps. -
Dakota County Parks Department is the implementing agency for regional facilities in Rosemount and
should be identified as such in the plan.
Transportation(Kevin Roggenbuck,�Transportation and Transit Development, 651-602-1728)
The transportation element of the Rosemount comprehensive plan is in conformity with the
Transportation Policy Plan(TPP)and addresses all the applicable transportation and transit requirements
of a comprehensive plan. Transportation access to Rosemount is very good. US 52/STH 56, STH 55, :
�and CSAH 42 are the principal arterials serving the community at the present time. All other major roads
are currently classified as A-minor arterials. The transportation plan section of the 2020 Comprehensive
Plan Update is based on"city" forecasts,which are considerably lower than the Council's. If the Council
requires the city to modify its plan to address Council forecasts,its transportation plan forecasts and
analyses will k►ave to be modified as well.
Water Resources Management
Wastewater Service: (Donald Bluhm,Manager,Municipal Services,MCES,651-602-1116)
The city of Rosemount receives wastewater services via MCES interceptors MSB 7112 and MSB 7203,
which convey the city's wastewater to the Rosemount and Empire Wastewater Treatment Plans(WW'1�s)
respectively. The city's future sewered development will be served via these two interceptors.
The sewer element of the 2020 comprehensive plan is not in conformity with the Water Resources
Management Policy Plan,because the city proposes to develop a major portion of the urban reserve as
permanent rural residential. This does not allow for the effective use of land and the efficient use of the
Metropolitan Disposal System. The city's plan proposed 3000 households fewer than the Council
forecasts as Rosemount's fair share of regional growth. The city has some of the most physically suitable
lands in the region for development,allowing the city readily meet Council forecasts at densities of 3 or
more units per acre.
The policy plan says"...timing and density of development which is inconsistent with the Blueprint and
which would affect the cost of providing sewer service will be viewed as a deparhire from,or having a
substantial impact on the metropolitan wastewater system." Since the city proposes to develop the land at
a density substantially under 3 units per acre,the plan represents a substantial departure from the regional.
wastewater system plan.
The city's plan must be modified to accommodate regional growth forecasts within existing and proposed
MUSA expansion areas of the city at densities of at least 3 units per acre. Lands inside the regional urban
reserve that are not needed to accommodate regional growth forecasts must be planned in such a way as
to preserve them for future urbanization. The city's plan should either identify such lands as"urban
reserve" or"agricultural" and limit non-farm residential densities to 1 units per 40 acres or less.�The 3000
additional units should be located in the service area for the Rosemount plant,as location in the Empire
plan service area could cause the premature expansion of the Empire WWTP.
Individual Sewage Treahnent Systems(ISTS) {Jack Frost,Environmental Planning&Evaluation
Department,651-602-1078)
The Council previously acted on the city's on-site septic tank management program and it was found to be
acceptable. However,the city's comprehensive plan should include a brief description of the city's on-site
management progiam and any policies that govern the progiam. ,
A-7
Other Metropolitan Development Guide Chapters:
Housing(Guy Peterson, 651-602-1418)\ �
� The housing element of Roserriount's comprehensive plan includes a good examination of the city's
current housing stock and housing situation. However,it does not identify or give direction to policies
and gbals that connect the significant job growth(3,000 jobs through 2020),changing demographics and
aging of its population with future housing demand and options in the city. The information provided in
its"Housing Affordability Analysis"offers a very thorough examination of housing cost and type in the
� city through 199$.
. However,it is in the areas of housing affordability and diversification goals,and housing implementation
activities, chiefly land use guidance and density,that the plan falls short of Council policy and Land
Planning Act(LPA)expectations.
The plan identifies affordable and life-cycle housing goals that it says"amend"the existing Livable
Communities Act goals negotiated with the Metropolitan Council in 1995, and as such, aze different from
the goals adopted by the Council following public hearing in 1996.
Though it certainly is possible to renegotiate LCA housing goals, and some communities have done so,
Rosemount has not communicated to the Council any intention to do so, and of course, communities can
not amend their goals unilaterally. The LCA prescribes a negotiation of affordable and life-cycle goals.
Negotiation implies two or more parties communicating and collaborating to reach an agreement.
Rosemount is incorrect to portray the goals in the plan as"amended"LCA goals.
If,however,the city proposes to revise its LCA goais as suggested in the comprehensive p1an,.Council
staff recommends that the Council not accept these goals and negotiate numbers more consistent with the �
benchmarks for the group of suburban Dakota County communities south of St.Paul.
The"Revised Goals"in the city's housing element for multifamily housing, owner/renter mix and
multifamily density are substantially lower than the benchmark or prevailing situation for Rosemount
itself and its Dakota County neighbors. Furthermore,these"goals"aze presented without a rationale for
why the city's share of multifamily housing,rental housing and its multifamily density should be
considerably less than those of its neighboring communities.
A comparison of the city's comprehensive plan goals with its negotiated LCA housing goals is as follows:
� „�;`;�;��3�x�����°����,� � "Index�': �;Bencllmark LGA`Goals ��Goals in DrafbPlan
Affordability
• Ownership 73% 69—70% 69% 69%
� Rental 54% 35—40% 35% 35%
Life-Cycle �
• Multiple-family Units
22% 35/38% 35% 25%
• Owner/
Renter Mix 79/21% 72/28% 75/25% 80!20%
Density
• Single-family 1.6/ac 2.0/ac 1.9/ac 2.4/ac
• Multiple-family 11 /ac 10.0/ac 10/ac 6.5/ac
A-8
s
LPA and Council policy call for MLTSA communities to plan for affordable and life cycle housing
opportunities. The LPA directs that communities prepare a land use plan that includes a"housing
element containing standards,plans,and programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet
existing and projected local and regional needs,including but not limited to the use of officia l contro ls
and land use planning to promote the availability of land for development of low-and moderate-income
housing„ :
Furthermore,the LPA requires that the comprehensive plan include an implementation program
describing the"public programs,fiscal devices and other specific actions"to implement the plan, �
�"including official controls to implement the housing element,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
housin ." The Regional Blueprint says"the Council v�nll work vsnth local communities m a partnership to
meet the range of housing needs of people of various life-cycle stages;broaden locational choices and
access throughout the region for people of all income levels;and support use of public funds to help
. achieve these goals. The Council will use the state Livable Communities Act to further this goal."
The Council's posirion is that benchmark levels aze the closest representation of a city's share. Though it
is possible to have goals that are lower than the benchmarks,the"Revised Goals"suggested in the city's
plan differ too substantially and are inexplicably lower than the benchmarks for suburbs south of St.Paul
such as Rosemount.
Though the plan's implementation section accurately identifies that its partnership with the Dakota
County HRA is its primary tool for advancing affordable housing opportunities,at least two of the
implementation components in section 5.1.5 will unnecessarily impede or restrict both the marketplace
and the efforts of its county HR�1 partner to advance affordable housing in Rosemount.
The implementation components indicate that the city will limit multifamily housing in the community
through 2020 to no more than 25 percent. Though the plan's estimated unit demand identif ed in section
3.3.6 indicates that during the timeframe of the current LCA goals, 1995 to 2010,nearly 39 percent of
new housing will be attached housing, it is multifamily production during the 2010 to 2019 timeframe
that will be negatively impacted by this arbitrary 25 percent limitation. The plan estimates that less than
10 percent of new housing units in that decade will be multifamily housing.
This objective appears to run counter to the direction of the marketplace and demographic trends that
portend an increasing demand for attached housing after 2010 the result of both cost and life-style
preferences of the aging babyboomer generation. In fact the Council has forecast that as much as 38 �
percent of Rosemount's new housing between 1996 and 2020 may be multifamily units.
� A second troubling implementation limitation suggested in the housing element that could conflict with
the marketplace and the affordable housing production efforts of the County HR�1 to create housing to
complement the_significant job growth being experienced in the county,is the 20 percent limit on future
rental housing in the city. Not only is this prescription even less than the baseline status of the city's
percent of rental housing when it negotiated LCA goals,21 percent,but it is less than its own LCA goal
adopted in 1998 and less than the LCA benchmark of 25 to 28 percent for the city and its neighboring
Dakota County suburbs.
In terms of density of development,the plan indicates in section 3.3.7 an acceptable overall residential
density for new residential growth through 2009. This density of 3.2 units per acre is suggested despite
the fact that the plan anticipates multifamily density of six units per acre,a number less than�its negotiated
LCA goal,the LCA benchmark for Rosemount and its neighbors and less than the city's multifamily
density when it began LCA participation. In the 2010 to 2019 timeframe,with the plan identifying less
A-9
than 10 percent of the city's new units as multifamily,the overall density falls to only 2.6 units per acFe at
a time when forecasts suggest even greater demand for attached housing at higher densities.
As currently written,the housing element of Rosemount's comprehensive plan is not consistent with
regional housing policy,and does not meet the affordable housing requirements of the Land Planning Act.
The Council negotiated acceptable affordable and life-cycle housing goals with Rosemount in late 1995. �
The Council has told communities that its comprehensive plan should include its LCA goals.This plan
changes several of those goals and prescribes at least two implementation efforts that will restrict
residential development in support of lowered affordable and life cycle housing objectives."
Water Resources Management
Water Quality: (Steve Kloiber,Environmental Planning&Evaluation Deparhnent, 651-602-1056)
On June 14, 1999,Council Environmental Services Division transmitted staff comments on city of
Rosemount's Water Resources Management Plan to the Vermillion River Watershed Management -�
Organization as required by law. The letter advised that Council staff review found Water Resources
Management Plan satisfies the content requirements of such plans. However,staff made the following
advisory comments to both the WMO and the city.
Land and water resource inventory: It may benefit the plan to include some additional discussion and
references regarding resource inventory. A discussion of the relationship between stormwater and
groundwater might add value to the plan,for example identifying groundwater resources, aquifers, and
recharge areas. It may be appropriate to reference the County Groundwater Management Plan. The
Stormwater Management Plan also lacks any discussion of existing monitoring data, locations of previous
monitoring sites,biological surveys,fishery surveys,or lrnown occurrences of rare and endangered '
species. If these data do not exist then the plan should explicitly state so. Furthermore,the plan would
benefit from a discussion of lrnown pollutant sources such as landfills,underground or above ground
storage tanks,feedlots,and permitted discharges. This information can be obtained from the MPCA by
submitting a letter of request to the agency.
Financial analysis: The financial analysis of the implementation plan is missing some important elements
including,estimates of annual costs,maintenance costs,and costs for non-structural elements such as
public education and monitoring. In addition, it would be helpful to separate or highlight stormwater
management elements contained in the CIP located in Appendix F.
Water Supply: (Gary Oberts,Environmental Planning&Evaluation Department, 651-602-1079)
The Rosemount water supply plan update is well done and raises no major issues.
Compatibility with Adjacent Jurisdictions and School Districts
The plan was forwarded to the adjacent jurisdictions for review. It received comments from MnDOT,
Dakota County,Washington County,and representatives of most adj acent communities.The city's plan
appears to be compatible with the plans of adjacent local governments.The plan was forwarded to the
Independent School District#196 for review. The school disfict did not comment on the plan.
ROSEMOUNT 2020 comprehensive PLAN FIlVDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update meets all of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act
requirements for 1998 plan updates. . .
,
A-10
2. The plan is in conformity with the metropolitan system plans for Aviation and Transportation.
3. The plan is not in conformity with the regional system plan for Recreation Open Space,because it
does not adequately identify the two regional recreation facilities in the city: Spring Lake Park
Reserve and Dakota County Mississippi River regional trail. City staff have agreed to change the
plan to show the correct location and full extent of,and properly label the aforementioned maps and �
text to show.Spring Lake Park Reserve and that part of the Dakota County Mississippi River
(southern segment)Regional Trail located in Rosemount. Specific boundaries of Spring Lake Park
Reserve as approved by the Metropolitan Council need to be identified on all maps. Because of the'
city's agreement to amend the plan,a required plan modification is not considered necessary in this
case.
4. The plan is not in conformity with the regional system plan for Waste Management(sewers). The .
plan represents a substantial departure from the regional system plan because it does not plan for the .
number of sewered households during the planning period on which the regional system plan was '
based. The plan should be modified to show that the city will accommodate regional household _
forecasts,and the land use plan should be modified to accommodate a significantly greater share of
� the Council's household forecasts for the city. The city should be encouraged to consider raising
densities inside its existing 2010 and future 2020 MUSA in order to accommodate the forecasts with
minimal additional land added to the MLTSA.
5. If the city cannot accommodate additional development within its existing MUSA,the plan may be
modified to expand the MLTSA,preferably in the area north of CR 42 and east of STH 3,an azea now
proposed for rural residential development.
6. The land use plan must be modified to show that any of the area north of CSAH 42,east of STH 3,
west of A1Qon Avenue and south of the city's border with Eagan that is not needed for urbanization
before 2020 must be designated as either urban reserve or agricultural,with a maximum permitted
density of 1 unit per 40 acres. �
7. The proposed change in the location and expansion of the 2010 MUSA for the industria] area of
eastern Rosemount is acceptable as it is intended to allow sewer service to existing as well as new .
industries. However,the Council should not approve the expansion of the 2010-2020 proposed
MUSA expansion in this area at this time unril the available land supply in the 2010 MUSA is less
than five years based on then current market demand.
8. As currently written,the.housing element of Rosemount's comprehensive plan is not consistent with
regional housing policy,and does not meet the affordable housing requirements of the Land Planning
Act. The Council negotiated acceptable affordable and life cycle housing goals with Rosemount in
late 1995. The Council has told communities that its comprehensive plan should include its LCA
goals. This plan changes several of those goals and prescribes at least two implementation efforts that
will aid the city in restricting residential development consistent with its lowered objectives:
9. The Rosemount 2020 comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and
other Council policies contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide in that
• it does not accommodate regional forecasts contained in the Regional Blueprint,
• it proposes a substantial area(1,300 acres)of permanent rural large lot residential development in
an area proposed by the Council as "urban reserve"
� it proposes significant new rural residential development on 5-acre lots at densities well below
those Tecomrriended in the Regional Growth Strategy for either permanent rural area or urban
reserve
A-11
• although it plans major areas of the community as agricultural, such designation is consistent with -
the intent of the"urban reserve"designation because the very low density residential(1 unit per
40 acres)development permitted is consistent with urban reserve densities and should operate
effectively to preserve these lands for possible future urbanization post 2020.
10. The Rosemount 2020 comprehensive plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent govemmental
units and the school districts. �
11. Sub-Area Analysis—
• Rosemount is a transition community located between urban and urbanizing communities to the
north and west,and permanent agricultural areas to the east and south.
• As Eagan and Apple Valley become fully urbanized during the next decade,market demand is
expected to move into Rosemount.
Attachments-- Maps
Figure 1 -Location Map, City of Rosemount,Dakota County
Figure 2-Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas, City of Rosemount,Dakota County
Figure 3 -Regional Systems,City of�Zosemount,Dakota County
Figure 4-Significant Landowners,2020 Comprehensive Plan Update, City of Rosemount
Figure 5 -Current Land Use Map,2020 Comprehensive Plan Update,City of Rosemount
Figure 6-2020 Land Use Plan Map,2020 Comprehensive Plan Update,City of Rosemount(as proposed)
Figure 7-Rosemount 2020 Land Use Plan Modification,recommended to Council, 8/99
Figure 8-Rosemount 1997 MUSA Expansion Proposal, as approved by Council2/97 (Ref.#16449-3)
Figure 9 -MUSA Phasing Areas,2020 Comprehensive Plan Update,City of Rosemount(as proposed)
Figure 10-Rosemount MUSA Phasing Areas,as recommended to Council, 8/99
V:\library\commundv�referral�reports\99reports�RU 169991.doc
A-12
��.• „ , .
- ���
i o-
• g3a
i' ,s�' a•=�
0
a
� U�m�
��a
�� �:�� W�
;I y , �� .
.� L����. �
� ��--s��� .
I �.- , ..,,`i �I
a {
V1 ��; �
'`--� � �;
O '� � y`J �
Y � O V
� � �� � � h q " �
0 �' � '�-- , �
� �
� <� �--�t- ;; �.. ` �
r O L Q
� �y :.J I 'r.�-'�/ iL—_ C.0� E�ae u o C
^ . �. � � o ��O u�
�'1 ������'� . �—_ o V ' v o p E 3
�/ J ,�' '� �`'� c w v o�
� �_ j I 4�r:;� ';;�:. 2� j i; i g c d e d d >A
� t i i :J'J-.�� � !-' 0+A� o a "cym
O �� �' ` :�-% ,.. � �, � �'�'�a= ��
�� ! � I �y� _ ``'� 1 � � �% ' °' e �a o es '`�'�
� I ' � �C� 'I I �I cs E�" �'v �'m
� L I �,/� �.�• I! Y L O�U'O O C
; i-^�--i— a. c, o y•� U w
� . ;tN � ��,' • �� ' , ye� ow� ��
,, ,� ' . o �� � „ o0
I ��` � I ; ,I �'� � � e V o e a g � o
� t-_ ='�� e E °� m c o 0
� C i, , � t I 1 r: �, I.a u y E CS u a�.PC
.:�� i ; � j • i'� �-i •�.,j � C � o � d `o 0
� , ! ' I .i-.._�� `� u C4 a a ri��
�i =I��— y�� ���i I � ! � A � �UU
� �I—!---� ' �� �'�� - � `—�i � i U �
I � , lY�I -�LI i �{ ,` i�� � ' i ., . � .
� I ,1�i I�:~i �`"'�! �'b ; ; (•.1 ' `� �
�„ ;=� � -�-\ �' � `
� �� , �' i ; - � �
� i � n �� �\. _ ��� ; � ` W y 'p
� i � ,���- _ � � p
I � i ���i I � � V
� _.__i_ ` �o a,
I � 1 � �'� rl �r-,� I z � Y 9
I� r��.: _ . I ;
I � '___� i ' _�t� -ii.. .,i `_-'�_� '. I � E Q a
�j ��—' ___. i Q � 3 `' � o, "
I Q �_�-�*�;�''� � � I ; I,� I, �� w�
I � ������ ':�''—� ' � ' '-----�
� � l i�•�i� . � '� �� ' � '� ' � .
� � , � I �
'' •�� '�i� � i
� � f� 7� 1 !I��•, �, ,',\ i !
�}' ' - � �Tv �i� � I
� ��'���+��;� � � a` I
. � I �•i. ��--�.�_;•,,,Lo`• , � �, r, \� '�� �
. I � rY�' +� 1 ,� �'�• r/., : --�''Z. i f G � .
� "i I 1�. I I `~ ./ �.7'"�! • c
O ��T iit �� � e�� • � � I �� � � . y / � a
� -•��� _�� i' . �� ; � �, � � 3
� ;�.� �`����� � � ► _�l �� � �� I
r , : a I
,� � ';t�, � � 1 �•lG � �i„_��'�+'` � i e n o
� ' ��.�� �� � J m
' � . ���c '�t � o , =-��� � ��-7`�_�-,,� m
� � ! a^ •-�-��..}"� j �^�T���\v �\ '�.1 $ c
� 'e�"�. , ��j I ' � _ - ��- ��\� �
�-��t`�'�- t�`'_ � C o
I t-�'f'?`` �� � �2T'-- == �.J'�•-Y..� � l � p
� =L- I' y 1 \ �"{ � � er�a N3� p� c�
. lc��� }... � �c r r„'�.Z�t.ti,� ; ni'� � �'n v,
I l• 1 I � « .-:'_7''� �r ��d��—���'�;`.<`��` � 'J $`�+ �
r._', :' �t�"'�"�--���s.���-�{`;�� rk��'�R� � a �
�f wl , � ,,�� T�� .
^ ",i,�r P�� 5����-�- '?"_-�����g�.`@�`�;e`�'�� ( oW 0�p
y. 9 r.'��--��. -t�`ry �� W W
I , . I �• +--cyi�' � L-��—�S/%+._.•. .' � L
�9 �_. ��I � .�• ���,,,� 'l , �-•�'�t`- TM�'���lt, i a
� I �\��: i����;•, @nec�_� c� ��:'�..-•-��'',��"� i ��,
I '.s" � r-������_-���x� 1 )
� , . � � ,
, (
, � � .
. �
�
•
�
�
i� ( � �
,` 1: � _ .
`/ .
x l � T •� ;�_ _ � � • �
` . ..Y}� _ _ 3 _e ... �: _ "
� r� . � � � i i � _ -
�� Y F-:..� e�� c � , �
���"�� 'a '� � T� �t t�E"+ �i s � - _
•�} . � �,. �y .� .a �{ � � • _
`�x4. �s�mv .f�l � Lr /' �a....�{-,n� � . ' � -
._ `_ i �aF ......,.�.,_ � . '"�vx � � f` s' ' '
- h� ^..'r ? i �t !'�.au4 .� r�r'h
_ '��'.=��'6 '`a i . _ y � y
�s���/�x�.;..i .`l• f:H � :.�'�'x }` ��'t t
t���1�:..=� .r I � -
-".'`�� _
^"� 1.`'nir�T! b yF'y . . / � f� .w' �_ - � _
.�"'1'Z -a�J-I � 1 •
�7.�.Y� ,sc<<Yf�L 3".� .! � C3- '
2��ilf'�.:5 .a`�`c . , i r� '
c ;�.
�3� 'T s:�t.tiis.S.aK �' - � �� � • — '
� ;�� i )A�J��t . { t �
�~�F,,.H,�r� (i t'�t.:w� ' ' T - �
�s,��^, z,� Gr:.��� a : �
{� ����s��yt�s �xt� �.�'S� . ' '€ -
.�1.�.��.Y�'.`��'.���gri':� ��S�a�".ajm'y . . - �� � '�
;Z' `t'T-.�`��'cv,..�' ,Sj."�,.. •eRr - � .a_`�.t s - �
�� �'-�� ����-. ���-��."�� : F�.°` �.�;��s� _� -
.���-.� � _¢, � �.����� E � s� � �
i <� �. `l�';r:�.�;�-xy�S,'"��-l�',�����€S'�rC �� �~�s'r-
1 ~i�K�������3an,�s. ���w y��t� r.�.��y l-r�.t` �
t• ini� "i_-�__+y�`�T�.r...�`k"__-.Ga tt.
� '- , .�. �:���:3�a..�:i�-e r i`,k�. _ "
�..�'� � _
:zrt- —'�
,� �._,_�' '7- �+e r-�:":=;�"�"
\ .-.v -�i�nl'-.,..:`r.jy--r�.:+�J•�.�•' ••� r•�'�-'{ � ' �
tl'• - �{"i-��.s��LS:tt37�1 e.�>�-'tic�y4'1 1
� � -..4;�JSt�iri�ra � L�/�".G����.�.I� `- �
_ .i� ' it���t'l �+53_ .i,�.H- 1
:�'�3;-��� -
T, ��-•- t ;� �._'�-, ,
,�-,�.. _'sr--����-}�:--�± _�
*-."`s��-�,-�� �.� � � - -
� _ _��. .� �i��,���'t. ` * -
E-- - -s ,�=Y?
� - z ��'e�,x��Q�d`,�. 3 f��.� � f�j-�r;c t�e
' ��a�� s�`�� �x a � : �:.� �/►�i�
"t- it �'�,.t__--3-�-Z� §S ���
' F-`J Sr'^3f'�..�.Cs`s f�•,F�' k�.v.� •�}�'
t'� �.''�`���s,z,"�'� � er�w�� r3�Y,� _
.� ea_.:: r s c+.�_ s
`������-L� ,� � � �'�� �j� .?r�� � -
s� ���}��=..
Y'�-'i � L
�1+ �'7_.�, �V`. - � _ _
.J�.� h >7 w � \��� 4 t- J __—_
�E'.��r t r . �. � I �. J �
i M � ' ___"
a�F�st�a�"���s .� �4 � , -
�'�i 1 �.w1�.Y� 3 f'-y '�"'6' { _ . :.� , _
r._�a L.1wy_"-�. '� 1 i.'.vr, 1
't`-E�.J",f.''�'`.C; �— �'— '�-Y .;s R �_ _-- -
��' �
a4Y�,n� .E y� :R . s s y�. .
��'r�.�.-?�_f a.x-�:,.�_...__^ -t- t �.�.i. _
♦ t�`����2 _s*,�"� :�� �4�� ''f s+v �- - - _
S 'y �1` _'1$ ��Gf h
�..�,� '�`�L_ 1`...-�Yi-�-�� � � � � Ss�3`' . .. __ _— _ �
v� r. � �
i ,
� ' -
�
� ' ' ' ' - -
� ,
►
�`z�� _ - -
�ia.
� ��� t .
-`�i !; ' _ �� ---- ■
- ��.. - =-
i-;•. - - ---
� � ` _ -_
:� �� -�--.�:` - - -
, .; .
- - - �
-��
I - � - -
- � - _- - -
�-�� - ���� - - -
■ �
•
�
r f '�'t- 3; � � -
t [� t
r �' - - '
I µ�, •
�sh Y •
' ���..��.� � 1
�f.
q c ) t
� . ,
� 'T'i ' Z`
�� z 4� :� �� _ 1 • -
'f � , '
� z
� z r--� ' 1 '
'$""rE--�� :�Y. f- �' �,�� 3�- �
�3" 2-5 F x'
(�-0�3'�_y��.{-��.vFt, � R }. -_-A j F ,.4 ?_ y � .
iw's`�32 i.1'!�� /� /- + ; �JZ ��Y �
���. .J. .�y // r Py i ��Y fk{ z .
�`O�;_�i3' . = /���,��, S --��i`�'f t .;' t �� � � ' _
a���'. - .� � �Is .. ''� _
,�-•.�,ill'�—' �YIS"� � . . �� �q 1'. • 1 � �
-��' `��-=�`' �-� + sc� � _ -
�x��.-�: i •�,o
�-: -v _ s�� �.,,,
:� u��'��'_'--�fi'�.r'+� .' 'c- - , �
� ' -._.�c�.�,.��C �� � . �ye" t�.
-... aP„y--�¢,�,.. ,as . + � r-
�!,..:j
�`" -e� Yr �_,..���;7Y .�� "'ct_� � _ ��o i .�
�;ri-�'�2n��,�"y� �.1.� � j. �- �; .;} � � � j.1 - •
���' �
__��'-''!��,,.,�� ��r r����z,,,�t : `' �.�x_ •
'�_�� ' ��� "�"�p7'4 -Y =a ,
:�z��•� ..e ,� j� `��;�y�c.•�C`- r� ��=5.x?y —
�iH�. ` i�3QP yc��,a-�t�vl�• ���-.'�:t
�''�;y��.�'r3Z� ���a�.+^�-i��� rt�:J�"r,5:'r r.`'� '�"r''r , .. .`: '
���. �'c F.javc�i�s,�Yt?�-=-�z;:? :.�+HS'����1:.�,.—�
_"'�3-..�a�.�i2�.. �t � yv�u,�,�-id � �
�'".=_ -s''�C��1'�'i'a.;;>>s'-i.�..c.,m,r2"n � � �
�'�.''vy ;'�r „"'1'�.� � � ,, s-`#
�_•� i�"�.�rt-�.,,,� �+���s�C�- `• � �
�/55��--� �-� ��;�,��"�'�"'�Y�� �� '
-4 ^Y �1x� '�/�}'itr,. f-:-3 L �
"'Ls" �`�'y�^„�rss�,._'"`+�.,. "':� �5'� z _ _ .
� r" -�-r �"`�����Y"�/_.a N �-.�'i
���3� , .'`..��g�� _: f�n)...:,�_�< :t r.
��-� �� f�.i
�:-��..+ �. � �_ .��.�
�„'`�-!r 3��r�hSt.iGs.....�'.' 3�
:'�``.�.�T �s r' ��=� ��
'�' Y ��-�-�s�c5,f � , ; Y3 �l.��x'-1Z, : "a -
��'�'.2-�t• j �.�z� -�,-'^-e. y,� - ',�'Y�' e.�, -
`�� ��r°Y- M`""'fz
~' _ r���` n • � ' � �i. -
��'T� -l�k.• . �C.3a ,S '' _ Ji �yY
. , y A,�._ ` � .4 '
.� �-� � �` � .. s _ _--_ �
� �-� - �
i�
r �t � - i_, v'-�.
t'�� _i ? � � �c^_ 4 .st --- `
� -�` 4' t%'---ss— .� r
���1 ��-'� � �r�f �s� s .
> a
.h�i t _��'.��.4� � .3
.� � ���+ T.r'-• _—
��_ ��� A.3 Y �� L �
.."TGnZ�L=c -t �. ! ___—
�.. J�= h- ,rY r -z. '1
s». �,-�__- f a. x - '
.�� a.� ��_�� ��.s f.4 l'f �'"z�r -
-- ;Y r ti-� +r E -
'�_�..'.r _�n_;:..e.r- ..� � - - - - - - - - -
- — - - - �
-. - r.r. -
� -
�
� '
_ i
�
' � ' ' � ' �
� __ _
i
_ j ��� t s . ..� � A
� f' _ � �-, � � y
t - ` � a �
:i
v_'`.
_ � ` ` � - _
_ _ :1 ' '
� �"�=;
- - _ -��,
� _ - - _ :��, -
_ ry— - _ _
�•_"- ' r`� -
,. �
�
. r
. �, I �.� � i I ` �..� :i O
/ .�G� " 'Y� . �
/ ' . �
:' �.. .� ;�a� �
r_.
f!: � I I . ��r ` � � .
1 .� '. fT� � q
� - .�� �, - ' .. _ 5�j �V ++
r' t � � � �3� � �
��� �'Sz., �. ._- � k 2-.'�� ! Q _ �
('` _ �.�.a . � ,-� �'.� �� :::1 . ���.�� • � ''?^�"_ (�1 �
�. ;�. 1 . . i r� - _ ��/i� C .r�
:., S a�,A � L� .4-.. �' { ?'�� �// � �
�. � � , i �` a o
'� - _ �'1 Y _ �
. <� ;. .i , � - X .�,_. � �
� �.� � , �--� /, :: � F �
{ } � � -� � �
� �,-�., r�, �� �� ,,�;i � �1 - ._� � :� � �� � �
f `- � �Y.�� � �� �. � '�' ''r � � t, . `r, � � °
,? z-�r,, ,� :��a��t � =�-5 � J � ``- �
/ � � �-� `�..� i � N O
/ ' ��� `� <. � �� ��s � :� `
u. � � � x .s,��-� j o __ �.�'
,� ��_ �'�� f � � `��e<.-�' I t�- :� ; � --t_�. � U
�3 •� r`
., ��c r a � r s,r`�,:� � f"�: s '! � `_ '� ^` O
�.�._ _ �_ � L U
� .:' - �s .k��..x-..�.� � '� -..tc" ' O
�,,� ; E . , � � , L_ cy
E s-aa ��s � 1 7_:�a ..-,c. �
�, `� �� =� ' � � N
° U .
;. ,,;�. 't:- �_. �,_ - ,
, r ;-� �� ,: :S.FNVY:NO. 52. �_ t--� � . `:� � _ U.
r < _
: � Itsc� �- ���y r '���-�- _ . �: �.—�� `o
t 1 r �e
�>.sr >�-� ,._1....-s,. ``-�-a . U
�J _{ t � K��'[ . + �,� r— = n .
E .,:"�.��.. ;L' Y , �1 ,-�
fr �" :,� i ..ic w}�.?.�,�� F f _• j i� ;. ..� _ - k M
� �� .yt:�� t_ �_�`/� Y�4. -� rI �;.. . - _ �
' -� �-1 1.�1
i � .. � � .� � . 1 ' P�- . . . . _ t
` � ,�� t� �j; 3 ; ' �� . . .. i j _ Q�
C. :�:= ��. - �.-a �, , ! o
€ � _� ; = "T �► � �� ',-�; . ; ► � =� Z�
:1 , � : � �
--=� - � � �
�� �� . �; _ � �i. i , _ � � m o
'� �---� i. � i � - Q �
�i� �� � �� ;
� � - ; _ � I : k ! � j ; ���� I
� ��. .. (� I. _ ; � , i � �R�� o
,► -f ,, � � ; J , : �R�� i
,� � , � � � �� � � a � = ����
� � � t ; . l t= o
, - , ; , -
,
�� •:—, �, , ; � i
, �e �
:� CO.RD.NO.73 (AKRON AV I � ' I ' ��� Yi ' �
- 1 _-� I . ` , °a"' � o
�t ���1�`� . _ :. , t _.7 . . � i � . _ � �
�-7�—_1 � j - �'�';+ p( : S'
� a �
,.�.,r-.� `v (:. � { . � . � \..= Rg R � m
, ,� � � - f . ) _ Z i
, , � : � . . - � >.! . _ � x x��� �
{� �. '�:.. � � � � ��� y i . m��� b',� � �nm� o
� � � ..'!. I I I 1 � � .t .) � U . i � . a'�n,'ei �ri � �d�:�d o� .
j,� ,��-4 c.� �.�� �r-- — . � �,, � - .� ' �
`, -=�. . _ �_ ;� -{ o ��& :� � �:�� �
� ; %��-- i� L; ---; •. ��,±�� I ��� �A .,�� �
� �'�_ i K
' ' i. ��\?,• � ��: _ r
; -= �1v � li; 11 I ii �
� �,�~�------�.-� s � l :
\ 'F
•� � `�.
_ ` '. ��' �i �� -F"'��l"�' ` �� x ]�7� �t K �e m O
1 ` � ��?G� K .. �.� - � ti��', `'�'�y R fi{�8. o
� 'i . i . o �rc . �� tnd�� �� n .. vi o� $
i� ��� . �� ' �
' I ' � _ ��-r'=\ 1 ..�`��^' °
� . ,��-!`- � _��� � i ",�,�.�g�� l - � ���: �� � ��m� s
-�------r r- �'�_===�_ s a$ � �"a,o s
�. 1 �Ii \��� � ..� L'�`__�— ��� n � i to
LJ ;,� '—'�--a� ri ei vi �.'
{ �'�{,���1,r i 4 c�s .��--..r,���=� y ~�_"�� ' 8
` °D_� � ` � . -4_ .d�3 � ��� E W
� � "�,�• I^ ��.,i v� .�.,J �� -=������ ° �.� — + �8
� � � �_�~-� �� �� �'
��'� . ■ � i r e�" e� � g�
� � _ Oi'4� �' *r_�``���,^.F�h6J�.'�J'._'�, �.��� �£�,s�= �s� � � •! -
�—L ��e������ � �`'^-��- �- �''� �� �o�i� �g � �a� a ••
�-*--f-���--�-� � ��`�� ��i� ° • :�
. .� �`_.� , '�,'� '�____~� �������,:,��� �.�_� �m i o_ '< s 8 c 3 F
,,- ��, ��,� ���- ��:���y � _�; ��11� � 11�� -
, _��>• v-�?�-�= � � �c'a
I I .•�, �- c�'s..; _���—r_-
:"' . 1
" Figure 1
Location Map, City of Rosemount, Dakota. Coun�y
2, , .,-,..__ - - , � - �;;:�:,
�•�- �'�Y < �4y :'f_�•-�i .�'�� . � ..y .`+.. . ti�Y`�.V �,- ^ t V�ii�� �vl�p �`,,!"
; ����- L a ,' ` ==�, �� t � =ti.r `�` ,�� .,.,-' '� � ` � � �t' ij ,,''"�^''
Q,�'��l.��`'�'-;�.,� 0 T -� ; �. � \ _:� �-' -_ �: j :�� t.� �
�� V:i+�-� `� .-:hr �Y� �i �i" ��r- � : /�`EJ O ` ._�- ; — :.` ; _ _r.l
f �i •�r�;� T�'. _ ,_ -� Y s�1'�� 'a�l ':., f--. � , . ,��. ti� _ GfC}r�' �i:�.r'— . .
•`� �..at'.r � i �-t / �J� rc� � : '- � �.IOUL� I�i, �i --" - .
. . i' -�}� � � � �._dY/,3.I � _.` i � � .. ._.`�.: '•-_, �. .. . i �,r.. t .
<'� - - �� y-?'._`r.�.-• ' - ,.-� -:;_,r � ,_ s,:•.__�. -- - - Islan � � = -�-�----
� C z;0::�1���4 il`v I f�� . t , '•_.._ y�- ;� �� i� y �
..�i�7 p.�Eagan 1 ...�-=�-' �i''�! "`In`ver Crove Hei�hts i r T� •,----" . :
� �_-,... . � K � -�✓' '+ __7 �V_._� 01�'- � ��COn3gC GCOVC �
E�� Y �O•i�p_q�o�����'�`�o, -'r _ !-/ � . '. ' �
,�. ^ _ ;�'� o •, wr ♦ ! F � . '�
�� �i -!-c�.r-- ��.�- �" � �a�--'-- -r----- Jia .i �,-� .��---
'�';!.�'•'. ,� � ,�y .... E� £� ac�; ;� ;o '•�. o _---- ` '
� �. _ -
' � ` , �or, o\ ' `i..
. -Q i�" (� ���i�- � � ` � 4 '" �
. a• tiT p �, ��Cl r� � �i a.._ "-"_.•:"_'--'4 -: � � .'\,�� _ tQ r.
• � o � 'r-'- �
�u�u�� ay, � �� r. � ii � �u�u� :
_�C! f : � � '� -. ! �' � �� _ r
. '� � ' �o;oo �i �;O } .� 3-.: _� - , �
} : ///���
. O�� 7�. +�0.: � . � J�! : - 9`_ _ � ' Q:� .,
�Y.,.it�_�CJ.';.�=rf' I� ..:. ��-s� �.' _c ��s � � �:
l �1 � � -.rQ� a� t' { ' � _ w� \ -_ c ' .�
��' �_" i��'i i � tbd � f �rjp..-I � ,-,�j' - .- 4. \ �� - �
'y� 1.i� � l ' � • 1f 1 1 � _ � \ ~` � � 't
C. ��i����e�`�1 - F�� I Q.: 1 - -t- �J C i��Y
'���1� \ 'j1` .�l� f J "1 � � - \ ..i
. y+ " I ^ �� . �1 � '-- \ �`-
.Jli'S+ � Z'.. w�- t f"C .: - .t " .� ' . .
A� f�vav� ��t �> s , >>, ,= � _Rosemount __ _ _ ` ! _Y f` �. `
PP �3' i . � ..'�
:t:-� t:� � -_� ` r ` {� _ �� -'• = f :(._Nininger.Twp'`
� :� < � > :�` � � �J �.,' - 1: --- ;�- ---•- -- I
�. -, -� �;r `' ac�-" � . � _ :
- i ��' i L�a'{ 1!�_/ : - ._ . � ;
- -- - 1 _,�; - �- . , ,.�---------�.----�-
;f ,' J i ., i � � . ,, :r„_�� �
�: ti: -,: _ t._ .i - 1 � .
,a.�n�u�u��vi�u�n�u�u�i�� .�w�d�u�n�u�w�n..�: - :.- L.u�..�..�u�...�u�n.��u�n�..�w
,^ -- � � Caates i ;
�-- . � .� ;
� - , , 1 . . .
=:� ( �', +-----•---� ��.��_ '„_,. �
' ;..,.
.
. .
. . .
, .
: . , .
.��:�- r� -�-- - ----_ . . _ :._.. - - -`�- �---. _.. _ -- ---- ---------�._ : � ------ � -- -
__ -�- �-t--_-•_.___.._ _..;_
_,:..- -� � � � ',��
_:`~�:=.` � ` Empire Twp. � Verinillion Twp.
��...�.,�N�..�,� : t .r. '� _._..---- . ...- -----..._ ..._.
'_ -_ _.�_= - : '� ;" . ; - ;
. . -_- � � ' � ;
i
. __.
' ' I , T„_„-.,�
_....
::-,� . �.:�
-
Fa�mgton � ' . �
. :` _
:
; '� ,�
i
- - . ---- - - -- _. _ __.. --
- ---•------__.___.---•---•---- ---- � - --
�, - � ' -i -- ;�. ...- ---- -'��oq-
--- - � � , ���.��.�i
" 0 1 2 3 4 5 M1es
Area of �--._, ; � �
; I i
Main Map r���� ` Z, I
.�. ? ; i
�! ��_"._� �
, ,
i—, � - I : �tcrox
i �IN �`f•-;`+- 1 {i
; t i L._�
� t ,it•' -�,...t-��....• I I K`•.
�1 ;S���.--.�,.,J � �_'
..
1 C ..�'���v I'�� �. R/1M$ES( J_ _.�.
i
� ; -�:,�.,�' ��.�I � �
, : _ , i
:.- �-� - ---- �
�� � i,. �--�--?-- -- � --..i.....
� r-i `-i i
-...i._.__�. _....t.: ' � ; i
y� GI � 'L i .__�. ;�, .
I I 7 � �"�.J .
.. . �l .._ .l.' _. �.�.����. 1yt�
� ; ��_
� � : �.
SCOiT �
' �-- �-- - ._r D t0'I'A?'�..�I---�
t- � � pg
t i j 1 �C: _._.� ._�n'
�
- . .. Figure 2
Cifiy of Rosemou.nt, Dakota. County
Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas �
. * . "t t" ( � , .. �.--.�...�.� -� ,l '�rit' _ � 'as�.,u � �-;
�S �t�T,�; K.- � : .:+ . ` L „� � t- 7t.� '�1r >rt (y�� �l".�t�tr.{�1�-
t 1_ c,��:.•.i-� '{�. . � + .' ._� � � ' (� � G.U y,z"`�'r 3.
Y yr r�-1 lit i�'L �:� *'+. �� y l �:
O�� � ��> (3- t x ? � . _ ': � . a'za
� s � -�- � � `i z t''' ,.� d -�\ �� :ti '.
� _ i 5- `� :� k -
- t � ,; � � `� a )
n' t? � �� �-�_:. -. l �sy� �� . 1 . � `C\j i �_�-_:
'� 7 �.rS f�2 ' � '• r 't� '�
! . � .t^ '' ;. "� - � ' ' .
, ;> ° r :4 F� � �� �, !;, ' ._. _.• �. loudlsl d -..r �.i.--
j` �- � � ~' s - � ' •
�Ot� • -� � n — � '` .-_ " � � � , �
hr . c- ��-- _ ..�f,r.-. Fl �zr-'�, tj.^�. \ _ i•.. _` -:, _ \ � ./ _
� � Li'f' r` �.Eagan. =, ` � �o ?�, �~•Inver.Cuove Heights.� , _ �
„�.� �, �p[ `,Co
�'`, ...r ',�� r,��p`� �¢ -.��} .�(�,��'^ . � .�,'t � - -� "fs-�.�� ���`l. �'��f��
5 �' �� F�,,, �p � , r�� Y �y�:s-l-�. • t 1 �� -
`` �},$:� �`� •t .r
-, ;
i • �i �.�` �':: '_ cT3-� Tk:1`p � .. p. . 'r� 't._ : ``� ��p-
� -�,�y �
,��.�t } �.2�� ��},� � 'k=`�} �\\ � ' . Q - E _ - .
�f+- . '.�".I;q,t• �R �-� : ' . Y . : � . O . • ` .. 1 �J'T. �i�
a �.-;N�� o --��{ �ti_ . ` `i -•. .`-. ._- -�-•— .�� _ id' =;=,.�3�
�i _�u�n;s�a •7 t . .., b S� ` ±��. ��irn�ru�u�n�u�u�u \.`• .'.�. . — '
.� - . . �J ' '__ q a ~ :
t' ,� ... . . . . „ �. �.
�� _} • � . � �� n i ' � Q -� Q. .Fm ,
�rd.� -: o-��'. V ,4 � ' -�
'7 ' Fr.,j�5.y_ '�`f� �..,.� . : : . - `\, .. :' _ Tc. �'
} �7 '��.� ' .� � _.� �('..1 - � �.:� �� -t s
-{ i r C.l" , Mk . �p..
" a
F � ��` • � O l Y
� �. ._A Q�{ ..' ��` ' . _ ^i .
O��� �7 i Y " _ ' .L._ ..�.._ _._ -
i. ; ./r � _ ' i:a �I f � ` ' ,•-�$,L"��.�r. '
App1eV'atley J � ��� � ' OSQIIlOL1IIt ------ ---� --��- l� a"-
J �� t z . �
��� t,y}_..�"' Y� ���' � �' < .._'�" __ _ ' _ ' '.��.�... _ "'�'_� " � ' ' , '��-a
_ .. !� t, � f [� , '��e
� .y � �h _ y .. . � ��:�;
i�! j S_�.- x . _ -te- �1�• �. : _ . .. . ��'Z3t�.-«-c
.�J1� y�� rs , .`; � - --- � . ..!<��
=r i�� =' = � - --�-- -- - r"_— t { �
/- � - y�.,`>> � . . . ��� K4
t�: ��.. - _ ��, _� � I I I�=� .
., .g_, ,_,.�„_„_„_,., _::+_,,_. :_ ,_, _ , u.� �..�
��r ��r,Y'''�-i��.h� �.�� ..����'-4� : W2�$ � I^ ��,'i� 'cri�"T�F��,�.�cT'
� ��`�. ���' � '�:-e� ��!, � . �`Z".-�: ' ' �+--� , ���s c��`-: t Y'y r...4� '
4.L. �a`r .'�f'°'"t�L-�a.>-�� Kf a� .��'�.._. �,.r= s 1'r+:z^M-.c v�v.">� . � "f ;.:T'
,,,,����- . 1 r�+"'C Sx' � . -_y., _ �f �
••.� ' ,� r�(�."t'"�,� -...�'lf�i.. i'r�'z"4 (r �'�`n�-'_r'-ia��r '� �' f.-i�s'�."'*c:-'f-"-��^�'�1 *e`S.�.a�Y �-
+ '�"�c�"�.��. � � ��? n,.�� Z�'-�"�1r �!''��T�� � .-s 'cn '�' _x r• ,�y-r_.�-'`r"'.�s> .
� '�"x'C�.� At �`"'�,i f . ,��.� `�..,n�^""i�'-�....f_�L�c'y C1�.,�,,,, � wt''J _ a ,1y71y J � r� .
` �L� T ���i-t�.f7 {..��T �H-�",P� t.z'.�'l+�t�Y� '^F_+'.L.�+t�"��.y..' �, ,�,r•-'`+rt.y ; '� }S^ ?`�-�
� �k.:4't� _��:. �"`.�-s,�y,�,, X;�� iy�'d. ��. z�:,,,F�-.F-'4`�.'�`��.....a�r�+�},.,� ��'ss:r'$� h M_y,1..�'r�r�,.} .
��`:�ss czL�,�`���3,x,_.y`�''v+1�'s� ; s.���'�`Y',p.�i�.���"x�'.�F�� .�1e'="'���#����-,`"[�z'�Y..r".�'-�r�5� -
_. '.4•: : �.,,r s�.-''�r2�f "-r''�'�'��a`'•'��',�.�":f����-�'r�'+�:. �. • � �t'�'��v.+��r���� � '�,e-��.i.
''�cr4k- �'..�q,SL��,�.�lIP. . 1 -r.��-��`,y `':� ��a4:; i�_.."�..£FITII�SOIl�_. r'4+�
\'• ti ,,,c x'�.a�`�'���. .3�-' „y �s��"���{ X �.s.r-r -.��.r- ��� ��r�.�
� i �r
�--�'��`"'�i-����� ��'v�F��t-`"'"'<r�� �` ��f�"�'�-�„�,.i-�-�L�5 k ��,--��
E�'��.M., ,� 47 � Gi�r�~E�'t.�,�,.�.��,�,.,sv.ax , �-,.-,. .zc s.-�-`�' " <� s - .
�c ' `�,C=� �" ��'�'�,`�'.3`.�3�: xiC�;'"Z.�,ri:r ��"'��-'"�' z""Ai-�..�r-�F..''��.-,e�-.-�,. �����.�"�.'����
' �� - i � � Z'-''-+. j� �r,,.., .[ a� .'_, 'S f -w �x -�! y
,�' � �� cc� �•"-s� �,c�r - i�e�= �.Yc'� �2.M v-Lr i� ."r't
�.. . �s�� r-� ?��r'.fi�� ` `r��ti� +'"5,.� %�.s1 '` ��"� �''-r' r.�"��3'c3'i"� �y . � .
� FaZ�1II^ �7Zi��a _ t.��j�`a�5.��+-{`� �:,�''4��� ��s�'�;�'�'��F �'3 4 �`� �:
3 t-.l..v�v�.5n y r� 4- x'i �- .��F'�i�-�`"�,2�.2". � r.,
�` �. �x EY�ix �i. .s�r.,,����rifa- ���.��3.-�s�'��.�„`��-"`�" ._,('y-xY�' Vemvllion .
� .� . . 4�r^ -m, 4 c�e P.�.�"-...9.-�i� '�'L�' u ��v1-� �"r-� .� �T^ .0 ,�..�c,e
..� i��.�-s-=Y�,�'i'say,�N. ^ }��. i4cr.t,.cs�`-;,,�Lk�2�`'_' x-:t�� �w F' ��
� �{.�:����,��,:a-�t• ;C:�+7,�'� ��r„�,� �..��'�'� �-� ��.{,.,.��+�`�3'�� �.����' . - -
� �Y� �"`Sc�-�^ 3�, .S �� `h�t�����`�`.���.-�7 `� ��"`-��?3� � -
��_ 7. A'.£ �'S` _ -�` � � '.a� � �'��' �`"a C'i.� s�'��=� £ "�Y1.��`s2y��y��� �uaR
� 'r'? �.a�r ��r_ �. �+fF`.� t�. ��-�'c��.�.,-'� s���'t,`�..?. ST� '�c. �c. _.'s'-;-:.
♦ \ .c't:,..�.-..'+,;..:..s :_... �:a.._ - r�=....
" 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 25 3 M11es
20U0 MUSA 1995 �
N � )
Growth Strategy Policy Areas
�-„�-� Urban Core 0 Rural Growth Centers
� Urban Area � Pem�went Agricultural Area
� Illustrative 2020 M[JSA [� Permanent Rural Area
� Urban Reserve
`_ Figure 3 � -
City of Rosemount, Dakota. County
Regional System.s
:.,.. , �,.
"� ..,1� �7 Ql�'�il . ,�C<!` ;� \ J ;`-+ lc. �i.��i:_l y, fi 'l 1 - `��RS� �'.r�
� _ �1�R� lwJ�L�{.,!� � � . •�� �,�� ;. ,\` ~ ''a��:.�<'},/'_i V_•��• + ' -tii..L�'t .
� ..�-, -�''l'"j'�S �a'`�'���t�:•� ''� ��t Q � �.i`� i�' �_ ;�. ''� ' �:�
'.� "�""�1 (l''_a.�-.r� ��"�i�`' ~'' � 1: _j-.. � :\, ' . t `�� 1jJ:� �
-: r.4 _... , � i i� v�,Y� ..�'`("I �'"� ,� ... _! !'.�' _'�;. ; -� _;,;;
iit:��� j�l. � ti<1 �`.:.. _:r..<� � �� ,`�,.}_ �. _ ::i'�_� __.�-..
--�. �f �;�,_�w� ��.: � ��-•••.— i_ i-; r� j 'loud 7sland T�vp. ;.:i
--- <i �}��:%�fi.;. �_. ^��: � _ '�J � �� ..i �":� _ r __ -_._ �'_?= ." 'y.�'
: i '�'.'��: ..:!��v. ".'_ 1,.-r'�(l,''-'1'=.._�9 ��. 1 _.r. , \"��'�' �lJi - `t ! :
;%�cJ l� f c i�( L� � �1'�'� -��: �.r:� _`i ; . ._� -_ .__,_� I
`, ��S a-���gaa t l� Q �.� �,..;Inver G;ove Heigiib . -- - �
` �ti �� � �,o � � - � 1 , �, 4 i �Cottage Grove �
4'_:;y:�!'�il..,;� t--�„�o���O'��`' o"���c_. `�'. '1 '—'. -- � . . ' . i
51C�� � atJ K �
w,.r a � rt � ., � � .i__.._.__., �i ��.:L � —�--
\,�-i i�I..� L ..�' \t` ._' � ;� .� .°��'�� ,Q ` vq -V �,"o __ _
rr: �t��+� :� �^�- � �a�i o'�:� ,t�- ' --
:.
~ �i �� 'r?� � ,`` -- — - � CilP�i L'l1J!!!�• - ..
': -�" ' ' �. .-' ' ;:1__ �_._ o \ �-:
�F� r�`�ac..'! - ` r. g� :� .�� ':�-^.. � \ �
n �,.4 ��- p�Srii�u�uwuou�rusn�u�u�r ru� � ^ �'
�,,,�,5'� : U /� !:. � :.l'1 ._...._.� (] : .
g1-"-4 7` i �''d,�o-�-�'-""--r� ` �Y b i •� f j r ��",
� _�rl?y� � �. ` l_ 1�: �� � a�� � .,n . -a
:'.V . .{(�-:(', �...� I .r " ' � --•`\ - �F� � r
:., -,�� � �_ ��� �--4 4� ' � <z .� s � _ .
•,�-��� :t� ' � v�s J���� ,�j � . i '_� }',4'``r. .� ; .. � z .
� ./ � � li.��---�.�
�' `��y".,?b!` a�O,y �1 Q �7 a�71171��Qj[6.-
,: "�k i r,`�,°C; '' � --_�-....._-_--._ _ � -�'�-
- ..�� �.� 1 • ;f ,a Rosemount '- •�j` � --r:
'�� � le`Y �e -;B �, �;. � ,' `� . ; - ---- �-- ------• i .,
"�. ��Y�;��-.�_.,.�_; -;� - Rosemowtt��,__ ' '� �
- `�����,�; . i.' t;`��i- ,. �' i
;• '•�'*�-�,'�;,?:,%:r!;:rl;?j;:'�';`�ti,C�,; -- � � w� -
� ' `CO`FI � •4Z` CO.HWy.-, I
;;�;;' . - i �, "^ . ___ • _ " '.;.. __ __. _
'-�/ �rJ f;���'i �' �. i--- ---�-1�---- `' _.,.� i'
� `. >:. �` ' � ' - i :; �
, . ,;. ; , ; ,
a�..;.����. �_��„'���.�.������„�,.�;����a�.�...��s��m�.��,...��;--- -•--6,.�;,�..e»m..m„�.a.����..e..m..
'�' ' ! ` � � !��� ����� -
. .
.. ,
-. ' •
i
,:. . _._.�._. •
. . .
.
,
; '��
_ � � i '�
,
• _ , ,
.
. , �
:
, , .
:
-.. _._._'..____...---..__._.,r---�-----•- - �-�--------------•=--------�--•- r-- '
-.r;:I.ak- lle - �- - -- - - -------•--- --•�--•--•--- -----
� �--. ; . -;
'--
- i i '. i\ � i
,.�..-i; � Empire Twp. ; � Veratillion Twp.
u�.uvww�� ' - � ��.. � _
�).. '��4� ,! � � `� �__�..� � ..��-�..'��i_�.�_'�_._���.��
..r,:.YV;:J I �� ; i
`Fai�gton _ ' , j : Ye��in�l�ion'1
`��.,',� 1 ' ._._..,-------- _L._..--------i----- - ------,�_._..----��;ecvn,�illio� --
.:.yi�ti, ' ...I �• f
x 0 1 2 3 4 S Mles
1
Recreation/Open Space Wastewater Treatment
�Fcderal � Public(Non-MCES)Treatment Plaats
-Parlc Rcservc � MCES Treahnent Plaats
�Regioaal Park N MCES Iaterctptors
�Special Rxreation Feature
�State
Aviation
Ttansportatian pffpa�
����
Fearson,Rick
From: Steve Rajavuori [SteveR@opin.com]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 10:46 AM
To: rick.pearson@ci.rosemount.mn.us
Subject: Land Use Change
Mr. Pearson:
Yesterday we received a letter from you describing the proposed land use
change.We own 5 acres on Biscayne Ave. (12575 Biscayne). This land and the
5 acres next to it are still undeveloped. We noticed that our land is not
included in the proposed change. However,we would like to have the ability
to develop our land for ucban residential housing.
Therefore we would like to inquire about having the proposal for change
include a zoning change that would allow us to divide our land. We have
talked to the owners of the parcel to the south of us (also undeveloped) in
the past, and they indicated that they may have the same interest.
Is it possible to include this zoning change as part of the proposal?
Steve Rajavuori
17240 Idlewood Way
Lakeville MN 55044
612-435-2821
stever@opin.com
1
October 6, 1999
Mayor Busho 8� City Council Members
Rosemount City Hall
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Mayor Busho and City Council Members:
I am writing in response to the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan satisfying the
needs of the Metro Council, which affects land owners east of Hwy 3 and North of
Co. Rd. 38. It will indeed "satisfy" them; people who do not live in Rosemount
and whose jobs are only to put people and sewer pipes in area of low density. I
attended both planning commission meetings regarding proposed rezoning. It
has been said time and time again that Rosemount has a "sma//town feeling". I
have always felt that, as 1 have lived in the town of Rosemount all my life. I didn't
just move here to get away from living in a large city, as many have, I have lived
and breathed the "small town feeling" for 44 years. This makes it more difficult to
"move over for urban sprawl."
I have heard you, Mayor Busho, many times speak of Rosemount. Each time, you
mention that it has a "small town feeling", "a friendly feeling" and that"we are
proud of our town", in fact, you more than any Rosemount Mayor, have brought
these statements to light. I have heard it enough to feel safe that we will continue
to have that quality of living. It would be a crucial mistake for officials to ignore
that true idea of Rosemount and the quality living needs for its people. So many
cities (i.e. Lakeville in this week's news) have taken their lands and rezoned until
they have nothing but problems, only to look back and wish they had done it
differently.
Rosemount and its people are not adverse to change — I am not adverse to
change. We are adverse to being told when to change and how to change,
especially with no real future advantage for ourselves. It seems that when I talk
to my neighbors, they all expect change to happen, they expect that someone will
move next to their land and home. They understand that we are zoned
Agriculture and Rural Residential. They understand that a home may be built on
a 5-acre parcel of land, or even a 2.5-acre parcel of land. They also understand
that groups of homes will be built on larger parcels of land, but with densities of 1
home per 5 acres and maybe even 2.5 acres. We are zoned that way—we expect
this to happen. They do not understand a density of 3 houses on one acre. They
do not understand that all the beautiful lakes and trees will be gone. Would you
understand that? The people in the proposed area are geared for rural homes
and lot separation, and why should they expect different, we live in a town with a
"small town feeling."
Mayor Busho and the City Councii Members— Page Two —October 6, 1999
This in itself should be reason enough to look at the amount of rural land that
Rosemount has. I don't believe that it says anywhere that a city has to maintain
so much rural land and so much commercial land, or so much urban land. If this
� plan does exist,.city staff during the planning meetings surely should have
mentioned it. If Rosemount maintains more rural land than that of other cities,
� well then again we will boast our"smatl town feeling" with a quality of life that is
surpassing other cities in the area.
In conciusion, 1-ask you, Mayor Busho and the City Counci( Members,-to-please
consider our requests. Please consider"quality of life" and not "quantity of life."
Please consider that change is hard to understand when too drastic. Please
consider that we chose to live our lives in this rural fashion, bring yp our children
in this rural quality, and finally pass down to our families this rural atmosphere �
because we are fortunate enough to live in a city with a "small town feeling".
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Craig and Conny Mahoney
13075 Bacardi Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55068
} 10-Z-�°t .
- ,;
� -
, .. .
�
.. .. . �` �� I V �' �� � � � �• � _ ` �_�V ��Y
��
..�.�,�����.. 0�.,g.:.��.5__��.' u"'_, v.:,�r.:�...�.:� ':__" ,. _ �1��G1-�-�r-,
.._ _____ . � � .
;� _ ,� ',� / 1���-------
. a
_ - — i,�;�, 1 �`�� ' �� .L ,a,v�n IZ� -- --------
-- ---- — ---- — — - -- ----- --��e�
--- �� ���%�,s � -' -- - � �f_�-��?�-�------ ---:�__.___..._
� — ��� �:- � �� ;��� �-�__
..____. --� __ ''��r...
�:� ��1;�i . . �y1.�� �-
r. �
i i r
� - ,j /� � -- - -------
�' � jLL��e���� � v .
I
L � —.--
�lll�lL/V VV ,• �\ / ,�/�I✓
- ___ .- � _�- ��,e�.__���r� "� ___—
. _ _ __, . - ;�
� -_ ___ ___A��e_����__ _ _ __ __ ;____�--� __ _ �___.____.
- � � � .,_�/ -�---- ;�J r�'������t11��"---� -- -I------
------- �- ----- ----- -. .. ._ _ j. �-;
: , .
. �► . r� � ��,
----------- ----------- ----=�1�_�-� --- �-�__- ---= - T l Y_���1---- '--- ---- ---_ _-----
�. -��'' ���____ � _ _ �� - '��---
_ - -_ _______ _ac,�_._ _ -- -.___ ____�--��. _ _ _.._. _�__ _��'1'!�'-__ _ __ __.___ C.
� � �
� --�u�!� -��,uZ ��'-�-�,N� - - - _ _ .
-.- ---. _ . _F _ . - -- . _ ._ - _ � � _ ----- -
�,�. _ _ _____- . �
� � -� ��
_ . - - .-
.�_� _ - - -- --
--------------_._ __ _- -------------- - --- ----- � - - -- -----
. ,, ---------- � ,-- --I------
. _ . _
. ; , .
______r__ � � __r��_ ___-__ —_ __ ________
t �
- --------�---_.------ ---- - --- ------ - -�-- ------ � ''-
�{/ f� -
' �_�C����.----
-------------`--- ---------- _------------- -. _�_-- ---���!'�.,_�_(�----
_ _ _____c
�- _.___.___________�__�_ _._______.___ __ _____.________________�___._________________
____.__._____.______ ______ ______.__ _______ ___,_ __ _ __ _. _ _ . _ _�____ __ _
____________:_________________________ ,
_ _____________.___________________�_______._ _____ __ _ _
_ --- 1_3_o�7S /3a a c�c�.c. �
----�-------_--�---------_---------------- ------- ----_ ----___- ---._ _--- ----------___---_____-.--__�__-
1395 121st Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
October 3, 1999
Mayor Cathy Busho & Council Members
Rosemount City Hall
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I attended the Planning Commission meeting on September 28, 1999 to learn more
about the Rosemount Comprehensive Plan that is being prepared for submittal to
the Metropolitan Council. I found the meeting informative and professionally run.
I also concluded that this is a difficult issue with far reaching implications. In fact,
it was evident that the Planning Commission also found it difficult as they
concluded the meeting with a split vote, two for the staff recommendation and two
opposed.
I have just recently become aware of this issue and admit that I should have gotten
involved much earlier. However, as I understand it, Rosemount submitted a
Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council designating a lazge area north of
Highway 38 and west of Akron Avenue as rural residential. The Metropolitan
Council made a recommendation to Rosemount to change this azea from rural
residential to urban reserve to accommodate the expected growth in the Twin
Cities Metro azea. Now it is up to Rosemount to respond to Metropolitan Council.
I would urge you to seriously consider this issue and the long term consequences
of the decision you make. During the Planning Commission meeting, it appeazed
that the Planning Commission had to decide to either designate this entire azea as
rural residential or urban reserve. As a result, they ended in a split vote. I believe
a compromise altemative is the right answer. That alternative is to designate the
area that is adjacent to the e�asting rural residential azea as rural residential and the
remaining as urban reserve. This would provide a variety of long term benefits to
Rosemount while addressing the Metropolitan Council's concem about future
growth in the Twin Cities Metro area.
Rosemount is in a unique situation where a variety of housing altemarives are
available including city residential housing, elderly housing, apartments and rural
residential housing. In addition, the city has a large amount of land for future
development. Few cities have similar opportunities. The many housing
alternatives in Rosemount has attracted a good diversity of people with a wide
range of interests. I believe this is very healthy for a community and makes it a
more desirable place to live. The compromise altemative allows expansion of all
of these housing alternatives. It also allows gradual growth throughout the city
rather than requiring certain sections of the city to wait for twenty years before
development is possible. Finally, it provides for future urban development to help
accommodate the population growth in the Twin Cities Metro area.
I think everyone needs to recognize that designating this area as urban reserve or
leavi.ng it as agricultural restricts future development to one dwelling per ten acres
per the Rosemount ordinances and one dwelling per forty acres per the
Metropolitan Council's rules. This essenrially eliminates any possibility of
development in this area until sewer and water are available which is estimated at
twenty years. This would be unfortunate for the current landowners who would
like to develop their property consistent with adjacent property. It would also be
unfortunate for Rosemount because future development would be restricted to a
narrower range of housing alternatives thereby reducing the future diversity of the
Cl�.
I strongly urge you to designate the adjacent areas to the current rural residential
areas as rural residential and the remaining area as urban reserve. This would
a11ow Rosemount to build on the strengths that it has enjoyed over its history and
do its fair share in providing space for the future growth of the Twi.n Cities Metro
area. I do not believe the area in question is an all or nothing decision. I hope you
agree.
Thank you for your considerarion.
Sincerely,
�
James M. Nelson
3 4000� I
1 ` _
1
r
y m.
IN
l
i
:.n jP,`.; �?. moi: •:'",.:R i , '� I.
•�III��IIII .nm.- \�IIIL1�... / Illi. �� 1 // �
LCo1 nU�6 a 5ni 1G C • � noon m i� � -:�/1\�J `�1 '
I
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
� ^ �t.c�� ny^ � l I 1� �/tf
City Council Meeting Date: November 16, 1999 � I'"�" `
AGENDA ITEM: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update AGENDA SECTION:
7a
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Revised 2020 Land Use Map & Text APPROVED BY:
SUMMARY
The attached 2020 Comp. Plan map and text have been revised based upon the discussions and direction
provided by Council at the November 10, 1999 Committee of the Whole worksession.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to revise the draft Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan based upon the following five issues and
authorize staff to resubmit the revised plan the the Metropolitan Council.
1. Designating 640 acres for Urban Residential (Phase III) north of 135th Street between Bacardi and Akron
Avenues;
2. Designating approximately 120 acres for Transitional Residential use east of Keegan Lake;
3. Designating 300 acres for Rural Residential use south of Gun Club Road between Biscayne Avenue and
Stonebridge Addition;
4. Indicating land available for attached housing on the land use map as potential or planned and adding text
explanation in+the Comp Plan Document; and,
5. Reguiding land in the Pine Bend area for Agricultural use if it is in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor
or part of Koch Petroleum Group's buffer area.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
' , , 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
2.2 Estimates and Forecasts
Rosemount has considered the population forecasts provided by the Metropolitan
Council and has lowered those estimates based upon finro primary
considerations:
1. The property owner's interest in development with urban services. Koch
Refining Company and University of Minnesota officials have indicated that
urban development is contrary to their long-term plans. Figure 3.2-A shows a
map of the significant landowners in Rosemount. Together, Koch Refining
and the University of Minnesota own over 6600 acres within the City. These
properties form a natural barrier to development east of the currently
developed area.
2. The City's capacity to bond for infrastructure improvements.
The population, household, and employment forecasts below reflect the above
limitations on future urban growth.
Population, Household, and Employment Estimates and Forecasts
Cit of Rosemount
����1995<;�� .`� ����2000�� :20'10 - �'� � 2020 ���� ������
��.
Households 3,783 4,825 7,345 10,200
Population 11,721 14,700 22,000 29,425*
Em lo ment 5,345 6,800 8,300 9,900
Source: 1995 estimates are from the Metropolitan Council. Employment
forecasts are from the Metropolitan Council. Population and household
forecasts for 2000, 2010, and 2020 are from the City of Rosemount.
Population forecasts assume 2.9 persons per household from 2000-2010
and 2.6 from 2010-2020.
Figure 2.2-A
*Estimated population includes post 2020 MUSA expansion area.
21
� City of Rosemount
Rosemount Households, 1970-2020
12000_ � � �I
� ,� 10000_ � _ � _ �I
° � 8000. � ------ .
L O �„ ��
� d 6���-- --- ; � — �� - ��I
� � 4000 '� ----__ x � — _ �
z ° � � ; ,
z 2000 ' r���; ;
�,__:
� ���w.�,.�.�..� ._ a .,�.�._ u.�....��..��.�.�,�� �
1970 1980 i�y� 2000 2010 2020
Source: Households counts for 1970 through 1990 are from the US Census
Bureau. Household forecasts for 2000 through 2020 are from the City of
Rosemount.
Figure 2.2-B
Increases (Number)
Households 2,520 2,855 6,417
opu ation 7, 00 7,425 17,70
mp oyment 1,50 1, ,555
igure .
� Increases (Percentage)
Households 52.2 38.9 169.6
opu ation 49.7 33. 151.0
mp oyment 2. 19.3 85.
igure .
22
' . City of Rosemount
3.3 Housing Plan
3.3.1 Backqround
The 1990 Census showed that Rosemount had a total of 2,779 households; the
1995 estimate is 3,783. The estimated housing mix in 1995 was 82°/o single
family and 18% multi-family. By the end of 1998, the City estimated a housing
mix of 77°Io single-family and 23% multi-family units. Of all housing units in 1990,
nearly 20% were renter occupied. The City has experienced moderate housing
growth as follows:
1970-79 = 50 units per year average
1980-89 = 125 units per year average
1990-98 = 200 units per year average
Due to Rosemount's location, the pace of development is expected to increase
for the following 10-year period with a modest increase in the last 10-year period.
The average rate of 270 housing units per year from 2000-2020 is shown as
follows:
2000-09 = 250 units per year average
2010-19 = 285 units per year average
3.3.2 The Future
The City desires to keep single-family detached housing as the dominant housing
type with all housing at an overall (net) density near 3.0 dwelling units per acre.
This will be done by establishing a target level of 65 percent of all new housing
units as single family detached compared to 35 percent as multi-family housing
(twinhomes, townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and mobile homes).
Rosemount's prominent rural residential areas in the northwest portion of the City
will retain that status�without municipal sewer and water services. The City is
designating 300 acres contiguous with two existing areas that total 55 lots west
of Akron Avenue and north of County Road 38 for rural residential areas. Some
smaller rural lots east of Highway 3 and west of Bacardi Avenue may require
municipal service within the planning time period 1995-2020.
Multi-family housing includes two dominant types: "urban attached" for
townhomes less than 6 dwelling units per acre and "high density" for
condominiums and apartments near 10 dwelling units per acre. Urban attached
housing may be placed at locations that make good transitions between
detached housing and other more intensive land uses. High-density housing is
targeted to two locations: in the commercial downtown area and south of County
Road 42 either adjacent to or on the technical college property (student housing
44
, 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
only). Multi-family housing will be a higher percentage of all housing units in the
first half of the planning period due to their close proximity to the core commercial
area of Rosemount. This type of housing will decrease after 2010 due to land
proximity closer to the rural edge of Rosemount as shown below, which identifies
the mix of all new housing units from 1995 to 2019.
The City has committed to establishing housing mix goals in accordance with the
Livable Communities Act. Figure 3.3-A illustrates the distribution of Single and
Multi-family housing mix through 2020. Ending at 2009, the distribution of the
projected housing mix averages 59% Single-Family and 41% Multi-family, which
exceeds the adopted Livable Communities Goals of 65% and 35%, respectively.
The projected overall mix of 72% and 28% through the year 2019 reflects the
current values of the community. Changing demographics and market influences
may cause the long-term mix proportion to align more closely with the ongoing
trends.
Currently, development is occurring on land that is more conducive for higher
densities, primarily because of proximity to established transportation corridors
and commercial districts. The period beginning in 2010 anticipates land
developing in remote areas which are comparatively isolated from transportation
corridors and have a higher degree of environmental and land use transitional
sensitivity.
Begin-End Single Multi-
famil Fami!
1995-1999 55% 45%
2000-2004 54% 46%
2005-2009 68% 32%
2010-2014 72% 28%
2015-2019 72% 28%
1995-2019 65% 35%
Figure 3.3-A
3.3.3 Land Use Categories
The residential land uses are divided into four general categories, including Rural
Residential (RR), High Density Residential (HR), Urban Residential (UR), and
Transition Residential (TR). Each category is intended to offer different housing
opportunities to satisfy a diverse market need within the regional population.
These four residential categories are defined as follows:
Rural Residential (RR) This category is intended to have a distinct
rural character with single family detached housing, located outside of the
MUSA. Corresponding land features include the distinct northwest portion
of the City with rolling topography, upland hardwood trees and moraine
45
City of Rosemount
wetlands that match the development standards for a rural estate lifestyle.
The Rural Residential areas maintain a minimum gross density of 1.0
dwelling unit per 5 acres and a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Due to
agricultural preservation needs in other parts of the City, this density
standard will continue to apply in Rosemount despite its difference with
the Metropolitan Council's density objective of 1.0 dwelling unit per 10
acres.
Urban Residential (UR) This category is intended to be located
entirely within the MUSA and serviced by public sewer and water. This
designation correlates to the developed and developing residential
neighborhoods west of Highway 3 as well as the planned areas east of
Highway 3. A range of single family detached and attached housing will
be accommodated within this category at average net densities of 2.4 for
detached and 5.8 dwelling units per acre for attached housing (twinhomes
and townhomes). Attached housing within the Urban Residential areas
will be located in logical transition areas from higher to lower intensity land
uses, at the edge of a defined neighborhood, and/or planned to sufficiently
integrate within a large planned development area.
High Density Residential (HR) This category is intended to provide
housing types (condominiums and apartments) that meet the needs of
renters, smaller households, and senior citizens. An average net density
of 10 dwelling units per acre is expected for this type of housing. A fairly
small number of High-Density housing is planned between 1995-2020 at
10-15 units per year, or 315 total units. This represents a modest 5.0
percent of all new housing units constructed within that planning time
period. The City intends to discourage large concentrations of high
density housing over 100 total units in any one location. Two separate
locations are designated for High Density Residential: in the commercial
downtown area and south of County Road 42 either adjacent to or on the
technical college property (student housing only).
Transition Residential (TR) This category is a new one for the
comprehensive plan, although it closely resembles the former Planned
Development Residential (PD-R) category. It is intended to provide
unique housing opportunities in areas that are environmentally sensitive
and are adjacent to the City's established Rural Residential areas. Two
major areas include the 500+ acre Kelley Trust property and a smaller
area north of 135t'' Street and east of Highway 3. Another smaller area
includes rural residential lots of 0.5 to 5 acres in Birchview Terrace and Le
Foret Additions. The City will allow the clustering of housing units in areas
in order to avoid impacts to natural features, allowing smaller lots within
the clustered areas at a maximum net density of 2.4 dwelling units per
acre for single-family detached and 5.8 for single-family attached housing,
while maintaining an average net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre.
46
� 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
Some of these areas will also get city sewer only if warranted based on
need and cost factors. (See the Transition Residential District section
3.3.10 at the end of this chapter.)
Business Park (BP) This category is primarily intended to provide
land for office and clean "high tech" or light industrial use. However,
Multiple Family residential use of up to 10 dwelling units per acre is
allowed by Planned Unit Development. Business Park land available for
residential use is either adjacent to existing or guided residential uses, or
contains natural amenities or features that may provide opportunities for
multiple family or attached housing with high standards of architectural
and site design, which effectively mitigates potential land use
incompatibility. As of 1999, 121 attached housing units are approved with
another 36 imminently anticipated on Business Park land (west of Hwy. 3).
Land guided for Business Park is available for Attached or Multi-Family
Housing units on the basis of the above standards and the Planned Unit
Development process.
Agriculture — Research (AR) Multiple family housing is anticipated
in the vicinity of the Dakota County Technical College. While this project
has not been planned, the City acknowledges the most appropriate
location for this housing to be south of the campus on the University of
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Housing in this area may
serve the University as well as the Technical College. Therefore, the
anticipated form of the development would consist of apartments rather
than dormitories.
3.3.4 Housing Assumptions
The City's housing estimates are based on the following assumptions. These
assumptions are based on current housing demand, the amount of land available
for residential development, and the City's core values and goals.
• Housing Mix. The mix of housing units from 1995-2020 will be 65% single
family detached and 35% multi-family (compared to 62%/38% targeted by the
Metropolitan Council).
• Residential Portion. Future residential development from 1995-2020 as a
percentage of all land uses will be 60% (compared to 52% by the
Metropolitan Council).
• Housing Density. Future net density for all housing types combined from
1995-2020 will be 2.9 dwelling units per acre, or 2.9 du/ac (compared to 3.0
by the Metropolitan Council).
• New Housing. The estimated new housing growth from 2000-2020 will
average 270 housing units per year (compared to 385/year estimate by the
Metropolitan Council).
47
� City of Rosemount
• Land Demand. The estimated demand for acres to accommodate urban
residential growth from 1995-2020 is 2,240 acres (compared to 2,675 by the
Metropolitan Council).
• Household Forecast. The estimated number of total households in 2020 is
10,200. . .3,785 in 1995 + 6,385 in MUSA by 2020 + 30 outside MUSA by
2020 (compared to the Metropolitan Council's 2020 estimate of 12,500).
3.3.5 Housing Definitions
Cluster Housinq - A method of arranging housing units in a concentrated area
that achieves efficient use of public/private infrastructure
and/or preserves open space.
Hiqh Densitv— Condominiums and/or apartments at an average net density
of 10.0 dwelling units per acre (10.0 du/ac).
Net Densitv - The total number of housing units divided by total land area,
including local streets and alleys, but not wetlands, parks,
other undevelopable land, or any land that is protected by
local ordinance from development.
Rural Residential - Housing on lots that are a minimum size of 2.5 acres and a
minimum gross density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (0.2
du/ac); none of these units will be within the MUSA, and
therefore, are not part of the "total" column for acreage
demand.
Total Units - The total of all urban detached, urban attached, and high
density housing at an estimated demand of 195 units/year
from 1995-2000; 250 new units/year from 2000-2010 and
285 new units/year from 2010-2020.
Urban Attached - Traditional twin-home and townhome developments at an
average net density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre (5.8
du/ac).
Urban Detached - Traditional detached single family housing on separate lots
at an average net density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre (2.4
du/ac).
3.3.6 Estimated Housing Unit Demand
The following table provides estimated demands for new housing between 1995-
2020 based on the assumption of 195 new housing units being constructed per
year from 1995 through 1999 and 270 units per year from 2000 through 2019.
By the year 2020, all new housing units constructed within the 25-year period will
48
• 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
have maintained a 75/25 percent division between single family (urban detached)
and multi-family (urban attached and high density).
49
� . City of Rosemount
Urban Urban High Rural Total
Begin-End Detached Attached Density Residentiai Units
1995-1999 565 415 50 10 1040
2000-2004 665 525 60 10 1260
2005-2009 850 340 60 10 1260 �
2010-2014 1150 190 85 0 1425
2015-2019 1350 20 60 0 1430
Total Units 4580 1490 315 30 6415
(71.4%) (23.2%) (4.9%) (0.5%)
Figure 3.3-B
3.3.7 Estimated Housing Acre Demand
The following table translates estimated housing demand from units to acres
based on the average net density for each housing type.
Urban Urban High Total Rurai
Begin-End Detached Attached Density Acres Residentia[
1995-1999 235 70 5 310 50
2000-2004 275 90 5 370 50
2005-2009 355 60 5 420 50
2010-2014 480 35 10 525 0
2015-2019 560 5 5 570 0
Total Acres 1905 260 30 2195 150
(2.4 du/ac) (5.8 du/ac) (10.0 du/ac) (2.9 du/ac) (0.2 du/ac)
Figure 3.3-C
Although single family housing (urban detached) is 75% of all housing types, it
consumes 88% of total acres. As the percent of single family housing increases
in the later years, the acreage demand increases.
3.3.8 Estimated MUSA Demand
The following table provides an analysis of the demand for MUSA to
accommodate the housing demand and resulting acres identified in Sections
3.3.6 and 3.3.7. The city currently has approved by the Met Council
approximately 1,175 net acres within its Phase I (1995-2005) MUSA and another
465 net acres within its Phase II (2005-2010) MUSA. Therefore, the need for
additional MUSA by 2020 is 600 acres, assuming a surplus or overage factor of
nearly 10 percent, or 45 acres. This is based on a need of 200 acres in Phase III
(2010-2015) MUSA and 400 additional acres in Phase IV (2015-2020) MUSA.
50
2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
Begin-End geginning Added Acre Ending
Supp(y MUSA Demand Balance
1995-1999 1175 0 310 865
2000-2004 865 0 370 495
2005-2009 495 465 � 420 540
2010-2014 540 2002 525 215
2015-2019 215 4002 570 45
wit in approve ase USA
2 proposed MUSA expansion area
Total Vacant Acres: 2,240
Total MUSA Added: 1,065
Figure 3.3-D
Three areas of MUSA expansion for residential development were considered in
this Plan to accommodate the need for 600 net developable acres. The "North"
area was selected due to the greater constraints of Koch and the University of
Minnesota for the other two areas. These three areas are further described as
foflows (see Figure 3.3-E).
• North. This area includes approximately 1,500 gross acres with 600
net developable acres for housing. Servicing some of this area with
sewer/water may also be needed for existing rural residents that are
currently on lots smaller than 2.5 acres. Constraints include the high
cost of e�ending public utilities into a less densely populated area and
citywide support for maintaining rural residential character.
51
- City of Rosemount
u reas
a
52
� 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
• East. This area includes approximately 275 gross acres with 225 net
developable acres for housing. Koch Refining currently owns nearly
2000 acres directly to the north and east of this site as a buffer for its
refining operations near Highway 52. Constraints include the
closeness of this property to Koch Refining's operation and its buffer
area.
• South. This area includes approximately 400 gross acres owned by
the University of Minnesota with 325 net developable acres for
housing. The university is currently finalizing plans for all of its
property to remain for long-term agricultural research. Constraints,
therefore, include the university's plans for non-urban development
uses.
3.3.9 Affordable Housing
On December 5, 1995, Rosemount's city council approved its Housing Goals
Agreement for participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The
city agreed to use benchmark indictors for affordable and life-cycle housing for a
period from 1996-2010, as identified in Figure 3.3-F. The city, in setting housing
goals for the community, may want to reexamine these goals in the future and
discuss with the Met Council and the Dakota County HRA the need for any
revisions. Rosemount will continue to be an active participant with the Dakota
County HRA cluster in relationship to areawide affordable housing goals, and the
HRA will continue to be the primary provider of housing programs in Rosemount.
Category Benchmark ` Goals
Affordability
Ownership 69% - 70% 69%
Rental 35% - 40% 35%
Life-Cycle
Multi-family Units 35%/38% 35%
Owner/Renter Mix 72%/28% 75%/25%
Densit .
Single Family Units 2.0/acre 1.9/acre
Multi-family Units 10.0/acre 10.0/acre
Figure 3.3-F
Note:
1. The "Goals" apply only to those housing units within the MUSA; additional
rural residential units will be minimal from 1996-2010.
53
�
City of Rosemount
2. Affordable housing units in 1998 are classified as $128,000 or less purchase
price for owner units and $760/month or less for 2-bedroom rental units.
3. The owner/renter mix in 1990 for Rosemount was 80%/20%.
3.3.10 Transition Residential Districts
The Transition Residential (TR) land use designation is intended to foster
planned development in areas of special natural resources. In addition, these
areas are located near existing Rural Residential (RR) development that
warrants careful attention to a transition from urban to rural. Clustering of
housing units may be the best possible method of maximizing a positive
relationship between development and the natural landscape. Three areas are
proposed for the TR designation (see Figure 3.3-H).
• Kelley Trust Property. A 500+ acre area located in the northwest part of the
city along Shannon Parkway between Diamond Path and Dodd Boulevard.
• North Central Property. A 100+ acre area located north of County Road 38
and east of Highway 3.
• The Le Foret and Birchview Terrace subdivisions located east of Diamond
Path and south of Birger Pond and the Kelley Trust property.
The following policies and perFormance standards are applicable to all areas
designated TR:
1. Streets shall be designed to follow the natural contour of the property and
shall provide necessary vehicle connections throughout the geographic
area.
2. Trails shall be planned to connect public areas (e.g., parks and schools)
and to create pedestrian pathways within natural corridors.
3. All wetlands and woodlands shall be preserved/protected and
incorporated into the natural landscape design of each development.
4. 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 with a minimum buffer of at least one hundred (100) feet.
5. All slopes greater than twenty (20) percent shall be protected from
development.
6. All TR 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.
7. Clustering of housing units shall be designed to conserve the land's
natural resources as shown in Figure 3.3-G (depicts rural clustering
example).
54
2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
8. To the extent that attached housing is warranted to preserve natural
features or attain a gross overall density, high amenity twin/townhomes
may be permitted as part of a planned unit development.
, w;r���,
�,.�W
- ;,«F sfn�
/�t ,,� r,_a���
� fN(•,;+}{ � � b..ey�,t
aic . ��,f � f t.��(� ..
- � ��
,.�/. ���t
Figure 3.3-G �n�.�rt�,_r. - . . � -
. . � ..:�i �'-�°-t��'w�rrcn;t,..
_4` �/4�� fl�'�.., ����
\\, ��.�-{�'���� �,� ,. ��y.�
r� S
5.0 1 �\� � t�` ��6=f
� 4�\ ino+r „h�f,,{�t ��\��.'SJSP,1n;.-.. --.. �
C 1Lh at"
\� �whrtt unk �� �� �
..�a�+t�'-�a� it�ttu• '�.�' '
.. �� t,'.� ��..,. ��: �{��:.S�Q�js}.Q �n�tric raefr
,�t "-_.�`^ �.;.,a, � ������
.
``�v ` _
54
; .���Of1SC1'1'3110R.CJU�tVtS[OII�@S7�!ri
Scwn:e: Dcsigni[tg(�eii SPacC Su6�iviaian5 Gj Ran�]aS]Arendt
55