The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.a. AUAR Process , . � �� l � , �� _ � 1 � � , , _ �' 'i _____ _ �� /�,��'� � /� ��SS ;} / ;: ' .�In��N r�f�'�tr� �� S �4 �� v�3c;k� �' wr� y A � jl �-- .__..___ _.._m�_ � �A 7 S c�� s.S� �'`��.� 1�3q ��s-F� � A� � , rn,�. �i:�� _ ._______ _ __ ��r2A� �� jS,acQ� Ia��z� 3�s��y,�� , - _ _____-__ ,; J ��e,s S � � � fl � � 1 � �a � � ;s c ,� �7.� �';�� tN _ : ,�^�� /�v r..� c-�. /3'7S � �;.�-.,/�c�� -�.�-- s / ��% Z� � � , �--j�l 1�- �`�' . I I 5 D th _ �,Q�E�-/'�/��E�%z �Ia�'��G�1S'i� /�Q.S� �v�� l,_.�� l� . � �-� ��-n.u;�, �c�cz:�s��, /d 8 7� ,(�ar..�rcQ� F+�'�-ti�,� 11 �;o:� W �".�U 0.`�Z.E� � �� 5 � �i S C�4 .� x� +Z �'t L1 '� . ._ . ;; E��c N�-� ��,n�o r � s'S � z j J J f. l,�/�s i . _._ ,', :��v;a J�t�ws�o,v ,�.oss� t�4s�"�'s� w ;!V'�� f �Q�.(,��iCi` l olass P c�tv�[� �� i � ° �' , l Lcv1-� � .,�1 '' 1.��3 ,�-�'ra�v�,!�' � � . � - __.___ .� � � .� � �'t�� ,�. �.�� l�: ( 2 � Sc�- _ j � zl, n� � 1,,� • � � � r�D�n� 1 zz 31 I� sc� �� n. —� � I� Y �� `�� /� �%OC� 0 3S� Sr �� I� �----- � ' ��" .�`"� r-.�. 5,�-. .�i�� s��.�i�--� ;;.--9 �'� � �, C / . _ _ ��(� - �%` - �� l� /y s- �� s �. �G�s i��'�'��'` " �'ar/�:fll�' :371J� /��ru.��" 1,9,�� f iy ` �1 w"�� SC�..h.�fC A�'� /�6� ��, L�i , ;; � , �� _��- �--�'z� �� ti-�', �`� .�,� }��.� 2 , , �,�r� �e�'/�'.l<'S��-ti/ `o?�� /f C�vi -�� '�� -�� .�...� i a3�3`) 5�.�..,�, �- ✓ ;` �, '.� �`�' 3 ,, , � � ��.�� ! '.i �L'��.��.' i . � � _'__'.__ '..... .. .... . ; . . . . D��v /� � �,y,� �� #i � _ . _ � � - - ��.�.-� � _ __ � � ,��c. � ��,�;�-,.-L-� �:r,s��:-u-ti.� �✓� J '� �� , �`� l ;� �/--�� '--�� `� � `�� , �, �2, ��-��,�U�.� _-- , � � � u� �1(� ��o�n. :� �� 13a�,c��►-e, P�,� __ _ ,�, c ' �� 5�� ' �i.a�( /'✓ym�- �,��---,-r,�r �5�3 3 �S�ce..��e� ��.�2. �� ,� !�r �.: ��.. ls�.s�. �c��e�'- ��, �sn�.. A �� 3 �� J l J v � �� _ _ _ _ ''��-� � cx:�-�C.� �� --��. � _ ,' � j� - __ .; � � v��(;� -�c� ,�.,.� 1 I z (�4 �c x� :��-��. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--_ __ . ._ _ _ ___ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ _ _ . _.. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: November 16, 1999 AGENDA ITEM: AUAR process AGENDA SECTION: Department Reports PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA NO. '� �e:� � �:�. ATTACHMENTS: Technical Advisory Committee minutes APPROVED BY: SUMMARY The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)has now met twice concerning the Alternative Urban Areawide Review. The appropriate regulatory agencies have now had several opportunities to provide comments regarding the Kelley Trust development concept. The Consultant Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates (BRAA) Is now preparing the draft document that will be distributed. There will be a meeting scheduled for next week between staff, the consultant and the applicable agencies to specifically discuss transportation and stormwater issues. The developer's consultant, Westwood has experienced some delays with their stormwater work which may extend the process into January. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is recommended at this time. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: _ Bones[roo,Rosene.Ander/ik and Associates,Inc.is an A/fi�ma[rve Action/Equal Oppor[unity Employe� Bonestroo P��c�pals:Otto G Bonestroo.P.E •Joseph C Anderlik.PE.•Marvin L.Sorvala.FE.• Glenn R.Cook.P.E.•RoOert G.Schunlcht,P.E.• Jerry A.Bourdon,P.E.• RoseneRobert W.Rosene.P.E.Richard E Turner,PE.and Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A..Senior Consuitants � Anderiik & Associa[e Principals:Howard A.Sanford,PE •Kei[h� Gordon.P.E •Roberc R P(efferle.P.E.• Richard W.Fos[er.P.E.•David O.Loskota.P.E.•RoOert C.Russek,A.I.A.• Mark A.Hanson,P.E.• Michael T.Rautmann,PE.• ied K.FieIC.P.E.• Kenne[h P.Anderson.P.E.•Mark R.Rolfs,P.E.• Associates Sidney P.Williamson,PE.,L.S.•Robert F.Kotsmi[h•Agnes M.Ring•Ailan Rick Schmidt.PE. Oflices:Sc.Paul.Rochester,Willmar and St.Cloud.MN•Milwaukee.WI Engineers & Architects WeDsite:www.boneztroo.com DATE: October 15, 1999 TO: Rosemount AUAR Technical Advisory Committee FROl�1: Sherri Buss, Bonestroo & Associates � � (6�1) 604-47�8 SUBJECT: _DRAFT Auar Analysis, for discussion Thursday, October 21, 1 to 3 p.m. Rosemount City Hall— Council Chambers Attached is a draft copy of the issues and analysis completed for the AUAR on the Kelley Trust Property to date. The document includes black and white maps---color copies will be provided when we mail the AUAR for official comments. I will provide the large color copies of the maps at the meeting on the 215`for our discussion. Please review the attached draft for the following: • Have we identified the issues related to the environmental impacts of the proposed development? • Is the analysis of the issues adequate? What additional analysis do you need, if any? • Do the proposed protection/mitigation measures seem adequate? Do you have other suggestions? We will discuss the document at the meeting, and begin to use the protection/mitigation ideas to develop the M.itigation Plan that is required for the AUAR. If you are not able to attend the meeting, please review the document, and call me to answer the questions listed above. (I will be out of the office from October 22 throuQh the 29`�, so you can wait until after Nov.l to call). Thanks for your assistance. Please call if you have questions about the meeting on the � 2151, or about the enclosed draft. 2335 West Highway 3G ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 651-636-46Q0 ■ Fax: G51-63G-1311 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Rosemount Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)--- Kelley Trust Property August 26, 1999—2 to 4 p.m. Rosemount City Hall Meeting Summary Present: Tim Erkkila, Rob Bouta, Westwood Professional Services; Bud Osmundson, Dan Rogness, Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount; Pat Wrase, City of Apple Valley; Pat Lynch, Larry Westerberg, DNR; Steve Platisha, SBP Associates, Inc.; Patrick Peters, Judy Sventeck, Metro Council; Jay Michels, MPCA;Jay Riggs, Dakota SWCD; Scott Peters, MDOT; Eric Kilberg, MPCA; Elizabeth Blodgett,DSU; Jerry Bourdon, Shelly Johnson, Dan Edgerton, Sherri Buss, Bonestroo &Associates I. Introductions and Meeting Purpose Members of the Technical Advisory Committee introduced themselves. Sherri Buss briefly summarized the purpose of the AUAR and agenda for the meeting. The TAC will meet 3-4 times during the AUAR process and participate as follows: • review technical materials developed by the consultant and developer regarding the environmental impacts of proposed development on the Kelley Trust site, • evaluate their adequacy, and • participate in developing the Mitigation Plan for the AUAR. II. Project Background—City Perspective Dan Rogness noted that many citizens in Rosemount have an emotional attachment to the Kelley Trust Property due to its attractiveness. The 530-acre site is viewed in the city's comprehensive plan as a transition area between rural residential land uses on the north, and suburban uses existing on the south. Many residents of the area want to maintain the "rural" identity of the site. The development proposal has received extensive review at the city. In 1989-90, some development occurred on the site, and the Kelley Trust provided land for development of a park and elementary school on the southern portion of the property. In late 1998, Contractor Properties Development Company(the developer) and Wesn��ood Professional Services developed a master plan for development of the site, with an average density of 2.5 units per acre. Many community meetings followed to discuss the plan, with area residents and the City Council advocating to keep the densities on the site as low as possible.` The site includes approximately 50 acres in the City of Apple Valley in addition to the 530 acres in the City of Rosemount. A total 1153 housing units are now proposed for the site. Only residential land uses are proposed. The City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan is currently being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. Patrick Peters noted that the review should be completed during the AUAR process, so the AUAR should use this plan as the plan for review. III. PUD Concept Plan Rob Bouta and Tim Erkilla described the development proposed for the site, and site evaluation work completed to date by Westwood Professional Services. Rob summarized the Woodland Assessment for the area, and noted the high, moderate and low quality woodland areas mapped for the site. He noted the high quality oak savanna area proposed for protection at the west end of the site. He also noted the largest contiguous woodland on the property, and the north and east end and indicated that the quality of the woodland is variable,«-ith some areas of blow-down and invasion by exotic species, and other areas of higher quality with oak regeneration in the understory. Rob indicated that wetland delineations have been completed on the site. 34 basins were identified (14 more than identified b��the NWI). There are 40 total wetland acres on the site—about 20 of these are included in Birger Pond. Rob noted that the City completed a �vetland inventory and functions and��alues assessment of wetlands on the site, and has recommended wetland buffers of 1�-7� feet for each wetland, depending on its quality ranking. Most wetlands on the site have no natural outlet, including Birger Pond. Birger Pond has increased dramatically in size due to storm water runoff from adj acent developing areas. The flooded areas include a sheep feedlot and farmstead. Rob also noted that steep slopes on the site have been mapped. The Minnesota DNR has provided its Natural Heritage Program database information for the site. No rare or threatened species occurrences were noted on the site; a Blanding's turtle was identified within one mile of the site. The State Historic Preservation office has provided a letter indicating that there are no elements of historic concern on the property. Tim Erkilla described the development proposed for the site. He described the variety of housing types and densities proposed for the site. He noted that the highest densities are proposed for the east end of the site,�vhich is relatively flat, and has few wetlands. Approximately 80 percent of the units are proposed for this area. Low density development is proposed for north and west areas of the site, in deference to the steep slopes and wetland in this area. Some townhome units are proposed near Birger Pond and in the Apple Valley portion of the site. Approximately 23 percent of the site is proposed to remain as open space. The developer has proposed a regional trail connection through the site,plus trails and parks within the development. Thirteen public meetings have been held to discuss the project. Most were well-attended. The developer is now completing concept plans for the site, which will allow for a more detailed analysis of wetland impacts. Design of roads and streets in the project tries to provide connections between the development and the community and its major travel routes. Potential traffic impacts of the development have been a concern for surrounding areas. The developer is proposing to preserve the oak savanna, as well as the woodlands and wetlands at the major entry area on the west side (in Apple Valley). There will be some impacts to wetlands and buffers,based on the proposed densities and development areas. The develope'r will try to protect larger woodland areas of higher quality in the Daly Farm area(east end of site) at the north and south boundaries. The developer is seeking to strike a balance between the Community's expressed desires for low density development, vs. the need to protect natural resources. More multifamily development would allow for more resource protection, but members of the community and City Council have objected to higher densities. The current proposal, at 2.4 units per acre, will create some impacts to wetlands on the site. IV. Identification and Discussion of Issues TAC members identified a variety of issues that will be reviewed in the AUAR. These are noted below, along with Westwood and City staff provided the following responses to TAC questions: • The developer expects that it will take 4-10 years to fully market the project. • Traffic analysis completed to date will be provided to the consultants. � The developer does not expect to grade the whole site at one time. Development will start at the Apple Valley side,using existing utilities and connections. However, development will occur on several areas at once, so that a variety of housing types can be marketed. • Most utilities needed to serve the site are available. Trunk sanitary sewer and water services are available on the east side of the site. Sewer will come up Shannon Parkway. Services from Apple Valley can be extended to the western side of the site. Water service will come across Highway 3 to serve the area. Wastes from the site will go to the Rosemount Treatment Plant. Capacity at the plant is considered adequate to serve the proposed development. The comprehensive sewer plan for this area is relatively old, and is summarized in the Comprehensive Plan. � Sto�nwater runoff generated by the proposed development will flow to Birger Pond. The City's stormwater plan specifies that excess water will be pumped from Birger Pond to ponds south and east of County Road 42. These ponds will be adequate to handle runoff generated by the development. The new High Water Level for Birger . Pond will be approximately 2 feet below its current level. The Normal Water Level will be approximately 8-9 feet below the cunent level. The City has worked with the DNR and Vermillion River WMO on these issues. • Ownership of open space areas is a concern. The developer has offered to donate larger open space areas to the City; the City may not wish to own or maintain these areas. Ownership may be split between the city and Homeowner's Association for the development. The developer is suggesting the use of protective covenants or easements for these areas. • Tree replacement will be required for trees lost to development. Westwood will be completing a tree survey and plan. The plan will include recommendations for preventing the spread of oak wilt on the property as construction occurs. DNR staff noted that size should not be the only criteria for tree protection—some species of smaller trees may be more valuable for the future health of the woodland than larger trees of other species. The tree plan should use the guidance of professional foresters to make judgements about tree protection and woodland management. Tim noted that the tree protection plan will include three steps: an inventory and rough plan, a management plan during grading of the site, and a long-term maintenance plan. Construction methods such as use of vibratory plows along road cuts and construction site limits should be included to minimize the spread of oak wilt. • DNR staff noted that savanna restoration should be included in the plan. • City staff will provide information and memos on traffic issues to BRAA staff. • SWCD staff requested that a temporary erosion control and revegetation plan be developed for the site. • SWCD staff asked how the proposed development fits with the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Bud Osmundson indicated that it fits well with the recommendations of that plan. • Bud Osmundson indicated that at this time, urban sections (curb and gutter) are proposed for the streets and roads in the development area. SWCD and Metro Council staff indicated that the developer should look at options that may encourage infiltration of runoff in swales, "rainwater gardens", etc., that use a rural road section. (Information from the City of Maplewood, attached) • Current street width proposed for collector streets is 38 feet, and 32 feet for typical residential streets. SWCD staff indicated that the City and developer should examine options to minimize impervious surface and promote infiltration of storm water, such as reducing street widths. City staff indicated that needs for parking will influence the possibilities for reducing street widths. City staff indicated that Connemara and Shannon Parkway are the only MSA streets included in the development. • Agency staff indicated that a long-term vegetation management plan should be developed for the site, to include woodland and wetland areas. Staff noted that the plan should indicate appropriate disposal of trees removed during development. • Construction staging in sensitive areas should be specified. Revegetation plans should be spelled out in the AUAR. • SWCD staff indicated that Dakota County is developing a Greenways plan,that may include a connection from Lebanon Hills park through the site. County staff should be contacted regarding this plan. ► • Judy Sventek indicated that the Metro Council staff will be looking for an evaluation of wetland impacts, and for mitigation within the same subwatershed. Woodland areas should be avoided as mitigation sites. Staff will also review the adequacy of water supplies for the site, waste water impacts, and densities proposed for the site in view of the community's comprehensive plan. • The Department of Health will be looking for and well inventory and plan for well abandonment. • The MPCA will review water quality issues. There may be concerns about the quality of Birger Pond, and impacts of pumped water on receiving waters to the south. Water from these ponds is not proposed to outlet to the Vermillion River. Additional development may require outflow to other water bodies in 20-30 years. • SWCD staff noted concerns about the effect of storm water on ponds experiencing high ground water levels in the county. Ponds in the area have been rising since 1992, largely due to high precipitation levels. • The City of Apple Valley is concerned about potential traffic impacts of the development, particularly on Diamond Path Road. Sewer service for the western portion of the site is available from an existing line along Farquar Lake. • The City of Rosemount noted concerns related to the alignment of the east-west parkway at the north end of the site. A more southerly route has better site lines, but creates more wetland impacts. The northern route has more woodland impacts. The AUAR should help to determine the alignment of this road. • Visual impacts of development have been a difficult issue to resolve within the City. • The developer proposed a small service center as a part of the development early in the process, but this idea has been heavily criticized in public meetings. At this time, only residential development is proposed on the site. • Rosemount is currently growing by 200-300 units per year. At this rate, a realistic build-out date for the proposed development is 7-10 years away. IV. AUAR Process, Schedule and Next Steps Sherri Buss noted that the City is hoping to complete the AUAR by the end of calendar year 1999. This is an ambitious schedule, given the time needed for analysis and agency review. The draft AU�1R should be completed by early November. The TAC will meet 3-4 times during this process. The next meeting will be scheduled on September 23 or 30, 2-4 p.m., to review additional environmental analysis by the developer and consultants. Dan Rogness noted that this will be his last meeting with the TAC, as he has accepted a new position with the Dakota County HRA, to begin in mid-September. Rick Pearson will be the primary staff contact for the AUAR at Rosemount. V. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. , • � STATE OF MINNESOTA ) • ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this _ day of , 1999, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared CATHY BUSHO and SUSAN WALSH to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and Clerk of the City of Rosemount, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed on behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality. Notary Public Supporc Services/D.A.R.E.Services/t0/29/'99/8 ISD l96 Graphic Arn Dep� ***PETITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a i; community we are proud of! �. pRINT NAME SI NATURE ADDRESS [ � �,Ca�r;� �� , � 7 � �� ..��-t--� �1��- S�� s— ��16 '�is��.c�'�',�1�/�/ ' l�� ,J�G �CJ � �� ,� � � �) , i��L�� 01 s ��c,,,� ' I �-1 — l Z L �"`' -f— , �� w' • �` !3;s�a � � �c�S- � , / a ' � �� C�v ` � , c •� l,J. � � � �, � ,d� � /' r p��' � / � � , � ��..5��ar��' /-�'� ! , �� a��s,��Ca rc�i � . ��G�sa� ll c� /I � .�-� - � � _ � : T � , , °r� � �..c./�' � ��' '� .' ,`�✓� i1_ ,�� v�i �,��y�' /)«'c a_��____( ��_ �,�,� / �S7(��1.. C�". ��, -�P��Sbr� l / lI 1 1 � � A�C�q:acl»uent �f 6 � . . �, .�..... ***PETITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the slke of development is not progress, a�id could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS l � /O� 7 c4/�i�'/fi'�'�/i��_ �0� � �� i -f�i/tP� � /� ��,/�i.� ,4-✓�i� Q o� G��-z��r,�-G�- z3 4�S r�✓ � ! 6?� • � � f� � � � Q �� 2� �� l 2-(o S� --- �� c Uc�, � � s v I z�'�� GT ` , s K l� 1�.�� H r � �� 2�� .Sc� ;� "'� �o�✓� z3�a r�' .�o � vYt�z , � �� -e u.Q•� � � `� C- �a x � /��v i�� J'` �� ,� � � ; , i �' � - �� , L; , � l�—_ -' � C � �rJ Y�L c� �'e. cJ a•a�L �,`t�,�.�1 � ) 2�� i s c� 7�z Y-1 � e � � •�� (�c) l 3Urt��. �c,nn;' )�AvL;IIs 1 a � Co �1 (3.i S L��vn1 t /�,v t,7 , �a � , ,, ***PETITION*** Wc, thc undcrsigncd property owncrs, hcreby petition thc Rosemount mayor and city council to reject tl�e Metropolitan Council's request that tl�e City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential ►and use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irrcp�r�ble h:irm to the cnvironment. - the Metro Council's proposal to incrc:lSC IlOUSIII�,' CICIISIty �)1•omotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the . same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME - SIGNATURE ADDRESS , , Z! d� �Z�7�� • lt-9S��GOtJ�?' 2S . c� �� sa�/ ��o� G�o�vi/� .�v�. w• .2Gs�.-�-<o�.� �T , � — — � p L►v' vC., CN�oun�' � �//O�iI��/,�� /-�� 2 C-�� .v,�-,i� _ l-� v� . � �.. _ Z 3�S �,�/, i,�v7��. .,�,9 vi7 �Dc.-L • ��Y'�' . .� Ct��z !'Z �5v ��.-yt, 6ur �S�ihOuv�� / � /i /( � I c ,JDHN BUi�N�FlL � ,f3 `1/3� ��R /� 4�-�r<. �,� Sri.�3 r� �' / �� cL� /4 �ct— 5 S� � " �— � � ,�� 3s�`'.ST� 2s� � �i"��.��.t�- � �G s3 �3�-� � � �, ��'`�T-- ~, ��.a- `_s � �� h . s�a� , � � � ��t 51(h ✓l.I�n.�,,� � J�-S�-S�c�]CC�u•r�.�lv1 C.tht� ' � — 2 d-�.. -�• �U • yN-l��(J Z 2/�i � Cp d ��t��nS 2zl�i - /Z(�.�-�. J�'�- �SF��d� l'n � ***PETITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of lund available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residcntial to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural h:�bitats must bc prescrvcd. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PR1NT NAME � SIGNATURE ADDRESS ��v-�+�., � �b ��a�e �3 � .� � . � - � � � � Ga � /�3 ' f' C ��.�.�.gI�CC �� J � � � J ,n -e�� a-a � �bn��1��-�� ich A2� � �'/2�1�� 5��.✓C i.2�� !�-c.�� ' � c. . x � i� 9a� ��'S�� wc �-�� y�� ` a��c� � �'��R (�s►�-�- 1�1�C.�a2.,1 e ` 1'�. , ,� �� c�-- ��0 0 s�� a G � G �a R�c.�h�i� ��r' � ` � s r � j� ��G I'j U �y� 'e 7� � � c..e�jCr� /�-� / ) �� G .��t�re�er� ` �-- �4 �� - ��-�-�'�. , �ass� �U , c�� c� G�� .� '� �� p ��`�"� � .3�7 4 nc�� C(v�e L� . '' � JD� OLI/N� '��C.YJ �' /c��j7 N �� _ � Z r ,� ��l� /4 �� ' �. (�. 3 � ***P�TITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in flct do. irreparable harm to the environmcnt. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might pl�ce 1 financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME - SIGNATURE ADDRESS S ��erwun�" `� ��.�-� K�.� �s � � � /37�- �a� STf� �1��,�s�-,��kti-- Q��r�s� � �5- �� "�-� �` � �� .o�-, �'�F 1L.CZ1� �� Z B �.�R � ��_ �o� ��- �s- �'� � � �as��,�T 5 hE� �n�e�s o ti-�v�--- �H�3�- ��A��• �.�, , � , lo�- G l ��/�o� , �"r�t �b�� s� � �� u� 1335 121 - � i� �s�, ��s � s �-� _ � _ � � � C> o,c�n ��ht-o 0�5 la\�� S�- �7� �� e� � / �,cac /�� ***PETITTON*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a �nancial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the . same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS , �Lf � a� �� "�2t�-Q/ � --�ic�� w� z �� s� — 1 Z g: �'` � ��? ��-«�� /�li,l G-�-��-�-� �{�.� , CJGl��u,v- �v<�ia,�� ?_�� - l �2_��C,y _ �<<<�� s�-�� 7 - 1 , �-J- i (� � 3 N 2��°�`��r , ,[ i �� N�3�� r � � �. �� on/a��/'� QSi�i`�a�ok-s'`I . � SSa�,P' � /S ��- � �- �e (��z�e� �l/�'r - l�8`�' S-T � . J qw�es A S �I� h oa� �� r• ��-- �z29� B ;S GqY�12r A�e w, Rase�o�h� , . — _� . iz �i�� l,c� , �� °� � ��.' � ` �/''l3 �� .Q -� �e Ll/. ' �) � ti.� C��-,ti� l� �- � ?� � � . �`� ��r �,�� ` �a G ��,Uc� � ��s � �,�L 1�y/ S?�'s 1 � y N � i'/i / /� � � , ***PETITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and ciiy council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately G00 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing n might place a rnancial burden on residents and force property sales. � We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME . SIGNATURE ADDRESS � LEI �NE� E � �-c e , K�� ' �-- Z93o e� � ��e.. P�L Sc.H r�c ' � �-�—"�� ,s� �.e . z c. ok.-_. o� !Z6�In S�; c�1 • �i n v�P ��Ct C'.�'� �1 l�/�uL_ �c/'�.� �/o� /3 s�' �� (1� � / ` p ?- \ \ !.� ��c�Py IV� 12 S- ��►�G�� e. �s. s "��ralQ �S,C� a � � �Z?�� aaYo�� e. . . GW 1 anl � ��SCc� 8�" ST �J. �C � oK7��•J -Zc�.Z 6 .��'sT �/' ��, � ^ � . � S 1��,,,.� c, I,�. � �I�I �v s. �, �� -�L- ��3�� J 3G� � �ono.��r c��h • .�.� � �� I n� ��f" � ` � � ' �"/ ***PETITION*** We, tt�e undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city councit to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described ii� the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be r ' ed for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic in rity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the s e of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to t e environment. - the Metro Counc' 's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the . same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME SIG ATURE ADDRESS , ! aS �C P /¢�e-- � i/ J/�7/'�j/r'�/ ��Jv Lc�S ��f"'.�, G`'r�� r W;,� �-e�-e r 5 o n m�-h f'e to o-�- � a 3 '�I g;'s c a y n-e ��- C�L✓r9R O G'Q��+� f'� ,z � ., iz�� 5 i3��u�<, ravc.s �/ab joJ� -� l�P/, ,6�r. D�✓.z0 s�tf��Tz �A�a'�� c ,�� ,, e .� � -e�,c.�- °�3 / � 6�`, � (`V l�� i�S � �'�'"( � I � > �%� / . . � ��c, �Vfl l3Z J� $a�c��.l�" Ave . ,-�V'� K�"�'`e-t/L l�`.��.�n' ,�o�S �d-� 5z= l�t,J, �U�� l sd Z S�� .SPr� N�`( � � �A „ L �-� , '�` , /.�� .l.0 ` ,� p o , .�/ `�.0�2 . � ��r �o� ��'�'�� -u/ � �'� �h �. � � ,,�G �' p.Z.s ��'� , ' � �U.z�' /� �� r�t. � r !�' ��,��- �,�: , � ' / a ��iU ' � � ***PETITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount incrcase the Amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of developmci�t is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and t'orce property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the . same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NA (�SIG�ATURE ADDRESS -'`�i✓l ,aAsZ� ��T� �-1� 1��, �• �S��, ' c /'3Z/� ,l�ctca�i~ �r...-?-" �/�� '^�/ � � :, �� o,� � z � s� � �, s�� W �� '��-� L�_ - �, zi� � - 1��s� c� a �l� ' - ac�---. - . � . , �� / ,27y.��c�✓�4 � � V� hT ,� �� , "_ �. L, zz6 -�/ �. � �� 20� I�.�� S�- i,� I�o�-m�� /�� ,�.��£ ` �..,.� ,��s'� �z� ��..� � /O w� � • .�a Qy' '� � k.l � ��. � � `��. _ ��y� - 3 � _ �-6�-s /3� �� c,,� L� � q� . ' � � � ��S' 3,2,.�- , �, :��s� /3��d � �, _ , _ �� z� , . � ***P�TITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawt. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the . same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS J � - Z � � - Z�l� I Z6`' sT (.� ^ ie.- l�UI1 Z Z � � Z ��f- � - . - � � �- � � 13- �3a"`� S�• . -�.'�-r/w�v�� l�S� 7" �lLNP � � . �.�� , � - 2 ��i, , o � 7- � 5�m.� �a-�- ��3 ��u - �, r� ` �� a��.� �,�� . , A� N ',�� S �-� �� d�� A,2�F ��a�-�. ��C'Q.v� e 'f,�Z� � �3 1 L� o �:;,�1 �``�'� •� � �' � ��r.�Z. ' " \Glil.V--'t'- �� l LP iU D 11�� Y�- �`L � 1 �-C��l L.�.l t�(vE{Z �.� (a� � � �`'�, , �-: , r yl= �,� - y � _ �r , . �l ***PETITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the , same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME . SIGNATURE ADDRESS � c � , �1��1✓ , �� G� v Q .�r� , ��-c�;��,�r? � d s S >��`5°,— �' . � �,�zf�s�� P � , � G l2��si a I rc�� 7� l3 4hc� Cc�� C.v . ,. m u�r` � 'TZ� �r- j% ' ��'1'2�'�"(� /�� ,C �n ' tl 1�J'� , � ��C��O�O r� � { . . , .ff' ***PETITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hereby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolitan Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential iand use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the , same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME . SIGNATURE ADDRESS �b r� � v l a o �� #v� G�c�� } ti.o� �•.�. ) 3o�r �c�ca��; � �' . 2.J- ' �' - '�� . ( � ..� , , �Y�UQvis7� � aoo� /Zv �' s�' w, � � �. � �° � b o .-/��- LtJ � `Y-vGr� �,►�rz� I ��5 �v� 1�D�n -�. Q 2s /�. � c�noot' -r't, z246 B �sC9 H-2 �ve w. J 1�� !J � la � 3 0 4ni��- L�-(j� � � � , �� r— � �- � � ��oN � `�. � , <, . ..;' _� I�r � �sw��' '. (.,t'1 C'E SC' ��'�v GC� Q � /" a i� � �Cs �� L � �� vvl � � � 1,o N Y�\�,�' �J+�l U c.t.�..Y� J 2.0 �3�v � � S� 'a`(i`�� a.�ts � ,�� .� �� t��, /�- 3��, �. S c ar .,� ,{�v� � f �� ***P�TITION*** We, the undersigned property owners, hcreby petition the Rosemount mayor and city council to reject the Metropolit�n Council's request that the City of Rosemount increase the amount of land available for "urban residential" development. The land referred to is the approximately 600 net acres located east of Hwy 3 and north of County Road 38 which is described in the city memo dated 9/1/99 regarding rural residential to urban residential land use. The Metro Council's request should be rejected for the following reasons: - the ecological and aesthetic integrity of wetlands, woods and other natural habitats must be preserved. - development for the sake of development is not progress, and could in fact do irreparable harm to the environment. - the Metro Council's proposal to increase housing density promotes urban sprawl. - the so-called improvements of sewer and water required by higher density housing might place a financial burden on residents and force property sales. We encourage Rosemount's city government to make Rosemount a unique community, and not bend to outside pressures that would take our city down the . same unimaginative path other cities have followed. Let's keep Rosemount a community we are proud of! PRINT NAME ATURE ADDRESS �___)'—� � t� � . Attachment #4 P\ 12370 Blanca Avenue Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 - September 28, 1999 Rosemount Planning Commission and Rosemount City Council Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 RE: Eastern Portion Proposed Rezoning Dear Commission Members and the Rosemount City Council: I am writing this letter to share with you a few of my concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of the eastern section of Rosemount that is designated now as RR to Urban Reserve. I have attended a few city council meetings, not specifically pertaining to the rezoning mentioned above, but other issues concerning Rosemount. I attended the Planning Commission meeting which took place two weeks ago pertaining specifically to the _ rezoning of the eastern portion of Rosemount. I have met with various members of the community regarding this rezoning issue. I have perused the web site furnished over the Internet by the City of Rosemount. After all of that, I need to say that I am very confused with what is said to be the goals of our City and what is planned for development to achieve those goals. It is mentioned many times in the City Profile, etc. , that the City wants to main�ain a "small town atmosphere. " The City in 1997 conducted a telephone interview of Rosemount residents asking their likes and dislikes and concerns about the City. From that census, it was overwhelming stated that people appreciated the small town atmosphere that Rosemount has to offer. I understand that growth is going to take place in Rosemount over the next 20 years. I would just like to see a more specific developmental plan of what our needs and wants are at this time to achieve these goals, rather than to rezone an area at this time with the idea that we will wait and see what potential developers have in mind for our community. I believe if we do that it will leave ourselves open to what has happened in Eagan, Apple Valley and Burnsville, and, thus, run the risk of losing that small town atmosphere. • . , I understand that Rosemount has plans to develop many areas today, be it Relly Trust, County Road 42 and Shannon Parkway for high density residential housing, the commercial areas and industrial areas planned for County Road 42 and Shannon Parkway, the residential area begun off of 42 and 145th, the potential of Brockway Glass developed into high density residential housing, just to name a few. I ask you: Is it imperative that a decision be made at this time to rezone an area that we are told won't be effected for another 20 years? Can we not slow this process down a bit to see how Rosemount adjusts to this growth that is taking place right now. Maybe then we will be able to hold on to a bit of that small town atmosphere that we so appreciate from living in this community. Sincerely, I ��`` . Trac� y Ddugherty Resident of Rosemount � ' r-.��. s� , � .. . �. h � � �+ x:,;: �� , ,:.- �. ;x i :r: k M, � �; .�E��:< d� , _ , �, ��;�� . ' ``, �� ' �� '!��: o� ' ? �� i �`�:� ``• '� , ��C — •�---- � — , �. (� � ' f �,` � ' _, , �Ic � ..----- t�'- — ' � _- -- --- � •�-.*-�___.1. -1i'--------�---�-- yf;� i �i ; �.. � . '1 ;; �, �� - . ,- - �'�5�1�c;;'��, '�i_•-�•-1. _11, r'_ . -._. --�1`[�F�- .-� •---c�-_o ;" �` \,\ , � . � . V 1`�:�. � yl r � ,� t� �� . ; �>�1/�.r�� + -- � i I .– 5 i I .a c>., �,, '�'"' .�,.' ^�. � � ��• � . .:�.� '�,�r Z��5�'^-., AV=j: ',�•i�, (V�j �• � i .. \'•� . . �.�� G _ `µ R -..--.�' a_��J��-�'G.r_�..`!^^�.r•�,�----'-�— ___ _�'�', . '.�G �_ ' ,� � 1� '� �\ 1 �:�.:: `�� '�. . � '•. 3 �� ? �L. ' . '�•� i� �; t .T \ \ .-„}�_ v7':�Q'' �. f� � �� I �'. . . �,�! . � �_ } z ��.. � I r. M l�c-^+— ~ �_:L__. '�~ �` , �� •. .. � � \ ;:-�-• —----�--i-.��—_____� _-�-__� ` — ._ � .t�•: „�.� � � � . _ �:IL. .�� '` �i�� ^�, f;�,�, ~/{a,�� ' . ' � � `j . ,�',� ' `r.1 Y 1^� \ � . . \^�'\�\� r.- . i`+ � � �� \ / ( , \�"_ ,:YC � ( �� ` `� , � ' \ � .. . � � �%• :.�: (V l � L--._.._ "' � '� ^'> � /"�� ;,�.. .a ; � `��,,, ��` �,� -o` � �.� � r: ',, �t.� .'•�c `�. I ¢ i•Q� �! I Y�;� f� \.� \'\ � ,� .. i'� t�1 r � rp ac /, � � � � � � ' c ' �(/no�; J� � ` �� ' � �±r .'� . � I , �� '� i � ��` ; , . . , `�..` "�'�' � ,`� - � - = - � - � - - � �e�k- �.�...� `' _� � _� -,�.�,I t. \ �_,t�'�' I - - � _ � �.. •C. _�-� . `` ,.T-__Y.._._j .�_ — - ---_�5�.=---....r--'�^_. .�.y:. ��. %;. ,b '��_' ;� �` �� . , -- . - 3 :. a. `� � � � i N , ;;�� • _ �� "'�� `�� I, � � '. � i� S Y� F �.�. i 1 i \' i�• . a �.�'�:al .. '^ > +o�, a � '��._ j ., . ;�I \ ^ �oor� uva t^ ��.•� �.r h '��.�� .. ;::i , -��4-r .� � 7 j �. i �� 3 , i� T: �� '_ _ ��` :;.;� � •i i �1 '�`� I. � �� ^•��'="..�`�. .-J' �a �� ', � � ' �. . -�__ 1_--.�'_'-.` _ � ` _. ...�._._._ � �.r;fClNUAl1 �'�._, � ,__ �_.Y._._'_'__._ . 4 ' ' � ( . —g-•'" �� '"�� .:': rv 3 � '��-b-=-x--'•�-;- � ``.. ,�.::� � i �. � . \ i �� ;,� �; :%,. :_': ► � H \� ''�r`t I - ` i z � � �., �'=>' � ! a : t�=: � � ��1�� I �� ' l; � � ;. ;} \� M j r �cj � ~ - r ^.- � # � �� ' � v p z, - . �<' ,� ,� , r . j � :, , � IN � �. � � � R �n - si ..i'( , 4 ] . ' .a: �x• \ � � � `" �i -n`�1" ` �� J � . � �.� �'� 7��1M \�� LI.. na `: � .� I .. _ ' '_ _i. _.' � `�' . .�� , _ t:. �., �� ;; '��; � � ,,r-'� � �, :'a ^`i i — � ~�A � �� ) --! F � � �� r� '� . 11 'J I� � .;� �� C�� t P. ` ;� �� t � �� ' � �: :��, ,�� ` � � �1 � � ; c„�, . ^ i. _._. _ �'..____.r._ �" �:� � � �� .,,�� _ f� r ;� _ :.� � - , � ��--�:�-� r:;n,;:,.�:,;;��;�.�; z:� ..� o c , � .��`^ f . ,. j, .t ' Q� • �'� ' �ct � � � : j� �%'. r, • ' � ^� rr'� 'st. } r_�. • C ,a (r _._.i �s>, � r.,-�..• : . ..__ ._._�. .� .!'?">. _ 'i7 f.' ,. . :`:---.. d;... . . . . Some homes requ�re spec�al sewage treatment systems About one of every four said conference participants will Minnesota homes uses on-site learn how alternative treatment sewage treatment systems to systems such as sing(e-pass and treat wastewater. And if the recirculating sand and peat fil- � wastewater from private homes ters,constructed wetlands, aero- isn't properly treated, it poses a bic tanks and drip irrigation -serious threat to human health might be used to solve prob- and will degrade surface and lems. ' i groundwater quality. Treatment resuits from � . Standard septic system research projects, interviews of � designs do an excellent job of homeowners using these sys- i treating sewage when properly tems and discussion with local I designed, installed, operated officials permitting and moni- + and maintained.But where there toring the systems will be fea- � are small lots, shallow bedrock, tured. In-studio experts will pre- high groundwater or poor soils, sent additional information and standard systems may not pro- respond to participant questions. vidc adcquate treatment. If you're interested in attend- Solutions include using alter- ing this conference or getting native trcatment methods or more details about it, contact trcatin� wastewater for a group your local Extension Oftice for ��f hc�mes c�n a nearby site, said the nearest downlink site, ur Ken Olson,an educaror with the consult the conference 1Veb Univcrsity of Minncsota page at Extcntiion Scrvicc. www3.cxtension.umn.cdu!�vatr "I�hc Lxtcnsion Service is r/satcont�9.html. prin�idin� altcrnati��e treatment infc�nnation to home and cabin _. e�wners, local elected oft7cials � and staff, and industry prufes- .`. SIOf121�S VIH il �IVC S�1(B��I�C COfI- All dwellings advertised in this neu�spaper � i are availaLle on un equal opporlunity baais. � ference Oct. 2£ at 7 p.m. Olson We will not knowingly accept any advertise- � ments that violate Federal or Minnesota laws denling with discrimination in housing. '-' � ATTACf-i�1ENT #3 September 28, 1999. .. To Rosemount Planning Commic�ion: When walking or driving around the lakes in Minneapolis, I bless the memory of its early planners. They had respect for the beauty of the area. They thought about future generations. They withstood inti.mida.tion from land developers and other mighty men in order to preserve the lake and park areas for all people. Minneapolis became known countrywide, and beyond country borders, as a city of lakes and pazks. When we thi.nk of the age of the earth,how faz it reaches beyond the counting of time, and we then compare it to a man's average age of 70 yeazs,we have reason to be alarmed at man's disrespectful attitude towards the land. A bunch of paper money in his pockets seems of greater importance than careful planning of the use of the land. The land has become a commodity that can be sold and destroyed for the gain of a few, whose life is like a spec of dirt compared to the life of the land. Misuse of the land also causes injustice and suffering to many. What future happiness is it for people when land is bulldozed and covered with houses, like barracks on a Tundra, when wildlife are driven away and killed, and raze vegetation, which Rosemount has, can no more be found. � I have lived at this address 39 years and learned to value the beautiful surrounding. � I hope that the City Council, also, appreciates and respects the great value of this land and preserves its uniqueness. A finger of the prairie comes up into Rosemount, and wildlife and rare vegetation thrives at the edge of it. It is unfortunate that those who can wave money and intimidate seem to look at the map and just see a lot of paper money to be made on that land. In closing I wish to refer to an article in the Staz Tribune of September 20 that states that Mpls housing officials aze making more progress than other big cities in placing Public housing units in the suburbs. Dallas and Cleveland have not built any units in the suburbs. They have faced home owners' lawsuits, angry meetings and congressional interference. To tell people that a trade-off must be made to secure money for finishi.ng a road does not sound convincing. There will always be money for roads,but land once destroyed can not be restored again. Aina Wiklund 12110 Bacazdi Av., Rosemount Pub1}�housing,replucemrnl lugs but tops other metro nrcas http://wwwstartribunacon�/stOnLindcgi-b...dntc-20-Scp-1999&word-housing&word�puuuc 'l�. 4 D6E3 SO(��f!£ Y�U KC��N DESER't€ � ///��{ /r�/�}� tVhattcan w� j �� YY .GQ�1��yDU�� t.L.;��.�::�� . � f11.^SL�YYSCRiTif . . . . __ . �f��fl��{D� PublishedMo�day,September20,1999 . �„ • `f� �� public housing replacement lags but tops } .z. �''�,�� ,=r �� ` other metro areas ��STdYT11t7UfiC.l'UDl Steve Brandt/Star Tribune �1�'ICb9 Even as Minneapolis housing officials are being harshly criticized for demolishing far more publichousing units than they're building,they appear to be making more progress than other big cities in placing those units in the suburbs. More than four years after settling the Hollman publichousing discrimination lawsuit,they've demolished 422housing units in the North Side projects.They've only created 54 new ones of a planned 770,although hundreds more are being planned or built. Forty-six of the newly created units are in the suburbs, and eight are in Minneapolis. Some big-city housing authorities that have been sued, such as those in Dallas and Cleveland,haven't built any units in the suburbs.They've faced homeowners'lawsuits,angry meetings and " congressional interference. The Twin Cities suburbs have more new units than Minneapolis � because that's the plan: Seeking to spread out public-housing tenants to areas with fewer minorities and poor people,the Hollman plan calls for up to 690 units outside Minneapolis, 88 inside. In addition,the Minneapolis PublicHousing Authority decided to mount the suburban effort first because it thought the job would be tougher.Tougher because resistance was expected,and tougher because many suburbs lacked publichousing expertise. Today,critics--including those who brought the lawsuit--question that strategy. They say the housing suthority could have replaced more units faster in Minneapolis,where it has legal authority and experience. In the suburbs,by contrast,the housing authority must rely on persuasion and economic incentives. Moreover,critics say,Minneapolis would have a better moral case with the suburbs if it built more publichousing in its own neighborhoods where it now is relatively sparse. • "The numbers kind of speak for themselves,"said Jodi Nelson, an organizer at the Metropo]itan Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing who works with suburban churches to build support for affordable housing. "We have a long ways to go." Minneapolis officials say they'll speed up acquisition of units within their borders so that all will be occupied by April.But some say higher goals must be set. Last week,two groups challenged neighborhoods near the outer edges of the city and at least 10 suburbs to take more affordable housing, including publichousing.The Coalition of Black Churches and the African American Leadership Summit called for at least 10 of . 09/28/19993:02 PM I ol 3 'ubli�:housmg rcplacan�nt logs but�ops othcr mccro arons http://wwwslartribunacon✓stOnLindcgi-b...dute-20-Scp-1999&wo�d-housingd'cword-pu�iic Almost 100 Hollman housing units have been occupied or are in the pipeline in 15 suburban developments that have typically used such blended funding.Developers initiate such projects,competing at the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for tax credits and other subsidies.They are required to get local-government acceptance of those units in order to get Hollman money.Proposing those units gives them bonus points that improve their chances for other subsidies at the state level,with Hollman units carrying up-front cash of about$93,000 per unit. The housing authorities in Washington, Carver and Scott counties have agreed to develop 160 Hollman units, mostly on various sites rather than concentrated in housing projects. St.Louis Park is the only suburb in Hennepin County to have initiated its own proposal for Holiman units,negotiating for 18 units in two mixed-income housing complexes. After a slow start,the Metropo]itan Council has agreed to the administrative task of holding federal contracts that subsidize publichousing units,assisting cities without that capacity. ' "We're on the right track.Pace is a serious issue," said Tom McElveen, the region's top housing official. Hennepin County,historically reluctant to own,operate or develop housing,is expected to decide in the next month what role it will play. Options include donating,or selling cheaply,tax-forfeited or surplus• land to reduce the cost of producing new housing units, and offering incentives with federal housing money. � "Hennepin County is the big question at this point,"organizer Nelson said. But although more Hollman units have been opened outside Minneapolis than within the city,Hollman refugees have mostly stayed in the city.The heavily minority publichousing population chose poorer neighborhoods with higher proportions of minority residents more often than other parts of the city. In Minneapolis,the search for replacement units didn't start in earnest until last spring,after City Council elections.Thirty-eight units have been purchased,with 50 more to go.That doesn't count another 10 planned in the proposed Urban Village mixed-income development in Uptown. Except for about 100 publichousing units that are to be built as part of a planned mixed-income redevelopment at the North Side projects, the Hollman settlement requires all Minneapolis replacement units to be built outside portions of the city with concentrations of low-income or minority residents. • The job of finding scattered-site units is expected to be hardest in the • Calhoun-Isles area,where housing prices are highest.There also are pockets of resistance,such as Longfellow,where concerned citizens met with housing authority representatives to express concerns with � startasbune.curn issues such as upkeep and behavior at nearby publichousing units and at Section 8 houses run by private landlords. �Metro �Copyright 1999 SWr Tribune.Atl rights reserved. 0928/1999 3:02 PM 3 oF J • . Minneapolis'City Council wards to take 25 units eacn,and ior�u wu�� apiece to go in Golden Valley, St.Louis Park,Hopkins,Richfield, . Bioomington,Eden Prairie,Burnsville,Edina,Brooklyn Park and Minnetonka. They urged that federal Department of Housing and Urban Development funds be denied to communities that don't � cooperate within a year. 'Way ahead' But as slowly as suburban publichousing has developed here--relying so far mostly on private developers responding to the lure of Hollman money-- it has�enerally exceeded suburban publichousing that has resulted from settlement of publichousing lawsuits in other large metro areas. "Minneapolis is way ahead on that," said Tom Streitz, a lawyer for the Legal Aid Society,which sued the city,its housing authority and other a�encies with the Minneapolis NAACP in 1992 on behalf of publichousing tenants.The settlement, reached in 1995, was designed to ofFset the segregation of low-income,minority publichousing tenants in the city's core. Federal lawyers with experience defending such discrimination lawsuits say that, rather than develop publichousing in the suburbs,other big-city publichousing authorities have used rental subsidies in . privately owned housing, a tactic less►ikely to become known to suburban nei�hbors. Some 900 rental subsidies were made available under the Holiman settlement.But the rental vacancy rate in the Twin Cities area is now an extremely tight 1.5 percent,half of what it was when the settlement was for�ed. That means many of those subsidies go unused because tenants can't find open units with landlords who participate in the � rental-subsidy program known as Section 8.The lawsuit parties have tentatively agreed to reroute some of the money accordingly. Rehab or build Creating new publichousing units can take years.There are two main approaches. One is to buy existin�single-family,duplex or apartment buildings and rehab them,moving in publichousing tenants. Another is to build units in new housing complexes,which;takes longer because it involves local regulatory approvals and often requires blending multiple sources of money to incorporate market-rate,subsidized and publichousing. . —� • :oi) • ' � � ; . i 10-- Z—R� ,:� � 4 . . ��. o�' �s�1.6� �"� � �=i � ��c--1 1 �� 's.� - � � � � : �� s � 1 - -------_-.-- _ __�_ __- ---_- -_. ---�-- ---=�'-- - ------ .- ---------- --- - ----�- =----- -_ ��l./vi,� � � ,/ ��J ! �V v� i ,w„y r I� ----- ----- --� ------------ -�------ - -- --- ----- --- ------ - -- - - --- - ------ - -- -------- __ ;._�'��}��e ... .� �--- __------ __ . __.-- - __ _`�ti�1Z�._ �_ _ _ - __ l - - - — c,� -��---�,�!��?�J� --��.---- , �__.�___.____.___.__..-�--- __ ______.____�.__.._ �_,�___________.__._�__.___. l ��iV r lY_��---� , •. ------ •-------- --- -- ------ �------- �t, V =--- ------_.. - - - � �-- "�'� _ --��I��(�_ .__ -�_ -- - - -- ------ - — — � ,�� - ., ------ --- ----- ---- -- - — ------ -- --- -- -------- -- -- _ . c.�c..,c�l_ �� '� �- � _— ---. , _ _ __ _ _ ---- ___ , � - -- - - __ _ - __-- _ _ __ ------ - .-—._ __ - :, -- - -- - ��V� -�/1��,Q� _ , ��-'Z _�, �_ _ _ . _ � i� ,� �—� � �J � �� - � ' � '' -� �,t� _ , . __ - -------- --- ---�__ _ - _ ___.___ _ _ -�I • � -� -- �-�; -- - -- � -- ---- �/ 1 .. ---- �� ; � � : ;, �,,�. �r _C� �� - C`�/l � _�l_y�'_ _�,_ _ �--- _ _._ �.-_-� _.--- __ _--_ - = - _ _ _ _ _ _---- - -- --� - �`� � �' , _� .� � ��--�—� V ��'�' D . � � f :. �� -�-�� -�� ,�-��- .�: _ , �'� (� � � � � <��J _ /►--- --- - ._ __ _ . -; _ : . .: �� _ - '('- -,- -- --- � . �� . �� .� ` . �a ------------ ___ ________ __y_ _ ___ , __ ___ _ ___ ___ _. _ _ _ .. . . _.. _____ ____ . _ .�_ �?-e.��__ _ _ ��____ _ _ _ __-c��_ __�_-_ _____ _.�� __ _ _ _ . _ . ,,. � _ _ _ _ ___ _ . . __ _ _, __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ , __ _ . _ ___ _ _ . __ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _- - - -- ------------------------L3 0 7S /�a n r�c�t__��v�e.,-__---- - ----_._______._.�.__. _ .__---._________.__. ---._„_____.______._------- ------------___.--_____---------_--------.-----__.___.. ------------�------------------�------------------_ .____-----._- -------------------- 1395 121st Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 October 3, 1999 Mayor Cathy Busho & Council Members Rosemount City Hall 2875 145�' Street West Rosemount; MN 55068 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I attended the Planning Conunission meeti.ng 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 infoimative 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 large area north of Highway 38 and west of Akron Avenue as rural residential. The Metropolitan Council made a recommendation to Rosemount to change this area from rural residential to urban reserve to accommodate the expected growth in the Twin Ciries Metro area. 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 appeared that the Planning Commission had to decide to either designate this entire area 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 existing rural residential area 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 concern about future growth in the Twin Cities Metro area. Rosemount is in a unique situation where a variety of housing alternatives 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 opporhmities. The many housing f altematives 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 alternative allows expansion of all of these housing alteinatives. 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 popularion growth in the Twin Cities Metro area. I think everyone needs to recognize that designating this area as urban reserve or leaving 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 essentially 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 city. I strongly urge you to designate the adjacent areas to the current rural residential areas as rural residential and the remai.ning area as urban reserve. This would allow Rosemount to build on the strengths that it has enjoyed over its history and do its fair share in providi.ng space for the future growth of the Twin 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 consideration. Sincerely, . � James M. Nelson