HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.b. 2020 Comprehensive Plan Approval CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COLJNCIL MEETING DATE: February 16, 1999
AGENDA ITEM: 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Dan Rogness, Community Development Director AGENDA NO: ''")
/ • � •
ATTACHMENTS: List of Changes from the November 1998 Draft; APPROVED BY: �
All Written Comments; February 1999 Draft Plan � (�
The Rosemount Planning Commission completed the public hearing process concerning the draft 2020
Comprehensive Plan. Many changes were made to the original November 1998 draft, which are noted in the
attached summary listing. On February 9, the planning commission discussed the following issues:
A. High Density Residential(HR)Areas. A request was made to discuss whether the proposed HR area north and
west of the technical college makes good land use sense. The commission recommended that it be removed from
that location and support future student housing on or near the college property.
B. General Industrial(GI) in Eastern Rosemount. Requests were made to provide additional GI areas as
appropriate future land uses generally east of Highway 52. One specific request regarding GI also related to the
MNRRA Corridor for property directly east of Endres Processing. The commission recommended that 1075
acres being designated for long-term industrial needs, which includes property south of Highway 42, both east
and west of Highway 52. In addition,they recommended that no changes be made to add more GI land east of
Endres within the corridor.
C. Transition Residential(TR)Areas. Previous discussions have focused on the proposed TR designation for the
540-acre Kelley Trust property. The commission recommended that the current language in the draft plan be
used due in large part to their desire to work with a PUD concept that is guided more by the land(protection)
issues vs. density limitations. They did agree with the addition of the 100-feet buffer minimum.
D. Mississippi River Critical Corridor. This new chapter in the plan had not yet been discussed in detail by the
planning commission due to extensive review comments by other agencies. The commission recommended the
plan without additional changes,subject to more formal review by those review agencies.
CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE TRANSITION RESIDENTIAL(TR) DESCRIPTIONS ... 2.0 DU/AC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve the Final Draft of Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive
Plan, and to Submit This Plan to the Metropolitan Council for Formal Review.
COUNCIL ACTION:
List of Additional Proposed Changes
The following proposed changes are based upon written comments received
from Dakota County (letter dated January 21, 1999) and resident and planning
commissioner comments received at the January 26th and February 9"•' Planning
Commission meetings.
1. A re� face has been added that lists the accomplished goals of the 1993 plan
and the new issues and corresponding changes that make the 2020
Comprehensive Plan Update necessary.
2. Paqe 17 section 2.2 Estimates and Forecasts. A paragraph has been added
explaining why Rosemount's population and household forecasts differ
significantly from those of the Metropolitan Council. Although this information
is also provided on page 37 as part of the MUSA Phasing Plan section, it may
be helpful to readers to discuss these development limitations in the
Estimates and Forecasts section also.
Also in this section, 1995 projections have been relabeled estimates, 2000
through 2020 projections have been relabeled as forecasts. This distinction
will hopefully provide additional clarity. An error was made in the calculation
of the revised 2000 through 2020 population forecasts. Slight alterations
have been made accordingly in Figure 2.2-A, 2.2-C, and 2.2-D.
3. Page 20 section 3 1 Land Use Districts and Policies. A paragraph has been
added explaining and clarifying the City's approach to mixed use areas.
4. Page 28 section 3.1.3 Residential �Land Uses). The last sentence in the
Urban Residential (UR) paragraph has been changed to provide additional
clarity with regards to non-residential uses in residential areas. The sentence
now reads, "The City will consider other potentially compatible uses such as
churches, schools, and neighborhood parks through a conditional use permit
process." Also, the following sentence has been added to the Transition
Residential (TR) paragraph on page 28. "However, some areas designated
as Transition Residential are not identified as MUSA unless sanitary sewer is
needed and cost effective." In policy #4 in the Transition Residential section,
the words "with a relatively low overall net density target of 2.0 dwelling units
per acre, with a lower density along areas guided for Rural Residential use"
have been added. On page 29, the phrase "within all existing and future
Rural Residential areas" has been added at the end of the second paragraph
of the Rural Residential (RR) section.
5. Page 30 section 3 1 4 Commercial (Land Uses). At the request of Dakota
County, South Robert Trail is now also referred to as State Highway 3.
i
The name of the Highway/Mixed Use Area has been changed to Planned
Commercial Area. This change was made to distinguish the County Road 42
commercial area from the Mixed Industrial Area designated north and
southeast of the Highway 52/County Road 42 intersection. '
In policy #4, the words "Highway/Mixed Use Area" have been changed to
"Historic Downtown."
6. Page 32, section 3.1.5, Industrial (Land Uses). A section has been added
describing and listing policies for the Mixed Industrial Area designated north
and southeast of the County Road 42/Highway 52 intersection.
7. Page 41, section 3.3.2. The Future (Housinq Plan). The first sentence in this
section has been changed to "The City desires. . .with all housing at an
overall (net) density near 3.0 dwelling units per acre." This change was made
in order to more clearly state that the density of 3.0 du/acre refers to all
housing types, not only single-family residential units. The third sentence in
the second paragraph of this section has been changed to "High-density
housing. . ., within a future redevelopment site formerly known as Brockway
Glass, and south of County Road 42 either adjacent to or on the technical
college property (student housing only)."
8. Page 43, section 3.3.3, Land Use Categories �Housin�n). The forecasted
numbers for high-density residential units have changed from an average of
12 units per year, 300 total units, and not over 120 units in any one location,
to 11, 275, and 100, respectively. Also, the last sentence in this paragraph
has changed to "Three separate locations. . .downtown area, within a future
redevelopment area formerly knows as the Brockway Glass site, and south of
County Road 42 either adjacent to or on the technical college property
(student housing only)."
Also on this page, in the Transition Residential paragraph, the third from the
last sentence has changed to "The City will . . ., while maintaining an average
net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre."
9. Page 45 section 3.3.8 Estimated MUSA Demand (Housinq Plan). The total
number of MUSA acres needed has been changed from 330 to 315. All of
these 315 acres are within the 2015 through 2020 MUSA phase.
10.Page 50 section 3.3.10 Transition Residential Districts (Housinq Plan). The
phrase "with a minimum buffer of at least one hundred (100) feet" has been
added to policy #4. Also policy #6 has changed to "All TR areas. . ., 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."
11.Paqe 54, section 3.4.5. Commercial Enhancements (Commercial PIanZ In
the paragraph preceding the Highway 42 Corridor design guidelines the
following sentences have been added at the request of Dakota County. "The
City acknowledges that increased development of these corridorS will have
impacts on the transportation system. The City is willing to work with Dakota
County and Mn/DOT to plan for transportation needs prior to development."
In the Highway 42 Corridor, Highway 3/42 Intersection, and Highway 3
Corridor design guidelines, the words "with remaining being another masonry
material" have been omitted where necessary. In the 145th Street Corridor
design guidelines the words "with the exception that buildings shall be
constructed 100% of brick" have been omitted.
12.Page 67, section 3.7, Surface Water Management Plan. At the request of
Dakota County, the following sentences have been added to the second
paragraph on this page. "This Plan includes an ordinance that outlines the
use of lawn and garden chemicals and buffer zones around wetlands and
their effect on groundwater recharge. The use of the Plan's provisions will
maximize the benefit that surface waters can provide to Rosemount
residents."
13.Paqe 93, section 4.1.1, Policies (Transportation Plan� At the request of
Dakota County, the words "and arterials" have been added after "major
streets" in policy#6.
At the request of Dakota County, in Figure 4.1-C (Functional Thoroughfare
Classification System Chart), the Intersection Characteristics, Jurisdiction,
and Trip-making Service Performed categories beneath Principal Arterial
have been changed. In Figure 4.1-A (2020 Traffic Count Projections Map)
the counts for 160th Street between CSAH 31 and Highway 3, and for County
Road 42 between CSAH 31 and Highway 3 have been changed to 13,000
and 36,000, respectively.
14.Page 101, section 4.1.3, Access Manaqement (Transportation Plan). The
following sentences have been added after the third paragraph. "Dakota
County has adopted access standards for all county roadways. The City will
continue to work with Dakota County as access is requested along county
roadways."
15.Paqe 107, section 4.1.6, Planned and Proposed Roadwav Improvements
(Transportation Plan� The following sentences have been added after the
last paragraph in this section. "While the City recognizes that Dakota
County's transportation plan identifies a need for a new north/south principal
arterial between CSAH 31 and State Highway 52, based on the points
discussed above, the City feels that State Highway 3 would be a poor choice
for this route. The City would support the identification of an alternative route
for the future north/south arterial."
Section 4.1.7, Transit. The following sentence has been added to the last
paragraph in this section. "Dakota County has expressed a willingness to
work with the City to locate an additional park and ride lot, particularly if that
lot were sited adjacent to a County Road.°
16.Paqe 108, section 4.1.8. Bikeways and Pedestrian Facilities. The following
sentence has been added to this section. "Dakota County has expressed an
interest in working with the City to ensure that City bikeways and pedestrian
facilities will connect to the County system so that access is improved for
residents in Rosemount and throughout Dakota County.
Section 4.1.9, Railway�Transportation Plan� In the second paragraph of
this section, the sentence "The County identifies this intersection as a
roadway deficiency" has been added in reference to the railroad crossing at
County Road 42 and State Highway 3. Also, a third paragraph referring to the
County Road 42 Corridor Study's position on this intersection has been added
to this section.
17.Paqe 111, section 4.2, Sewer Plan. At the request of Dakota County, the
following sentences have been added to the fourth paragraph of this section.
"The study area also includes areas with incompatible soils for individual
sewage treatment systems. When considering cluster ISTS for this area, the
soils and prohibitive land costs led the City to the conclusion that connecting
this area to the sanitary sewer system was the most feasible alternative for
providing sewer service to the area."
18.Paqe 115, section 4.3.3, Open Space and Trail Corridors (Parks and Open
Space Plan). The following sentence has been added to the second
paragraph in this section. "Dakota County has expressed a willingness to
work with the City to identify routes and connection opportunities into
Lebanon Hills Regional Park." Also in this section, Figure 4.3-A has been
changed to reflect the name change of Erickson Community Square to
Central Park.
19.Page 118, section 4.4. Water Supplv Plan. At the request of Dakota County,
this section has been modified. The new sentences begin with the words in
the second sentence of the third paragraph "In 1999 and 2000 the City. . ."
and continue through the fourth paragraph, ending with the words "on the
Kelley Trust property."
CRAIG J. MINEA
611 QUINCE CIRCLE - BOULDER, CO. 80304-1030
TELEPHONE (303)440-9497 - FAX (303)442-3491
e-mail - qc611craig@aol.com
Faxed - (651) 423-5203 '
December 28, 1998
Mr. Dan Rogness, Community Development Director
Mr. Richard Pearson, City Planner
City of Rosemount
P. O.Box 510
Rosemount, MN. 55068-0510
RE: Comprehensive Plan Update Comments
Dear Dan and Rick:
I have several comments and suggestions on the current draft of the City of
Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Update dated November 1998. These
comments focus on my concerns as a MUSA Phase II landowner and
� concentrate on the area between 135th and 145th Streets and Biscayne and
Akron Avenues.
1. Section 3 7 Surface Water Management Plan, �age 44: At 1/2 page in
length, there is a complete lack of detail and explanation of the City's
philosophy and policy for handling storm water from new residential
development, i.e., all properties are expected to hold on-site storm sewer
„
runoff from a 100 year storni'. This section should clearly define the City's
existing and future policy. I suggest a map(s) giving actual locations of the
proposed storm sewer ponding areas adopted in 1997.
2. Section 41 6 Planned and Pro�osed Roadway Im�rovements, �a�e 63-64 :
This section lists vazious planned road 'unprovements, e.g., Connemara Trail,
Bacardi Avenue, but fails to indicate what type of road they are. It is hazd to
tell from the "Road Classifications" map after page 61 whether Connemara
Trail and Bacardi Avenue will be nunor arterials or collector streets as
different widths of the same symbol are used for all road types. This section
fails to indicate the City's current assessment and compensation policies to
affected landowners where future roads will be constructed. Will adjacent
property owners who benefit from a nearby collector or arterial street pay an
"area charge" to compensate property owners who do have such streets?
. �
3. Section 2 3 4 Strategies, �age 16: The goal of subsection H hopes to "target
multiple family housing units within one-quarter (1/4) mile of either side of
an arterial street/highway." It would be beneficial to define an azterial street.
Is this a minor arterial or a major arterial? Are collector streets "arterials"?
4. Section 3 3 2 The Future, Section 3 3 3 Land Use Cate�ories. Section 3.3.4
Housin Assum tions 3.3.5 Housin Definitions and Section 3.3.6 Estimated
Housin�Demand, ��.28-32: These sections state a future goal of 75% single
family attached housing vs. 25% multifamily housing. The multifamily
category includes single family attached. However, the breakdown of this
residential mix shows that substantially all of the multifamily units will be
awarded before 2010 (Figure 3.3-B, p. 32). This means that those landowners in
the latter stages of the Phase II 2010 MUSA and MUSA 2010-2020 will be
allowed far lower densities per acre. Unless the prior awarding of the
projected 1115 urban attached dwelling units is based on some equifable
criteria, it would seem to be an invitation for future litigation. Perhaps it
would be better to award the multifamily units on a pro-rata, rather than a
� "first come" basis. �
S' r
. e
cc: M . thy Busho, Mayor
� • J�HNESpT' .
� o Mi�nesota Department ofTransportation
: =
g Metropolitan Division
�yl O�T��y` Waters Edge .
1500 West Counry Road B2
Raseville, MN 55113
January 5, 1999 •
Dan Rogness
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
2875 - 145`� Street West
� Rosemount,MN 55068-4997
Dear Dan Rogness:
SUBJECT: Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Update
Mn/DOT Comprehensive Plan CPA98-039 .
(Metropolitan Council Referral File 16922-1)
Rosemount,Dakota County
C.S. 1906
The Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)has the followin�comments on the
Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Update Addition comprehensive plan amendment.
• There are several corrections and clarifications which should be made.
This plan does not address the impacts to Trunk Highway(TH) 3 that will be associated
with the proposed commercial development discussed on page 36. The city should
recognize access control on TH 3 and work to maintain the mobility of TH 3 with all the
proposed development.
V�'e require clarification on the comme:�t"Ir.iprove a�cess points from businesses ento the
highway," Mn/DOT is willing to work with the city to develop improved access at the
existing intersections,but does not encourage additional access to TH 3. Access to
development should be provided on local streets or frontage roads.
There will be limited access to TH 3 at the planned General Industry development at the
intersection of TH 3 and 160`�Street(page 41). The city should develop a local roadway
system to provide access to these parcels.
Page 64 states that Mn/DOT is planning several improvements. At the present time,we
are only reviewing these potential concepts. No improvements are funded or are
programmed for any of the three mentioned projects. There is no official TH 3 study
occurring at the present time. Comments on page 64 should be clarified. Questions
regarding this or the above matters should be directed to Jay Hietpas of our
Transportation Planning Section at 582-1319.
An equal opportunity employer
Dan Rogness
January 5, 1999
page two
• The Comprehensive Plan Update mentioned a Surface Water ManagementPlan. We
have not yet reviewed this document and will need to do so. Please forward a copy of
this plan,when it is completed,to Sheny Narusiewicz,Local Government Liaison
Supervisor, at the above address. .
• We request the opportunity to review site plans and grading/drainage plans for any
proposed developments next to Mn/DOT right of way,when plans have been prepared.
Mn/DOT review of plans allows potential issues to be identified and considered at a
comparatively early phase of the development process. Two copies of the plans may be
� sent to Sherry Narusiewicz,Local Government Liaison Supervisor, at the above address.
Please allow thirty days for a formal response. .
• Any use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved Mn/DOT
permit. The permit required depends upon the nature of the proposed work. Keith Van
Wa�er of our Permits Section may be contacted at 582-1443 for further information
regarding the permit process.
Please contact me at 582-1383 with any questions regarding this review.
Sincerely,
G�'�`' .
Lisa Christianson
Transportation Planner/Local Govemment Liaison
c: Ann Braden,Metropolitan Council Transportation
Lynda Voge,Metropolitan Council Transportation
city oF e�g�n
PATRICIA E.AWADA
. Mayor
. PAULBAKKEN
BEA BLOM9UIST
PEGGY A.CARLSON .
January 22, 1999 SANDRA A.MASIN
Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Administrator
Dan Rogness, Community Development Director E.J. VAN OVERBEKE
City of Rosemount City Clerk
2875 145t'' St. West
Rosemount,MN 55068-4997
Dear Mr. Rogness,
As requested, the City of Eagan reviewed Rosemount's Draft 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
� The only concerns were raised by the City's Public Works Director regarding the
proposed future collector street along the current 120th St. aligrunent. He was specifically
concemed about locating a collector street on our common border and the lack of proper
access spacing it will create on TH 3 which may become a principal arterial. It is
suggested that the alignment of this proposed street be moved further south.
If you have any questions regarding our comments please call Julie Farnham,Planner at
681-4698. Good luck completing the final plan!
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
MUNICIPAL CENTER THE LONE OAK TREE MA�NTENANCE FACILITY
3830 PILOi KNOB ROAD THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AN�GROWfH IN OUR COMMUNRY �` �COACHMAN POIM
EAGAN.MINNES07A 55122-)897 EAGAN.MINNESOTA 55122
PHONE:(651)681-4600 PHONE:(651)681-4300
FAx:1651)68t-4612 Equal Opportunffy Employer FAX:(651)68i-a360
FROM : CMC HEARTLAND PARTNES PHONE N0. : 651 322 6671 Jan. 26 1999 01:25PM P2
CA1C k[�4RTL AND P,Al2Ti�TERS
15130 Cb.i�ppendale Avcnue South, Suitc 104
�osemount,Minnesota 55068 •
(651) 322-667Q Fax: (651) 322-6671 .
Slnce/8;7
Ianuary 26, 1499
Mr.Dan Rogness
��u�iry Development 17.ixector \1'ia Facsimile Transmission
City of Rosemount (651)423-5203
2873 1��`"Strcet West
Rosemount,h�itviesota 55068
�; 2020 Cornprehensivz Guide Plan �
Dear Dt�:
Thatl�you for providing us�vith an opportunity to revlew the City's proposad Comprehensi��e Guidc Plan,and to
provide our input. CMC I�iea�tland Partnets�vould likc to go on record as gzi►zt�ll}'supportivc of this proposat.
In our revie��•of the draft documetzts,Ne noted revisio�is to the alignment of the collCctor foad,s intendcd to serve
the Bloomfield sita as.vell as adjoining properties. It is our apinion that these ali�ments will requ�re further
refinament during futul•e dcsion stages in ordcr to properly and faitly pravidz approprxata u.Sability,citculation and
. acccss to t11e propertics effected. Ci�IC pledge�s to work closel5 R�th City Staff i»modit`yin�thzse aj�o mcnts to
addr�SS tI705e cntical iSStleS.
Regarding arc&s des�g�ted"HF.",�vz a�ree with and Support the neCcssity,impartancc and provision for this type
of de�•elopnicnt in a�onunuaity. Hvwever, it is otu opinion that tl�e�oz�lCSAH=�2 site is inapp►•opriate for a
�ajgh-risc apartmZnt,condo or scnior citizen housing project. These types of residential projects are rypicaliy locatcd
mach closer so conuncrcial or business park sites,asid work bcst when si��`b�s p����ptc be relocated elllosed
d�ansportation ser��ces. It is our opinion and recommendation therefora,
to to�vn',and sugg�st that the location be at or near flie north���est comer of Biscayne/CSt�I 4Z•
pgain,thank you for the opportunity to provide t�is ingut to thc Comprehznsi�•e Guidc�'lfln. If you have any
questions regarding tY►is infoimation,please let us lcnow.
Sincerely,
�
J mes�.Lambeth
oject Manager
JL:tm
J '
� DA KOTA CO UI V T Y OFFI sE O 9P;aN�NING
DIVISION OF PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT FAX(612)891-7031
� i 14955 GALAXIE AVENUE APPLE VALLEY,MINNESOTA 55124-8679
`,.=:.,,,�,
� t
`�a' ``�.�
�-:�=;���;�� .
x,,��;�
� •
January 21, 1999 �
Dan Rogness
Commun'ity Developmerrt Director
City of Rosemount
2875145"' Street
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear ; ness:
Thank you for giving the Dakota County Office of Planning the opportunity to comment on the
draft review version of the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan. While our comments are
lengthy,we do not intend to detract from the fact that Rosemount has produced a compre-
hensive document to guide the City's future'growth and development We commend you for
your efforts and hope that you will find our comments and recommendations to be helpful.
Communitv Back�round
Population
Page 8 —The plan would be improved if city data could be included to amplify the discussion of
regional trends and forecasts (e.g., number of school-aged children in Rosemount in the 1990s
vs. 2000-2010, 2010-2020; number of Rosemount residents over age 65; etc.).
Employment
Page 10— It would be interesting to know what percentage of workers who live in Rosemount
also work in the city. It would also be helpful to know the primary destinations for commuting
trips from Rosemount(e.g., downtown Saint Paul, 494BIoomington, downtown Minneapolis).
Finally, the plan could include forecasted increases in year 2020 average commute times.
Projections and Forecasts
Page 12—The 1995 data are estimates, not projedions. The year 2000, 2010 and 2020
employment data are forecasts, not projections. Page 3 of the Executive Summary explains
that Metropolitan Council growth forecasts for Rosemount are higher than City forecasts. This
variation should be discussed further on page 12, or refer to the reasons on page 27.
Page 2, Rosemount d�aft Comprehensive Plan
Goals
Page 15—Character. It is unciear whether the goal of°maintain Rosemount looking like
Rosemount° refers to the compactly developed downtown and older adjacent residential areas,
or to the lower-density housing and commerciaVretail uses outside of dowrrtown.' This goal
should be clarified.
Page 16—The County supports strategy 2.3.4 C, which acknowledges relating development to
highway access management and providing adequate local street systems.
Land Use (Robert Overby and Lezlie Vermillion 891-7104)
Agriculture
Page 19—The plan states that there are 1,965 acres of productive agricultural land protected
[by enrollment] into the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves [Program]. It would be useful to
know the total acres of farmland ("prime", "good"and"marginal�, and total number of farms.
High Density Residential
Page 20—We recommend that the plan state the range of development density allowed in the
High Density Residential district. Page 30 states that the average net density for this district is
10 dwelling units per acre. Perhaps this could be used if a density range has not been
spe�ed. Also, the total acreage for each residential district should be listed.
Transition Residential
Page 20—We suggest that the plan state the range of development density allowed in the
district.
Page 22—We have a concem about policy number 1. If the City is going to discourage the use
of existing local residential streets for access to high density residential areas, it must provide
an adequate system of collector roadways to connect neighborhoods, and not rely totally on the
regional system for these connections. County staff encourages the City to create an adequate
system of collector roads and to connect neighbortwods by these routes.
By dividing areas into different land use types (e.g., high density, retail, etc.), the City is not
encouraging mixed use development. We believe that mixed use development is an important
consideration, particula�ly in light of future transportation demands.
� Rural Residential
Page 22—We suggest the text indicate that there are 2,425.66 acres in this district. Figure 3.3-
E, Potential Future MUSA, shows a"North Area'potential future MUSA (located east of TH 3
and north of CR 38). This area is composed of some land in the Transition Residential district
and the majority of land in the Rural Residential district.
2
Page 3, Rosemount draft Comprehensive Plan
We further recommend that the City discuss what policies or actions need to be taken to
regulate the low density, large-lot development pattem, in the event that urban services need to
be extended in the future. For example, the City could use"official mapping'to identify
easement corridors for future roads and utilities. Overlay or"ghos�' platting could be used to
site homes on the land in such a way that smaller, urban-density lots with urban 'services can
later be developed.
Commercial
Page 23—Two places in the text refer to"South Robert Trail.' This road should also be shown
as TH 3.
The Historic Downtown section discusses the Cit�s intent to redevelop the area "with buildings
of an appropriate design, massing, scale, and size to create a pedestrian-friendly environment.'
The plan does not include a section on historic preservation to indicate how the City will
redevelop its downtown. The plan should clarify either that the goals and policies f�om the
City's existing historic preservation plan will guide downtown redevelopment, or that a new
historic preservation section will be added to the final version of the updated plan. We did note
the discussion on page 38 of the proposed new design guidelines for certain parts of the
commercial area of Rosemount These guidelines could fit into the City's broad historic goals or
within the spe�c goals of a historic district plan for the commercial area of Rosemount.
We think the discussion of land uses in the Highway/Mixed Use Area dces not meet the typical
definition of mixed use, but only encourages single occupant vehicles to go to TH 3 and CSAH
42. A more oomplete mixed-use area definition would include some high-dens'ity residential, to
make the sites more pedestrian friendly. (Also see comment on page 2.)
MUSA Phasing Plan
Page 27—The text refers to the cuRent 1998-2010 MUSA, the second phase 2010-2020
MUSA, and other MUSA areas. Reference to a map or figure showing these areas would be
helpful. Also, the Laidlaw/Safety Clean facility and the wastewater treatment plant are
men6oned,without a location description or a location map reference. We suggest that this be
clarified.
Housing Plan
Page 28— Neither this section nor the Housing part of the Community Background provide any
infortnation on the age, quality, or affordability of the housing stock in Rosemount. We
recommend that the plan be revised to include this information.
Pages 29-30—The Rural Residential and Transition Residential districts are not"transit friendl�'
development pattems. The City should consider ways to address this, induding the possibility
of a local "dial-a-ride" bus service which could transport residents in these areas to downtown
Rosemount and possibly allow connections via transit to other places in Dakota County.
3
Page 4, Rosemount draft Comprehensive Plan
Page 31 —For the estimated housing unit demand, the pian states that°By the year 2020, all
new housing units c�onstructed within the 25-year period wiil have maintained a 75/25 percent
division befinreen single family (urban detached) and multi-family (urban attached and high
density)." The plan should state what actions the City will or may consider if the demand for
single family housing in Rosemount during this period exceeds the 75 percent rriarket share.
Pages 32-33–Some of the mathematical calculations in Figure 3.3-D appear to be incorrect
The number of acres of MUSA demand by 2020 may need to be revised. To maintain a 10
percent overage factor in the year 2019, the City should consider changing the number of added
MUSA acres, and recalculate all the other numbers in the table.
Pages 34-35–We are pleased to see that the City proposes to bcate the Kelley Tn�st property
in the Transition Residential district, in order to"foster planned development in areas of special
natural resources." The policies and performance standards described on page 35 should
encourage the conservation subdivision design development pattem illustrated in Figure 3.3-H.
As part of performance standard number 5, the plan should indicate if special standards or
procedures are required by the City's zoning and/or subdivision ordinances for land areas with
slopes befin+een 15 and 18 percent
Page 35-- From a transportation standpoint, Figure 3.3-H Conservation Subdivision Design, is
not a good example of connectivity befinreen neighborhoods. We suggest that the diagram be
revised to show good neighborhood connectivity and the appropriate use of local, connector,
and arterial streets. (See also the comment on page 2.)
Pages 3&39–The CSAH 42 Corridor, TH 3 Corridor, and the TH 3/CSAH 42 intersection are
discussed here. Dakota County would like to begin working with the City soon in regard to this
intersection, so that we can plan for the transportation needs of these corridors prior to
development. This would allow both agenaes to have a common vision for this intersection.
Page 39–The first bullet item under"Highway 3 Corrido�' is misleading. From the County's
paint of view, it should be re-written to discuss the need for consolidating access along TH 3.
Redevelopment Plan
Page 43–Objective number 2 discusses TIF districts and the City's TIF policy. We remind the
City of the County's TIF policy for transportation project financing. Policy FF.8 of the County's
Transportation Plan states:
"Subtract from the County eligible project costs, the costs of road improvements or other
road costs (e.g.,traffic controls)which are in the determination of the County the resuft
of a tax increment financing plan or an amendment to a TIF plan, with the balance of
costs divided according to policies. (A] County Board resolution is required for any
significant deviation from this policy."
4
Page 5, Rosemount draft Comprehensive Pian
Surface Water Management Plan (Ron Spong, 891-7542)
page 44, Section 3.7 — The plan makes reference to the City's Compreher�sive Stormwater
Management Plan, rather than appending it. This leads one to assume that all of the issues,
recommendations and policies have been resolved. In general, we recommend that the pian
elaborate on the role of constructed stormwater drainage ditches and impondments, as well as
natural drainageways, in developed areas where extensive diversions and impervious surfaces
play in affecting groundwater recharge and, consequently wellhead protection.
Of most immediate importance is the southwestem area of the city, as well as bordering Apple
Valley and Lakeville,which is upgradient of the Rosemount city well field. Because these areas
are within the 20-year well capture zone and because the overlying sediments ar�e highly
permeable, restrictions on agricultural crop, commercial use, and residential lawNgarden
chemicals should be considered to minimize the potential degradation of drinking water quality.
Mississippi River Corridor Plan (Robert Overby, Ron Spong, and Jade Templin, 891-7039)
Pages 45-58, Section 3.8: In general, this extensive section would benefd from an inventory, �
assessment, or discussion of the existing and future impacts of disposals, spills, leaks, and
other releases and their consequences to the public and the environment from agricultural,
commercial, and industrial sources in the area. The absence of this information leads the
reviewer to the conclusion that corridor protection is primarily a future development issue, rather
than an existing facilities mitigation and enforcement issue.
Since other sections of the plan call for further commercial and industrial development of this
area, the corridor plan might deal directly with the consequences of existing faalities by
recommending Gean-up goals, as well as raise and resolve those same and similar issues with
all future facilities.
Page 48—Recreational/ Public Open Space: The parfc description is incomplete. More
complete descriptions of Spring Lake Parfc Reserve and facilities are inGuded in the Park and
Open Space section of the County's draft Comprehensive Plan, or from the County Parics
Department or the Office of Planning.
Page 53—Trail Connection (2) Pine Bend Trail: The plan refers to the °Pine Bend Trait'
planned by Dakota County. The correct name for this proposed trail is "Mississippi River
Regional Trail.' The projed proposes a trail connection from the South St.Paul/Inver Grove
Heights boundary to the City of Hastings. The County has a draft development plan for the
project, which includes working with landowners along the trail corridor. A portion of the trail
may follow Pine Bend Trail, but the final route has not been determined. The County supports
the City's identification of Pine Bend Trail as a potential area for a regional trail connection.
Page 54—Land Use Policy 8. `Promote the use and enjoyment of Spring Lake Park far adive
and passive�creational uses." The County agrees with the City's goal of promoting the use
and enjoyment of Spring Lake Park Reserve. However, the County has focused on providing
passive use recreational opportunities which are compatible with its natural resourcae-based
park system. This is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's guidelines for units of the
Regional Park System, especially for paric reserves.
5
Page 6, Rosemount draft Comprehensive Pian
The County's Parks and Open Space Elemer�t indicates that the County's 1983 plan for Spring
Lake Park Reserve inGudes the foliowing statement of one of the park's functions: "to provide
for limited active recreational activities in a manner tt�at wili not detrad from the parfc's natural
environment." The Parics Plan goes on to state that short term future development includes a
visitor center/nature centedtrailhead building. Long term future developmerrt includes: self- .
guided nature trails, bituminous trails, hiking trails, equestrian trails, campground, boat launch,
picnic area improvements, picr�ic pavilion,cance camping, and overlooks.
The plan refers to"a bike trail along Pine Bend Trail.' Figure 3.8-F shows the proposed regional
trail along Pine Bend Trail, but no proposed local trail. We assume the bike trail refers to the
� proposed regional trail. This should be clarified in the plan.
Figure 3.&F. Map 6, Mississippi River Corridor Plan: The County supports the Cit�s
identification of Spring Lake Park Reserve as an opportunity for public river access. The
location and nature of the river access within the park will be deteRnined through the revision of
the park master plan and future development of the park. �
Transaortation Plan—(Gene Franchett, 891-7035 and Lezlie Vermillion) �
We commend the City for a comprehensively written transportation section. For the most part, it
is consistent with the Dakota County Transportation Plan.
Policies
Page 60—We support the City's transportation policies as being consistent with County
transportation policies.
In particular, we note the references to reducing conflicts on arterial and collector streets,
incorporation of recommendations of the County Road 42 Corridor Study, and cooperation with
other agencies in the planning and implementation of principal and minor arterial roads.
For policy number 6,we encourage the City to add the word "arterial" after the words "major
streets." The City is the agency that can suppo�t the dedication of right-of-way for County and
State arterial highways. We encourage the City to support the dedication of the needed
transportation right-of-way for these facilities.
We support policy number 9, which encourages the connection of neighborhoods and
discourages the use of cul-de-sacs.
Roadway Lanes Map
The plan shows a segment of Diamond Path between 145"' Street and CSAH 42 as 2lanes
undivided. The map should be revised to show it as 4 lanes, undivided.
Functional Thoroughfare Classification System Chart
In regard to intersection characteristics,the plan needs to indicate that non-freeway principal
arterial roads are grade separated or at-grade intersections. At-grade intersections with high
capacity need additional conVols to manage traffic.
6
Page 7� Rosemount draft Comprehensive Plan
In regard to the jurisdiction for principal arterials, the words"Metropolitan Highway System"and
"Federal"should be deleted, and the words "Dakota Count�' should be added. Principal
arterials are part of the metropolitan highway system, but this is not a jurisdidion. Federal
agencies also do not have jurisdiction over them. � ,
In regar+d to trip making service perFormed� not only must total trip length be greater than 8
miles, it also must occur on at least 5 oontinuous miles of principal arterial road.
We suppo�t the City's system access class�cation guidelines. We suggest that the City also
acknowledge the County's access spacing guidelines for county highways.
Future Traffic Projections
The map of 2020 traffic count projections needs to be revised for the following County roads: '
• The future CR 46 befinreen CSAH 31 and TH 3 is shown as 10,000—our projection is
13,000; .
• CSAH 42 between CSAH 31 and TH 3 is shown as 33,000—our projection is 36,000.
Please refer to the attached annotated copy of"2020 Traffic Count Projedions'for this data.
Roadway Improvements
The map of future road improvements shows CR 38 as partly 2-lane and partly 41ane
undivided. The draft County Transportation Plan indicates that all of CR 38 in Rosemount is
planned to be improved as a 41ane undivided road.
The railroad uossing and TH 3/CSAH 42 intersection is an identified roadway deficiency. We
recommend that the City plan discuss the improvement needs for the railroad crossing and
TH3/CR 42 intersection. Dakota County supports a grade-separated railroad crossing.
The draft County Transportation Plan (Figure T-15) identifies the need for a new north-south
principal arterial road in the area befinreen I-494 and CSAH 42, and between CSAH 31 and TH
52. The City's transportation plan should acknowledge this identified transportation need,
particula�ly in regard to the difficulties in moving traffic through downtown Rosemount.
Page 64—The description of the CR 73/Akron Avenue upgrade needs to be revised. The area
of improvement is proposed befinreen 120"'Street and CSAH 42, not 125"'and 160"'Streets.
Transit and Bikeways—(Lynn Moratzka, 891-7033)
Page 65— Dakota County supports the City's position on transit and the City's intention to work
with MVTA to locate an additional parlc and ride lot in the future. In support of tt�ese efforts,the
County offers to work with the City and MVTA to locate a future additional park and ride lot,
particularly if the park and ride lot were to be sited adjacent to a County road.
7
Page 8, Rosemount draft Comprehensive Plan
Dakota County supports the City's recognition that bicycle and pedestrian trails provide another
aitemative mode of transportation. The Count�s Bikeway System provides a frameworlc of
bikeways along County roads, to connect the communities and activity generators within the
County, and to provide links to abik and unestria paths wilDl connect to the County ys em, n
City staff to ensure that the City P�
order to improve access for residents throughout the County.
Sewer Plan (Ron Spong)
Page 67, Section 4.2— The expansion of city sanitary sewer service benefits only those
unsewered areas that are near MCES wastewater treatment facilities and interceptors.
Potential problem areas with failed or malfunctioning individual sewage treatment systems
' (ISTS) and/or with inoompatible soils or other attributes are left with few, if any,
altematives in this plan.
We recommend that the plan consider other feasible altematives (e.g., smafl cluster ISTS
systems), especially in those areas where su�faoe and/or ground waters may already be
impacted by inadequately treated sewage.
Parks and Open Sqace Plan—(Jade Templin)
The plan text and figures incorrectly label"County Spring Lake Park"and °Lebanon Hills Park."
The correct names are Spring Lake Park Resenre and Leban Hills Regional Par{c. These areas
are identified as such in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Recreation Open Space System.
They are owned and operated by Dakota County in its role as a Park Implementing Agency for
the Metropolitan Council.
The plan has incorporated by reference the 1991 Comprehensive Park Plan and Development
Guide. Since that document was not included for review, the following oomments are based on
the provided text and portions of the Critical Area Plan which concem recreation and open
space issues.
Page 68—Open Space and Trail Corridors: The County suppo�ts the City's efforts to improve
trail and open space connections to Spring Lake Park Reserve and Lebanon Hills Regional
Park. Although the plan discusses potential routes to conned into Spring Lake Park Reserve,
the plan does not specifica��Y identify connections ir�to Lebanon Hills Regional Par{c. The
County will work with the City to identify appropriate routes and to take advantage of
opportunities to develop connections.
Water Suaalv Plan (Ron Spong)
Page 70, Section 4.4 — The plan does not address the City's compliance with the State's
wellhead protection requirements, including cuRe� and future well capture zones, land use
restrictions within those zones, and ground water monitoring. As noted above,
the high
pertneability of the su�cial soils covering bedrock in the south and southwestem portions of the
city and its neighboring municipalities poses a sign�cant problem because of direct recharge to
the prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Future land uses should be conditioned on preventing
potential impacts to drinking water supply aquifers.
8
Page 9� Rosemount draft Comprehensive Plan
The identification and proper sealing of abandoned weils and improperly constructed and
maintained welis is recommended for consideration in the plan. This is important because
abandoned wells may act as vertical conduits for the migration of contaminants:
Other Issues Not Addressed (Ron Spong) �
Waste Disposal and Contaminant Release Sites
The comprehensive plan should address the issue of unapproved disposals of solid and
hazardous wastes or releases of contaminants on properties and their required cleanup in
acxord with State and County regulations. The County has inventoried known waste disposal
and contaminant release sites in Rosemount, and the data are available for use by the City.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we congratulate the City on its efforts to revise the Comprehensive Plan: The
Office of Planning will continue to work with you and the City of Rosemount to coordinate the
County's Comprehensive Planning initiative with the City's plans. The opportunity to review and
comment on RosemounYs draft comprehensive plan supports the coordination of our planning
with that of the City. We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with you for the future
of our area as the City revises its plans.
Sincerely,
Jack Ditmore, Deputy Diredor
Physical Development Division
cc: Willis E. Branning, Commissioner, District 7
Brandt Richardson, County Administrator
Louis J. Breimhurst, Director, Physical Development
Robert Overby, Physical Development Planner
Richard Thompson, Metropolitan Council
9
, � .
� �
c�ty of
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
January 21, 1998
Dan Rogness
Director of Community Development
City of Rosemount
2875 145�' Street West
Rosemount,Minnesota 55068-4887
Dear Dan:
The City of Inver Grove Heights appreciates the opportunity to review Rosemount's 2020 .
Comprehensive Plan and offers the following comments:
- The Rosemount Future Land Use Plan is similar to and certainly compatible with the Inver
Grove Heights Future Land Use Plan. Both plans show industrial along the eastern half of
our common border and rural density residential or agricultural along the west half of our
cornmon border.
- The functional classification plans are also similar since Highway 52 is shown as a
principal arterial, State Highway 3 and Rich Valley Boulevard are shown as minor
arterials, and Akron Avenue is shown as a collector or, as in the case of Inver Grove
Height's plan, a community collector("B" minor arterial).
- The goals and policies of Rosemount's Mississippi River Critical Area Plan are similar to
Inver Grove Heights' Critical Area Plan.
- Rosemount's Transportation Chapter recognizes the State Highway 52 Comdor Study
and the need for long range improvements along that highway, as does Inver Grove
Heights' plan.
- The Transportation Chapter, Page 64, states that Akron Avenue will be improved to 125�`
Street but the"Future Road Improvements" map shows it being extended to our common
border. Inver Grove Heights requests that the text be changed to extend the improvement
of Akron Avenue to the municipal boundary.
- The"Future Road Improvements" map also shows Bacardi Avenue being improved to our
common border. Inver Grove Heights would support this improvement since it may be a
means of providing access to a couple of properties in the extreme southwest corner of
our City.
8150 BARBARA AVENUE • INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55077
TELEPHONE (612)450-2500 • CITY OFFICE FAX (612)450-2502 • POLICE FAX (612)450-2543
Dan Rogness, Director of Community Development
City of Rosemount �
January 21, 1999
Page-Two-
- The Sanitary Sewer Chapter, Page 67, states that the MCES is scheduled to convert the
Rosemount Waste Water Treatment Plant and add additional capacity. Previously, the
MCES had discussed the possibility of eliminating the treatment plant and extending an
interceptor north along Highway 52 through the southern part of Inver Grove Heights.
We understand that MCES is no longer considering the extension of such an interceptor
because of the treatment plant's planned improvement.
- ThP P2rk Chapter �t�±es that RosPmount ir.tends tn use park dedication. requirements to
acquire and develop its future parks. Inver Grove Heights' experience has been that
reliance solely on park dedication does not allow a city to keep pace with rapid
development while still preserving open space and providing for recreational needs.
Again, Inver Grove Heights appreciates the opportunity to comment on Rosemount's 2020
Comprehensive Plan and looks forward to working with your city as our two communities
continue to gow.
Sincerely,
CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
�.G'�'.-2'��t� �-��9C�
ii�
Thomas J. Link
Director of Community Development
TJL/mh
cc: 7ames G. Willis, City Administrator
Gary 7ohnson, Director of Public Works
Mark Mayer, Director of Parks and Recreation .
RICHARD T. BURGER
650 Via Miraleste
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262
TELEPHONE (7601 322-8091
December 9, 1998
Mr. Dan Rogness '
Pianning Director
City of Rosemont
Rosemont, MN 55068
Dear Dan:
I was recently updated on projected land use of Road 42 between 52 & 55 by your
associate Rick Pearsen and I appreciate both his time and his courtesy to me. I would
like however, to be on record as most hopeful your department would consider a
mixed use or industrial development for both sides of Road 42 from 52 to 55.
It appears to me a logical and reasonable use of the land, and as one of the owners
of the subject property, I wholeheartedly recommend it.
Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion.
Very truly yours,
��"��"' �`.�
� �J c�
Richard T. Burger `
Public Comment Sheet
City of Rosemount
2020 Comprehensive Pian Update .
November 30, 1998 .
The City of Rosemount weicomes public feedback to the comprehensive plan. Please comment
on the comprehensive plan update. Some of the areas you may want to address include:
• Projections and forecasts
• Housing Pian
—.• Commerciai and industrial pian--�
• Redevelopment plan �
• Mississippi River Corridor Plan
• Transportation Plan
• Parks and Open Space Plan
• Other comprehensive plan issues that may particularly concern you
Please feei free to use additional sheets of paper as needed.
, ` �.� �,.�y�� -�� S��e- d� �.�.�s M t�.� .
� �-- (G„� -�-
1 �� ������� � -� ���-� P���r� �
lT�f' l9 d c_a.� 9 cz> � O�'S
QY�. .��� S 9 wT` S Y�
�,,5 l �+.f ��S�'��� , � �iF ►S � Ue�'�
a � �t 2 P �'� ����+ � � �
b ,�5-�k�
,�� -� ;�.�� -� ��
��,� y�e,�-� ,�,..,�-,re_ �[�...s,
�
Thank you for taking the time to let us know your thoughts about the comprehensive ptan update. .
Your input is very important to us. If you would like to receive further information about the
comprehens've plan update rocess, lease w 'e your mailing address below.
��S�- �r�.,,.�,.Tf�l�.. S�o?�
Please drop off your comrnents at City Hall or mail them to(no later than 1/15/99):
Rosemount Ciry Hall
2875 145�'Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068-0510
Attn.: Dan Rogness
January 13, 1999
Mr.Dan Rogness,Director
Community Development
City of Rosemount
2875— 145`�Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068
RE: . 1998 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Update-Review& Comment
Dear Dan: �
Thank you for submitting the updated Draft Comprehensive Plan (1998-2020) for review by the City of
Lakeville.
City staff has reviewed the document and offers the following comments:
• The projected flows from the City of Rosemount to the Empire Waste Water Treatment Plant
are consistent with Metropolitan Council projections.
• The Plan cites the improvement of 160`� Street, and eventual renaming to County Road 46,
from the westerly Rosemount City boundary, abutting Lakeville, to a point east of Coates.
This improvement will relieve traffic congestion on County Road 42.
Following review of the plan, City of Lakeville staff feel that the proposed Rosemount Comprehensive
Plan Update exemplifies Rosemount's commitment to achieving both local and regional needs. The Plan
document will be an effective mechanism for guiding growth in an orderly and efficient manner through
the year 2020.
Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at 985-4421.
Respectfully yours,
i�
Michael Sobota,Director
Community and Economic Development
cc: Lynda Voge,Referrals Coordinator,Metropolitan Council
Robert Erickson,City Administrator
Ron Mullenbach,Associate Planner
City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Referral file
City of Lakeville
20195 Holyoke Avenue • Lakeville, MN 55044 • (612) 985-4400 • FAX 985-4499
Recyckd paper..ioy ink
Feb-10-99 11 :08A Resource Strategies Corp. 612 513 9549 P_ 02
�
RESOURCE February 10, 1999 .
S�-rEGIFs .
CORPOR.ATION Dan Rogness, Director
Community Development
2875-145th Street W.
Rosemoun� MN 55068
14001 RIOGcDALE�RIVE
SUiTE 340 Re: City of Rosemount Comprehensive pIan
MI�NETpNKA,MN
55305
612/it3-9548 Dear Dan:
FAX 612/513-9549
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Rosemount 2020 comp plan vpdate.
The plan is very well detailed and organized. The Rosemount plan retains the
mix of compact urban development, agriculture preservation and heavy industry.
Pcrsonally, I am also happy to see the goals and policies for retaining the
downtown cuitural center.
I am commenting formally on hehalf of Empire township, the City of Coates and
Nininger Township. The Rosemount plan does not change the generaI land use
categories of the areas of#he City which abut Empire, Coates and Nininger. I
would offer the following brief comments on behalf of each of the neighboring
communities, which are nearing completion of their comp pian updates.
Empire Townshiv ,
Land uses abutting Rosemount will remain agriculturai, institutional and mineral
exuaction. As we discussed a while back, there may be consideration to identify
a business cl�sification atong TH 3, if the TH 3 realignment occurs and spliLs off
a parcel from the Lauer Farm near the gas plant. This parcel would be contiguous
with the glass manufacturer, which is a current Iegal non-conforming use.
Citv of Coates
The Coates land uses will remain essentially the same; however, the industrial
area along ttte west side of TH 52 will be expanded northward to the Rosemount
border. You and I spoke about this and I understand you are evaluating potential
industrial redesignation near Coates.
�� �
Feb-10-99 11 :08A Resource Strategies Corp. 612 513 9549 P. 03�
February 1 Q 1999
Page 2 of 2
I -
The only other comment I would make regards future potentia! ut�lity services.
As you are aware, there are no municipal utiIities in Coates. As the MLTSA area
continues to expand in eastern Rosemount, I would hope the two communities
pursue discussions that may make sanitary sewer service accessible in Coates.
While there may be no current environmental problems with private on-site sewer
systems, that situation can easily change.
Nininger Townsh�
Planned uses in Nininger will remain primarily long term agricultural. There are
common issues which the City and Township need to communicate in the future
regarding trail corridors along Pine bend Trail and CR 48. Each community's
efforts in the Mississippi River corridor critical area appear to be complimentary.
In summary, we thank you, agaiq for the opportunity to comment on the
Rosemount Comprehensive Plan. There are no major issues presented in the plan
which warcant further comments by Empire, Coates or Nininger.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Good luck in
comple�ting your pianning activities.
Sincerely,
/_�,�
Dean R Johnson
President �
cc: G.E. Stelzel, Empire Township
Todd Tubbs, City of Coates
Bob Rotty, Nininger Township
. � � �• r
!
Dear Rosemount Planning Commission,
I would like to have my approximately 27 '/z acres of land rezoned to Industrial use, and
believe we have appropriate reasons to do so. �
My deceased partner and I bought the land in 1976 with a proviso by the city that it
could be easily rezoned industrial whenever it was needed. However, as the years
went on, all levels of government seemed to have a different point of view, namely
leaving it zoned agricultural. Now, it seems the Pine Bend area has increasingly
become industrialized; specifically the Spectro plant has doubled in size, CF industries
continues to upgrade and has rail and processing directly across from our property.
Now Endres (see enclosures) is processing large quantities of bakery goods, resulting
in a 24 hour smoke stack plume directly next to our property. The city has a landfill near
the property and all of this makes it very difficult to sell the property other than for
industrial use.
Enclosed you will find a site study map and our tax statements to verify and identify the
27 '/2 acres. Since my partner, Brian Kvasnik, is now deceased, his estate is asking me
to sell the property. However, unless it is rezoned Industrial, really, nobody is interested
at realistic values.
Since I was one of the original owners of Spectro Alloys, we have had many positive
mutual dealings with the city of Rosemount, and hope this particular land concem can
also be resolved accordingly.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely, ,
Orrin Kirschbaum
, ' , .. .. . .. .. . . . . . ..," . : � . .:_:.......,.._.....:::�;.r �`:,�a�
� P . � .� .
E MA .
SIT .
� �����
ER1Y 10lMABER:34-02000-070-11 EST�t�AATED I.IARKET VAUIE IlFORS1AT10N Np MTA AVl�II.ABLE
}� u� 54.300 LOT 9ZE
nNNEit �N O KV��./ BUldNO:
TOTAI: S1,300 R29.9E0 TOTAL 90 FT
��p2 C}IERRV Mll RO 19.05 TOTAL ACREg
SAINT PAUI MN 55118-2770 t9e 2t,T12 ROAD��FT
9C}�OOI d5TRICT:
2ETR 1/J�5 �p('J1T10N' SW 1/1 NEiI�SECTION 20-11516 �t
�AX 1.790.42 1101.�ESTEAO STATUS NON FId�ESiEAD . ��� � / �
�I.l I�SSESSMEMS 0.00 �a,� � '� �
i �l TAX i SA: 1.2W.�2 WATER9aE0 d5TR1CT: V£RMIIUON R�E1�
:SSIAEM USAfiE:RE510ENTIAI �T OUALIFlm SALE �
. DATE: ����� �
_ � . ;� \ r--��
.��`•` .1^ \��� \ � .
-=, � Q ��_
�.
.• i;-_.\;�'` ° -,�--
�� � I%I i i •�� �\ / (..�
' '�•/ �� �`�'.00 `�J`._
.�'�\ ,:!� 11 •�'� �.. , � .
�` � �\ ' �' '�—�
;
�; � ��'�. ;' -----
�, � y�,- ���
,. , �
_.r�•�.. , �'�\ .
, ;•
._. . �. �'/
�: !,
��y - - —
� -
� -
/ �
� r
. ' � \
c.�l�'S /� •
� ( .
r'ti D l a w . ". . �`;.
`� �
�'� , �pGE Slil�gi �
� ' , ,¢s�-.� d,,¢'f'�� r
,�.- ; _
�- ... � !�✓ do�s �
�� � � �.. -
; a,,,
:.' `� _. - -—•--`�--- �.
, ��' c_� �t.
� ��� y-� `�
t \ '�r��• �•-`.� .
`_ ' /
` ' �� � �� �/�~ '-����
I� r\ •, ���,
, ' ` ` , ,F�.
i \ ii �
t� , .� _ �..;, �a�-
; � .
i :�'" `.
�
r
pI,AT NAME: ��ON�T�115 RANGE 18 �
S ra�+d�d b nwnal bd TAX OE9CRiPT10Fk E 1R OF SW W OF NE W (�
NO1E O��r�s�en� pZpppp 2p1151i
Copy.qrd 190e.O�Mda Ca�Y- �
nrs b�.wtio b n.hn..•M�M��d^r0 n«.svev.y�na b no�Mleneea ro ee ua.e.:o�. I
Thb dr*w�q b a oan0�a�1°^d��'�^�wn�nd dal�beded ti wnws dY.can+h.• es
tRate ellloea ud dher�eisa�s.�R�dt+01M��a�h�nln oon1�M+�d_ ��•���
--.. .�.y.�....r r w.I�aeoewWhlw�^Y _ . ..--^---'--�H EbceWncfN
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planniz�g for the Future
January 12, 1999
Dan Rogness .
Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
P.O.Box 510
Rosemount,MN 55058
Dear Dan:
Thank you for the opportunity to informally review the Rosemount Critical Area plan before it is
finalized.Overall,the city's Critical Area plan is well presented. It includes excellent maps,
inventories of sensitive resources and information on current land use. Most of the Critical Area
in the city of Rosemount is planned for industrial expansion. City policies to guide that
expansion are very important to preserving bluffs, habitats,water quality, open space,recreational
access and views to and from the river. The land use policies begin to address most state Critical
Area standards. Although they address many of the additional voluntary MNRRA policies for
' trails and resource protection, a few of the state Critical Area standards were not addressed or
need to be strengthened before the plan is finalized. These summarized below. The plan is also
generally consistent with MNRRA policies. We encourage the city to add some remaining
policies for MNRRA certification. We will call you in the coming�week to schedule a working
session with review agencies to discuss what more is needed for Critical Area and MNRRA
consistency.
Detailed review comments from the Metropolitan Council,Department of Natural Resources and
National Park Service are also attached. Due to their combined volume,these comments may
give the impression that many changes are needed. Actually,there is some duplication of ,
comments. Also,the attachments inc(ude specific page references in the plan to help staff
consider changes to language. The summary below will also be included in the Metropolitan
Council informal review comments for the comprehensive plan.
Critical Area standards to address or stren hen:
• Discuss how proposed industrial, commercial and residential uses relate to the guidelines for
the urban diversified and rural open space district.
• Include the policies and review criteria for expansion of industrial or other uses to ensure
protection of corridor resources and visual quality and consideration for uses requiring water
access. Criteria for required landscaping plans and site plan review should address buffering,
screening,minimizing and improving the quality of runoff.
• Add provisions to minimize the impact of potential mining, extraction or other incompatible
uses,including water quality impacts from these uses. Policies to retain vegetation within
existing uses.
• Include programs to protect undeveloped islands and prevent beach and riverbank erosion
and clarification of dedication requirements.
• Add transportation and public utility planning and design considerations, consistent with E.O.
section C.7 for roads,railroads,pipes,conveyors and other facilities for river access:
• Add a caapital improvement program for all public projects to be sited in the comdor.
AREA CODE CHANGES TO 651 IN JU�Y, 1998
230 East FiRh Street St.Paul.Minnesota 55101-1626 (612)602-1000 Fax 602-1550 1DD/'I1Y 291-0904 Metro Info Une 602-1888
Voluntarv MNRRA policies:
The plan is generally consistent with the MNRRA plan and includes some excellent policies for
open space,trails,resource and habitat protection in development areas, and intergovernmental
coordination. Given the primarily natural state of the shoreline in Rosemount and t}ie city's
commitment to preservation,we encourage the city to add the remaining detail necessary for the
plan to be certified by the National Park Service as eligible for federal implementation assistance.
The attached letter from the National Park Service lists the MNRRA plan policies that are already
addressed and those that should be addressed for plan certification. Some policies may not apply
to the city. Susan Overson at the MNRRA office is available to meet with the city and discuss
any concerns or questions regarding the MNRRA plan and to assist the city�vith trail and open
space planning(290-4160,Ext. 225). Tlie city could expand on the following:
• Riverfront location and shoreline protection policies including a commitment to convert
inconsistent riverfront land uses that are causing adverse effects to consistent uses if the
owners move away.
• Within site development policies, setback and height restrictions and habitat and wetland .
restoration policies should be included. For MNRRA, slopes greater than 12%should be
protected.
• Economic investment policies that acl:nowledge river-dependent uses and encourage
sustainable development and preservation or use of historic resources. Policies governing
barge facility expansions and commercial navigation should be added.
• Within open space policies,add support for use of abandoned railroad rights of way. Include
the resource protection goals of the proposed woodland protection area within the Pine Bend
area. Add some measures to increase connections to the river for the public. For example,
could the proposed greenway in the central part of the city tie into the corridor trail and open
space plans? Could any easements be created in industrial areas?
• Cultural resource protection measures and additional inventory information for Kaposia
village and other sites that may be on file at the State Historic Preservation Office.
The Metropolitan Council commends the city for a very readable Critical Area plan. In
cooperation with DNR and the National Park Service,we look forward to working with you on
final revisions so that the plan is approved by DNR and certified by the National Park Service.
Sincerely,
�'CG�.O�.{4,� ��-.:-'�-r'�
Sandra Pinel,AICP
Planner
Cc: Terrance Flower,Metropolitan Council District 16
Mark Weigle,McComb Frank Roos Associated,Inc.
Sandy Fecht,DNR
Kate Hanson and Susan Overson,NPS-MNRRA
Carl Schenk,Linda Milashius,Metropolitan Council staff
Ru26922-lcadoc
Metropolitan Council
Working for the Region, Planning for the Future
Internal Memorandum
DATE: January 11, 1999
TO: Penny Simison ,
FROM: Sandra Pinel and Virginia Burke
SUBJECT: Rosemount Critical Area Plan#16922-1
Informal Review-Consistency with Executive Order 79-19 and
MNRRA Voluntary Policies
The following review should be attached to the Rosemount Comprehensive Plan informal review report
for the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation
Area
The city is proposing to amend and update its 1991 approved Critical Area plan as part of the new
Comprehensive Plan. Critical Area plan amendments are subject to review by the Metropolitan Council
and approval by the Department of Natural Resources for consistency with state Critical Area standards �
and guidelines(Executive Order 79-19).Enclosed,you will also find National Park Service's review of
the plan's conformance with MNRRA guidelines.Please refer to the attached Critical Area table,DNR's
comments, and NPS comments when making any changes.You can work with Sandra Pinel(602-1513)
regarding Critical Area and with Susan Overson(290-4160 x225)regarding MNRRA.
The city's Critical Area plan is well presented, including excellent maps and inventories of sensitive
resources and current uses in the designated river corridor. The land-use policies touch on most state
standards, support trails in the corridor and address many additional river protection policies in the
MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan(CMP). A few of the omissions mentioned in the September
23, 1997 assessment of the current city Critical Area plan are still omitted in the updated plan.
A.l.a/b/d/e—Purpose of the critical area designation: Although the plan is generally consistent
with the purposes of the critical azea designation,they should be listed as laid out in EO 79-19.
The language desribing the urban diversified district should be corrected. It now references the
urban open space district purposes
C.l-Protect environmentally sensitive areas: The plan has excellent inventories but needs to
include soils not suitable for on-site waste disposal. The plan does not yet address beach and
riverbank erosion control,nor minimizing direct overland runoff and improving runoff quality.
C.2.a(3/4/5)- Site plans review standards: Some excellent site plan policies are included: The list
of site plan requirements on paDe 55 should also include expected site changes and activities to
minimize environmental effects and ensure compatibility with the corridor,and to provide
opportunities for open space and public viewing of the corridor. We would suggest the city list
the review criteria for industrial expansion as that is the primary land use and the city worked
closely with DNR last year to develop a list. Policies are also needed for conveyors and pipeline
construction approval.
C.2.c-Encourage clustering of structures and the use of designs which will reduce public facility
costs: This is not yet addressed but might be added to#4 on page 55 where scenic quality is
addressed.
C.2.a(3)and C.3.a-Water quality and on-site sewage system regulations: In addition to limiting
new on-site systems,as addressed on pa�e�6,the plan should reference a city program for
monitoring on-site systems,consistent with rules 7080. Given that the city permits industry with
PCA-monitored on-site systems in the cit}�,the plan should include a goal of actively working
with MPCA to monitor,prevent and mitiQate environmental and water quality impacts on the
Mississippi River that could occur from these uses.
C.S. a/b/c. Provisions include areas for espanded commercial and industrial developments where
the premature expansion or upgrading of inetropolitan systems will not be required or where
urban services are available,and give consideration to any uses that will require water access:
Since the plan calls for more industry,the city should have specific policies for industrial uses
that ensure urban services will not be needed prematurely and environmental and aesthetic
impacts are prevented. The maps should include industrial waste discharge points and sanitary or
storm water discharge points.
C.S.d.Provisions to minimize the impact of potential mining and extraction sites or other
incompatible uses: This provision seems�•ery relevant to Rosemount, given the impacts that have
occurred from some of the current uses. One source of information might be the five citizens on
the Koch advisory group.I would also sus�est contacting MPCA and DNR for ideas on what the
city can do to address impacts. �
C.4 Recognizes the use of the river for«�ater transportation and the 9-foot navigation channel:
This is generally addressed on pages 50 R. �7.Maintenance of the channel might be discussed
more specifically(currently,maintenance is a federal responsibility).The plan should also
address whether any industrial expansion plans would require barge facility expansion and if so,
_ how environmental impacts would be avoided or addressed.
C.6.Provisions are to maximize creation and maintenance of open space: Most of these
provisions are addressed in the 1991 Park Plan and Development Guide which is incorporated by
reference. The Critical Area Plan should include a statement that "Critical Area open space
guidelines are addressed in the Park Plan". The Critical Area plan should also include two
Critical Area standards not addressed in the Park plan and add a bit more detail for a third
standard:
1) Inventory historic sites and disvicts(include cultural resources such as historic roads,
archaeological sites). Please contact Tom Cinadr, State Historic Preservation Office,
296-5434 for a data base.
2) Adopt programs to acquire and manage undeveloped islands in their natural state and
to encourage restoration of other islands for recreation open space purposes(discuss
with DNR whether any other a�encies are protecting islands).
3) The Critical Area plan supports the regionaUcounty trail, an overlook and increased
use of Spring Lake park. Please add description and next steps for establishing the
woodland protection area proposed on Fig.3.8.5.
C.7 Transportation and public utility de��elopment standards:The plan lists facilities on pages 56
and 57 and then states that no major chanQes are expected. Policies need to be in place for future
changes proposed by the public and private sector, including the expected changes to Highways
55 and 52 and Pine Bend Trail,etc.on p.63a,shown in Fig. 3.8-F. Critical Area standazds we
did not yet find addressed include:
1) Minimize river crossings and concentrate at existing crossings,where possible.
2) New or modified facilities shall complement the planned land and water uses and
shall not stimulate incompatible development.
3) In the planning and design or reconstruction of all public transportation facilities,
consideration shall be given to provision of safe pedestrian crossings and reasonable
use of land between the river and transportation facility.
C.8 Capital improvement program(5 yeaz and sequence)for all public projects to be sited in the
conidor and assurance that all these projects will be undertaken consistent with Critical Area
standards and guidelines.
G.1.Administrative procedures for permit notification to DNR as part of plan. EO 79-19 requires
as a part of Plans notification to DNR of all developments requiring discretionary action,prior to
taking action on the application. DNR has added some additional attached comments.
We support the city's efforts and look forward to working with you to add some detail that meets the few
remaining standards. We also encourage the city to work with the National Park Service(NPS)to
achieve conformance with the MNRRA CMP.The basic philosophy of Rosemount's plan is consistent
with the visions in the MNRRA plan.By achieving substantial conformance with the MNRRA CMP,
Rosemount would be eligible for NPS grants to assist with implementation of the plan.The plan
somewhat addresses the following voluntary MNRRA policies:
• Natural resource policies: Section 3.8.9 of the city's plan supports preservation of wildlife habitat and
threatened and endangered species and replanting of trees,and supports county efforts in Spring Lake
Park. For MNRRA,the plan would also include policies to preserve or restore a vegetated shoreline,
encourage use of native plants in landscaping,restore wetlands where practical,and restore wildlife
and biodiversity in public and private development projects. For water resources,the plan would
include a stronger city role in preventing and assuring the clean up of pollution from point and non-
point sources,building on the statement already in the plan to work cooperatively with MPCA,DNR
and COE.The plan would also address the impacts of recreational activities on streambanks and
water quality. Some of these strategies may be available for reference from the city's Water Resources
plan,which is referenced but not yet specifically included in the Critical Area plan.
• Open space:The plan supports trail connections to the river. We urge the city to consider how the
Greenway concept planned for other parts of the city could be connected to the river. Greenways can
include private as well as public land,and the city may want to consider establishing a preservation
oriented greenway for most of the riverfront area,which is currently tree covered. This would
address NINRRA open space and some riverfront location policies and strengthen the preservation of
the Pine Bend azea which contains many sensitive natural resources(see MNRRA CMP pages 16-20).
Using abandoned railroad right-of-way for future trail development might also be considered.
• Cultural resources: The plan includes a commitment to identify, preserve,enhance and promote
historic and cultural sites. Some more detail is needed to address MNRRA policies.
• Site development policies: The plan addresses protection of natural resources,bicycle and pedestrian
trails to connect areas of the city,and views from a scenic overlook.Policies yet to be addressed
would include screening of development where practical, prohibiting development on slopes greater
than 12%,the removal of vacant non-historic structures,sustainable building practices,and a 40 foot
setback from the shoreline.
• Economic resources: The plan recognizes the importance of the river to economic activities,
acknowledges river-dependent industries,encourages investment in the river conidor,and encourages
visitor and recreational use of the river.These policies would be strengthened by encouraging
economic investment that is sensitive to historic resources and sustainable building practices.
• The plan does not yet fully address riverfront location policies and dimensional standards for site
planning . The plan also should address some of the impacts of commercial navigation and barge
facilities. Susan Overson of the National Park Service has provided more detailed comments and can
help address concerns or questions you may have about the application of MNRRA policies in
Rosemount.
RU16922-1.doc
. Dec 29 '98 19�30 P.02�04 •
^ STATE OF MINNE30TA
DEFARTMENT: NatUral ResOurces -DNR WStCrS
� Offic� XVien�orandum
oA�: Decembez�29, 1998
To:' Sandra PineWir�inia Buzke
Metropolif,an Council .
FROM: Sandy Fecht �
Critical Axe �ydrologist
contNECTIONs: Phone (651)297-2401;fax 29Cr5939; e-mail: sandy.fecht@dnr.state.mn.us
SUB.IECT: Addifi�onal comments on Rosemowat's Draft 2020 Comprehensive Plan Upda.te,
November 1998
Thank you for the opportunit}►to comment infozmally on Rosemount's Dzaft 2020 Comprehensive P�an �
Y7pdate. �n addition to my�revious comments on your Critical Area checklist and memorandum, I offer .
the follor�vizig comments for your use ar�d the City's:
Plan page/ Comment
ciration
16/2.3.4 C. I would encourage adding "environzz�ental protection" or simi�az terms to this list for
guidelines needed for industrial development in an east-side development p1an. Any such
plan should alsd be in compliance with Critical Area requiremenfis.
Figure 3.1:$ 1 did not reeeive a copy of the proposed 2020 �,and Use Plan. Are therc changes
proposed for the underl�ring zoning districts, General Industrial and �lgriculture, ��ithin
the Corridor?
52/3.8.6 ¶ 3. The last sez�tence should be clarified that it is a decision of t}ae Citv, and
d'zstinguished froxt� the rest of the pazagraph. That sentence is not a.z� established
. guideline verbatizzx from Executive O�rder 79-19.
52/3.8.6 �J 4. The text that has been quoted is acfi�a�ly the guideline for the Urban Open Space
District, not the Uzban Diversified bistric� Correct wYth the acctuate text from Bxecutive
Order 79-19. T'k�e current last sentence should also be clarified that it is a decision of the
City, a.ad distinguished from the rest of the paragraph if rEtained. Those types of uses are
perm.itted if they are compatible with the goals of the�Jrban Diversi�ed District.
53/3.8.6. 'This section should also acknowledge and discuss the �xisting and proposed residential
uses and comznezcial recreation (especially the commercial pa's.ntball uses), and how they
zelate to the guidelines for each district What does tlie City s�e for the future for
add'zUiozzal residential development (and wherc) and comzrxezcial recrc�tion? R�Zat
adclitional policies are need�d to prevent irreversible damage and ��T�iT�'►1Z8 adverse
PT7Pf`tC7 lt1�� At1 t1 �i 11�}7^It fitna A�ronranfinnnl fnn.��4iAA in t�+nwn n �nnr� �n n�rrnra�l
.,-_�y-,... : Dec 29 '98 19�31 P.03�OA
� ltosemount Plan
' Fage 2
.
53/3.8.6 Are there any nonconfonming uses withi.n the Corridor? If so, the City needs to
address Exccutzve Order 79-19 requirements frozn C. 2.E. (3) & (4).
53/3.8.6 Sinee mining and extraetion aze cwrzently �exmitted uses, are fiheze any
e�pectations o�'proposals? If so, the City needs to address policies foz Execative
Order 79�19 C. S. d.. .
54/3.8.7 # 4. The City should be careful and use wording from Executive Ordez 79-19 C.
6. f, to discuss public dedicatian. The City should not narrow the choices to
merely "park dedicafion" for the end result of dedicared lands. �xecutive Ozder
provides for appzopriate rivez&ont access land or other Ian.ds in interest therein,
� Thi,s gives a broad choice of options t�iat will m�zt tlie purposes of the Cozzidor,
instead of a patchwork quilt of small, inappropriate pazks, or automatic refusal of
such dedxcated lands by a City because tY�e� are not optimal parks_ Also, a
developer should only be providi�zg cash in the event of practieal difficulties or
physical unpossibilities. We do agree w-ith the last sentence that if there is cash, it
is to be used for public services within the Corridor.
55/3.8.8 Line 3. This appears to be a propvsed change from the current Critical Area
ordinance. 1�e cwcrent ordiaance requires sxte plans for all buildiz�g pernuts,
zoning approvals, or subdivision approvat; many of thc Critical ArEa requxrements
applicable.to all uses within the Corridor axe dependent on site plan approval.
The Draft Plan i.s now proposing exemption of one single-family dwelli.ng and
certain temporary uses. Temporar�• uses aze not ex�mpt from the site plan
requirements. It would be acceptable to exempt one si.ngfe-famzly dwelling from
the site�lan requirements,but i.£so,then ordina�a�ce reorgaruzation will need to be
imp�emented. A majority of the current ordinance provisior�s pertai.ning to szte
plan approval would need to be "removed from that section" and be independent
and applieabie to all us�s witb,zn the entire Cozrzdor.
55/3.8.9 # 1. What is�aeant by"enhance scenic and envizo�umentally sensitive areas?"
56/3.8.9 # 5. How does "requzring a landscape plan" ensure that additianal bu��eri.ng and
screening will be pzovided for site plans as required by Executivc Qzder? Without
clear palicies, potentially all proposed landscapivag could be on the non-riverward
side of a structure or at tb�e farthest poi.nt o�the lot from the river. �
56/3.8.9 # 6- �ow does the use of "encourage ... to replace..." relate tv the current
ordinance pzovision for restoration of trees, Sec. 9.3 B. 5. i.? •
56/3.8.9 # 8. �e City should eonsidez addi.ng s�ecific po�icxes to protect slopes greater
tban 18°/a foz�pzpes and conveyozs and other river-accessing uses. �11so £oz roads
and utilities as ze£erenced on p. 57,3.8.10,'�1.
Dec 29 '98 19�31 P.04/04 _
. „
� Rosemount Plan
. Page 3
56/3.8.9 The City should also consider additional policies to meet the Critical Area
requirements to:
. minimize direct overland zunoff ,
. improve qua�ity of runoff •
. retention of existing vegetation and landscaping for existing development
57/3.8.I0 Besides tJ�e required site plan requirements a�plicable to roads, the City should
also adopt specific transportation policies to countezact any adverse impacts from
i.mprovements of Highway 55, pine F3end Trail, and Fahey Avez�ue as discussed
on pp. 63 - 64.
5713.8.10 Besides the �equired site plan requirements applicable to railways, specific
transpoztation policies�or expansion of zailways should be added.
Fi�ures 3.8 A - F. Alt maps should be Iabeled "MISSIS5Ipp1 RIV� CT1t1CaI At6aI" in addition to �
"MNRRA Corridor." The symbol in the key should also be labeled the
combination name. Given that tk�is is a Critical Area Plan with associated Critica�
Area Overlay District Ordinance p.rovisions for a requirEd state program, the
labeling sends a mixed �message to the landowner and may Iead to fizrther
confusion over what's zequired vs. voiwoxan, etc. We're happy to be
joined/associated with I�'Il�Rp,,but Critical Azea shouldn't be omitted --we5re a
compound�uord if citi�s voluntarily choose to add�iN�2.RA policies.
Figuze 3. 8 B. & D• .�though generally accurate, based on ouz records, I vvould disagree vsrzth
the de�i,�o�eation of the blu�ine and I8% slopes. These maps sliould be used for
general discussion pwrposes only, and not for any regulatory or implementation
use for sEtback deteimination as implied by the Key in B.. Blufflines should be
determined case-bycase within the site plan approval process via submitted 2 foot
� comtour interval topogxaphy plans for steep areas an.d 10 foot contour intervals
� topagraphy plans far fl.at areas.
Thanac you for the considerat�on of these comments.
cc: Susauo Overson .
Steve Johnson
QPP��J,ENT OF ryF' United States Department of the Interior
Z�,
o �
9
° NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mississippi Nadonal River and Recreation Area
� .y -�-� sA � 195 Fifth Street East,Svite 418.Box 41
,RCH 1 �$ S�Paul,Minnaota 55101-2901
IN REPLY REFER TO: .
L8022(MISS) - 4
December 29, 1998
Dan Rogness, Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
2875-145�' Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068—4997
Informal Review of Citv of Rosemount—2020 Comprehensive Plan for Consistencv with
the Voluntarv Policies of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
Comprehensive ManaQement Plan
Dear Dan:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide informal comments on the City's Draft 2020
Comprehensive Plan Update. I have reviewed the draft plan for consistency with the
voluntary policies of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area's (MNRRA)
Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). The Metropolitan Council and Department of
Natural Resources will comment on consistency of policies with State Critical Area
requirements (Executive Order 79-19).
The City of Rosemount's (City) Comprehensive Plan(Plan) is very well�vritten and
organized and contains many policies consistent with the l�2NRR.A CMP. The land use,
resource protection, open space, and critical area chapters are very good. If the policies
in these chapters had more details, specifically for setbacks, height restrictions, and bluff
protection, the Plan could conform with the l��INRRA CMP (Tier II).
The Plan encourages environmentally sensitive development, open space and trails,
resource protection in industrial areas, and coordination with adjacent communities.
These are all important goals of the 11i1NRRA CMP. One of the more important visions in
the CMP is for a continuous trail and open space corridor in the Twin Cities metropolitan
area connected by the river. The City has made great strides towards achieving this
vision and protecting undeveloped natural areas in the river corridor. It has also played
an active role in planning the trail corridor and coordinating on common issues with
adjacent communities. The City's 1991 Pazk Plan and Development Guide is an
especially good document, as it incorporates policies for resource protection, water
quality,protection of wetlands and shorelands, and for development patterns consistent
with these policies. All of this indicates that the City of Rosemount intends to protect
the river corridor in future development projects.
The following comments are in addition to those provided by the Metropolitan Council
and Department of Natural Resource (DNR),who review and determine if the City's
Critical Area Plan meets the requirements of Executive Order 79-19. The comments
from the National Park Service (NPS) are intended to assist the City with achieving
conformance with the NINRRA CMP. Should the City choose to achieve this level of
conformance, it becomes eligible for National Park Service grants to help implement the
plan. This determination will be made after the DNR deterniines both plans and
ordinances are in conformance with Executive Order 79-19, and the NPS has determined
conformance with the 1��INRR.A CMP.
General Comments
Worksheet A(Existing Land Use) lists zero acres of land within the urban service area
that is restricted for development due to historic preservation. Fiaure 2.1 —A(Historic �
Rosemount) of the Comprehensive Plan�indicates the existence of a Kaposia Sioux �
Village from 1838— 1852. If this, or any other cultural resources exist(i.e. historic sites,
burial grounds, archaeological resources, landscapes), they should be located on a map.
Policy 5 on page 54 is a good start, but should be expanded to include an inventory of
these resources, and incentives for protection. Inventory information is available from
the Minnesota Historical Society.
3.1.5 Industrial—Policy 5 (General Industrial) and Policy 2 (Business Park): The term
"extraordinary setbacks" should be defined. The 1��NRRA CMP recommends a setback
of 100 feet from the bluff face and shoreline areas in the riverfront development zone.
See Riverfront Location Policy 1 on page 16 of the MNRRA CMP.
3.2 MUSA Phasing Plan-Primary Consideration 1: This para�aph indicates that the
Koch Refining Company and the University of Minnesota own over 6,600 acres within
the City. The 1991 Park Plan and Development Guide indicates the University
- independently owns 8,000 acres.
3.8 The title of this section should be"Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor Plan".
The final paragraph on page 45 should indicate that the n�INRRA policies are voluntary
and provide for greater protection of the river corridor and its resources.
On page 46,paragraph 1 —the National Park Service(NPS)provided the funds to assist
the City of Rosemount in the revision of the City's Critical Area Plan . The
Metropolitan Council reviews Critical Area Plans, the Department of Natural Resources
approves plans and ordinances determining their conformance with Executive Order 79—
19 for the State Critical Area Program, and the National Park Service determines if the
City's Critical Area Plan is in conformance with the voluntary policies of the MNRRA
CMP.
The NPS also provided resources and assistance.
3.8.3 Existing Land Use—Paragraph 2: The zoning, shoreland, and floodplain ordinances
are in addition to State Critical Area Program requirements.
Recreation/Public Open Space—It seems the last sentence would be more accurate if it
indicated there are currently no trails or scenic overlooks within the City s Critical Area
as Spring Lake Regional Park(Dakota County) does provide these amenities. The NPS
would be glad to assist the City in identifying additional opportunities for access, trails,
and scenic overlooks (indicated as a need in section 3.8.6).
3.8.7 -Policy 1: The continued economic use and development of the river corridor
should be consistent with the resource protection and open space policies of the plan.
3.8.9—Policy 8 - This policy meets the requirements of the State program,but does not
meet voluntary standards of the MNRRA CMP, which prohibits development on slopes
greater than 12%. Policy 9 would also need to be changed to reflect the 12% slope
requirement and the procedure for controlling and managing development on these slopes
should be clear.
Figures 3.8 A—F: The MNRRA and Critical Area Boundaries are the same, and should
be indicated as such on all maps. Otherwise, I commend the City of Rosemount for their
documentation of resources, slopes, land use, and opportunities for woodland protection
and public access.
National Park Service Su;gestions for the Rosemount Critical Area Plan
Policy statements on the following would be needed for the Rosemount Critical Area
Plan to conform with the MNRR.A CMP. These recommendations are intended to assist
the City reach the goal of Tier II conformance with the CMP. Page numbers reference
the location of policies in the CMP. The numbers correspond with policy numbers on
those pages.
Riverfront Location Policies (Pages 16— 18, n�Il�TRRA CMPI
1. The Rosemount Critical Area Plan recognizes various riverfront protection programs,
including the State Critical Area Program. The policy that addresses the riverfront
area, and defines compatible riverfront uses should meet the criteria on page 17 of the
CNIP.
2. This policy needs to be addressed.
3. This policy needs to include the following language "convert inconsistent riverfront
land uses that are causing adverse effects on the river corridor to consistent uses if
the owners move away."
4
Comdor-wide Location Policies (Pa�e 18,11�INRRA CMPI
The City's Critical Area Plan addresses 1��Il�TRRA policies (Policies 4 and 9).
Site Development Policies (Pages 19—21, MNRR.A CMPI •
1. This policy should be addressed for new industrial development.
2. This policy is only partially addressed. We recognize that many current landowners
do have a buffer between their property and the river. The preservation criteria for
setbacks,height restrictions, and slope is intended for new and expanded
development.
3. The policy for shoreline area preservation and restoration is incomplete. The City's
Critical Area Plan does encourage preserving native vegetation and natural
communities. It should also address the six remaining components of this policy.
4. This policy, and Policy 8, are addressed very well.
5. This policy may not be applicable,but the City should determine if any such
structures exist.
6. This policy may not apply. �
7. This policy is addressed very well.
8. This policy is addressed very well.
9. This policy needs to be addressed.
10. This policy should be addressed for new development.
11. This policy is addressed very well.
12. This policy is not addressed.
13. This policy is addressed, but should have stronger language for protection of rare and
endangered species and their habitats.
14. This policy may not apply,but should be considered for possible protection of Native
American cultural sites (i.e. Kaposia Sioux Village).
15. This policy, and#21, are not addressed.
_, en Space and Trails (Pa�es 24—25, MNRRA CNIPI
All I��INRRA policies are addressed except policies 7 and 8. Policy 8 is addressed,but
does not include language to locate trails "as close to the river as practical".
Commercial Navigation a�e 26.MNRRA CMPI
Policies 2,4, and 6 are not addressed.
Natural Resource Management ases 31-32,MNRRA CMPI
The Critical Area Plan and Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide contain
many good policies for protecting natural areas and resources. In order for these plans to
be in substantial conformance with the 1��INRRA CMP,they should address policies 6, 7,
9, 14, 19, and 22. The City's water quality policies are consistent with the MNRRA
CNiP, and all state and federal programs.
Native Flora and Fauna(Pa�e 33, 1��INRRA CMPI
All policies are addressed except policy 3. Policy 5 is addressed in the plan,but should
incorporate the use of native vegetation in redevelopment projects. Restoration of
wildlife habitat should also be encouraged in new development projects (Policy 2).
Threatened and Endan�ered Species a�e 33, n�INRRA CNIP�
Policy 2 is addressed but should be specifically for the protection of habitat that is of
value to threatened and endangered species.
Floodplains and Wetlands (Pa�e 33,MNRRA CMP�
Policy 2 is addressed. The City's wetland plan should provide for wetland protection and
restoration. .
Cultural Resource ManaQement Paee 34, MNRRA CMP�
The Critical Area Plan and Open Space Plan and Development Guide identify some
specific cultural resources, like the Kaposia Village site, and opportunities for their
protection, interpretation, and economic resource potential. The Plan also identifies a
fann museum as a potential historic site/program opportunity.
To adequately protect the Kaposia Village, and any other sites, from impacts due to
development or inappropriate land uses, I would recommend having policies 2, 3, 6, 7,
and 8 in place. The Rosemount Comprehensive Plan partially addresses Policies 2 and 3.
Policy 6, 7, and 8 are not addressed at all.
I would also encourage the city to call the Minnesota Historical Society(NIIIS)to
determine if there are additional historical resources in the Rosemount critical area
worthy of protection. �
Economic Resource Mana�ement Pa¢es 36—38, 1��1NRRA CMPI
There are eight MNRRA policies in this section. Policies 4 and 15 may not be
applicable. The Critical Area Plan adequately addresses policies 1, 2, 3, and 13. The
City still needs to address policy 5 to "encourage economic investment that preserves and
rehabilitates historic structures", and Policy 16 to "encourage local land use control and
local,regional, and state economic development activities that promote sustainable
development."
\
Visitor ActivitiesNisitor Use(pa�es 38 —41. 1��NRRA CMP�
Policy 4 on page 40 is not addressed (acquisition of railroad rights-of-way).
I appreciate the opportunity to provide informal comments on the City's 2020•
Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions about these comments, or believe that .
some of the MNRRA policies may not be pertinent in Rosemount, please call me at 651-
290-4160 ext. 225. I look forward to continuing to work with the City to develop
policies that protect the river corridor.
Sincerely,
� _
Susan Overson �
Cc: Sandra Pinel, Metropolitan Council
Sandy Fecht,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Penny Simison, Community Planner
FEE-1E-1999 0�:56 SCHERER BROS. 612 627 �838 P.02i0�
�,;a• ,„�,,;,
�o�itrr�ctoyProperty.�e�vcla�e�s Co�np��ry�� �.
February 15,.1999
The Honorable Cathy Busho, Mayar, and Members of the City Council
City of Rosemount
2875 145'h Street W.
Rosemaunt, MN 55068
Re: Kelley Trust�raperty .
Dear Mayor 8usho,and Council Members,
Contractor Property pevelapers Company, Scheree Bros. Lumber Co, and their respective
managements take a great deaf af pride in the high quality af the communEties and neighborhaods
we have developed and we point ta the strong level of corporate lntegrity that went into those
projects. The basis of that project qu�lity has historically cbmmenced wifh the fostering of a
strong and mutu�lly trusting relationship with City staff,Council and advisory commissions. Thus,
we are most concerned by unfortunate and inaccurate comments made by Council Members tast
Thursday evening which impugned our integrity and veracity. It is clear that we don't seem ta
have accomplishe� this very imporEant basis in the development process. 1 want te assure the
Council that vur ab5olute goal with the Kelley property is the creation of a community which we a{I
will take pride in. To that end,our pledge to you is to work closely and coltaboratively throughout
the planning and approval process. Unwarranted negative and inaccurate statements from either
side in the public fQrum will do nothing to further our mutual frust and goals for the Kelley site.
To set the record straight from our perspective, I would Iike tp take this opportunity to address a
number of issues raised at the workshap for which time did not allow our response.
1. Concept Plan Anplication. Our.application was made in close consultation with and at the
request of staff. My faflure to mention it at a prior meeting and in individuaf conversations was
based on the assumption that you had been provided a copy of the application and our detailed
project narrative cover letter. .As you will recall,Tom Burt discussed the application at yaur
meeting of February 2"d. We were prepared then and are prepared naw td discuss any facet of
the application with any of you at your request.
�ur concept plan application was not some attempt ta circumvent the process. Rather, it
was a legitimate attenzpt to begin moving forward in that proeess. We are also very concemed
that the"60 day rule"is now driving the process. It is aur.opinion that this Fapplication, because of
its use as a planning toof and not as an application for rezoning ar final PUD approval is not
subject to the 60 day rule. !f the City believes that the 60 day rule does apply in this case,we�re
prepared to offer extensions ar waivers to the City so that good planning continues to be the
driving force behind our proposal.
2. Colp�rehensive Plan Amendment. W�based our concept�plan on the 1993 Comp Plan
as a result of discussians with staff. We did knaw that changes were possible in the Comp Plan
�11U B3�d rlvente�r �No�7.b,
b'�ruvklyn PuTI.•, R•1.�' >S-F�i
G2�-OS23 •Firx h27-O,S'7'J
FEB-16-155y 09�56 SCHERER BROS. b12 627 0838 P.03iO3
but we felt strongty that we needed to piace our vision for the property in front of the Council
during the Comp Plan Amendment discussibns. We ar�very c�ncemed that net densities and
unit counts have ascended to the top of Camp Ptan Amendment criteria rather than sensitive,
market responsive land pianning. We would submit to you that incQrporating maximum housing
unit counts without regard to many other key planning factors and influences does not guaranty
the quality that both the City and the Developer desire for the Kelley Property. On the c�ntrary, it
will cause stifled and rigid planning. This, ultimateiy,wil[lead td neighbbrhoods which may offer
some benefit to a select few on their perimeters but which will not affer the quality and the
creativity of a performance based Comp Plan to our new residents and the residents of the entire
City. We urge your reconsideration of this issue as you proceed with the Amendment.
We have, at this juncture, a wfndow of uncompromised opportunity to jointly create a master-
planned community which cou(d beCome R�semount's crown jewef. It is imperative to the ultimate
success of this community that you put aside the issue of moratorium and allow the process to
move ahead naw_ A moratorium will irretrievably close that window. We have heard your vision
for the properry and have instructed our planners and enginaers to proceed immediatefy with the
transfer af that vision fram wards to plan in order for both of us to mutually assess the positive and
negative impacts such a plan wili present. We believe.that together we can join�y crsft a land
pian which addresses your concerns while looking beypnd the strict imptementation of rigid
number counts. The Kelley property and the City of Rosemount deserve no less.
$incerely,
��G�� GCC,Gc.�+ .T
Homer H. Tompkins Ill
President
cc: Hampton O'Neill
TOTAL P.@��
FEE}1� 99 17:06 FROM: T0:1 612 4z3 5203 PAGE:0��1=
1Vletropolitan Ct�uncil
Working for ihe Region, Planning for the Future
February l l, 1999 '
Mr.Dan 1�Ugne5S
Communiry Development Director
Ciry af Rosemount
2875 -- 145th Street West
Rosemount,MN 55068-4497
RE: City of Rosemount
lnform�l revlew of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan
Metropolitan Council District No. l6
Metropblitan Council RefeYral'File No. 16922-1
T�ear Iv1r. Rogness:
On T�`ovember 24, 199R,you requested th.at Nlecropolitan Council steff review the ciry of
Kosemaunt's comprehensive plan dated November 1998 to determine whether it meets the
Metropalitan Land Planning Act requirements for the 199$plan update.
pur staffinformally reviewed the plan for conformity with the regianal system pians, as well ns
for consistency with the Regiorra!Blueprint and other chapters of the Me�opolitan Development
Guide_ Lastly, wc compared the ptan with our Lacal Planning Handbook,which outlines plan
content requirements. The following commenCs are affered.
, Re lonal S1ue rint
Land Use—Penelope Simison,principa] reviewer, b51/698-1151
The key issue for the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS)in[he Regionc�l Blueprint iS guiding
growth in the metropolitan area so that a number of objectives are reached. The objectives,
discussed on pp. 43-4b QfkhE Regional Blueprint,include,for example,coordinating the timing,
location and capaciry of rebional facilities with new development, using land efficiently,
prolecting naturai resources and mnnaging the debt burden for re�ional facilities. To accomplish
this, the Counc;'tl has prepared regional growth forecasks to 2020 and growch forecasts £or each
community within the regiun. The strategies used by communities far meeting their individual
furecasts will enable the region to achieve the objectives in the Regional Growth Str�tegy.
"1'1ie Re�ional Growth Strategy identifies three policy areas within Rosemount, including the
Urban Area, the Urban Reserv�and the Urban Staging Area(the Illustracive 20202 MUSA).
RREA COOE CHANGES T�651 IN JULY, 1998
230 S:+ec Fklh���ce� Se.Peul.Mirtnce;oia 55►0�-1d28 (812i 602•1000 Fax602•1550 'fUD/TtY 291-09�� Metro Info Llne 602-iis88
M 2qun(OpportunitN 6mptoy�a
FE�-12 99 17:07 FR�M: T0:1 612 423 5203 PAGE:�3%1^
in the Urban Area, which includes the southwest section af Rosemuunt, the Council's goal is
c�ntinued urban scale development that emphasizes infill �nd is eonsiscent with staged local
comprehensive plans and the capacsty of regional systems. Residential dersities in new
developments would average three units per acre overall or becter, to aceammodace the Cuuncil's
2020 forec�sts and to eneourage compact developmeni.
[n thz Urban 5ta ig ng r�rea,rcpresented by Che Illustrative 2020 M�(JSA,the Council'S goal is
staged urban development that accommodates the 2020 foreeasts so that land and the capacities
of regional systems,both existing and planned,can b�used most efficiently during the ?0-year
Span of the comprehen5ive plan. New housing would be developed dt an overall denSiCy of l'hree
units per acre or better,to aehieve more compact deveiopmenC. The Regional Growth Strategy
dcsignates a portion of thc city to be planned within thc 2020 MLlSA.
Tltie remainder of the city, which is outside the 2024 MUSA, is in thc Urbsn Reservt. In th�
tJrban Res�rve, the Council's goal is a post-2020 holding zone for future urban sewer service and
urban develapment through 2040. Residenti�l densities should not exceed one unit for evEty 40
acres and 6host-platting wouid be averlaid or►any large lot development and be tied t�a capital
improvement program. l�ensities greater than one unit for every a�acrey would be ac:ceptable if
development is clustered. Clusters are to be connected ta sewers when a�'aitable and desigT►ed
wi[h the dedi�ation pf fuCure utiliry and infrastructure easements.
Ft�recasts:
Forecasts of population,households and employment are prepared to facifitate planning for futurt
�;rowrth in the region and in individual communities. The Council's fortcasts, dated May 1998,
serve as an initi�l targi:t to eneourage communities to acc�mmodate additional development. Thc
most recent forecasts prepared by the Council nnd those af the city of Rosemount folluw:
Council Forecast�
1990 1995 2Q00 2010 2020
Population 8,622 11,721 14,400 23,60Q 33,904
Households 2,7�9 3,783 4,$00 $:500 12,500
Employment 4,114 5,345 6,800 8,30Q 9,900
Forecasts In Draft City Plan
1990 1995 2000 ZO10 2020
Population 8,622 1 t,721 14,25U 18,600 25,500
Househotds 2,779 3,783 4,73� 6,830 9,3$0
Frnployment 4,11� 5,34� 6,840 8,300 9,900
An analysis of the ciry's plan indicates there ar� substantial differenees bztween the Couneil's
forecasts of households and those in the city's draft plan. The following tablc dcmonstrAtes that
the ciry's farecasts of households are substantially lower than the Council's forecasts.
,
FEB-12 99 17:07 FRDM: T0:1 612 4c� ��03 PAGE:�4�`1.=
Hoosehold Forecasts �
Shortfall in City Forecasts Compared ta Council Farecasts
200o za�o �020
Households Minus 65 minus 1,670 minus 3,120
[n addition, the city's proposed MUSA expansion is 330 acres less than what is naeded to
accommodate the city's 2020 forecast of 9,380 households,which means the ciry's platt likely
wi11 accommodate a�least 1,000 fewer houschalds than the Council's forecasts,assuming an
oves'all density of dt least three units per acre or better.
MUSA Ex ansion/Urban Sta rin Area:
1-he C�ty's pl�n defit7es the fulluwing acrcage within the urban service area:
• 1,175 acres in the existin�M[1SA.
• 465 acres previously approved for MUSA expan5ion(ta be used prior to 2010).
. 330 acres sought,but not designated, f4r MUSA expansion(proposed for use 2010-
2020).
Several issues related to MUSA�xpansion and the LJrban Staging Arefl are discussed below.
. They are:
t_ Staging increments
2, The propascd Rural Residential and Transition Residential districCs
3. The definition of densiry
4. The impact of these issues on the Couneil's forecasts and[he city's forecasts.
1. Staging ineremenCs. 'I�►e city plan assumes a staging of MUSA expansion in 10-year
inerements. A map oF"MUSA Phasing Areas"d�picts thc staging of proposed MUSA expansion
in 10-yEar increments. There are two issues r�lated to the city's proposed MUSA expansion. It
is Cauncil policy (Lvca!Planning Handboak,p. 3.5)that staging of MtJSA expansion be in Fve-
yEar ineremen[s, so th�t orderly and economic development of regional systems ean occur and
potential irnpacts on region�l systems, such as sewers and highways,can be evaluated. In
addition, neith�r the MUSA phasing map nor the accomponying tables irdicate the iaeations and
intansities of exisCin and rp OnOsed land uses in the area proposed fOr MUSA expan5ion, �S
cAll�;d for in Che Loca!Plunning Handbook,p. 3.5.
2, The proposed Rural ltesidential and Transition Residential distriets. An anfllysis di the city's
pldn indicates that the eiry Y►as four proposed residential districts,two of which are reiated to the
issues of th� forecasts and MUSA expansion.
Twp proposed residential districts that will impact the Council's policies for achieving orderly
rc};ional growth are Rural Residential and Transition Residential.
The Rural Rcsidential di�trict is proposed at a densiry of one unit p�r five acres and a minimum
lot siu of 2.5 acres_ The lransition Residentia) district(TRD) is proposed at:�n avera�e density
of 2.4 units per acre for single-family detached dwellings and 5.8 units for single-family attached
dweilin�s_ The uverail densiry of the Transition Rosidential district is not speciticafly called out;
it is only noted that the density would be tess than that of Urban Residential, which is 2-6 units
per acre. The Rural Residential and portions of the Transition Residential districts ar�not
3
FEB=12 99 17:05 FROM: T0:1 612 423 52�3 PA�E:�S%1�
included within the ciry's proposed 2020 MUSA. The designation of thtse areas prevents the
expansion of the MUSt\so as to aCcommodate the Council's 20Z0 forecasts of households.
Developmcnt at these dCnsities outside the proposed MUSA without ghost-platting and clustering
will prevent future urbanizatian at three units per acre or better when szwers and other urban
services are available. Development in the TRD within the MUSA where sewers wi11 be
availabte should achieve n density that will assist the ciry in achieving the overall derisity of three
units per acre or better.
(This discussiuc� of MiJSA expnnsion is not applieable to the other t�vo residential districts,
Urban Residential and High Density Residential. The Urban Residen[ial distnCt, within Ihe
MUSA,pr�poses densities of 2.4 units/acre for single-family detached dwellin�s and �.$
units/acre for single-family attached dwcllings. The High Density Residentiai district, also w�thin
the �1�IUSA,pr�poses ar►average density of lU unitslacrz.)
3. The detinition of net density. An expianation of how net density is calculated in the draft city
plan would be helpful itt analyzing its plan for growth and its forecasts,compared to the
Council's forecasts. The plan does not detinc net densiry and what features are exciuded'from
grass density figures to achieve net density figures. To understand if the c+ry's proposed density
of 2.9 units per acre(p. 3Q)on new development is con5istent wi�h the Council's stan�ard of a
mi.nimum of 3 units per acre on new dev�lopment,it is ntcessary that the draf�city plan define
net density-
Density, As define3 by the Council,is the tot�l land area,minus the following features--
hi�hways with ri�;hts-of-way 200 feet or�reater; wetlands,NURP ponds and lakes;parks; lands
pcotected by local ordinance, sueh as wpoded areas and slopes. Local streets and alleys are not
subtracted from the total land use. (Attached is a workshtet describing density c�leulatidrts, as
defined by the Council.)
�. Th� impaCts on the Councii's forecasts and the ciry's forecasts. To summarize,an analysis of
the city's proposal for the Urban Staging area and MUSA expansior indicates that new
r�sidential development wi11 not be at a si�e or scale to meet either the Council's regional
forecas[s or the eity's forecasts. Bath the Couneil's and the city's foreeasts depend on having
suffieient acr�age within the M[JSA. However, insufficient aereage is desigrtated in the city's
plan to mee�either forecast. The ciry's 2020 forecasts are more than 3,000 households less than
lhe Council's 2020 forecasts. In addition,the city's p]an does not designate 330 dcres within the
proposed MUSA that we believe necessary to meet its forecasts. New residential development in
thc Ruc•a1 Residential and 7ransition Residentisl districts w�u1d not be within the M'(.15A and
� w•ould bc at densities that d:re an impediment ta urban scale development that is needed to achieve
the objectives of the Regional Growth St�'ateg}r. See attached map.
Urban Reserve:
Lan� aesignatcd in the Regional Growttt Strategy for the Urban Reserve is proposed in the ciry
plan for Rural Residential and Agriculture uses.
��z Council's policies for the Urban Reserve include the following:
• rc3identiul densities chat do not exceed one unit per 40 acres
• develvpment a�densities exceeding one unit per 40 acres sh4uld be ClustereJ
• ghost platting should be overlaid on any large lot der•elopment and tied to a capital
impravement program.
FEB�12 99 17:08 FROM: T0:1 612 4�3 5203 PA�E:�G-1.�
'L'he city's plan iricludes a policy resrricting residential development to one unit per 40 acres in
the agriculture district. �iowever, the plan does not include policies fur either the l�ural
Residential ur Agriculture districts thaC require ghost platting ar clustering so as to allow for
urhan servi�es and urban scale development in the years beyond 2020. Tnstead,the scale and siz�
of�ievelopment that would be permitted,under the city's p.ian, in the Rural Residential district
would be an impedimer►t to urban scale development and urban service extensions following
2020.
Conclusion Re ardsn Issues of MTJSA Ex ansiott and fJrban Sta in►:
The city's plan, as proposed, is inconsistent with the policies in the Regional Growth Strategy
and would represent a substaniial departure from the Weter Resources Management Plan. It i3
notc:d that a substantial departure &om these plans, if not satisfactorily resolved,would campel
the Council to seek a modification of the city's plan.'Ihe eity is served by two metropalitan
interceptors and the Empire and Wastewater treatment plants. The draft plan doc;s not allow for
the effective usc af land and efficient use of the metropoliwn disposal systcm. The policy plan
says" -.. tin,ing and density of develapment which is inconsistent with the Blueprint and which
would affict the cost of providing sewer service will be�iew�d as a departure from, or h�vin� a
substantial impact on the metropulitan wastewatcr system."
Suhregional Impacts
In addition to the impacts on the regional systems and the Regional Growth Strategy, the city's
plan has impatCs on the subregion. Rosemount is in south eentral Dako[a County, m a subreb*ion
whiCh also includes Inver Grove�iei�hts,Eagan, P�pple V�lley,Farmington,as well as Empirt,
Vermillion and Ninin�eY Townships.
The key faetor in Rosemount's not achievirfg the Council's regional ,rowth forecasts is the
exclusion of the northwest area of the ciry from its 2020 Ml1SA. This area is in the C�uncil's
Urban Staging Area,with standards for urban services and staged urban developmcnt. By
exc;luding this 2.rea from th�city's proposed 2020 MUSA,and by permitting rural estate
development without pratections that woutd allow post-2020 urban density development, funire
urban senices and urban scale development consistent with the Resional Growth Strategy will
not be possible.
As autlined above,the city's forecasts for new households within its proposcd MUSA thus,are
substantially lower than thase of the Councit. The difference is approxirnately 3,A00 households
during the 20-year Qlanning period. If the 33U acres sought for the MUSA in 2010-2020,but not
desigtt�ted in the City's plan, are considercd,thcn thc number of househ�lds would rise to
approximately 4.400.
One result of lh�sc policies is ihat growth anticipated in this suhregion will spill intU Other
communities. Future urban scale development which cannot be accc�mmodated in Rosemount
.vill put pressure on the next rin;of communities,including the permanenc agricultural areas in
I�Iininger, Verrr,illion and Empire Tdwnships, where there are no plans for mctropolitan sewers
and highw�ys. Urbxn scale development in these areas would mean the loss of more than 1,30�
acres��f land designated for permanent agriculturc. Additionally, if che 4,000 households spill
over into thc Empire WWTP sewer service �rea,the premature cxpansion of the Empire WWTP
could re$ult.
5
FEB=12 9'� 17:�9 FR�M: T0:1 612 423 520� PaGE:�� 1�
One Appraach for Achieving the Council's Foreeasts of Households:
There are two factors which are key to achi�vittg the Council's farecasts, including the amount of
land proposed in the city plan for the 2024 M[JSA and thc development scrategy for that land.
The city's pian proposes insufficient acreage for urb�n scale development to 2020. Land that is
ir,cluded in the Urban Staging Area,designaCed for Rural itesidentia] and Tr�nsition Residential,
is proposed for densities and a pattern of de�elopment that precludes future urban scalz
development at an overall density of thrCe units per acrc ur better.
Includir.g aSl ur some of this land within the 2020 MiJSA, with development staged in five-year
incremrnts at densities consistent with urban scale development,would enable thc:Ciry to achieve
Cht Coun�il's f�recasts so that the objectives of the Regional Growrth Strate};y can be met.
Additional information is needed in the city's plan so ihat the spe�ifie numbers of units that could
be developed in the northwest area of the city prior to 2020 can be determined_
Fur the Transition Residential distriet,the Ci[y plan proposes policies to allo�v clustering of new
di:velopment. An illu5tration of how this could be accomplished is provided in Figure 3.3-�I.
Th� city's plan also includEs policies to proteet such natural feah►res as v�,'etlands,woodlands and
, steep slo�es in this district. However,data or maps that quar►tify these natural features are not
provided. The exception is a map showing the location of wetl�nds within the city.
To calculate the numbers of dwellin� units that could be developed in the 7ransition Residential
district, it is necessary to include infarmation about the natura!en�lronment flnd deterntine tre
l�cation and amount of devetopable land for clustered housing derelapment. Becausc this
district is within the NfCJSA, and is proposed for sewers in the future, it is expected that new
housing can ultimately be developed at an avErage of three units per acre or better.
In the Rural Residential dis�-ict, the 2020 proposed land use map depicts an area s�auth of Couttty
Road 38�vhere the development pattern is somewhat established,with both smaller and targe
parcels. However, the developmettt pattem is not similarly established in other parts o�this
district that is also designattd for the Llrban Stagins Area. Thesa areas are north of County Road
38,both rast and west uf Flighway 3. Implementation of fLural Residential densities in these
areas would be a substsntial departure from the Regional Growth Strategy and would be an
impediment to future urban scale development.
Similarly to the Transition Residcntial district,the city's plan includes Rural Residential policies
to prutect natural features and allow clustering of new development. Determining the number of
units that could be developed, to 2020, in this area,it is ncccssary to quantify the amount of land
that could be availabl� for development at densities that would enable the ciry to Achieve the
Couneil's f�recasts or would not preclude urban scale development beyond 2020.
Housin Mix:
The mix of single-family and multiple-family housing units in the city plan dae�nd landcct the
palieies in the Regional Growth Strategy for using regional systems effectively
efticiently.
The follawing table describes the existing housing mix,the prop�sal in the city's plan �nd the
Council's assumption. Yh� Council's assumptions on the mix of single-family and multiple-
family housing are designed to reflect the acreage that was built into the Courcil's foreca5ts of
6
FE2-12 99 17:10 FROM: T0:1 612 �23 52�3 P�GE:�`; '1.=
future grow�th and the necessity of providing life-cycie housinb. This table should also be
compared to the table in the Housing section of this letter, regarding the city's housing goals
under the Livable Communities Act.
Existing Council Future
Conditions Assumptions Growth �
Housing l�iix
Single-family 82 pereent b2 percent 75 percerit
Multiple-family 18 percent 38 percent 25 percent
Density
5ingle-family 2.3 DU/A
Multiple-family 10 DU/A
The Council's established a tarbet density of an average of a minimum of three units per�cre on
new• residentia) development so that objectives of the Regional Cxrowth Strategy could be
achieved. '
I�owever, the ciry's plan proposes a density of 29 units per acre on new development. While it
eould be argued that the differen.ce between the Council's carget and the city's proposed den5iry
may be slightly ineremental, other elements in the city'S plan-- for example, amount of aCreage
proposed for MUSA expansion and densities in individual residential districts -- are an
impediment to aehieving the Council's forecasts and to planning for urban scale development tc�
2020 and beyond.
Housing—Guy Peterson—651/602-1418
Th� ciry has not cornmunicated to the Council a�y intention or desire to renebotiate its Livable
CommunitieS Act(tCA.)affordable and lifc-cycl�housing goals. If the city did so and proposed
the revised LCA goals in the draft plan--v�rhich differ dramatically from the communiry's
benchmarks -- staff would reeommend the Council not accept them. The"Revised Goals" in the
city's plan for multiple-family housing, owner/renter mix and multiple-family density are
substantially below thc benchm�rk or prevailing nornt for Rosemount and its Dal.ota County
neighbors to be acctptable to the Council.
This anal.�sis is based on Figure3.3-F,on p. 34 of the draft city plan,as follows:
Goal�in Drs�ft
Bcnchmark LCA Goals Plun
Affordability
Owne[Ship 69 - 70"/0 69°/u 69°/u
Rerital 35 -40% 35 % �5 %
69 Life-Cycle
Mulnple-Family Units 35%/38 % 35 % 25 %
OwnerlRenter Mix 72%/2$ % 75I25 % 80%/20%
llensity
Single-family 2.0 DU/A 1.9 DU/A 2.4 L7U/A
Multiple-family 10.4 DU/A 10 DU/A 6.5 DU/A
�
FEB'1� 99 17: 1� FROM: T0:1 612 4�3 52�3 PA�E:�'�• 1'
The l�ietropolitan Land Planning Act (LPA)�nd the Council's poliey eall for MUSA
communities to plar► for affardable and tife-cycle housing oppartunities. The LPA directs that
communities prepare a land use ptan that includes a"housinb element containing standards,
plans, programs for providing adequate hdusing opportunities to meet existing and projected locat
and regional nccds, including but not limited to the use of official contcols and lana u��plannin6
to promote the availability of land far development of low- land maderate-income housing.'
Furthermore,the LPA requires that the comprehensiv� plan include an implementation program
describing the "public programs, fiscai devices and other specifie actions"to implement the plan,
"including official controls to impiemcnt tht housing clement. . . ,which will provide sufficitnt
existing and ne�v housing to meet the local unit's share of the metropolitan ares need for low-and
moderate-incame housing." The Regiona!Blueprint says"`the Cauncil will w�ork with iocal
comntunities in a partnership ta meet the r�ng�of housing needs of people of various lif�:-cycle
st�ges; broaden locational choice and access throughout the region for people of all income
levels; and support use of public funds to help achieve these goals. Ttte Council w�ll use the state
Livable Communities Act to further this gdal." .
The Council's position is that benehmark levels are the closest representation of a city's share. .
Thoug�i it is possible to havZ goals that are tower than the b�nchmarks,the"Revised Guals"
, suggested in the city's pian differ substantially from the benchmarks. In addition,the plan does
nqt sct forth the ofticial controls,program5 and fiscal devices to be used in Rosemount to achieve
its affardable housing goals as required by the LPA. Tf the:ciry chooses, it may specitically
reference the Dakata County Gluster LCA Action Plan as the delineation of the hou�ing programs
servin�c.ommunity residents. 1-Tow�ever,the Action Plan does n4t address how local ofticial
controls in RosemounC will be used to further affordable and life-cycle housing goals.
If nc�t amended, Council staff will rzcommend that the housing clement be found to not meet the
h�using planning requirements set forth in the�,PA. �
Re�ianal Systems
Comments on the conformity of the ptan with the regional system plans are included in this
section. .
A. Water Resources Management
1'his saction addresses issues regarding the impact of the plan on (1)wastewater, (2)water
quality �nd (3)water supply. A review of the plan indicates the following:
Wastewater: Donald$luhrn—651/602-1 l 16
Metropolitan sanitary sewer service is provided to the city through interceptors MSB 7112 and
i�iSII 7203, which convey the city's wastewater to the Rosemount and Empire Wastewater
"Ircatment Plants,respectively, f�r treatment. 1'he city's future sewered development will be
served via these two interceptors. '1'he plan does not conform ta the Council's V1later Resources
Management Policy Plan, sinee the city prapuses to develop a majar portion of the Urban
Reserv� as Rural Residential. This does not allow for the effective use uf land and the efticient
use of the metropolitan disposal system. The Council's forCcasts are apprvximately 3,000
iiouseholds mart than thosc of the ciry. The city cnuld aehieve the Couneil's forecasts based on
thc t;�rgeted density of thrcc units per acre. The poticy plan says". . . timing and dcnsity af
development which is inconsistent with the Blueprint and which would affcct the cost of
B
FEE-12 59 17:11 FROM: T0:1 612 4�3 5c03 PH�E:1E 1�
providing sewer strvice will be viewed as a departure from,or having a substantial impact on th�
metropolitan wastewater system." Since the city propas�s to develop the land�C a densiry of
few�r than three units per acre,ihe plan represents a departure from the regional wastewater
policy plan.
In aadition,the following teehnical commeY►ts are:
• The city plan should include a map of the existing and proposed sanitary sewer system .
that depicts connections to the inCet'ceptors and staging at five-ye�r inerements. The map,
and accompanying text, should deseribe intercomrnunity�onnections and any Froposed
chanbes in boundaries.
• The eiry plan should ineluc�e projecCed flpws �or the entire eity and for eaeh eunnection
point to the metrupolitan sewer system. These projections should be made aruzually for
the firsC five years and in ftve-year increments thereafter, th,rough 20?0. The
mothodolagy for calculatsng these flows and the assumptions used should be detailed in
the text.
Water Supply and Water Quality—Jack�'rost—Fi51/602-1078
r • T�e city plan should inelude a description of its approved manabement program for on-
site sewage treatmetit. The policies governing the managemrnt pro�•am should be ii� the
� ciry plan.
• "Ihe city has previously submitted itt loeal surface water manag�ment plan and its water
supply plan,and the Council has previously commented on each plan. These plans are
included in the city plan by reference.
B. Transportation—Kevin Roggenbuek—G51/602-1728
This section addresses such issues as (t)traffic and its relatiunship to planned land uses, (2)
propdscd improvements to the network of roads and (3)impacts of planned land uses on transit .
facilities and strategies. A review of the plan indicates Che following:
• The population and household forecasts for 302Q are well below the forecasts prepared
by the Council. If the city revises its forecasts to be in line with those ot the Council,
addi�ional analysis of the associated transportation impacts witl be needed.
� The Council expects the city to adopt the recommendation of the comdor studies for
County 17oad 42 and Trunk Highway 52. Work on both studies is underway; specific
improvement projects for Rosemount are expected to be included in the compteted
studies. If the studies are completed prior to the adaption of the city's eomprehensive
plan, these improvements shouid be included in the comprehensive plan.
C. Aviatlon—Chaurtcey Case—6S1/6Q2-1724 �
'1�his section aadresses issues regarding [he relationship of the city's ptan co chc airports in the
region. A tzview of thi;plan indicaCes the following;
The plan is c�mplete for review.
D. Recreation Open Space— Phyllis Hanson—6>1/602-156fi
This section addres5es issues rebarding the impact of the plan on parks and other open space. A�
review of the plan indicatcs the following:
?he comprehensive plan is complete for review, with the following techniCal comments
regardin� the two regional rcereation open space faeilities in Rosem«unt-- Spring Lal.e Fark
Reserve and Dakota Counry Mississippi River Regional Trail (southern segment):
9
FEB-12 9� 17:11 FROM: T0:1 612 423 5203 PA�E:11�1'
• A master plan far Spring Lake Park Reservt has bCc'n �pproved by the Me�rupolitan
Council, but acquisition of land within the apprQved baundaries has not been completed.
When acquisition has been compteted, Dakota Counry may amend the master plan.
• The Dak4ta Counry Mississippi River Regional Trail is showr� on Figure 3.8-r_
Currently, Dakota County has not submitted to the Metropotitan Council a master plan
for this regional trail. 1fie city of Rosemount and Dakota County should cuore�inate the
m�ster plan for this trail, including, as needed, acquisition needs, development, operation,
maintenance and joint powers agreements.
Implcmentation Program—Penelope Simison—651/698-1151
Capital lmprovemenC Program (CIP). Minn. Stat.�73.$59 requires that camprehensive plans
include a CTP for transportation, sewers, parks,water supply and open space facilities. The
content of a CTP is defined in Minn_ Stat. 473.852 (4). Two comments are noted, as follows:
� The city plan 'ttteludes a paliey to update such"to4ls"as zoning and subdivisian
ordinances. In addition, the policy shbuld speeifically state that loeal conrrols will be
rc:vised tp be consistent with the adopted eomprehensive ptan update.
+ The plan does not set forth the official cantrals, program5 and fis�al �ievices ta be us�d
by the city to achieve its affordable housing goals as required by the I.pA.
Vlississippi River Critical Are�—Sandxa Pinel—651/602-1513
The e�stern portidn of Rosemount is v��ithin the state designated Critical Area. That desi�;mation
was made permanent in 1979 and the same area was desigrtated in 1988 as part of the Mississippi
National.River and Recreation Area(MNRRA) for muttiple eeonomie, r�creational,aesthetic ancl
environmental purpos�s.
Befare plans for the Critic�l Area ean be put into effect,the Mctropolitan Council reviews and
the Department of Natural Resources approves]ocal plans and ordinances for eonsi�teney with
minimum st:�te standards and buidclinas for protectiun of aesthetic and natural resources
containtd in Executive Order 79-19. Under a cooperative agreement with the I�Yationa) P�rk
Serviee, the Metropolitan Council also revizws plans for eonsistency with the additional
voluntary resource protection policies contained in the 1995 MNRRA plan_ The proposed
Critica( Area plan chapter updates the 1991-appr4ved Park Plan dnd Development Guide. We
apprzciate the opporiunity to review the plan informally and suggest changes before it is
finalized.
:1�Iost of thc Critical Area in thc �iry of Rosemount is planned for indusrrial expansion, City
policies for that expansion are very important to preserving open space,bluffs, habitats,water
yualiry, recreational aeeess and views ta and from the river. Qverail, the city's Criticat Area pl3n
is well presented. Tt includes excell�nt maps, inventories of sensitive rzsources and information
on current land use. The land use policies begin �o address most state Critical Arta standards ana
it a�ldresses many of Che additionat voluntary MNRRq policies for trails�nd resource protection,
A few of the state standards were not addressed and some need to be streng[hened b�fore the pian
is finalized_ These are unly summarized below. Ms. Pinc:i is avflilable to zxplsin these
suggestions, with reference to e;orrespondence from the National Park Service,durin�a work
session.
ia
FEB+12 59 17:12 FROM: T0:1 612 423 52�3 PH�E:1� 'i.=
Tttc�se state standards are:
• Discuss how proposed industrial, eommercial attd residential uses relate to the guicielines
fur the urban diversi fied and rural open sp�ee district. Inelude the poticies and review
criteria for expansion of industrial or ather uses Co ensure protection of earridor resources
and visual qualiry and considerati4n for uses requiring water access. Criteria £or
required landscaping plans and site plan revicw should address buffering, screening,
minimizing and improving the quality of runoff.
� Provisions to minimize the impact of potential minins, extraction or other+ncompatible
uses, including water qu3lity impact5 from these uses. Policies to retain vegetation
within existing uses.
. Prugrams to protect undeveloped islands and prevent beach and riverbank erosion and
clarificatior of dedication requirements.
+ Transportation and public utility planriing and design considerations,consistent with
Exeeutive Order seetion C.7 for raads,railroads,pipes, conveyors and u[her facilities for
river access.
+ Capital improvement prob*ram for all publie projects�o be�ited in the corridor.
The plan is generally consistent with the MN[�R-A plan and includes some excellent policies for
open space, trail�, resource and habitaC protection in d�velopment areas, and intergovernmenta!
coordination. Given thc primarily naturai state of the shoreline in Rosemount and the�ity's
commitment to prescrvation, we eneourage the city to add the remaining detail ntcessary for the
pl�n to be certified by the National Park Service as eligible for federal impltmentarion assistance.
'TY►e attach�d letter iiom the National Park Service lists the MNRRA plan policies that are already
acidressed�nd those that should be addressed for plfln certtfteation. Some policies may not apply
to thc �iry. Susan Overson at the MI�TRRA office is available to meet with Che ciry and discuss
any concerns or questions regarding thc MNRRA plan and t�assist the city with trail and open
space planning(290-4160, Ext. 225). �
Somc additional detail should be added ta address MNRRA pulicy areas:
• Riverfront location and shdreline proteetion polieies,including a con,mirmznt to convert
inconsistent riverfront land uses that area causing advcrse effects to consistent uses if the
owners move away.
• Within site devclopment policies, se�back and height resh'ictions and habitat and wetland
restoration policies should be included.'For MNRRA, slopes greater than 12% should
he proteCted.
• _ Econdmic investment palicies that acknowledge river-dependent uses and encourage
sust�inable devel��pment and preservation or use of histunc resources. Polici�s
boverning barge facility txpansions and commercia! navigation.
• Within opcn space pblicies,add support for use of abandoned railrofld rights of�way and
protcction of sensitive resaurces in the Pine Bend including the praposed woodland
preservation area and measures to increase connections to the river for the public.
• Gultural resuurce prutection measures and additianal inven[ory intormation for Kaposia
village and other sites that may be on fil�at the 5tate Fiistoric Preservation Oftice.
The MelT4politan Council commends the city For a very readable Cricical Arca plan. !n
000peracion with DMt and the National Park Service, we look farward to w�rking with you on
final revisic�ns s��that the plan is approved by DNR and possibly certitie�!by the National Park
Servic�.
ii
FEB.12 9� 17:13 FROM: T0:1 612 4�3 52�3 PH�E:1? 1.�
I.astly, a comment about tabtes and figures included in the draft plan. These should be
number�d, and a list of each,with page numbers, shoutd be included in the table of contents.
Council staff would welcome the opportunity to discu�s these issues with the ciry, including staff
and elected officials.
Sincerely,
: � �.�
�GG/�'zL��-- ��t7'�L�?�
Richard E.Thampson
Supervisor,Comprehensive Planning
c: Terrence�'.Flower,Metropolitan Council Representative, District 16
Thomas C. McElveen,Director of Housing and Lacal Assistance
Carl 5ch�nk,Metropolitan Council, Sector Representative
Y7onald Bluhrn,Environmental Services
Sandra Pinel,Planner
�z