HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.b. Comprehensive Guide Plan Action M S �
CITY OF ROSEMOtJNT
EXFsCUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 1993
AGENDA ITIIK: COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN ACTION AGENDA SECTION:
OLD BUSINESS -
PREPARED BY: LISA J. FREESE AGENDA I�A�S�M �
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 11 � B
ATTACffi�2ENTS: MEMO, METRO COUNCIL REPORT, LAND APP :
DEMAND INFO. , DAKOTA CTY. LETTER
On September 9, the Metropolitan Council Committee of the Whole reviewed
and forwarded the City' s Comprehensive Plan to the full Council for
consideration. On Thursday, September 16, the Metropolitan Council decided
that before the City can place the plan into effect it must:
1) modify the plan by removing the area within the proposed year 2000
MUSA until such time as the Metropolitan Council has approved the
Commission' s Implementatiion Plan for expanding the capacity of the
Rosemount wastewater treatment plan capacity.
2) modify the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Rosemount waste treatment
plant capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day.
3) modify the plan to specify that all on-site septic systems are to be
inspected at least biennially by an inspector licensed by the city or
county and certified to by MPCA.
In a nutshell, they will be requi,ring the City to submit a revised plan
eliminating the proposed year 2000 urban service area, limitin.g the City' s
urban service area (NNSA) to the interim MUSA until such point as we can
demonstrate greater land demand and can secure more sewer capacity. This
modification will require some adjustments to the Camprehensive Plan text
and the maps.
The attached memo discusses the proposed process and timeline that is
recommended for completing and submitting this modification.
RECON�IENDED ACTION:
A motion to direct planning staff to proceed as outlined in the
attached memo.
COiTNCIL ACTION:
, .
.
Z�� O OSeYYL01�LYt�
PHONE (612)423-4411 2875•145th Street West,Rosemount,Min�esota MAYOR
FAX (612)42&5203 Mailing Address: Edward B.McMenomy
P.O.Box 510,Rosemount,Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCILMEMBERS
Sheila K�assen
TO: Mayor E.B. MCM2I101A�7 James(Redi Staats
City Council Members Rlassen, Staats, Willcox, and "a`ryw"'°°x
W1ppel�laIIl1 Dennis Wippermanrt
� ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: Lisa Freese, Director of Planaing ����Q� StePhan Jilk
— �C..
DATE: September 17; 1993
SIIBJ: Comprehensive Plan Modification
On Thursday„ September 16 the Metropalitan Council conditianally
approved the City' s Comprehensive Plan Update 2000. As a condition
of approval the City will be requ'ired to submit a plan modification
to the Metropolitan Council revising the plan as follows:
1) modify the plan by removing the area within the proposed
year 2000 MUSA until such time that the Metropolitan
Council has approved the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission's Implementation Plan for expanding the
capacity of the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant;
2) modify the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Rosemount
waste treatment plant capacity of 0 .9 million gallons
' per day; � ' .
3) modify the plan to specify that all on-site septic
systems are to be inspected at least biennially by an
inspector licensed by the city or county and certified
by the MPCA.
They also made two recommendations for revisions regarding the
transportation element of the plan. We are not required to make
revisions regarding recommendations but it is advisable to at least
address when we will consider those recommendations in the plan
modfication.
The most significant issue that we debated with the Metropolitan
- Council staff related to the land demand calculations that basically
determined how much land that would be allowed in the MUSA at this
time. Currently we are still debating their numbers to establish
greater need for land in the MUSA and hope to reach agreement on
that number for inclusion in the plan modification. Metro Council
� staff have indicated, however, that even if the land demand figures
are adjusted upward, they would not allow more undeveloped land than
is currently included within the Interim MUSA because of the
treatment plant capacity. The reality is that if all of the interim
MUSA were developed, the treatment plant could not accommodate the
projected sewage flows. So until there is more planned capacity the
MUSA boundary must be restricted.
C�ver��hings �oming �(J�� �asemoun���
Comprehensive Plan
Modification Schedule
Page Two
The City will be able to ask for more land in the urban service once
future capacity is approved in the MWCC' s Implementation Plan if it
can be demonstrated that there is land demand sufficient to warrant
the expansion. It is also important to understand that the City
will be able to request a review of a 2010 land use map and 2010
MUSA after the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework is
complete. Of course, it will be necessary for our policies to be
consistent with the Framework, so the City` s ongoing monitoring of
that process is essential.
The Metropolitan Council staff have indicated that plan
modifications must be submitted like a regular amendment. If there
are no significant changes to the plan other than those directed by
the Metropolitan Council, their review can be expedited by placing
it on a consent agenda at the Metropolitan Council. Based on that
direction and assuming that the Planning Commission and Cit� Council
do not plan on making any other changes to the plan, staff is
proposing the following schedule for completing the modifications
and required review process.
Week of 9/20 Staff revises plan text and maps per Metro
Council requirements.
Week of 9/27 Metro Council review modifications and
indicates acceptance.
Tuesday, 9/28 Planning Commission reviews and accepts
changes.
Tuesday, 10/5 City Council reviews and accepts changes, set
joint Planning Commission/City Council Public
hearing for October 20, 1993 .
Wed, 10/20 Hold public hearing, adopted modified plan by
resolution.
Fri, 10/22 Staff submits Plan to Metro Council :
By 12/1/93 Metropolitan Council approves modified Plan
On Tuesday, Planning staff is requesting approval of this timeline
and c�irection on any other changes deemed necessary to the
Comprehensive Plan at this time.
��oroLrra�v coulvca, �ETnvG
Thursday,September 16, 1993
Council Chambers
4:00 P.M.
AGENDA
L caLr.To oRn�
ll. APPROVAL OF UNPUBLISHED AGENDA 1TEMS (IF ANI')
lll. APPROVAL OF MINUTFS: September 9, 1993
N. BUSINESS The Council always attempts ro honor requests by the public to move individual items emiier at the agenda when .
approp�iat�Requests can be made tluough Sandi Z.indstrom, Cowtcr7 Secretary,Priw'to the»seeting at 29i-6d9Q
A Consent I.ist
1. Referral Consent List
None
Z Committee Consent List
a Amendments to the Supervisory/Confidential Pian (Denise Legato)
b. Qty of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment,t:haska Machine and To�l,Refertal 15865-1 (Tori
Flood)
c. Appointment to the Meuopolitan Counc�Audit Committee
3. Non•Referral and Non-Committee Consent list
None �
B. Reoort oi the Committee of the Whole
1. Waconia Comprehensive Plan Amendment,Willo�wbrooke,Second Addition,Referral 12473 7(Wayne Nelson)
2 Rosemount Update 2000,Plan Revision,Referrat iS468-6,Resotution Na 93- (Tom Caswell)
3. City of Hastings Comprehensive Plan Amendment,Referral 15541-4,Resolution No.93- (Ann Braden)
4. Authorizadon to Sell Defeasance Securities and Call Outstanding General Obligation Park Boads,Series 1974,
Resolution No.93- (Richard Johnson)
5. Authorization to Proceed with Refunding of Bond Issues(Richard Johnson)
V. OTAER BUSINESS
VI. REPORTS
A Chair
B. Connci!Membees
C. islative
D. Director of Transition
Vll. ADJOURNMENT
Mears Park Cerrtre,230 E Fifth Street,St Paul, MN 55101 (612)291-6359 TDD 291-0904
Metropolitan Council Meeting of September 16, 1993 Business Item: B-2
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL -
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth St., S� Paul, Minnesota 55101 '
612/291-6359
REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE �F THE WHOLE
DATE:. September IQ, 1993
. TO: Metropolitan Council
SUBJECT: City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Update 20Q0, Plan Revision
Metropolitan Council Referral F'ile Na 15468-6
Metropolitan council District 16
BACKGROUND _
The ciry has been working toward revising its comprehensive plan for the past four years. The
city encountered several major issues that needed attention before the plan could be completed.
These included limited capacity, and planned improvements to the Rosemount treatment plant
and the new airport siting process. The Council has made two planning assistance loans to the
city to aid in plan preparation and to monitor and participate in airport related activities. In early
Mazch 1993, the Council staff conducted an informal review of the Rosemount Comprehensive
Plan, and provided comments on what additional information the city needed to provide in the
final draft document� On March 19, 1993, the city submitted its plan for formal review. On May
4, 1993, the city requested an extension of the 90-day review period to allow the Metropolitan
VVaste Control Commission time to evaluate the improvements made to the Rosemount
Wastewater Treatment Plant to determine the plant's revised capacity. The Commission made a
final deternunation on the plant's capacity in August, 1993. The current estimated treatment
capaciry of 0.9�million gallons per day (mgd) has been used in this review of the Rosemount
comprehensive plan.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Tom Caswell, Council staff, presented the review of Rosemount's comprehensive plan, and
answered questions from the committee.
The committee expressed concem with respect to the modification of the plan requiring that
Rosemount specify that all on-site systems are to be inspected at least biennially by an insgector
licensed the ciry or County and certified by the MPCA. � •
, , � �
� Caswell and Jack Frost, natural resources staff, explained that for communities with residential
development utilizing on-site systems, and having densities that exceed the Council's rural area
policy of one unit per ten acres, Council policy requires inspections by licensed and certified .
personneL Staff went on to explain that several communities have been required to fulfill this
same requirement since the first of the year. -
The committee requested, and staff agreed to, preparing a report to the committee explaining the
history, background, and current policy on the subject The report will be presented to the
committee in the next several weeks.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Metropolitan Council:
1. Adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations. .
2. Inform the city of Rosemount that pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act
(Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1), before it can put the plan amendment into �
effect it must: � •
a. Modify its plan by removing the area within the proposed year 2000 MUSA
(including the area identified as removed from the MUSA unt� after 199� until
such time as the Council has approved the Commissioas's Implemcntation Plan for
expanding the capacity of the Rosemount wastewater treatment plan�
T b. Modify its Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Rosemount wastewater treatment
plant capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day.
c. Modify its plan to specify that all on-site systems are to be inspected at least
biennially by an inspector licensed by the city or County, and certified by the
MPCA.
3. Recommend that the city revise its plan to respond to the changes to the region's roadway
classification system adopted by the TAB in 1992 and 1993. . .
4. Recommend that the city revise its plan to specify how the city will incorporate the
recommendations of the TH 52/55 Study.
5. Commend the city for its support of strategies to work with developers to remove barriers
and encourage design that promotes transit usage in specified corridors.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Howe,Vice Chair
K
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 250 E. Sth Street, St, Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
RESOLUI'ION NO. 93- -
RESOLUTION REQUIRiNG MODIFICATION OF
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPF�EHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the ciry of Rasemount, by letter submitted March 22, 1993, transmitted a proposed
ameadment to its adopted comprehensive plan regarding revision of the entire plan, in
accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning�Act and the Council Guidelines for
Reviewing Local Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and
. V'J]3EREAS, at its meeting on September 16, 1993, the Metropolitan Counc�l reviewed the
Rosemount plaa amendment and adapted a plan review report, in accordance with the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Council Guidelines for Reviewing Local
Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and -
WfIEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed for impacts on metropolitan systems,
- apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan Development Guide chapters and
compatibility with plans of ad}acent local units of govemment; and
� • VV:H�:REAS, the Council has concluded that the amendment as proposed constitutes a substantial
impact on or substantial departure from the Council's Wastewater Treatment and
Handling Policy Plan, and that a plan modification is required prior to Council approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that:
l. The Metropolitan Council finds that:
a. The forecasts contained the Rosemount comprehensive plan, Undate 2000
are consistent with the Council's forecasts.
b. The city's policies for rural area development are consistent with the
Council's rural policy, except for the existing developed areas shown on its
zoning map as Rural Residenrial. �
c. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has completed interim
improvements to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant that has
increased its design capacity to approximately 4.9 mgd. The city's plan and
flow projections must be consistent with the plant's capaciry.
d. The long term facility plan for the Rosemount plant will not be approved
until 1994.
e. The city's program for infiltratio�nflow is acceptable, and the provisions
for private wastewater treatment plants comply with Council requirements.
f. The ciry needs to modify its on-site system regulations to require biennial
inspection of on-site systems by certi€ied and licensed inspectors.
g. The city's surface water management palicies comply with the Council's
Interim Nonpoint Management Strategy. -
h. The plan's functional classification system complies with the cunent
: Transportation Policy Plan, but not the classification revisions adopted by
the TAB in 1992 and 1993.
i. The city does not specify when the results of the TH 55 Corridor Study w�l
be available, nor how it will be incorporated iato the Comprehensive Plaa
j. The plan amendment indicates the city is studying the provisian of
municipal services to the eastern portion of the city, but not address the
volumes and types of traffic e�cpected to be generated by expansion of the
proposed industrial uses and densities.
k. The transit section of the plan is realistic in scope given the level of service
available. The city is committed to work with developers to remove
barriers and encourage transit use in the design of development projects in
transit corridors.
L A decision to relocate the Minneapalis/S� Paul airport to the Rosemount-
� _ search area would require a major revision to the.transportation element of
the city's Comprehensive Plan. �
m. Approximately 200 acres of Spring Lake Regional Park is located on the
eastern end of Rosemount. Adjacent development appears to be
consistent with regional parks.
n. There are no other regional recreation facilities within the city. Proposed
development in Rosemount, adjacent to Lebanon Hills Regional Park
located in Eagan and Apple Valley, is compatble and consistent with �
metropolitan plans for regional recreation open space.
o. The plan provides complete information on its housing goals and policies,
as well as implementafion measures necessary to achieve them.
2. The Metropolitan Council concludes that it will:
a. Adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these
recommendations.
b. Inform the city of Rosemount that pursuant to the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act (Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175, Subd. 1), before it can put
the plan amendment into effect it must: •
,
1. modify its plan by removing the area within the proposed yeaz 2000
MUSA (including the area identified as removed from the MUSA
until after 199� until such time as the Council has approved the
Commission's Implementation Plan for expanding the capaciry of
the Rosemount wastewater treatment plan� "-
2. modify its Comprehensive Plan to re€lect the Rosemount
wastewater treatment plant capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day.
3. modify its plan to specify that all on-site systems are to be inspected
at least biennially by an inspector Iicensed by the city or Counry,
and certified by the MPCA.
� c. Recommend that the city revisc its plan to respond to the changes to the
region's roadway classification system adopted by the TAB in 1992 and
1993.
d. Recommend that the city revise its plan to specify how the city will
incorporate the recommendations of the TH 52l55 Study.
e. Commend the city for its support of strategies to work with developers to
remove barriers and encourage design that promotes transit usage in
specified corridors. _
Adopted this day of . 1993. .
,
METROPOLITAN COUNCII,
By By
Kevin Howe, Vice Chair Sandi Lindstrom, Secretary
Committee of the Whole Meeting of September 9, 1993 Business Item: B-2
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612 291-6359 TDD 612 291-0904
DATE: August 24, 1993
TO: Metropolitan Council Committee of the Whole
FROM: Comprehensive Planning (Toni Caswell,291-6319) '
SUB3ECT: City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Update 2000,Plan Revision
Metrapolitan Councii Refemal File No. 15468-6
� Metropolitan Council District No. 16
DESCRIPTION OF PLAN ANII�'.I�TDMENT
The city of Rosemount has proposed amending its comprehensive plan, which was originally
reviewed by the Council in 1980. The revised plan recognizes�that the Council will not consider
� ' plans�beyond the year 2000,but does include discussions of plans to 2010. The Rosemount plan
shows an interim MUSA as well as a year 2000 MUSA.� This format provides the staging and
timing of sewer service necessary to accommodate development, while at the same time trying to
protect the Rosemount treatment plant from exceeding its permitted capacity.
BACKGROUND , �
The city has been working towazd revising its comprehensive plan for the past four years. The
city encountered several major issues that needed attention before the plan could be completed.
These included l'united capacity, and planned improvements to the Rosemount treatment plant
and the new airport siting process. The Council has made two planning assistance loans to the
city to aid in plan prepazation and to monitor and participate in airport related activities. In early
March 1993,the Council staff conducted an informal review of the Rosemount Comprehensive
Plan, and provided comments on what additional infornnation the city needed to provide in the
final draft document. On March 19, 1993,the city.submitted its plan for formal review. On May
4, 1993,the city requested an extension of the 90-day review period to allow the Metropolitan
Waste Control Cammission time to evaluate the improvements made to the Rosemount
Wastewater Treatment Plant to determine the plant's revised capacity. The Commission made a
final determination on the plant's ca.pacity in August, 1993. The current estimated treaxment
� capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (mgd) has been used in this review of the Rosemount
comprehensive plan.
REGIONAL POLICY ISSUES
Prior to recent improvements by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the Rosemount
wastewater treatment plant had a capacity of 0.71 nullion gallons per day (mgd). For the past six
months, the flow to the Rosemount .plant was approximately 0.66 mgd. In October 1992, the '-
Council reviewed a plan (File No. 15468-3) to divert flows from 54Q homes to the Empire Plant.
This action freed up some of the Rosemount plant's capacity. As noted above, the capacity at the
Rosemount plant, after improvements, is estimated to be 0.9 mgd. This additional capaciry,
coupled with the diversion to the Empire plant appears to be adequate to accommodate the sewer
flows forecasted in the city's plan until approximaxely 1998. The city's Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA) map, contained in the plan revision, shows an area of approximately 2,500
acres of land to be added to the existing MUSA. Flows from this area, together with
undeveloped land within its current sewered area, would greatly exceed the treatment plant's
capacity, and would be inconsistent with the Council's interim policy on MUSA expansions.
Therefore, Council staff are recommending that Rosemount be required to modify its plan to ,
delineaze an urban service area that is consistcnt with its forecasted growth and subsequent sewer
flows (not to exceed the 0.9 mgd short term capacity). Once the longer term capacity is planned
and programmed, the city can submit an amendment delineating an expanded MLTSA.
AUTHORITY TO REV�W
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act of 1976 requires local units of government to submit
comgrehensive plan amendments to the Metropolitan Council for review (Minn. Stat. 473.864,
subd. 2, 1978}., The Act also gives the Council the authority to establish guidelines governing the
. amendment review process '(Minn. Stat. �73.854). ' �
The city of Rosemount submitted its proposed comprehensive plan amendment on March 22,
1993. On April 1, 1993,the Chair determined that the amendment presented a potential impact
on the sanitary sewer and transportation systems. On May 4, 1993,the city requested an
eactension of the review periad to allow the Council adequate time to consider the city'splan in
light of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's evaluation af interim improvements to the
Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. The extended review period will conclude on
September 22, 1993.
FINDINGS �
.
1. The forecasts contained_the Rosemount comgrehensive plan,'Uvdate 2000 are consistent
with the Council's forecasts.
2. The city's policies for. rural area. development are consistent with the Council's nual
policy,except for the existing developed areas shown on its wning map as Rural
Residential.
3. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has completed interim improvements to the
Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Flant that has increased its design capacity to
approximately 0.9 mgd. The city's plan and flow projections must be consistent with the
plant's capacity.
2 . .
4. The long term facility plan for the Rosemount plant will not be approved until 1994. �
5. The city's program for infiltration/inflow is acceptable, and the provisions for private .
wastewater treatment plants comply with Council requirements.
6. The city needs to modify its on-site system regulations to require biennial inspection of �
on-site systems by certified and licensed inspectors.
7. The city's surface water.management policies comply with the Council's Interim Nonpoint �
Management Strategy.
8. The plan's functional classification system complies with the current Transportation Policy
Plan, but not the classification revisions adopted -by the TAB in 1992 and 1993.
9. The city does not specify when the results of the TH 55 Corridor Study will be available,
nor how it willbe incorporated �into the Comgrehensive Plan.
10. The plan amendment indicates the city is studying the provision of municipal services to
the eastern portion of the city,but not address the volumes and types of traffic expected
to be generated by expansion of the proposed industrial uses and densities.
1 L The transit section of the plan is realistic in scope given the level of service available. The
ciry is committed to work with developers to remove barriers and encourage transit use in
the design of development projects in transit corridors. :
12. A decision to relocate the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport to the Rosemount search area
would require a major revision to the transportation element of the city's Comprehensive
Plan.
13. Approximately 200 acres of Spring Lake Regional Pazk is located on the eastern end of
Rosemount. Adjacent development appears to be consistent with regional parks.
14. There are no other regional recreation facilities within the city. Proposed development in
Rosemount, adjacent to Lebanon Hills Regional Park located in Eagan and Apple Valley,
is compatible and consistent with metropolitan plans for regional recreation open space.
15. The plan provides complete information on its housing goals and policies, as well as
implementation measures necessary to achieve them.
RECOMI��NDATIONS
That the Metropolitan CounciL• _ �
1. Adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations. �
2. Inform the city of Rosemount that pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act
(Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175,Subd. 1),before it can put the pIan amendment into
effect it must:
3
� a. modify its plan by removing the azea within the proposed year 2000 MUSA
(including the azea identified as removed from the MUSA until after 1996) until
such time as the Council has approved the Commissions's Implementa.tion Plan for
expanding the capacity of the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant.
b. modify its Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Rosemount wastewater treatment �
plant capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day. •
� c. modify its plan to specify that all on-site systems are to be inspected at least
biennially by an inspector licensed by the city or County, and certified by the
MPCA.
3. Recommend that the city revise its plan to respond to the changes to the region's roadway
classificarion system adopted by the TAB in 1992 and 1993.
4. Recommend that the city revise its plan to specify how the city will incorporate the
recommendations of the TH 52/55 Study.
5. Commend the city for its support of strategies to work with developers to remove barriers
and encourage design that promotes transit usage in specified corridors.
4
SUPPORTING ANALYSIS �
Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework
The MDIF shows the westem portion of Rosemount in the developing area, the southeastem - .
portion in the commercial agricultural area, and the majority of its land in the general rural use
area. The city of Rosemount is locat� in central Dakota County (see Figure 1), and is
swrrounded by Eagan and Inver Grove Heights on the north, Apple Valley on the west, Empire
and Vermillion Townships on the south, and the Township of Nininger on the east.
Forecasts
The forecasts contained� in the city's plan, although not identical to the Council's,are similaz. The �
.projected growth through the year 2010 is slightly higher than the Council's (see Table 1), but is
not significantly different. .
• TABLE 1
FORECAST COMPARISON �
2000 2010
Rosemount Council Rosemount Council
Population 15,897 14,800 � 23,864 22,300
Households 5,229 5,000 8,229 8,000
Employment N/A * 5,868 N/A * 7,766
* The city has not yet completed its own employment forecasts.
5
Land Supplv and Demand
The city has included estimates of vacant, developable land within the MUSA. Shown in Table 2
(below) is a comparison of the supply of vacant develogable land within the MUSA, as well as .
anticipated demand for land. •
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Vacant Developable Land within MUSA (acres)
SUPPLY �*
C�rrent MUSA 600 + acres
Interim MtJSA 615 acres
Year 2000 MUSA** 1,320 acres
TOTAL ' 2,535 acres
DEMAND ***
1993 to 2000 1,026 acres (with overage)
* Source: City of Rosemount -
**Includes approx. 250 acres removed until 1997 �
***Source: Metropolitan Council
The city's plan proposes: 1} an interim MUSA (in response to the interim improvements to the
Rosemount treatment plant), 2) an azea to be withdrawn from the MUSA until 1997
(approximately 250 acres and part of the 2000 MUSA), and 3) a year 2000 MUSA of about 1100
� acres (see Map 2). Initially, Council staff disagreed with the acreages as stated in the plan for
each MUSA to be added. After several meetings between Council and ciry staff, the
discrepancies have been resolved. The ciry used its Geograpluc Information System (GIS) to
determine, the amount of vacant developable lanc�. While the Council uses the same system,the
. city has plotted the information at a much more detailed level than is feasible at the regional
level. For this reason, the figures given by the city appear to be reasonable.
The existing MUSA together with the interim MUSA appear to be consistent with the Council's
forecasted need for the city (through the year 2000). However, the Rasemount treatment plant,
even with the interim improvements, cannot serve the entire azea. Therefore, the city should be
apprised that once the 0.9 mgd flow to the Rosemount Plant has been reached, no additional
sewer extensions will be �pproved until improvements to the Rosemount Plant have been made.
The Commission's Implementation PIan will recommend what improvements to the Rosemount
plant are needed to accommodate development in its service area for twenty years. These long-
term improvements are proposed to be completed by 1997.
6
In addition, Council staff are recommending that the city modify its plan to eliminate the
proposed year 2000 MIJSA. Once the Cominission's Implementation Plan is approved by the
Council, the city may resubmit its year 2000 MtJSA request for Council review.
Rural Use Area Policv �_
As discussed above, a lazge portion of the city of Rosemount is in the rural service area. As such
the policies in the city's plan should reflect densities of one unit per ten acres (based on a 640
acre section) in the general rural use azea, and one unit per forty acres in the agricultural area.
The pian is consistent with these policies except for an area north of its urban area. The city has
approximately three sections of land that, due to uncontrolled subdivision and development during
the late sixries and early seventies, have been allowed to develop at one unit per five acres on two
and one half acre lots. Because this azea is already subdivided, and �ost of it developed, the plan
calls for allowing infill of the area at this higher density. Council staff recognizes that the city's�
only option with pre-existing parcels is planning appropriate controls far on-site systern
management. Consequently, the on site systems serving this development will need careful
monitoring to reduee the need for premature extension of urban services to conect failing on-site
� systems. The sanitary sewer seetion discusses this i'ssue further. _
The plan also discusses the azea in eastem Rosemount that currendy has substantial industrial
development. This development, often referred to as the Pine Bend area, includes Koch
Refinery, CF Industries, Dixie Petrochemical, Material Recovery, USPCI's non-hazardous
industrial waste landfill, and the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. Approximately 4,500
acres of land are owned by industrial interests (35% of which is developed). Clustering of these .
uses in an area domiinated by existing heavy indusuial development is appropriat�. The. city's plan •
proposes adding about 450 acres in this azea to the urban service azea. All of the proposed urban
industrial azea is part of the year 2000 MUSA addition. This area is adjacent to the Rosemount
treatment plant and USPCIs landfill, which is already part of the urban service azea. The city is
proposing to add part of its industrial area to the MUSA to ensure the logical and orderly
development of this part of the city.
With the exception of the area with higher than rural densities, the plan calls for nual azea, and
agricultural densities that are consistent with Council policies.
Natural Resources (Frost)
Wastewater Treatment
The Metropolitau Waste Control Commission has comgleted interim improvements to the existing
Rosemount wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The Commission staff believe that these
interim improvements have increased the capacity of the plant to approximately 0.9 nullion gatlons
per day. The Commission will be applying to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to modify
its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit to reflect this change in design
capacity.
The Commission is also completing its Facility Plan to examine long term altematives to
accommodate increased flows from the city. This plan is not scheduled for approval as an
Implementation Plan amendment until 1994. Until the Council approves an Implementation Plan
7
amendment for the Rosemount plant, the city's plan needs to reflect the current plant capacity of
0.9 mgd. •
In order to accommodate growth. in the southwest part of the city and to help relieve a capacity
problem at the Rosemount Plant, in October 1992,the Council acted to divert wastewater flows _
from 767 acres (0.609 mgd at ultimate development) to the Empire Plant. This diversion is now - .
reflected in the city's revised Comprehensive Plan. 'The city's flow projections aze consistent with
the Council's projeetions as shown in the table below:
YEAR ROSEMOUNT WWTP EMPIRE WWTP TOTAL
2000 0.968 mgd 0.475 mgd 1.443 mgd
2010 1.797 mgd 0.609 mgd 2.406 nngd
The city was identified in the Commission's infiltration/inflow (I/I) study as having soil conditions
which could potentially contribute to excessive UI. The city is proposing an extensive program to
locate and correct potential problem areas. The city is also undertaking a program to identify and
eliminate rainleaders and sump pumps from connectian to the sanitary sewer system. Council
staff believe.that the program the city is undertaking is a good faith effort to try and reduce its UI
problem.
The ciry has proposed to not allow any additional private wastewater treatment plants in the city.
The two existing private treat�nent plants, Koch Refinery and Continental Nitrogen, aze required
� to comply with their respective" NPDES permits. • -
As noted above, the city allows development in three sections of its rural azea at a.density of one
unit per five acres. This exceeds the Council's recommended maximuin standard of four units per
40 acres as stated in the Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan golicy 1-2. Therefore, . �
the city needs to comply with all of the management requirements for on-site treatment systems
as outlined in the policy plan. The city is proposing to use both the MPCA regulations for design
of new systems and Dakota County's on-site system regulations. However, as currently proposed,
the city does not require biennial inspection by a certified and licensed inspector. To avoid the
unplanned, premature elctension of sanitary sewer to azeas of past development in the nual
service area to resolve potential ground water contamination problems, Council staff recommends
that the city require biennial inspection (and pumping, when required) by an inspector certified by
the MPCA and licensed by the ciry or county.
Surface Water Oualitv
As part of the Comprehensive Plan the city has inade a strong commitment to protecting the
quality of its surface waters. The plan incorporates policies on storm water pond design criteria
to utilize the National Urban Runoff Program criteria, it also proposes to use MPCA's Best
management Handbook and the city has agreed to follow the DNR's Shoreland Regulations. The
city has also committed to adopting the necessary regulatory controls within 90 days following
approval of the Comprehensive plan.
8
Transportatiun
Hi�hways and Transit (Barton)
The city's roadway classification complies with the Transpartation Policy Plan, and conectly -_
identifies Trnck Highway (TH) 52 as a metropolitan system highway. The city should note that
proposed changes by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and its Technical Advisory
Committee to the region's roadway classification system. The changes aze the result of a
classification study completed in 1993, in response to the Intermodal Surface Transporta.tion
Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The ISTEA requires the Councii, with the cooperation of Iv1n/DOT and
local governments, to identify the regional component of the National Highway System .
The TAB identified a number of changes to princigal arterials. Specifically, CSAH 42 and TH 52
aze now recommended as noni.nterstate principal arterials.. In addition, CSAH 71 and TH 3 will
be reclassified as "augmenter arterials". ' �
A major concem of the TAB and Council is that the new principal arterials carry higher volumes
• of longer trips with a strong emphasis on serving through traffic rather than adjacent local land
uses. In support of this concept, the TAB has advanced the concept that all expressway rype
principal arterials need to be protected from high numbers of intersection or access points.
� Further, by 1997,all new principal arterials will need to have the support of affeeted local
government through their comprehensive plans. By 1999 the agency with jurisdiction over
individual principal arterials is required to make significant progress on proteeting median access -
- and/or limiting intersecdon to 1/2 mile spacing. The Council will adopt the new classification
system in October, 1993 as part of its adoption of revisions to the.Transportation Policy Plan.
The city is taking the initial steps to protect the ogeration of arterials by adopting an ordinance to
limit highway access, promoting the construction of frontage roads, and adopting an o�cial map
for right-of-way protection. The completion of the TH 52/55 corridor study,being conducted
jointly by Rosemount, Inver Grove Heights, Dakota County, and MnUOT, is expected to provide
additional information on controlling access. No date for completion of the study is given.
The plan amendment states the city is studying the extension of municigal services to the Pine
' Bend area. No mention is made to identify the potential transportation impacts on expanded
general industrial uses in an azea defined by the TH 52 and CSAH 42 conidors. These are the
only existing roadways with any significant capacity through the area.
Goal 13 in the plan states that the city will promote the development of the east end for heavy
industrial development. Other sections of the plan•seem to indica.te that the general industrial
uses proposed will be targeted to a market niche of "regional-scale industrial and waste
management facilities". The plan should address the volumes and typc of tr�c expected to be
generated by these facilities, or when and how these potential impacts will be studied.
The city should address the level, timing and staging of municipal services to include roadway
access, costs, and the resources needed to finance any proposed infrastructure improvements.
Although the capital improvements section lists projects to be constructed in the 19941998
period, no information is provided as to the funding mechanisms to finance these projects.
9
The Land Use Element section on general industrial uses includes a policy that calls for the
provision of open space and trails in general industrial use areas linked with a city system. The
policy directly supports the Transportation Policy Plan to encourage alternaxive travel modes.
Data presented in the section indica.ted that over 6% of work trips are made by people walking to
work. This unusually high figure indicates a potential market for a city-wide bicycle and pedestrian
walkway system. The city should consider expanding and relating this policy in the transportation -
element of the plan to include the westem urbanized area.
The transit section provides a local policy framework that is reasonable, and realistically reflects
available transit service and the city's role to imprave service through collaboraxion with providers,
promotion of ride-sharing with employers and the use of local development controls. The city
should be commended for its commitment to wark with developers to remove barriers and
encourage transit use in the design of development projects in transit corridors.
Several transportation facilities, the railroad and a bazge facility located in the Pine Bend area are
mentioned in the transportation section. The ciry,as part of the study regazding the eastem
portion of the city,may.want to consider identifying various opportunities and needs among the
rail,barge, and truck services in the azea. The ISTEA rules.prepared by the U.S.Department of
Transportation, will require greater intermodal planning, coordination and operating
� considerations both as a system and at intermodal facilities iocations.
Ai rts (Case) •
Staff concur with the statement that if a decision is made to relocate the Minneapolis/St.�Paul
airport to the Dakota search area, the transportation system serving the site and the Rosemount
azea will have to be reevaluated and would require revisions to the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Housiug (Dougb.erty) �
The city has done an excellent job of providing the additional material requested in the Council's
infornial review earlier this year.
The plan now includes a data summary and analysis of the existing housing situation in the
community as well as noting how Rosemount compares to the rest of Dakota County. The city
has provided very complete information on its housing goals, policies, and implementation
measures.
The Update 2000 is consistent with Council Housing Policy.
Parks (Myslajek)
A portion of Spring Lake Pazk regianal is located in the eastern end of Rosemount
{approxima.tely 200 acres). Adjacent development proposed for the areas appears to be consistent
with regional pazks. There aze no other regional recreation open space facilities within the city of
Rosemount. Part of the city borders Lebanon Hills Regional Park, located in Eagan and Apple
Valley. The development proposerl by the city is compatible with and consistent•with
metropolitan plans for regional recreation open space.
. 10.
Local parks are discussed minirnally in the comprehensive plans since there is a separate
Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide prepared by the city. The policies relating to
construction of trails and park dedication policies are appropriate for the community.
_ �
11
:;EGIONAL LOCATI�N FIGUP.E 1
. . � . r----- --. .�,NE� --1 . � . . � . .
� � 1 ST.pANtit . . .
� (
UNWppp I
I I [AST{ETMEL
IBURNS i O�KGROVE --T ' �
1 I �
I i
I � � ^'
ANOKA CO. CowMeus �
� . � e�rstr � 1
� ANOOYE! N1lMLAKE . l f0![fT LAXE I ' NEMl.SCANO��
iORESTt�KE f
' I �
Mt}S�t1
DA4TOM �N KA �lIMO URES � Y11ttM �
CMAY LIM COOM tA►Ip5 CEMTEtYI1U
. � ERS � �LAl11E I . . . .
NaY
NUGO
M�MOYLt . tCitMGTOM citct[nMcs � WASHINGTON CO.
. . . �.. . OSuO Il� OYMDf SNOREYIE� s � `
GiEFNiltlO CORC0t11N M�fLE GtOVC WC7' � n � � � STILLW�TER . .
� � •lOOKLtN►AIIK MOfTM � .
. . u OAKS prNi�E�EAR (
OCKiOtD � � ►RIOI[Y . K( � .
HENNEPIN CO. �ROOKtTM M�w �'•.- GR�NT
. ' CENTEl� ItRIGNTOM•• YAOMAi � � I . .
GGNTS
( QLOR[TTO C STAL oy� 4RD[N �y Si 1�T[
�� MILLS
■Ew �
I IMOE►[NDENCC KEDINA ►LTMOUiM O► �p � 1S� _��TT�E �
Mi,."PI�OPOLTTAI\ { � L tOSEYlIIt ANA� ST.'�
T�T/�� BRYTANM
. . � _ � C�V11<.iL I MA►LE►L�IN 60LOEN 6 i7 � MA�LE�e00O OAKWLL. �YO� .
� r+��ur ( --
� �� � ON6 UK a ` � wesr �
otoro "r �r � RAMSEY CO. t,Ke�uro
•TERTOVM YINNETONKA � LAKCl11M
� I 1 MIIINE7MSTA. � ST.LOYIS � fAiMT►AYL 2
I�lK YINN[AlOUf
(� NOtkrwOOD � w:TERiOwn I � y � . � . _ .. .
I �DEEtM�Y[N O/RIMS � . ' ST.CROII�Elt N
� �� • � �9 �11EST • VOOO�tltt
� ___ � f �OMIf�G1U5 � EDIi1� . tiZ � �s ��'ISOVTX .�iTOM ��
� MA7CR 1
� MC�GEtY4111' .. � . RICNFIEIC �Il►OfT MENDOTA ST. ME1�'t Rt . .
� � � � � � '12� NEIGMTS � �UM ISN� AUL � �
� ' IROH tNAMM�1SStlt . E
' �4MUEN I %Y��ONIa ��KETO�'N �D(M ttA�qL SARrAUI .
•ACONt�
' I �LOOMIM6TOM . � iMYER GROV(
� CARVER CO. CM4SK� ' • �G�N NE16NT5 COTT�CE GZOYL DENMIRK
i
' ���.�—�—�--��--��� � . 2 . .
� cM.s�c• DAKOTA CO.
I TOYNG ' . � � � �
•MEt�CA SMAKO►[[
NOR11'OOD i C�I C11lY[� 'l�CK50N �YlMfVILLL .
COIOGNy D�NLGftEN �� SAYAGC i ;'.'yh'y��;���
� YOUNC�MER1C� ' 9ENTON ( `� � . � .
tNOR AKl[YAILEY ROS[MOUNT NININGER
LM�I(�YRG I �— � �- _1OV15vqLt ~KL � � -- MASbN6t
---{--- --{-----� � o. -�-- i
� N:NCOfK � S+N FRaNC�SCO ' ' I
I I I I VERMIll10N ' . 'R�VENKtr
� LAKEVILIE fM%RE I MaRSM�N I .�
� ��_�� �S�NOCREEK � SPR�NGUKE ( CREOtT . I � � �
� I . �NIVER � � � I YERMILLIOM I � I
iAtY1MG70N
SCOT7 CO. � I � _— � i
ST,I�wRENCE� �OtO�N � � � � . . .
-- � l-- --1------t---- -J
- tEl't[It�IN[�----i-----I . . ' �-.— ( . . � . �-
' I . . I NlwM�AKET � �i � IN►M►TOM �NEM'TqE� ' .
BUKEIEY � BEIIE P���HE I MEtEN� CEO�rt t�KE EUREKa C�SiLE ROCK � M�E�[ �
I I . I N[Y MA�KLT � I � . i � �� .
I M�MPTON I DOUGUS�
��_����__���NEM►R�6Y[I � � I �KO ' _�_� .' ( . I (. .
�,�--1— —1----�— ---�---�---,�------ ---�
RANOOLPM
I � RAMOOI�M
I � �
wt�ES 5 30 . 15 20 25 I. GREENva�E �waTERFORD� � �
i ��SCIOTA��
�-- —1---�
TW1N C(T1ES METR�POLITAN AREA
. Poiitical Boundaries, 7990
�. � 1 S�RIN6►ARK 9 MOUND 17/ALCON XEI6NT5 25 G[M LAKE � �
2 oRoho io eon�Nso�u 18 rcMoor� 2e�iRCNr000 ANOKA (;OU�}��Bounda
3 YINNRONKA�CACN Il S�RIN6 LAKC MRK 19 ULtD�IL 27 WHITE BEAR . `7 ry
4 TONKA�AT 32 U.S.GOYT. 20 GREY C10U0 28��l'►ORT ORONO Munici al Bounda � � �
� 5 EXCELSIOR 13 XILLTO� � 21 LANDfALI 29 1YILLERNIL P . ry .�
' 6 ORCENMOOD 1�COLUY�tA M[ICMTS 22 OEtLW000 . 30 OAK►ARK NEIGXTS CAMDEN �TOWnShi Bounda�/
� 7 MOODIAND 15 ST.AMTMOMI 23►IMES►RIN6f 31 LAKEL�ND SXOR[S � � P `J
8 YEDtCIME 4AKE 36 LAYDERDA�E 24 MAXTOMEOI 32 ST.MARY'S��OINT � .�
i ' 1 1 • �
., -
�. �����.�'•���r-��I� ���`; ��1�� e +ti� e
�► +�. � �r. i�
.. �.������:�������.'�t��!l�..:.�I��� �r.��■ � �i�..':� �r�:�e �
�`:���_��:�::r;�=:;;;�r�•�1t�;,,�� : �t�■ j !�� ��
� �r.. �-�`;■�t.;f „'/r. �► s. , ►
�� 1`,1,�����'�����rl� �:�*� , � � ■r�
n'i����i:��=c��..�,r`U=�:1r'=�r�-:� .� ' � ��,� ��i�
.�. '�.... ;
:•.:.�-•:•�� ��n�uwr� � �-- � --�
•�::.::::::_::::::.::::::::.:,,::..: � � ■ �- ..s� >� ` " 111��
�....u,..�r ( ,Ij ♦
;',•.;.;. :�.;•;:;:;:;:;�.'�'::•:,:�:�::MII���l�r,7 i�"y=.��ri � � ■� ��'i�,�'r..
.�'%';?�' ' � ' '/ ''S':%..•'.'ao; .�' .I ♦ ~----.
'::::!:: � ,:� �� ./ :,;;:..:;.:;.:,;,���r� �I �. .. � `� �� ��'� 111��l�■ '
` ///%/...
.: . .., ;..::.:.:
� �. „ �.•... , i i, �
�;i���' �� 1 % i/�i� %I��%���� � � � � %%i , i ��'.����
��■�.� ���h.�.� � � /�// :::'�f'/III/ � //, , � � / �Y��I^ �t �,
� �, � 1� '�'�'�'::•�•'��j��:e.e�.e1y`��%/�/� ' ��, � -�//�/���/.�..�e�� ,,`r,J'� °�,��\`
;f�:�.'� i� i•i�4�.g'D���'��1 i rr��i. •I' / / ��� -�-q�/'-.��...__ i� ',�-�'i��� �i}�
r:i, �•.••:.:-•••���:i��i �, ��I� ,�I I II � ;;;;,,• ,,, , ;,,;°��
-� ;.� �':1 ♦ � � ih),� � 1�1� �/ / �� ���������i 'h.:i9 .d�
11 .1 '���� �:1• .�..�..�,5��..�..I�t�:/��� �_.ACV.�/j� - �f��1 ��/j�%IL/I4��I�Ni1:NJJi!��JI��h ;}t�`t '
`�;� '::i'itl�:�i�:^�:`::�:0•:::�>:'.•::4;����v.•vr�o:r �/ �/j.✓,` , ■: ��/�� �� {+.0 �� --�
,:�;; ;,;;;:................., ,,;..:.•:••/ �' �/ / � �
', ' ''' ', ', . ;����'/" ��,/.•_� ,�; %�;�� "�,��
�
; �,,,, � . . � �_ lG.i �I���
1�'�!`,�1�, � , ' �.,', '1 i''{ . � �t �11J li�� _ M�YYI/rYYWki��i/ � � ��I�� '� �I I�■ ■ �,
1 t ♦ i+ 1 IU , �
' '�• , t�.� ,i',��•i�� -" . ,' ' -------
rt �t �
f71 :. i ' ~ � � t tf �`.� �'' �
+.�� ,.���� 1� �� 1 1 � i , �i% I- .
�f� �i � 1 'F� � � � j ��. • !�!.. � ���.
IJ � ''.��. l. •�:.
, � �Y +�„i/%!!/ . i �, ���i.�.. ■ � ,,.
1 �� 1��1 1) 3 f � �
1 1�1�f 1 �♦ 1 7 t 1. . %• �
� 'n5. .�. ���•�J� �
1 41,' '1♦ t ' •'�V.A
1
`��' , _ �y�. U 1�� f Itn �r J �i1�/I/�I///• ■� '�� .
't '1 1- • .y' t i 1 I
..Il �llil 1 '"jS,I J �; ��t / ` ■
±). 1� �1 .� 1�, .b.l t t �..��j� �
♦�.111.�•1 .�irw��. � i �� 1.I�i �,
, '�� 1 4 1� i �.. � :.�i�.�ff�.�,�'r�.�� � � ■
� � ��1 . 7 ) �I�I..
f 1�1 ' ' �.i,l - �� }71j { f 5 .l 1 1 f'f�1��1� ��� I�
I�i�i:��1 1 I .I.j��.f.1 1 SJ:..!:1 1�fl 1 It..1,1.1.1.1..�
' ��� - , ; ' , ' , , ,, � '
• � � � ��� �' :1 • ���
/ / �� , �
/ � � �� 'I
� � 11� ���
ifi i � � �
i
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre,250 E.5th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
RESOLUTION NO. 93- . "
RESOLUTION REQUIRING MODIFICATION OF
A PROPOSED �MENT TO THE
CTTY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSNE PLAN
WHEREAS, the city of Rosemount, by letter submitted March 22, 1993,transmitted a proposed
amendment to its adopted comprehensive plan regarding revision of the entire plan, in
accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Council Guidelines for
Reviewing Local Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 16, 1993,the Metropolitan Council reviewed the
Rosemount plan amendment and adopted a plan review report, in accordance with the
� Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Council Guidelines for Reviewing Local �
Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment has been reviewed for impacts on metropolitan systems,
appazent consistency with other adopted Metrapolitan Development Guide chapters and
compatibility with plans of adjacent local units of government; and
WHEREAS, the Council has concluded that the amendment as proposed constitutes a substantial
impact on or substantial departure from the Council's Wastewater Treatment and Handlin�
Polic�an, and that a plan modification is required prior to Council approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that: ,
1. The Metropolitan Council finds that:
a. The forecasts contained the Rosemaunt comprehensive plan, Undate 2000 aze
consistent with the CounciPs forecasts.
b. The city's policies for rural azea development aze consistent with the Council's rural
policy, except for the existing developed areas shown on its zoning map as Rural
Residential.
c. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has completed interim improvements to
the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant that has increased its design capacity to
approximately 0.9 mgd: The city's plan and flow projections must be consistent with
the plant's capacity. �
d. The long term facility plan for the Rosemount plant will nat be approved until 1994.
12
e. The city's program for inf'�ltration/inflow�is acceptable, and the provisions for private
wastewater treaxment plants comply with Council requirements.
f. The city needs to modify its on-site system regulations to require biennial inspection of
on-site systems by certified and Iicensed inspectors. � _ .
g. The city's surface water management policies comply with the Council's Interim
Nonpoint Management Strategy.
h. The plan's functional classification system complies with the�current Transportation
Policy Plan, but not the classification revisions adopted by the TAB in 1992 and 1993.
i. The city does not_specify when-the results of the TH 55 Corridor Study will be
- available, nor how it will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. -
j. The plan amendment indicates the city is studying the provision of municipal services to
the eastem portion of the ciry,but not address the volumes and types of traffic
expected to be generated by expansion of the proposed industrial uses and densities.
-k. The transit section of the plan is realistic in scope given the level of service available.
The city is committed to work with developers to remove barriers and encourage transit
use in the design of development projects in transit corridors.
l. A decision to relocate the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport to the Rosemount search area
- would require a major revision to the transportation element of the city's •
Compreh�nsive Plan. �
m. App�oximately 200 acres of Spring Lake Regional Pazk is located on the eastern end of
Rosemount. Adjacent development appears to be.consistent with regional parks.
n. There are no other regional recreation facilities within the city. Proposed development
� in Rosemount, adjacent to Lebanon Hills Regional Park located in Eagan and Apple
Valley, is compatible and consistent with metropolitan plans for regional recreation
open space.
o. The plan provides complete information on its housing goals and policies, as well as
implementation measures necessary to achieve them.
2. The Metropolitan Council concludes that it will:
a. Adopt the above findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations.
b. Inform the ciry of Rosemount that pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act
(Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175,Subd. 1), before it can put the plan amendment into
effect it must:
1. modify its plan by removing the area within the proposed year 2000 MUSA (including
the azea identified as removed from the MUSA until after 1996) until such tune as the
13
Council has approved the Cammission's Implementation Plan for expanding the
capacity of the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant.
2. modify its Comprehensive Plan to reflect the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant
capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day. _
3. modify its plan to specify that all on-site systems are to be inspected at least biennially
by an inspector licensed by the city or County, and certified by the MPCA.
• c. Recommend that the city revise its plan to respond to the changes to the region's
roadway classification system adopted by the TAB in 1992 and 1993.
d. Recommend that the city revise its glan to specify how the city will incorporate
the recommendations -of the TH 52/55 Study.
e. Commend the city for its support of strategies to work with developers to remove
bazriers and encourage design that promotes transit usage in specified corridors.
Adopted this day of , 1993. �
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
, . By By . .
Dottie Rietow, Chair Sandi Lindstrom, Secretary
14
SEP-16—'93 THU 1�:05 ID:METROPO�ITAN COUNCIL TEL N0:612i291-6550 #902 P02 .
METR�P�LITAN �C7tJ1'�1CiL
Mear.s Pbrk Cenrre, 230 East F7,Jth Street, St. Ptrul, MN 5S1p1-lQ34 fi1Z 291-6339 F,9X 6/Z Z91-liiSO TTY 612 291-09Q4
S�ptember 16, 1993
M�. Lisa Frceae
Pl�nt�itYg DireGtor
, Clty of Ra�mount
�875 14Sth Strxt West
Ro$emaunt� IMN 550�8-051A
RE: C.�1Culation af Land L�atts�ad needs fr�r
Roscmount '
Dear Llsa: �
As ret�uested, st�tff have preparcd the fallawing informatian tt� re�pond to questians reg�arding the
anticipatecl need for land within the city af Rr,semouni for the periad 1993-�000.
Th�staff revlew of the cnmprehe�sive plaa 3�lA�ate 2Q00. sbows a n�cd for 1Q26 acres betwesn
• 1993 aric! #he year 20QQ, At the time the draft review was prep�red, ti�e he.et and mo�t reliable
infarm�tian available was contafned irt the revicw prepared by staff with respect to th� diversion
of flow from thc l7oscmount trGatment plant to thc Empire piant (Counc�l Referral File No. '
iS468-3),
At that time (Octoher IA92), the �igure.�were � fotlows:
R�sidential demand (2992 - 2ppp) 811 a�res
Commercial dernand (1992 - 2000� 2a acres
Industrial demand (1992 _ 2ppt�) 80 acres
Public tatreets, p�rka, etc. (1942 •20D0) 172 �Cres
TOTAL DEMAND 1,�$3�cre�
Five Year overage 54f acres
T�TAL DEMA►A1A WITH bVERAG� �,��q���
TUTAL SUPPI,Y OF tJRflAN LA�NIa 3e„�3 ac�g
DEMOI�t'STRATED N�LD F(�R URI3AN �.AND 1,Z71
Tho amou�nt af land acided to Rasemount's MUSA wich ehe div�rsion $mendm�nt wes 24S acr�es,
By Bubtracting 245 rrom the demonstrated need of 1�271, there remained a nee.d for 1,0�6 a�res.
This 1,Q26 acre �igure was used in the i.Jpdate �000 review �a the latest �stimate of land �needed
for urban development.
I r�atize tbe figure is actually a late 1992 �stimate, rather th�n directly r�latin,� to t.�� 1993
�stimate of thc amaunt of sewer vacant lsnd, but tt was appropriate to use at �hc time.
With regard ta lhe rovised method used by��aff in cslculating land demand, $taff have atso
complCted a draft cstimate for the city. It is based, as Bob I7avis explained, on th� arnount of
land actually consumod by the city for.all types of.development, apd r�Iated to th� hausehoid
growth ln the city. The factor used in lhe case oe Rosemount is one c�f the larg�st �.55 acres
cansumed per hous�hold edded}. '�'he 1990-20�U fareea�t for Rosemount is 2221 ncw households.
� Recyoled Paper
SEP-16-'93 THU 1�:06 ID:METROPOLITAN GOUNCIL TEL N0:612i291-6550 #902 P�3 ---�-�--
According to aur phone conveta�ttan of August 2, 1993, approldmat�ly t 1 u�ta per year �re
being built in tbc rural area. By subtracting 1�D units from the 2221� we arr�ve at an estimete of
2121 n�+ hausing units to he developed in tha urban service �res of tr►e city between 1990 and
200Q. Muliiplying 2111 by .53 yields a ne�d for 1161 acres of urben Iand for thc 1�90-2QqQ
period_ The ffve-year overage allowcd by the Cauncil (one-half of thc 1990 - 2000 land demand}
when addcd to tha actual damand resutta in a tc�t81 need oE 1741 acres. After subtracting three
and a h�if year's warth of growtb (�174 acr�s/year) th� nat land d�mand with overage is ahaut
1132 acre�.
While the recond.method yi�lds a sligbkty larger fore�casted n�ed for 1and, the differance ls anly �
about 10U acres. Ia additi�n, even with the higher demand figure,the city's aurrent MUSA
togeth�r with the Interim MUSA acted an by ihe Cc�uncil�ravides adequete sewered urban tand
through the year 2000. ts.t this time, the Council is prohibrted by its policies from scdng on
MUSA expan�ions beyand fhe year 2000.
IP yau necd further inf�rmatioa or sssistance from Councii staf� ple�se give me a c�ll at �91-6319.
Sincerety,
Thomas R, CnsweU, Plann�r
. cc: Stcven Jilk, City Admini�trator
Terrenco Flovv�r, Mecropo2i�n cccsuacii �tat�ict ��
guidelines to stay consistent with the Metropolitan Council
Plan.
Jurisdictional Changes
The plan needs to include a section on jurisdictional "
changes. For example, County Road 38 between TH 55 and CSAH
71, Diamond Path between CSAH 42 and 160th St, and 160th
street across the City.
� SEP-�7-'93 TUE 13:46 ID:METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TEL N0:612i291-6550 �#837 P03
.
� METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
� Moars Park Centre, 230 Ha.st Fifth Street, �t. Paul. Minnesota 55101
612 291-6354 TDD 612 241-0904
DA'I'�: September 3} 1993 '
TOs MDIF-MUSA Teatn
FROM: Bob Davis �
SUB,TTCT: Council Urban Land Demand (Need) Farecast Process (Latid Supply & Land
De2n�nnd} .
It�ITRODUC'ZON .
• T'be Metropolitan Dovelopu�ent and Invcstment Pramework requiros the Cauncil to forccast
long-ras�ge (199fl to 2020) urban land dcmand to indicate the locatian and land arca necded
within the Matropolitu� Urban Service Ar�a (MUSA) which wilf be pro.vided with a full-range of
metropolitan service systtms (sewcr, highwayB aad transit, puks, airports, solid waste, etc.} as well
as loeal s�rviee systems. Outside the forecast MUSA the area will remain rural and witl not
receiva Metropolitaa 8ervice systeins.
R�jQN-WII�E OU RANT A POLIC AFiLA FOF�ECASTS ,�RF THE ASE
Forecasting land use demand for an area is not unlike Porecasting of population and households;
the largez thc area the more reliable the forecasts. Since the adoption of the MDIF in thc carly
197Qs,the Cauncil�has foreeast urban laud demand for thc region (as a-whole), for the sectors �
(now quadranta), and for the MDIP tuban palicy areas.
Poracasts of tuban land are based upon the land cuusumgtiam (iand u�e density) #rend over khe
ps�st tea year perlod (19�U - 1990). The Couneil uses �he r� vf total urbani�ed Iand (of all
type� within tbe far�st area) to total hauseholds constructed in the same ar�a as the primary
mathematical factor to forecast fvtura urban land demand. 'The household figure (rather thatt
populaiion) is used to compute the need for future urban serviced land hecausc it relates directly
to land area served hy urban systems. The number of forerast households (Por nc� rcgian, the
quadrant or the policy area) is maltiplied by the ratia to provide future urban land demand.
Tho urbsn l�d forecasts are used.to evaluaie the Region wide Btatus of the MUSA and to
answer the.que�tion; is there adequate serviced tand within the current Metropolitan Urban
Sorvice Area ta accammadate the exp�eted forecast of land demand? {Table 1)
�BE_CASTING URBAN AND DE ND WITHIN IN'bIVIDU�L`MUIVI�IPALITIE�
Since the adoption of the Metroeolitan Land Plannin� Act, the Council has also been forecasting
urbAri 1slld demat]Q for +Cach city inside the MUSA (ir►clud9ng frecstanciing grc�wilr eent�rs) in
order to respond to municipal plans and local requesta for mecropoutan sorvica sysums.
In order to dctarminc urban land demand for aities with both an urban and rurat service area the
Council first needa to detenn�ne the number of bousehalds forccast for the urbari area (forecast
rural households muat be removed). This informatio� is obtained bath from local comprehensive
• =��r-���- y..:> I Ut 1.5:4 r i�1:I'ic�r.'Ur'UL! i HN COUNC I L I EL hIU:b12i291-655�� �ci37 P�4
, � r plan data in our file6,by COntacting lacal govcrnmerit agenCies a»d by counting households on
aarlal photographs.
For�casting land demand for 9ndividua] cities and townships is lcss reliablc than thc regional,
quadrant or policy area foreeasts. Loeal changes in the jobs and households (used to gcnerate
land demand) are inhorently more volatilc (fluctuate moTe drasticaily both up and down) than
chose for the largor areas of thc region; Few, if any, muniCip�ltties in the r�gion fl�nction
3ndegendently. When viewed over just a few years any single municipality locat�d within any
quadrant andlor policy ar�a may grow faster or slower eagturing more ar less area growdi at the��
expcnse of its nB4.ghbors: Thus, in the greater "community"(quadi'ast or pplicy are�) the growth
shifts (fluctuatcs) from one municipality to another (for a variery of reasons involving variou5 land
characteristics including owncrship), but ovcr-time the relative grawth ahares of individual
communitirs tend to even out. ;The Iluctuadans in local growth ahares aiso help to �xplain why
the Cauncil does not use short-term trends when prc�ducing long-range forecasts. •
If the individual municipal r�tid (1984 to 199� change in the total developed acres of land per
household} is between ..?A and .d8,the munfcipat.figure is within the averaEe range for the
. . quadrants and the poiiey areas and .can prabably be used. Hawever, in any forecast process
there arc anamaliea (cities that do not follow the norm). Thesc cities will have ratios either less
than .20 ar greater than .�8 acroa of urbanized land per househoid. P_xamples may be so called
l�edroam communides (communftiea wlth few jobs and a lawer amouat af non-residential land
Used per householcl}�and or employment ¢emers.(communities �rith e hlgh ralia of jobs +and
higher amount of non-residential land used per hou�ehold). Other factors affecting the ratlo are
a dty wlth a high.percenta�e of muidple family househoid �rawth during the past t� years
(less land is used); or, a city at the edge of the MUSA vvith recent deve]opmea# on very large
lota (groater land eansumed). Befare forecgsdng land demand far thcse "anoma�y"communities
the Council cheeks °realism"ot thc rst�o by�eamtnin� the passible rtasons whp the urban land
conaumption over the paat ten years raages above ar below the norat. For all cities the Council
"also exatnines the relationship of households to residential land cons�ed and the zelationship of,
jobs to comine�rdal, indvstriai ead public land canaumption.
While somc commwuties will vary,for short periods, from th� forecasts produr.�d by this process,
over time most communitier, will trend toward the $ector and/or policy erea norrn. Since the land
forecast process is revised regularly. as the BlueprinUMDIF is revised (approximat�ly overy five
years), and wheri Comn�mit�es revise their locai plans, thc consumption of urban land far various
P�'Pasos ia also re-examin� rcgularly. ,
MUSA FORE AST LAND DEMAND IS I SCALE WITH BUT GREATER THAL�I
ACTUAL Nfi DS
To accarnmodate short-term changos in the marketplace, Allaw camgetitian and maintain
. reasonable�larid pricea ihe Council realius that an adequat� supply oi develo�ble land needs to
be available. To assura this supply the Council, by policy,builds a five-year over supply af land
- (over a ten year pIanning perfod) �nto the process. 1"htts far any ten-year planning period one-
� half of the te�n year urbaa land demand i� computed aud added ta the tatal. In reality this
"overaupply"functions as a high-ead 4are�ast raage. Piva ycars was scltcted by the Cotanc9l in
tbe early 1970's because it also related well to thc ma�citnum amount af titne 4t takea for most
construetion projects to be cvmpleted from cime of initfai conccptian chrough fiaat canatrucsion.
The Council also concluded that to provide more than a five-year avarsuppiy of serviccd land (for
&ny ten-year planning period would not en�blo it to carry out its legislative rosponsibilitics to plan
for the orderly and economic �rowth of the regian and the Metropolttan Services.
,' rEP-0?-'93 TUE 13:45 ID.h1ETROPOLITAN COUNCIL TEL N0:612i291-6550 #83? P02
Rosemount
Rosemount had a 19�0 to 1990 urban Iand �rowth factor of .70 aeres of urban land per househ�ld
for the entlro community. This is a unusually large factor and stafP considers Roacmaunt xo be an
attomaly communlry eince tht faetor is above .48 acres per houaehold*. Rosemount's o�erall
residcnNal land faetor wae .4'�acrr.s per household; the hlghest in Dakota County(Which has�an
averago of .26 far urban and urbanixing communitieB). The res�dential factor was even higher _
than Lakeville which was .39 aeres per household.
There are scvezal reaaons for Rosemount's high urban growth factor and why it must be reduced �
whan reladnS to just th� urban land demand within the MUSA. Roscmount had substantial rurat
residential development during the 1984's oa lar8e lota with septic systems particularly in thc
northwest part of the city. These l�trger lot rt�x'al unita end ug being ineluded in the urbanize�
land area {since we have no way to r�ove them) and the re,9ult is a hi�hez� urban laad uge
factar. Also. while thC dty actually lost,�obs between 1980 aad 1990 (�2), it add�d
enxploqment land mastly in the Koch Reflnery area (outs�de the MUS�A). Thia comb�nation of
' land added wh31e loeing� substantially raiae� t�e factor.
Anothcr chcck we perform is ta r�late the 1980 to 1990 factors af che city (.70) to the Quadranc;
in thc cas� of kasemount, the southeast quadrant {.4b). and ta the Developing area (.41). Thc
averagc of the aity,the quadrant and the policy ar�a is .S2 acres per household. Because
Rosemount i� on the outer edge oi the MUSA we believe the factor for urban laad insfde t6e
MU3A will remain. somewhat°�her then the �autheast quadrant Por a period of time rre0ectia�;
1) larger r�idential bts, and 2) a low ratio of mult�-family u�it,� (multi-family was anly 69b from
1984 to 1990, only Farmingtop was kss at S 9b in the develaping Dakota Caunty commnnities).
We alsa believe the city will continue to consume a somewhat greater amount of land erea per
. job. .
We used. a factor of.55 acr.es per household to forecn.�st itrture urban land dernand within the
MUSA af Rasemount. �Ta maiutain this relatively high MU3A ratio of urban land con�umption
per houaehold Rasemount wtll need to continue ta develop predaminantly single f�tltiy tmits on
targe lats and use relatively hieh amaunte of commerdal, industrtal �ad public land per
e�nploye�.
*The .48 urban acres per houschold is an average of the combined four quadrane ratias which
cxclude�the central cit9cs. �
, -
DA KO TA CO U N T Y °A�a NTY ENGINEER E�
HlGHWAY DEPARTMENT Fax(6t2)9891��31
� � � 14955 GALAXIE AVENUE,3R0 F�OOR APPLE VALLEY,MINNESOTA 55124-8579
S014E 1�l,��A .
\ ��w�
�^` W� . . . . . . _ . . . . .
W
�M
/ —�
�' •r`~ "
, •
September 14, 1993
. Lisa Freese, Planning Director
City of Rosemount
2875 145th St. West
P.O. Box 510
Rasemount, MN 55068-0510
Re: Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan Update 2000
� Dear Ms. Freese:
The Dakota County Highway and Planning Departments have
reviewed the Rosemount Comprehensive Guide P1an Update 200D.
In response, County staff have made both general and
specific comments to the plan.
Dakota County is supportive of the plan and appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the plan. Overall, we find that
the plan is well-conceived and is generally consistent with
the plans of Dakota County. We offer general and specific
comments below, along with attached detailed comments on the
transportation element.
- 1. Rosemount's cooperation with the County and Metropolitan
Council in planning for future development will provide for
a good transportation system throughout the City. We are
supportive of the City�s participation in the Z'Ii 52 corridor
study; protection of future access to arterial roads; public
transit policies on section V, (B) -7; and the objectives of
the plan listed on section V, (B) -2. �
2. The County applauds the City's attempts to provide for a
wide range of land uses, and for a wide variety of housing
types, including high density residential and attached
single family dwellings. The County also supports City
P!�n!�(�(�f1 FTn�`V.nlcrl Pa�1er . .. . � . C1.1 C(1�1�� (�PD(1PT11�,�ITV C��DIl1VCD
efforts to retain long-term agricultural use in suitable
areas of the City.
3 . The City is to be commended for making appropriate and
compatible land use designations for land within and .
adjacent to Spring Lake Park Reserve and adjacent to Lebanon
Hills Regional Park. However, either the Land Use Element
or the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
should describe current County efforts to define a Regional
Trail Route along the Mississippi River Corridor, connecting
the regional trail segment in South St. Paul to Spring Lake
P�rk Reserve and points south along the River. City support
for such a Regional Trail Concept would be appreciated.
In addition, we have two specific land use comments: :
I. Section V(A) - 7. Dakota County commends the City's
intention to limit land use on U of M property to public and
institutional, not general industrial. � �-�
2. Section IV(D) -4. Local governmental units are required
to develop water management plans that are in conformance
with WMO plans. WMOS, in turn, are required by state
statute to bring their water management plans into
conformance with the County gtound water plans. � Therefore,
in a roundabout way, local governmental units will also need ,
to be in conformance with .the policies outlined in the '
County Groundwater Plan. A better policy may be that
"Rosemount will work with the County to implement ground
water protection programs that are appropriate to the City" .
We appreciate the. opportunity to comment on the Rosemount
Comprehensive Guide Plan and look forward to working with
the City in the implementation of their Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely,
1 �
I '
���,,.��. �� '
Jack Ditmore David L�Everds, PE
Deputy Director, Dakota County Engineer
Physical Development Division �
cc: County Commissioners
Brandt Richardson
Louis Breimhurst
Lynda Voge, Metropolitan Council
Bud Osmundson, City Engineer
corn�rrrs
BY: DAROTA COIINTY PHYBICAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
OFFICF OF PLANNING AND HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS
ON: ROSEMOIINT COMPREHENSIVE GIIIDE PI,AN IIPDATL 2000
TRANSPORTATION ISSIIES
DATS: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
Dakota County believes the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan Update 2000 needs to specifically
address the following: ,
E%ISTING TRANSPORTATION BYSTEMS
Major Thoroughfares
Section V, (B) -1, The plan states the City is "traversed
by only one metropolitan system highway". According to the
April, 1993 .adopted Metropolitan Council Highway System,
Rosemount_ actually contains three metropolitan system
highways. These three are: TH 52, TH 55 and CSAH 42. We
suggest the plan conform with the Metropolitan Council's
adopted principal arterial study.-
Section V,- (B) -1, Rosemount acknowledges that TH 3 through
the business district is already at capacity. Later in that
paragraph, the plan states that capacity improvements are
�undesirable, which creates a conflict in the plan. If TH 3
is not upgraded, the congestion on the road will increase
proportionally with area growth. In addition, the
redevelopment of this area must take into consideration the
internal circulation of city streets to encourage alternate
access to the businesses.
Dakota County supports the policies listed under Major
Thoroughfares. However, the discussion preceding the
policies is inconsistent with their potential
implementation. One example, the plan should address all
modes of �ransportation including bikeways. The internal
City system of bikeways linking to the County system should
be included as a transportation mode. Further, policies for
principal arterials need to be applied to CSAH 42 and TH 55.
Aviation
Section V, (B) -1, Site Three in Dakota County has been
selected by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC} as
part of the dual track process for site selection af a
potential new airport. We recommend the plan reflect
decisions that have been reached in this process to date.
STRE?3T AND HIGHWAY PLANNING
As stated previously, there is a conflict in the Plan
regarding capacity deficiency on TH 3 and the objections to
capacity improvements. CSAH 42 will become the primary
feeder to shopping districts not TH 3. The development and �
growth in this area and continued steady increase in traffic
volumes will dictate the road improvements, nat the
designation of the road as a principal arterial. Proper
functional classification will help involve the correct
agencies in upgrading the road and will allow appropriate
funding mechanisms to be utilized.
According to the plan, 34� of Rosemount's employed residents
commute to Eagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley and South
Hennepin County. These commuting patterns indicate the need
for an east/west principal arterial (CSAH 42) .
The plan states that Diamond Path and Pilot Knob Road are
possible relievers for TH 3. Diamond Path cannot relieve TH
3 as the proximity of these roads and land area serviced are
not compatible. Further, Pilot Knob Road is 2.5 miles west
of TH 3 and is serving its own area and unable to relieve
TH 3.
MAPS .
While the overall inclusion of maps in the plan are helpful,
Dakota County suggests there are several maps that would be
beneficial. First, there should be a map of Rosemount with
its relationship to the adjacent communities and the region
including transportation corridors. Second, Maps 6 and 18
should be eliminated and replaced with a series of maps: A
Map of the Functional Classification System including
principal arterials, high density minor arterials, low
density minor arterials, major and minor collectors; maps
projecting proposed road development and capital
improvements; road volume maps; a Rosemount Street System
Map; and a bike trail system map.
Tables - V{B)-1 and -2
Table 1 should acknowledge in the jurisdiction of principal
arterials, Dakota County. Examples of principal arterials
should include CSAH 42 and TH 55 as well as TH 52.
Table 2 on the access control standards should acknowledge
two types of principal arterials, freeway and non-freeway
and their system characteristics.
The Metropolitan Council is currently updating its
Transportation Guide Development Policy Plan and the
guidelines for principal arterials, both freeway and non-
freeway. We recominend the Rosemount Plan use these