HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.d. Comprehensive Guide Plan Update ,
CITY OF ROSIIKOUNT
EXECUTIVE SIINl�+iA.RY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September ?, 1993
AGENDA ITEM:Comprehensive Guide Plan AGENDA SECTION:
Approval Process Update Department Heads Reports
PREPAR.ED BY. Lisa Freese AGENDA��d ■ � � s-
tv� .� ;�
ATTACHI�NTS:Metropolitan Gouncil Staff Report BY:
On Tuesday City Staff received the firsG draft of the Metrapo tan Council
comments on the review and recommendations for the approval of the Citys
Comprehensive Guide Plan update.
City Administrator Jilk and I reviewed those comments and developed
responses to those areas of concern for the City. On Thur�day we met with
Metropolitan Council staff to discuss our concerns and get clarification on
issues we were unClear of_ These discussions led to some changes� that the
Council staff agreed to. I was not completely satisfied with the changes
agreed upon since I felt there should have been greater compromise on the
number of acres to be put in the MCTSA.
A second draft of the report was provided to us on Friday morning and we
have provided a copy of that to you which is attached. .
As drafted the recommendations of the Council staff wi11 require the City,
before the plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council, to revise the land
designation. and MUSA map, agree to adopt a septic sewer system inspection
program and to hold a public hearing to consider these changes .
The other recommendations are not as subsCantive but will require some
action on behalf of the City.
The recommended allowance for MUSA expansion will provide for sufficient
growth opportunities in the City through the year 2000 but they will
probably require some choices to be made by the City to determine which
developments will occur and will certainly not allow for open development
opportunities or unlimited choices as to the locatian of development .
Please review the findings and recommendations in the report and I will
provide a rnore detailed summation of the report to you at the rneeting.
;
RECO1+a2ENDED ACTION:None
�
COUNCIL ACTION:
� T
Committee of the Whote Meeting of September 9, 1993 Business Item: B-2 _
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Pazk Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St.Paul, Minnesota SSIOi
612 291-63S9 TDD 612 291-0904
DATE: August 24, i993
TO: Metropolitan Council Committee of the Whole
FROM: Comprehensive Planning (Tom Caswell, 291-6329)
SUBJECT: City of Rosemount Comgrehensive Plan Amendment
Update 2000,Plan Revision
Metropolitan Council Referral File Na. 15468-6
Metropolitan Councii District No. 16
DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AMENDMEN'T
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 serviee necessary to accommodate development, while at the same time trying to
protect the Rosemount treatment plant from exce�ding its permitted capacity.
BACKGROUND
The city 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
_. .March 1993, the Council staff conducted an informal review of the Rosemount Comprehensive �
Plan, and provided comments on what additional inforrnation the city needed to provide in the
final draft docurnent. 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 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 determination on the plant's capacity in August, 1993. The current estimated treatment
ca acit of 0.9 million allons er day (mgd) has been used in this review of the Rosemount
P
Y g P
comprehensive plan. �
. .
REGIONAL POLICY ISSIJES '
Prior to recent improvements by the Metrvpolitan Waste Control Commission, the Rosemount
wastewater treatment plant had a capaciry of 0.71 million 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 540 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 impravements, is estimated to be 0.9 mgd. This additional capacity, �
coupled with the diversion to the Empire plant appears to be adequate to accommodate the sewer
flows foreeasted in the city's plan until approximately 1998. The ciry'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 fram this area, together with
undeveloped land within its current sewered area, would greatly exceed the treatment ptant'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
delineate an urban serviee area that is consistent with its forecasted growth and subsequent sewer
flows (not ta exceed the 09 mgd short term capacity). Once the longer term capacity is planned
and prograrnmed, the city can submit an amendment delineating an expanded MUSA.
AUi'HORITY TO RE'VIEW
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act of 1976 requires local units of govemment to submit
comprehensive plan amendments to the Metropolitan Council for review (Minn. Stat. 473.864,
suhd. 2, 1978). The Act also gives the Council the authority to establish guidelines governing the
amendment review process (Minn. Stat. 473.854).
The ci'ty of Rosemount submitted its proposed comprehensive plan amendment on March 22,
1993. On April l, 1993, the Chair determined that the amendment presented a potential impact
on the sanitary sewer and transportation systems. an May 4, 1993, the city requested an
extension of the review period to allow the Council adeqnate time to consider the city's plan in
light of the Metropolitan Waste Contral Commission's evaluation of interim improvements to the
Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. The extended review period will conclude on
September 22, 1993.
FIlYDINGS
1. The forecasts contained the Rosemount eomprehensive plan, Uvdate 2000 are consistent
with the Council's forecasts.
2. The city's policies for rural area development are consistent with the CaunciPs rural
policy,except for the existing develaped areas shown on its zoning map as Rural
ResidentiaL
3. The Metropolitan Waste Cont�ol Commission has completed interim improvements to the
Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant that nas 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 piant will not be approved until 1994.
5. The city's program for infiltration/inflow is acceptable, and the provisions for private
wastewater treatment plants cornply with Council requirernents.
6. The city needs to modify its on-site system regulations ta require biennial inspection of
on-site systems by certified and lieensed inspectors.
7. The city's surface water management policies comply with the Council's Interim Nongoint
Management Strategy,
8. The plan's functional classification system complies with the current Transportation Policy
Plan, but not the classification revisians adopted by the TAB in 1992 and 1993.
� 9. The city does not specify when the results of the TH 55 Corridor Study willbe available,
nor how it will be incorporated into the Comprehensive 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 xypes of traffic expected
to be generated by expansion of the proposed industrial uses and densities.
11.� 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 prajects 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 Park 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
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 Flanning Act
(Minnesvta 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 area within the proposed year 20Q0 MUSA
(including the area identified as removed from the MUSA until after 1996) until
such time as the Council has approved the Commissions's Implementation 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
classification system adopted by zhe TAB in 1992 and 1993.
4. Recommend that the city revise its plan to specify haw the city will incorparate the
recommendations of the TH 52/55 Study.
5. Comrnend 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 Develogment and Investment Frautework
The MDIF shows the westem portion of Rosemount in the developing area, the southeastern
portion in the commercial agricultural area, and the majority of its land in the general rural use
area. The city of Rosemount is located in central Dakota County (see Figure 1), and is
surrounded 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 ta the Council's, are similar. The
projected growth through the year 2010 is slightly higher than the Council's (see Table I), 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 S,OQO 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 estinnates of vacant, developable land within the MUSA. Shown in Table 2
(below) is a comparison of the supply of vacant developable land within the MUSA, as well as
anticipated demand for land. �
TABLE 2
CC3MPARISON OF SUPpLY & DEMAND
Vacant Develogable Land within MUSA (acres)
St�PPLY *
Current MUSA � 600 + acres
Interim MUSA 615 acres
Year 2000 MUSA** 1,320 aeres
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 area to be withdrawn from the MUSA until 1997
(approximately 250 acres and part of the 2000 MUSA), and 3) a year 2Q00 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 city staff, the
discrepancies have been resolved. The city used its Geographic Information System (GIS) to
determine the amount of vacant developable land. 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 Rosemount treatment plant,
even with the interim improvements, cannot serve the entire area. Therefore, the eity should be
apprised that once the 0.9 mgd flow to the Rosemount Plant has been reached, no additional
sewer extensions will be approved until improvements to the Rosemount Plant have been made.
The Commission's Implementation Flan 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 �liminate the
proposed year 2000 MUSA. Once the Commission's Implementation Plan is approved by the
Council, the city may resubmit its year 2000 MUSA request for Council review.
Rural Use Area Policv •
' As discussed above, a large 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 64Q
acre section) in the general rural use area, and one unit per forty acres in the agricultural area.
The plan is consistent with these policies except for an area north of its urban area. The ciry has
approximately three sections of land that, due to uncontrolled subdivision and development during
the late sixties and early seventies, have been allowed ta develop at one unit per five acres on two
and one half acre lots. Because this area is already subdivided, and most 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 for on-site system�
ma.nagement. Consequently, the on-site systems serving this develapment will need careful
monitoring� to reduce the need for premature extension of urban services to correct failing on-site
systems. The sanitary sewer section discusses this issue further.
The plan also discusses the area in eastern Rosemount that currently has substantial industrial
development. This development, often referred to as the Pine Bend area, includes Kach
Refinery, CF Industries, Dixie Petrachemical, Material Recovery, USPCI's non-hazardous
industrial waste landfill, and the Rosernount 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 dominated by existing heavy industrial development is appropriate. The city's plan � '_
¢ proposes adding about 450 acres in this area to the urban service area. All of the proposed e�rban-
industrial area is part of the year 20Q0 MUSA addition. This area is adjacent to the Rosemount
treatment plant and USPCIs landfill, which is already part of the urban service area. The city is
proposing to add gart 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 rural area, and
agricultural densities that are consistent with Couneil po�icies.
Natural Resources (Frost)
� Wastewater Treatment
The Metropolitan Waste �ontrol Cornmission has completed 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 million gallons
per day. The Commission will be applying to the Minnesota Follution Contral Agency tv 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 alternatives 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 af the city and ta 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'$flow projections are consistent with
the Council's projections 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 mgd
The city was identified in the Cornmission's inf'iltracian/inflow (I/I) study as having soil conditions
which could potentially contribute to excessive �/I. 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 connection 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 IiI
problem.
The city has proposed to not altow any additional private wastewater treatment plants im the eity:
The two existing private treatment plants, Koch Refinery and Continental Nitrogen, are required -
to comply with their respective NPDES permits.
As noted above, the city allows development in three sections of its rural area at a density of one
unit per five acres. This exceeds the CounciPs recommended maximum standard of four units per
40 acres as stated in the Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan poiicy 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 inspeetor. To avoid the
unplanned, premature extension of sanitary sewer to areas of past development in the rural
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 city or county.
Surface Water Quality
As part of the Comprehensive Plan the city has rnade 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 Handboak and the city has agreed to follow the DNR's Shoreland Regulations. The
city has also comznitted to adopting �he necessary regulatory controls within 90 days following
approval of the Comprehensive plan.
8
Transportation
Highways and Transit (Barton)
The city's roadway classification camplies with the Transportation Policy Plan, and correctly
identifies Truck 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 are the result of a
classification study completed in 1993, in response to the Intermodal Surfaee Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The ISTEA requires the Council, with the cooperation of Mn/DOT and
local governments, to identify the regional component of the Nationai Highway System .
The TAB identified a number�of changes to principal arterials. Specifically, CSAH 42 and TH 52
are now recommended as noninterstate prineipal anerials. In addition, CSAH 71 and TH 3 witl
be reclassified as "augmenter arterials".
A major concern 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 lacal land
uses. In support of this concept, the TAB has advanced the concept that all expressway type
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 affected local
government through their comprehensive plans. By 1999 the agency with jurisdiction over
individual principal arterials is required to make significant progress on protecting median access
and/or limiting intersection 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 operatian of arterials by adopting an ordinance to
limit highway access, promoting the construction of frontage roads, and adopting an official map
for right-of-way protection. The completion of the�TH 52/55 corridor study, being conducted
jointly by Rosemount, Inver Grove Heights, Dakota Counry, and MnDOT, 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 municipal services to the Pine
Bend area. No mention is made to identify the potential transportation impacts on expanded
general industrial uses in an area defined by the TH 52 and CSAH 42 corridors. These are the
only existing rt�adways with any significant cagacity 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 indicate that the general industrial
uses proposed will be targeted to a market niche of "regionat-scale industrial and waste
management facilities". The plan should address the volumes and type of traffic expected to be
generated by these facilities, or when and how these potential im�acts 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 prajects to be constructed in the 1994-1998
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 alternative travel nnodes.
Data presented in the $ection indicated 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 western 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 improve service through callaboration with providers,
promotion of ride-sharing with employers and the use of local development controls. The eity
should be commended for its commitment ta work with developers to remove barriers and
encourage transit use in the design of development prajects in transit corridors. �
Several transportation facilities, the railroad and a barge facility located in the Pine Bend area are
� mentioned in the transportatian section. The city,as part of the study regarding the eastern
portion of the city,may want to consider identifying various opportunities and needs among the
rail, barge, and truck services in the area. The IST�A rules prepared by the U.S. Department of
Transportatian, will require greater intermodal planning, coordination and operating
considerations both as a system and at intermodal facilities locations.
Airports (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
area will have to be reevaluated and would require revisions to the city's Comprehensive Plan.
I�iousing (Dougherty)
The city has done an excellent job of providing the additional material requested in the Council's
informal 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 irnplementation
measures.
The Update 2000 is consistent with Council Housing Policy.
Parks (Myslajek)
A portion of Spzing Lake Park regional is located in the eastern end of Rosemount
(approximately 200 acres). Adjacent development proposed for the areas appears to be consistent
with regional parks. There are 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 proposed by the city is cornpatible with and consistent with
metropolitan plans for regional recreation open space.
10
Locat parks are discussed minimally in the comprehensive plans since there is a separate
Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide prepared by the city. The golicies relating to
construction of trails and park dedication policies are appropriate for the community.
A
ll
METROPf� LITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre,250 E.5th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
RESOLUTION REQUIRING MQDIFICATION OF
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSiVE 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 Cauncil Guidelines for
Reviewing Locat 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 accardance with the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Council Guidelines for Reviewing Local
Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed arnendment has been reviewed for impacts on metropolitan systems,
apparent consistency with other adopted Metropolitan 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�
PolicY Plan, and that a plan modification is required prior ta Council approvaL
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
1. The Metropolitan Council finds that:
a. The forecasts contained the Rosemount eomprehensive plan, Update 2000 are
consistent with the CounciPs fore�asts.
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
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 cansistent with
the plant's capacity. �
d. The long term facility plan for the Rosemount plant will not be apgroved untii 1994.
12
e. The city's program for inftltration/inflow is acceptable, and the provisions for private
wastewater treatment giants 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 licensed 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 nat 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 eastern portion of the city,but not address the volurnes and tyges of tra�c
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.
1. 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. �
m. Approxiznately 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 regionai recreation facilities within the city. Proposed development
in Rosemount, adjacent to Lebanon Hills Regional Park located in Eagan and Appie
Valley, is compatible and consistent with metropoliian 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. Adapt the above findings and the sta€f report as part of these recommendations.
b. Inform xhe city of Rosemount that pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act
(Minnesota Statutes Sec. 473.175,Subd. 1}, before it can put the glan amendment into
effect it must: A
1. modify its plan by removing the area within the proposed year 2004 MUSA (including
the area identified as removed from the MUSA until after 1996} until such time as the
13
Council has approved the Commission's �mplementation 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 Counry, and certi€'ied 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 plan to specify how the city will incorporate
the reeommendations of the TH 52/55 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 COUNCIL
By By - _ :
Dottie Rietow, Chair Sandi Lindstrom, Secretary
�
14
�EGIONAL LOCATION FIGURE 1
� . . . . . � � ��-—-—-� � - . .E►M��— -—� . � . � � �.
� sr.re�Mces �
� � . . � _�INWOOD I � � . �.. � .
� 1 I [lfi E[iN[l . ' . . .
. � I � ��BUNNS i O�K GROVE � --_—� . . � �
1 '
. .� � � � . � � � � .
. � � .. � _�- �—_ �� .
� ANOKA CO. CO�uMeuS � I I
tAMf[7. AMDOYER NAMLAKL � . I�lORLST l►KL� I NEW SCAND�• ,..
iOpESTtaKE I
- ' I
� . ._ . . _._. .. . _ _._ _._ _..... —
.__.. .. . � . .. . lM K� - . .... lIMO t�KLS .... . . .�..MA�lil[ ...:. ... .
. M-�S�N � O�T70M .
(MAY lIN COOM flI1DS �(MTE�YIII(
� � � ' �L�IME � .
I M/•
«uco
N�NOY[� ICIfMGTOX : .��f�LE►INES WASHIN6TON CO.
� . OfSEO 11� MOY OS=MOtEY1LM - � . � � � _�--i—� .
G�ELN/i(LD CORCORAN MAlIC GtOYC . YI[M . Z� '1 1 ZZ �
� NOtTN � I 5T���WaTER
��tOOKtTM Il�R 32� OARS �w�{E�(AR
�OCKiOtD � � ft101[� � K[ � I
� HENNEPIN �CO.. �eooKifM � n[w� �`•••• . ,eaNr .
Y�DM�IS �
. � � CEXTE� (�t/GMTDM [IGMTS :2 �� � .
( _ ZS � Stl AiC ` .. .
QIOR[T�TO � C StAI � �D13 . �tD[N 029� ' . .
�, Mlt(S
M[M 30
I IND[IEMO[NCE � M[DiMA fITYOVTN NOI lp � �S� � 11iiLl � �
METROPOLITAN �, � �o:avau •"ao' :i. „u a
YMIE fkA1N L� pr
COUNCIL ( � �o�oE� ,6 {� �' Y�fLEwQO� OAXDIIL ElYO �TTTAWN
� I - v�lL[t . . . � I � � � wEST� �
� OMG LAK ° � i. I . . .
"' '�- •r ar { RAMSEY CO• ] VKEIANO
OROMO r
. �Ai[�TOwN • NIMN[TOMRA ST.IOVIS � � •AtMT►AUL � Z' l4KElAMO
. ( � MINMITRI3T� ) IaIR . � � . � � � 3�.
� �MIN�NEA►OUf � � .
. : ��+011*wOCO � w:t£RiOwn . � 9 � . . . .
' � DE[/M�YEN OIKIM3 � - .. � i , ST.CR01%tCACM
. � �� . a� . . A � 19 wEii : wO00�URY � 3 _.
�� � S7. -� �AtTOX
. . - ' . ST �OMIf�C1US � (p�.M♦ 1 � IAU{, _.
. . M�T[R — — _ . ' � I$ SOUiN . .
� � � � � �. . fICMi1ElD AIt�ORT, YENOOTR UN.ISN AYl N[M� tT � .
*GUwtrT _�----� . .
'jy• N[IGNiS . . E
� VICTORI CN�MMASSEM � . . � � .
[4MUEN I II�CONIa l>NETflNh � [D[N��AitlE . . Si.IJUI .
AR
� � M�COMI# � �IOOMIXGTOM IMV[!GtOYC� � . .
� � CNASKA � . . . � [AG�M � NEi4NL5 �COTT�GC 4�OYE. .DENM�AK �
� CARVER CO. �
� ---�--� --- 5 , . . _ . . . . . 2. . .
.r__�_
i � CN. ,,. DAKOTA CO.
� TOUNG � . � ' .. .
♦M(RICA � SM�KOtCi
r0!*000[�i � C�� � C�RYEo �J�('K50N �U�MfYlLL[ � � .. � � .
' � GOIOGMy O�MI(ipEN � f1Yx6L � . � � .
'OUMtiiMERl�a ' BENTON� I � `� � . A►�LE�Y1tlCT� �ROSENOUMT � NINiNGER� .
1t10► . NASTiMGf
. . � I � ; �- lOU15vIlLF lAK[ � . � � . .
,.riv�a J -—--— � oa -- 'l
- --�-------t---- � -i- i
� � � ' S.Y�RaNC�S« I . .� ..
n:NCCCK ' . ( . . ' VERM�tltOti ' . fRAVENt+ii .
� � �LAKCYIILE � EMVIRE MtN$N�N � I. I .
. �__�_� . �S�nDCREEK I SVA�HGI�KE I� CRED�i . I� � � I. .
. RIVER ' YElYllliOM .� . I
� I ' I I � -. lARMIMGTON � I I I I
SCOTT C0.
� $i.l�h'RENCE� )ORDaM � - � �
-- � �-- —1------�----- --�
--1----��___ --- i i �-
� •[lLC�lA1N[ � . . . I . �- ' . I � �M['W�TRI[!� .
I I Nf.NM�RltET '. I .. .. . � .
U�aaELEY BEItE Pt��NE� HEIEN• CEOlR��K( I ' EuaE�� �I Ct51tE ROCK NAM Ow �1t Yt"`�
� i I . . I M[w M�RtcEi I � i � I . .
�`'�"'�'�.�,�.� ' ryaMPTGN '� DOUGVS
I II N['x�1RaGYEI I . ElKO ' . � f � .. '
��������_��1�Y..�j.,�L�� �������� �I���'�.���-.�R#XOO�PN . �J .
l I �����
� . � � . I RANOOI�M .
� i � ' , ' �
MILES 5 �10 15 �20 ZS GREENvatE� �waTEefUROX
. ' ��SCIOTA : . .
'` iT_ _J.—_J �
TWIN CITlES METRQPOLITAN AREA
Poli�ica� ��un�aries, 19�0
� 1�f►RtNG IAR%� 9 MOYND 17 fAtCOM M[ICMTS ZS�Gfw lAK[ . �. � .
� 2 OMONO � 70 lO�tIMiD11l[ 18�MtMDOT� 26��Rtxr000 . ANOKA G`Qunt 8ounda � ��
3 MINN[70NKA�LACM 31 1IIIIXG LAKL tARK 19 U170�tt 27�MMITE BEAR � Y �� . �
. 4 TOMXI.!AT �12 U.S.GOYT. � 20�GRET ClOUO 2A�A7f011T 2��� � � Munici ai Baunda . � �
S [7lfLlfl9� 13 NILLTO� 21 t�MOl�ll 29�ttiLi[llMlf � p �
6 G�ECNMOOp 74 COIUM�I�N[IGN7L 22 DLIIWOOD 30 OAR EARK MLIGNTf � CA�OEN �TOWI�ShI Bounda � � �
� � � 7 NOOOlAMO 35 ST..l�MLMOMT 23��MC SItIMGS 31 IAKELANO SNO�[S � � �
� 8 MCDICINL LAI(C 36 LAYD[ROAI[ �I4 MANI0MEO1 32 ST.MRlT'S tOIMT � � . .
i � 1 1 • '
� � • .: u: 7I,� ';�� �i�. �•' •
� ���� ���/tC��� '�'�'i.�! " ��� .�►/� �
�� �,i�.: .r �i� � � � I
.�� � .,���,�� l..M. .��i►a �r:���� iy.� ��.:r� �
.. .������....�..� �,:�_�� �....� � _, ;
if� �'��� / �t��ri�'�� � �
�..,.r.._ ..r - � �� ��
�:�' ..,�-.�� �•1������ . �`��!
�'�"►f r��--:■.r.!`t:��..��► � 1 ,
�� 1����rr`/��r'�r� .:�.■ I � � �� , � r�.� �
t �s''���•� � �� �r�" '��,.�"":ti� �`-'� � � � ��� � �w
�=�i� .:. -
����:��ri ���i��f��,.y `I.. ,i�lS:S�� � �� - \ \� ��._
.�..:;;^..•:.;;:•:.;•.a�..��L7�����Vli%1�� ��� �"" ��� �� �y �'
�:; �..,;�,'s.:v. �i�O�l�l�iI � '� �''� � �
�... ';:y::::I::I11..W�:! , "�'�r .. e� a�.--,���-l.'�.._,,. III��
.:: �'c:=:,:.:::.;., ,�,:,r,,r;.�:-�r>a.. ,�.. � , .� - .
av: .,}�..o.`.�������I''j•�: ,:�d��!. r' ';�'��,�� ,//,+ii� „'.`�,■
+.� f� � •.'P:,4.�.♦ I.
wwwaw�i . +l� R • ..•..
�i .a�4� �� .::`wve�'.Y�I�I��'�/G/.;,//I!•';�:•:Qi'i�.a�i�� � ___' .� _ _ Iry/�► 1h�-S- �i
;�...�..� , ,..i•.-,v,.;.'•:% �y'i:�//�,%'�/"•'•;•3:•�.0 �.nrl. � +_ �/� ��/.��I///r''. �.,�� !h°y!Q 9.�{
,..,. ���� '::`J:•:•.•:• - a / /� �// ♦ • ��
GEv��7��1.'.'.i'i?'`{ %� . '.. %/f//`. �u� I'�I' �� ,..��' ' /� rI/'I���Os� ��Y ��.�hOt��1'��
' �i %I� . /il�� �y �.���/� �i//%�, � ,�!-�%''A.'I��I�II.I,t�,'.�.:'G� ��i'.y� k"�N,;�' \�
�� �'��•"��� •�1 .�%iG!��:i1.w...i'���I'���' %' ��i.ii� � .,��� ai���°'�i����',
��f�� � �.. • �.�IIl.��� y'�j, ,.�I�I�/I /�.�' ��v�,w—%—. �
�♦,i�� ���i:?:�� �aJiy. �.�.!!p}ir,e�i�/.�I i���E, �/ �I��':y�,�i��•.'��� ��h��y}��i ��a I
���i I� �� '% � ����� ` I'�•, i� ��.��.�y��-3, �{�y).`�
�//1/n t ',il� ��i1 i1 7i11 �A£.�I �If./f`,���I ��.� � �'�,���'�',��''"I�!//�I��'1 N�Ji��il�lil�,�,iJ:17t7�' �� �
:«i '?.�•S a�•y:�;�w�:J ti•�'�•�S t s ' �v; ���'Q�/ 1d.^S��j� - .%�__ I /I 1''j.
�� � � r .1�'�•:d 1�.��. t�o.�� /��II � I . ___ i 111�►_Il��.�/� y�E
6�I�r -.�;.�•.Y�•�r� rrY� I qry �
� ,�� e���I i �I � \
,,� � � ��i�h d p� �����I��� � �� � � ',�+��'i��� �''. ,�
r 7� < r.�� '� 4,!//L�f�U��y ' ��� ,rl• ���������� 1� _��
: �h� ���'J .. n=4����ii'�' "'9 ..wa.��� ��� � I �" s��Ili �
s��i��i��Si.� �i. .1. i ? � 3 � s JJ�p.�� rt���, IMVv(W i,�� � Ilt � �I���� �� ♦cnvlliiU�■ �.,.■■
'�. ' ! i '. . .� i '.f, 4 41;1! �1�14\IJ/! �y� _ ---
� � I�Y 1 ).SI 'i1'V'1 3 . •� '
} I I . t 4 � f ��� / �.�t �—"
1 T� i L ��h ♦ ,��f �'{ a 1�`L�1 i�1� ,� I �
/ �s 1� 1 �, � yS. yr.'�171 �.�� I
� 2 � � ' S � �I t,�f vssii�'i� ' .
�{��- i' .t�i � � i ^.f � 3 '44�:'e''''''% I— � ■
i J:Y� ��, �,r�'�'���/'.��v���..��� it�'� .tii+�:�.�� I� ��i
i'i'iiy�� �� �U.r//4�f!!�! +�SS ; s�� *• r�.�:.�i;': ',,. ■'■
�! �.��+�� ��i i� �i .'i.i S}�,.i'.�t 1 1 1.�.` .J •04.���:•� "�, ' ��
r , � �� 33. � S7�1 S.!to"ti�t i ;�4�;� :ii�'✓J::f, i II
� �'� � �3�u ±���yi s�s N �l�t��i • w:.w►'uwe'wiL '�,
�� -• � r� tit t f� .i $j���!I.%�
i ��i: c i �D 3♦ � i��H'%t� t�,�t�!.�� i � �� ���
� 3 i n �� t ui.4i.��i.�%+t
'h��tl,��t 1'i ��'1 r i i 1 �(t ti��S}�tt 1�f�Y I �,�wI�4 � ■
��� �� ;i t isl��l��� r �4�����#��1��i�y'�f���r� � ■
i� �:�ieii��. �i9i��;! s�s�.� f.��) 1Zt� �i��i' I,��I� (
i�:� � '��.� L� �1� s.{��7�i� f ttti �A.Ii���v�
'�j� r�h� �i'�i i�"�,n�,�+�����I��v <ti i�i�i�i 4 i/���
t .s�� S 1-��.�f ��.S 7.'��=7y {L,t ti y R 1 �. �Rt/ �O�I
n`J'r3.�e.1���iki�1�.)yJ�i:lJ��:��t:tl:iltti'ut.�S�fle�!Ui����]I�1:/�At.� �' ■ ���
� . . � � � , � il
,._,_ ___. �
, r � % ��� .
., . ,�
i 1 1' � �
� r � I, 1�
•�
� � 11. ' �,�
� i r� � �: :�.,�,.
r