HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Brief Presentation by MWCCI 3
, .
City of Rosemount
Exeeutive Summary far Action
City CouncillPianning Commission Meeting Date: Mav 25. 1993
Agenda Ttem: Comprehensive Guide Plan Update Agenda Section:
SPECIAL MEETING
Prepared By: Lisa Freese Agenda No.:
Director of Flanning SPECIAL MEETING
Attachments: Comment Letters from Agencies. Approv�d By.
c.� y7�t�P�..a.fl
On Tuesday a Specia.l Meeting with the City Council has been set to discuss the status of the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan review with the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Craig Morris, our
representative an the Metrfl Gouncil, Steve Schwanke, Principal Reviewer, and Don Bluhm, Metro
Waste Control Commission, will be present to discuss various aspects of the Counc:il's review of the
City's plan. The suggested agenda for this meeting is as follows:
l. Call to Order / Pledge of Allegiance
2. Introductions
3. Brief Presentation by MWCC
" Status of Interim Improvements
" Treatment Plant Expansion Study
�` Implementation Plan
4: Qverview by Met Council Sta:ff of Anticipated Review Scl�edule
5. Presentation and Discussion by Mr. Craig Morris Regarding MUSA Expansion/MDIF Palicies
6, Questions and Discussion
7. Adjoumment
Recommended Action:
- No Action Required -
Pianni.ng Commission Action:
OS-2S-93.SPE
#
�
INTERIM POLICY F4R
REVIEWING METRUP4LITAN
UR�AN SERVICE A►�ZEA
: EXPA�NSION REQUESTS
July 1, 1992
Steven Schwanke
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101'
Publication Na 640-92-080
�
L INTRODUCTION
Council staff is aware that several local go�ernments are preparing comprehensive plan amendments
that may propose MUSA expansions to accommodate development beyond the year 2000 timeframe
of the Metropolitan Deuelopment and Investment Framework(MDIF�. Gouncil staff is recommending
the adoption of an interim strategy for local government MUSA expansion requests. The strategy
is based on the following: (1)the Council has no policy basis for entertaining MUSA requests beyond
the year 2000; (2) the Council is in the beginning of several major policy studies that could
dramatically change the delivery of future regional facilities and services; and(3J there is the question
of fairness and equity for local governments who recently processed year-2000 MUSA expansion
requests and the need for a consistent approach to future MUSA expansion requests.
If adopt�d by the Council, the MUSA expansion strategy will be used by staff aswe discuss proposed
plan amendments with local governments on an informal basis. It will also be used to formally
evaluate and prepare staff reports on plan amendments submitted for Council review.
The interim strategy af�rms existing Council policies. Only year-20Q0 MUSA expansions that have
no impact on metropolitan system plans and do not substantialty depart from Council system plans
should be considered by the Metropolitan CounciL The interim strategy includes several o�tions for
local governments who want to plan facilities and services for a post year-20(}0 period. It is proposed
that the Council use this strategy to guide MUSA expansion decisions until several policy studies are
completed and the MDIF is upd�ted.
IL THE NEED FOR AN INTERIM MUSA STRATEGY
Three reasons exist for the Council to adopt an interim MUSA expansion strategy. The first is the
lack of a policy basis for responding to post year-2000 MUSA expansion requests. In our informal
discussions with local governments, Council stafE is aware of several cities preparing major updates
to their comprehensive plans. These future plan amendments may contain MUSA expansion requests
with a planning horizon beyond the year 2000. The upcoming release of the CounciPs new forecasts
may prompt some post year-2000 requests. However, the Council uses forecasts as only one of
several criteria for considering MUSA expansion requests. Other criteria inelude whether suf6cient -
regional and local services exist to support land develo�menC and the local government's rural density
and special assessment policies.
At the present time, the Counci( has no policy basis to approve a plan containing a beyond the year"
2000 MUSA. Council po(icies are based on year 2000 forecasts and are directed to the Council's
vision for the year 200Q. A post year-2000 MUSA request may force the Council to �rematurely act
on several important issues and make service and facility comrnitments without a suf�cient policy
framework.
A second reason for an interim MUSA strategy is the Councit's ongoing policy work. The Council
is currently engaged in several studies that consider the fiscal and environmental aspects of providing
future regional facilities and services. Many of these studies will provide the policy framework for
future Council decisions on regional services and facilities. The studies include, but are not limited
to, the following:
1
, '
* CounciPs Visioning Process ,
* 1990 Land Use Survey and Urban Land Supply Study
* Update of the MDIF
* Fully Developed Area Study
* MWCC's Sewer CentralizationWecentralization Study
* Water Supply Studies and Legislation
Perhaps most critical of the above studies is the MDIF update. This update will incorporate many
of the findings from the other studies. It will also reElect critical environmenCal issues, evaluate the
costs to provide metropolitan services, and evaluate changes to the MUSA. The Council needs time
to conclude the MDIF update and related studies. These studies wilt define the fiscal and
environmental issues that influence how the Cauncil makes future regianal facility and service �
commitments. The proposed interim strategy is designed to give the Council suf�cient 'tirne to
complete these studies while providing local governments the flexibi(ity to plan for the future.
A final reason for an interim MUSA strategy is the question of equity and fairness regarding MUSA ,'
expansion requests. Several communities have recently requested MUSA expansions under the
Council's existing year-2000 planning horizon. A sample of these communities inctude Minnetrista,
Prior Lake, Lake Elmo, Oakdale and Inver Grove Heights. These and other MUSA requests were
prepared using the assumption of a year-200Q ptanning framework. To consider a post year-2000 '�
MUSA request�without a suf�cient �olicybasis would raise questions of fair and equal treatment.
An interim MUSA strategy would also ensure lhat the Council is treating every local government
consistently regardless of the circumstances. This is important during the next two years. During this
time the Council will be making major poticy decisions on how future regional facilities �nd services
will be provided. Some local governments may perceive the Council as not following established
policy in making MUSA expansion decisions. The interim MUSA strategy will help the Council to
make consistent decisions during a period of major �olicy development.
III. THE EXISTING MUSA POLICY
The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) is that part of the metropolitan area within which
regional and local government agencies are committed to providing the services necessary to support
urban development and redevelopment. The MUSA was established as a major tool to promote the
orderly and economic development of the region, and assist the Council and Metropolitan
Commissions in the programming and funding of regional service needs by icientifying the areas of
greatest demand. Development should occur first in areas provided with the greatest combined
complement of inetropolitan and local public services. New land should be timed and st2ged for
urbanization in a contiguous manner minimizing the need for additional public expenditures.
Paramount in this timing and staging is the orderly and economic provision of inetropolitan and local
services such as sewers, roads, transit, water systems, schools ar}d parks.
The original MUSA line was established when the Council reviewed local comprehensive plans
submitted in response to the Metro�olitan Land Use Planrring Act. The year-2000 MUSA line was
developed in 1986 with the MDIF update. The process of extending the line involved a review of �
land supply and demand based on Council forecasts for each cihy along the urbanizing fringe of the ;
region. From this review, the Council found that the current land su��ly was more than sufficient I
to meet forecasted needs. �
�
�
;
2
I
�
�
i
i
y
The Metrapolitan Council uses the following criteria to evaluate whether adciitional land is needed
to accommodate urban development when a local government requests a metropolitan urban service
area expansion or a change in its urban service area boundaries as part of a comprehensive plan
amendment. Three criteria exist and can found on pages 54 - 57 of the MDIF.
1. Increasin� the size of an urban area: The Metropolitan Council will not agree to
expand a local urban service area unless there is demonstrated regiona( need and
adequate capaciry available in the metropolitan sewer and highway systems. If the
regional facilities are inadequate and metropolitan investments would be required
immediately in order to honor service area commitments to other locat governments,
the Council will deny the expansion based on the land planning act criteria that the
request represents a substantial impact on or departure from metropolitan system'
plans. If regional facilities would be inadequate by the year 2000 or any updated
target year, the Council will deny the request on the same basis. If the local
government's land supply is below or approaching the �ve-year overage and regional
facilities are adequate, the Council will agree to a service area expansion.
2. Chan�in� the con��uration of an urban service area: The Metropolitan Council will
consider land-trade proposals involvingvacant,developable land adjacent to the urban
service area provided metropolitan systezns are not adversely affected.
3. Incremental chan�es to the urban service area: The Metropolitan Council will review
a series of incremental changes to a local urban service area only if the affected local
government analyzes how the total number of pro�osed changes will �;ffect regional
forecasts and system pians and o�erations.
If regiona! facilities are adequate and no metropolitan agency investments are
required, the Councit may agree to the urban service area ex�ansion, provided that
the following conditions are met:
a. The local governmenYs rural area densities are consistent with Council �olicy;
b. Local timing and staging corresponds to allocated usage rather than design
capacity;
c. The local government has an up-to-date comprehensive sewer plan, incluc�ing
on-site sewer management; and
d. The local government has assessment practices that limit creation of vested
: development rights. ,
IV. POLICY BASIS FOR AN INTERIM STRATCGY ON MUSA EXTENSIONS
The Council has suf�cient legislative and policy authority to develop ancl implement an interim
strategy on MUSA extensions. Below is a brief summary which highlights the CounciPs legislative
authority and policy basis supporting the timing and staging af MUSA extensions and supporting
regional facilities;and services.
3
The Council has demonstrated that facilities and services needed to support urban development can
be provided at less public cost if the land area available for urban development at any one time is i
de6ned and limited in amount (page 13, MDIF). Within this year-2000 urban service,or staging area
the Council makes a commitment to providing urban services such as sanitary sewer and highways.
The Council makes no commitment to providing urban service beyond the year-2000 urban service
area. 'That is why the MDIF inakes it clear that the CounciPs planning horizon and development
staging area is for the year 2000.
Policy 8 of the MDIF reinforces the year-2000 urban service area by af�rming that regional
investments will be directed by the Council to provide urban services within an urban service area and
that this urban service area is the area open for urban development until the year 2000 (page 16).
The Council has even indicated how it prefers land development to occur within this urban service
area. Policy 14 of the MDIF states that within an urban service area urban expansion should be
"planned, staged and generally contiguous to existing deve(opment". The Council urges local
governments to provide for the orderly extension of services by identifying where and when they will
provide land within their local urban service area with support Facilities needed to initiate urban
development (page 20, MDIF).
The Council is responsible for establishing "requirements and procedures to accomplish
comprehensive local planning with land use controls consistent with planned, orderly and staged
development and the metropolitan system plans." Minn. Stat. § 473.85L See, also, Minn. Stat. §
473.855(a} and Minn. Stat. § 473.859 Subd. 3, which states that a local government "public facilities
plan shall describe the character, location, timing,sequence,function,use and ca�acity of existing and
future public facilities of the local government units". Timing and sizing of public facilities is
important because public expenditures for facilities and services are more efFiciently managed,
environmental impacts associated with land development are minimized and suf�cient demand
remains to support fully developed areas of the metropolitan area.
Every time the Council expands the MUSA, the Council makes a commitrnent that it wi(t provicie
regional services to that area. In addition, the local government makes the commitment that it will
provide local services to that area. Policy 1-10A of the CounciPs Water Resources Management
Plan. Part 1 mandates that the timing and sizing of inetropolitan sewer services will be based on
population,housing and employment Eorecasts prepared by the Council not forecasts prepared by local
governments. It is the Council's responsibility to prepare forecasts which can be used by local
planners and by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC). The MWCC and the
Council use the Council's forecasts, to develop tlow projections which gauge the adequacy of the
system to meet the projected future needs. (PA�es 25 and 26, Water Resources Man��ement Pian,
Part 1.)
V. PROPOSED INTERIM MUSA STRATEGY
Year 2000 MUSA Expansion Requests
The Council will not review any request to expand the MUSA beyond the area needed to
accommodate year 2000 forecasted development until after the revision to the Metropolitnn �
Development and Investment Frnmework and the Water Resources Manngement Plan, Pnrt 1. This is ;
because the Council does not have a sufficient policy basis for reviewing MUSA expansions for after
�
,
4 '
. ,
;
�
�
,
,
i
� � � � � ,
� :
F
the year 2000. The Council will, however, continue to entertain MUSA expansion requests based
on Council population, household and employment forecasts for the year 2000.
Criteria For Reviewing YeAr 2000 MUSA Expansion Requests
Year 2000 MUSA expansian requests that are based on Council year 2000 forecasts and do not have '
a substantial impact on or departure from a metropolitan system plan will be approved by the
Council. The Council will require loca( communities to modi'ty any year 2000 MUSA expansion
request that has a substantial impact on or departure from metropolitan system facilities and plans.
The Council will require that a local community modify its comprehensive plan to reduce the MUSA
expansion request to within planned facility and service capacity limits.
A local government plan may include a "substantial departure" from metropolitan system plans if the
local plan proposes a level of development and regional services which is substantially inconsistent
with the level of development and regional services outlined in the metropolitan system plans. An
example of"substantial departure" mi�ht be a local government planning for greater sanitary sewer
flows than the Council has pianned for in a metropolitan system plan. The result is an immediate
departure from the system plan that may not result in an immediate facility impact. However, a
future system impact may be avoided when local government land development decisions are timed
and staged in accordance with planned capacities of regional services and Pacilities.
For purposes of this interim strategy a "substantial system impact" occurs when all land within the
MUSA including any proposed expansion of the MUSA would at full development would have the
potential to have a substantial negative effect on the operation of a metropolitan system such as the ,
metropolitan sanitary sewer system. An example of"substantial system impact" mi�ht be proposed
development that will generate sanitary sewer E1ows beyond the capacity of an existing sewer facility,
or generate more traf�c than an adjacent roadway or interchange can accommodate.
Cities submitting a year 2Q00 MUSA expansion request must meet existing MUSA expansion
principles found on pages 54 - 57 of the MDIF. These principles include demonstrating need for
urban land, land trade groposals, and incrementat changes to the urban service area. For each of
these, the local government must demonstrate that its: rural area ciensities are consistent with
Council palicy; local timing and staging of urban area corresponds to allocated usage rather than
design capacity; sewer plan is current; assessment practices limit creation of vested development
rights.
Existing Faci}ity Constraints
It is possible that the Council may not be able to approve a year-2000 MUSA expansion request
because of facility and service constraints. The recent plan amendment by the city of Chaska is a
good example. The city recently submitted a �lan amendment requesting a 10O-acre adc�ition to its
year-2000 MUSA. The Council required the city to modify the plan amendment to delete the MUSA
expansion request because the Chaska wastewater treatment plant is near its hydraulic and organic
loading capacity. The Council coutd not adopt the 100-acre MUSA expansioq because of a system
impact based on limited sewer capacity, and because the city had an excess of urban land availabte
in its existing year-200Q MUSA.
5
The Council and implementing regional agencies wiU commit to addressing the facility and service
constraint issue even though a year-2000 MUSA expansion request cannot be adopted. Again,
Chaska is a good example. As part of its action to modify the plan amendment, the Council
requested the MWCC to work with Chaska to develop a short and long term solution to the
treatment plant capacity problem.
VI. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
If the Council receives a comprehensive plan amendment proposing a MUSA expansion that is
inconsistent with this strategy, and requires that the local government modify the amendment, the '�
local government would have several choices:
A. The local government could withdraw the amendment and resubmit it at a later date. The
Council will be revising its policies Eor expansion of the MUSA as part of the MDIF update.
Updated policies should be in place by the end of 1993.
B. Thelocal government could modify its request for a MUSA expansion to timit it to the area
- that when developed can be served with planned regional faeilities before the year-2000.
C. As part of a modi�ication, the local government could designate the area beyond that which
can be served with p(anned regional facilities before the year-2000 as a "transition area".
Transition areas are provided for under the MDIF policy amendmenls adopted in December, �
1991. Some advantages of the transition area approach are:
* it can permit the local government to pl�n for extension of local services to serve
urban development beyond the year-2000;
i
* it can help the local government to protect the transition area from incompatible
development and fand uses in the interim; and
* the Council would not commit to expansion of regional services into the transition
area.
For example, if a local government wishes to plan for expansion of its urban area based on the
Council's 2010 forecasts,it might designate the area to be developed between the year-20(�and 2010
as a "transition area". The plan would show how tocal services would be provided and haw
development would be staged in an orderly, staged and contiguous manner. Then, the �lan would
be in place for incorporating such areas into the MUSA at the appropriate time, after the Council
has adopted new policies for MUSA expansions and plans f�r needed regional services are in place.
VII. CONCLUSION
T'he Metropolitan Council is at a watershed period. The Council is updating its policy framework for
making future regional service and facility decisions. An interim MUSA strategy is needed to ensure I
assure existing Council po(icies are consistently app(ied while a new policymaking framework is ;
created and put in place. The �roposed intcrim MUSA strategy is grounded in existing MDIF and i
metropolitan system plan policies. It will ensure assure that the Council does not commit prematurely
to new system improvements beyond what is already planned. The proposed strategy ensures assures
i
6 : i
� �
i
- i
i
^i
I
. ; •
■
. ii pF T . � � � .
t�� �
�W}P , �h���, United States Department of the Interior �"�
� A
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ��� �
' � �;.-'� � ■
qRCM 1 ti� Mississigpi National Rivcr and Recreation rlrea
175 Fifth Svicet East,Suite 418,Box 41
��ttEp�tt��RTo: St.Pau1,A4innesou�3101•2901
_ Dl$(MISS)
April 7, 1993
Lisa Freese
Director of Flanning
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068-0510
subject: Update 2000, Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan
Dear Ms. Freese:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft update of the Rosemount comprehensive
ptan. As you know, the eastern part of Rosemaunt lies within the boundaries of the
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), a unit of the National Park
system. The MNRRA boundary closely follows that of the state desibnated Mississippi River
Critieal Area. Until a MNRRA mana�ement plan is adopted, the Secretary of the Interior,
throubh the National Park Service (NPS), is to monitor land and water use activities within
MNRRA to ensure that said aetivities are in keepinb with the purposes af the MNRRA
legisiation (16 USC §460zz-2(1)).
General Commentss
Cl�anges to Rosemount's camprehensive plan may necessitate updating the city's Mississippi
�l�rar (''tjtiral ArP� Vl?n r� Pr.�:�rp r4nC'ctPn��r hnz,t,P�P. �re *;x�� ;i,n�i�mentc, 1 �ttto is ca�ri nf
the Critical Area Plan and NiNRRA is not mentioned in Update 2000, althou�h the Critical
Area boundaries are shawn on the zaning maps. �
We trust that park develapment by Rosemount does not depend solely on dedications by
private developers, as might be inferred from the parks and trails summary at Sec. VI-9.
We recognize that the city has a separate Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide
and addressing these issues in that document may be more appropriate.
SpeciCc Comments:
Sec V(A)-2: Conservancv
We commend the objectives and policies regarding the creation and maintenance of
Conservancy land use areas. The careful control of developrnent to prevent
� �. s ' . � . . .
Rosemount, Update 2400
F�ge �
conflicdng land uses, and to protect the natural environment in sueh areas, parallels
the purposes of the I��:�2:RA legislation. We support the policy that no new
development will be alloweci in the city's Conservancy areas though existing
businesses may expand. The Spring Lake Park Reserve is a valuabie amenity for
Rosemount and surrounding areas. The establishment of a Conservancy area just
upstream will allow the two areas to serve as mutual buffers.
We urge the city also to create the official Conservancy zoning classification
considereti in the zoning ordinance revisions (Sec. VI-3, �16). This will solidify
commitment and faciiitate implementation of the plan's objectives and policies.
Sec V(A)-10: eneral TndUStN
Policy #8, requiring extraordinary setbacks and buffers in industrial areas, is
especially important because of the large industrial area within MNR�EtA. When
properly im�lemented, these requirements can further protect the natural and scenic
values of the river corridor.
We fully suppart Policy #9. The provision of open spaces and trails in industrial
areas to serve not only as recreational amenities for employees but also as trail
corridors for commuting is an idea whose time has come. We commend Rosemount
for mal:ing the comrnitment.
Sec V(A)-2; Bar e�.Facilities
Current analyses of commercial navigation trends indicate poCential growth in demand
for barge fleeting space. The city may want to establish a clear policy on the
desirability of fleeting sites along the Rosemount riverfront. This issue will become
increasingly important if Pine Bend industrial development increases.
Sec V(D)-4,5: Environmental Preservation Plan
We encourabe and commend the reiteration and extension of the Critical Area policies
and the inclusion of goals and policies created by ather agencies.
We would like to emphasize our interest in praviding assistance to the city in its
historic preservation efforts. While the sites (listed at Sec V(D)-3) may not be on the
State �r National Registers, the history of the eommunity is no less valuable ar
interesting to its citizenry,
Sec VI-2: East End Utility Studv
This is the first rnention in the plan of extending urban utilities to the Pine Bend
Industrial Area. We urge the city to control growth in the area carefully. Urban
services �an draw development pressures just as wider highways draw increased
traffic. Rapid, uncontrolied development of the industrial area within MNRRA. could
Rosemount, Update 2000
Page 3
threaten the values of the river comdor listed both in the MNRRA legislation and in
the Update 2000 plan.
Sec VI-3: ZoninQ Ordinance Amendments �
As noted abave, we support the establishment of a Conservancy zone. In addition,
we support the adogtion of a tree preservation policy and ordinance (#12), and an
updated storm water manabement ordinance (�11), in hopes that runoff into the
Mississippi River will be addressed to prevent new development from increasing
storm runoff pollution in the river.
VVith Iimited informatifln both on #19 regarding a sewered/unsewered industrial zone
differentiation and the expansion of the MUSA into the Pine Bend area, we will
reserve comment for a time when more information is available.
Sec VII: Maps 3 & 4: _
It appears that the Conservancy area on the river, within which some industrial uses
now exist, and the General Industry area both will expand to take over some of the
P/OS Spring Lake Park Reserve area between the years 20�0 and 2010. Is this
merely a cartographic discrepancy or an intentional land use elassification change for
the affected area?
Again, we thank the City of Rosemount for the opportunity to comrnent on Updute 200. We
hope future planning for the river corridor maintains the professional quality, �een in this
document, that is devoted to the city as a whole.
Sineerely,
,��
7oAnn K�ral
Superintendent
C.�t�+�f
C�9��
3516 80th 5treet South/Cottage Grove,Minnesota 5fiQi6 612•458-2800
April 14, 1993
Lisa J. Freese, AICP, Director of Planning
City af Rosemount
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, MN 55068-Q510
RE: City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan
Dear Ms. Freese:
Thank you for submitting your draft Comprehensive Plan for review and comment.
The City Staff has reviewed this plan and dc�es not have any commen#s.
I commend you on the quality of your plan and the information that you have provided.
Best of luck to you in imp{ementing this planning dacument.
Sincerely,
--__..=..-�- " i,'/ .;�� � : �%
ti, /.G- � / �_.y✓" ..�
.� Gary M::�Berg, AICP, Director
Dept�ofi_Comrnunity D.evelopment
. „
GMB/kw
tit� aF ectc�c�n
THC3MAS E6AN
MCyOt
PATRiGtA AWADA
SHAWN HUNTER
SANDRA A.MASW
7HEODORE WACHTER
CouncU Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Atlmininst�otor
April 16, 1993
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
CiN Gierk
Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning
City of Rosemount
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0514
Dear Ms. Freese:
The City of Eagan has received and reviewed the Rosemount
Comprehensive Plan--Update 2000. This update is appears to be
compatible with the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan.
We wish to commend yaur efforts to estabiish a workable guide for
future growth and development in Rosemount which considers both the
local and regionai context.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the update. We look
forward to further cooperative planning efforts with the City of
Rosemount.
Sincerely,
... ..�
,...'�.,.
J Hohenstein
Acting Community Development Director
KM:km
MUNICIPAL CENLER THE LONE OAK TREE MAINTENANCE'FACtl1TY
3830 PILOt KNOB ROAD 3501 COACHMAN PONJI`
EAGAN.M�NNESOtA 55123-i99) THE SYM80l OF 5TRENGTH AND GRQWiH IN OUR COMMUNtFY EAGAN,MINNESOiA 55122
PNqNE:(612)681•4b00 PNONE:(612)681•4300
FAX:(612}bet•a6t2 Equat Opportunity/Aftitmative Action Ernpioyer FAX:(612)681-a360
TDD:(b12)454•9535 TDD:{613)d54•8535
REGI4NAL TRANSIT BOARD
Mears Park Centre
230 East FiRh Street,St.Paul,Mtnnesota 55101
292-8789
DATE: May 3, 1993
TO: Steve Schwanke,Principal Reviewer
FROM: Paul Molin Planner
SUBJECT: City of Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan
Regional Transit Board staff has reviewed the Pubfic Transit Section of the Cxty of
Rosemount's Comprehensive Guide Plan, and has idendfied some issues which deserve
minor camment. The RTB agrees that current transit needs in the city are low and that
any increases of service in the near future will be minar. There are however, some issues
which will impact the city's needs.
• METRO MOBILITY
Trips that will generate the most need will be those serving the elderly,di5abled.
and low income populations of the city. The demand for these trips wi11 increase
in the next 2f}years as the city's populanon nearly doubles itseif. Currently, the
services mentianed in the plan,Metro Mability,DARTS, and the Community
Action Council Transit System, accomrnodate most of these trips. Proposed
changes in Metro Mobility service will unpact how that service is deiivered within
the ciry. Rosemounr is not included in the proposed centralized Metro Mobility
serviee area,which will require a greater number of elderly and disabled travel
needs to be accommodated through the county (DARTS}. Service levels within
the city and county shauld not ehange considerably,but those trips which are
destined for other locarions in the Twin Cities area could be affected,including
possible transfers at regional transit hub facilides (The RTB's "Vision for Transit"
document outlines the region's pian€or instituting these transit hubs). The city
shouid wc�i��,closcly with Da�:o�a County ta ensure adequate service for t?:�s�
typically transit dependent populations. �
As Rosemount's population grows,their will likely be an increase in low incvme
and other transit dependent groups' travel needs. General public community
services will need to expand to serve this g�'awing nuinber of trips. The city
should eoordinate its needs with plans outlined by the Minnesota Valley Transit
Authority (MVTA) to provide community services for the opt-out ciries.
• LIGHT RAIL TRANSYT
The plan mentians Light Rail Transit as a possible facet of public transit in the
region. It does not however, give a clear picture af the current status of regional
light rait planning,and its effect on the City of Rosemount. The Regional Transit
Facilities Plan,completed in January 1992, recommends LRT initially in two
comdors, downsizing eonsiderably fram the nine corridor system recommended
in the previous regional LRT plan. The twa cajridors recommended aze the
Central Corridorbetween downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, and the
i-35W/South Comdar between dawntown Minneapolis and Burnsville. Neither
corridor will impact the City of Rosemount. It is feasible that future corridors
could be established closer to the city, and a re-loeauon of the regional auport
would undoubtedly establish a candidate comdor connecting light rail to that
facility.
The RTB strongly supports the public transit policies devcloped by the city which address
the issue of transit and land use. The future of transit service in the city will greatly
depend on issues identified in policy#'s 7-10. The more fre;quent these palicies can be
enforced, the greater the potendal for future use af transit. Paliey# 10 affects not only
fut�re accommodations for transit,but also the convenience of existing paratransit type
service by creating easier access to facilities whieh generate high numbers of transit trips.
Policies addressing promotion of ridesharing in the city are also�supported by the RTB,
cc. Lisa 7.Fresse,Director of Pianning, City of Rosemount
Howard Blin,b:anning Mana�,,r,R:B
��NNEs°rq Minnesota Department of Transportation
D�o Z° Metropolitan District
7D � Transportation Buiiding
�'F Qo St. Paut, Minnesata 55155 .
~r�F T�'D'`�� Oakdale Offiee, 3485 Haclley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55I28
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Galden Valley, Minnesota 55422
o�a�� off��
Reply to ?79-1291
April 29, 1993 Telephone Na.
Ann Braden
Metrapolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 Ea�t Fifth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101-1634
Dear Ann Braden:
SUBJECT: _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
City of Rosemount
Dakota. County
The Minnesota Department of Transpartation (MnlDOT� has reviewed the City of Rosemount's
January 1993 Camprehensive Guide Plan. We offer the following comments.
l. Section V(B)-1, TRANSPORTATIC?N ELEMENT, Major Thoroughfares, paragraph
one, states that no irnprovements are scheduled for TH S2 prior to 2010, according to
the MetroFolitan council's Transporrarion Development GuidelPoliey Plan. No major
impravements are scheduled far TH 52 prior to 2410, however, minor improvements
should be expected.
The last statement of paragraph one, regardinb the importance of TH 52 to the potential
reiocation of the airport, should be more specific and include TH 55. Accarding to the
Ivletragolitan Airpc�rts Commission Scuping DUcumeru anci Draft Scopi�ta Decisio�;
Document, the general impact of the relocation of the airpart on ground access in this
area would be to funne� most of the traffic approaching the airport (approximately $0%)
through the TH 52\TH 55 interchange.
Ttte second paragra:ph states that the TH 52 corridor study "...is intended to identify the
future functional classification of Highway 52 and develop integrated design concepts
jointly between the two cammunities..." TH 52 is ctassified as a principal arterial by the
Metropolita3a Council's Functional Classification System and this is unlikely to change.
More specifically, it should be stated that the study is seeking to improve the safety of
TH 52 and to address access issues.
1 �
Ann Braden
April 30, 1393
Page two
The end af the third paragraph states that "Any efforts to increase ['I`H 3J capacity would
be in direct conflict with the redevelopment of this azea as the City's primary sho�ping
distriet," At present, turn lanes are being added on TH 3 in this area. This is being
accomplished through a Coaperative Agreement between Mn/DOT and the City of
Rosemount, which also includes the capital imgrc�vement prpject to cornplete the
ArmoryfCommunity Cen�er. No further capacity imn:ovements are planned.
2. Sectian V(B)-2, Major Tharovghfares, paragraph two and three refer to TH 3 as a
principal arterial. TH 3 remains classified as a minor arterial. Mn/DOT foliows and
supports the Metropolitan Council's Fu�ctianal Classification System.
A Principal Arterial may be an expressway (with intersections) as well as a freeway (with
interchanges).
3. Section V(B)-3, Major Thoroughfares Policies, number 1, Mn/DOT concurs with, and
encourages, Rosemount's policy to reduee the number of direct driveway accesses to the
arterial street system and to prohibit any new direct accesses to TH 52. Mn/DOT would
like to see this policy extended to TH 55 and TH 3.
4. Secdon V(B)-S, Table V(B)-1 appears to be outdated.
We thank you for the opportunity to review this comprehensive plan update. If you have any
questions regarding this review piease calL
�:ncerz;y,
�
��� ��
Cyrus Knutson
Transportation Planner �
' - � MET�20POLiTAN COUNCIL.
Mears Park Centre, 230 East F'�fth Street, S� Paul, Minnesota 55101
612 291-b359 TDD 6i2 291-0904 �
DATE: Apri15, 1993
TO: Steve Schwanke
FROM: Jim Barton, Transportation Di�lisian ,
SUBJECT: City of Rosemount Comprehensive Plan Update
Referral File No. 15468-6
I reviewed the Comprehensive Guide Plan Update 20QQ, dated Ianuary, 1993 and identified the
following conc�ras relative to the transportation element:
Roadway Classircation
Although the city's roadway classi�cation cc3mpIies with the Transportation Policy Plan, the city is
advised of proposed changes by the Transportation Advisory Board (TA$) and its Technical Advisory
Committee to the region's roadway classi�ication system. The changes are the result of a classification
study completed in 1993, in resgonse to the Intermadal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA). 'I'!ie ISTEA requires the Council with the cooperation of MnlD�T and local governments,
to identify the regional component of the National Highway System .
The TAB identi�ed a number of changes to principal arterials C.A.S.H. 42 and S.T.H. 55 are now
recommended as noninterstate principal arterials. A revised description of the funetional
classification systern is contained in the draft appendix F of the proposed revisions to the
Transportation Policy Plan. A copy shc�uld be forwarded to the city. C.A.S.H. 71 and S.T.H. 3 wili
also be reclassified as "augmenter arteriaLs".
A znajor c.oncern of the TAB and Council, is that any non-frecway principal arteriaLs should be
capable of carry higher volumes of longer trips with a strong emphasis to serve through trafFc rather
than adjacent Iocal land uses. In support of this concept, the TAB has stated that all expressway type
principat arterials need to be protected from unreasonable high number of intersection or access
points. Further, all new principai arterials wilI need to have the support of affected local go�emment
throu;h their comprehensive plan by 1997. This meanr�',Rosemount should consider v��hether it can
support a C.,A.S.H. 42 that has limited local aecess and is design�d primarily for higher speed- lang
trips. In addtion, by 1999, the agenry with jurisdiction over individual principal arterials is required
to make significant progress on protecting median aecess and/or limiting intersection to 1/2 mile
spacing. The Council will adopt the new classi�ication system in October,1993 as part oF its ad�ption
of revisions to the Transportation Policy Plan.
The City is taking the initial steps to protect the operation of arterials by adopting an ordinance to
limit highway access, promate the construction oE frontage roads,and adopt an official map for right-
af-way protection. The completion of the S.T.H. SS c.orrids�r study is expected to provide additional
information on controlling access. It is not clear what the city intends to do ance the S.T,H. 55
corridor report is completed. Will the comprehensive plan be amended to inctude additional
preservation/protection strategies?
Expansion of Urban Services
East End Utilitv S„�tudv
The study as described in the plan, foeuses on the extension oE municipal water and sewer service to
the Pine Bend area. No mention is made as to identifying the potential transgortation impacts an
expanded general industrial uses in an area de�ined by the S.T.H. SS and C.AS.H. 42 corridflrs.
These are the only existing roadways with any signiFcant capacity throvgh the area.
Goal 13 in the plan states that the city will promote the develogment 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 "regional-scale industrial and waste mar�agement
facitities". The plan does not address nor is it apparent in the scope of the study where in the loca!
planning pracess the volumes and type of traffic expected to be generated by these facilities will fi�e
studied.
The City should address the Ievel,timing and staging of municipal services to include roadway access
and the costs and the resources needed ta �nance any proposed infrascructure improvements.
Although the capital improvements section lists projects to be canstructed in the 1994-1998 period,
no i.nformation is provided as to the funding mechanisms to Cnance these projects. Yn garticular,will
the City rely heavily on area assessrnents, and if so,still effectively manage a reasonable staging plan
for the orderly extension of future services?
Bikewav and Pedestrian Walkwav Svstems
The Land Use Eiement section on general industria! uses includes a policy that calls for the provision
of open space and trails in general use areas linked with a city system. The policy direct}y supparts
the Transportation Polic}.� Plan to encourage alternative travel modes. This policy should be
addressed in the transportation element and expanded to incivde the west urbanized area. Data
presented in the section noted that over 6l0 of wark trips occur by people wal}:ing to wor�:. This is
an usually high figure that indicates a potential market for a city wide bicycle and pedestrian�c�alk-way
system.
Transit Service
'Ihe transit section provides a local policy framework that is reasonable and realistically reflect
available transit service and the City's role to improve service through collaboration with providers,
prornotion of ride-sharing with employers and the use of local deveiopment controls. The City should
be commended for its commitment to worl:with developers to remove barriers and encourage transit
use in the design of development projects in transit corridors.
Intermodal Facilities
Several transportation facilities, the railroad and a harge facility ]ncated in the Pine $end area are
mentioned in the transportatian section. The City as part aE the East End Study should identify
intermodal opportunities and needs among the rail,barge and truck services to the area. For examgle
with the decline in access to the Mississippi River by the removal of grain handlin�faciIities,does this
present an opportuniry to expand the existing Facility to handle bulk cargo, and containerized freight?
'T'!�e direction taken by the proposed IST'EA rules prepared by the U.S. Department oE
2
� Transportatioa,will require greater iutermodal planning, coordination and operating considerations
both as a system and at intermodal facilities locations.
Aviation Section
'4�1e cancur with the statement that if a decision is made to relocate the MSP airport to the search
area the transportacion system serving the site and Rosemount area will have to he reevaluated and
may result in revisions to the Comprehensive Plan.
3
i
T
that the Council will consistently and fairly apply current policy when addressing local government
MUSA expansion requests.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION
That the Metropolitan Council adopt this report as its strategy for reviewing pro�osed MUSA
expansions until new policies are adopted as part of the MDIF and Wirter Resources Management
Plan, Part 1 update.
7