The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.b. Master Parks Plan Approval / Comprehensive Plan AmendmentCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 17, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA SECTION: PARKS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN APPROVAL OLD BUSINESS PREPARED BY: DAVID J. BECHTOLp - ,,��p D V � & R AGENDA ITEM # 5B ATTACHMENTS:1. M C Guide Plan Application APPROVED BY: 2. Resolution approving plan u The City Council reviewed the Parks System Master Plan Presentation from our Consulting firm of Brauer & Associates at the November 19, 1991 Council Meeting. At that time the final document was also received and accepted. Action by Council was to accept the plan but not to, approve it at that time. s On the evening of December 10, 1991 the Planning Commission did revisit and approved the plan. They moved to recommend it to be sent to Council for their approval. Prior to that, on the evening of September 16, 1991, the Parks & Recreation Committee moved to recommend to Council that they approve the plan. ` This plan will become a part of the overall city comprehensive guide plan. For that reason the Met Council must review it. Attached is a copy of the Met Council Guide Plan Application that is being submitted through the Planning Department. Also attached is the resolution pertaining to..Council-Approval, RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the Parks System Master Plan and to adopt the resolution amending the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City of Rosemount to include the Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide / Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment No. 21 COUNCIL ACTION: INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MAJOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed major comprehensive plan amendment. A major comprehensive plan amendment is defined as: 1. A complete revision, update or rewrite of an existing comprehensive plan in its entirety. 2. A major plan revision, update, rewrite or addition to a chapter or element of an existing comprehensive plan. 3. An amendment triggered by a proposed development that requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as defined in Minnesota Rules 1989, Parts 4410.4300-.4400, and is inconsistent with the existing comprehensive plan; or 4. A change (land trade or addition) in the urban service area involving 40 acres or more. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as well. Send plan amendments to: John Rutford, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council,'Mears Park Centre 230 E..Fifth St., St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 L GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmental unit City of Ro Name of local contact person Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning Address 2875 145th Street West, Rosemount, PSN 55068-0510 Telephone 612/322-2051 Name of Preparer (if different from contact person) uer & Date of Preparation- Novpmhpr, 1991 G-ociate: B. Name of Amendment Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment #21 --Comprehensive Description/Summary pari• Dl -2;' & ,,e*e gpment Guide _Thee Cpmnrehensivp Park Plan K Development Giniria is a ma'inr enhancement of the existing parks & open space element of the City'; Comprehensive Muria Plan Thic project 5,ac undertgken-as one GompmpQ14 Q;E t o city's overall effort to update the entire Comprehensive Plan. The Parks Plan C. Please attach the following: will be a freestanding element and will be adoptee by reference in the forthcoming guide plan update. 1. Five copies of the proposed amendment.. 2. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change. 3. The current plan map(s) indicating the area(s) affected, if the amendment triggers a map change. vi 4. The proposed plan map(s) indicating area(s) affected, if the amendment triggers a map change. D. What is the official local status of the plan amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) X Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on December 10, 1991 X Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, rtnramhAr 17, 1991 Considered, but not approved, by governing body on Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment and the date(s) copies were sent to them. Notification of affected adjacent governmental units is required for major plan amendments. _Dakota County. December 18, 1991 Because of the comprehensive nature of most major plan amendments, a summary checklist is attached to help ensure that the amendment is complete for Council review and to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the metropolitan systems plans or other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Please indicate whether the amendment affects the following factors. Where it does, the materials submitted must fully address the issue(s). II. IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS A. Wastewater Treatment 1. Change in city's year 200012010 flow projections. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. What will be the net change? How were these calculated? 2. Community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. Indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment and what will be the net changes in flows? Vii t B. Transportation 1. Relationship to Council policies regarding metropolitan highways. x No/Not Applicable. Yes. 2. Change in type and intensity of land uses at interchanges and other locations within a quarter -mile of the metropolitan highway system? X.. No/Not Applicable. Yes. 3. Impact on existing trip generation. x No/Not Applicable. Yes. 4. Capacity of road network to accommodate planned land use(s) (including metropolitan interchanges). x No/Not Applicable. Yes. 5. Impact on transit and parking strategies. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. 6. Does the proposed amendment contain any changes to the functional classification of roadways? (These changes require Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) review.) x No. Yes. Describe which roadways. C. Aviation 1. Impact on regional airspace. x No/Not Applicable. Yes. 2. . Impact on airport search area. No/Not Applicable. X Yes. One of the proposed park facilities is located within the search area. viii 3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. 4. Consistency with the long-term comprehensive plan for an airport in the vicinity of the community or proposed development. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. D. Recreation Open Space 1. Impact on existing or future federal, state or regional recreational facilities. y No/Not Applicable. Yes. III. IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK A. Land Use 1. Describe the following, as appropriate: NOT APPLICABLE a. Size of affected area in acres b. Existing land use(s) c. Proposed land use(s) d. Number of residential dwelling units and types involved e. Proposed density f. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings B. Change in the city's population, household or employment forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan. X No/Not AppIicable. Yes. C. Change in the urban service area boundary of the community. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. D. Change in the timing and staging of development within the urban service area. x No/Not Applicable. Yes. ix N. IMPACT ON HOUSING A Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve persons at different stages in the life cycle. y No/Not Applicable. Yes. B. Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve persons at varying income levels. y No/Not Applicable. Yes. C. Impact on the community's numerical objectives for low- and moderate -income, modest -cost market rate, and middle- and upper-income housing units. x No/Not Applicable. Yes. V. WATER RESOURCES A Does the plan amendment affect a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protected wetland? If yes, describe type of wetland affected and show location on a map. Yes. _._X_ No. B. Will the wetland be protected? Yes. Describe how. No. Explain why not. C. Will the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality of any surface water body? If yes, identify which ones. Yes. x No. D. Will the water body be protected? Yes. Describe how. No. Explain why not. X VI. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A Change in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls. x No/Not Applicable. Yes. kjp00371 04.18.90 xi CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY# MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1991- A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT TO INCLUDE THE COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21 WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount appointed an ad hoc Park System Advisory Committee in early 1991 to assist with the development of a Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide; and WHEREAS, the Park System Advisory Committee developed recommendations, held.a public meeting to receive public input regarding those proposed recommendations on the 9th of September, 1991 and then forwarded the recommendations to the City of Rosemount Park and Recreation Committee; and WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Committee accepted the Park System Advisory Committee's report on the 16th of September, 1991 and recommended to the City Council that the Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide be adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission scheduled a public hearing according,to law to consider the Plan amendment and the hearing was held on the 22nd of October, 1991; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Plan amendment and recommended approval of the amendment as an element of the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan to the City Council. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount forwards the Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide as an amendment to the Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount approves the Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide as an amendment to the Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan contingent on upon the Metropolitan Council action. ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1991. ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Vernon J. Napper, Mayor Seconded by: s