The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.c. Land Use MixAGENDA ITEM: Land Use Mix AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AGEND'.0. V ATTACHMENTS: Existing Land Uses Map, Existing Comprehensive Plan with 42/52 Land Use Approval, Land Use Table APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information Only 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: December 14, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND As put of the Goal Setting Session, the Council mdicated staff should innate discussions about the appropriate land use mix within the community. One of the ideas was to compare ourselves to other cominumties m the Metro Area that we might wish to emulate. Therefore we have put together a table which illustrates the land use mix of eleven tines that are generally considered desirable and are known for their commercial industrial base. Their information is based upon their 2020 comprehensive plans (approved m 2000). The first column for Rosemount indicates the existing land uses in the community. The last column is the intended land use mix based upon the approved Comprehensive Plan DISCUSSION There are a variety of reasons why the City should assess the proposed land uses for the community. One of the main reasons is the Council's desire to increase the commercial /industrial tax base to relieve property tax pressure on residents. Another goal is to increase available services for residents and to provide lobs within the community And although the market will play a large role in the development of the community, the City can impact development by providing enough commercial and mdustnal land to achieve these goals During the 42/52 land use planning process, one of the comments was that there was too much commercially designated land at Akron and Cty Road 42. Staff felt it would be reasonable to compare Rosemount to other commumnes to get an idea of what a desired land use mix might be. While the table provides some interesting insights, a reader must use caution when using the information. Here are some of the issues or hmitations associated with the data: It is unclear what land uses are occurring in some categories and how detailed individual communities were in their assessments For example, Rosemount does not have an office land use designation m its comprehensive plan. For purposes of this exercise, existing office was used m the 2005 scenario and m the future scenario; the corporate campus land use, plus existing office, plus 10° o of the newly designated retail was used Similarly there is a fine hne between "undeveloped" land and "open space For the same reason that we don't know the exact amount of future office, it is difficult to estimate the future parks and open space acreage. Until a park is approved and under City ownership or is dedicated as a private park, the land is given a different land use designation. There pre existing conditions in the City that will limit the ability to control our land use destiny. The presence of two large land owners, Flint Hills and the University of Minnesota, will most likely skew our land use numbers, particularly m the industrial category. The Flint Hills complex is zoned and gwded for general industrial and uses. Because of its control over most of the land in that category, the City will need to designate additional mdustnal land to perinit diversification of tax base and to encourage other light industrial uses. With the type of development the refinery is, and the tax structure for its improvements, Rosemount will have more industrial land than other communities and still may not have a more significant tax base. The mdustnal designation for Rosemount includes any land by use or designation that is industrial, business park, waste management, and mining For the Rosemount 2005 calculation, lands designated undeveloped are those not actively m an agncultural use and do not have any residence on it. In the future land use scenario agriculture is only that land designated agriculture located west of Flint Hills CONCLUSION Staff is asking for direction from the Council if additional information is needed or actions taken. Council land use goals will be used when the City updates its comprehensive plan in 2008. Until that time staff will continue to work toward implementation of the 42/52 recommendations. 2 r 0 at20051Land Use Comparision with 2005 city data xis I fsrnaeveiopea 1 j f i rgncuiture I-rarxs upen Space i institutional rnausmai f 1 p i 1 icetatr Y 1 muititamuy Land Use Cate o -in•le Famil 19,6741 2;6021 1 9,0611 868 593 2,508 1 12 I 1 1 261 1 1 1 324, 1 1 1 13 23 %1 1 1 46 06% 4 41% 1 3 01% 1 1 I 12 75% 1 0 06% 1 1 33% 1 I 1 165% 105 nount* Percent 17 51% 00% 5,975 1 1,170 2,586 163 347 30 1 203 1 213 100 %1 41,42 %1 8 11% 17 93% 1 13 %1 2.41% 0 21% 1 1.41% 1 1 48% 3,177 9,225 1 2 ,9 0 1 1 1,413 1 1,702 1 328 -510 1 181 1 164 1 220 7 65% 6.17 0 86% 100 %1 31.45 %1 15 32 %1 18,45/91 3 56 %1 L 5 53 %1 0 20 %i 1 1,78% L 2 38% 0 43% 26-35% 22,512 1 6,993.1 5131 1 4,332 1 464 1 1;788 1 283 1 '',,701 1 1,270 27 5 30 5. 100 %I 31.06 %1 2 28 %1 2 06% ;19 24% 7.94 %I 5 64% 3.11 1 26% mparison Prairie Percent 2T40% 17,899 4.432 536 -1.460 I ,697-1 911 731. 176 I 100 %I 1 2 99% 8 16% 0 00% 24 76% I, '3.89 %I I I 1 1 1 5 09% 4.08% 0 98% 1 19,674 1 1 1 423 934 1066 f 1 5 3931 l •I I 1 1 968 559 f I I 1 1 00 00 %I ".1 2 15% 4:75% 5 42% 1 1 97210/1 4 92% 3 56% 9 R2 I r 0 at20051Land Use Comparision with 2005 city data xis I i 1 1 1 j u ens ace Iture atoned 1 nai aonal imiry rUse Category Family 19,6 I 8 9,0 a 1 2,5 5 1 1 3 2 11 I) I) 1 1 1 I 1 I I )05 nour Per 17 00% 41% 06% ')'?9G 1 1 .75% 01% 65 .33% 06% I,10Y 11,181 I 1,628 719 1'}A 764 503 961, 468 6 43% 10 14% I 14 56 %1 4 50 %1 I 6.83 %1 8.59% 4.19 0 00% 14 4,261 3,177 503 1,328 1,321 1,065 149 100 %4 0 08% 24 68% 18 40 %1 2 91%1 7 69 %1 7 65% 6.17 0 86% 21,425 92 5,645 I 4,189 I 751 I 1,671 1,377 -•6621 448 100% 0 43% 26-35% 3.51 %I 19 55 %1 6 43% 309% 2 09% •7 80 %1 mparison gan Percent 30,76% 24,169 6,661 7,377 657 1.566 1 284 403 1.007 0 27 5 30 5. I 27 64 11 16 00 41 I<I<Ic 19, I I I CI IC 1 1 I 1 01 1 I I I 1 4 92% 3 56% 2 84% 9721° 00 %I 42% nn°i 15 7F°/ r 0 at20051Land Use Comparision with 2005 city data xis (Total 'Undeveloped 'Agriculture (Parks Open Space_ 'Institutional 1 'Industrial :.1J 'Office IRetail IMultfamdy [Single Family r F Land Use Category i T,, 19,674 2,6021 9,061 868] 593 2,5081 121 261 324 3,4451 Acres Rosemount' 2005 100% 13 23 46 06 4.41%1 3 01% 12 75 %1 I 006% 133% 1.65% 1751 %1 Percent 22,420 1 6,6741 I 2,438 I 3,233 538 2,127 47' 448 I 840 6,075 Acres _J Maple Grove 1 2000 Existing Land Use Comi 100% 29 77 10 87 14 42 %'1 2 40 %1 9 49% 021% 1 2 00 3 75 %1 27 10% Percent 22,580 I 6,365 965 2,109 1 813 1 1,671 251 I =608 1,409 8,389 Acres Plymouth 100% 28 19 4 27% I =9.34 %01 3 60% 7,40% I 1 11% 2 69 6 24% 37 15% Percent 22,893 5,852 7,124 1,917 531 cm« 229 104 572 1,090 5,474 Acres Woodbury I 100% 25.56% 31 12% I 8 37 %1 2 32%1 1.00% 0 45% 2 50 4 76 23 91% Percent I 19,674 1066 L 934' 423' I 5,3931 1 559 I 701 I 968 I 9,630', Acres Future Land Use I 100 00 %1 5 42% 4.75% 2 15% 2741% I 284% I 3 56% 4 92% 48 95% Percent G 12005 Land Use Compansion with 2005 city data xls Note Water and ROW not included