The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.b. 42/52 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ..._ . . _,: p .... . . . . f RVS��. V1� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: July 13, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: 42/52 Comprehensive Plan Amendment AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development AG 2 Director � ATTAGHMENTS: Planning Commission Recommended Map, Transportation Map, Letters and APPROVED BY: Correspondence Received, Planning Commission minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion Only BACKGROUND _ The City Council put together a 42/521a.nd use study gxoup to begin the discussion of appropriate land uses in the eastern portion of the City,genexally east of Akxon Avenue.The reasons fox iniriating the project are many. One was the State and County plans to upgrade the interchange at 42 and 52. Another was the recent highex rate of growth in the communitp and the need for a MUSA expansion. Befare an expansion was initia.ted,it was decided that the land uses should be evaluated. There was also a concern • that there was not enough Business Pask and Commercial la.nd in the community and more opportunities could occux along County Road 42. Finally,the Council wanted to ensure that there was an�dequa.te and steady supply of land to permit orderly,managed growth. The 42/52 Study G�oup met on six occasions and developed a land use concept pla.n.Work gxoup members were: Mark DeBetrignies City Council Member John Powell Planning Cominissioner Cathy Boudreau University of Minnesota Don Kern Flint Hills Resources Valerie Schultz Planning Corrunissioner � Jonathan Wilmshurst Stonex,LLC and Vesterxa,LLC Two public information meetings wexe held in January and February of 2005 with approximately 100 in total attendance. The Concept Plan has been forwarded to the Planning Commission who have discussed it and received input from interested parties at five meetings. There have been some modifications from the initial Land Use Group recommendation although the general location of different la.nd uses has not changed significandy. At the public hearing on June 28, 2005 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan with some amendments. The amendments are as follows: • 40 acres of the Courteau property from Mixed Industrial to Medium Density Residential r � � � 70 acxes of FHR property from MiYed Industrial to General Industrial • 460 acres of FHR property from Rura1 Residential and Urban Reserve to Agriculture • 20 acres for two residences fxom Urban Reserve to Rural Residential • FHR property bounded by the railroad to the east,Blaine Avenue to the west, County Road 42 to the south and the ridge to the no�th changed fram Business Park to Mixed Industrial All of these changes are reflected in the attached land use plan. The Comrnission also supported the recommended residential densities of: Urban Residential 1-4 units per acre Mediuxn Density Residential 4-8 units per acre High Density Residenti.al 8-20 units per acre _ They also supported adclitig verbia,ge to the Comprehensive Plan that commits to reviewi.ng the amount of commercial land designated north of County Road 42 in the Akton Avenue area DISCUSSION At the Work Session staff is prepared to review the history of decisions which lead up to the current plan. For background,all letters received xegaxding the Future Land Use Plan axe attached.Additionallp,all Commission minutes have been provided since some people spoke at the meetings about the Plan but did not submit written cornments. Cauncil members have received all of the 42/52 Study Group packets and the Commission packets. However,if there is a paxiiculax piece of information you would like before the meeting,please contact pla.nning staff. Also attached is the transporta.tion plan developed with WSB.The roads shown illustxate the appropriate spacing and needed location for arterials and collectoxs.This will.be used as development occurs to ensure an appxopriate transportation system is being considered as individual subdivisions axe being pla.nned. 2 J ` � - Bruce V.Minea � JillO'Rourke . ; Rosemount Farms . " BV1N1 Real Estate Investments LLC , , JMOR Real Estate Investsnents LLC � � 1903 Winslo.w Court _ � : � �Vest St.Paul,MN 55118 . June 28,2005 - ' : . Rosemount Planning Commission. - . - , City Of Rosemount . : 2875 145�'Street We.st � � ;Rosemount,Nlinnesota 55068�997, - . • , , RE:Official comments for the public record with respect.to inp�tt�from landowners and - ' . concerned citizens on the proposed laiid use cha,nges within the 42/52-study area.�Public . Hearing held at the Rosemctunt Gity Ha116:30 p:m:Tuesda.y,:7une 28,2005. ` . Co-Owner.PID#"s:34-02200-01,3-60&34-02200-013-50 (86.58 Total Acres) ,. _ . . These Parcels are loeated ti�etween Centex's 1Vleadows of Bloo�iifielfl on the west,Akran ' J Avenue on the east. Couniy Road 38 on our north and the railroad tr�eks.on the south ` � ' � , � • , - ;t , � , .. Deax Planning Commission Members: _ , � , ; ,, ` ` ' We wauld like to commend all'.ttiose who have`contributed considerable time.and effort, - - in�working on ttus plan The City'"s need.fo ha�e a:well,thought out.compreheiisive.,land . use plan that allows for orderly and logical extension ofutilities and roadurays is vital for � - , ; _ aur communities''future. :- ' � . � �, - . � However,it is with great concern;that.we'would like-to�voice.our apprehension about the - � apparent unpasse between Arcon Development Inc.,and tfie�City with respect fo the , amount of pr.oposed commereial`dev�lopment on the eorner of 1�kron A�e;&CQunty ' . ' � Road#42.This disagreement,.if it continues,could d�1ay the exten'sion of the sewer , -. : trunk line n, . , � . , � orthward through the-disputed area.:If this continues,it could result in the.. , complete shutdown of all new residential d"evelopment in eastern Itosemount:�Along"with ' " the 404 acre 11NIcMenomy paieel to our nortli tliis would ei�eetively�aIt the.�developrrient ' �. - � � of nearly 500 acres. _ , . - . � . ; Because of this issue,it is our hope that a solution to this issue between the parties can be worked ou� Perhaps a more flexible land use designatian couid be created and used in the disputed area. Altematively,a revised path for the sewer trunk line along public right of way or easements could be used. If this were to occur,would it be_possible for the assessment5 related to the sewer trunk improvements to be staged and deferred until actual commercial development is wairanted on the Arcon/Pemton site? � A second comment that we w�uld.like to.bring forward is with respcet to tke allowed . density along the railroad tracks on both of our.parcels,The urban residential land use , 'designation,which allows three units per acre,seenos reasonable foz the bulk of our ' properly.However,the portion of our land that lies closest to the railmad tra.cks,in our opiniari;should allaw for a somewhat higher density to allow town homes or carriage , . . • homes to be constructed without causing reduced density on the rest of.ouz property. • , -We sincerely hope that the planning commission wili consider these important concerns when formulatin.g and forwaLding yoiir recommendations on to the Gity,Council.Our belief is that equitable soTutions can be found wluch vc�ill avoid a near term shut down of ` residential development in eastern Rosemount.As longtime landowners`and former ' residents of Rosemount,we would like to thank you for your consideration on this : important issue. . ,. - , Sincerely, ' . . b . � . .. , . ' . . . F . . � . . . . . . . _.� . �.� .. � . . , . . . , . . � .. � . , . - . .� . . , . . .� ' . .^ ' ' . . . . . ' ' . ; Bruce V:Minea_ _ - .Landowner , ��., c - , : Jill� 'Rourke - downer , _ ' , Page 1 of 1 v Lindquist,Kim From: Rhonda Busswitz [rbusswitz@spscommerce.com] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:11 PM To: Lindquist,Kim Subject: question on the changes of future use of land Good Day, My name is Rhonda Busswitz and we live at 1293 - 145th Street East in Rosemount. With the new land use proposal our property is designated as 'public/ institute'. This leads us to believe either the Technical College or the city/county would be the ones who would like to acquire our land. If possible we would like to sit down with the city and discuss our property and receive an understanding of what the council is seeing as the future use of our property. I was at the public meeting last Tuesday, May 24th, and what I heard is some people would be affected sooner, some later. We understand that Rosemount wants to grow, and I can understand why and how your vision of growth is planned out. We would just iike a better understanding of where we stand. Are we looking at having to moue? Will this be in 90 days? In one year? 10 yea�s? This not only effect my husband and I, but also our children. I know you are still in the planning stages, but any information you can give us would be better than the nothing that we know now. When we think of our future, and if we should invest money in our property, it is all in question, a white haze, and this is not a feeling I like to have. So if we could schedule a time to sit down with someone from the land use planning commission and discuss all of this, we would be very gratefuL Thank You, Tracy and Rhonda Busswitz . 651-423-7178 , home# 612-435-9445, Rhonda's work# . 5/27/2005 � . , . ' . ' �'�d- � z,�j�� r � Ames Construction, Inc. Mr,,,` 2000 Ames Drive _�,a Burnsville,MN 55306 ��,+ 952-435-7106•Fax 952-435-7142 '"""� May 19, 2005 Kim Lindquist City of Rosemount 2875 145�'Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: McAndrews Family Farm Proposed Zoning Dear Ms. Lindquist: I would like to take a minute to express a few concerns regarding the proposed Highway 52/ County Road 42 land use plan that were presented at the May 10 , 2D05 planning comrnission land use plan workshop. Although we feel that the land use plan is moving in the right direction, there are a few issues that are of concern including the transition from industrial zoning in relation to the residential zoning, development obstacles with the northern half of the McAndrews farm, and the possibilities of future retail commercial businesses within the eastern corridar of Rosemount. The future extension of Connemara Trail will serve as an excellent separation point to transition from industrial (north side of Connemara Trail) to a medium density use(south side of Connemara Trail). Therefore, we would like to propase to return the zoning classification to include 40 acres of inedium density on the north half of the eastern parcel in place of the industrial zoning classification. If the north half of the eastern parcel is zoned medium density, there will be an order�y transition from an industrial use (north side of Connemara Trail) to a medium density use (south side of Connemara Tr.ail). Additionally, a medium density zoning classification for the 40 acres on the north half of the eastern parcel wauld allow for a smooth transition into the business park zoning that abuts the McAndrews parcel to the east. Through discussions with city staff, it is our understanding that future extensions of Connemara Trail will fall on the northern property line of the McAndrews family farm parcels. If the Industrial land remains undeveloped for several years how will Connemara Trail be extended without development driven funds? The northern property line consists of several obstacles including significant overhead lattice towers that convey the 240 KV power lines, a proposed major collector (Connemara Trail), a proposed minor collector that is currently aligned approximately An Eqzuzl Opportunity Employer OFFICE IN: PHOENIX,ARIZONA•AURORA,COLORAUO•CARL,IrT,NEVADA•WEST VALI.EY CITY,UTAH - V halfway through the McAndreu�s farm running east and west, and a 48" MET Council sanitary sewer interceptor line that runs diagonally across the North half of the groperkies. Moreover, a gas line exists on the south end of the westerly parcel as well. When easements for the Met Council sanitary sewer interceptor line and overhead power lines are accounted for,the remaining area on the north half of the property will be more suited for a residential use rather than an industrial use. From a land planning standpoint, we feel it is more feasible to develop 40 acres of a medium density use while creating a site plan around the various easements and or improvements on the northern line. Moreover, a medium density use will help to offset the financial responsibilities of unproving the future extension of Connemara trail along our North property line. It is our understanding that the City of Rosemount desires a Commercial Retail complex in the eastem corridor of Rosemount that will include national retailers such as Target, Home Depot, Byerly's, ETC. We could not agree more that a cornmercial retail area will be an excellent addition to the eastern corridor of Rosemaunt..However, commercial retail is driven by the number of rooftops within the immediate area. Industrial uses will not attract commercial retail. As displayed in the most current land use map, there axe over 2500 acres that are guided for industrial or business uses. How many years does the city estimate for the entire industriaU business zoned areas to be developed? If the residential growth has akeady substantially exceeded the current projections, is there possibly a need to decrease the industrial zoning and increase residential zonin.g? We understand that the end goal would be to guarantee that growth in development will reflect positively on the community as a whole. We envision the IvlcAndrews farnily fa.rm as a high quality mixed used master planned community that would include town homes, single family homes, active adult and senior living, and neighborhood retail with pedestrian accesses from the surrounding neighborhoods that would ereate a "neighborhood retaal community"including shops and restaurants. We would like to create a community that includes similar characteristics of an Evermore or a Cobblestone Lake neighborhood concept that will include all of the neighborhood retail amenities with in walking distance. As we continue working through the land use plan, I greatly appreciate having the opporturiity to work with city staff and the community as whole. We are very excited to have the opportunity to work in the City of Rosemount. Please contact me @ (952) 435— 7106 with any questions or concerns regarding the issues that have been addressed in this letter. Sincerel� G�� G%��f`z-- � Shawn L. Dahl Director of Real Estate Development r i Cc: Bill Droste Kim Shoe—Corrigan Mark DeBettingnies Mike B axter Philip Sterner Jason Messner Terry Zurn \ Laurie Humphrey John Powell Valerie Schultz , . �'�. �{�.s�'��'' �� Aprii 22, 2005 Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Staff: RE: McAndrews fCourteaul Proqerty East of Akron on Countv Road 42 We appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts with you regarding mixed-use development of the property east of Akron Avenue. Familv backqround • Mary McAndrews Courteau, Margaret McAndrews Eustice, Ann McAndrews Day and Joe McAndrews, along with aur spouses, own the twa-parcel property that was our family fa�r;� ir; R��emcunt j�st��s��f 4!�r�n. 1�!r rar��S �Gr�SS�}ar�te� by ths E2r! Bester property. • Over 50 years ago, with great awareness of Rosemount's Irish heritage, our parents John and Marie McAndrews, purchased our farm on county road 42-- now across from the Dakota County Technical College and UMore Park. • On#his farm, our parents raised four healthy children. We were 4-H club members; our mother taught in the Rosemount Public School System, was a 4H leader as well as a dedicated volunteer at St. Joseph's Church in Rosemount. It Was a Great Life near Koch • Our family can testify that we enjoyed Iiving�near the=r.efinery and accoss from the University land even.before#he-�ecent'environrnenfal�controls'wer'e;mandated. .:.. • �� Many�pleasant'summei�evenings,-'after chores were completed, we rode our bikes on the UnNersity roads. We proudly brought our college friends home for holidays fo share in the great Rosemount traditions. • It must have been a healthy lifestyle: Our mother celebrates her 95�' birthday this month and still volunteers her time to numerous charities; our father was 90 when he died five years ago. All four of us children—now each over 50 years old-- enjoy great health. Welcominq Chanqe • l�t1i' �i?ui�lG!'�i�ii8g�� t��e€arrr� a�ar aur�a��t'iiS'.f c[�fr:i�i?�ai"if� C�t�Slt'��PEv developing a large hog operation on it. However, he recognized that this location did not provide the agricultural infrastructure he needed. Further, due to the increasing number of surrounding suburban homes, he believed it was more socially responsible to move his farming operation to another county. Today, we rent the farm to a commercial grower. Odors? Not in our Neiahborhood • It amazed us when one mem6er of Flint Hill's citizen coalition stated that interiors of homes near refineries haVe an odor. The only odor we recall was apple pie"and home-made bread. Those of us who'live soatliwest of the'refinery know that the pr�evailing winds.blow their odors away from our location�=0urfinio parcels in : . P . rticular are odor free. Y Dakota Countv Technical Colleqe: No Gas Masks Required • Directly across the street on County Road 42 from our farm is Dakota County Technical College which trains thousands of students and employs hundreds of staff. During Mary McAndrews Courteau's years in administration at the college, Koch Refinery wasn't even on our radar screen. Neither students nor staff spoke of the refinery. It was a non-factor. To hear some of the alarmists address the Planning Commission at the last meeting, you'd think that the Technical College students should be issued gas masks just to go to/from the campus. Ffint Hills Entertains the Neiahbors • Several years ago, Flint Hills invited local land owners to tour their facility and enjoy a dinner on their campus. Guests were told about the safety of the operation and regaled with tales of what great environmental neighbors they are. There was no mention of the embellished dangers recently described by Flint Hills. Buffer ZonE • Now there's quite a lot of talk about a "buffer zone"to protect us from possible unfortunate events at the refinery. So what is a reasonable zone? Isn't the proposed industrial zone surrounding the refinery sufficient? At recent meetings, we've heard that a one-, finro-, and even a three-mile radius would be required. _ Sounds like Flint Hills would like to close downtown Rosemount toa • There are no state or federal regulations that would impact use of our property. The recent Texas City refinery blast killed workers on site but damage was limited to a '/ mile radius, and according to the Wall Street Journal, there was no impact on the surrounding community. � • The other day a 200 pound NorthWest airlines reverse thruster fell out of the sky and landed in Dakota County. Does this mean that all development in Dakota County should be curtailed because of our proximity to the airport? A Reauest for Zoning Change • We were happy to leam that the Planning Commission proposes that the highest and best use of this land is not agricultural but mixed-use development. Reqardina our west qarcel, we respectfully request that the non-commercial land (approximatelY 60 acres) be evenly divided with 30 acres for medium and 30 acres for sinqle family homes. • Our easterly parcel contains approximately 5 acres that is currently guided for � � ��liiii'�v�'i.ia� li�c"''.. i�i�f`oi5�izi��iiti��r°.�'i.Bit� �i��iG3 ,�iiv�3tiSi"c.:'�ai'��'f£ approximately five acres of commercial be re guided to a medium density use. Extending the cornmercial onto our easterly parcel places the commercial zoning over a half mile east of Akron Avenue. Would it be more efFicient to end the commercial at the westerly property line of our easterly parcel? In return, the commercial zoning would end at our western property line approximately'/z of a mile away from the intersection Akron Avenue and County Road 42. � • We feel that it is very important to maintain the residential development east of Akron Avenue as per the land use map that was presented at the planning commission workshop on Apri! 12. The land use map guides a substantial area of commercial retail development. With the unavailability of the university property for residential growth on the south side of county road 42, it is prudent to maintain residential development to attract commercial busine$ses to their respective locations as indicated on the land use map. Without additional roof . tops in the immediate area east of Akron, the commercially zoned areas will struggle to attract "big box" retaii and supporting businesses that are typically developed in concert with the larger retaii users. MUSA Line Extension Is the city asking for the ability to maintain a fioating MUSA line? If not, we would like to ask if the city would consider requestir�g a floating MUSA Fine. If a floating MUSA line is not acceptable, we would like to propose to extend the MUSA line boundaries to include both of our parcels. Since we are currently working to create a revised and updated land use plan for our future growth, why not extend the MUSA Iine to the east from Akron Avenue as much as possible to insure that our future growth is not hindered by MUSA line extension requests that may be delayed through the MUSA line extension process. Havinq Their Cake and Eatinq It Too • Flint Hills wants us to believe that they are environmentally sound but yet they don't want residential development east of Akron. They have also stated that they will buy no more land. • What is their true motive for attempting to freeze the number of rooffops? Sounds like a case of David and Goliath. • We believe that Flint Hills is employing very self-serving scare tactics in an attempt to cover their dirty fittle secrets regarding soil contamination, and to freeze rooftops so thev can expand their operations in the future withoufi resistance from the Citv. • Flint Hills also benefits by selling more gasoline to commuters who must drive beyond Rosemount to their homes. • We wonder if past City Council members now regret their decision to permit Koch/Flint Hills to establish a site within this fine city. Hopefully, current and future City Council members will see that Flint Hills is not a trustworthy neighbor and will do all they can do deny any expansion of their operations. Conqratulations to the Planninq Commission and Citv Staff • The Air Freight cargo center could provide 6,000 to 30,000 new jobs. Let's prepare for that exciting opportunity. Due to �ack of housing inventory in Rosemount, we have seen our neighboring cities grow as our friends purchase homes in Apple Valley, Coa2es, LaKeviiiE, Farminyton, Harrrpro� a�a F3Ew�r�e�. • We congratulate the Planning Commission for their dedication and their wonderful plan to grow commerce and increase Rosemount's tax base through mixed-use development east of Akron Avenue across from the Dakota County Technical College and UMore Park. Thank you for the opportunity to present this information. I can be reached at 952-890- 5401 or 952-250-3997 to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, �G'`�y'�. �i/'��%'�u�.-� ��'l�G'�G� ar�'McAndrews Courteau for the McAndrews Family � � £ FL1NT H1LLS � , , ' .2� ; RESOURCESm .., ' JEFF C.WILKES ` - Pine Bend Refinery - ' VICEPRESIDENT ' MINNESOTA OPERkTIONS � MANUFACTUR�NG MANAGER P.O.Box 64596 . _ Saint Paul,Minnesota 55164 , 651.437.0679 ' Fax 651.437A549 April 15, 2005 � Jason Messner, Chair Rosemount Planning Commission ' 2875 145th Street WesX ' • . . Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 � , , Dear Commissioner Messner: � . � Thank you for giving Flint Hills Resiources the.opportunity to speak to the Planning � Commission last Tuesday about the 52/42 Gorridor Development Plan and our concerns . with�the proposed residential development. If you have questions or vvould like more ' information prior to your next work session, please contact 7olin Hofland at (651)438- '1331. We would also be happy to meet with you to discuss the alternative developmen't � ideas we proposed.' . � �_ . � ' I also wanted to provide you with the websites that were mentioned near the end of the � ' meeting. The Community Advisory Council to the refinery has a website with quife a bit � of informatiori about our t�perations. If is www.pbcac:o�. Information about our refinery emissians can be found at www.flirpinebend.corn. Th,ank you�again for listening to our concerns and taking into consideration the information we pzovided. - � � j � Sincer , � � � ... , : Jeff Wilkes � . _ Refinery Manager&Vice�President for Minnesota Operations �: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director -, � -` � . ' � � � t��t�� ' Vestena, LLC, et al 127�,1,Shannon Parkway Roseinount, MN SSOb8 April l l,2005 Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff City of Rosemount 2875 145�'Street West Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is being written in support of the County Road 42-Highway 52 La.nd Use Plan put together over the last nine months by the 42/52 Corridor Study Group. I was privileged to serve on the Study Group along with representatives from the University of Minnesota and Flint Hills. With the input of numerous residents and other interested or informed persons we developed a sound plan that was forged in the spirit of compromise and good faith. �th over 300 acres on the east side of Akron Avenue we believe that we . are entitled to some sa.y in how our property is used, and therefore we were most appreciative to ha.ve representation on the Study Group. This area has been in a hold'mg pattern of agricultural use, but no�v it is exciting to be working on the long-term plan. We ha.ve a number of comments to make on the situation as it currently stands:- • If the City wishes to have an increased commercial tax base then this will require sufficient population to patronize it. The proposed new commercial district at the Akron Avenue/42 interchange will not be viable without housing east of Akron Avenue to support it. Apple Valley's commercial district has mushroomed in size over the last five years as rooftops ha.ve been added in the immediate vicinity. • . The Metropolitan Council has made very clear its desire that cities increase residential acreages and densities where possible,and is investing$100 million in the nearby Empire treatment plant in support of this desire in this area. • The properties along the east side of Akron Avenue have been available for purchase for many years at relatively modest prices but nobody took the opportunity to purchase them as `buffer'. Why should the City now give up the economic benefit of highest and best development in order to provide a free `buffer'? • The proposed plan was developed over many months with input from multiple sources, including Fli.nt Hi.11s as a Study Group member. • We are in full agreement that the east part of the area towards Rich Valley BouIevard should become much more industrial in flavor. The proposed bike trail in conjunction with the drop-off in elevation along the west side of Rich Valley would make an excellent `hard boundary' between more industrial uses to the east versus more residentiaUcommercial uses to the west. There is ample time to create physicallandscaping.to enhance the separation of activities. i • The recent opposition to the proposed plan is seeking to justify `buffering' of long . established industrial fa.cilities that have a relatively low employment base,tax . base and growth prospect given the acreage they occupy. • The City has to deal with the fact that,for the foreseeable future two very large tracts of property are in effect sterilized by Flint Hills and the University. This requires the City to ma.xi�rize the use ofwhat remains available but undeveloped. � Any `reserve' or `banking' of land that the City might see as prudent should be done where the land value and the investment in infrastructure is lowest, whieh is east of Hwy 52. • If hazards or risks to citizens from the industrial facilities are known to exist they showld be declared and mitigated. Proposed residential areas are still a mile away from Flint Hills, whereas they are on the doorstep of comparable facilities in other communities. • Any residential development east of Hwy 52 will be, in effect, a `new' cornmunity requiring its own new infrastructure, so the City should ma�mi�e the development west of Hwy 52 where it has already made, or is committed to make substantial mvestments in sewer, water, streets, fire and police facilities, parks and recreation facilities, etc. In sumrr�ary, we feel that the plan developed by the Study Group is a sound one that should serve the City of Rosemount very well for many years to come. Sincerely, , � ., Jonathan, J. Wilmshurst as part owner of, and on behalf of ' Vesterra, LLC Stonex, LLC Minnova Land, LLC J.X.Bowers and J.Edwin Chadwick, LLC , , ' ` ' " 135th Street ': : � , , ' , �. �� r �;�� , �, �� i I� I 4 ,��'r'�'� � n. ,� �'� -e' r� t3�p� A bi�''� q � �,�� . �" r��"�,/�� c�/`�'"✓��°��' ''� '.� m � �� - � �m � �� - � ,4�� Q , � � _.____ a �,�E t � _ � '�� 14DFtf�tr9et � � rn _ c N � �� County Road 42 � . . . . . PnpenMtaVesterts,LLC . Percet defn hom Delro�Canfy � � . � � I heisbyosrtlry thet Mis qan,doamenG a�epat wes pnperod 6y Raad end raNroed dela hom MMnasote Depertrent btTreneportatlon OW N ERSH IP � � . � � .�.ar�nder my 4�x2 supwisim and theti an a duy Uaensad � . . � PmfessbrrlGedoghtunderlhelewsdHisstataMM�mesote. Vesterra Property and Vicinity �D� 0 550 1.100 2,200 Feet . . . � � i � � � � � � City of Rosemount,Dakota Gounty,MII1118SOtA - J.D.lahr DeNi Mereh 31,2tIW � � Rp.P1o.30083� . � � V FL1 N T H 1 LLS � � � RESOURCES'�. � �O.Rox 645�6 Pine Bend Refiner.y , sa��tPa�i,Minnesota55164 651.437.07U0 � March 2$, 2005 , � Rosemount Planning Commission ' c/o Chair Jason Messner City of Rosenzount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068=4997 • , Dear Planning Commission Mernbers: � Flint Hills Resources thanks you for the c�pportunity to briefly address the Planning Commission during your March 8�h work session abput our concerns with the 52/42 Study Group draft plan. Please let us know if you would like to continue the discussion at a future Planning Cominission meeting. For a long time, Flirit Hills has sought to ensure that development near the Pine Bend Refinery is ' compatible with industrial uses and that a sufficient buffer exists between the refinery and � �. residential development. The current comp�rehensive plan maintains a sufficient buffer. However, as we mentioned at the March 8t meeting, we are deeply concemed about some of the � proposed residential development in the dra$ 52/42 Study Group plan. While we appreciate having been included in the 52/42 Study Group, the one aspect of the draft plan Flint Hills cannot support is residential development east of Akron and north of County . � Road 42. We would be comfortable with most other types of development in that area, but we cannot support residential development. � Flint Hills Resources believes that, prior to any approval of this proposed plan, the. Planning Commission should require a detailed study to review the•compatibility of industry already in place with the proposed residential zoning. To our knowledge, there has not been a structured effort to ensure that the appropriate buffer zones have been identified and allocated in this proposed plan. Without this detailed evaluation,we do not see how the Commissian can approve this plan. We realize the.current eomprehensive plan must change to accommodate the City's growth. That is why Flint Hills worked with planning consultants to offer an alternative plan for the area east of Akron and north of County Road 42, which was included with your materials for the March 8th meeting, We believe that plan will meet important City needs—like more recreational � oppor�unities, storinwater management and increasing the contribution of business taxes to the overall City tax base—while maintaining a sufficient buffer area between residential uses and the industrial area. � r . ' . Rosemount Planning Commission . ' ■ , March 28, 2005 ' Page 2 . The map Flipt Hills provided also indicates areas for potential future refinery growth. Flint Hills �. is currently constructing new processing units and tanks to meet upcoming federal requirements - . for cleaner diesel fuel, as well as planning a project to increase crude oil processing capacity. Fotential g.rowth will occur within the existing refinery fenceline, but it is possible that industries . that support our business could locate adjacent to the facility on Flint Hills'property. We . thought�it important to include these elements as part,of the discussion about sufficient buffer � axea. • Finally, we have also enclosed an atfachment that includes some guidance changes we would like to see made to the Study Group draft plan for property Flint Hills owns. . � Flint Hills understands the.growth pressures Rosernount faces and hopes we can continue to . • • work with the City as it plans how to best manage that growth. I3aving a sufficient buffer area � between residential development and the existing industrial development is a critical component of this plannin process. � Sincerel � Jeff Wilkes � . . . Refinery, Manager &Vice President for Minnesota Operations Enclosure � , cc: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director • . . Flint Hills Resources requests that the suggested guidance for several parcels of land owned by the company be changed from what is recommended iii the 52/42 Study Group � draft plan. . � 1) Fli��t Hills'p�roperty Qn the east side of Akron, nortlz of County Road 38. Rural . residential is the suggested guidance.in the draft plan. Flint Hills does not intend to sell these parcels for residential use; therefore we would like to see the � guidance remain agriculturaL ' 2) .F7int Hitls'prQperty south of the refine�y. The draft plan also proposes �uiding � Flint Hills' property south of the refinery for business park use. Flint Hills does ilot plan to seil that property for business park use and would prefer to see it guided general industrial or agriculturaL 3) .Flint Hi11s'property to the east of Highway 52 dnd north of Cozfnty Road 38. .The draft plan �uides developmer�t on this.parcel as inixed industrial. Flint Hills does not intend to sell this property for mixed industrial use, but would consider selling . it for general industrial use. Flint Hills would like to see that area guided general industrial,.which would also match the guidanee for the surrounding property. We believe general industrial is a more compatible use than mixed industrial in this • area. � . 7,,u_�.' ` t �� ^ f ;`-O 111 ►io� � r� ;Ell� :-�7.,� .,i 1� as,--, :�.:y -- �: � � i . - y.; 5'� � „�`�}T�1rt'U F'�.'�` � � ��t�il-Ulider�'as�_L "'s��"�� , �ig��r�o d"y 4 � p�f:� t �.,'��' � t-� � � E . �: � 3� ^ �� ) ti:�- -- �� t�,,p� � �,:?'\4 ,..,�ii ��I�� .:K�i�� .!�� '�� j'`��y � ,+ r s-l:-r--3 'g� , �gz .: ,� � _ �,.,�� _ ,l�,.;_,.. �, i � :,: .` ,� µ: ^' "r c �l.d y�`k 1bA �� sp y, a� o.' ' . X 7 � �y ,` .� t �t �� ys�r `'�k 4[ y4 is 11 Siir.#' 'a �. I � I '�,ry fy I/ `!I� "1ti. I �'�. .,, .:♦ � i''. . ...�� "Yy�. S�� '� � .. l 1 � � i'J �'� ��7�1 � k�,ti �� +{� � �. . . ' �qg1 g�ly�3:��ti,, ".h.�'l,� p � �,� �' s �.�1�,� � � �� 44 �h;t.�k � � • �� "%`�'+--b� �'`w. Y�a _��i. � �,�trn' e� �,t�t��sy� �ir ..,i F 9� - ,�a ?,,3.� i E�l � �q . Fs 5, � i�, t t� ��R._.+a ei`pS+N v ;,� �� +�� y��Lf,*e 1�..i��i �� ._ �� ..c - ''�',.'�. 3' _e s i��yF q �� h z7 S w iQ ' ."'' �� i � �'`- +/ �� 3 � i a �b , tit a 'i r� t iV :rf v r �: i�S � i ��. . �� '",;. yi . 'il�-�t� x1 F°r': �� t�� ,. ��! lY.x �i` ; � ��' �ri`�� . . � ,t'"�� _ ��'�� ,.,g1 �, ��..� .�-.�'�w.� `a 2�.. ..r�i i �F ��•r� ��t�� :.` d i�< �t ��a ��. e w L� �i i :1. � � ., }�' d. � h � �4 ��' � '�i . � �C �a�3•!� " +�e+�. �yrt;�' ` '�.�' +��q� � ,�e. ; � y �= - . � v .�z` ��pr�..f: i ..._ � 3 �:'_ � ��t- �,. � - i�e Iendl E� �� `��t 1� ��-� ' � . -, �' n �c,�d d� *c �` t Y r�� h �' z � � ' �" �4 1 ��' i �� { �v� `�'�, i , � : „ Sidrmvua�er' , �� ,,� � y ( � �� ' � X y i L_K � � 11 1 y��y,,� f � r �$ i�tE.�" s�t q!,''� L'. i�" �yyy � ° { �'k � \�3,��s�-r- 2 °�'-'t+'-�"_' . t g 1 . ��1 �.�� - �� J; �� ' s C �i _`�.� ., T . �� _.� � •� —r '� u l F 1 � r�� 3 �� St �� i E �F- � � ml �� ' ��` .,,—, . ��:.� , ' [ � � 3' �y �a � � 7'6':` �'��t j'��, s. ''� !� � . 4 O!'YTf1�1U111�y S,� i i° ' ��{�`��R`3i s.; 4y. / ,: 'r` �' ��y��d.�t � �:� _ a t' I w thlei��#�p ��.. �� ,.�y�.� r � �f ��t I� f�s�� r �.� <�1�.. • - ��! � :.l .('E� ��,� � ! � ��'h `+e '_ �' �'�rr _'. y4VN1`�F � "a'...,�, � J�. ti, r � �� -� � 1 y,� � �� . . ��.. ��q � �\ ti:� ! �,aa° �� "� z J� �t��4< y �� ,�.-,,.. _ �`��tx r )'I" i. �'�. . ,�'��.: `��' 2.�_A� - .I.t:. :.. � i .� -u y5 . - - - �, � . ` *'� i � � � t . r � r� t �� I .�v . +k°! ! `�_� i,' I ` 1 � i � �� ,' h t� [ '., L . _ ,`` • �� .. � ... . n L � f V �1 �. � HRi�. M '�� . .,t- 1 c ao '�it-� F. �n J�+. 'i-r -a-.�{� �'� `.��' +4 i �. i �� "� -r '� �� --I � ��.&-. 'I �' - . �.� +.�. � �j � - a ��.io. `= ��4� V'�.. � a � 1 ."'.� y +I� d � :A t �+. � -(-- - . Y � a 1.�� e v�\ � / d� ^7 � ."J; . y �� f � + Y�� ` y �� ' �� t� ....1��I� `��u�N,�� . �., � i ". t �. t�, ry � �� .�. �:� ,�,--��" � � y, � -�-�--�-{ � �- �_ , � � , w �� , t.� ��€ " ri' � i q}',1 3 y r '�` - .9: � a v �� ^.' --acx3��. i-"*. � �. j��`+,� .�.�. , � .. � . � . .� '� .. � r k , n� �°+�, � 4. "" ��, , P � {��COnnE2TtOtET-TT�Y�..:.K�kr�Tisr�s,3svs�� . $'��,� .. `'��t�� t�� '��' ��'��ky� J� I`:.�� , .._ • �/ �� c - . _ ....... ..�_..�. rt � \�:. n ..�!� { �� . � � � �,i��4 .�":� ��.�� -...... ,..� ,�l ��F �,.� � _- .___'_ ��.,' , . � � , �� * � �� ;,�� 1�:� �,i gg�:1,�. :, � :r. :..,;��- _!°�.` y` �. ____-[t3a � . I �.�.=.�'::��.�.��r.�f��' ;� 4�;P+�s� � �r �+'�+a� ,'i�I�� i' � I„'+ "�., � I ➢ h7 �' � ,. j i �, . �� k .. , �yp-� �Y�� i'^ __ _-� � � . t �� '_ � �_ � .� �� .n51.^:SL�e�4_i2_'....l\` '�'�"1 j�'� .� � , ` �� .. ,l I ,t� 1 I �.� �,. `�. �� .: � �/ � �,. �� 1 I. � .Y � i�' ;ii''� .��• �f4(�j tA�f, .. �f �ar p` � . a m'm ' �� . � � r- �. r. �� ' �,_ .. '.....'".�'t �,�_ .-- .r.�.,,. �-.�+,w+..�, � '�� r� 1��Y31_ . P 1 I � �� y �I �a+yy � � �F ��-�t .. ,�` �. ei�e �t-._.-��. � - - • �'i��,�r�� r, L, �; �"��" �i ;�,� ,.�,: 3 i 84y, 1�� . ,d w i� f � �1�y; r�. �� " � ., ;ro ,.'��' �� -rh_ I I � .`�,', r F, �,� ,.�' ► ��i ��' . � ,{ r �.T � � �:i �r�"��'�'� '',�$ #«�,;;, i � t° �t , { ,�:' � � l__ f._'' -� I-'_ � � �k.�, . ��_ �_� � � �j�, _ ; � I.. � �G�� ( �;�. s r ' ie� � �J� t . i . r -,,��-y��_I � �`"�� r� `' . .. �/ �� ', �'cY' �� 'r, , � j _ _ - - � _. I __�� . � _� ,��M� � `� f'�� a ' y �E irL i— __ _� � ? ' I;,1: �:. .' � I I � �� - �, �. ,� '�•�' �W�F�; '�T�'�. 1 i��`� � � I � � , �`•�� _ = _ - �, . � � / A- � - �3�"�'�� - - = - - - _ : _ : _ _ - � _ • - - : _ _ � - - • _ - - '��' �� . ��I� . PBAIC P[I�IE BEND AREA INDUSTRIAL GROUP BFI•CF Industzies •Conti.nental Nitrogen&Resources •DPC Industries • Endres Processing•Ferrel Gas•Flint Hills Resources•Pine Bend Paving• PRAXAIR•SKB •Spectro Alloys Coiporation•Wayne Transports,Inc. March 21, 2005 Ms: Kim Lindquist Community Development Director Cizy oT �osemounf 2875 145th Street W est Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 Dear Kim: The Pine Bend Area Industrial Group (PBAIG) is a collaboration of businesses in the Pine Bend area of Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights. Together, we employ over 1400 people in the area as well as 600 contract and temporary ernployees. A major purpose of the Group is to speak with one voice regarding issues that may be common to member companies. V1/e would like to express our concern with the proposed County Road;42- Highway 52 Land Use Plan. Our primary concern is the incompatibility of proposed residential zoning in close proximity to existing industrial zoning. The industrial nature of our businesses in the Pine Bend area is not a good fit with residential neighborhoods. We believe that residential zoning east ofAkron Avenue and north of 155�' Street will bring these two incompatible uses too close to one another and potentially cause significant conflict within the cornmunity in the future. The industrial area is already in place while residentiai is not. The only way to prevent poter�tial conflict between the #v+wo is a I�nd use plan that excludes residential zoning in the area.in question. However, the industrial nafure of our businesses makes us very good neighbors for similar and supporting industries. Many of the member compar�ies_enjoy the benefits of doing business with neighboring businesses. We believe the land east of Akron Avenue and north of 155th Street will serve the community better with zoning that allows supporting industries to locate in Rosemount. Zoning appropriate for such uses can then also act as a sufficient buffer between heavy industrial and residential uses. " r The proposed Land Use Pian allows residential development much too close to the existing industrial base. This planning process is the last opportunity we will Iikely have to prevent a conflict between these two incompatible uses. We ask that all involved in the planning process consider these issues regarding compatibility and take this opportunity to act on them now with proper zoning rather than allow potential future problems between industrial businesses and . residential neighbors. On behalf of the PBAIG, /�" � -''�''�� Paul Curtis PBAIG Member cc: Bill Droste Jamie Verbrugge Rick Pearson Planning Commission � City Council P.B.A.I.G. Members � � TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: ARCON DEVELOPMEj•iT, IN�. ' DATE: February 7, 2005 FROM: McGomb Group, Ltd. � �� ROSEMOUNT 1vlp,ItKET�ALYSIS —CSAH 42 AT AKRON AVENUE In response to your request, we have conducted preliminary market analysis to identi demand for development of commercial retail and service uses in the area of CSAH 42 �1d �.o Avenue,in Rosemount, Minnesota. n SUMM:ARy OF FIND7NGS � The Arcon site trade area households increased from 2,378 in 2000 to 2,980 in 2 arulual erowth rate of about 7.8 percent. � 004, an � Average household income for this area was estimated at $82,Q19 in 2004 percent above the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA average of$77,551. � �bout six ♦ Purchasing power is expected to increase at more thari eleven percent annuall in constant dollars between 2005 and 2010, and at more than seven percent annually to 2025. y Other findings include: � The acreage proposed for future commercial development appears to be excessive compa.red to commercial developments in other, well-established communi'ties. �'�'hen � The acreage proposed for future commercial development appears to be excessive in relationship to anticipated lilcely population growth in Rosemount and the surroundi area. Future population growth is �imited; ng `�' MUSA limits b Available land: Koch Refinery controlled and U.of M resea.rch land , �' Area of industrial uses limits appeal for residential development to the east. � The acreage proposed for future commercial development appears to be excessive ive � proximity of Rosemount to established commercial areas. These established areas: g il � Limit the potential trade area for retail businesses that may wish to develo in t11e Rosemount area. p � Inhibit development of new retail businesses for categories already ade uatel represented by already established stores servuig the area. � y r . � b Represent attractive areas of additional retaiUservice development (and competition to Rosemount) particularly in "new growth" or "infill" areas of those communities. . ♦ The area of US 52 and CSAH 42 area will have greater appeal for future development, particularly for big box/categary killers. b For superior accessibility to freeway systenl and surrounding communities. b Significantly better traffic cunently and future. Tr�c on Alcron is expected to be less than Diamond Path at CSAH 42. b Similarly convenient to new growth areas as current Rosemount commercial area. ♦ The CSAH 42 at A,kron commercial area lacks su�cient population _and available purchasing power to support major retaiUservice comrriercial development. The area could support tlie following (see Appendix ta.bles): b By 2010, a small convenieilce retail/service area, including, for example, a gas- convenience store, a liquor store, perhaps two or three restaurants, and other coAvenience services lilce hair/tanning salon, daycare center, and a few service professionals. b By 2015, a small community ceizter, perhaps with a small supezmarket (sirnilar in size to the closed Knowl.an's Supermarket in Rosemount), with an additional 30,000 to 50,000 square feet of added retaiUservice offerings. As residential . development continues, the area will support some additional shopping goods categories like women's or family apparel, home furnishings and decorating, camera and film, music, eleetronics, and inay generate adequate support for �medical/professional offices of 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. b By 2025, the CSAH 42-Akron commercial area still lacks suffieient population � and available purchasing power to support a major retail/service commercial development.area. .The area couId s�pport retailers of convenience goods � including supermarket, drug store, hardware, etc., with a combined supportable square footage for convenience, goods, shopping goods, and services estimated at approximately 150,000 to 180,000 square feet. b This suggests that convenience/neighborhood centers should more appropriately be planned for this area, only requiring 15 to 20 acres of coinmercial land . designations. b 'Commercial development of the US 52/CSAH 42 area could have significant competitive impacts on the CSAH 42 and Alcron area. If such development occurs, the amount of sup�ortable square footage for the CSAH 42-Alcron area could be significantly reduced. b Acquisition of substantial acreage of U of M Research Center land for residential • development could provide significant additional population; and this population would support additional conunercial development. Such an occurance (sale of large tracts of U of M land) seems to be quite speculative. It seems appropriate tl�erefore, to plan a portion of tlus U of M land (e.g. southwest quadrant of CSAH 42 and A.kron} to meet the future commercial develapment demand that may result from residential development of the U of M Reseaxch Center land. • BACKGROUND The City of Rosemount is proposing to modify its present land use plau. Increasing residential development demand has almost used up a11 available residential property in Rosemount that lies ` within the present MUSA boundaries. The City of Rosemount will be requesting an extension of the NIUSA boundaries to aliow for continued residentiai development; and anticipates, as a result, increased demand for commercial retail and service developments. Rosemount's pzoposed land use plan would add to the present 130 acres of commercial land area a�proximately 600 acres for fiiture commercial development. (See Table 1) Tabie 1 . ESTIMATED LAND AREA AND APPROXIMATE POSSIBLE SQUARE FOOTAGE PROPOSED FOR DEVELOP�v1ENT OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL/SERVICE DEVELOPMENT IN ROSEMOUNT Square Feet Acres (c�, 10,000/acre City of Rosemount Present Commercial Acreage � CSAH 42/Hwy 3 Area 100 f 1,00O,OOp CBD-Hwy 3@ 145th Street Area 30 t 300,000 . Total 130 t 1,300,000 City of Rosemount Additional Proposed CSAH 42 @ Akron (73) 220 2,200,000 US Hwy 52 @ CSAH 42 280 2,800,000 Hwy 55 c�r CSAH 42 100 1,000,000 Total 600 6,000,000 Total Existing and New 73p 7,300,000 Based on an average land area requirement of one acre for every 10,000 square feet of building � area for commercial retail or service establishments, Rosemouiit will be providing enough land area to support about 7.3 million square feet of cornmercial retail or service establislunents. For comparison pi.u-poses aiid as a point of reference, Table 2 provides a summary of some already established retail conunercial areas in the Twin Cities Metro Area and their relationship to the planned commercial areas for Rosemouizt. ARCON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT A.REA The Arcon commercial development area at CSAH 42/Akron Avenue is predominately fannland at�resent, although the Dalcota County Vocational Technical College is located in the southeast quadrant of CSAH 42 and Akron Avenue. The proposed land use plan has designated for coinmercial retail/service developinent approximately 220 acres in this CSAH 42/Alcron area. (See Figure 1: Proposed Rosemount Land Use Plan). Table 2 . PROPOSED ROSEMOiJNT COMNIERCIAL AREA : RELATIVE TO OTHER MpJOR TW1N CITIES DEVELOPMENTS Rosemount Twin Cities Developments Major Total Proposed �_ City Anchor Tenants ��hor Development �s � Mall of America 5—�— 5q. Ft. T�_ F Bloomin�to 's Bloo ��';.�'�� t V� �> � o n Mac Nordstroms � ,_;�-��:��,;r, .; �.:� ,E ,ry Y , mingdales, Sears, BL � <•��.,.,:,�,, .,.:.�::, •� �� a � unsviile Center " :'�: �'•°4 �`�:�,� :�,�s•:,;��z�w�.-.�:�_ _ 898 000 2,468 000 �e�,�� , Burnsville . ...-t<:.�w::�-��a'��a�n��:��::�: ,.}� � . • ,��:�°��;��,�,��: � ;.��.:... arsh ., , ��:�' ��,.: � �,� 3.00 �� ..M.. all J. .."+,��..��'u�� "._ r _..., ;.....�' �'• 4,.f.a>�.je'�� Ftelds, Penne Sear n�s �.�`+"�9:�i,4�., e. ..""r.^i;<s�i�i�� M Eagan Promenade . : ... . .. ... • ,:.,,�yr.�.:..; . . _ .. .. � .... , �:� . .�...,_..�,R<, .. �;��.;a S, �Me `�^ �' �, � ._.,.. . , .. .�:�:�;�s`?�� r� 080 000 . ... p ��"�`��= 4��:,,;,;,. _;4�..-...,. .._.. a°an Byert�.�. . , �� C.;�.� �. �. 6 0 l, , �6.75 ..fi.�,3"�,iq�X.�:ii.� .:�,.,�"L .j . ... . � y's,TJ Ma Bed `�yr�� . ��`�"� . . .,... , �, r;.� „ � .� �:.. � ,0 Tamarac .. ��;-�;t:�;��_�'as-��u�� &� ;� , Bath&Beyond, Office�Max `6'` :Q� ;� � ,��:�.'::�;. , �.:.??�,�� .,.>..,. : >,•a: k Center Woodbu ��a .�s.,��'.�,.��..�..TVR,a::�;�s. �, a4=�. �.; _: . � I40 400 350,000 20.90 �,��':��s�s?'�. �_s'°_�x�>� x ' � �y Home D �ot,J.C.Penne . . . .n..-, +�t�'f�xc;r't.. , � �c: „� ...��w�� ,..:.�.,, - . �.,u.,,.;::.,..��. _ . ,e �r,. y, Gal an, Cub . �_��<;��.>;�.;,,. ;;�,:,:,��;� Woodbury V�IIa e ��;.'��=�>"��r��,�-�� -y,,,,,--. : . 360 000 766 000 g �, Woodb r =� - �:�,r::s.,,�.�s��;�'t=,.,. . �•��;:. � _ 9.5 ��?�� '.tr,,�'� �,,,x=:�-�� ;��;�, ��>,.�:r�.. u!Y Ta get,Kohl's,Rainb �� ...�v.>,..- ��;�.. . , _�_� .' � ,. ,. " i��;;x..�> , ��,_.ry,.p ^ ow,BestBuy : `�6 0�00�'�� . City of Woodbury .' , ..�:>: s ,, ,�t��.��,:... �. ,i:�=y ��;::�, :.....�...,.__,. . .,�� 350,000 " �'��'. Woodbury . _:... 12 90 �v�� ,"��'<� .;-�_ ' �.4'�'�.. "s.;t�s r.. 4.�.�x � 2,938,000 2.50 ' � . . . � . ` - , ' Figure 1 ..0 /� l�i ,�-E • Ltl � {p � � �i '� ;�y. + � � �ro� r ? � �'ia� � �'' •� ; e � . . . . ( .��. . � k +� ..� �I 7 1' ,� . . . � . _ �( � §� `� . t� . i. �`_ �,� _ a � ,r� � } �'� , , � ` �' ;�R�SE��I.I[V'1' � ' , - € , ..k_ � ' I' � � '�, �t �p.& ��,�- `•.} � MINNESOiA m �Z,x^ �. 4 ' a � '..y � i �.L. t S x�{�: � .. . t� x i t �A'�� . . - ' � � ,�� Y ,� � County RD 42 �s;:x �i�x� � �: • r . HIghWBy 52 �- ` s ��. �� s ',�'` F A � �` �' ' �� and Use IVfap d ;, � s� ,� - � t� raft - ul � �d �� r�. ,�� H, �D F I Size) . � � .y��i ,� � ' ' r � :,�.a�� .� y.[6 ��s . y i � '1 , �lx s r G � � ; r .� n F3 i , �k, �'z� ,� i . . � ti -' , � R ; 4 � '- �H .w n .�`w F r .� . . 1 8.! �'(�'�c F A � � d i } " '� � \ y u� � r� � !n: f. �I '. 1� i �7r �S� ' �{ A•� �e '� � � ! �� 'y � ` >�r�� ` *� �rG� _ gend l'� :, � yj '� 1 ` �. r r i� �6 aoaa Muw un. IQ. ' � �'�i I • �A �, . � ? � `s � '+'.'� 't � pv�' � � 4 �(, a. � t.'� '�' �— ]0�0 Mu,.Un• �� i . i' ,� .�� a i � .Yb � J °y �� Q LendUt� . . ra � �� .�� , � • ^� F � .. Mely�l�Are� ��n�B. � :� � Xi 7 �^i ---• a, � �n �5�. �M1l p �� p a p � �.�� .f�• . rewna.y . . � . S � r . �j�p : I�i�J� �6i pM W. .� � t y �'�e . t ¢yK.Y �_ . . . � . ;� . .2", ... � ' �i� x �.� �j,;. � i � R�Xre�d�� }a - _� q ��' 62-52 oor � �n i � �,�i :l �M �'•o� �� u °f Ador land use concepl5.slp i .} ° � ' �� ; �� . 0; ;' Ei:�.i � � ; � � � ` '� �\.. � �'' �`� `��.�\��.a:�� •��: � � .. • :\ �„ � . ,r:,�• �� .. ^ - .. ... ; I ��\``\�� ;��\: e'�.'.^.�^ I.il'1 �. .. �. � � z \. �� \�i ��\��:�. �� \� ��:�''�`'. �Q .�;�\ / � ao . . —� . � � � � c\.�`�� \ >'a,:`�:\� ��p ti�i.\v��1\ 6q • \,� �• \��'�� '•\ � _... � e \\� ''\,.\`\��':��\`e c��'�`� � � . � � y .\ .��.. �a\�� \ �':v:.q�`::\ � P� � ro "_---'-_ . . .. . . . . � wM � -- ---- Cb TE.^> � nn 4� "' " ' "� "'� — . . . �:A�\ I1IR'GR60 . 1 �� . `' � � . . . ; • . .. � . � 1 � . 1 ' . . . � . � . .. . � � N . . . . . . . � � . ws�.� 0.4 D OA • i i "y� 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 Miles � -- � � '_ —._ __ �.. . � . � � .. . � .n.�or.uc.atr.wacpx�......w+wxai . Location CSAH 42 is a four-lane, undivided roadway and it's the prima.iy east-west arterial through the Rosernount area. Alcran Avenue (County Road 73) is presently a gravel roadway with very limited use. US Highway 52 is situated 2.5 miles east of Akron Avenue. (The area of CSAH 42 and US 52 is also designated as a nzajor conunercial area on the proposed land use plan, with a.n estimated 260 acres for commercial development). MN Highway 3 is two miles west of Akron Avenue. The Arcon development area does not appear properly situated for a major regional or suh- regional retail cormnercial area. It lacks the convenient accessibility to extend gopulation ceilters via the regional freeway system among other fact.ors and must be considered less than satisfactory for this ki.nd of maj or developrnent. (See Table 3: Sununary of Criteria Ratings). . Table 3 SUMMARY OF CRITERIA RATII�IGS FOR PROPOSED SITES Rosemount,MN Future Commercial Areas Criteria CSAH 42 (a�Akron US 52& CSAH 42 Access ta regional freeway system 2 5 ingress/e�ess to site 3 3 Visibility . 4 , 4 Cun•ent traffic conditions 2 4 Future tra�c conditions � � 5 Relationship to adjacent uses 3 3 Ease of site development unknown unknown � Availability to urban services 2 2 Location relative to competing areas 2 � Area potential-retail - 2 2 Overall site rating 2.6 3.4 KEY TO RATINGS 5-outstanding 4-very g0od 3-acccptabie/satisfactory 2-needs improvemendnot satisfactory 1-Poor Access Fut�ire plans (see Figure 2: 2025 Road Classifications), eall for improving existing roadways in the vicinity of the Arcon property or adding additional roadways as areas of Rosemount develop. _ Access to the A�con area would lilcely be provided frorn Aluon Avenue, which will become a major collector at some point. It is expected that the intersection of CSAH 42 and A.kron Avenue would be signalized. One would anticipate that direct access from CSAH 42, aprincipal arterial, may be limited at some point in the future as traffic volumes increase. The residential areas eYpected to develop in the a.reas north of CSAH 42 would be. connected to tlie Arcon . coininercial area by upgraded and improved county roads, Alcron Avenue (County 73) and 135`�' Street(County 38}, and b�new local streets. Y n . . < • I Figure 2 ;� �'�. Roserrtount CitY Ma � . C�tY of Rosemount, M/nnesota P �'BR °aov� �j��'►'s .._a_, . D 1 T�.• �'`''� � ' �] �=,u�' l. � �co�'rwos: c�«,d U - �ghe�ar�.`_�r�.r�x.c3, �:�.. .��.:u . ,� , t . vAbvt. caw�w (\� � ,�T �� .�.��/ ��.:�.� ��_ , s ,.,�.. , c , �.�] . � n�.. � I " � . �'-�°`-w. .�J �__�� . � . I Unns �^� � w. \ � 1I�� Go trueryo� '�.�i ,. � �s_'_.."�.w l � � � � n �~�., --• "'� N�'� � `'�^..�o j'� '''� � �^' r�.s.r q ' "'=f ' L.l " ` � `''�.`�� 'I� e�s��va m e�c3 e� � � o� aa¢�c�cz�c.-3 c�ea o�,�� ~�r�" 1I t.:: ''i. . � ., .,�,,.,.. . , 6 ' � �`i� � - -- _ ia ___------ --."'�" �, ,/� �. �� . . Blko Tratl' / � ��. �....� . . � � . 1 _ (J�..+� � +r ��', � "� � :� �. �.. ; : � pf r�- .� � W. ' _ / � . � . . . " j 4kn�� 1 j . .�. ' .'�� t�v` '� ..`\ ' � . . ' � . . . . � z' ��:� .. � � I . " =s.-' � -.. � `..- 38`- � ~ , r,r - --'��FSs�� \\ ' �� -' �➢��5_ _ p�t�-- .._.-""" ' --.q :�� "� J.j / � v . M" 1\ � �'j� � '��' SZ �", .rt � � �o°y'�: `"�'- ,,.�. � ' ,,� �ft.�-�` *�--a �y------------------- j.�r_ Y� ,,. � ��i'� '��s's.r�.'•�za t.0�,-�� '• .W � 'pi Bil�a Trail ` " �. ,� �� :, ::�,, � � 'r' , r�� I �v � ! �'.$ � �. � ;�W �j 1 S¢ � . . n X.T-o ` �'"""--"' ' � Future Propoaad T.H.6Dr �- � ` i�� . A��B�ment/Relocatton ` � �'._ '_ _ t� '�•u � p' . Ei` , 4'� ��o�� . 1 I .,{� �-1' � � . � .L"�C7 "La FII7 t�tHf�•�Ca}� t W j� �' . .. . � F . ,, , � C► ,-" ... r t� `•, e �'- -- �, ...� � � fj - -�-- - � � s.f' � � � � � , Rav'asd . � , r�+�. I " � t.ctr:�Q. � d LEGEND �°r ;,'.s, ��¢p� � o � �, � { . «..�.. ��ra ag�c.F�i ca rza.� � Full Access �''I� p � g " r�c�e�� m ry u�� . , € 9 �gTy Parttat Acceaa' r . 1 . __ . _ . y�' � 11111M4IPlpk�-0WwY1� a� u�� j Ex(stin p �a ara +�Ge t�v�o� . 8 Ro�dway rd "" n ` ! �"`-"`-�.-�. g �`� . ��r� Proposad Roadway � �I ti p � �-..ro._.�_� E ,��'..' �3'« � � � � � 2025 Functlonai Ciassiflcatio�s -" � � . ' ' � ��:�.. � . � . � COATES € � . . ,, �,�,� "�;'^ , , � a � p�,.. „. i + � a , m . � ,. � � . � r .. ' : .;�,��. '• T �z 'f � .'' M(nor Goilector �� . . . . .•iYMAeanMntaoF�A � The future roadway plans also suggest an improvement of the US 42/CSAH 42 intersection, although no funding for this is allocated in the Trunk Highway Funding Plan in MnlDOT's 20- year Transportation System Plan, and is part of the interregional corridor for which timing is yet � •to be determined. This potentially competing axea wou�d also have convenient accessibility to the study area by way of CSAH 42 as well as County 71 (Blaine Avenue), a minor arterial parallel to US 52 about 3/4 miles west of US 52. � Traffic Counts Table 4 TRAFFIC COUNTS ALONG CSAH 42 ROSEMOUNT,MN Average Daily Traffrc Counts Percent Location 2000 2003 Change Change US Hwy.52 and CSAH 42 CSAH 42 east of US Hwy. 52 5,800 8,140 2,300 39.7 % CSAH 42 west of US Hwy. 52 15,400 18,000 2,600 I69 US F-Fwy.52 north of CSAH 42 29,000 31,000 2,000 69 US Hwy.S2 south of CSAH 42 26,500 30,000 3,500 13.2 . CSAH 42 and Akron (Cty 73) CSAH 42 @ Akron : 15,400 l 8,000 2,600 16.9 % Akron north of CSAH 42 350 320 (30) (8.6) TH-3 and CSAH 42 CSAH 42 e�:s1�f TH-� 14,100 13,400 (700) (5.0} % CSAH 42 west of TH-3 17,800 16,600 (1,200) (6.7) TH-3 north of CSAH 42 13,700 13,000 (700) (5.1) TH-3 south of CSAH 42 9,000 11,000 2,000 22.2 CSAH 42 and Diamond Path CSAH 42 east of Diamond Path 20,700 24,000 3,300 159 % CSAH 42 west of Diamond Path � 19,600 23,500 3,900 199 ' Diamond Path north of CSAH 42 5,700 9,400 3,700 649 Dodd/Diamond Path south of CSAH 42 4,500 5,200 700 15.6 � ♦ The greatest percentage increase in daily traffic was on Diamond Path, north of CSAH � 42, with an increase of almosf 65 percent, increasing by �,700 vehicles a day, from 5,700 to 9,400. This is likely the result of the significant residential constxuction that occurred in the �orthwest sections of Rosemount. Assuming that the residential areas lying north of the Arcon developinent area do develop eventually, one can assuine at sorne point traffic volumes along Alcron Avenue.may be sinular to Diamond Path. ♦ Traffic along CSAH 42 generally increased by about 15 to 20 percent (almost 5-6 percent per year), except traffic on 42 east of US 52 increased by almost 40 percent, and #�affic on 42 in the area of TH-3 decreased by 5 to 7 percent. This decrease nlay be the result of completion of 160tj'runni.ng pa.rallel to CSAH 42 to tlle south. ♦ Roads running soutli from CSAH 42 increased 13 to 22 percent (or 4-7.pe'rcent per year). A compa.rison of the traffic voltunes in the azea of competing retail azeas (Table 5) elearly indicates that the Arcon area (CSAH 42 at Alcron Avenue) has a long way to come before its traffic volumes come close to those in areas of larger residential population with significant retail-service establishments present. The Burnsville Center area can boast 100,000 to 12Q,000 vehicles along I-35W/I-35E with ;0,000 to 56,000 cars along CSAH 42, for a combined volume of about 150,000 cars. � . Tabie 5 TRAFFIC COUNTS ALONG CSAH 42 - ROSEMOUNT COMPARISON WITH COMPETING RETAIL AREAS Location 2003 ROSEMOUNT DEVELOPMENT AREAS US Hwy.52 and CSAH 42 C3AH 42 east of US Hwy.52 8,100 • CSAH 42 west of US Hwy.52 18,000 US Hwy.52 north of CSAH 42 31,000 - US Hwy.52 south of CSAH 42 30,000 CSAH 42 and Akron (Cty 73) CSAH 42 cr Akron ' 18,000 Akron north of CSAH 42 320 � BURNSVILLE CENTER AREA I-35W a n d CSAH 42 I-35 W north of CSAH 42 77,000 . I-35E north of CSAH 42 50,000 I-35 W south of CSAH 42 48,040 I-35E south of CSAH 42 41,400 CSAH 42 east of I-35W and west of I-35E 56,000 CSAH 42 West of I-35W - 46,000 CSAH 42 east of I-35E . 30,500 APPLE VALLEY Cedar and CSAH 42 Area Cedar north af CSAH 42 48,OOQ Cedar south of CSAH 42 34,000 CSAH 42 east of Cedar 33,�00 CSAH 42 west of Gedar 28,800 Pennock nor[h of CSAH 42 12,700 Pennock south of CSAH 42 , 1 Q300 Galaxie north of CSAH 42 16,600 EAGAN , I-35E and Cliff I-35E north of Cliff 74,000 . . I-35E south of Cliff 66,000 Cliff east of I-35E 32,000 Cliff west of I-35E 29,000 � I-35E and Pilot Knob/Yankee Doodle , I-35E east of Pilot Knob 97,000 I-35E west of Pilot Knob 75,000 Pilot Knob north of I-35E 27,500 ' Pilot Knob north of Yankee Doodle 21;300 Pilot Knob south of I-35E 32,000 Yankee Doodle east of I-35E 34,000 Yanlcee Doodie west of Pilot Knob 33,�00 . 4 Traffic ,voli.unes along CSAH 42 in the area of Akron Avenue will likely continue to increase. Assur�ing an average increase of five percent per yeax over ten years would result in about 29,000 vehicles along CSAH 42/Akron Avenue. Given the exgected limitation of land available at t11at time for continued residential develogment, one must question the likeliliood on continued increases in CSAH 42 traffic valumes after 2015. Visibility The retail or service establislu�ents that may be developed as part of the Arcon developinent area � would likely enjoy very good visibility to CSAH 42 and to Akron Avenue. The US 52/CSAH 42 desi�ated corrullercial area to the east would also enjoy excellent visibility to CSAH 42 as well as US Highway 52. � COMPETITIVE SHOPPING AREAS The retail and service establislunents developed in the CSAH 42/Akron Avenue area will be competitive with severa] shopping area� in Dalcota County. Rosemourit's largest commercial area at present is located in the area of MN Highway 3 and CSAH 42,with most in the southwest quadrant, extending west along CSAH 42 about 0.75 miles to Shannon Parkway. This area includes Cub Foods, Mazcus Theatre (eight screens), and Walgreens. The "dovv�ltown" area of Rosemount, loeated at MN Highway 3 and 145`� Street, is much smaller in area, and is situated approximately %2 mile north of CSAH 42. Convenience retail and services will be competitive with these established Rosemount retail areas, and shopping areas located in Apple Valley, Eagan;Lakeville, Hastings, and Farmington as outlined.in Table 6. - 'fable 6 ' COMPETITIVE SHOPPING AREAS Connnuniry Distance frorn Major Retail Rosemount Rosemount Cub,Marcus Theatre(8) N/A APPIe Val{ey . . . 4 miles wesi Super Target,Sam's Club,Wal-Mart,KoliYs,Hotne De pot,Menards,Cub, • i Rain bow Carmike l5 Cinema,Ford-Pontiac Oids Cadilac dealers � _;�.� �ti .e� .�"nY -S.-.:f�-tb �R t.�y'� x+i.4 �`.?F-iv,:.�tlj. a..:::�e�,�.+.r �.,�.�.^�A'GY� '��' , , a_::e�......:,x....,�.ac:ad�.,H�»Ti`� ._.a...�:��. �.��.z"� �s�.. .r�,•,a-.."�:;..';._'�.5a�3_�.:.ew..�.",,��.,�-<-�r..�' '... '.:` E�� Sam's Club,Wal-Maet,Kohl's,Target,Byerly's,Cub,Rainbow,Horne 7 miles NW Depot Regal Stadium I6 Mann Cinema 9 _ ,.::;:��;,,:;y,�..,;k:1.b.�`",'.�:`�.��:;:,;;s,r...;�_;r;�_-:,;Frr: � . . . . � . � . • � � "s�"5�.�sutri ",ii,�`?u..:.�s`f.;��',:i';.i�a.��'-�'fk,..��'_'t�^'�.��.Y..'� �. :'a� . n.,r ;�.q: a . .. . Burnsville Bumsville Center,Target,Wal-Mart,Sam's Club,Kohl's,K-Mart,Menards, 7%miles W �+� Home DeUot,Cub, Byerly's,Rainbow,Fairview Ridges Campus,Chevrolet- � Toyota-Mazda-Plymouth-GM dealers �.:�.a... ..:�"5. . .-. ...,�: ...�:�:. ...�:' ,. �� :.•i:::5':t.� . . . . � . . . � . :." ..:.�'�!' . Lakevilie Super Target,Farm&Fleet,Gander Mountain,Schneidermann's,Cub, , 8 miles S W Kowalski's,HOM,Muller Theater 8 .�� :;.,: : _, ; ; . � � . ,. ,:. . . .. .: . ..:.. Farmington EconoFoods ..,:t, >r•_ r ... • ,,:. .:.�:`_,,,. �p 6 rniles south . , r ;... . , Hashn s :.�.�:•� u ._n..�- _ . . ... ... .. . . g ` Wal Mart Supercenter Targe�Cub ..... _ ,,:.,�.. � ..K �. >�;.;�.. 2�mileseast _.. , _ ......: . �,.,. .., .::v -::.,.:..:..:. . : :. .,;... _ ,..,. ._. ' _ . ....._.. ;.:._;-: .... . ,�:�;�;::'x�'�'.:`.;�;.t....... . :... . ... .. . Inver Grove Heights Wa1-Mart,Rainbow,Cub 7 miles north. Additional development of convenience retail .and service establishments in these competing . areas is lilcely, particularly as currently undeveloped areas full in with additional housiiZg. Shopping goods retailers will be competitive with stores in these areas, as well as the Mall of America in Bloomington. � These shopping a�eas provide various levels of conv.enience �and shopping goods to Dakota County residents. Cornpetitive shopping areas and the Arcon trade area are shown on Map 1. Competitive shopping areas include neighbarhood, community, and regional slzopping areas. Super Regional Shopping Areas The super regional shopping conceut�•ation that is competitive to Rosemount is Burnsvilie Center located at the southwest quadrant of I-35W and CSAH 42. This overall sliopping area including the Burnsville Center Mall arid nearby retail centers and establishments, contains about 2.5 nullion square feet of GLA. Burnsville Center opened in the eazly seventies arid became the . focal point of a major shopping node, which includes Aurora Village Eenter, Burnsville Plaza, , � Cobblestone Court, Burnsville Marketplace, Burn.hill Plaza, Burnsville Crossing, and Burnhaven . Mall. In addition, Kohl's, Home Depot and Cub Foods occupy freestanding stores. These stores � and shopping centers are generalty located along CSAH 42 west of I-35 W. Traffic congestion on CSAH 42 is making shopping in this area less convenient than in the past; however, McAndrews (County Highway 1 l�to the north and Southview Boulevard to the south of CSAH 4211ave become alternate routes to this area for many local shoppers. . � ARCON TR.ADE AREA The trade area for the Areon area was delineated by McComb Group, Ltd. and is based on the location of competitive shopping areas, arterial road network, natural and man-made boundaries and previous experience. The trade area, shown on Map l, consists of portions of Rosemount, � Inver �'rrove Heights, Coates, as well as portions of Vermillion and Empire Townships. The western edge of the trade area extends to Shannon Parkway, while the eastern edge extends to the heavy industrial areas along US 52 and TH-55. The Mississippi River.is also a natural barrier that forms the northeastern edge of the trade area. The.southern limit of the-trade area extends to 190`� Street in Eureka To�n7ship. The size of the trade area is limited by present and : _ future retail concentrations in Rosemount, Apple Valley, Lakeville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, . Hastings, and Farmingtor�. It may also be further reduced if the US 52/CSAH 42 area is developed as a competing commercial area. Population and Households Population and llouseholds in the Arcon trade area, Dakota County and Rosemount have been � growing at a rate substantially faster than the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA as shown in Table 7. Trade area population increased at an annual rate of 2.78 percent from 5,169 people in 1990 to � 6,802 in 2000, 6.12 percent between 2000 and 2004, and is estimated to increase at a rate of 12.71 percent to 14,;97�people by 2009. The trade area estimated 2049.population of 14,397 represents only 3.56 percent of Dalcota County's po�ulation, but represents an estimated 62.9 � percent of Roseinount's population at that time. Map 1 ARCON TRADE AREA AND COMPETITIVE SHOPPING AREAS � ' �: -� w � — ; .�,; � �h'� ` /�( �� J�CL(�.,. t� t �, :L ,� �� - �. w�- r ; � ,5 �r ,`' , .;,: . �s � . . • P i ,, ,a � ,' :'. �t xv ° Sam s Club � � �" f � �' ' °: � � ,��c Upper 551h 8 Hwy 52 Q�'. sif� a - - � ;� , �� ` � �� „ � ' �,�e � � , �,j ` &� c��"' y.l�r!- � . -�' (�� '��`� �_ �' � � ; . " u i �� r � r .�`�.! �� + ��t�d�� .,� ' '�� • �:.� � ��i¢'x1Bti j��' , v SamsClub � '* � "� �� ` A :�i A., e + � 1 . �K.�'�� " r � �.i� � t.�„f -�'J� ```"'� ,t t�. � ; �� . � .�.� r�9 � :;, y.�. a�st c�*''`Eagan�!r n �� ' :� ' ' �., , i=.� Q ,,�� 1 �� $ �t � `.',`� . it, '" " 80th&Hwy 61 -, , i.. , � 'M1� �� +�� s Y �,�.�-�: Inver Grove Heights ` / � t �@ Ca1' � 'c � �' �. � �� t � i�. �'W' `{.G��' �� 4 3 {�� -' �.: ' ,C �" ��' �, ..� � � .X� i'S�� s+�:$'� � 'H'�i�. . � �. F �� • .1. .� .,g �� `.;,:�'� �r�,:, �ar'bt � :.,. '1,� Jamaica 8 Hwy 61 '1s . { �. �.:x� ��t� °' � � -\ � •� . . r'� �.�i l S � � �s�•y 1i i �;� �� .�S ` :i:J ..�j ;'':' ' '_ y . �`� f� �.. , . µ� � �. �� . �l �� i�s�'t t�.�l'� �y& . i ^� � . ' \` � ,-':.1 . r aa�-��r �v:� Ea �� '' ^frt r� f , k�x � r v� �x; LJ` � � - �'� �'� � � 'h � k "' �2� �� k �' � ;��,h� � � ,• �, r '�3 ), ��y�'� �;w u��.t-lrs a ' �Hy ,�t'�a"'"Y �� - - � �y ,Y -"� ,� ...� ��' . i�`- �';i"-�U r + 1n. i —. ' � � F ,: '. . . Y' _ A .iT i ,� � . ��'� � :. " F1 � � g! _ j� `�� `.`�-'.1 .� -s -4 - : : } 1, o ; .''�!� { .�.�' t �'� -.."� � � � �� .�� r.�n �TM r ,�"�'� ` �� ... �� ` � . .. �h � ,► �}� �` ` Burnsville Cenler Y� �"'` � ei�as� �� , �� ' � -' • � �� - Downtown emo� �, _ � ' �; , DownlownHasling � Fit Sam's Club :tS _ � '� 7 + .?�. , �`� App1e Valiey ; ; � . _ West Hwy 55'�= t e, � s�., s .I� b' 1� �� -�:�, ' .�� SITE �,. �, , . . F� �Ei� _ , �%, �, � �� 4i � f� � � , {•, ,�'�,'T1-1-42 8 Hwy 3.• �. � �.��- y� � � ..��t p ��3�� k�x �..� �'� ' � HWr s� , - � ;,, ,, � �; ,'!� ��L�€ r • �}' .' n ? " � iE; r s�� y `� _ � ` � tn �'� �} F F � ��_ .�6.` ' V� `a'��y �� 7 8 Arcon Site � r ~ � — '� { �, ,,�� ..� r �.- �� . . . �.� . �� .'tit � -,�rf .s.i�m � �'_ . [�Arcon Trade Area :- �: w CR46&Cedar �' �y:- = � Q Target <,� � �, '�7.* ,. . � _ _ a , : � .:� � k�x sJ, - y - - t O Super7arget 1 Pilot Knob&184th � � � �j � ,, �� ••.�-� ,. r�j °� ��,� ' - r�\�a .y �Wal-Mart Supercenter � � F is .. -�? �: Y��1 ; � � � Wal-Mart (' �.�?��a ' r t � i� � �� ' 200th St - s' C.7' . m �Wholesale Club ��"° `"`� ��" , � � � Retail Nodes m � ,.�:�Y � �� , ,�_;� ` ..CR 3 -'' � � � � . W n U 1 2 � 3 4 �� " ',Downtown'::, y` �. 7 N Scale:1"=2.77 miles � - � . . , � � Copyright O 2005 by McComb Group, Ltd. _ � � • � 01/24/05 � � • Table 7 ARCON TRqI)E qRE a,,CITy OF ROSEMOUNT,DAKOTA COUNTY AND MINNEAPOLiS-ST.PAUL MSA DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON ]990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2004 AND 2009 ESTIMATED Arcon City of Dakota Minneapolis- _ Trade Area Rosemount Coun Population tY St.Paui MSA ---�--_._.._ 1990 - ' 2000 5,169 8,952 275,485 ' 2004 6,802 14,619 2,538,534 8,129 3�3,904 2,968>8Q6 2009 16,289 378,4�3 3,I17,850 14,397 22;895 404,250 Annual Growth Rate 3�Z88�729 1990-2000 a 2000-2004 .78 /0 5.03 % 2.59 % 1.58 % � 2004-2009 k•12 3.67 2.07 1.23 12.t I 7.05. 1.33 1.07 Households 1990 • 2000 1,719 2,869 98,394 � 2004 2.378 ' 4,742 96Q 170 131,15} 1.136,615 2009 2�980 5,564 145,666 � 5,293 1,239,180 7,814 ]62,142 1,359,845 Annual Growth Rate 1990-2000 • a 2000-2004 3.30 /0 5.]5 % 2.92 % 1.70 % 2004-2009 7.80 5.47 3.56 ' 12.18 2.18 7.03 2.24 1.88 2U04 Household Income .Average HH Income $ 82,019 Median HH Income $ 84,532 $ 88,60Q $ 77,55) 68,431 70,349 66,Q87 58,8]9 Households over$75,000 Households over$100,000 1'Z�5. 4,244 62,564 450,916 643 2,272 35,160 252,528 %Households over$75,000 %Households over$l OQ000 `• - 42'8 % - 54.3 % 42.9 % o 21.6 36.4 /o 29.1 24.1 20.4 Arcon trade area households grew at an arulual rate of 3.30 �ercent.from 1990 to 2000. Households increased fi•om 1,719 to 2,378 fronz 1990 to 2000 and are expected to increase to 5,293 by 2009. H.ousehold growth rates for the trade area are estimated to increase to 12.11 percent throug�12009 assumiilg that residential developments planned for the area are allowed to proceed. Based�on recent growth trends, this appeazs to be a realistic projection. Dakota County has also experienced steady growth in Rosemount and iiearby areas, in lZouseholds with a owth rate of 3.92 percent from 1990 to 2000 and an expected rate of growth of 2.24 percent from 2004 to 2009. The City of Ros.emouizt had.a 5.15 percent growth rate from 1990 to 2000 and is expected to grow at just over 7.0 percent from 2004 to 2009. The MSA is growing at a much lower rate: 1.7 percent from 1990 to 2000 and an expected rate of growth for 2D04 to 2009 of 1•�8 percent. In 2009, Arcon trade area IZouseholds will represent only 3.25 percent of all Dakota County households, and the City of Rosemount only about 4.8 percent. Household density for tlZe Arcon trade area is shown on Map 2. Current household density is generally higher in the areas to the north and west of the trade area, including A�ple ValIey, •Eagan, and Inver Grove Heights. The western one-third of Rosemount has a density similar to these communities; however, much of the trade area is presently undeveloped. The Rosemount land use plan under consideration proposes to designate for commercial use about 220 acres of land at this intersection with ap�roximately 170 acres of which lies north of CSAH 42 (Arcon commercial area). An estimated 945 acres nortli of CSAH 42 and surrounding this conuzlercial area is desigr�ated for future residential development as follows. Residential � Zoning Acres Category 205 �p 75 � 665 UR 945 . Assuming an average of 3.5 households per acre, this designated residential land could provide up to 3,308 new households. Ror purposes of this study, it is assumed that Rosemount would add 450 additional households each year for ten years, a total of 4,500 additional households. It is expected that the initial years' growth would occur in undeveloped areas within the present MUSA boundaries of Rosemount, and would utilize remaining undeveloped residential land in this area. The balance of growth far this period would .occur in the newly 945 acres o� � designated residential areas as described above. • Although the proposed land use plan indicates substantial designated land for residentia] development south of CSAH 42 almost all of such land is part of the University of Minnesota Research Center. There is no indication that U of M land will be available for development, and so we have assumed to development activity on this U of M land. Additionally, much of fhe land area north of CSAH 42 and west of US 52 is owned or controlled by Flint Hills Research, operators of the Koch Refinery. There is also no indication that Flint Hills wou�d make its refinery land or"buffer" area available for developme�t. � By 2015, all available land designated for residential development and lying east of US 52 (not including U of M land) will lilcely have heen developed. Additional household growth assumes that land designated for non-residential uses will be reclassified to allow for continued residential growth in this area, and that any needed extensioil of MUSA boi.uzdaries is gra.ilted. It is assumed that residential growtll in the Arcon trade area will be similar in nature and density to recent residential developinents in the Rosemount area, and that the demographics of these new 1louseliolds will be sirnilar as we1L Household Income Arcon trade area average household income is estiniated.at $82,019 in 2004. The trade area average household income is 5.8 �ercent higher than tlle Mimzeapolis-St. Paul MSA average household inconZe of $77,551. Average 2004 household income in Dakota County was n , Map 2 .: ' 2004 HOUSEHOLD DENSITY . .:4 �MaY n �3�t��3 " �' ��'�. �.- � y . _ +} ., ' . .r' :.. .. ' ... . �' . - ,. � . � I �:� ,' PJO, . �x �• ..�. :: ,. ...— � ,,t,.? ��"''�`� 5�.� � � . ► � t ' �fi?3 . ':: '': '.' ' • ", E' � ;: , ti'� *� Y �� e: ,s� , � .� .. � E7I'86.�i�� ' � ' �� ' - i . . ..�, . _ . . . . ...�. .. . ` 'ti .,.�'� 1 f ,. . . � �� :� .: :.��: {.�tir. .F ,�'� �� 5��. ..�': 1 � .t 3- � �� } �.� �S�G.�� . � 4� ':: �— � � q . T.�i� � �. ./ .� � � z.. �d �''...p�� t-�� ._.h��„�-� ►�,., � �:, .,a'•. rJ"'�� - �t � � : '"`�7;;� ��—i��rt - .._ � ,.� "i'i iK t rN � � . _'-�� i .� � �"" - �` . i ,, ,.�`+ .y , . � :l �'x a ��... :s'. ? �. I ° �' � ��,, � s s In .YO '�r �, Y y M�� , ; �y `� 'z �r �. �� ,� },, �.. �.� � - , _ a ,:t ;,� � � r ': ` � ,s.. ; *-` ,rfi � , ; , . r �. � . . . .:.,� { •., ,., ,-♦ x...� � , ; ,� _ �� +�V 'K4-.0 O � i 't y . . + . . , RI , • i ` � '`��S . ` .. � :, �, �-,-J:;:�� .� - -, � R o .�f e-" r'S +' �t-�y' .i� � w� �� ' F�' t� a .. `� '—� � . �.. �r��.�+�'' ;� �: � -� _ t�',tt + �' 7,Y � k ,1 �.� tf i l '� ' ,c �Y �' �• C` ` � � s J � i'. x �� ;. � '., 10 �,:� � ,. . � . t � � .F .• � . ,, Y 1 t ,-',� t,y 1 '. , .-��..'r � ��f�'�� ' { Y��f�'` �.�. XY'�s L 1.. t ! �.. �" .1 , � �? �„4 .� �� 5 �"r �� _ �. . . �� '�(� f LY.�� '.. � t 1 r�.��'=�� , . �.;.. : o';� .s� .2t /r; _ � . t. ` :�� . ,�. � VI� 'C �,�1 �- w:., {a�y{��r.�+. �o i�l, .� .,� � .. + —�a�� 4) ,��rt, � i�� ; A . � � ;s . � ��.�?f'. -. . T..��. . �: � '�• .�� t x.ty3 �4 � S J:G .�.. .`QG.. ♦ � � y �f..'ri. ��.. r .,. '� _ . . �`F� \ a,.�, � �� \ . � +:�;� � ,. .� . � '�-' , � i _ *r- � 4ik,w.J�`'x. --� , � .: �1 '...[ ' .'. .a . �-1,�..r . 4.:' . �� i.. � . ��()J�J � � ."i1 . Y� '\.� �'a �� Y^�C `�` ( �.. �'�-. � �i'�1 V :.+�` ..... �1.-7� ��` \ �.: '� ai s a- • � � � � n � C "` {, � ":�" 45th �('eMl� .,,.+�S _�. s .-� a i�� + '� � �t ts � � �`� e�t4� i � . : : ,; , .� . , , � • : =--� x ' ��` � ' � ��S` '�"'� : � �y a r ' ` ` � ' �,` ,.` _ - �-��:�� ` �. }� ��. � ��' { ��.�. A !Y R . i' � ��T.'�.� 1 k�'. 7i .. � _ t� . . .} , -E . ' . � i cY: y r: � � . S. a . .;. ..�. " . :1: � � .:� i .F� � �� ` N , ��.� �. � � '2 ,3.�' � - y:,.±! .� : t�}` . i � . . 1� � �-� � : �.,' ` ` ��.:. �; " : � 7. 2004 Household Density �a' A 4�- � �`F�"j� i � y5,Y4� a { � f IYI i�'y'^ U � N � y� � � . % []Arcon Trade Area . � ,��; � �.� � M � � i, ,d:�ry. .•� .�2`. � " 'f $C`� � ' Y '� `. ��b . Density per Sq.Mile � � . �. �z� ri ,:- t :F� . < x � , .� �a � ` 1-499 '43 } " � ._,_F,,._ ` ~ ,�'�•�' f� ;�- , t; .' . x ' . ^.�'a":�� +��A �'t"�"'�is . i f kt , � � x s�. . . . � �� 'u� � -;�� i�., .t�" 5��. ft�„�500-999 ' °z a, `�'��re�-��,' • 20t1t}i�u�� 4�i�� ` �, r t . � .. �;:'E.� ,r� tt't i•a*�y� � �n z �,• � � �, t�'r.� � 1,000-1,499 �s Far� 9�.�tl ��`�h r �,s'�.'rr� �-:fi r *' ,e i+ � `�?i ' > � �t £? � : ' �'1 �A? ,��d x'� x �i' ;r-� � c � � >i� v �, � _� 'C.` .. d'""%.,' �y��:G' �' ?lr,�„ ,.�� 1�.,+ ¢'T6F y,Lf�t3�j�'&� � '��1� ,i,.i'"�k 'S _ L�. ��NY 1" ' T"C \ 1��: � 1,500+ < I ; e i '� ,t a ,��,�i a�,��`"�' ��F r� � �+-�;:.: ' , �`h � � ��3��Y� � ,ta' i� �- s 1 .5r�4' � . .� � .. �`.a �a�' a.' t �t r �". �: . r - t s -� N .. 4 � 1 2 3 ��-�„4.-cf�� '��'s.�` . '�'`1�P. x��.S�K . � t � �t.r �% 1,x . c.. r� r %� ��. ti'`{. �.r' � �i�a. cci 4 h Ly X + � � s ; � m . .;z t,�i �' ^r , '"i , e R��°�``�r�'�Six ,_t 1 , T , �,},*i�r s : � ��:;G N Scale:1"=2.77 miies ;:a,� ,� � -z,. + , x t�.,�. s � � t 'kU�x :� . . - -.,�.L %; f -. �;�^t`.' i.'f x �� .� . � . .�, '�..a 4 ,i 4V E"s�- ��'�'.� Nz`v��`-�,i.,q 3 'y'. �Y � } y . 'Y: �x.(., c�, � 3,: � r 4. '�a �� .. ... .. ...._. _.... . . ._. .�.._ ,. ...._ � : .�. �� - � . ` � $ L.� � ..... � ..._. . ., .��. rs, . . .... � i . ,.-�.��,W t,� .��' #h u... t ,1,��.'�1 � � -r.,' � . �., r . .l� .,.._ .�• �',��'... ss�}'. � ._ t _ � , � , _.- r � , . 3'� � .. � Copyright O 2005 b y McComb G r o u p, L t d. s � , ; 01/24105 estimated at $88,800. Based on the chazacter and type of new residential development in the area, completed recently and planned for the immediate future, the average household incor�e is ' expected to increase. _Demographic Characteristics Demograpluc characteristics for the Arcon trade area are summarized i.n the demographic sna�shot contai�ed in Table 8. This snapshot contains census data far 1990 and 2000 as well as estimates for 2004 and 2009. These estimates were provided by ScanlUS, Inc., a source of demographic information and adjusted for the substantial increase in planned residential development for the area. The most significant trade area characteristic is the rapid household growth of 7.8 percent annually from 2000 to 2004, expected to increase to 12.18 pereent fram 2004'to 2009. Pu�-chasing Power � Retail sales potential for the Arcon area is based on estimated purchasing power and marlcet � share that can be achieved from the trade area. Retail sales from residents living oufside the � trade area are iiiflow sales. Purchasing power estimates of trade area residents are deri�ed from retail sales by store type as reported by the Census of Retail Trade in 1992 and 199�. Retail sales for 1998 through 2004 were estimated using information available from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Future purchasing power estimates are expressed in constant 2004 . dollars and reflect projected liouseliold growtll. Household growth is based on the analysis described earlier in tliis chapter. Purchasing power is based on the number of trade area households adjusted,to reflect income charaeteristics. Purchasing power, for tize purpose of this analysis, includes retail categories that are characteristies of tenants that could be located in the Arcon commercial developmei�t area. Estimated trade area retail purchasing power for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 are shown in Appendix Tables B-1 and B-2. These estimates represent the potential.dollar sales for a broad range of retail and service stores generated by residents of the trade area. Trade area purchasing power for shopping goods is expected to increase from $�6 millioil in 2005 to about $61 million in 2010, a growth rate of almost elever�percent, further i�creasing to $170 million in 2025. Convenience goods purchasing power is estimated at $24.8 million in - 2005 and is anticipated to increase to $41.5 million in 2010, expanding to $115.9 miIlion by 2025. Estiinates indicate that eating and drinlcing places purchasing power was $12.I million in 2005 and is lilcely to increase to $20.3 million in 2010. By 2025, eating and drinking purchasing power will exceed $56.7 million. Total pL�rchasing power for the Arcon trade�area will increase from $1�0.4 million in 2005 to about$610 million by 2025. � Tabte 8 O�O �'jcComb �� "�'`�d' DEMQGRAPHIC AND INCOME SNAPSHOT Arcnn Tr:►de Are� ' � 2/7/2005 SNAPSHOT 1990 Census 2000 Census 2004 Pro ected ? Population • 5,169 � _ U09 Projected , Households 6'802 8�129 14;397 ' 1,719 2,378 2,980 Families 1,425 � 5'293 1,840 2,265 4,024 . Per Capita Income $ 14,999 � 2$,gp7 � 3Q080 ` Median Household Income � 35,056 $ 41,246 $ 65,683 $ 68,431 $ 74,866 Average Household Income � 45,758 $ 73,134 � 82 p�g Average Household SiZe � 90,805 3.00 2.86 2.72 Median Age . 29 2,72 �3 34 �6 TRENDS � Annual Perccnt Chan e 1990-2000 Population 2040-20Q4 2d04-2009 0 Households 2.78 /0 6.12 % � 12.1I % Families • . 330 7.80 12.18 2.59 7.l 7 12.18 Media��Household Income 4.76 Averagc Household Income 1.38 �,g� - 4.80 3.90 2.06 1990 Census 2Q00 Census 2004 Projeeted 2009 Proiected HOUSEHOLDS$Y�INCOME Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Pereent ' Less than�15,000 150 8.8 % 192 • 8.1 % 243 8.2 % 433 8.2 % �I5,000-�24,999 20l 11.7 111 4.7 128 43 190 3.6 $25,000-�34,999 264 15.4 161 6.8 185 6.2 z7g �35,000-�49,999 517 30.2 333 14.0 384 • 12.9 597 11.3 $50,000-$74,999 409 23.9 695 29.2 �65 . 25.7 1,107 2p,9 $75,000-�99,999 124 . 7.2 440 18.5 632 21.2 1,213 22.9 $100,000-$149,999 28 1.6 339 14.2 487 16.4 '1,066 ?p,� � $150,OQ0+ 19 i.l 107 4S 156 S.2 410 '7,g POPiIL,ATION BY AGE Number Percent Number Petcent Number Percent Number Percent �19 1-,827 35.4 % 2,360 34.7,% 2,664 32.8 % 4,395 30.5 % 20-24 323 63 320 4.7 428 53 867 6.0 25-34 1,067 20.7 1,032 15.2 1,]43 14.1 1,814 �?,6 35-44 823 15�9 1,296 19.1 1,410 17.3 2,177 15.1 4�"�4 465 9.0 812 11.9 1,065 13.1 2,047 14.2 55-64 341 6.6 453 6.7 683 8.4 1,532 10.6 6�74 198 3.8 332 4.9 � 467 5.7 . 1,033 7.2 75-84 120 2.3 161 2.4 216 2.7 429 3.0 85+ NA NA 37 0.5 55 0.7 ]01 0.7 . RACE AND ETHNICITY Number. Pereent Number 'Percent Number Perccnt Number Percent White 5,064 98.2 % 6,270 43.9 % 7,498 94.0 % 13,518 93.9 % Black 25 0.5 181, 2.7 210 2.6 382 2J NativeAmerican IS 0.3 20 03 27 03 Asian/Pacific Islander 47 03 - 50 1.0 144 2.2 177 2.2 3?8 2.3 Other Raees 3 0.1 60 0.9 66 0.8 122 0.8 Hispanic(An}�Race) 41 0.8 14U 2:1 195 2.4 437 3A Souree:U.S.Census,Sca��/US,Ine.and McComb Group,Ltd. Retail and Service Potential � A.rcon area development potential for retail stores, food seivice and services is closely related to Arcon's trade area household growth. Trade area households are estimated to increase from . 2,980 in 2004 to 8,091 in 2015. Household growth projections are based on market demand development estimates and take into consideration the residential growth described above. If residential development exceeds or is below tlus estiniate, development potential will be higher or lower than projected. 1VIcComb Group's purchasing power indicated supportable demand for a community retail area, retaiI and service uses totaling a�proximately 80,000 to 100,000 square feet by 2015, aiid about double that square footage by 2025. Trade area growth and residei�t purchasing power indicate potential for retail stores, food service, and personal, business and financial services. The mix of these uses and square foatage of each category will depend ori buildina design and site design. Assuming an average land requirement of one acre for every 10,000 square feet of commercial retail area, the estimated supportable demand in the Arcon area could be met on about 20 acres. ' . Development of retail or seivice estabiishments in the US 52/CSAH 42 area could have significant competitive impacts on the Arcon area,.and the amount of supportable square footage in the Arcon area wot�ld likely be reduced as a result. �� . FL1NT� H1LLS . , , � RESOURCESTM _ � P.O.Box64596 f� � . Pine Bend Refiner � sa�ntPaui,Minnesota55164 • , y . 651.437.0700 , , . December 7; 2004 �` ; . . ' ' . IVIs. Kim Lindquist _- . . . Commtinity Development Direcfar , , - � _ - City of Rosemount . � � , . , - : 2875 145�' Street West , • � � - Rosemqunt,iVIl�55068-4997 - , . Dear Kim: � . - ' _ 'Thank you again for,including Flint Hills Resources in the 52/42-Corridar Study Group. We appreciate the opportunity fo take an active part rn planning the future of Rosemount. As vye have previousl-y discussed, the City's exainination af future growth op�ions prompted our company to examine our long-term plans for the Pina Bend Refinery property. While our internal examination is still ongoing; Refinery management ha.s looked at our property and the ' lat'est draft.map from the Study Group;and we would like to share our thoughts with the City. � As you and I have discussed on several occasions, Flint Hill's top priority is ensuring that. • , � developinent near the Refinery is compatible with our operations and that sufficient buffer exists . _ between tlie Refinery and residential development. :A sufficient buffer seryes to prevent - operational and security concerns,as well as to minimize nuisance issues: A sufficient buffer also allows for Refinery expansion in the-future. � � The�City's 2020 planning process did provide sufficient buffer by guiding property east of Akron - -. and north of County Road 42 for agriculture or.general industrial development. Flint Hills � participated in this planning process and endorsed the buffers around the Refinery created by'the comprehensive plan update, . , � . - 'Fhe draft plan coming out,of the Study Group�departs significantly from the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Large.sections of the area east of Akron and north of County Road 42 are changed from agriculture and general industrial to residential, commercial,business park, and �, mixed industrial. This substantially'erodes the necessary buffer for the�2efinery. Because of our � strong belief in the need for sufficient buffer, Flint Hills cannot support the draft plan from the Study Group for the area east of Akron and north of County Road 42. In particular, Flint Hills - strongly opposes guiding any property in this area for residential developmerit. ' � We understand the City's desire to guide future developmex�t and increase its tax base tbrough an appropriate combiriation of residential, commereial and industrial developrnent. We have hired ` consultants to help us develop a comprehensive plan for our property and nearby land and would . , , . . . . _ . • . \ - Ms. Kim Lindquist . � . IDecember 7, 2004 . � � Page 2 . , : . like to discuss alternative ideas for guiding l�n�use in the areas we are concerned about in the - Study Group draft plan. ' . � _ Flint Hills wants to work with the City to make sure that sufficient buffer is maintained around . our facility while allowing oompatible development that benefits the City and Flint Hills. Thank ' _. you again for including Flint Hills in the Study Group. Please feel free to contact me at any time witl�questions or comments. . � , , . : ' . Sincerely; . . , . . . . ' �-7� ,+�'�.�a-,-....- . ' � � - � � � � J . ' . ' � ' . .. ' � . . . . � � . Don Kern , . . _ � : ' Property Manager ' � cc: Bi11 Droste � � � . , � � cc: Jamie Verbrugge . � . ; � , cc: Rick Pearson � . , , , cc: Jeff Wilkes . : cc: 7orin Shardlow ' , . , . cc: Walter Rockenstein . � _ . , ` �. - , _ " , - , � - , � . . _ . ' - Excerpt of Draft Minutes from the Regular Planning Cornmission Meeting of June 28, 2005 Public Hearing: 5B. 05-27-CP 42/52 Corridor Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Community Development Dixector Lindquist reviewed the staff report. The proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan.Axnendment is to change the futute land use plan and timing for Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) or public utility availa.bility for properties generallp located in the eastern 2/3 of the community. Ms. I,indquist touched on the issues raised at the May 24,2005 Planning Conzmission Public Heaxing for the item. It was noted that in the staff xeport the moxatoxium start date should be November 20,2004. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Ms. I.indquist. Chairperson Messner wanted the recoxd to show that the Plannixig Commission receined a . lettex on June 14,20Q5 from Bruce Minea and Jill O'Rouxke. In regards to the letter, Chairperson Messner questioned the amount of commercial development shown on the plan at County Road 42 and Akxon Avenue and how the expansions of utilities would take place if the axea is not developed. City Engineer Bxotzlex informed the Commission and audience on the sewer plan, the sewer interceptox and City mink expansion, the timing and process of extending the sanitary sewer and the policp. The phasing of expansion is ta extend to contiguous development and not to leap frog over vacant property or pxoperty not developed. From a phasing standpoint, our intention would be that the sewer extension would occur with the development of the Arcon property and be extended north as it's available. Chairpexson Messner opened the Public Hearing. Dan Herbst,Pemtom,and parmer with Scott Johnson on the Areon pxoperty stated he shares the concerns with wanting enough land fox the commercial and office market far future needs, Mr. Herbst wants the City to look at the long range gxowth and feels the amount of commercialland is excessive. Mr. Herbst gave a brief history of tlie development in Burnsville he worked on and also touched on Eden Prairie's overlay distsict Mx. Hexbst feels it will be of no benefit to the City ox to Axeon to have vacant land. Pat Mason,Ames Land Company, and repxesenting the McAndrews Courteau family, discussed the detail of the two paxcels east of Akron Avenue and the 40 acres zoned for Industrial/Mixed Use. Mx. Mason requested that the 40 acxes be reguided to Medium Density. Given the futuxe extension of Connemara Trail to the east,Mx. Mason thinks Industrial to Medium Density Housing will be a good transition. Jeff Wilkes, Refinery Manager for Flint Hills Resources,Rosemount, stated their concern about the xesidential land north of County Road 42 and east of Al�son Avenue. Flint Hills would like a study done for compatibility of having residential so close to heavy industtial given the odoxs,noise and any major industrial incident that map arise. Mr. Wilkes sta.ted Flint Hills is willing to help with the study and is interested in hearing the Commission's perspecrive and thoughts about a study. Mr.Wilkes resubmitted Flint Hills'March letter and map recommending minor changes uses for theix land for consideration. Bruce Minea, 1903 Winslow Court,West St. Paul,.owner of 86 acres between the Meadows of Bloomfield and Akron Ave. commented that he wanted higher density for his sites on the south side closest to the ra.ilroad tracks because of the vibxarion of the trains. Mr. Mi,nea also touched on the extension of services if there would be a delay with Arcon's development. He asked the Cornmission to entertain the idea of moving the trunk line either into the right-af-way of Akron when its upgrade or shifting it slightly west if something caused a dela.y in the future. Laxry Frank,Landscape Axchitect and Project Manager with Arcon Development, stated the number of acres designated for commerciai on Akron is too much and he xecommended there only be 40 acres total so there won't be as much empty land. John Chadwick, 11403 Zian Circle,Bloomington,representing Stonex,Vesterra and Minnova, sta.ted the properties he is representing are the "middle men"in the mix. Mr. Chadwick stated that Jonathon Wilmshurst was glad to be a part of the study. Ovexall,they have been happy with the staff, the democraric process and support the plan. MOTION by Humphrey to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zurn. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Chairpersan Messner asked Ms. Lindquist to clarify the differences betureen Urban Residential as it's envisioned, Medium Density and High Density zoning districts. Chairperson Messner also asked if it was possible to include townhouses and detached housing within Urban Residential zoning. Ms.Lindquist expla.ined the different zoning cla,ssifications and what options are available when having an Urban Residential classifiearion. Commissioner Humphxey stated she supported the McAndsews'property being changed to be reguided to Medium Density. Comniissioner Zurn was in agreement. Commissianer Zurn also supported the idea af the City looking at the plan on a.n ongoing basis as enumerated in the report undex Option 2. There was a consensus among the � Commissioners regarding both of those requests. Chairperson Messner asked for clarification on the Flint Hills'requests and iVls.Lindquist provided claxification and pointed out their requests on the land use map. Chairperson Messner stated he would be O.K. with the Genera.l Industrial guiding on the two pa,rcels north of 140th. Commissioners Humphrey and Zurn were in agreement. Discussion was held regarding the paxcels owned by Flint Hills Resources. Don Kern of Flint Hills Resources stated he would like General Industrial ox Agticultural designat'tons for their property. He further stated that the Business Paxk was not in theix plans. Mr. Kern . stated they are working on development plans. Ms.Lindquist pointed aut that the ridge line functions as the dividing point of the Flints Hills pxopexty and is ultimately the visible corner as the entrance to the City. Chairpexson Messner asked Ms. Lindquist to summarize the distinction between BP and Light Industrial/Mixed Use and she stated the aestheric types of issues in terms of building matexials and outdoor stoxage. The buildings along County 42 would have a better appearance and higher standards. Ms.Lindquist stated the thoughts of the Coxridor Study when the map was created and Commissioner Powell shared comments fxom the studp group as well. Cammissioner Powell stated he was open to all three of Flint Hills'requests. The Commissionexs discussed the zoning for Flint Hills and the MUSA boundary. Chairperson Messner suggested the two 10 acre parcels should be guided Rural Residenti�a7 and the xemainder owned by Flint Hills be reguided to Agricultutal. Commissioner Powell suggested leaving the corner Urban Residential. Chairpexson Messner suggested moving the MUSA line to follow Akron and County Road 38 squaring off the MUSA line. The Comrnissioners were in agreement with shifting the MUSA line. It was a consensus that the area south of Flint Hills Resources and east of 71 be designated Industrial/Mixed Use. MOTION by Powell to recomxnend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment with the following changes: 1. That the Ames Construction Parcel (the 40 acres)is designated as medium density residential; 2. That the language be added to the plan which xecognizes additional residential vs. cornmereial may be considexed at the intersection of 42 and Akron consistent with Item 2 of the Sta.ff Report;and 3. That referring to the Flint Hills letter, copies of which were distributed this evening,regarding Item 1 that for the property on the east side of Akron, north of Countp Road 38,that that be guided as Agricultural as shown, aside from the two parcels that are designated Rural Residential (as shown on the screen) and that the MLJSA line be shifted to follow Akron and County Road 38. Additionally,xegarcling Item 2 of the Flint Hills letter,that the property north of 42,west of the proposed MUSA boundary, south of the ridge line, and east of County 71,be guided Industrial/Mixed Use. Item 3 of the letter, the property east of 52, north of 38, that be guided as General Industrial again as shown on the scxeen. Second by Humphxep. Ayes:All. Nayes: None. Motion appxoved. . . Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2005 Public Hearing: 5A. Case 05-27-CP 42/52 Corridor Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Cotnmunity Development Director Lindquist reviewed the staff report. The 42/52 Land Use Group and the Planning Commission have been working on developing a future land use plan for the eastern two-thirds of the City,generally east of Akron Avenue. The Planning Commission will be holding the public hearing on the draft plan soliciting input on the draft,whieh has been slightly modified from the Land Use Group's recommendation. Ms.Lindquist indicated that what staff is proposing tonight is for the Planning Comnzission to take public comtnent regarding the draft plan and continue the public hearing to the next meeting. If after the testimony there ase modifications the Commissioners feel should be warranted, the changes will be made available fox viewing by the public and can be discussed at the next meeting. This plan will set the development tone for the community for the next 5-7 years once adopted by the City Council and staff wants everyone to have an opportunity to � make comments. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Ms. Lindquist. There were no questions fox Ms. Lindquist. Chairperson Messner opened the Public Hearing. Beth Bergacker, 13080 Akron Avenue,Rosemount, stated she talked to the County Assessor and was told if her property's zoning changed that her la.nd value would change causing ta,xes to iricrease. Based on the presentarion tonight, she feels she's hearing two diffexent stories. Ms.Bergacker sees no reason to change her 10 acres to Urban Residential when it wouldn't be developed and the refinery is all around the property as a buffer zone. Ms.Lindquist stated this is a land use plan which shows the future land uses and the zoning is a sepaxate issue. When Ms.Lindquist spoke to the assessor it was to change the land use. Changing the land use will not change the zoning classification automarically. Ms. Lindquist stated certain areas will be zoned before others. There is not a definite answer as to when properties will be rezoned but rezoning will occur as to what make sense as far as the extension of utilities and development. Marlin Rechtzigel, 14727 Clayton Avenue East,Rosemount,questioned the final date of the moratorium. Ms. Lindquist sta.ted the moratorium is directly related to this action that is being taken and when the Council approves the plan that would be the trigger to xelease the moratorium. Mr. Re�htzigel asked to be notified when the moratorium is removed. Maxgaret McAndrews Eustice, 13768 Tross Trail, Savage, stated her fa.mily owns two parcels along County Road 42 totaling 245 acres dixectly across from Dakota County Technical College and UMore Park. Ms. Eustice requests to change the land use designation of the xeas 40 acres of the family's most easterly parcel to medium density housing. She feels multi- family housing would seem to provide the best ttansition to the business park in the east and industrial to the north. The family endorses the March 29`�Option 3 revision as presented and hopes the Planning Con�uvission will revisit and reinstate that pla,n. Tim McDonnell, 1150 124`'' Ct.W.,Rosemount, stated he was curious about the traffic management study on the City's website and asked when it will be discussed. His main concern was the traffic impact along Akron and the proposed collector route. Ms. Lindquist stated the traffic study is a concept and isn't paxt of what would be adopted at this point. She further added they are trying to set up a ttaffic plan so that future developers would ` ." know where collector and minor arterial roads would roughly be located as development occurs. Scott Johnson,President of Arcon Develoment, sta,ted Axcon owns substantial land axound the Akron Avenue area and he wished to comment on the report. Arcon feels the amount of commercial at the intersection is an over supply by 4-5 times.As far as timing,the market study was based on 20 years. Arcon took the ponding and the streets into account when buffering the residential from commercial. Arcon based traffic projections on the proposed uses not what the current uses are. They understand the City is interested in getting some big box retailexs;however, they feel the axea doesn't have the characteristies to attract those uses. Mr.Johnson understands that staff wants more commercial on hand but believes the Ciry is going 4 to 5 times beyond the need. One option brought up at the last meeting is the possibility of a flex zoning to help with proper planning and Arcon is willing to work with the City on some type of flex zoning ox overlay. Shawn Dahl,Ames Construction Company,reviewed the letter Ames sent out to the Planning Commission. Ames has acquired the McAndrews/Corteau property and would like to review specifically the northern land use on the eastern parcel. Ames feels the land use pla,n is moving in the right direction. The future extension of Connemara Trail will serve as an excellent separarion point to transition from industrial on the north side of Connemaxa Trail to the Mediuxn Density Residenrial Use on the south side. Ames proposes to return the classification to include 40 ac�es of Medium Density on the north half of the eastern McAndrews/Corteau property in place of the industxial zoning cla.ssification that has been most recently applied. It is their undexsta.nding that the future extension of Connemara Txail will fall on the property line of the McAndrews property and if the industrial land remains undeveloped (the northern side of the power lines) fox several years how will the toad be extended without the development driven funds. NIY. Dahl further stated some obstaeles in the plan in xegards to the City's wish for commercial retail area in the eastern area stating commercial in the area is driven by the xooftops. They envision the farm as a mixed use community with shops,restaurants, and housing that would have similar characteristics to that of Evermoox or Cobblestone Lake. Dennis Ozment, 3275 145�' Street,Rosemount, quesrioned the difference between the proposed MUSA bounda,ries and the 2020 MUSA boundaxies. Chairperson Messnex asked that staff clarify the map NIUSA lines. Ms. Lindquist stated the red is the existing line, the orange is the proposed expansion and the yellow is the 2020 line on the MUSA map. The orange line of expansion is pxoposed to occur when this comp plan is approved. Kayla Ross, 317 Cannon Street�Vest, Cannon Falls,repxesented Continental Nitrogen and Resources, and questioned where the trail was located in the axea being reguided from , industrial to residential (the McAndrews eastern parcel). She questioned if the northern axea would remain industri.al. Chairpexson Messnex stated according to the Ames request,that area would be designated Medium Density Residenrial;however, the tra.il will be located - between the two land use aYeas. MOTION by Messner to continue the Public Hearing to June 28, 2005. Second by Huxnphrey. Ayes: Zurn,Messnex and Humphrey. Nayes None. Morion caxried. ..,. Pianning Commission Worksession May 10, 2005 Draft Meeting Minutes Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Chairperson Jason Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm. with Commissioners John Powefl, Laurie Humphrey, Valerie Schultz and Terry Zurn. Also in attendance were City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Community Development Director Kim Lindquist and City Planner Riek Pearson. Chairman Messner briefly described the recent work sessions as opportunities for interested property owners to speak regarding the 42 / 52 land use study. Community Development Director Lindquist outlined the packet items, which included a summary of the proposed land uses witt� overall acreages. Director Lindquist noted that the acreage for the air cargo land was in addition to the Business Park and Urban Residential acreage within the Air Cargo study area. Director Lindquist added that one of the objectives for the work session was the Planning Commission's direction concerning proposed expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The MUSA expansion would align with the first phase of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The entire study area would be implemented in phases, but the question remains how far to the east should the first phase be extended. The direction from the City Council is to provide enough of an inventory of vacant land for the City to continue to move forward with development. Director Lindquist also provided clarification regarding the Dakota County's system of estimating property value for tax purposes. Dakota County bases valuation on existing land use, and not zoning. For example, farm property might have increased in value because of its being within the MUSA, it would still be valued as an agricultural use if it was actively being farmed. Director Lindquist then introduced City Attorney Charlie LeFevere. Chairman Messner asked if he had a presentation. Attorney LeFevere indicated he was present to answer questions if needed. Director Lindquist reiterafed a point made at a previous work session that the Commission's recommendations � should be based upon land use issues. Chairman Messner noted the memo provided by City Planner Pearson regarding Business Park and Mixed-use Industrial uses. Planner Pearson outlined the memo, providing a brief discussion concerning proposed amendments to the Business Park and pending Mixed Use Industrial Districts as part of the implementation of the 42 / 52 study process. With the concurrence of the Commissioners, the next steps include processing of the previously discussed amendments to the C-3, Highway Service and C-4, General Commercial Districts and the Business Park and Mixed Use Industrial Districts. Chairman Messner then indicated that there were three presentations requested for the work session. Mary McAndrews Eustice, a member of the McAndrews family owning approximately 140 acres of farmland north of the Dakota County Technical � College was the first to speak. She started with how development af her fam'rly's property could support City Council goals for providing retail opportunities and moderating the tax base. She added that 4 developers had made offers on their property with Ames Construction Company chosen as the buyer of the properties. � Ms. Eustice went on to say that they were disappointed that the northern half of their eastern property was now recommended for Mixed-use IndustriaL She requested that the Ptanning Commission reconsider the property for residential use. She then introduced the representative for Ames Construction. Shawn Dahl, Director of Real Estate for Ames Construction explained his company's preference for land use. He suggested that the northern 40 acres of the eastern property should be medium density residential, so that Connemara Trail could be the border to industrial on the north side. He added that the raad and the highline (high-power electrical transmission line) should be the edge between residential and industrial land uses. Mr. Dahl also stated that the hardships created by the 2 collector streets, the power-line and the sewer interceptor would be more easily be overcome by the flexibility of inedium density housing than larger industrial uses. He also stated that residential development would pay for the collector streets. Otherwise, as industrial, the land would remain vacant for many years and the city would have no way of funding construction of the streets. Mr. Dahl finished with a summary of the proposed land uses and his assumption of the resulting tax revenue that would be generated by the various scenarios. Chairman Messner asked if there were any questions for Mr. Dahl. He then acknowledged Flint Hills Resources. John Shardlow of Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, planning consultants for Flint Hills Resources presented their land use concept. He opened with a comparison of commercial acreage. The current plan has 160 acres of Commercial land near Akron Ave. Rosedale is only 60 acres, and he could not conceive of a demand for that much commercial land. Mr. Shardlow then outJined his firm's land use concept that shows no residential land east of Akron Ave. Instead, his plan would have an 80-acre athletic complex, 150 acres of commercial at the northeast corner of Akron & 42, a hybrid business park and light industrial edge next to the commercial. The refinery would have an expansion area to County Road 71 and 140th Street, then new generai industrial land for compatible industrial uses west of CR71 and south of 140th Street. Then there would be a green space corridor separating the industrial from the business park, which would allow for storm water ponds and a traiL � Chairman Messner asked for questions. With none, he allowed the representatives of Arcon Development, Inc to make their presentation. Bilf Gorton of McCombs Group presented a land use concept for all of their land starting east of Bloomfield to Akron Ave. and extending '/ mile east to include 80 acres they have optioned across from the Dakota County Technical College. He explained that Arcon is mostly a residential developer, but they have also done some mixed-use combining with commercial/retail. Mr. Gorton's primary point is that "it takes bodies to generate retail development." The available residential land will not generate enough of a market to justify the amount of commercial land recommended by the study group. The big question is the University of Minnesota's intentions. If the University land develops for residential, then the market would be much more supportive of commercial land appropriately located at the southwest corner of Akron Ave. and County Road 42. Without the University land developing, only about 15-20 acres of commercial land would be justified. Mr. Gorton exptained his plan with a commercial edge along 42 that extended about 600 feet north along Akron Ave. From there on, Akron would be high- density residential, and then transitioning to low density residentiaL The Arcon . plan suggests an area of 9-10 acres east of Akron Ave. between the commercial and residential as "transitional" that coufd go either residential or commerciaL His plan was ilfustrated in detail, including suggestions of building footprints, parking and circulation and "minor collector streets." Scott Johnson, President of Arcon Development suggested that the transitional land use idea was acceptable to other cities and it allows the market to be the ultimate determiner of how the property develops. Chairman Messner asked the Commissioners for discussion. Commissioner Zurn asked for a brief overview of the commercial land in the latest land use plan. Director Lindquist expiained that there was about 80 acres on either side of Akron Ave., then another 20 acres east of the old City Hall site. . The eommercial land on the U of M site amounted to about 59 acres. Commissioner Powell observed in response to the McAndrews/Ames Construction comments that the Met Council interceptor would not be a detriment. Most developers would design around it, and it is a source for urban services. Chairman Messner thanked the various groups for their comments, and that they will be taken into consideration as the process moves forward. He added that unless the Commissioners had strong suggestions for specific changes, he felt the draft Iand use plan was ready for public hearing. He also suggested that Commissioners provide comments to staff as soon as possible. Commissioner Zurn asked if the plan would be "tweeked" as the process moves forward. Director Lindquist explained that the plan was needed as a basis for the public hearing process. Chairman Messner summarized that there had been about 5 work sessions leading up to the plan in its current form. Commissioner Powell observed that the plan was "squeezed" between the "black hole" created by the U of M and trying to respect the concerns of F{int Hills Resources. He was concerned that the plan was not providing enough roof-tops as suggested by some of the comments. He drew a comparison the Cedar Av�. and County Road 42 in Apple Valley of 25 years aga, with most of the commerciaf on the north side. The concern is how to get more roof-tops without getting too close to FHR. Chairman Messner commented that there seems to be a 100-year supply of Business Park, but that there needs to be enough for a transition of land uses. Commissioner Humphrey comrnented that it made sense to split zones with majar streets such as Connemara Trail. The road works as a buffe�. Commissioner Schultz recalled the Council discussion points at a previous work session. She wanted to relate the land use plan to the context for the Council's vision for Rosemount. "What do we want to look like in 5 years?" Will we become another Maple Grove or something else? Director Lindquist explained that the Council will be meeting again, and subsequent discussions have illuminated a difference of opinion of what is a small town. Are Targets and Kohls found in small towns, yet, that's what many people want to capture the retail dollars currently lost to other places. The Council wants to have land available for opportunities. One of the incentives for doing the comp planning process was the PahPs unwillingness to develop their land. That creates a need for more Business Park land elsewhere. Cornmissioner Schultz asked if there was a responsibility to include the school district in the planning process. The pace of development might be contributing to overcrowding in the schools. Director Lindquist explained that the school district was a totally separate entity, but generally, the district just need to know what the plans are and they react to them. New construction usually brings more value, resulting in higher tax value or revenue. � Chairman Messner commented that part of the planning process with plats and PUD s will have to maintain the small town character via the development process. Commissioner Zurn added that developments will have to somehow include a "small town feel." Chairman Messner made a recommendation to move forward with the current land use plan for a public hearing. ° Director Lindquist indicated that the public hearing notice had just been sent into the paper for the May 24 regular Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Messner added that the plan was still just a draft pfan. Commissioner Powell asked City Attorney LeFevere if he had any concerns about the decision process. Attorney LeFevere responded saying that he had no concerns, but was present if the Commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Powel indicated he would not be present for the May 24 meeting. Commissioner Schultz also indicated that she would also be out of town. Chairman Messner offered that the public hearing could still be opened and that it could be continued into the following month. He emphasized that a lot of information has been brought to the work sessions and that the public hearing process will take time. Director Lindquist identified the need to define the MUSA boundary that is also part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The question remains how far east of Akron Ave. the MUSA should be extended for the first phase. Chairman Messner suggested that it should be extended as far enough east to connect with the 42/52 industrial MUSA area. Commissioner Powell eoncurred, preferring the 2 MUSA areas connected. Chairman Messner commented that there might be an open area left east of Blaine Ave. and wondered if there might be problems caused be pressure differentials. He added that he thought the MUSA should step-down alon�Akron Ave. from the line %z mile south of 12ptn Street on the west side to 135 Street on the west side of Akron. Director Lindquist suggested that the MUSA would "step-down" east of Akron in the Blaine Ave. area following the bluff-line or gray land use area and that the pressure issues are engineering considerations that can be accommodated. Chairman Messner announced the next Planning Commission is scheduled for May 24th and adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm. Respectfuily submitted Rick Pearson City Planner Planning Commission Work Session Apri112,2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 in the Council Chambers. Commissioners present included: Jason Messner(Chair), Valerie Schultz, Laurie Humphrey and John Powell. City staff included: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director, Andy Brotzler, City Engineer and Rick Pearson, City Planner. Chairman Messner called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm, asking for additions or � corrections to the agenda. Director Lindquist noted that a new agenda had been provided with a presentation scheduled for Arcon Development at 7:30 pm. Director Lindquist summarized the efforts of the Highway 42 /52 study group and the work session process to date. She also outlined the anticipated balance of the process including the Planning Commission public hearing, depending on the outcome of the Planning Commission discussion. The intent is to finalize the draft land use plan based upon tonight's discussion. Public Comment on the 42 /52 Land Use study concept Chairman Messner explained to the audience that 5 presentations had been scheduled far public eomment. They were limited to 15 minutes each. PBAIG (Pine Bend Area Industrial Group) Paul Curtis representing the Pine Bend Area Industrial Group (PBAIG) and president of Spectro Alloys made the first scheduled presentation. He reiterated the previously stated concerns,primarily that the proposed residential zoning would be much too close to the industrial base. He stated that the two land uses axe clearly incompatible. The concerns result from the potential for nuisanee issues such as srnoke and noise, and the possibility of failed processes such as power failures. Mr. Curtis alsQ explained concerns about potential public safety issues. Hazardous materials are often part of the various processes in the industrial area. There are risks associated with the industrial area and the City should take into consideration the various risk management plans that have been required of the industrial group. He commented further on the cooperative working relationship between the companies and that there should be more opportunities for industrial development for compatible industrial uses. Mr. Curtis summarized his comments with a request to prepare a plan that prevents a"collision"with incompatible land uses. Chairman Messner asked Mr. Curtis what he would recommend as a safe distance between the residential from the industrial areas, for example, 1 or 2 miles? Mr. Curtis responded that the risk management plans prepared for the different companies would have a variety of recommendations for radius of separation to residential uses. Commissioner Powell asked if the existing residential uses north of County Road 42 would be included or excluded. Mr. Curtis responded with an observation that there had already been some problems affecting existing residential areas. Chairman Messner suggested that the next scheduled presentation by Flint Hills Resources could start if there were with no more questions for Mr. Curtis. � Flint Hills Resources Jeff Wilkes, the Refinery Manager for Flint Hills Resources (FHR) introduced himself, indicating that he had been working at the Rosemount refinery for 6 years, and had been employed in the industry far 31 years. Mr. Wilkes sta.ted that FHR had been a participant in the study group and was very sensitive to the needs of the City and its management of growth. FHR supports the current Comprehensive Plan, but has a concern about the area north of County Road 42, east of Akron Avenue. Flint Hills opposes the potential inclusion of 6,000 new residents in this area. There are three areas of specific concern: _ 1. Increased exposure to the various nuisance issues common in the refinery area. FHR has warked hard to reduce events such as the "flair ups"that occur with oceasional power outages and equipment failures, but incidents still occur. The regular turnarounds for maintenance and repairs also cause nuisances. The closer the residents are,the more likely they will be affected. An example is the St. Paul Park refinery recently experienced a lightening strike on a tank affeeting the neighbors close by. 2. Potential exposure of residents to a major event. FHR has a call-up zone around the refinery to notify neighbors in the event of a majoar situation that may require action such as evacuation, Barr Engineering, a consultant was hired to prepare a study that examined the impacts of several serious events such as explosions or releases of toxic vapors. There are similarities with the Texas City event that resulted from the combination of an ignition source with a vapor. Such an event can break glass 3 miles away and the noise heard up to 6 miles away. Toxic release of Chlorine and Hydrogen Sulfide are two agents of particular concern. Under some atmospheric conditions, a vapor cloud of Chlorine might not disperse as faz as 3 miles away. Hydrogen Sulfide might not disperse up to 4.5 miles away. If FHR drew a 3-mile line around the refinery, Akron& 42 is right at the 3-mile line. There axe a lot of things that have been done to prevent incidents,but they still happen about every ten years or so. 3. Railroad storage and traffic of hazardous materials. The Union Pacifie is constructing a railroad yard directly south of the refinery. He estimates that incidents occur more often than one in ten years as a result of railroad accidents. Based upon the latest land use map, medium density residential is 1.1 miles away,urban residential is 1.2 miles away and high density residential is 1.7 miles away. Our studies show that these proposed land uses are too close. Flint Hi11s often receives 2 questions: 1. Why didn't we buy all of this land? Answer: Sticker shock over the increase in � the price of land, and we would have to buy another 800 acres. We just can't continue to keep buyingland. 2. Why is FHR trying to influence the value of other people's property? We are not trying to do that at all. Our plan would offer alternatives. Our position is that we are against residential land use north of 42 and east of Akron Ave. Flint Hills Resources sees the need for a study of what the appropriate buffer would be. We already have a call-down area for properties near the refinery and any new residential land north of 42 and east of Akron would have to be on that call-down list. Chairman Messner asked if there were any more questions. Hearing none,the next group was introduced. Mary and Ann Caurteau,who grew up on a farm east of Akron Ave. and north of County Road 42. The two parcels of land they represent are about 145 acres. Mary Courteau Mary,Courteau started the presentation explaining that her parents moved to Rosemount 50 years ago, and raised four healthy children. Her mother taught at the Rosemount schools. When Mary went to college, she used to bring friends home, who enjoyed the area. Her father raised Holsteins and lived until the age of 90. During all that time,the refinery was not even on their radar, it was a"non-factor." Now it seems like the area is being presented as so dangerous,that perhaps all of the students of Dakota County Technical College should be fitted for gas masks. Ann(Courteau) Day added that for 50 years,the refinery was a great neighbor. Naw, they want to have it both ways. Drawing a comparison to David and Goliath, s�ie questioned the true motive of FHR. She added that there is no odor from the refinery given the prevailing winds. The only ones to benefit from keeping residential growth away are Flint Hills Resources. The draft land use map shows the Courteau properties to have about 15 acres of Commercial, 45 acres of inedium density residential and about 80 acres of single family residential. Rosemount needs commercial development, and needs more residential land to get the commercial development it needs. Chairman Messner asked for questions. With none,he introduced the next speaker, Jonathan Wilmshurst. Jonathan Wilmshurst � Jonathan Wilmshurst representing the interests of Vesterra, Stonex (mining) and Minnova,LLC, collectively own approximately 320 acres of land east of Akron Ave. He has lived on Shannon Parkway for 14 years and participated on the study group. He added that he believed that the process was very well done, and that a lot of input was provided on the various trips. Apple Valley has had rampant development, and that the Metropolitan Council has made several hundreds of millions of dollars in public \�y investments to facilitate growth in the area. The property east of Akron Avenue has been available for years, and that the City should not have to maintain all of that as a buffer. Mr. Wilmshurst stated that they (Veserra, Stonex and Minnova)agree that industrial land should be beyond the "fall line" of the Rich Valley area. Development and the mining process in particular can create the trails and berms needed to create the buffer. Industrial uses could capture the rnaterials for berms and so forth. The refinery has improved over the years, but it is still their job to rnitigate the nuisance. Rosemount has 2 very large tracts of land that are "sterilized"by the refinery and U-More Park. More development is needed to justify all of the investments on the east side of Akron Ave. If the east side is dangerous,this information should be public. Otherwise, resistance to development seems to be "scaxe-mongering."Mr. Wilmshurst added that there are 2 railroad tracks that run through town as it is, and that the producers of hazardous materials should be responsible for mitigation,not the City. He and his partners have purchased the Darsaw and Kraft farms and anticipate mining for 15-18 years. They have also purchased the Groth farm, but have no plans to mine it. He briefly summarized his opinion regarding the availability of aggregate material, some on the Bester farm, and the narth end of the Courteau properties. Mining would change the landscape with stripping of material off of the top of the aggregate and using that material for trails and Iandscaping. Chairman Messner asked if there were any questions. There were none. Arcon Development Scott Johnson,President of Arcon Development indicated that his company owns about 300 acres of land north of County Road 42 and west of Akron Ave. They started buying land several years ago with the 80 acres on the northwest corner of Akron&42. At that time,the land was guided for residential use. Much of the land previously planned far residential use has been changed to commercial on the draft plan. He has significant concerns relative to the market for the commercial land. Arcon has hired Bill Gorten of the McCombs Group to analyze the market with so much land taken up by Flint Hills Resources and the University of Minnesota. Flint Hills and the University take up too much land to allow for enough"rooftops"to support the market area. "Our request is to sit down with the Planning Commission and plan the area." Bill Gorton of the McCombs Group provided a report that summarized his experience and credentials,and projected the anticipated market su�ported commercial growth based upon the latest land-use plan. He described all of the Arcon land proposed far commercial land use. There is a total of 193 acres of commercial land including the University. This is much larger than the Hwy 3 and County Road 42 area. Commercial , development depends on four things: 1. How viable is the land to support development: 2. The location�of the land is extremely important. 3. What is the available ingress and egress or accessibility of the development? 4. The traffic counts on the adjacent highways. Mr. Gorton continued with an observation of the surrounding commercial areas that are competitive. Those areas are continuing to grow, and have better connecting highways that go places. Akron Avenue does not really connect to anything either north in Inver Grove Heights, or south in the U of M property. He then made projections about the level of development that could be expected in the proposed commercial area in five-year increments. His findings were: 2010: Small convenience stores in the retail categories highlighted in the report. 2015: With the additiona16,000 households (east of Akron Ave.),by this time, all of the available residential land is used up. Therefore there would be 30 to 50,000 sq. ft. of additional retail, service, office and possibly some medical clinic space. 2025: The amount of commercial space would double, similar to the Cub Foods area. Mr. Gorton added that if the market does not support development,the land would otherwise remain dormant. The University land should have the largest amount of commercial land available in case it is ever developed. The University land has the greatest potential market that would support commercial land. Mr. Groten listed several challenges to the developrnent of commercial land: l. The Akron Ave. and County Road 42 area is isolated from the surrounding population by Flint Hills Resources, and the U of M. These large landowners create an"hour-glass" shape, with the Commercial area in the middle. 2. The ability to develop is further limited by the MUSA, and efforts by Flint : Hills Resources to prevent further development. 3. Lack of adequate freeway access to surrounding communities for big boxes and category killers that require "rnain on main" intersection locations. Akron Avenue does not fit in that intersection category, as it does not connect w�th other highways beyond Rosemount. When discussing other developments in Rosemount, Mr. Gorton said that development is going to be out there, but then it's going to stop. Apple Va11ey, Eagen, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville with Cedar&Dodd; Fannington and Coates are a11 going to add commercial. The bottom line is that the Akron Ave. and County Road 42 area does not support 185 acres of additional commercial land. As a result,the land will sit vacant. `� Chairman Messner asked if there were any questions. Hearing none, he asked for more detail about the Cedar& Dodd area in Lakeville. Mr. Groten explained that the commercial area was 20 acres in size with the primary area that includes Cub consisting of about 13.5 acres. Another 6 acres is designated for retail use. Chairman Messner then - asked what influence student housing would have on changing commercial demand? Bill Groten responded with"numbers change demand." If 42 and 52 develops,the numbers would be reduced because of the competition. If the U of M gets developed,then that would change the plan for significant commercial land south of 42,were the viability increases. Therefore,the majority of the land designated for commercial use should be on the University land. Chairman Messner then concluded the public comment period of the agenda. Properties affected by the 42/52 Land-Use Amendments Director Lindquist requested Planning Commission direction concerning properties that may potentially become non-conforming with implementation of the 42/52 land use recommendations. City Planner Pearson explained that the list contained many residential properties, but the primary concern were the Rich Valley Lutheran Church, the trucking terminals in the vicinity of Highways 52 and 42, and Vic's Engineering (Crane) area southwest of the intersection. The Commissioners discussed the impact on the uses with the following recommendations: 1. The church at Blaine Ave. and County Road 42 would become part of the Business Park area and recommended to be a conditional use similar to the Church of Our Savior at 145�'and Biscayne Ave. Related City Council discussions identified concerns with the limitations of the Public and Institutional district. The Commissioners felt that the Business Park strategy for the church and cemetery was preferred rather than the Public& Institutional "spot zone." 2. The trucking terminals would stay industrial. The land use lines would extend east along County Raad 42. Much of the Solberg property would be needed for the intersection improvements. What remains would be commercial, and that land use boundary would also be extended along 42. 3. The crane property did not have significant improvements. Rather, it was a storage and sta.ging area for generally mobile equipment. T'herefore, a change in land-use as compared to the draft plan was not advised. The Commissioners had no concerns about the County Road 42 and TH 55 axea. It was pointed out that a minimum of 15-20 years would elapse before development would occur, and the intersection improvements would have a lower priority than the 42/52 intersection. Chairman Messner asked the Commissioners for comments regarding the Akron Ave. and County Road 42 intersection area. Commissioner Powell observed that the group went through a good process. He said that the group did not have much to begin with, but much information came to light throughout, including tonight's presentations. Commissioner Powell added that he felt more work needed to be done and that he wanted give more thought to the area. He commented on a need to "face reality" concerning the U of M, and placing more of the commercial land on the University property. Chairman Messner agreed that some more time would be needed for adjustments. He asked the other Commissioners if they needed another work session or if they are prepared to proceed with the public hearing. Commissioner Schultz indicated that more time was needed and that another work session was appropriate. Commissioner Powell added that the previous work session included examples of refineries with residential uses next door. There was no quantitative analysis to be applied to the northeast corner of Akron Ave. and Cotinty Road 42. Chairman Messner suggested that the Commissioners provide comments to Director Lindquist prior to the next work session. Director Lindquist suggested that with some specific direction, there could be another work session on May 10�'with adjustments to the map. She added that staff had some concerns about the McCombs study that could be written up. Commissioner Powell indicated he would be comfortable with the work session on May 10�'. Commissioner Humphrey asked of there would be maps ava.ilable with circles indicating distance from the refinery? A web site was mentioned: "pinebendcac.org." Direetor Lindquist confirmed that the public hearing would be moved back to May 24 or even June. With no other comments,the meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. Respectfully submitted Rick Pearson, AICP City Planner Meeting Summary Planning Commission Work Session March 29,2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 in Rooms 214 and 216 of the Rosemount Community Center. Chairman Messner called the meeting to order at?:02 pm. with Planning Commissioners John Powell, Laurie Humphrey, Valerie Schultz and Terry Zurn present. Also in attendance were Community Development Directar Kim Lindquist,Police Chief Gary Kalstabakken, City Engineer Andy Brotzler and City Planner Rick Pearson. There were also approximately 15 audience members in attendance. Directar Lindquist provided a brief overview of the agenda items including the land ownership map and 3 alternative land use maps for the Akron Avenue and County Road 42 area. Director Lindquist explained that the land ownership map was fairly accurate; however there may be a couple of parcels that were not labeled properly due to slightly different names of the owners or recent changes in ownership. The Commissioners had no questions regarding the land ownership map. ' Director Lindquist proceeded to explain the 3 land use options. The options focused on the distribution of commercial and residential land uses on the north side of County Road 42. It was assumed that there would be little change in the land use scenario for commercial and high density residential associated with the Dakota.County Technical College and the University of Minnesota properties. All options included less comrnercial land than was included in the earlier land use concepts. Land Use Option I offered the least arnount of commercial land overall, and converted some land south of the Connemara Trail alignrnent from commercial to high-density residential. Option II with the most commercial land(155 acres) included larger commercial parcels along County Road 42, and the largest contiguous block of land of 80 acres for high- density residential use. Option III suggested a commercial edge along County Road 42 about 60D feet deep, but extending farther to the east. � In all options,the day-caxe building and ballfield north of County Road 42 remained public. Chairman Messner asked about the potential for access along County Road 42. City Engineer Brotzler explained that the Dakota.County intersection spacing standards allowed for full-movement intersections with %2 mile spacing and right-in, right-out intersections at 1/4 mile spacing. With a full-movement intersection and a signal at Akron and County Road 42, there would potentially be a right-in, right-out intersection 1/4 mile to the west along the commercial area on 42. Director Lindquist added that there would be more access along Akron Avenue, with driveways or streets extending east and west, between Connemara Trail and County Road 42. Connemara Trail would have a full- movement intersection at Akron Avenue, and there would be other intersections,perhaps with more limited access along Akron Avenue. Connemara Trail will act as an east-west "reliever"north of County Road 42. Commissioner Powell asked about the property owner's,Arkon,preference? Director Lindquist explained that initially,Arkon would have accepted about 15 acres far commercial, and have since been more agreeable to about 30 acres of commercial land. Commissioner Powell mentioned that he prefers Option III, with more commercialland along County Road 42. Commissioner Schultz agreed. Director Lindquist explained that the preferred Option III with Planning Commission direction would become the map that would be circulated as the process continues. The disadvantage of Option III is the large amount of contiguous high-density residential land. Chairman Messner suggested that the high-density area could be modified, shifting it along the north side of the commercial land oriented along County Road 42. The other Commissioners indieated agreement with the suggestion." Director Lindquist moved on to discuss the Parks memo provided by Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation. Direetor Lindquist explained that her discussions with Director Schultz resulted in a projected need for about 310 acres of additional park-land based upon the draft 42/521and use maps with typical residential densities of 3 dwelling units per acre overall. There currently are no community parks specifically designated in the area. The Parks and Recreation staff is working with the City Council on the faeility planning process, and an athletic complex is part of the discussions. Commissioner Zurn asked if the athletic facility was included in the University's long- term plans. Director Lindquist explained that discussions were ongoing with both the U of M and Flint Hills Resources concerning a variety of goals and Director Schultz is examining a11 options. Commissioner Zurn asked how the athletic facility might compare with the Blaine sports complex. Director Lindquist sta.ted the Rosemount facility would be smaller, requiring about 60 to 80 acres. The Commissioners had no more questions ' regarding parks. Director Lindquist distributed maps depicting the Flint Hills Refinery area that include concentric ringsxadiating from the center and southwest corner of the refinery area. Police Chief Kalstabakken was introduced as the Emergency Preparedness Manager for his presentation regarding emergency services in Rosemount and specifically, the refinery area. Chief Kalstabakken explained that he had checked to see if there were any federal, state, county or other relevant standards for guidelines for spacing residential land uses from potentially hazardous areas such as a refinery. The results of his survey were that there are no such standards, that cities have complete authority over local land use decisions. It is of course good planning to consider how hazardous materials aze processed and where and how they are transported to an from processing areas. Hazardous materials are found in many locations besides the Pine Bend area, and axe transported across town by railroad and trucles. For example, eities and schools have chlorine for water treatment and swimming pools. Chief Kalstabakken researched the web for other refineries across the country for comparisons of residential land use proximity. • Carson, California(near Los Angeles)has a BP refinery that has an output of 260 million barrels per day, comparable with FHR. There is a residential neighborhood near the refinery and another within 1,000 feet. It is unclear where the actual processing occurs within the refinery for specific measuring of separation. • Philadelphia, PA has a Sunoco refinery that is the seventh largest nationally, and has adjacent residential uses. Again, it is not certain how close the actual processing occurs with the residential use. It was noted that this is likely to be an older,more densely populated area. • Wood Rover, Ill. Has a Conoco Phillips refinery that is ranked 10�'in the nation. It has residential that borders the refinery. The available map seemed to show single-family and medium density{townhouse) zoning in proximity to the refinery. Commissioner Powel remarked that in some of these cases, especially in older ones, - much of the nearby housing was probably for workers of the refinery areas. Director Lindquist mentioned that she had contacted administrators from St. Paul Park and Newport concerning their impressions of the Marathon refinery in St. Faul Park. In this case, residential uses are located next to holding tanks and residential streets are next to the refinery. Most of the complaints identified concern things like dust and fumes that cannot be traced directly to the refinery. Chief Kalsta.bakken added what he knew of the Texas City explosion of March 23. He understood that the product related to the explosion was different from that refined at FHR. All of the injuries associated with the event were contained within the refinery. The impact was felt up to '/z mile away resulting in broken windows. Chief Kalstabakken went on to explain the map with concentric circles radiating at 1-mile intervals from the center and southwest corners of the refinery. The rings were used to illustrate various evacuation procedures. For example, some events might require evacuation of residential uses within one mile of the refinery. However, some events could require evacuation of residents up to 4 miles away. There are already residential uses established in the 4 mile range west and north of the refinery. As previously mentioned,the presence of some chemicals elsewhere in the community could just as likely require evacuation, such as spills from de-railed railroad cars. An alternative emergency management strategy : would be to shut down homes and buildings—keeping people inside. The concentric circles originating in the refinery could just as well be transferred to other locations such as Dixie Petro-Chemical or Spectro-Alloys. Hazardous materials are just one aspect of the process of land-use analysis. Director Lindquist had spoken with the City Attorney concerning the potential for City liability resulting from land-use decisions. The City Attorney explained that cities have extensive latitude in the process of land use planning. Solid land use decisions are normally based on things making logical sense. Transitions from one land use to another and buffers separating incompatible land uses often are the result of many influences and situations. � � Chairman Messner asked if the prevailing winds had an impact on emergency management planning, and if the winds are predominately from the northwest? Chief ' Kalstabakken explained that wind pattems are considered, and that the winds are often from the southwest and southeast. Commissioner Zurn asked about the nature of cornplaints received by St. Paul Park regarding the refinery. Director Lindquist explained that the complaints received by the Administrator can't be traced to an individual site. Commissioner Zurn asked the Chief if more complaints originate from the east side (Pine Bend area)? Chief Kalstabakken indicated that the police do receive more complaints regarding the east side, but they do not have a method of tracking the specific source of the complaint. Chauman Messner then thanked Chief Kalstabakken for his time and efforts responding to the Commission's concerns. In conclusion, Chauman Messner . observed that the correspondence received from the Pine Bend Area Industrial Group identifying concerns over residential growth east of A.kron Avenue and north of the 155�' Street alignment. He said, "That would pretty much be everything that we are talking about." Chairman Messner asked the Commissioners if there were any other issues that needed to be discussed. Commissioner Schultz requested further information describing the densities of residential uses near the various other refineries. Chief Kalstabakken responded that he didn't know, other than most of the maps seemed to suggest single- family residential. Chairman Messner speculated that the other refinery areas were in older neighborhood areas were development had already"pushed in." Commissioner Powell made the assumption that LA and Philadelphia in particular have a higher density of residential relative to land values and are a more urbanized context, Chairman Messner and Commissioner Zurn both commented on the likelihood that the adjacent housing provided housing for workers associated with the adjacent refineries and other industrial uses. Chairman Messner then offered the audience members opportunity for comment. Before doing so, he reiterated that the expected process for the land use discussions will include at least one more work session, for Planning Commission discussion. That would probably be scheduled on Apri1 12,prior to the first possible public hearing,which eould occur as soon as Apri126�'. Charlie Koehnen,12255 Rich Valley Blvd., said that the refinery was boosting production up to 300 million barrels per day,making them the 8�'largest refinery in the country. He said that his brother built a house in St. Paul Park, which he is now unable to sell. He then made comparisons with undesirable residential property adjacent to the airport. Mr. Koehnen also commented that"Koch has cleaned up the axea a lot so that people wouldn't complain." He added that his experience with his wind generator was that 80%0 of the winds were from the southeast. He also added that the Texas refinery explosion was felt 5 mile away. He supports some residential, but not high-density residential like ` apartments. He concluded that the area between Akron Avenue and U.S. 52 should all be commercial on the north side. Arlene Dohling,2051 145�' Street East, commented that the University of Minnesota was the source of chemical fallout dating back to the 1960's. People living east of Coates had to be evacuated, and that included her family members. Joan Schnieder, 12255 Rich Valley Blvd., asked about the nature of complaints received by the other refineries. She was concerned about the City setting itself up for complaints. "T'he last leak was a bad one—it lasted for days." She wanted to know what the refinery's position was. � Director Lindquist explained that Flint Hills Resources had previously provided a letter that was included in the previous work session packet. Chairman Messner added that there will be more discussion about Flint Hills Resources as the process continues. Director Lindquist also stated that the other refineries had residential uses next door. In contrast, the proposed land use plan shows the nearest residential uses a mile away from the southwest corner of the refinery. Joan Schnieder asked how close was the high density residential shown? She also commented that she was a member of a citizen's advisory committee since 1998 and that they had a lot of data regarding emissions from the refinery. The committee meets the 2na Monday of every month, and City officials are invited. John Chadwick, 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington, a partner/owner with Jonathan Wilmshurst of Vesterra, Stonex and other properties east of Akron Avenue explained his views. He felt that a transition makes sense, and that their 153 acres of property(the former Groth farm)would be suitable for residential. It is undulating, and would be behind a Business Park land use area. He felt that it's good for people to live near where they work, and that as the business park develops,there will be a need for more residential. He and his partner intend to work with everybody. Myron Napper, 3381 145�' Street East, agreed with Charlie Koehnen. He said he was concerned about the other industries in the Pine Bend area, and that Spectro Alloys is#1 on the list with Endrus being the next. He suggested that if the City does not do anykhing, there would be a class-action suit that would involve Rosemount. He went on to say that Jeff Wilkes of Flint Hills Resources has done a good job and that FHR will not put anymore holes in the ground. Instead,they will use treated water even though it costs more. Mr. Napper then asked about what is going to happen with the Air Cargo terminal and Coates. "Developers are putting things together and scaring people", he said. He further stated that the previous meeting process should have been set up by staff to allow people to ask questions. Mr. Napper then asked if the guidelines for the refinery were set in stone? Chief Kalstabakken responded that they were only a reference. John Hofland of Flint Hills Resources asked if there would be some methodical analysis of data regarding the buffer zone around the refinery. . Chairman Messner asked if there were was anything else that needed to be discussed. Director Lindquist reiterated the intended process. Another meeting will be scheduled for informal comments. FHR and other businesses will be invited for comments and questions. It would also give another opportunity for further questions by the Commissioners. Chairman Messner asked the other Commissioners if they had any preferences. Commissioner Powell indicated he approved of another meeting far eomments. Commissioner Zurn added that he likes the informal format of the work sessions, and that he would prefer to wait until the end of April for the formal public hearing. Director Lindquist said that the public hearing on April 26 would benefit from another worksession on Aprii 12 and the final maps that will be put together in support. Commissioner Zurn asked if additional detail could be provided about the distance for complaints from the other refineries. Chairman Messner asked that more information concerning complaints were available, such as the source of odors, if the direction of particles is being monitored and other wind data from FHR. Charlie Koehnen mentioned that there was an explosion in 1978 that killed a couple of peaple. His tractor was covered with soot, and that the neighbor Benson kids were sick. The soot blew towards Eagan and that it was real nasty. Chairman Messner revisited the comments from the Pine Bend Area Industrial Group (PBAIG). He emphasized that PBAIG wanted to control practically all of eastern Rosemount. He explained that he wanted to see a counter proposal with a reasonable approach besides the exclusion of residential uses east of Akron Avenue and north of 155�' Street. Joan Schnieder asked about the land use concept previously offered by Flint Hills Resources. That concept included a park as part of the buffer area surrounding Flint Hills. She felt that she should have a park since she had to put up with all of the industrial land use in the area for so long. Arlene Doehling cited O'Hare airport near Chicago as an example of land use patterns if the air cargo terminal is built. She stated that when the airport was originally built,it was surrounded by cornfields. As time went on, the area was filled with warehouses. Air cargo would create a buffer zone of waxehouses. Director Lindquist attempted to wrap-up with a reminder of the next work session scheduled for April 12 at 6:30 in the Council chambers, and some people will be invited for comments. Myron Napper then asked about the expected timeta.ble for highway improvements and the air cargo terminal. Staff explained the status to the two projects. Chaitman Messner repeated the workshop process and need for the City to locally plan land use. He then asked if there were any other concerns that should be brought up. Commissioner Powell suggested that there would be another chance to examine land use before anything is built. Director Lindquist explained that the land use area around Akron Avenue would be the first area looked at in terms of comprehensive plan amendments. The 42/52 area would be second because of the moratorium that is currently in effect in the east side MUSA. Eventually, all of the east side would be included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. _ The meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm. Respectfully submitted Rick Pearson,AICP City Planner - } Meeting Summary Planning Commission Work Session March 8, 20tS5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 8, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Humphrey, Powell, and Zurn present. Also in attendance were Community Development Director Kim Lindquist, City Planner Rick Pearson and Assistant City Planner Jason Lindahl. Commissioner Schultz arrived at 7:00 p.m. Interested parties in the audience included: Charles Koehnen 12255 Rich Valley Blvd. Rosemount, MN 55068 Gary R. Ista 12131 Rich Valley Blvd. Rosemount, MN 55068 Mary and Guy Courteau 2704 Mesa Verde Ct. Burnsville, MN 55337 Amy Berglund 12131 Rich Valley Blvd. Rosemount, MN 55068 Don Kern Flint Hills Resources John Hoflal Flint Hills Resources Paul Curtis Spectro Alloys Corp. Joe Eschenbacher J Wayne Transportation Ken Tummel Continental Nitrogen . � - Dave Bednar Continental Nitrogen Joe McArdem Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Pearson to present the information included in the work session packet regarding the Highway 3 and County Road 46 Land Use Study and the Draft C-3, Highway Service and C-4, General Commercial Zoning Districts. City Planner Pearson reviewed the information contained in the work session packet. He explained that his information was in response to the direction given to staff during the Comrnission's February 8, 2005 work session. Mr. Pearson stated that staff was working to re-gwide the study area from GI, General Industrial to C, Commercial. In addition, staff was also working on amending the C-3 and C-4 Commercial zoning districts to focus on more auto-oriented and service-oriented uses. Staff and the Commission agreed that zoning text revisions should also include refined performance standards especially in the areas of architecture and outside sales and display. Ms. Lindquist summarized by stating that staff would revise the C-3 and C-4 districts and bring them back to the Gommission for further review and eomment later. Next, Community Development Director Kim Lindquist introduced the : Commission to the City's Conceptuat Future Land Use Plan. She explained that staff has been working with a eommittee comprised of property owners, planning commission members, and a city councilmemberto review and update the City's Future Land Use Plan. 'Ms. Lindquist provided an overview of the conceptl plan and outlined the issues raised throughout the planning process. These issues included: 1. MUSA Limits. 2. 42/52 Interchange. 3. Business/Commercial Development vs. Residential Development. 4. Flint Hill Land Use Planning. 5. Dakota County Technical College Planning - Potential Dorms and/or Conference Center. 6. University of Minnesota Land Use Study— Potential of Land Sale for Development. . � 7. Potential Air Cargo Facility in Southwest Quadrant of 42/52 Interchange. 8. Adding Categories to the City's Land Use Plan (Mixed Use Industrial and Medium Density Residential). 9. New Sewer Interceptor in 2006. Ms. Lindquist talked generally about how these issues could compliment and contradict each other. She emphasized the need for the plan to balance the competing development needs within the community. She concJuded by stating ,, that the land use planning process will continue by allowing the community to formally review the final draft plan at a public hearings during Planning Commission meetings this spring before final action by the City Council sometime this summer. After adoption by the City, staff will forward the plan onto the Metropolitan Council for approvaL Next, City Engineer Andy Brotzler presented the City draft Transportation Plan and explained it in relation to the draft Future Land Use Plan. His presentation described each of the road classification types (Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, and Minor Collector) and explained the traffic volume and intersection spacing standards for each. Planning Commission Chair Jason Messner asked for comments or questions from the Gommission for staff. Commissioner Powell made several comments, including: 1. Development of the University of Minnesota property seemed far in the future and the City's planning efforts should focus on the western two thirds of the City that will be developed in the next 20 or so years. 2. The Land Use Plan should incorporate more medium and high density residential housing as a buffer and transition to commercial land uses. 3. Mr. Powell would like to see an analysis of the City's future park needs and have that incorporated into the Future Land Use Plan discussion. 4. Mr. Powell would Iike staff to identify the location of the proposed sewer intereeptor on the Future Land Use Plan and plan for higher density uses adjacent to the interceptor to fully utilize this public investment. 5. Staff should plan for and identify standards for cluster development. 6. Mr. Powell supports the corporate campus plan for the Mississippi Critical Corridor area east of Highway 55. 7. Regardless of the City's plans and policies, individual property owners still control the development of their own property. After Commissioner Powell concluded his comments, Chairperson Messner asked if there were any more comments from the Commission. Hearing none, he asked if there were any other comments from staff or other members of the . Land Use Planning Committee. At that time, Councilmember Mark DeBettignies summarized his experience with the land use planning process and thanked staff and the other members of the committee for their work. After Councitmember DeBettignies concluded his comments, Chairperson Messner asked if there were any other comments from the commission or staff. Hearing none, Chairperson Messner opened the mee#ing to comments from the public. He reminded members of the audience that this was not an official public hearing and that the Commission will be holding an official public hearing for this item in the near future. However, the Commission was interest in hearing any comments that citizens may have after this informal review of the Future Land Use Plan. John Hofland of Flint Hill Resources stated that his company would like to be closely involved throughout the planning process. He stated that Flint Hills concerns focus on insuring the area around the refinery has compatible land � uses and he emphasized the need for creative solutions to these compatibility issues. He also stressed the importance of emergency management planning when considering the land uses around the refinery. Harvey Radke, a realtor from Hastings, stated he has many clients interested in the 42/52 corridor. These ciients are most interested in hospitality, auto sales, and veterinary uses. He stressed that rail access and a buffer around Flint Hills were also important to his clients. Paul Curtis of Spectro Alloys stated that he represents the Pine Bend Area Industrial Group wh'rch includes many of the businesses in the Highway 55 Corridor. This group would like to stress the importance of a buffer around Flint Hills Resources and industrial businesses located on the east side. An adequate buffer would prohibit residential uses east of Akron Avenue and north of 155tn Street. However, this group is in support of the air cargo facility. Hearing no Qther public comment, Community Development Director Lindquist offered to summarize the direction she noted during the meeting. She stated that staff would take the following action to address the issues and concerns from the Commission and pubfic: 1. Review the housing vs. comrnercial balance at the Akron/42 intersection. 2. Revise the map to illustrate the major land owners including Flint Hills Resources and the University of Minnesota. a 3. Provide an assessment of the City's futUre park and recreational needs and include it in the plan. ', 4. Direct the Public Safety Director to review and comment on the Conceptual Future Land Use Plan and the City's emergency plans Chairperson Messner asked the Commission to confirm this directian for staff. Without a forrnal vote, the Commission aeknowledged that this was the correct direction for staff. Ms. Lindquist stated staff would bring the requested changes and information back to the Commission during their March work session. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairman Messner, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was , adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P. Assistant City P{anner. a y � Meeting Summary Planning Commission Work Session February 8, 2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a Work Session Meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 8, 2005. Chairperson Messner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Commissioners Humphrey, Powell, Schultz, and Zurn, present. Also in attendance were City Planner Rick Pearson and Assistant City Planner Jason LindahL Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Pearson to present the information included in the work session packet regarding potential land use changes for the Mighway 3 and County Road 46 intersection area. City Planner Pearson reviewed the information contained in the work session packet. This presentation described the land use and zoning classification for the area around Caunty Raad 46 and Highway 3. Mr. Pearson explained that staff would like direction from the Commission regarding possible zoning and land use changes for this area. The Commission then had a discussion regarding possible zoning and land use changes for this area. That discussion focused on the following topics: access standards along both highway 3 and County Road 46, existing land uses in the area, existing zoning standards, the amount of available land, future development and access to the Business Park, and potential commercial uses. After some discussion, the commission directed staff to prepare draft maps and zoning district standards for this area focusing on commercial uses. These commercial zoning districts should be divided betwreen service uses and retail uses. They also directed staff to research the market potential for commercial uses in this area. There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon Motion by Chairman Messner, and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jason Lindahl, A.1.C.P. Assistant City Planner. , « { ��. � �� ' � Members of the Pianning Commission and City Staff: I'm Margaret McAndrews Eustice, one of the owners of the McAndrews farm and a residential realtor based in Dakota County for the past 16 years. Our land is located directly across the Dakota County Technical College and UMore Park. Rosemount City CounciPs goals include maintaining city services and moderating property tax rates. Rosemount is well advised to increase its residential inventory now. An important way to expand Rosemount's tax base is by attracting big box retailers. Of course, before locating in an area, retailers require sufficient rooftops to support their businesses. The proposed, centralized air cargo facility in the southeast section of Rosemount could create thousands of jobs and , greatly increase Rosemount's need for housing inventory. These new residents would attract the retailers the city seeks. - As a realtor, I have gotten to know many of the commur�ity's leading developers. As a land owner, our family sought a developer offering impeccable credentials...community commitment...and the genius to transform our family farm to a livable, attractive mixed-use residential community. . I Our family was pleased to receive written offers from four of the metro area's leading residential developers who embraced the Planning Commission's vision for CR 42 development based on the March 29, option III proposal for residential mixed-use development. ' � Last Friday, we Jearned that the Planning Commission had reguided one-quarter of our farm from residential to industrial. We believe that this land would sit for years and years since 140th Street would not be extended without development funds. Mindful of the demand for more rooftops to support retailers and the potentially enhanced tax base, we respectfully request that Planning Commission return the zoning of our property to mixed-use residentiaL We have sold our farm to a local development company, Ames Land Company, and tonight I'd like to introduce Shawn Dahl, Director Real Estate Development ; for Ames construction company to share the vision we have for our family farm. 1 � � � � � , ; A McAndrews/Courteau Familv Farm,Rosemount Minnesota May 10 Land Use Plan Workshop Intro• Good evening, my name is Shawn Da.hl the director of Real Estate Development far Ames Construction Company. Ames Land Company has created single family housing developments across the south metro area including Shakopee, Jardan, Belle Plaine, and Rochester. Now we are very excited to have the opportunity to work with the City of Rosemount. In the past few weeks we have met with City Staff regarding the draft land use plan. Additionally, we attended the April land use plan workshop. Although we feel that the land use plan is moving in the right direction, there are a few points that I would like to discuss with you tonight. I. Land use separation northJsouth sides of proposed Connemara collector extension The future extension of Connemara Trail will serve as an excellent separation point to transition from industrial on the north side of Connemara Trail to residential on the south side of Connemara Trail. Therefore, we would like to propose a revision to the land use plan to include 40 acres of inedium density on the north half of the eastern parcel in place of the industrial zoning classification. If the northern half of the eastern parcel is zoned medium density,there will be an orderly transition from an industrial use on the north side of Connemara Trail as well as the business park on the east to a medium density multi family use south of Connemara Trail. Through discussions with city staff, it is our understanding that future extensions of Connemara Trail will fall on the northern property line of the McAndrews family farm parcels. Industrial land may sit for years. How will Connemara Trail be extended without development driven funds? II. Hardships on North Propertv line The northern property line consists of several obstacles including overhead power lines, a proposed major collector(Connemara Trail), a proposed minor collector that is currently aligned approximately halfway through the McAndrews farm running east and west, and a 48" sanitary sewer interceptor line that runs diagonally across the North half of the properties. When easements for the interceptor line and overhead power lines are accounted for, the remaining area on the north half of the property will be more suited for a residential use rather than an industrial use. In other words, it is more feasible to develop 40 acres of a medium density use while creating a site plan around the various easements and or improvements on the northern line. Moreover,medium density use will . i help to offset the financial responsibilities of improving the future extension of Connemara trail. � � � � � III. City Goals for the area It is our understanding that the City of Rosemount desires a Commercial Retail complex in the eastern corridor of Rosemount that will include national retailers such as Target, Home depot, Byerly's,ECT. We could not agree mare that a commercial retail area will be an excellent addition to the eastern corridor of Rosemount. However, the"Big Box" Commercial retail is driven by the number of rooftops within a given area. Industrial uses will not attract commercial retail. IV. The Vision We envision the McAndrews family farm as a high quality mixed used master planned community that would include town homes, single family homes, adult/ senior living, and neighborhood commercial retail with pedestrian friendly accesses from the surrounding neighborhoods that would create a"retail community". We would like to create an Evermore neighborhood concept that will include a11 of the neighborhood retail amenities with in walking distance.