The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.b. 42/52 Draft Land Use PlanCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION Work Session Meeting Date: December 15, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: 42/52 Draft Land Use Plan AGENDA SECTION: Discussion....: PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AGENDA NO.. ,::P- _ ATTACHMENTS: Map, Flint Hills letter dated 12/7/04 APPROVED BY RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Direction to Staff ACTION: ISSUE Planning and Engineering staff has been meeting with the 42/52 study group for the last 6 months to discuss potential land uses in the eastern portion of the community. While the initial focus of the group was from Akron to the 42/52 interchange, it was felt discussion about land uses within the entire eastern portion of the community would be appropriate. BACKGROUND In February, staff discussed with the Council the idea of putting together a committee to review land uses in the 42/52 area. At that time the Council indicated that they would like to wait until the KFS process was further along. In May, the Council discussed organizing the land use committee for the 42 /52.area. The committee members included 3. property owner representatives from Flint Hills Resources, UMORE Park, and Vesterra Mining. There were two members of the Planning Commission and one City Council representative. The 42/52 land use group has met five times: August 8, 2004 September 8, 2004 September 27, 2004 October 25, 2004 November 15, 2004 The group has toured each quadrant of the study area. Some of the meetings have had other property owners or interested parties in attendance. The packets were forwarded to the Group and the City Council and are available for public review. Discussions by the group primarily focused on the land use plan and appropriate uses for the community. The attached map depicts the draft generally agreed to by the group. This should not be interpreted that there was a formal vote of approval, or that all members approved of every land use designation in every location. Rather, this was a generally agreed to plan for purposes of showing the City Council and beginning the public comment process. This item is coming to the Council to ensure the Council is relatively comfortable with the ideas embodied in the Plan prior to holding community meetings. Staff will be mailing invitations to all property owners setting up 3 "neighborhood meetings" during January and February of 2005. Comments from the meeting will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The Commission will begin the formal comprehensive plan amendment process needed to reguide properties within the 42/52 area. Meanwhile, WSB is working on a draft of the transportation system needed for the east side. The transportation plan will be looking at general perimeters and guidelines for locating local collectors and arterials and how the local system will complement the adjoining regional system. The land use map will also be used to assess future water and sanitary sewer systems. The more difficult assessment is going to be the water system for the east side, and how it should dovetail with the existing "western" system. All the utility information will need to be complete in order to approve a MUSA expansion, allowing additional development in the community. The City Council approved a moratorium on November 3, 2004 encompassing the MUSA area (excluding the property designated Waste Management) within the 42/52 Study Area. SUMMARY The draft plan is provided to the Council for a brief overview. If the council is generally comfortable with the land uses proposed, staff will begin the public comment process. If the Council has specific concerns about the type of land use, the particular location of the land use, or the amount of land designated for specific use, staff will be happy to modify the plan prior to public review. However, the goal of the 15 meeting is not to approve the plan. Rather, the draft plan is just the beginning of a formal review process that will begin with neighborhood meetings to solicit public comment. Staff received a letter from Flint Hills regarding concerns they have about designating land uses, particularly residential, east of Akron Avenue. The letter, attached, indicates they cannot support the draft land use plan for this reason. They have also indicated that they are working on a land use plan for their property. They stated that a draft should be available after the first of the year. Staff will be meeting with Flint Hills and the consultant during their land use process. At this time staff is not requesting direction on this particular issue. Rather, it is expected that comments for a variety of property owners will be received during the public comment process. At this time we are interested in having approval of a plan to solicit public feedback only. There will be plenty of opportunity for extensive discussion on a more detailed basis during the next several months. 2 CONCLUSION If the Council is comfortable with the draft plan for purposes of public review and comment, staff will begin to initiate the three neighborhood meetings. If the Council would like to amend the Plan, further direction is needed. 3 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES Pine Bend Refinery December 7, 2004 Ms. Kim Lindquist Community Development Director City of Rosemount 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Dear Kim: P.O. Box 64596 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55164 651.437.0700 Thank you again for including Flint Hills Resources in the 52 /42- Corridor Study Group. We appreciate the opportunity to take an active part in planning the future of Rosemount. As we have previously discussed, the City's examination of future growth options prompted our company to examine our long -term plans for the Pine Bend Refinery property. While our internal examination is still ongoing, Refinery management has looked at our property and the latest 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 development near the Refinery is compatible with our operations and that sufficient buffer exists between the Refinery and residential development. A sufficient buffer serves 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. The 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 Refinery. 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 development. We understand the City's desire to guide future development and increase its tax base through an appropriate combination of residential, commercial and industrial development. We have hired consultants to help us develop a comprehensive plan for our property and nearby land and would Ms. Kim Lindquist December 7, 2004 Page 2 like to discuss alternative ideas for guiding land 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 with questions or comments. Sincerely Don Kern Property Manager cc: Bill Droste ` cc: Jamie Verbrugge cc: Rick Pearson cc: Jeff Wilkes cc: John Shardlow cc: Walter Rockenstein County RD 42 -- Highway 52 Land Use Map (Draft -- Full Size) N 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 Miles Source: Dakoft Co. GIS Dept 6 City of Rommount Nov. 2004 Legend 2020 Musa Line 2010 Musa Line Land Use Analysis Area City Boundary Railroads 42-52 corridor land use concept 5.shp AG BP C GI IM HD MD UR PI PO WM RR AIR CARGO CC N 0.4 0 0.4 0.8 Miles Source: Dakoft Co. GIS Dept 6 City of Rommount Nov. 2004