The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.d. Comprehensive Plan CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DISCUSSION CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE: February 11, 1999 AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Plan Update AGENDA NO. PREPARED BY: Dan Rogness, Community Development Director �� ,� �a ATTACHMENTS: Plan Information; Draft Interim Ordinance �� The public hearing on the city's 2020 Comprehensive Plan is being continued to February 9th before the Planning Commission. The following issues have been brought to staff s attention for discussion by the City Council at this work session: REVIEW PROCESS---I am attaching a page from the Met Council's Comprehensive Planning Handbook that describes their review process for our 2020 Plan. In general,the city cannot officially adopt an updated plan until the Met Council has provided their formal review comments. I'm assuming that the Planning Commission will close the hearing on the 9th and recommend to you a plan that can be approved on February 16 for submission to the Met Council. TRANSITION RESIDENTIAL (TR) ---I am attaching a memo that is being provided to the Planning Commission for review at its meeting on February 9, which identifies three possible options for the TR areas within the Comprehensive Plan. As directed by the council on February 2, a draft interim ordinance is also attached that would approve a moratorium within the Kelley Trust property that has the PDR(current)and TR(proposed)designation. If this measure is approved by the council, it will not stop the comprehensive planning process, but rather, it will stop the processing of development applications throughout the stated moratorium period. INDUSTRIAL LAND USES---I am attaching the existing 1993 and the new draft land use plan maps as comparisons for industrial development in eastern Rosemount. A significant change in total acres and MUSA boundaries is being proposed by staff. This change is based on two major assumptions: (1)that full water/sewer services will be available within a larger MUSA boundary, including some existing industries such as Continental Nitrogen, and(2)that the demand for general industrial development that requires larger land azeas will be strong between now and 2020. In addition, staff is proposing a new"Industrial Mixed Use" land use classification near the intersection of Highways 42 and 52 to accommodate some potential limited highway commercial uses (e.g.,truck stop). RECOMMENDED ACTION: For Discussion Only. Notes to Chart _ � Comprehensive Plan Steps - Step 1. Council amended the� : Regional Blueprint to include a - O O Regionai Growth Strategy and revised its rystem plans. Counal revised Council Sends summary Metrapolitan Developmenf infortnation to ail local Guide. govemmental un'its. Step 2. The summary information includes poli.cy-based forecasts, assumptions about new policy areas, . changes in rystem plans and land derriand. � Step S.After revising the plan, the O communixy sends it to adjacent munic-_ : 03 4 ipalitieS Und t0 the MettopOlitan- Local commun'dy decides Council staff and local Council for review. whether to revise its commun'�ty negotiate local comprehensive plan. forecast and land use - assumptions for the Step 6. Consistency with the community. Metropolitrcn Development Guide includes forecasts and resultant land demand, and other Blueprinx goals._' Conformity with metro rystemplans includes adequate information,sub= stantial impact on a rystem plan or a O O - substantial departure from a system - 5 plan. If a plan is incomparibte.with Local community revises Council reviews the plan for. _ > its comprehensive plan. -Consistency with Mefropolitan other jurisdictians plans, the�Council Development Guide can mediate di�ferences ax parties' ` - -Conformity with metro system _ plans reques� -Compatibility with other jurisdictions' plans Step 7. LotCtl controk—Zoning, . -Compatibility with other � state/federal regulatians. ordinances, cagital improve�ment pro-. : grams—must be consistent_with _ comprehensive plans. - _ .: Step 8. Communities that do riot have : . adopted comprehrnsive plans may be ineligible for Council incentives: O - � - Local commun'ity adopts Council gives priority for � : �_ . -_ ' plan and puts it into regional resources to e�� communities that support . . regionat goals, and revises .. -_ system plans as necessary. - - -- - --- -�----�- MEMO CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA TO: Mayo�& City Council and the Planning Commission FROM: Dan Rogness, Community Development Director � DATE: February 3, 1999 RE: Transition Residential (TR) Land Use Kelley Trust Property Based upon previous discussion at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, I am providing you additional information about the TR land use designation. More specifically, I would like to provide you three options for consideration in the draft 2020 Comprehensive Plan. OPTION #1 --- LOW DENSITY (EARLY DRAFT): This option would provide specific language in the Plan as to a low overall gross and/or net density within the TR land use. Allowable maximum densities = (A) gross density of 1.0 du/ac. (B) net density of 1.15 du/ac. These densities translate into no more than 540 total housing units within the Kelley Trust property. The Plan would also allow clusters of single family detached units at a net density of 2.4 du/ac and single family detached units at a net density of 5.8 du/ac. Future zoning would likely be a majority being the RL District with clusters of the R1 and R2 Districts. An additional provision could be added that would allow density bonuses for high-level amenities within the framework of the PUD. OPTION #2 ---CURRENT DRAFT PLAN: This option is currently being proposed in the January draft plan, which is very similar to the current (1993) comprehensive plan. The primary change is that overall density is provided as a general description ... "lower than UR and greater than RR°. In addition, a table describes all four residential land uses by providing an average net density for each category. The TR areas would have a combined average net density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Staff's calculation for new housing units assumed 1,050 within the Kelley Trust property. OPTION #3 ---COMBINED T.R.IU.R. AREAS: This option would amend the land use map to designate approximately 1/3 of the Kelley Trust property along the northern tier as TR and the remaining 2/3 of the property as UR (see attached land use map). Allowable maximum densities = (A.1) gross density of 1.0 du/ac for 180 acres within the TR area (A.2) gross density of 2.5 du/ac for 360 acres within the UR area (A.3) overall gross density of 2.0 du/ac (B) overall net density of 2.25 du/ac These densities translate into no more than 1,075 total housing units within the Kelley Trust property. The Plan would also allow clusters within the TR area for single family detached units at a net density of 2.4 du/ac. Future zoning would likely be RL for the TR area and a combination of R1 and R2 for the UR areas. An additional provision could be added that would allow density bonuses for high-level amenities within the framework of the PUD. • W I', • r ,�; ;(i ,1� 4 ��.~"'II•�M�..^,.., �-� �li}+ m'�f a� 1�t 'j � I ` I � ��, ` � '°' �, ,,r,� r' `�� •�� .i � I � • a � �r�, � , ' • P� . � `,� ��• -y��., ,.. � . � .:i'• " :...�a.� � o�s'{j) � . .�054 �T .r. �:.r t y�� i . �� •�Fp�.,"`,T �I � � �., d. .. �:.� , •� ;; , �:�� :;,Q o ;' .�;� ' '� � � �, c a :a� � ,o'. • � q � + .•� a._' -- {i � '-v� � ' ' 4'' � � i � ;"� � a .� � � �� ', .4 i � .-•. � � r i '� O µ � �� ,, � , . ... M � � '•.0 .. a: p � ` c .�:,.__J� A a�] � i.�i � ..�:_,�.`�.:(1 .o' 's ` �'.a, a -'r y F�1 �` Ir � r.+ � . ` i` � , �� ' �� _��._....I w � O � :� . -,. _ .� � .. � � � i .a. ": # ' ��::� �� 'Y � 4 .s.�an� f:��' ; ) .`hf.t'` ' � , . I W> �t�1. '�' �� I �� ` � ' d� � � ..�. . ~ �� I P , :,r .i i• �. '4` ':� 1 � � ',�,. �:. ,° �.A\ �:� 3� :j• ,� i = ;1 � ;� �'" �-'.• , � i � H `S y. '��'7, :.i; i�c� �% . _ ,j d � �I � i . _ �. i'•4 `�' `' � C z a:_ -- , i '��' �•' � � .;� _ j �1J� ...� ) i .. � . I .L � . -�h ij a0 Y � ti ti��.. ,t.�. _ .i', a � � � � • � , � `, �.1� F,:p�l�;�' �- . ,� . ., ,t''� v�N � ; y, r x/ .��1 , � • �N� i \��`� 66t� `. � p!- �I :;� 1�. 1 �� }P 9 �J ti.� .I „ y � ] ■ � \ � ! t,ir ! 'r �� .. �N� �' � t. ,+'" �ti �r?: �p w � Y�Z � t � .. t � i -'-f �> {/ � C >� E \ R " � nf v. , , O m N � 8 . � � t1` 15 \ ��'ti.�4 � � � � ��IS..� �� '•�� .. �O'� 'a � � 1 as y � C� �°u _ _ '- , -�> � __ � .,,< (,� � �� ,_,;. � 'y� N a , � ..�roQ a . � c ' � ;;u; � � �� a ' ;� O � � ',',. , ' �f.�flo �i. '.! 2^� .+ t h�� . .1`' I. � _ti �� `' �� . :- ,,* �1, �.I � `(� \ �� G6 T��`'i::l ��.� , . �,�I� Y:. dO F� .. � � • , : � ' �� i •. �� ' ��,� I� j�Yj ;�, ` ' '�� °s `��1 f" � ' .- .. i i�: , _ ri �,.. , r.l /� i . ' �•4c!ooQ. �� . - �� p FJ�CI�O �, �� a- . � � � �� L v . r, r �O '' �� ' p 4 t� R r'�;a � _ ,{ � b � , .�� •�. i� `!n.'1�, ;�� l �Il� �n ,�...�i �.s�- �f�.3 • � � ��.'.�� . ,� Z��1:.4. . � � �..� �. �r"� .�`.' . 1 [-� .��r�' � ' =� Q �' � ':� 4��'a "' P�� ' m � .,,,�� : `� � , �s Y �.d..A�,'C�J (� ; Si' :/1.` ..:� ..� � � ` f � •� • \ , ` .� , ! � � c ce m . ..'l5�� ! _ _� � ' � ,c .I U ,�. ✓ � �-- +r`.`S-��^'..'��..'. . � I ; c c m O .��t�:� 3 ^ . d � � ^ �._ I\'��/ I $ _ V y Q 5 p1 \�., .�� ^'.!l ' s � t- C � 1"�'1 '- li/� ��;� 1 �. PJ Y�','`��M�'�J-' � �� - ' W { . ti_�In p�d t : I. �-.� ��o t: ��,dp � � � � 8 � � . � ��}.y:: ` b , ��p ".`� O /� . a. '. ;„^ � —+ _� . � � d � � �� ',u�" r E � : � - '�• � � • � � •.w w,'' I,� � 0'� � , -r- �:c :o O � a y t7 e •A � 1 � 2 I I X P V, � _ _ � N o O : I Q L � � • � 7 � F '-' ' d c ou �a`� � Ci � 1 � 4 M N � � � i• � �� / .J" o nc //\� 0 o a u^ L � .� �. II [2] 3 f/� 0�0 � � '` - ,� V �(�� M � •.� - � � + _ W� RIlili }� � � - «_ a � � � `, _. � �x. � � ��3 0� � P�� - � PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREAS Areas designated Planned Development (PD) warrant extraordinary environmental considerarion. They are characterized either by unique nancral features such as woodlands, water, and topographic relief which warranrs sensitive treurment or they offer opportuniries for carefi�clly controlled mixed use development at prominenr locations in the Ciry. They will require careful evaluarion and review by the City. The PD designation is intended to be mandatory within areas so designated. PD-R PiAtv� RESIDENTI� existing rural residential development. Those areas located near podd Boulevard should accommodate The Planned Residential District has been created to clustering or be sufficiently low in density to protect guide development in a critical transition area the maximum amount of existina woodland. between rural residential and urban residential neiahborhoods of the City. This area is located �e PD desianation is intended to foster planned north of the current urban residential development development as a sinale unit with build out phased boundary along Shannon Parkway between the to market conditions. Clustering is intended to be western city bauBda.ry and Dodd Boulevard. This employed as appropriate to maximize the � approximately 520-acre tract of property is currently relationship between development and the natural owned by the Kelley Trust. environment. When developed, this area is intended to have an �SOURCE PROTECTION urban/rural character with a mixture of housing OBJEC'77VES types, but with a relatively low overall density needed to protect its unique stands of upland It is the City's objective to protect natural resource:• hardwoods and variable topoa aphy. It is an azea t6at is intended to have urban landscaped streets by' with curb and gutter, sidewalks, and all public 1. adaptinD development to natural landforms rather utilities. than s�°nificantly altering them; 2. protecting and/or replacinD natural resources and Part of this area already has public sanitary sewer incorporaie these resources into the overall and water services available. It is in single development plan; and ownership which will readily allow it to be planned 3. protectina of the rural lifestyle of adjacent rural as a unit. Areas of special natural resource concem residendal areas. are the hilly areas along the northern edge of the ' property, the dense woodlands with cleared openings lyin;westerly of Dodd Boulevard and PD�C�S numerous wetland areas. Densities in these azeas are intended to be low enough to allow for the creation In addition to applicable residential policies, the of open space which correlates with natural feature followina policies for natural resource protection preservation. PD-R plans must demonstrate their with Planned Residential Developments (PD-R) are seasitivity to existing natural land forms, wedands, intended to: and vegetation protection. 1. have major collector and arterial streets The Planned Residential PD-R is intended to constructed, as much as possible, through accommodate single-family housing both attached clearinas rather than through stands of significant and detached. To the extent that higher densities and ��' clustering are warranted to preserve natural features 2• have streets designed to follow the natural or attain the overall gross density, high amenity contour; townhouses may be considered. Generally, density 3• ��blish a trail connection from Birger Pond to along the northem edge of the PD should be lower Schwarz Pond/Carrolls Woods via Shannon than the average PD-R density so as to respect Elementary School; — ,�o 4. require landscaped buffer yards or building 5. require tree replacement with similar species to setbacks a minimum of one hundred feet (100') recreate approximately the ori;inal vegetative in width adjacent to rural residential azeas. As mix. adjacent densities increase beyond those of R-1, buffer yards should be increased in size proportionately; and RESIDENT7� PD R PD-MU Pr.�rNED Mrx� UsE PERFOR111A1VCE CRITERIA While Mixed Use areas clearly have commercial In the interest of protecting natural resources and potential, the City is concemed that they may inhibit the rural lifestyle, the following performance criteria �e full development of downtown Rosemount. will apply to all azeas designated PD-R: These areas are prominently located in the City immediately adjacent to arterial streets, they are in 1. ninety percent (90%) of slopes steeper than areas that might be classified as sensitive because twenty percent (20% {a vertical elevation until now, they have been planned for residential, difference of twenty (20) or more feet}) to be not commercial development. They are also located protected; in close proximity to existing and future residential . 2. one hundred percent (100%) of lands having the land uses. � chazacteristics of a wedand (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and intermittent Land uses intended to be accommodated in the PD- saturation) to be protected and/or value replaced NII,T azea include residential, commercial, and office in accordance with the requirements of the uses. The azea is intended to be planned as a unit Wetland Conservation Act of 1991; wherever possible and must adhere to a development 3. eighty percent (80%) of existing significant trees concept which call for a gradient in land use from (a 12-inch caliper or larger deciduous tree higher to lower density. Residential densities should excludina elm, willow, box elder, and aspen, or conform to those of Urban Residential areas. an 8-inch caliper or larger coniferous tree) to be protected, maintained and/or replaced for the Commercial development within these areas is. overall site (see tree replacement ordinance); intended to be allowed only when and where traffic 4. one hundred percent (100%) of existing can be accommodated via existina cross streets, a vegetation to be protected and/or replaced within viable plan is submitted, a mazket study is presented designated buffer yazds; which est�blishes market absorption capabilities and 5. one hundred percent (100%) of an established the proposed development is pre-leased in buffer yard to be privately maintained in accordance with prevailing financial standards. The permanent open space; respective commercial and residential policies of this 6. 2.5 units/acre permitted as an overall PD-R plan shall apply within mixed use azeas. density, excluding park land dedication, wedands and slopes (twenty percent (20%) or greater); Uses considered to be generally acceptable within and mixed use azeas are those that would be compatible 7. sixty percent (60�) of site to be maintained as with uses in the town center. These may include soft cover (maximum forty percent [40°b] hazd uses such as: highway service, fast food and surface coverage). convenience retail uses, and larger scale projects such as home improvement, building supplies, hardware and garden supply stores, and home furnishing stores of a freestanding nature. Day care centers, offices, and institutional uses are also acceptable within mixed use areas. Industrial uses aze not considered appropriate in this area. Higher intensity uses must be buffered from residential - uses. - - - „�� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, PLACING A MORATORIUM ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI�CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Background. 1.01. Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.864, subd. 2 requires the city to review and, if necessary, amend its comprehensive plan and official controls by December 31, 1998. 1.02. The city's comprehensive plan has not been updated since 1993. 1.03. As required by law the city is and will be reviewing, updating and amending its comprehensive plan and official controls. 1.04. The city council has deternuned that an azea of the city, as described herein, which is commonly known as the Kelley Trust property, is an area of approximately 540 acres which requires special care in development because, among other reasons: it is under single ownership and currently undeveloped and therefore represents a unique opportunity to accomplish the city's land use planning objectives through a unified, integrated land use design; it is comprised in rolling topography with scenic vistas, wetlands and oak savannah forests which should be protected and preserved by development which is compatible with such natural amenities; and it is sufficiently large that its development and the density of its development will have a substantial effect on the overall residential development of the city,the mix of housing types available in the city and public utilities and services. 1.05. In connection with consideration of a proposal for development of the azea affected by this ordinance and an application for planned unit development concept approval, the city council has reviewed the existing and potential development in the area. As a result of that process, the Council has determined that current land use controls do not adequately address the various land use concerns described above. 1.06. Therefore the council has determined that there is a need for further studies and hearings to be conducted as part of the state mandated comprehensive plan review process so that the city may adopt such amendments to its comprehensive plan and zoning code as aze deemed necessary or expedient to ensure protection of the public, health, safety and welfare. The council has directed that such studies be undertaken and that such hearings be conducted and completed. 1.07. Due to the pendency of an application for concept approval for a planned unit development which may not be consistent with future amendments to the comprehensive plan and official controls and the potential for other such development,the council has determined that there CLL-157784 1 RS215-4 is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statues, Section 462355, Subd. 4, for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city, and ensuring that the city and its citizens retain the benefits of, and the protection sought to be afforded by, the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances until the study process is complete and any modifications to the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance become effective. • Section 2. Properties Subject to Moratorium. 2.01. Properties subject to the provisions of this moratorium include the properties described below: PARCEL 1 The Northwest Quarter(NW 1/4) of Section 19,Township 115,Range 19. Except the South 400 feet thereof, and except the East 275 feet of the North 950 feet of the South 1350 feet thereof (the exception being parts of Country Hills Fourth Addition and Country Hills Fifth Addition). PARCEL 2 The Northeast Quarter(NE 1/4) of Section 19,Township 115,Range 19. Except that part of the South 1350 feet lying west of the East 2000 feet thereof(the exception being part of Country Hills Fourth Addition, Country Hills Fifth Addition and part of Shannon Pazk School Addition). ALSO Except the West 725 feet of the East 2000 feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 115, Range 19, lying North of the South 200 feet and lying South of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the West line of the East 2000 feet 1350.11 feet North of the South line of the Northeast 1/4 as measured along the West line thereof, thence Southeasterly to a point on the East line of the West 72� feet of the East 2000 feet and its intersection with the North line of the South 1100 feet and there terminating (the exception being part of Shannon Park School Addition). ALSO Except the West 625.05 feet of the East 1275 feet of the North 900.07 feet of the South 1100 feet of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 115 North, Range 19 West(the exception being part of Shannon Pazk School Addition). PARCEL 3 The East 2000 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 19, Township 115, Range 19. Except that part platted as Country Hills Eighth Addition And Except that part of the Southeast 1/4 commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 3, Country Hills 3rd Addition, thence North on the East line of said plat 80 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be excepted; thence continuing North 250 feet, thence East parallel to the South line 300 feet, thence South 250 feet, thence West 300 feet to the point of beginning. CLL-157789 2 RS215-4 PARCEL 4 The South One-Half of the Northwest Quarter (S 1/2 of NW 1/4) and the North One-Half (N 1/2) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Twenty (20), Township One Hundred Fifteen (115), Range Nineteen (19), according to the Government Survey thereof. All in Dakota County, Minnesota. Section 3. Prohibition. 3.01. Except as provided in Section 4, during the period this interim ordinance is in effect, no properties subject to the moratorium may be developed, or redeveloped and no site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than renewals), plattings or replattings, planned unit development, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits, or building permits will be considered, approved or granted by the city. Section 4. Exception. 4.01. This ordinance shall not apply to: a) developments or redevelopments which have secured all necessary approvals other than building permits; b) issuance of building permits for projects which do not require site plan approval pursuant to New Brighton City Code, Section 8-010; or c) final plat or subdivision approval which have received preliminary plat approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance, provided all conditions of preliminary plat approval have been satisfied. Section 5. Effect on Pending Applications. 5.01. All applications subject to this moratorium which are pending or which aze received during the time this ordinance is in effect shall be deemed to be denied for purposes of Minnesota Statues, Section 15.99. The City Administrator shall cause notification of such denial to be given to all applicants stating the adoption of this ordinance as the reason therefor. Fees paid in connection with such applications shall be returned or refunded to the applicant. Section 6. Effective and Termination Dates. 6.01. This ordinance shall be effective on the date following its publication. CLL-157789 3 RS215-4 6.02. This ordinance shall be repealed without further action by the City Council on , 19_, unless earlier amended, repealed or extended by ordinance duly adopted by the City Council. Cathy Busho, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Walsh, City Clerk CLL-157764 4 RS215-4 �� c��«�.c�. 12620 Sf�a�uiaa 9'axf#u�au� `.Roee.mount,.A�tircneeata 5506tf 651-322-4119 January 29, 1999 Mr. Tim Erkkila � Pri.ncipal Planner . 7599 Anagram Drive , Eden Pra.irie,MN 55344 RE: Kelley Trust Properry Dear Mr. Erkkila, I am a homeowner north of the Kelley Trust Property. Many homeowners north of the Kelley Property have contacted me with their concems over the proposed development plans. Many of my neighbors and I attended the Planning Commission work session on January 26, 1999 and heard your sales presentation of the proposed development plans. I appreciated the comment that you welcome community involvemern in the planning phase and will summarize the major concerns that I have and that I have heard from my neighbors. 1. Density. A 1400 units is too many for the land. The Kelley Trust is the last open space in Rosemount. It is the home to deer, fox, owls, hawks,brush wolves, and other beautiful wildlife. It is an area.that is thoroughly enjoyed by many people from all over Rosemount who enjoy biking and walking the path The proposed development seriously cuts into the most sensitive habitats for the wildlife. It will be much easier for you to market and sell your development if the wildlife habitats and open space is maintained. This is a very unique feature of the land and should be preserved. In order to sell the very expensive homes that you propose on the land, preserving the ww�dlife and open spaces would be the best way to accomplish your sales goals. B. The density of 1400 units realistically means 2800 cars with access to Shannon Parkway, 131 st Street and Dodd Road. This is totally unacceptable as well as unsafe because these roads were not built to withstand that amount of traffic. At your meeting your representarives stated that you don't want to discuss traffic at this point. However, it is one of our major concerns and must be addressed before the concept design is approved. 2. Fiduciary and Community Responsibility of the Kelley Trust. The Kelley family was granted much land in ivfinnesota after the Civil War. They . were fortunate to be given a very precious gift. They have sold land to developers and have made a tremendous amount of money. The Rosemount land in the Kelley Trust is the last open space left in our community. The Kelley Trust should show good - stewardship of this valuable community asset. While we do not object to their ' development of the property,we think they owe a duty to the community to develop it in such a way as to leave a legacy of wildlife preservation and the continued enjoyment of rural living. 3. Our Proposals. A. Lower Density to 1000 units. This will lessen traffic and preserve open spaces and habitats. B. All new traffic in the development must be routed by cul-du-sac and design to Diamond Path or the newly formed Connemara Trail. This can be done nicely with gated . entrance ways. No new traffic should be routed to Shannon Pazkway, Dodd Road or 131 st. The proposed intersection north of the school must be eliminated. C. The transition from nual residential to the development must be made more elegantly and gradually with preservation of open space and the trees. D. The townhouses proposed north of the school on Shannon Parkway must be eliminated because it destroys the primary wildlife habitat in the area.. Thank you for allowing comments to made at this phase in the development. We are hopeful that you are willing to work with the community in order to design a beautiful development while still preserving the wildlife habitats,trees, open spaces and the enjoyment of rural living. I'm sure the Kelleys would want the community to eIIjoy the rural living and wildlife that they have the opportunity to enjoy for over 100 years. These are the assets that will sell your development. We are prepared, however, to pursue all legal and political remedies should compromise not be reached. Sincerely, Donna Bergsgaard cc Cathy Busho,Planning Commission . � �� W`�- City of Rosemount 3.5 Industrial Plan 3.5.1 Background Rosemount is one of a few cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area that has a number of visible "heavy' industrial uses, including Koch Refining, CF Industries, Continental Nitrogen, Endres Processing, and Spectro Alloys. However, a new industrial area has developed since 1995 known as the Rosemount Business Park near the intersection of Highways 3 and 42. This 80-acre area is currently home to Cannon Equipment Company and Geometrix with approximately 25 acres remaining for high quality industrial uses. The Rosemount Port Authority developed the business park with hopes of it starting the development of a much larger 400-acre area that is bounded by Highway 42, 160�' Street, Biscayne Avenue, and Highway 3. Additional industrial development areas exist along 145�' Street (Greif Brothers), and Diamond Path (Rosemount Woods), and . Highway 3 (former Brockway Glass). 3.5.2 The Future The City desires to strengthen the industrial sector of Rosemount primarily in the eastern "Pine Bend" and the business park areas. Much of the land currently designated for general industrial activity is owned by Koch Refining. In addition, most of the land currently designated for business park activity is owned by 2-3 parties that utilize the land for crop production. The City is designating some vacant land in eastern Rosemount within the MUSA for future municipal utility services including services to existing development (e.g., Continental Nitrogen). The following chart displays acreage of vacant sites (net acres)within each category at the time of both the 1993 and 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update. Vacant Land;Guided for Vacant Land Guided for General inclustrial=Use �z Business,Park:Use ',:` �:- 1:993 ' S'`< _1998 ` ` 4:�r�1993 , _� -:1998.`�: inside MUSA 425 1050 160 300 outside MUSA 75 25 160 0 TOTAL 500 1075 320 300 Figure 3.5-A 3.5.3 Estimated Demand Industrial space demand can be a function of many variables, one being location along principal arterial roadways. For purposes of this analysis, however, employment projections made by the Metropolitan Council for 2010 and 2020 will be the basis for acreage demands. 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update The employment forecast shows an increase of 4,555 new jobs between 1995 and 2020 for an average of 180 per year. Assuming that finro-thirds (2/3) of the new jobs are related to industrial businesses,then 120 new jobs per year . translates into 3.0 million square feet of industriai space (at 10 jobs per 10,000 square feet). This further translates into a land area need of approximately 12-15 acres per year, or 300-375 acres during the 25-year planning period. �Fhis forecast should be increased, however, since businesses in eastem Rosemount are expected to be larger land users (e.g., truck terminals and heavy industries). Therefore, a multiplier of 2.0 should be used, resulting in a forecast range of 600- 750 acres of industrial need from 1995-2020. 3.5.4 Land Use Categories The industrial land uses are divided into three general categories, including General Industrial (GI), Business Park (BP), and Mixed Industrial (MI). Each category is intended to address the industrial needs of varied locations within � Rosemount. Figures 3.5-B through 3.5-C present maps of industrial areas. The industrial land uses are further defined as follows: � General Industrial (GI). This category is intended to allow a wide range of industrial uses, including those that rely on outside storage and heavy equipment operations. These land uses are more typical of those currently found in the eastem °Pine Bend" area with the predominant use being Koch Refining. Only one area of GI is provided west of Akron Avenue, which is located along the north side of 160�' Street directly east of Highway 3. Approximately 750 net acres would be available in this area for new development within MUSA. Business Park (BP). This category is intended to allow a more narrow range of industrial uses, including those that may include corporate offices and/or high technology operations. Higher standards of site and building design are part of this district. One predominant area of BP is provided south of Highway 42, north of 160"' Street (future Highway 46), west of Biscayne Avenue, and east of Highway 3. Two other smaller areas include property along both sides of 145�' Street west of Biscayne Avenue and the former Brockway Glass buildings. Approximately 300 net acres would be available in this area for new development, all within MUSA. Mixed Industrial (MI). This category is intended to allow a mix of general industrial uses and highway oriented commercial uses. This new land use designation is proposed for an area to the north and to the southeast of the Highway 42/52 intersection. Rosemount supports this designation in anticipation of a major reconstruction of that intersection by 2005, which would allow safer on and off access points. Approximately 275 net acres would be available in this area for new development, all within the MUSA. 4� � — � I �1 � � �!`1��. :a: - �..:� ';--�� ':�'.' �� ` ��:� — 1'� -;�j � .r_ (�""-- �, i - C � � � , , ��., - � � . ; ; � - � -C�- . -C�- • ' ; �, D z ` - z O � ��`�;.. � ' '� .�. � _�. Z �- � � � ��;�, �.; . O _ �' ; ' .�'p �L— �;� �- _ �� _ �. _i�� \.'='�4� — -- _ - ---- -- �.�� _ C.S. t�, . _= '- — y�'� —,�4+, _----- ---------— l.�`i V� s�'a f ` �' , �`�'i .X - - '' ".�. '�'��`, ----- � � I ' _ i ' — _ - i I � i � i C . - � I _ � . _ , 1— � ' ! I ; 1 ; j : � CO�e.S ( — ' ' �-- � Legend � I nd ustri al Areas .. � General Industriai (GI) Eastern Rosemount � NGxed Industrial (MI) (�) .f��YS . 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update 0.5 0 0.5 � �� City of Rosemount _ � ��.,�:�.___.__:�.y-�---- -- 1 � / �� -- -�! �, � , � , � � �, , � . �. ;� � . • � , . �� `�� - �� r�.� �� . ��-' �.. � ._�. \ � i 1 l� �� r ��;� �\-rv � . �. � ' ,��s � .��. � . ��j ��.��` . � �:�3�`�'�.�e�y�'�� P)i,',�.;��;� ' „.:i.:.ti1' �`�1'�`'"'`t�? `�c',�t" ''•'x�+:E�� ' � i �� y.i'" 'i!' � � �;`+�a��j,e•Y ;��,:i�a��:a�� •�e[S�ii:•'i�,� � I i I • �/ 1 m I� 5�'!4t QG � �—.4 �� • I � • I r � rl��V E 50 1 1 • • - - - ' . • • . - . � ' • - • I��( � 1� ��7 v � V• +• ' ( ��a� � • �� . � � � I - � i � I , ; '� � � - i . + • i f , � ■. ; � I � � T � ~ 1 F (f� I i V = i i i I I °�E� , , , r S I � � W b � � y�? , i i , ; � ' '' I � � ; ^ : ��.S �..H 42 ; � � ' I � � � � I i� I I I � � i u�r ,� ' i I � � I : J � , � ' � i i , � � � � i I I � � � ' ° � � �� i � ; ; � � 5 f`` LR��N CER�'ICE ARE� � � � o , , � ,� � Octo�er. 1�3 � �`P�" Camprehensive Guide Pla RU�IEg�IP �,�°R`��s lipdate 2000 .�..�. i II / _._ `' `�!'I ;r - - - F� : �,,- _ - � ! " �� ; � - - � - � , -- Q �� r ' � , � � __ �-,�1,�„�;__-�: � � 1 �1 'I i � '1 Z ' °, 1 .- ` ' `1; J �=� � •`��, I J 1 '1 I 1 U I � � ' :--��'��::� .��_.i_�_- �� • �� 1~' --- �. • �`` �- �� ' �■1�� \ �1� -,_ ��7�;=' � - � 1, � ► � _ _� _ ' �,� r� '�+ �j: �� .\�, � � _.=: _� � � -.��;J \��`. � � � � � ` � � 2 � �2� ' ��j �� l ■ ,�/ � � -, � , , ��` 2 0 � `��' 9 �% � , t/� . ��.� � � . . �.: � -. ,_ `,.__ _ �__-_. �. __,, '�� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �� - � -- - - - - - ,� � .� � � � ,6 �; � Z� , � i � 0 29 � :� � ,�.� , •� - , � � III � ■ _ __� - I f��--'�� ; , • � �; �\ , �r'��, ; ;_ Z � ' r !�'1 � J � �1�' Ri� z � Z7 �. � �,�� • • = � i - - � � _ �i:�`u��! � . - ., , � � o�ti1�1pG � « � � - � � � � � ii � • � • � . . �-.�- ,� � � I I I ,. - � �li��,.E 50 , � ,: