HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. Comprehensive Guide Plan Update 2000 (Rhodes Property - Rural Residential vs. Urban Residential) �v
<
Com rehensive Guide Plan
p
U date 2000
p
City of �osemount
January, 1993
WQRKING DRAFT
� __--
7anuary 4, 1993
- � City of �osemount '
Comprehensive Guide Plan
Update 2000
Outline 4
I. Introduction
A. Purpose
B. Process
II. Planning Context
A. RegionaUHistorical Setting
B. Community Profile
1. Demographic
2. Economy
III. Community Goals
IV. Growth Projections
A. �iistorical Trends
B. Existing Land Use
C. Available Land
D. Future Land Needs
V. Comprehensive Plan
A. Land Use Element
l. Agriculuture
2. Fiousing and Nieghborhoads
3. Residential
4. Public and Institutional
5. Commercial
6. Industrial
a. Business Pazk
b. GeneralIndustrial
7. Waste Management
8. Planned Development Areas
B, Transportation Element
1. Existing Transporta.tion Network
2. Street and Iiighway Plan
3. Transit Plan
C. Public Facilities and Services Element
l. Public Utilities
2. Public Services
3. Schools
D. Environmental Protection Element
E. Economic Development Element
VI. Implementation Plan
i
__ . _ __ _ .
. _
---- _ _
__ ___
, HISTORICAL CONTEXT
.
HISTORI� RC�S�MOiINT'
1838-1852 Large village of the Kapozia Sioux on the shores of the Mississippi River extending back to
present-day Highway 52.
1853 Land in the Rosemount area was first claimed by whites when the first settl-er in the area,
William Strathern,claimed the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 115,Range 19.
1854 Other settlers arrive and stake their ciaims in the central and eastern portions of the City.
First religious services held,Reverend Kidder presiding.
1855 The post office established on the shores of Lake Keegan and named Rosemount, Section 2L
First Postmaster: Andrew Keegan.
1857 The Rich Valley post office established in Secdon 26. First Postmaster: GH. Carr.
Minneapolis-Cedar Valley Railroad reaches Rosemount.
1858 T'he Board of County Commissioners meet to offcially designate congressional Township 115
North, Range 19 West(the area of present day Rosemount west of Highway 52)by the name
of Rosemount. The Town of Rosemount was named and organized centered around Dodd
Boulevard. The name was chosen to honor a villmge in Ireland. Small school built.
1866 The Village of Rosemount was formally laid out by d.A. Case.
1867 Grain etevator built.
Civil War Era 52 of Rosemount's men fought in the Civil War as enlisted men.
1871 An act of the legislature annexed the west half of Township 115 North, Range 18 West. This
is now the Pine Bend industrial area(named for the Village of Pine Bend that was vacated).
1875 The Village of Rosemount was incorporated. Dakota County Tribune began publication.
1876 The first Rosemount town hall was erected.
1896 New school district building built. Heid grades 1-8.
1909 First State Bank granted charter.
1918 First High School built. Replaced the o!+ler school as well. Held grades 1-12.
WW II The Federai Government acquired about 12,000 acres of land in southern Rosemount and
northern Empire Township for the manufacture of explosives for use in the war. Before this
facility was completed the eud of the war made it unnecessary and a stop order terminated
its operation. Eight thousand acres of the properly was later sold to the University of
Minnesota for use as a Research Center.
1945 The first fire department in Rosemount organized.
1955 Rosemount Engineering established.
1956 Great Northern Oil refinery begins produetion.
1961 Brockway G(ass begins operations.
1963 Ken Rose Center built, now called the Rosemount Mall.
1969 Koch purchases the Great Northern Oil refinery.
1970 Zoo land dedicated. Dakota County Technicai College opens. First graduating class in the
spring of 197L
1971 The Township and Village of Rosemount merge. City hall moves to the site of the Township
Center on 145th Street across from Dakota County Technical Coltege.
1972 First Comprehensive Guide Plan adopted.
i975 Rosemount became a statutory city with a major-council form of government.
1986 Brockway Glass Company closes Rosemount facility.
1987 New city hall built.
1992 Community Center/Armory Construction begins.
CITY OF ROSEMOUN'I' 3 JANUARY, 19 3
_ �� ���T
.
` PLANNING CONTEXT
�,��,,,,, Population Change
REGIONAL SETTING '�° 's'v-'�°
„o � ���..�,��
,� �.��
Rosemount is located in the Southeastern corner of � � �,�,�,,,,,�,
the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area, about �o �
15 miles from both cities. It occupies just under 36 �
square miles of land and is inhabited by � R �
approximately 10,000 persons. Most of the original ,�
white settlers were immigrants from Northern � � � ^
Europe, principly Ireland, Germany and 10 �
Scandinavia. o
,o�o.,oeo ,a�o.,ao ,9eo�,aoo
r.ar
In 1971, the Township and City merged to form
what is now known as the City of Rosemount. But
even into the 1980's, the community was a free- Figure 1. Population Growth for 1960-1990.
standing growth center, servicing the surrounding I,�P��ON CH,ARACTERISTICS
rural azea. Eventually the Metropolitan Area
expanded and surrounded Rosemount, and the
number of commuters desiring homes in the area L�ge
exploded. Rosemount has a youthful population, a consistent
Because the City has both a strong community pattern over the last three decades. The 1980 and
histo and is also in a position to function as a the l9'70 Census figures showed that the 10-14 year
�' old a e rou was the largest cohort. In 1990 the
commuter suburb, it holds a very unique posrtion in I� eg a e pou became the group between 30 and
the region. The community attracts in new families, g g g p
as is evident in the increasing number of housing 34 years old, fallowed closely by the 25-29 age
rou About 20� of the population is now between
permits issued, yet stilt tries to keep the atmosphere g p•
holdin on to their unique 25 and 34 years old. This indicates significant in-
of a small town, by g migration of young families into the City.
downtown center. It is considered the prime
commercial area of town, as well as the location of .�e census also shows that the new born to four
three of the four schools and the armory site, which eaz. olds are the largest of the children's groups,
will also serve as a community and sports center Y
when it is com leted. representing..l0.percent of the population. '��e
p �-���>:.�� This large a preschool population
.::<�x _,_...::.........:�;
Even though the population growth of the may mdicate tl�at the 25-34 year olds are beginning
metropolitan area has been slow, the growth in their families. it also indicates a greater need for
Rosemount and Dakota County has heen day-care and preschools in the community than has
phenomenal. Since 1960, Rosemount has noticed a been previously demanded.
population growth over 300% and is expected to �ose age groups over 35 have maintamed a
grow to almost 30,000 persons by 2010. Dakota �����'�'��
County has also had rapid population growth, and is constant growth rate over the last 20 years. �i;��
Q un in the state. �:�':� ��'��'����"'�'�''��> illustrates the change in composition of
now the fastest browing co ty .��������>�� Ros^ �o t's population over time.
�;�;compares the growth of Rosemount,�Dakota
County and the Metropolitan Area. ���� ••��•��°>�°�<>���°``��'�� shows, the under 35 population
As �i��?;�::>::::>:::::>;:::>:;:::><::
of Rosemount, (with the exception of the 20-24 year
olds,) is growing much faster rate than the same age
group of either Dakota County or the Metro Area.
The reverse is true for the 20-24 year olds and those
larruaRY, 1993
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 4
. . � . �'�';,"� A9, s+�w+�
1 .
� .� ., .
• persons 35 and over. This trend may be explained �+CONOMIC �PPORTUNITY AND
by the fact that Rosemount has only just become AC�ITIES�
part of the Metro Area. When the older age group
began first purchasing their homes and having
children, those chose the first- and second-tier Labor Force
suburbs to the North of Rosemount, like °
Bloomington and Eagan. The labor force in Rosemount has been growing at a
constant rate with the population. It is also more
HottsehOld Size educated than it was in the past and can command
greater salazies.
1fie average household size in Rosemount has
decreased considerably over the past 20 years. The As mentioned above in the section on education, the
average size has dropped from about 4 persons per level of education attained by Rosemount residents
household in 1970 to 3.1 in 1990, and the � is increasing. Similarly, the jobs held by the
Metropolitan Council has projected a further drop to residents are changing from predominately blue
2.7 by 2010. collar jobs back in 1970 to predominately white
collar jobs in 1990. ���;:���€�<�:�;„;:��;;;;�;;:;;;�
Rosemount's young adult population, skewed towazd
the 25-35 age group makes this assumption seem The change from mainly blue-to white-collar work
less likely. Therefore, the City's projection assumes means that the residents' incomes are also
a slower decline. But in other parts of the increasing. ���;ti;��::�<'::>`:<���shows how income per
Metropolitan area where single-parent families or household has increased from 1970 to 1990.
families with fewer children are prevalent, this
number will very likely be more accurate. �DI� ��ED
YEA,R I INCOME I CPI INCOME
Education
1970 $12,692 41.7 $12,692
Rosemount's population is well educated. 96 percent 1980 $22,006 86A $20,714
of the residents graduated from high school and 65
percent went on for university education or technical 1990 $41,992 122.8 $21,491
,.....................;;::.;:.;;:.:::.:
training.' �.�i�:�`��gux�;:�'.'.'.'';;:�
Table I. Source: U.S. Census and the Statistical
Rosemount citizens have always been well educated Abstract for 1970, 1980, and 1990.
and their education levels are continuing to raise.
�1���::>;:::::<�, ;:,�;;�;;;;�shows that over time the population
Employment
is changing from primarily a population dependent
on a high school diploma to a population with an Rosemount has several large employers with 30 or
increasing amount of post-secondary education. The more employees, which account for 93 percent of
who have not raduated from the Ci 's employment base.2 (�;:�i;�i��;:;:::::;::;:::_:�::::::�::<::3
amount of persons g �1'
high-school is decreasing at a rapid rate also, ftom The majority of these jobs are education related
over 30 percent in 1970 to about 4 percent in 1990. because both the Dakota County Technical College
and School District 196 are located in Rosemount.
Rosemount is located within a close vicinity to Together the two schools systems employ about
several post-secondary institutions. The Dakota 1200 persons. Most of the remaining jobs are
County Technical College is located in Rosemount located within large industrial operations such as
and just 10 miles away in Inver Grove Heights is a Koch Refining and Greif Brothers Manufacturing.
community college. In addition, there are 18 Rosemount sustains covered employment of
colleges and universities in the Twin Cities Metro approximately 3,350.
Area, including the University of Minnesota-Twin
Cities campus. The Metropolitan Council has projected employment
to continue increasing in the City of Rosemount
until the year 2010, and then predicts it to remain
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT S JANUARY, 19�3
. �� � �'�'
' Ma�or mployers Products! erv�ces mployees recruitment target for the reCail sector. In addition,
r�„��ot9oo Rosemount has a number of successful auto-related
Daily businesses, including repair shops, salvage yards
Koch Refinin Co. rude Oil C nsraccors 300-500 and bod S�10 S. �� � ���� �������� �
g Y P ...`'.�'"..�.�.�...�;�;��`:£�'.�`>:::.><:>.<��:�
........
ISD 196 ucation 715
Dakota Counry Ros�nount Retail �
Technical College ducation 475
Greif Bros. ulawall Bags 150 Eating and Drinking Establishments . . . 12
uminum Alloy Convenience Shops . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Spectro Alloys anufacturing 95 Specialty Retail Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Knutson Services efuse/Recycling 95 Automotive . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Genz-Ryan lumbing&Heating Services (Professional) . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Piumbing&Heating ontractors 85 Entertainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
City of Rosemount overnment 60 ServiCes (Personal) 9
Dakota County HRA overnment 45 .
Peoples Natural Gas atural Gas 36 To�] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Continental Nitrogen hemic 35
Cazlson Tractor ndustsail&Fazm 30
quip.
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3,348
Industrial Sector
Tabie II. 1990 Community Profile.
Rosemount has tremendous investments in industrial
constant over the next 10 eazs. ::.�ee:::��'':::;re properiy. In 1992, the tatal property value for land
y �;...:>:�::;::.:.�:..:.
;:<:��:::::::_,<;,r;4;� As the graph shows, employment in used for industrial purposes was $59.6 million,
Rosemount has not increased at a constant rate. In compared with Apple Valley's less that$8 million.5
1985, the Brockway Glass Plant closed and partially
explains the decrease in employment between 1980 The majority of the Nartheast section of the city is
and 1990. Not until after the year 2000 is completely used for industrial purposes. This area
Rosemount expected to make up for the loss in has access to no city utilities at the present time,
employment that occurred in that year. except for the USPCI site in the Pine Bend
Industrial Area. City staff recognizes that the
However, Rosemount residents are not dependent on potential to recruit new industry into the area will
jobs in Rosemount. 85 percent of the residents of severely hampered by the lack of utilities. Therefore
Rosemount commute to other parts of the metro azea they have asked the Metropolitan Council's
to work. About 18 percent work in either permission to slowly extend services to the entire
Minneapolis or Saint Paul, 25 percent work in area beginning with the USPCI site and careful
another part of Dakota County and the others are expansion over the next 20 years.
scattered through the other parts of the area.3 ���
�i���;;;::::;:::>�.�;;::.:�:�� Property Valuation
Retail SeCtor The total market value for property in Rosemount in
1992 was $335,880,800. 69 percent of the total is
Rosemount has a very limited retail sector, as the residential ($229.6 million), 18 percent industrial
community is adjacent to several other larger ($59.6 million) and.6 percent.commercial:($18.9
:::��::>:;�:���:��.�::.>:.;,::,>:.,:
million . :::��>:F"°':"�:<:::;'::<:::::>;;:<::<:><::::.::.::::::::::::;:.�".� u�
communities with strong existing retail markets. ...............)...;�:::::::;::::.;::::;:::::::�::::;::,.,;;;;;:—�-.:-�.-.-�:::;::;<:.:>;:>::::;<;-�-,;.-T-.=...,:.,::.
:::.::::::::::.::.::::.�.:::::............
. . ;::>::>::>:::<:::><::>::::»:::>�s::::...a�t�r�:<:a;s:>�:::���:::c�:;::<�?�I;:a€nt�t�l��
Pro e for commercial u oses in Rosemount has ,r.r.,.�..�;;:::::�.;:.:;;:.;>;;;;;;;;;,;;;.:>�>::;:.;;::.;:<.;:;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::._;::;::;;;:,:::::...:::::::::,
P �3' PrP
::�: :::�
::::::.::::::....:...:.:.�.;:.�..:........... .
:.,�::::::::>::;>:�?":er��
���:e:::�';>:t�rid:::��:::;fi:��iii��;:���t:;t�:>�:::>:.::.�::::::::::::::::::::::. .:...::::.
a total 1992 value of onl $18.9 million com ared ::;:::;::3':>::;;;:.;;:.;;:.;:.;:.;:.;;;>:.;;;:;.;:.;;:.>:.>:.;;:.;:.;:.;::.;:.;:.::..::�::::::::::::::::::.�:::::::::;:.;�:::�::::.
Y , P
4 ;::>::�
"�� :::��::::i��..
..........
:>::>�<:>::»:;:..;:::::::.;::.::;..:.:......: .... ........ .......:..:...
..i€�::::����:::+�<:��:<ii�i�iir.�:e�:::?�a�i��:;�invl�.;>:;.:::.�:::::::::::.
with the Apple Valley total of$98.2 million. �::>::>::>::><::<:::>::>::>�:;::>::>::>::<:>:::><>:;;:;�:::,:::::::::::::..::::::.:.:..........::..:...::.......:.................
However, Rosemount does offer a variety of ���`��:�'�'����`; An historical analysis of property
neighborhood shops and services. Neighborhood values shows that over time, residential land uses
convenience centers are in fact, the prime have had an increasing amount of the total property
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ( TANUARY, 1993
. � [ M,j j���' �
. ..:....4}ii}iiii::i::)::::Y::i::i':::::::i::::ii:{:}::i:�\.i: ���
. :::::::::::���: : : ,f��T
v ue. `;:>";'>:::.;'.....".':�:<:<;:<<:::::<::::::::<:::;;::>:;::::::::::::� ur:e:::::::>:>:<:::::>::>::::>::::::>::>::�s
;:<al>:<:>:.;:.;�;��:>�x�>:;:>::;'.�:...,!.,..,.'.:..�,.;:.;:.;::::;;�:>:'?�: ::.;::::.,.�.,, ......�....:.:.::,.
pian��;�:>a:;�.��r:;�b�Q�::gr�p�.;:s�+����
;;;;.;:_::`t��
;::<::.>::a�n..
]� .`;`::::':�..
:.::E.:<r;::::::><>:::<:::�<>:::;:::<:::::::::.:E:::>:::::>:«<z::,;:r:::::>:<�;:<:::..::..:....:.::........
�ItIS'�f��C��i:<�t`��l(�5�::>�:> .,::.:;:::.:f'd::::�(�:::�#�i�::�;:�:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.:;.;>:.;;::.
;;;:.<::;:»::>:;:::>::;>::>::>::».;:::>:;::::;:>�:>�»;>::>;:,:•�::::��;::>::>::>::>::::;:i;>;;;:.:,;;;;;::<.»:-:...;.;:>::>::>:s:::::.......:.:.
��i�:::�:>:i�:::�Q�lar;ai�i��``::i�r�<:��:'3���:�
;:;:::::::;:.:>::»>:<:::>:<:;::>;:>::::::::::»>:;::<::<;;�::;>::<::>:;:.:>::»::>:>...>::»>::>::<::;:.:;:.:>:;.::....::...........::::.....
�i€th:::��:;s��::.1�.;�a�iiit�:::i�s��*�� This is a direct
:.:::<:.;>:.::::.:.::......:....�:::::.......................::....
correlation to the change in the city's labor force as "
the community moved from a free standing growth :
center to a third-tier suburban center.
Tax Capacity
Often in city government staff hears the complaint
that the residents of a city are responsible for too
big a shaze of the city's total tax burden. The total
tax burden for a city may be described as the total
amount of tax that can be levied from all the
property in a city before special assessments are
added. This is also called the tax capacity. As
�j�j��:;::::::::::::::;:::';::::<;:;::: shows, the resident's share of the
...... ........
....
tax burden m Rosemount has remained constant
since the tax year 1990, when tax capacity was first
used by the Dakota County tax assesor.
�:i�s;�'''
::;,
:;� ':•�
::;�;cti
''�':�i�%
?.�:::::; :
• .,
:;�:.�:;;ti
c;�,�',';::;
:;�:;:;:;;.; � ;;
J.�1'�• •:.'::•;•:`..... :l.•:•:•'.'.. ���;�:;.:::::.:' .
:�:�:'::•::•::•:::•:;:•�'i':'�•:•:•:'::S•:'::':•::�•s . . � . .
• �•�:::::::.:'J.•:J.•.....................•ti��.�::•:::::ti'•:� .
;:;:':;;:;�;;.�''�;3;w;�;S;i;::;:;:�';'.;�,'r,'.;3v;i�;i;C;t;{�Ki;;�'v;�:'••.•:�:��:ti:},•;•:•:•:�:•:;:;:;�{:•,•
� ti`�s`:'s'i1ti11Si`.`.SS`.'tSSi�i`.S`.'�5�.i`.S`.SS'CSS'.'.S`�`:t'�Y+iSSS`.YtSi`.`.SS�'.'�•ti . � .
2Figure 17
l.Decisions Resources Survey.
2. 1990 Community Profile.
3. Decisions Resources Survey.
4. Courtesy of the Dakota County Tax Assesor's O�ce.
5 . Ibid.
6. Ibid.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT '] JANUARY, 1993
4 �M�e ,&1 r+^-��.'""
L�.,, f
� GROWTH PROJECT�C�NS
PI i
HISTORIC LAND USE PATTERNS
Rosemount's history as a rural agricultural Rosemount has an unusually large percentage of
community is still evident in its land use patterns. public land, due in lazge part to the University of
Although residential and industrial development Minnesota's Agriculture Experiment Station and
continues to consume farmland, large portions of the Rosemount Research Center. These facilities
City still remain in agricultural use. Over 1,800 comprise nearly 3,200 acres of agricultural land in
acres of agricultural land in the City is protected south central Rosemount.
under the Metropolitan Agriculture Preserves Act,
with that acreage remaining fairly stable over the Although all of this property is designated as an
life of the program. institutional land use, only a sma11 portion is
actually zoned as such. This is in part a reflection of
Most of the City's remaining prime agriculture land the present balance of land uses existing on the
is located in the southeastern portion of the City, property. While much of the property is agricultural
with heavy industrial uses concentrated in the in appearance, a portion of the property is not used
northeast and urban residential and commercial for traditional institutional or agricultural purposes.
development focused on the western one third�of the
City. � Separating out this large public holding that is being
used for a variety of institutional, agricultural, and
The large amount of land used for agricniture, industrial purposes may give a more accurate picture
combined with the large tracts of open space held by of the balance of land use within the City.
public entities within the City, makes a significant
contribution to the rural character of Rosemount.
Existi rtg Land U se 197C}-1 ���
�o
9
� 1970
,a 8 ,
� �;::x;;�; 19$0
7 1990
� 6
'�i :.�s
c � ���:
� .:: ,�.:�;;:
i��;:,::
,�.:�:.
,���;
� 4 ����:::: ::::��fi�:
a :.:..�i; "°
!eee�ke�•4,
..��^:4.^j ::>'.s . .
�`.fi�i4:J � 'a i..;� � . . .
,�y :::.. , .
' "y.ee5�i:::i �<iy
3 �:::.��:: ���; ��°-:
�"4 :�s = �e!�:'::
'_.:,."�A�;`[; `�r.�'�
. i. 3;;,r:,!;tl1i r��",�'�`.
;�i...::.: �-tiE ;.:s>;>;� �
V��Y x? �:;� ,:;:�:�:�s
2 '€'�,..,; ,=� .: .�;.�:X�
`.:�:� � .z
a:K::::
���� � ;: ,:t;
�;:
:�;z��;; �;�: `.�a�
� ;,;.�.;;; ..�:,�"' �:
`sJi:e�!'„ey ��":
?f�:K}4 :�>'s•: ::!�.C.
�'��y'vik':si' . . .'''.+'�:�t; :7.::;j.je,:
Eiiie�Kee; .����
. '3leFi N�'�.'`':.'.'
O r`i:�... ::.g:::t;:C:: .
.:r�..;:::� ..�n.:�.:. �;:ii'�i'; :::re::-:::
Residerniai Commeraal industrial Public
(Unrvanity tat induded}
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT $ JANUARY, 19 3
, DR�►FT
� 1970 % oF 1980 % oF 1970-80 1990 % oF 1980-90
LAND USE ACRES TOTAL I ACRES TOTAL CIiANGE AcxEs ToTni. CHANGE
RESIDFdvTInl. 375 1.7% 1,115 4.9%a 197.3% 2,163 9.6�i 94.0%
PUSLIC/INSTPI'UTION�►L 3,495 15.54b 4,060 18.0°U 16.2°b 4,083 18.1% 0.6°b
CoMn�.RCIAL 20 0.1% 43 0.2°b 115.0 9b 280 1.2 4b 551.2%
INDUSTRiAL 620 2.7� 1,215 5.4°b 96.0°b 1,376 6.1� 13.3%
AG. VACANT& OT'HER 18,050 80.0°b 16,127 71.5°b -10.7 4b 14.658 65.0°lo -9.1%
[Table of Land Use Calculations]
rosvic �rm I�vs�ri�oNar, F�Cisting Land Use
1990
1970 1980; 1990 ; �*x3
ca��
(1x�x} �R.ad.ntld
Pnxxs ��
:. (�oxy
O�x Pvs�c ■°oin""'�°'
��
U oF M �ueWen�pr
3,495 4,060 4,083 ��
. t�
Land use changes have occurred at various rates
depending on the type of use. !
I
Today Rosemount devotes a far larger portion of its �.
land to commercial development than at any time in I
the past. This is not the case for other types of iand
uses, however, which exhibited a slower rate of �
physical expansion over the last decade than what
occurred during the decade 1970-80.
Although the amount of land used for residential
development nearly doubled during the decade, this
is a far slower rate of growth than previously
experienced. Along with this, the City has seen a
slowing in the physical expansion of public land
uses. Industrial development also showed a slightly ,
slower rate of physical expansion than was seen
during the previous decade as the City's larger
industries facused on maintenance of current
facilities rather than expansion.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 9 JANUARY, 19 3
September 30, 1992
,
� . City of Rosemount
Major Residential Developments in Progress
Hills Additions PUD a roved 1981) I
Country ( pP
U.S. Home Corporation
8421 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 300
Golden Valley, MN 55426
544-7333
Addition Lots Bldg Pmts Vacant Lots
Platted Issued
Country Hills First Addition (9/86) 80 80 0
Country Hills Second Addition (6/87j 160 156 4
Country Hills Third Addition (11/88) 140 124 16
Country Hills Fourth Addition (7/91) 31 29 2
Country Hills Fifth Addition (10/91) 37 21 16
Countty Hills Sixth Addition(Pending) 77 0 77
Totals 525 410 115
Carrollton Add'itions (PUD approved 1988 - 126 Lots)
Thomas O'Leary
Rosemount Properties of Minneapolis
2415 Annapolis Lane, Suite 109
Plymouth, MN 55441
557-1557
Addition Lots Bldg Pmts Vacant
Platted Issued Lots
Cazrollton 2nd Addition (1/88) 47 47 0
Carrollton 3rd Addition (10/89) 40 40 0
Carrollton 4th Addition (8/92) 39 1 38
Tota.ls 126 88 38
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT lO JANUARY, 1993
� � O'Leary's Hills Additions (PITD approved 1987 - 213 Lots)
� Steve Broback
Parkview, Inc.
15021 Oakland Avenue
Bur•rtsville, MN 55337
454-3172
Addition Lots Bldg Pmts Vacant
Platted Issued Lots
O'Leary's Hills First Addition (8/83) 30 30 0
O'Leary's Hills Second Addition (6/86) 25 25 0
O'Leary's Hills Third Addition (7/87) 23 23 0
O'Leary's Hills Fourth Addition (4/89) 31 29 2
O'Leary's Hills Fifth Addition(Pending) 37 0 37
O'Leary's Hills Si�cth Addition (9/92) 2 0 2
Totals 148 107 41
Shannon Hills Additions (PUD approved 1989 - 190 Lots)
Steven Fitetman, President
Ground Development Corp,
1550 Utica Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55416
546-2625
Addition Lots Bldg Pmts Vacant
Platted Issued Lots
Shannon Hills lst Addition (10/89) 30 30 0
Shannon Hills 2nd Addition (10/90) 40 36 4
Shannon Hills 3rd Addition (2/92) 26 10 14
Shannon Hills 4th Addition(Pendir►g} 30 0 30
Totals � 126 78 48
ITY OF ROSEMOUNT 11 JANUARY, 1993
Wensmann Additions (PUD approved 1987 - 206 Lots)
' Herb Wensmann
� Wensmann Realty
14340 Pilot Knob Road
Apple Valley, MN 55124
423-1179
Addition Lots Bldg Pmts Vacant
Platted Issued Lots
Wensmann First Addition (918'n 40 40 0
Wensmann Second Addition (5/88) 65 64 1
Wensrnann Third Addition (4/89) 34 34 0
Wensmann Fourth Addition (9/89) 31 30 1
Wensmann Fifth Addition (7/90) 38 36 2
Totals 208 204 ��
West Ridge Additions (PUD approved �987 - 280 Lots)
Timothy Broback
Rosemount Development Company
3480 Upper I49th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
423-1660
Addition Lots Bldg Pmts Vacant
Platted Issued Lots
West Ridge First Addition (2/87) 56 56 0
West Ridge Second Addition (6/8'n 54 54 0
West Ridge Third Addition (4/89) 41 41 0
West Ridge Fourth Addition (2/92) 32 15 17
Totats 183 166 17
Cimarron Village Townhouses (36 units)
Michael Conlin
Nichols/Conlan Financial Company
431 South 7th Street, Suite 2540
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612/333/7321
Building Permit Issued 8/92 for 36 units
CIT'Y OF ROSEMOUNT 12 JANUARY, 1993
.. , �Mp�OR NEW DEVELOPMEN'i'���W . ;
t �/� .1--- „1N;ftOSEMOUt�1T'_' . - j �i°..il:J ,�j.�--•T-=--' �:� "" . � i � ! ,
' '- ��-.; " " � � V '� ' "- ' �� ^' • l f,. �
�, J,_�_� .. _.. � , , � �
_� _ •� _., ', ', -- -�.,`° _., z.,- ,
. . - � ( � �.� � � I � � C�. . . 4 . 1
i_ .� _._ _i! �r .r± � � r• i �+ "� � r
i�._ -• ' i •� = . �":� .... i - � y i .
� y M ' ^ � . O 1�- i � , � �. _ -� � �� � �.. ' i
_-'�.J f { � �� � � i
Ch�l a ��_ --�j: � _.. ,i� r. � � - �
; ,' j;i ' t �i `/...• . � ' �' ; w i ��
. ., , �. � _ '.r .... , g� �� � � `.
� ��. '.' ��5� � • I � � J
; ��.� __ _� . r t.. _ • t . ---- -��� ''r::.. �' ' �. � .
� - t. - �
. � . :� _ __•-• � _ .. •s� - \'�-- �• �•i��'i M ,\ + 1 , �. �
. � � • � • • `. ' �—�_ '� � � � �
� • . �'t . ��' � N �� •� �� �• �
� �- - '-' .' • 1� .�'♦ � . . � 1., j �' �
' � � � �"� ' ��f-Shs • . -• . ; __ _ '� .• �� �' „I
, � �-- • , � ,� ~
• � - . , ;�3j •-- - .�_�=,1 • ,f • �� �,� _ � ,�
. .• � ; ., . ���i , • _ :;�j'� • �+ ;� ---� � � ', '}i _y ^�; _ � /i
• • • ` � _ /- ' � �w •
'��� • \ ' .... � �� �� �I i�
Amberv+rood Estates • 1 � "� _ '" I
• Cs� . • •—� a . .N r�', •• «M !,J '✓�� 1�.i-`
., . ��j ��' ' �. , i,, , �r
.O ...y-� +�� i �t. � `�.�-'�' ��%�
� G � i: _.. �.---� , :(?,_ ;��_ � �
' �� .,. �' _.. j i� _ � �v , --- t � •
�-�'��� I; , ; ' ; .ti, '
� ��,r�7��..�..-+ �., { � " ' ; �
� -���,• - -- - --:------- — - --- —��� �'/`� _' -,:`:�_..
;-�:� � � i _, � ; �; `�r...�./
��.—''?�.+��,� ..� /� ���`. '�J �i i� '
"I • �-�� .e7.i-f"".y.i��,x,�,,,�_,'� ��� �J - '!I �: ij ���.
. \�si �� ��r�2�:�y L~_ ... _ ._. _ j- yir� _ _ .�' '�� ' 'i �.� ;I'. �► .
�,i+�%<<. �L'�iOdD�;:� /' . . �".v �"V/% _"��`a•_"�� ,� ( ' �w ri �\ '
y�r_f'� ._IX,;s.��� .�,�\r� �-��____ '���`�iiy_rK�`s.=a ; � �t i �
.I'�'..=•�;_-`�- �`+-��� i��' .. ) �r � Z's'F:�.t'::�i ! ; . i'� �� �
•++^ ... .S. � ,,,JL.�-� � �' ' � �'. ��_ _�'.�.�,. / II �._ //�\
�y�y"='.ii, •(+!'^ a.r�.-- � _'�. ��:tr_cia;.� .�__ ' �. // -
_`i���%��J�1"f171y��t- ' �.. -- -- �� i,` .
�.�.�i��::�^".'T'�'f� � ._ ' �� /�� !/, �r � .t. /
'�.•r..:���'•.�.•�%"'.'� • - ; � •_� —y l, I �� �
:,j��.::�� Shannon.• _.. �='=" _ : � � �
:.,;�. �,�„�;;_.,�, ,H,,,s. : — � � I� , ' � J � "
'���s i•�i r��-ri�i. ,+ :'` • : :.f'y '`.= , i, j' � _• / �
;� . —� ��, ♦ s� .—�_--�� �F �� ' �,.+��v� i "' � / ;
G:._ -; :.. �, � ►:� •• .-s-.—,.f 1' N�: ��,,..�, ,f Co� i
� Shannon Park� ��.�'�-�' ' . ."`-'�`-3'L• - _ �i" �;;� „ �c� ;
�TowRhomes �t =�-��;.. • u ' --- --
T.,.. -�i.s�a��� r.'==•=._.. '� � • ..�.' .
''Z,��J''�.,-'��-. ». .������--�;��c� ! �� �. ,c,
� �-r+•'I.�-� _� , 'vr. ��' t-i+'.. �• ., ,k� ��' �, •�, '/ . '
. L��''�.������ ��'�•. .�s;�, ' ' ls,esr�,��L a�a'�U'.�'��, � ,= " f �
_m;eta�.}c 'r��m�'-� < .�• -�,���c-.'_'�,'_,-'z'_'.. ' , - """� ''
_ � _� ' _ .��• „� �
{_% ',�z}�.�;,�:�� �j�C�� " .� .' ��• ' ��/- I/� i ,_•' �+� I
i �=,. L, .+ oa. � .. _ F�
�� " � ,... ,�'-] - � � !
� .'_�!:�• • 't���.= �_ �, � �„�."''�~ ��-�•-, i:. � • I � ,; AGRICULTURAL
�^ , �. � '�':^t���?' y;._..���� , � � ! �
, � " �, '. � ''' ��' . �,� •,' , ' �
� _.. ; � �~ �� , ,' � --- � I
.•...•�'��r'�„ � -•- ' i /. � i �
� �._ tl W�__+-�+�+++a-� ,,`. .' f N ,
� ���� / '� ' . �
!W"`, ast�n T^-'�� _ - • .� �
; ����-++�T�"�,'"�r's Hilts s � i _.. � � ,�,5� -=-
• 'z' '`__�� �'
•�� . . � 1 �� �' =1, EXPERIM�IT
, .... .. � � --
��,����y , ,. ... . . _ - • , •__1 � �i
; � �,�,.� pt�,�1,.�•� .�C��`�9�� l:. 1 _y • /� _a - ;� I
i O�h�.�.�+.�+�. ���YKj�����` ^' r' / ' � �.. '� �I ' i'
---�-l.J-- �����r • • / "—'� I' i
��,'_;-�-�nG" �' �.�c'�'Jx��t � :j/ �' �i
� �i r �-� ITY OF R .; . 13 • , �� arruAxY 199
� .�,.���... �; ' _ I�G
� ._ _ -, � , - '�, - 'r--- ..
k
. . . � . . . � ' .t � . �
. . ���. . . . �
�i
I � ,t
� I
� ♦
♦
l 1 � . . . . . . . Q
� A
° +�rcasted � r�wth , �
� F
Cyc9 1 V�� � �V� � O
0 2���4 �
� . ,.-.
� 2soaa �aiat��r�-n� : �
. o
,
' N
24tifJ0 ---� ou�i�t��=rol �
0
2z000 . -�
............. Population-City , .�
20400
18000 HQuseholds-City
160p0 , .
`y i
14040 � ;�
� � '� :
124�0 � , :w:
14U�0
SOnO �---- .
-
...-�-=r ;�
�_�_
s000 _�_-._ �
�_.�._.�
_-
�.._ .
- r
4000 �,.��=r � � . . .
f_ .
2aoa _ � ���� �
,:
o . � �, , �
z000 2a�o � :
1994 . ' , ..
�..�
, ;,' �w�.
� Year :��
� � � �
.�
� .
-�p � . . � �,::
.l.... . ���°�
-.J . ', . .
.
� COMMUNITY GOALS
1. Preserve and foster the small town ambience of such development will produce a net benefit in
the community by striving to respect property tax revenues over servicing demands.
Rosemount's unique historical and physical assets 14. Protect existing and future heavy industrial and
and encouraging the continuation of strong waste management/processing land uses from
interpersonal relationships among residents non-compatible use encroachments.
(CAC #n. 15. Generally promote new industrial and
2. Balance industrial, commercial, and residential commercial enterprises for the purpose of
development with small town ambience (CAC creating new employment opportunities and a
#VI). more diversified tax base.
3. A balanced and diverse community that provides 16. Protect and improve the social and physical
opportunities for living, working, shopping, integrity of e�cisting neighborhoods from
playing, learning, and socializing. potentially adverse external influences.
4. Maintain the rural appearance and character of 17. High quality residential environments which are
Rosemount. healthy, safe, economical, are well maintained
5. Conserve unique natural/physical/historical and are convenient to work, shopping, and
resources including landscapes of scenic and schools.
ecological significance. 18. The continuation of long-term agricultural use for
6. A generally compact urban form within urban as long as possible.
service azeas with orderly and sequential growth 19. Development of a park and open space system
that is capable of being efficiently and that serves the needs of all residents while
economically served by public services. providing opportunities for the conservation of
7. A mix of housing opportunities for people of all natural resources.
age, income, and ethnic backgrounds. 20. An enhanced sense of community togetherness by
8. Preservation and enhancement of the downtown's creating, maintaining, and preserving areas and
identity as a place of orientation, social facilities for both active and passive leisure time
interaction, cultural expression, and commercial experiences (CAC #I�.
exchange (CAC #II). 21. A balanced and efficient transportation system
9. Continuing redevelopment and growth of the which provides a sense of connectedness, good
Rosemount CBD as the predominant center for local and regional accessibility and consists of
retail, off'ice, dining, entertainment, institutional, public transit, streets and highways, bicycle paths
and public uses. and sidewalks.
10. Attraction of new retail establishments to 22. Increased economic development efforts to
downtown and the support of existing viable balance property taxes with public services and
businesses in their efforts to expand or maintain attract higher paying employment opportunities.
current operations for the purpose of retaining 23. The provision of additional waste treatment
existing employment and enhancing a stable tax capacity to service azeas within Metropotitan
base. Urban Service Areas.
11. Minimize environmental impacts attributable to 24. Maximize control over external entities in a
development while creating opportunities for tax manner that ensures consistency with the City's
base enhancement. character and goals (CAC #�.
12. If major projects/industries capable of adversely 25. An informed citizenry which fosters unity,
affecting Rosemount are to be considered, encourages a sense of identity, aliows
concentrate them in a single area of the City put/feedback, and encourages openness (CAC
where uniform and efficient environmental #III).
controls and monitoring can be applied.
13. Promote the east end of Rosemount as an area
that is uniquely suited for heavy industrial
development and other compatible uses provided
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT is JANUARY, 1 3
�
` A�RICULTURE AREA
Agricultural activity is an important part of Rosemount's heritage and rural lifestyle. Land
located outside of the City's Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) is protected from
premature development under the Metropolitan Council's policies for the Rural Service Area.
These policies are intended to maintain viable cammercial agriculture within the
Metropolitan Area. Within the City of Rosemount, these policies are developed in the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan and implemented through City Ordinances.
In addition, a large portion of Rosemount's most productive agricultural land is protected
under the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act.
The Agricultural Preserves Program was designed to protect prime farmland a�nd keep it in
agricultural use by adjusting taz assessments to more closely reflect the rates that would be
paid on similar land outside of the Metropolitan Area. Property enrolled is enrolled in the
program for a minimum of eight years, and is exempt from special assessments for City
services such as sewer and water during that period.
�BJECTIVES maximum density of four units per 40 acres.
Clustering is intended to be permitted in accordance
with City policy provided overall densities are not
1. Continuation of long term agriculture on lands exceeded and clustering criteria is met. '
having commercial agricultural production
capabilities. Within any agricultural area landowners may
2. Continuation of agricultural preserves in areas voluntarily initiate long term agricultural
beyond the 2010 Urban Service Area. preservation certification including rezoning of the
3. Continuation of agricultural production, land by the City for agricultural preservation. Such
experimentation and reseazch at the University designation shall require a maximum residential
of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station density of one unit per 40 acres. Minimum lot size
for the sake of agricultural preservation and is intended to be determined by the capability of
maintenance of the rural character and soils to accommodate on-site waste water systems.
appearance of Rosemount.
Typical uses within agricultural areas include those
customarily associated with crop production, the'
PLAN ELEMEIVTS raising, keeping and breeding of animals and
residency. Compatible parks, recreatiori and open
The City intends to continue to perpetuate the long space uses are also intended to be accommodated in
term agricultural use of land in areas that aze agricultural areas.
intrinsically best suited for agriculture which are
beyond urban service areas and meet the eligibility
requirements of the Metropolitan Agricultural P�LjCjE,s '
Preserves Act (Chapter 473H.03). It is, however,
the intent of the City that such participation be at �e following are the City's policies for
the discretion of the property owner rather than be Agricultural areas:
imposed by the City.
1. To support state-wide property t�
It is the City's intent to designate lands beyond strategies/reforms which will encourage the
urban service areas for agricultural use having a continuation of long-term agricultural
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 16 JANUARY, 19 3
.
• activities and curtail the premature loss of 4. To support votuntary landowner enrollment
agricultural lands to urban development. in agricultural preservation programs.
2. To avoid development in locations where 5. To maintain existing public roads, but
public services cannot be efficiently delivered construct no new public roads (with the
(fire, police, street maintenance). exception of major streets) in agricultural
3. To support residential ciustering in areas that areas.
can be readily serviced, offer residential 6. To coordinate planning and development
amenities that are not suitable for farming activities with the University of Minnesota'to
(trees, surface waters), allow for the avoid conflicts and ensure compatibility.
continuing use of suitable agricultural lands 7. To support only agricultural
and will not create land use conflicts experimentation, education and research at
(residential/industrial, agriculture/residential). the University of Minnesota Agricultural
Experiment Station.
CONSERVANCY AR�AS
OBJECTIVES POLICIES '
1. Creation of a buffer to minimize conflicts The following are the City's policies for '
between heavy industrial and residential land Conservancy Areas:
uses. 1. To maintain all tree stands and natural '
2. Allowance for very low intensity land uses topographic landforms (hills, slopes, etc.).
that are not likely to be impacted by or have 2. To prohibit a11 new development other than
an impact on the existing Pine Bend heavy as accessory to an existing use. '
industrial development. 3. To allow owners to improve existing
3. Protection and limited public use of the properties and maintain their status as legally
existing natural landscape. conforming land uses per the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
4. To disallow the extension of public utilities
pLAN ELEMEIVI'S to any part of a Conservancy Area unless the
facilities serve a system wide purpose.
Conservancy areas aze those where development is 5. To allow only sueh low intensity uses within
intended to be carefully controlled in the interests of Conservancy Areas as parks, recreation, open
precluding urban land use encroachments which space and trails; agriculture and already
might conflict with heavy industrial and waste existing residences.
management uses and/or protecting natural 6. To permit interim uses such as sand and
environmental features (trees, slopes, surface gravel mining only in areas where they do
waters, wetlands, etc.). VJithin conservancy areas it not disturb unique natural landforms
is the intent of the City to prohibit the construction (wetlands, hills, slopes and trees). ,
of new principal structures while allowing existing 7. To acquire, whenever possible, conservation
land owners the right to continue to use lands for easements and deed restrictions to protect.
present uses, expand principal structures and add valuable natural features and allow for their
accessory structures and uses as appropriate. use by the public.
8. To assist, as appropriate, with the acquisition
of land to implement the conservancy area
concept.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 1'] JANUARY, 1gS3
.
4 HOUSING AND NEIGI�BORHOODS
OBTECTIVES density of six (6) units per acre. Saturation use of
currently zoned but vacant R-3 land (29 acres) at
1. Provide housing in appropriate proportions, eighteen (18) units per acre would produce a multi-
based on need, for people of all income, age family ratio of 18% or 885 units by year 2000.
and life style. �
2. Create and maintain quality living It is the City s intent to limit high density housing to
environments that are in tune with the natural 20% of its future housing stock. This will require
environment and the rural character of �e rezoning of approximately 60 to 70 acres of land
Rosemount. by year 2010 for up to 715 additional units. Areas
3. Upgrade and maintain the existing housing for these units are not designated on the land use;
plan. Their location will be based on the degree to
stock. which individual projects meet adopted locational
4. Strengthen neighborhoods and protect them criteria.
from adverse influences (excessive traffic,
junk cars, nuisances). It is the City's intent to discourage large multi-
family concentrations and to encourage projects that
aze unique, properly located, fill mazket niches,
PLA1�1 ELEMENTS entail a higher level of amenity and/or satisfy a need
for affordable housing. ,
The plan establishes three categories of residential
land use termed High Density Residential (HR), Multi-family housing exceeding a density of six
Urban Residential (UR), and Rural Residential units per acre will be considered with a density not
(RR). Each is intended to offer a distinctly different to exceed 12 units per gross acre only if it meets 'all
lifestyle to satisfy the needs and desires of a diverse of the following locational criteria:
pogulation. Each is intended to be planned to create 1, Located within MUSA;
neighborhood cohesiveness and identity, to promote 2, Does not require the use of existing local
neighborhood conservation and long term residency, residential streets for access;
and to protect the natural environment and 3, Is compatible with adjoining uses; and
incorporate it as an element of human habitation. 4. Represents a logical transition from higher to
lower intensiry land uses or provides sufficient
High Density Residential (HR) on-site open space to effectively buffer
High Density Residential development is intended to dissimilar uses or is adjacent to a permanent
be permitted only within MUSA. It has a maximum open space that buffers dissimilar uses or is
density of 18 units per acre (except within the CBD) adjacent to the CBD or represents a logical
and will include the full range of attached multi- extension of existing multi-family zoning.
family rental and owner occupied housing ranging
from townhouses to apartments. While the City has Density bonuses for up to 18 units per gross acre
a rather substantial amount of land already used �e intended to be considered for projects outside of
and/or zoned for multi-family housing, some of �e CBD if there is a provision of extraordinary
whieh is designated on the land use plan, it is the landscaping, outdoor group open space, indoor and
City's intent to be circumspect about where and outdoor recreational amenities, high quality design
under what circumstances it will approve additional standazds, energy conservation and/or it satisfies
higher density housing. unique and special market niches and needs for
affordable housing. Within the CBD densities up to
The City currently has 12.7% or 364 units of its d� (40) units per acre may be considered for
housing stock in multi-family housing exceeding a seniors housing providing such amenities.
CrrY oF RosEMourrr lg JaNuaRY, I993
,
" Urban Residential (IJR) Rural Residential (RR)
Urban Residential is located entirely within MUSA Rural Residential areas aze intended to have a '
and is serviced by public sewer and water utilities. distinctive rural character with large lot single-
This designation correlates with the already family detached housing, rural streets without curb
established urban neighborhoods of western and gutter or sidewalks, the integration of housing
Rosemount plus lands that aze currently vacant but with the natural landscape, small areas of manicured
are easily served by public utilities. The full range lawn, and the minimum of public services. Rural '
of single-family housing is intended to be Residential areas are characterizetl by natural
accommodated at modest densities (two to six units features which are unique in Rosemount. They have
per gross acre). Housing types intended to be rolling topography and excellent stands of upland
accommodated include single-family detached hardwoods, features that aze supportive of a sin�le-
(traditional and zero-lot line), single-family attached family estate lifestyle and without which rural
(townhouses and duplexes) and manufactured residential development is not viable or sustainable.
housing. Multi-family housing is also intended to be '
accommodated but only upon satisfying the In Rural Residential areas the development pattern is
qualifying locational criteria described above (HR). already established at a density of one unit per five
acres with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. In order
Clustering and density transfers are encouraged to encourage infill within these existing rural
where steep slopes (12% and up), undevelopable residential areas, the City intends to maintain 2.5
soils, surface water and wetlands and quality acre minimum lot sizes. The City acknowledges that
vegetation can be avoided and protected. Clustering current densities exceed the recently adopted rural
is encouraged where it is desirable to avoid such residential development standazds of the
potentially adverse influences as major streets, metropolitan Council. This development pattern is
railroad lines and nonresidential uses and as a means pre-existing and because the City has a strong
to reduce land development costs (grading and interest in preserving agricultural lands elsewhere in
utilities). Permanent usable open space and natural Rosemount from rural residential development
resource preservation are intended to be the pressure, the City intends to maintain this non-
products of clustering. conforming density standard.
The clustering of single-family housing is intended Rural Residential areas lying westerly of State '
to be permitted only by Planned Unit Development Trunk Highway (STH) 3 are intended to be
(PUD). Densities of up to six units per gross acre developed with utmost aCtention given to the
will be considered, provided the overall PUD preservation of natural features and the continuation
density is no greater than two and one-half(2'/�) of this unique Rosemount lifestyle. Those easterly of
units per gross acre. Density bonuses will be STH 3 are intended to be the subject of continuing
considered for a PUD to a maximum overall density re-evaluation in the event public utilities are needed
of four units per gross acre where the PUD offers in the future.
such things as extraordinary landscaping, outd0or Table
group open space, indoor and outdoor recreational ;: >
amenities, high quality design standards, energy R�sID��`D�xs��Sv�n�`�Y
conservation or satisfies unique and special market HR High Density Residential 6 to 12 units per
niches and the need for affordable housing. acre'
UR Urban Residential 2 to 6 units per acre2
Attached single-family projects in UR are intended RR xurai Residenaat i units per 5 acres '
to be relatively small (not exceeding a size of 80
UT11tS�. It 1S I11L811CIf.C1 �'lat 1 P111g0 Of IlOUSlllg SL)/18S 'To 18 uniu per acre with bonuses and 40 units per acre with
and designs be employed ranging from bonuses and senior housing in the CBD.
contemporary to traditional and that m�imum Z o�e�ait aens�cy a�erage a.s units per acre; to 4 units per
acre with bonuses.
consideration be given to the creation of
neighborhoods that are safe, healthful and enjoyable
places to live.
CrrY oF RosEMourrr 19 JarrvaRY, 1993
.
{ GENERAL HOUSING POLICIES appropriate balance with other housing '
opportunities.
The following are the City's Housing and 14. To require the use of PUD for all developments
Neighborhood Policies as they apply to all housing proposing to utilize density transfers.
in Rosemount: 15. To encourage the use of PUD to
o protect/enhance natural features, open space, ,
1. To eliminate code violations that threaten life and provide neighborhood transitions. '
and safety and nuisance conditions that 16. To maintain a balance of housing types and
adversely affect neighborhoods. densities in conformance with community
2. To monitor the housing stock to determine the abjectives. ,
need for a mandatory housing maintenance
program.
3. To participate in programs to meet the City°S AGRICULTtIRE, R URAL '
low and moderate income housing needs.
4. To cooperate with Federal, State and County RESIDEIVTIAL POLICIES
agencies to make affordable housing available
and to redevelop and rehabilitate older homes in In order to protect the rural character af Rosemount,
the City. . the following policies shall apply:
5. To disperse affordable housing, multi-family 1. To discourage the placement of structures in
housing and group homes throughout the City open fields and on the top of exposed ridge
rather than concentrate them in large projects or lines.
in close proximity to one another. 2. To locate houses adjacent to trce lines and
6. To encourage clustering and/or extraordinary wooded field edges.
setbacks at neighborhood edges to minimize the 3. To utilize clustering where open space and
impact of major streets and conflicting land active agriculture can be retained.
uses. 4. To preserve and incorporate stone rows, tree
7. To require residences to back or side to major lines, existing agricultural structures and usable
streets. farm roads with site plans, wherever possible.
8. To facilitate neighborhood planning for 5. To require that roads fotlow existing contours
improvements which create/reinforce to minimize grading, where practicable.
neighborhood unity, safety and identity and 6, To maximize the retention of vegetation and ',
increase home ownership potential on a cost- �ntain natural landforms.
sharing basis with neighborhoods. Improvements � To maintain vegetation along ridge lines. '
may include landscaping, parks, and local street
modifications to reduce traffic impacts. g• To discourage excessive lawn areas in general
9. To formulate an ongoing policy and funding and maintain natural habitat azeas.
program for the reconstruction of local 9• To define, during the platting process, building
residential streets and sidewalks/trails. envelopes which avoid the location of structures
10. _ To reconstruct local neighborhood streets (not in areas needing to be preserved.
MSA streets) to a standard that corresponds with 10. To give consideration, at the time of subdivision
neighborhood scale and character with emphases aPProval, to the resui�division of lots,
on preserving healthy significant street trees. P�icularly in areas planned for future urban
11. To formulate a funding policy and conduct an development or in areas where public utilities
ongoing residential street tree maintenance and may be necessary in the future.
replacement program. 11. To protect open space or conservation areas
12. To encourage flexibly designed housing with conservation easements, deed restrictions
developments which are targeted at filling �d scenic easements. These tools are intended
market niches. to be used for environmental and scenic
13. To allow manufactured homes and clustering resource protection, not public access.
only by PUD in numbers that represent an 12. To encourage infill of existing rural residential
areas to preserve agricultural land elsewhere in
Rosemount. '
CITY OF RflSEMOUNT 20 JANUARY, 1 3
Table
'; HOIISING U1vIT.MI% '
1992:. :<:'
;1980Y .: 19902. :: Esrn�nT�;;;
_ _ _ _
� Housing Type Number �k Number % Number °.b
�� of Units of Units of Units
Single Family' 1,31 87.0 2,29 80.2 2,893 83A
Mu1fi-Family 174 12A 35 12.4 392 11A ,
Mobile 16 1.0 211 7.4 211 6A
Homes/Other
TOTAL 1,508100.0 2, 100.0 3,496100A
z19so Census ,
y 1990 Census
Year-end Fstimace Bascd on 1990 Census+Building
�Pemtits tivough 10/92
Sing(e Family Detached&Attached
Table �
Projected Residential Density Summary
_
1992-20001 '' 2000:-2010
No.of Added Acres No.of Added Acres
Housing °k Units Units Needed °lo Units Units Needed
Type
Single 80.0 4,312 1,427 571 6,786 2,474 990
Family'
Multi- 16.0 867 467 102 1,486 1,019 85 '
Family
Mobile 4.0 211 — 211 -- —
Homes/
Other
100.0 5,390 1,894 610 8,483 3,493 1,075
ToTa�,
Unrrs
5,229 8,229�--�
tncludes singlo-family detached;two-family and single-family auahced having donsities of less than
=six units per acre. '
3 29 vacant acres aze already zoned R-3.
Aasumes 2.5 timits per aere for single family;12 units per acre for multi-fa[nily.
CrrY oF RosEMourrr 21 JArruaRY, 1993