HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. Comprehensive Guide Plan DiscussionRosemount Minnesota
Year 2000-2010
Comprehensive Guide Plan
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Purpose
2. The Plan Update Process
H. REGIONAL/ffiSTORICAL SETTING
1. Historical Context
MM
2. Regional Growth
3. Rosemount's Regional Position
M. DEMOGRAPHIC/ECONOMIC PROFILE
A. Population Characteristics
1. Age
2. Household Size
3. Education
B. Employment Opportunities and Economic Activity
C. Property Valuation and Tax Capacity
IV. COMMUNITY GOALS
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. Land Use Element
1. Land Use Trends
EXISTING LAND USE MAP
EXISTING ZONING MAP
a. Historic Land Use Patterns
b. Assumptions for Future Development
c. Land Use Demand Projections
MUSA MAP FOR YEAR 2000 and 2010
2. Agricultural Areas
a. Objectives and Policies for Plan
3. Residential Land Use
a. Residential Construction and Housing
1.) Physical Development Patterns
2.) Rural Residential Development
3.) Urban Single Family Development
4.) Multiple Family Housing
5.) Housing Affordability
6.) Housing Assistance
1
b. Housing and Neighborhood Plan
1.) Objectives and Policies for Plan
4. Public and Institutional Land Uses
PUBLIC LAND USE MAP
a. Parks and Open Space
b. University of Minnesota
c. Objectives and Polices for Plan
5. Conservancy Areas
a. Objectives and Policies
6. Commercial Land Use
a. Existing
b. Objectives and Policies for Plan
8. Industrial Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
1.) Light industry and industrial parks
2.) Industry in Pine Bend
b. Industrial MUSA district
c. Objectives and Policies for Plan
9. Waste Management Plan
B. Transportation Element
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION MAP
1. Existing Transportation
a. Streets and Highways
b. Public Transit
c. Aviation, Railroads, & Barge Facilities
2. Transportation Plan
a. Streets and Highways
b. Public Transit
c. Aviation
C. Community Facilities and Services
1. Public Utilities
a. Existing Conditions for sewer, water, & storm sewer (public and
Private systems)
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, and WATER
SERVICE MAPS
b. Projections and flows
c. Public Utilities Plan
2. Public Services
a. Police
b. Fire
c. Street Maintenance
3. City Government
4. Schools
Pa
D. Environmental Protection
1. Rosemount's Natural Environment
a. Geomorphology
b. Soils
SOILS MAP
c. Water Resources
1) Surface Waters
2) Ground Water
d. Vegetation
2. Environmental Protection Plan
a. Objectives and Policies
1) Wetlands
2) Soils/Slopes
3) Vegetation
4) Energy Conservation
5) Water
6) Wildlife
7) Historic, Scenic, and Landmark
E. Economic Development
1. Current Conditions
2. Economic Development Plan
VI. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
1. Design and performance standards
2. Wetland protection
B. Capital Improvements Program
C. Central Business District Plan Redevelopment?
D. Housing (should these be under A?)
1. Density Transfers for environmentally sensitive development?
2. Techniques to encourage creative multifamily development
3. Housing maintenance code and rehabilitation program
E. Public Utilities
Sewer Inspection Program
F. Transportation
K�
I. INTRODUCTION. (Outline of Contents)
A. The Plan's Purpose
1. Fulfill 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirement.
a. The Role of the Met Council.
1) Mandated by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
2) Reviews submitted guideplans.
3) Oversees and plans all metro -wide systems
A. Transportation/Aviation
B. Waste -water Management
C. Parks
2. Updates the 1980 plan.
3. Impact on the community.
a. Allows for the preservation of community goals.
b. Provides a framework for private development.
c. Legally binding control of development.
B. The Plan Update Process.
1. Need for Plan Recognized/Process Initiated
a. hire consultant
b. inventory of existing conditions
c. series of joint meetings with City commissions and Council to develop
plan policies
d. recommendation of plan by the Planning Commission
e. adoption of Plan by the City Council
f. review and approval of the Plan by Metropolitan Council
g. implementation of plan by City
2. Future Update and Amendment Guidelines
a. Revisit every five years
b. Annual review
c. Amend as needed
3. Amendment Process.
a. Two sets of circumstances requiring plan amendment
1) Change in local conditions
2) Proposed development inconsistant with plan.
H. Historical and Regional Context
A. Historic Rosemount
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 settler in the area, William Strathern, claimed the Northeast
quarter of section 13, Township 115, Range 19.
1854 Other settlers arrive and stake their claims in the central and
eastern portions of the City.
First religious services held, Rev. Kidder presiding.
1855 The post office established on the shores of Lake Keegan and
named Rosemount, section 21. First postmaster- Andrew
Keegan.
1857 The Rich Valley post office established in section 26. First
postmaster- C. H. Carr.
Minneapolis -Cedar Valley Railroad reaches Rosemount.
1858 The Board of County Commissioners meet to officially 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 Blvd. The name was chosen to honor a
village in Ireland.
Small school built.
1866 The Village of Rosemount was formally laid out by J.A. Case.
1867 Grain elevator 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. Held grades 1-8.
1909 First State Bank granted charter.
1918 First High School built. Replaced the older school as well. Held
grades 1-12.
WWII The Federal 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 end of the war made it unnecessary and a stop.
order terminated its operation. 8,000 acres of the property was
later sold to the University of Minnesota for use as a Research
Center.
1945 The first fire department in Rosemount organized.
1956 Great Northern Oil refinery begins production.
1955 Rosemount Engineering established.
1961 Brockway Glass 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 Technical College opens.
First graduating class in the Spring of 1971.
1971 The Township and Village of Rosemount merge. City hall moves
to the site of the Township center on 145st street across from
Dakota County Technical College.
1972 First comprehensive guide plan adopted.
1975 Rosemount became a statutory city with a mayor -council form of
government.
1987 New city hall built.
1988 Rosemount Center opens.
IV. COMMUNUY GOALS
Preserve and foster the small town ambience of the community by striving to respect
Rosemount's unique historical and physical assets and encouraging the continuation of
strong interpersonal relationships among residents (CAC #I).
2. Balance industrial, commercial, and residential development with small town
ambience (CAC #VI).
3. A balanced and diverse community that provides opportunities for living, working,
shopping, playing, learning, and socializing.
4. Maintain the rural appearance and character of Rosemount.
5. Conserve unique natural/physical/historical resources including landscapes of scenic
and ecological significance.
6. A generally compact urban form within urban service areas with orderly and
sequential growth that is capable of being efficiently and economically served by
public services.
7. A mix of housing opportunities for people of all age, income, and ethnic
backgrounds.
8. Preservation and enhancement of the downtown's identity as a place of orientation,
social interaction, cultural expression, and commercial exchange (CAC #II).
9. Continuing redevelopment and growth of the Rosemount CBD as the predominant
cneter for retail, office, dining, entertainment, institutional, and public uses.
10. Attraction of new retail establishments to downtown and the support of existing viable
businesses in their efforts to expand or maintain current operations for the purpose of
retaining existing employment and enhancing a stable tax base.
11. Minimize environmental impacts attributable to development while creating
opportunities for tax base enhancement.
12. If major projects/industries capable of adversely affecting Rosemount are to be
considered, concentrate them in a single area of the City where uniform and efficient
environmental 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 such development will
produce a net benefit in property tax revenues over servicing demands.
N
14. Protect existing and future heavy industrial and waste management/processing land
uses from noncompatible use encroachments.
15. Generally promote new industrial and commercial enterprises for the purpose of
creating new employment opportunities and a more diversified tax base.
16. Protect and improve the social and physical integrity of existing neighborhoods from
potentially adverse external influences.
17. High quality residential environments which are healthy, safe, economical, are well
maintained and are convenient to work, shopping, and schools.
18. The continuation of long-term agricultural use for as long as possible.
19. Development of a park and open space system that serves the needs of all residents
while providing opportunities for the conservation of natural resources.
20. An enhanced sense of community togetherness by creating, maintaining, and
preserving areas and facilities for both active and passive leisure time experiences
(CAC #IV).
21. A balanced and efficient transportation system which provides a sense of
connectedness, good local and regional accessibility and consists of public transit,
streets and highways, bicycle paths and sidewalks.
22. Increased economic development efforts to balance property taxes with public services
and attract higher paying employment opportunities.
23. The provision of additional waste treatment capacity to service areas within
Metropolitan Urban Service Areas.
24. Maximize control over external entities in a manner that ensures consistency with the
City's character and goals(CAC #V).
25. An informed citizenry which fosters unity, encourages a sense of identiy, allows
put/feedback, and encourages openness (CAC #III).
(0
Housing and Neighborhoods
Objectives
1. Provide housing in appropriate proportions, based on need, for people of all income,
age and life style.
2. Create and maintain quality living environments that are in tune with the natural
environment and the rural character of Rosemount.
3. Upgrade and maintain the existing housing stock.
4. Strengthen neighborhoods and protect them from adverse influences (excessive traffic,
junk cars, nuisances).
Plan Elements
The plan establishes three categories of residential land use termed High Density Residential
(HR), Urban Residential (UR), and Rural Residential (RR) Each is intended to offer a
distinctly different lifestyle to satisfy the needs and desires of a diverse population._ Each is
intended to be planned to create neighborhood cohesiveness and identity, to promote
neighborhood conservation, home ownership and long term residency, and to protect the
natural environment and incorporate it as an element of human habitation.
High Density Residential (HR). High Density Residential development is intended to be
permitted only within Urban Residential areas. It has a maximum density of 18 units per acre
(except within the CBD) and will include the full range of attached multi -family rental and
owner occupied housing ranging from townhouses to apartments. Because the City has a
rather substantial amount of land already used and/or zoned for multi -family housing, some of
which is designated on the land use plan, it is the City's intent to be circumspect about where
and under what circumstances it will approve additional higher density housing.
The City currently has 12.7% or 364 units of its housing stock in multi -family housing
exceeding a density of six units per acre. Saturation use of currently zoned but vacant R-3
land (29 acres) at 18 u/a would produce a multi -family ratio of 17.5 % or 885 units by year
2000.
It is the City's intent to limit multi -family housing to 20% of its future housing stock. This
will require the rezoning of approximately 46 acres of land by year 2010 for up to 550
additional units. Areas for these units are not designated on the land use plan. Their location
will be based on the degree to which individual projects meet adopted locational criteria.
It is the City's intent to discourage large multi -family concentrations and large projects and to
encourage projects that are unique, properly located, fill market niches, entail a higher level of
amenity and/or satisfy a need for affordable housing.
Multi -family housing exceeding a density of six units per acre will be considered with a
density not to exceed 12 units per gross acre only if it meets all of the following locational
criteria:
1) Located within MUSA in an area having sufficient sewer capacity to support high
density housing;
2) Does not require the use of existing local residential streets for access; and
3) Is compatible with adjoining uses and represents a logical transition from higher to
lower intensity land uses or provides sufficient on-site open space to effectively buffer
dissimilar uses or is adjacent to a permanent open space that buffers dissimilar uses or
is adjacent to the CBD or represents a logical extension of existing multi -family
zoning.
Density bonuses are intended to be considered for up to 18 units per gross acre outside of the
CBD for noncontiguous projects, the provision of extraordinary landscaping, outdoor group
open space, indoor and outdoor recreational amenities, high quality design standards, energy
conservation and the satisfying of unique and special market niches and needs for affordable
housing. Within the CBD densities up to 40 u/a are intended to be considered for seniors
housing with such amenities.
Urban Residential (UR}. Urban Residential areas are intended to have a distinctive character
all their own. They are areas that have housing of a more urban type with smaller lots,
sidewalks, on -street parking, and limited housing variety and diversity. Urban Residential is
located entirely within MUSA and is serviced by public sewer and water utilities. This
designation correlates with the already established urban neighborhoods of western Rosemount
plus lands that are currently vacant but are easily served by public utilities.
The full range of single-family housing is intended to be accommodated at modest densities
(two to six units per gross acre). Housing types intended to be accommodated include single-
family detached (traditional and zero -lot line), single-family attached (townhouses and
duplexes) and manufactured housing. Multi -family housing is intended to be accommodated
by Planned Unit Development (PUD), but only upon satisfying the qualifying locational
criteria described above (HR).
Clustering and density transfers are encouraged where steep slopes (12% and up),
undevelopable soils, surface water and wetlands and quality vegetation can be avoided and
protected. Clustering is encouraged where it is desirable to avoid such potentially adverse
influences as major streets, railroad lines and nonresidential uses and as a means to reduce
land development costs (grading and utilities). Permanent usable open space and natural
resource preservation are intended to be the products of clustering.
(Z 5
The clustering of single-family housing is intended to be permitted only by Planned Unit
Development (PUD). Densities of up to six units per gross acre will be considered, provided
the overall PUD density is no greater than three units per gross acre. Density bonuses will be
considered for a PUD to a maximum overall density of four units per gross acre where the
PUD offers such things as extraordinary landscaping, outdoor group open space, indoor and
outdoor recreational amenities, high quality design standards, energy conservation or satisfies
unique and special market niches and the need for affordable housing.
Attached single-family projects in UR are intended to be relatively small (not exceeding a size
of 80 units). It is intended that a range of housing styles and designs be employed ranging
from contemporary to traditional and that maximum consideration be given to the creation of
neighborhoods that are safe, healthful and enjoyable places to live.
Rural Residential (RR). Rural Residential areas are intended to have a distinctive rural
character with large lot single-family detached housing, rural streets without curb and guttor or
sidewalks, the integration of housing with the natural landscape, small areas of manicured
lawn and the minimum of public services. Rural Residential areas are characterized by natural
features which are unique in Rosemount. They have rolling topography and excellent stands
of upland hardwoods, features that are supportive of a single-family estate lifestyle and without
which rural residential development is not viable or sustainable. In Rural Residential areas the
development pattern is already established at a density of one unit per five acres with a
minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. Rural Residential areas lying westerly of State Trunk Highway
(STH) 3 are intended to be developed with utmost attention given to the preservation of
natural features and the continuation of this unique Rosemount lifestyle. Those easterly of
STH 3 are intended to be the subject of continuing re-evaluation in the event public utilities
are needed in the future.
TABLE
DENSITY SAY
HR
- High Density Residential
6-12 u/a'
UR
- Urban Residential
2-6 u/a'
LR
- Low Density Residential
2 u/a
RR
-Rural Residential
1 u/5 a11
' To 18 u/a with bonuses and 40 u/a with bonuses and
seniors housing in the CBD.
s Overall density average 3 u/a; to 4 u/a with bonuses.
13 6
General Housing Policies
The following are the City's Housing and Neighborhood Policies as they apply to all housing
in Rosemount:
1. To eliminate code violations that threaten life and safety and nuisance conditions
that adversely affect neighborhoods.
2. To monitor the housing stock to determine the need for a mandatory housing
maintenance program.
3. To participate in programs to meet the City's low and moderate income housing
needs.
4. To cooperate with Federal, State and County agencies to make affordable housing
available and to redevelop and rehabilitate older homes in the City.
5. To disperse affordable housing, multi -family housing and group homes throughout the
City rather than concentrate them in large projects or in close proximity to one
another.
6. To encourage clustering and/or extraordinary setbacks at neighborhood edges to
minimize the impact of major streets and conflicting land uses.
7. To require residences to back or side to major streets.
8. To facilitate neighborhood planning for improvements which create/reinforce
neighborhood unity, safety and identity and increase home ownership potential on a
cost-sharing basis with neighborhoods. Improvements may include landscaping,
parks, and local street modifications to reduce traffic impacts.
9. To formulate an ongoing policy and funding program for the reconstruction of local
residential streets and sidewalks.
10. To reconstruct local neighborhood streets (not MSA streets) to a standard that is in
tune with neighborhood scale and character with emphases on preserving healthy
significant street trees.
11. To formulate a funding policy and conduct an ongoing residential street tree
maintenance and replacement program.
12. To encourage innovative housing developments which are targeted at filling market
niches.
13. To allow manufactured homes and clustering only by PUD in numbers that represent
an appropriate balance with other housing opportunities.
( `{ 7
14. To require the use of PUD for all developments proposing to utilize density transfers.
15. To encourage the use of PUD to protect/enhance natural features, open space, and
provide neighborhood transitions.
Agriculture and Rural Residential Policies
In order to protect the rural character of Rosemount, the following policies shall apply:
1. To discourage the placement of structures in open fields and on the top of exposed
ridge lines.
2. To locate houses adjacent to tree lines and wooded field edges.
3. To utilize clustering where open space and active agriculture can be retained.
4. To preserve and incorporate stone rows, tree lines, existing agricultural structures
and usable farm roads with site plans, wherever possible.
5. To require that roads follow existing contours to minimize grading, where
practicable.
6. To maximize the retention of vegetation and maintain natural landforms.
7. To maintain vegetation along ridge lines.
8. To discourage excessive lawn areas in general and maintain natural habitat areas.
9. To define, during the platting process, building envelopes which avoid the location of
structures in areas needing to be preserved.
10. To protect open space or conservation areas with conservation easements, deed
restrictions and scenic easements. These tools are intended to be used for
environmental and scenic resource protection, not public access.
i
�� 8
TABLE
1990 HOUSING UNIT MIX
Housing Type
Number Units
%
Average Density
Single Family'
2,291
79.9
72.6
Multi -Family
364
12.7
1,163
Mobile Homes/Other
211
7.4
1,068
TOTAL
2,866
100.0
1 11
TABLE
2010 HOUSING UNIT MIX
HOUSING TYPE
%
NUMBER
UNITS
ADDITIONAL
UNITS
AVERAGE
DENSITY
ACRES
NEEDED
Single Family'
72.6
5,198
2,907
2.5
1,163
Multi -Family
20.0
1,432
1,068
12.0
752
Mobile
Homes/Other
7.4
530
310
3.0
106
TOTALS
100.0
7,160
4,294
1,344
' Includes single-family detached, two-family and single-family attached having densities
of six units or less per acre.
2 29 vacant acres are already zoned R-3.
(6 9
Planned Unit Development Areas
Areas designated Planned Unit Development (PUD) warrant extraordinary environmental
consideration. They are characterized either by unique natural features (woodlands, water,
and topographic relief) warranting sensitive treatment or they offer opportunities for carefully
controlled mixed use development at prominent locations in the City. These will require an
extraordinary amount of careful evaluation by the City. PUD is intended to be mandatory
within areas so designated.
PUD - Planned Residential. Predominantly residential, this area is intended to have
an urban/rural character with a mixture of housing types, but a relatively low overall density
to reflect the need to protect its unique stands of upland hardwoods and variable topography.
It is an area that is intended to have urban landscaped streets with curb and gutter, sidewalks,
and all public utilities. One small convenience retail center may also be considered near the
intersection of Dodd Boulevard and Connemara Trail, if market conditions warrant.
Part of this area already has public sanitary sewer and water services available. It is in single
ownership which will readily allow it to be planned as a unit. Areas of special natural
resource concern are the hilly areas along the northern edge of the property and the dense
woodlands with cleared openings lying westerly of Dodd Boulevard. Densities in these areas
are intended to be low enough to allow for the creation of open space which correlates with
natural feature preservation. PUD plans must demonstrate their sensitivity to natural land -
form and vegetation protection.
The Planned Residential PUD is primarily intended to accommodate single-family housing
(attached and detached) at an overall gross density of up to units per acre or
total units. Park lands outside the requisite PUD, but in the same ownership, may be given
density credit within the PUD to the extent the amount of park land designated exceeds park
dedication requirements. To the extent that higher densities and clustering are warranted to
preserve natural features or to attain the overall gross density, townhouses may be considered
by the City. Generally, lands along the northern edge of the PUD should be lower than the
average PUD density and those near Dodd Boulevard should be clustered or sufficiently low in
density to protect the maximum amount of woodland.
The site is intended to be planned as a single unit and developed in phases as market
conditions warrant. Clustering is intended to be employed as a means to protect/integrate
development with the natural environment. Performance standards are also intended to be
formulated to minimize the loss of unique natural resources. And, the residential policies of
this plan apply to the planned residential PUD.
PUD - Mixed Use. Mixed Use areas clearly have commercial potential, but there is
concern that they may compete with downtown Rosemount for uses that will compromise its
future viability. They are not only prominently located in the City immediately adjacent to
[I
arterial streets, they are in areas that might be classified as sensitive because until now, they
have been planned for residential, not commercial development. They are also located near
existing and future residential land uses.
Land uses intended to be accommodated in these areas include residential (high and low
density), commercial, and office uses. They are intended to be planned as a unit wherever
possible and are proposed to adhere to general transitional development concepts which can
for a gradient in land use from higher to lower density. Residential densities should conform
to those of Urban Residential areas.
Commercial development within these areas is intended to be allowed only when and where
traffic can be accommodated via existing cross streets, a viable plan is submitted, a market
study is presented which establishes market absorption capabilities and the proposed
development is acceptably preleased in accordance with prevailing financial standards. The
respective commercial and residential policies of this plan shall apply within mixed use areas.
Designated PUDs are not intended to be eligible for use of TIF. Because they are vacant,
they need no public assistance.
Uses considered to be generally acceptable within mixed use areas are those that would not be
appropriate in the town center. These include such as: highway service, fast food and
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.
ti
Agricultural Area
Agricultural Land Use
Agricultural activity is an important part of Rosemount's heritage and rural lifestyle. Land
located outside of the City's Municipal Urban Sewer Area is protected from premature
development under the Metropolitan Council's policies for the Rural Service Area. These
policies are intented to maintaining viable commercial 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 and keep it in
agricultural use by adjusting tax 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 extempt from special assessments for city
services such as sewer and water during that period.
Objectives
1. Continuation of long term agriculture on lands having commercial agricultural
production capabilities.
2. Continuation of agricultural preserves in areas beyond the 2010 Urban Service Area.
Plan Elements
The City intends to continue to perpetuate the long term agricultural use of land in areas that
are intrinsically best suited for agriculture which are beyond urban service areas and meet the
eligibility requirements of the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act (Chapter 473H.03). It
is, however, the intent of the City that such participation be at the discretion of the property
owner rather than be imposed by the City.
It is the City's intent to designate lands beyond urban service areas for agricultural use having
a maximum density of four units per 40 acres. Clustering is intended to be permitted in
accordance with City policy provided overall densities are not exceeded and clustering criteria
is met. Clustering is not intended to be permitted easterly of Akron Avenue because such
development cannot be readily served by basic public services.
Within any agricultural area landowners may voluntarily initiate long term agricultural
preservation certification including rezoning of the land by the City for agricultural
preservation. Such designation shall require a maximum residential density of one unit per 40
acres. Minimum lot size is intended to be determined by the capability of soils to
accommodate on-site waste water systems. In areas east of Akron Avenue, lands not
designated as Agricultural Preserves are intended to have a maximum density of one unit per
20 acres.
Typical uses within agricultural areas include those customarily associated with crop
production, the raising, keeping and breeding of animals and residency. Compatible parks,
recreation and open space uses are also intended to be accommodated in agricultural areas.
Policies
The following are the City's policies for Agricultural areas:
To support state-wide property tax strategies/reforms which will encourage the
continuation of long-term agricultural activities and curtail the premature loss of
agricultural lands to urban development.
2. To avoid development in locations where public services cannot be efficiently
delivered (fire, police, street maintenance).
3. To support residential clustering in areas westerly of Akron Avenue that can be
readily serviced, offer residential amenities that are not suitable for farming (trees,
surface waters), allow for the continuing use of suitable agricultural lands and will
not create land use conflicts (residential/industrial, agriculture/residential).
4. To support voluntary landowner enrollment in agricultural preservation programs.
S. To maintain existing public roads, but construct no new public roads (with the
exception of major streets) in agricultural areas easterly of Akron Avenue
6. To coordinate planning and development activities with the University of Minnesota
to avoid conflicts and ensure compatibility.
7. To support only agricultural experimentation, education and research at the
University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.
Public/Institutional Areas
Breakdown of Public Lands
Although the amount of land devoted to agricultural uses is in large part responsible for
Rosemount's rural town feeling, the City provides publicly held open space property to
enhance the City's rural character and provide recreational opportunities for all citizens.
The following chart shows the breakdown of publicly held lands within the City of
Rosemount.
M'>
::..;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;
Parks and Open Space
The availability of public parks and other recreation land is important to Rosemount
residents, and the City has an extensive system of parks and trails. Although the most
significant expansion of this system occurred in the years preceding 1980, park land has
increased by 25 % since 1978. Parks in the City include mini parks, neighborhood parks,
community parks, playfields, and conservancy lands as detailed in the City's Parks Master
Plan.
Under several special agreements, the City and the School District have developed open
space and park lands that are available for school use as well as for use by the community
at large. The City has additional open space preserved in the form of three golf courses
located within the City.
The largest single park within the City is Spring Lake Park Reserve. This regional park
covers 270 -acres in eastern Rosemount and is located along the Mississippi River's spring -
fed backwater, Spring Lake. The park provides a boat launch, picnic areas, and trails for
hiking and cross country skiing. Much of the land for this park was acquired in the 70's
and accounts for the large increase in public land that occurred during that decade.
Just to the north of the City's boundaries is Lebanon Hills Regional Park, which supports a
full range of activities including camping, picnicking, biking, hiking, horseback riding,
cross country skiing, and snowmobiling.
2 k
The Metropolitan Council has also identified two potential corridors for regional trails
within the City.
The University of Minnesota
The single largest public land use in the City is the University of Minnesota's
Agricultural Experiment Station and Rosemount Research Center.
[Actual land use; Future Plans; Land use Authority]
Of the 3,170 acres presently owned by the University within the City of Rosemount,
approximately 540 acres or 17% is developed for industrial use. The balance of the
property is used for agricultural production and research. While the Agriculture
Experiment Station is used almost entirely for agriculture research and study, the
Rosemount Research Center is used for a variety of purposes including industrial
operations, small businesses, general storage, and waste disposal.
[what services are available on the property? Water? Sewer?]
The City presently exercises little land usecontrolover the University's holdings.
Building permits are issued by the University and thus do not necessarily
[support, compliment? ] the agricultural and institutional research uses the City
deems appropriate for this area.
[another area of concern is the present and past level of environmental degradation
on the property -- particularly on the Rosemount Research Center which in the past
served as the home for the Gopher Works munitions facility ...]
Objectives
1. Establishment of lands for exclusive public use.
2. Continuation of agricultural production, experimentation and research at the
University of Minnesota Experiment Station for the sake of agricultural
preservation and maintenance of the rural character and appearance of Rosemount.
22
Plan Elements
This land use category is intended to correlate with major publicly owned and operated
lands and facilities. Within these areas, typical uses intended to be accommodated include
governmental, educational, recreational, cultural, public service and health care uses which
serve the entire community or the subregion. Specifically, such uses as the Dakota County
Technical College, the National Guard Armory, the Dakota County Waste Incinerator and
the University Agricultural Experiment Station are permitted.
While the City has no jurisdiction over the use of University of Minnesota lands, it intends
that the same requirements apply to the University's agricultural lands as to other
agricultural lands in the City.
Policies
The following are the City's policies for Public/Institutional Areas:
1. To coordinate planning and development activities with the University of Minnesota
to avoid conflicts and ensure compatibility.
2. To support only public use of University of Minnesota lands.
3. To support the remediation of groundwater contamination on the University of
Minnesota and adjoining properties.
4. To require connections to public sewer and water systems, where available.
5. To require the highest standards of environmental protection for all major public
improvements.
23
Conservancy Areas
Objectives
1. Creation of a buffer to minimize conflicts between heavy industrial and residential
land uses.
2. Allowance for very low intensity land uses that are not likely to be impacted by or
have an impact on the existing Pine Bend heavy industrial development.
3. Protection and limited public use of the existing natural landscape.
4. Protection of indigenous vegetation and wildlife.
Plan Elements
Conservancy areas are those where development is intended to be carefully controlled in the
interests of precluding urban land use encroachments which might conflict with heavy
industrial and waste management uses and/or protecting natural environmental features
(trees, slopes, surface waters, wetlands, etc.). Within conservancy areas it is the intent of
the City to prohibit the construction of new principal structures while allowing existing land
owners the right to continue to use lands for present uses, expand principal structures and
add accessory structures and uses as appropriate.
Policies
The following are the City's policies for Conservancy Areas:
1. To maintain all tree stands and natural topographic landforms (hills, slopes, etc.).
2. To prohibit all new development other than as accessory to an existing use.
3. To allow owners to improve existing properties and maintain their status as legally
conforming land uses per the City's Zoning Ordinance.
4. To disallow the extension of public utilities to any part of a Conservancy Area.
5. To allow only such low intensity uses within Conservancy Areas as parks,
recreation, open space and trails; agriculture and already existing residences.
24
6. To permit interim uses such as sand and gravel mining only in areas where they
do not disturb unique natural landforms (wetlands, hills, slopes and trees).
7. To acquire, whenever possible, conservation easements and deed restrictions to
protect valuable natural features and allow for their use by the public.
8. To assist, as appropriate, with the acquisition of land to implement the
conservancy area concept.
25
Commercial Area.
Commercial Land Use
Today Rosemount devotes a far larger portion of its land to commercial development than
at any time in the past.
Two commercial golf courses account for the large increase in land used for commercial
development during the decade. These two facilities account for 64% of Rosemount's
commercial property and a large portion of Rosemount's 550 % increase in commercial
acreage since 1980. If the golf courses are excluded from calculations for commercial land
use, Rosemount's commercial land still increased by 137 % over the past decade.
Rosemount also has a significant inventory of vacant land that is already zoned for
commercial development.rs :off;
..........
Objectives
1. Satisfy the weekly convenience retail and service needs of market area residents.
2. Maintain the Town Center as the historical retail/governmental center of
Rosemount and the remainder of the CBD for highway service and support
commercial activity.
3. Provide for revitalization of the CBD as a means to maintain its viability and
competitiveness in the market place.
4. Build on the historical values of the Town Center by maintaining its mainstreet
(vs shopping center) character.
26
5. Maximize the efficiency and synergy of retail/service developments within the
CBD.
Plan Elements
The Rosemount Central Business District (CBD) consists of two rather distinctly different
sub -elements: the Town Center which generally lies north of Lower 147th Street and the
remainder which extends south along South Robert Trail to the intersection of County Road
42 and west to Chippendale. The CBD as a whole has a sufficient supply of vacant land
and redevelopment capacity to satisfy the needs of its retail market area until at least year
2000. It is for this reason that the City intends to concentrate most commercial
development in this single contiguous area.
The Town Center exemplifies the City's small town character and serves as the center for
civic interaction. It is intended that the Town Center continue to accommodate a mixture
of non -auto oriented retail, sit down restaurants, shoppers goods stores, office,
governmental, religious and educational facilities and function in an historical or traditional
fashion with buildings oriented to the street, sidewalks, on -street parking, parking lots
behind or between buildings and small vestpocket park or pedestrian scale open spaces. It
is intended that the Town Center be redeveloped with buildings of an appropriate massing,
scale and size to create a pedestrian friendly environment. It is also the City's intent to
protect its investment in downtown and allow for the use of TIF, as appropriate, to
encourage development.
The remainder of the CBD is intended to accommodate freestanding destination -type retail
and service establishments including auto -oriented uses that may be of more contemporary
design. These uses generally benefit from arterial access and high visibility. They include
auto service, fast food, convenience retail and other uses of a one-stop nature. TIF is not
intended to be used in these areas except in association with redevelopment.
Policies
The following are the City's policies for Commercial areas:
1. To facilitate the rehabilitation of sound structures and the redevelopment of unsafe,
blighted or obsolete structures where consistent with the City's Redevelopment and
Comprehensive Plans.
2. To facilitate CBD planning and redevelopment and the implementation of parking
and landscaping improvements.
27
3. To assume responsibility, in concert with landowners, for the development of all
Town Center parking and streetscape improvements and assess landowners for
improvements based on benefits received.
4. To assist with the relocation of inappropriate businesses away from the CBD as
part of the City's redevelopment program.
5. To encourage land use arrangements which improve retail mix and maximize land
use/parking efficiencies in the Town Center.
6. To promote convenient parking in appropriate locations and in sufficient amounts
to satisfy parking demands.
7. To encourage shared parking, wherever practicable, to minimize excessive hard
surface land coverage.
8. To discourage strip commercial and spot zoning patterns that are not in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
9. To minimize the number and maximize the spacing of street and driveway
accesses to major streets from business areas.
10. To maximize land use compatibility between commercial and residential uses by
proper design, land use transitions and extraordinary buffering, landscaping and
screening at neighborhood edges.
11. To encourage a unified management structure as part of redevelopment projects
and the collective promotion of business in the CBD.
12. To ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access and maintain a pedestrian scale
within the Town Center.
13. To establish a development concept with design guidelines for the CBD which will
unify it as a center of retail activity.
14. To generally improve business signage throughout the City and continue to
prohibit off-site advertising signs.
15. To minimize commercial land use traffic impacts on residential streets.
16. To carefully control offensive commercial uses by requiring that they be
concentrated away from residential areas, churches, schools, parks and other public
facilities.
► .a
17. To rezone properties that are not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan to
bring them into compliance with public land use policy.
29
Industrial Areas
Industrial Land Use
Light Industry and Industrial Parks
Despite the inventory of property zoned for industrial park development, Rosemount has
attracted only a limited amount of this type of development. Just 1 % of Rosemount's
industrial development is in the form of industrial park type uses and just 6% of all
industrial development is located in the western portion of the City.
Industry in the Pine Bend Area
By far the majority of Rosemount's industrial development is located in the Pine Bend area
in eastern Rosemount.
In eastern Rosemount industry is the primary competitor for agricultural land. Large tracts
have been designated for industrial development and much of the area is currently owned
by large industries. However, of the acres owned by industry, only a portion ( %)
of that property is presently used for industrial purposes.
Objectives
1. Provide the full range of opportunities for industrial development in Rosemount.
2. Ensure that conflicts with the natural environment and other land uses are
minimized.
3. Expansion of the Pine Bend Industrial Area in a logical, orderly and sequential
fashion in coordination with waste processing/ management plans.
4. Establishment of safe and healthful industrial areas.
Plan Elements
Rosemount presently has a significant amount of heavy industrial development in the Pine
Bend area and only limited light industrial development near the old Village. Koch refinery
is one of only two such facilities in the entire State of Minnesota. These factors suggest
30
that more heavy industrial development may be forthcoming, that alternative uses will be
increasingly unlikely in this area and that public utilities will be needed to service this
collection of regional and larger scale land uses. Two types of industrial development are
proposed as follows:
Industrial Park (I -P). Industrial park areas are intended to serve light industrial uses as
well as general office development and supporting commercial service uses. Generally,
industrial parks are developed under one single ownership, but, in any event, development
must occur in a coordinated fashion that demonstrates future phasing capability (if
applicable); an internal circulation system with limited access to collectors and streets); high
standards of planning, architectural and landscaping design which remain consistent
throughout the park; adequate buffering (through the use of extra -ordinary setbacks and/or
effective screening) from adjacent residential uses; and limited outdoor storage with proper
screening. Typical industrial park uses include warehousing, distribution, light assembly,
and wholesaling as well as office uses and commercial uses that clearly support, are
incidental to, or complement the industrial park (e.g. office supplies and services or
restaurants that serve employees). Industrial parks are intended to be developed within the
Urban Service Area, adjacent to an arterial or collector street.
General Industrial (G -D. General industrial areas are those reserved exclusively for
industries requiring large sites and/or exterior storage. The general industrial areas are
located so as to minimize adverse effects on adjacent land uses and to be well -served by
arterial roadways as well as barge and rail transportation systems. Typical general
industrial uses include processing and heavy manufacturing, large-scale transhipment and
distribution centers, outdoor storage yards and mining. Offices and general commercial
uses are permitted only where clearly accessory to the general industrial activities. Areas
within the MUSA are intended to be serviced by public utilities.
Policies
The following are the City's policies for Industrial areas:
1. To create an Urban Service Area for east Rosemount to service regional -scale
industrial and waste management/processing land uses.
2. To allow for the expansion of industrial development in the Pine Bend area where
land is undesirable for other uses or could be adversely influenced by adjoining
uses (incinerator) provided such development is within the Urban Service Area,
will not adversely impact long-term agricultural activities, is serviceable by public
utilities in sequential fashion (is contiguous to already served areas where services
can be readily extended) and is able to be accessed via public streets without public
assistance.
31
3. To require that all industrial developments comply with U.S. EPA and MPCA
standards for effluent emissions per NPDES permit and SDS permit procedures.
4. To require that all on-site industrial waste water treatment systems be maintained
and inspected according to the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance,
Building Code and Chapter 70-80, MPCA Rules.
5. To require that all industrial uses within Urban Service Areas be connected to
public sewer and water services as such services become available.
6. To require that planning for industrial developments minimize environmental
impacts, land use conflicts and visual accessibility from surrounding properties and
public streets and highways.
7. To initiate the development of an industrial park for low impact light industries in
western Rosemount and consider the use of economic incentives as means to
stimulate tax base enhancement and job creation.
8. To maximize land use compatibility by requiring extraordinary standards for
setbacks, buffering, screening and landscaping at the edges of industrial areas and
along major streets and highways.
9. To encourage the provision of small green spaces and trails within industrial areas
for use by employees and to tie industrial areas into the City's trail system.
10. To require fire suppression systems in all industrial buildings in accordance with
Appendix Chapter 38, State Building Code.
32
Waste Management Land Use Element
Objectives
1. Promotion of the effective regulation of private waste management activities.
2. Supplement and enhance environmental protection policies.
3. Establishment of appropriate, compatible locations for waste management activities.
Plan Elements
Public attitudes and technology involving waste management continue to evolve. Singular
approaches to waste management have given way to integrated systems including waste
reduction, reuse, recycling, resource recovery and disposal. Waste related industries are
going to continue to develop and environmental awareness creates increasing demands for
responsible waste management.
A waste management land use element serves several functions. It allows for the proper
identification of a special use district. It allows the City to proactively determine where
waste related activities may be compatible with other uses and should be located. It allows
the City to protect waste management activities from infringement by incompatible uses. It
also provides the City the vehicle to establish proper regulations and responsible
management for waste related activities.
Policy review and analysis is an on-going requirement in any growth management plan.
The need for continual policy analysis in waste management planning is particularly vital
due to the rapid changes in waste management technology, regulatory direction and public
sentiment.
Waste Management Policies
The following are the City's policies for Waste Management land uses:
To permit waste related activities only when the public health, safety and welfare is
ensured.
2. To require that waste related activities occur in locations that minimize or eliminate
conflicts with other uses.
33
3. To locate waste related activities in areas in which long term land use compatibility
and protection from other conflicting uses may be maximized.
4. To permit waste related activities only when any potential or known conflicts or
impacts are eliminated or properly mitigated.
5. To require that any waste related facility employ the best available technology in
any aspect of the facility regarding environmental protection controls.
6. To ensure that the design, construction and operation of waste related facilities
minimize any negative environmental impacts and mitigate them to the fullest
extent possible.
7. To allow waste disposal to occur only when efforts to reuse and recycle wastes
have been exhausted.
8. To consider waste related facilities only when the economic benefits, incentives and
other advantages to the City and community clearly outweigh any known or
potential negative aspects of a facility.
9. To permit waste related facilities only when the proper infrastructure exists to serve
facilities or when proper improvements can be made without expense or burden on
the City.
34
Transportation Element
Existing Transportation Systems
Major Thoroughfares.
The City is traversed by only one Metropolitan System Highway; State Trunk Highway 52
which is located in eastern Rosemount. This is a four -lane expressway facility with at -grade
intersections (except at County Road 42) that carries approximately 23,300 and 16,000
vehicles per average day north and south of Highway 55 respectively (1991). According to
the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Development Guide, no improvements are
scheduled for Trunk Highway 52 prior to 2010. It will become an extremely important
roadway necessitating substantial improvements if MSP International Airport is relocated south
of Rosemount.
Other existing arterial streets include County Road 42 and State Trunk Highways 3 and 55.
The entire system of State, County, and Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets is operating at a
favorable traffic volume to capacity ration except for State Trunk Highway 3 where current
capacity is deficient. Trunk Highway 3 is a two-lane street, currently carrying approximately
8,500 ADT (average daily traffic), which bisects downtown Rosemount. Any efforts to
increase its capacity would be in direct conflict with the redevelopment of this center as the
City's primary shopping district.
Public Transit
The City of Rosemount, along with Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Prior Lake and Savage,
is a member of the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority. This opt out authority provides a
work commute express bus service to and from downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis. The
City has one park and ride lot located near the intersection of 143rd Street West and South
Robert Trail (TH 3) from which the Green Line Shuttle currently provides a feeder route
through Rosemount, east Apple Valley and Eagan connecting with express bus service to
Minneapolis and St. Paul. The MVTA, which is overseen by the Regional Transit Board
(RTB), is also responsible for monitoring and meeting transit needs throughout the six city
member region. In addition, Rosemount is also served by DARTS (Seniors), Metro Mobility
(handicapped), and the Community Action Council Transportation System (low income).
Aviation
The City currently has no airport or heliport facilities within its jurisdiction. It is, however,
within a Critical Airspace Policy Area which must be protected from the encroachment of
obstructions to air navigation (structures over 500 feet tall). Southern and eastern Rosemount
are also included within the Dakota Candidate Search Area for a new hub or major airport, an
area that seems to be the preferred area should MSP be relocated. If the decision is made to
relocate MSP, actual construction will not occur until after the turn of the century. The
36
nearest reliever airports are South St. Paul and Air Lake, both of which are six or more miles
from Rosemount.
Rail Service
Rosemount is served by both the Soo Line and the Chicago Northwestern Transportation
Companies. Large areas of the City can be served by rail, and freight hauling, switching, and
piggy -back services are available to local industries.
Barge Facilities
The Pine Bend area of Rosemount is accessible by barge and existing barge facilities
serve several industries within the City.
37
Transportation Plan
Objectives
1. Development of a safe and efficient hierarchy of public streets and highways that
provides for the movement of large volumes of long distance traffic on major streets
and minimizes traffic on local streets within neighborhoods.
2. Optimum accessibility throughout the City and to major regional activity centers via
systems that are coordinated with neighboring communities, the County, and the
State.
3. Reduction in single occupant automobile travel to diminish the growing demand for
street capacity.
4. Provision of greater transit choice and improved mobility for all City residents,
especially the transit dependent.
5. Continuing improvements to public streets to protect the public's investment in
infrastructure.
6. Protection of airspace throughout the City from vertical obstructions to aviation.
Major Thoroughfare Plan Elements
Until substantial increases in the cost of parking at the work destination, gasoline and
commuting in general occur, or stronger efforts by transportation agencies are made to
promote public transit, the automobile will be the primary mode of transportation for City
residents until well into the next century. For this reason, this plan will primarily focus on
major thoroughfares. Most of the major street system is already in place with the exception of
County Road 46 (160th Street), the relocation of Trunk Highway 3, and needed collector
streets in the Pine Bend area.
The proposed Major Thoroughfare Functional Classification System correlates with that of
Dakota County with the exception of Trunk Highway 3 north of County Road 42 and County
Road 42 where both are classified as principal arterials by the County. Based on the County's
projected 2010 traffic volumes, an arterial classification is warranted but high 2010 traffic
volumes on Trunk Highway 3 (16,000 to 20,000 ADT) will be totally inconsistent with the
City's intent to redevelop its historical Town Center. At best, on -street parking will have to
be removed to accommodate such traffic, an act that is inconsistent with the Town Center's
intended mainstreet concept. In the case of County Road 42, at -grade intersections warrant its
designation as a minor arterial.
No
A potentially significant departure from the Dakota County Transportation Plan includes the
relocation of Trunk Highway 3 easterly of the old Village after year 2000 and its classification
as a minor arterial. To avoid the relocation of Trunk Highway 3, if at all possible, the City
prefers that excess traffic be assigned, by design, to Diamond Path and Pilot Knob Roads, an
action that may require the redesignation of Diamond Path to minor arterial status. If that is
not anticipated to produce the desired result, the new alignment for Trunk Highway 3 should
be established and protected so that construction can be commenced when traffic volumes on
existing Trunk Highway 3 approach its current capacity threshhold, warranting the removal of
on -street parking or widening. The movement of MSP International south of Rosemount, will
almost certainly require the relocation of TH 3. If relocated, existing Trunk Highway 3 is
intended to function as a collector street, providing direct access to the Town Center from all
residential areas without having to utilize the arterial street system.
Other lesser changes in the thoroughfare plan include a system of collector streets which
service the proposed industrial areas at Pine Bend. Providing access to adjacent properties via
local streets, this will allow for the eventual upgrading of Trunk Highway 52 to meet freeway
standards.
All streets not shown as major thoroughfares are classified as local streets for which the City
has exclusive responsibility. Most major streets are under the jurisdiction of the State of
Minnesota and Dakota County.
Major Thoroughfare Policies
1. To require the dedication of all rights-of-way for collector and local streets.
2. To require adequately spaced driveways and street intersections along major streets
to maintain maximum efficiency and capacity and minimize vehicular conflicts.
To require the elimination or reduction in the number of direct driveway accesses to
the arterial street system as redevelopment occurs and prohibit any new direct
accesses to Trunk Highway 52.
4. To establish and enforce minimum setback distances between intersections and
driveways to accommodate queuing and avoid traffic conflicts at street intersections.
5. To require expanded setbacks for land uses adjacent to major streets between major
intersections where accessibility is not available or desirable but consider reduced
setbacks along frontage roads and at intersections to accommodate public transit
accessibility.
6. To use signage, traffic diverters, and other appropriate measures to minimize traffic
volumes and through traffic on local residential streets (not MSA streets) but avoid
the use of stop signs for such purposes unless warranted by cross traffic volumes.
31
7. To protect rights-of-way for future collector and arterial streets from land use
encroachments.
8. To require the protection of sight lines at street intersections.
9. To require that accepted standards (ITE) for sight distances based on speed are met
at intersections and driveway entrances to major streets.
10. To require residences to back or side to major streets.
11. To build sidewalks and, where practicable, bikeways/trails as integral parts of the
upgrading of major streets and coordinate pedestrian and nonmotorized systems with
the Parks Master Plan.
12. To permit the use of cul-de-sacs only as means to avoid street extensions that would
be detrimental to the natural environment or where, due to topographic change, such
extensions cannot feasibility be made.
13. To approve streets only where every effort has been made to fit the natural contour
and avoid landform disruption.
14. To require traffic impact studies for larger residential, commercial or industrial
developments or where projects are unable to meet the minimum standards set forth in
this Plan.
15. To cooperate with the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, Dakota County, MnDOT,
RTB, and neighboring communities in the planning and implementation of major
street, highway and transit improvements.
q
Functional Thoroughfare Classification System
Principal
Arterial
Minor
Arterial
Collector
Street
Local
Street
Spacing
3-6 miles
1-2 miles
0.5-1 mile
1 block - urban
1 mile - rural
Location
On edges of development
and neighborhoods.
On edges of development
and neighborhoods
On edges or within
neighborhoods.
Within neighborhoods and
other homogeneous land
use areas.
Intersection
Characteristics
Grade separated.
Traffic signals and cross
street stops.
4 -way stops and some
signals.
Local street stops.
As required
Volumes Carried
5,000 - 50,000
1,000 - 10,000
250-2,500
Less than 1,000
Posted Speed
Legal limit.
50
35-45
Maximum 30
Parking
None
Restricted as necessary
Restricted as necessary
Restricted if MSA.
Management Tools
Ramp metering with
preferential treatment for
transit.
Signal timing with
preferential treatment for
transit.
Number of lanes.
Signal timing.
Access control
Intersection control.
Cul-de-sacs.
Diverters.
System Access
To interstate freeways,
other arterials.
To interstate freeways,
other arterials and
collectors.
To minor arterials, other
collectors.
To collectors and other
locals.
Trip -making Service
Performed
Trips greater than 8 miles
at moderately high spped.
Express transit trips.
Medium to short trips (2-6
miles) at moderate speeds.
Local transit trips.
Short trips (1-4 miles at low
speeds.
Local transit trips.
Short trips at low speeds.
Source: Metropolitan Council
0
tan
Thoroughfare Sdards
Design Element
Principal
Arterial
Minor
Arterial
Collector
Street
Local.
Street
Number of traffic lanes
4-6
2-4
2-4
2
Traffic lane width (ft)
12-14
12-14
12
10-12
Curb parking or shoulder width (ft)
No parking
No parking
8-10
8
Minimum pavement width (ft)
52
44-52
36
28
Minimum R -O -W width (ft)
300
100-120
80
50
Design speed (mph)
55
45
30-40
30
4 Z- 7--
S
W
IGeneral type of
access control
Desirable spacing
of intersections of
crossing public
roadways
f { Non-public
IIentrance spacing
Corner clearance
to non-public
entrance
Cnntrnl ,,Rtandards
Principal
Minor
Collector
Arterial
Arterial
Street
RURAL Minimum Limited access carefully planned
Access carefully planned
Entrances combined where possible
Desirable Access only at Principal and Minor
Access only at Pr, Min & Coll
Access carefully planned
URBAN Minimum Access only at Principal and Minor
Some access at major generators
Access carefully planned
Desirable No access between Interchanges
No access between public streets
No access between public streets
Principal
Minor
RURAL Collector
Local
Principal
URBAN Minor
Collector
Local
RURAL Minimum
Desirable
URBAN Minimum
Desirable
RURAL Minimum
Desirable
URBAN Minimum
Desirable
6 miles
3 miles
1 mile
None
3 miles
I mile
None
None
1,250 feet
None
1 mile
None
300 feet, if any
No access permitted
No access permitted
No access permitted
6
3 miles
2 miles
1 mile
1 mile
.5 mile
None
500 feet
1,250 feet
200 feet
500 feet
50 feet
100 feet
50 feet
100 feet
2 miles
1 mile
.5 mile
.25 mile
300 feet
1,000 feet
100 feet
300 feet
50 feet
100 feet
30 feet
100 feet
Local
Street
Entrances
combined
where
possible
Carefully planned
Carefully planned
100 feet
300 feet
50 feet
100 feet
50 feet
100 feet
30 feet
100 feet
Public Transit Plan Elements
For reasons primarily related to the lack of financing public usage, transit service to
Rosemount is very limited, consisting of a feeder bus service connecting with express buses to
downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis from a park and ride lot located just north of downtown
Rosemount. According to the Community Survey (1989) only 17% of Rosemount's residents
are employed in Minneapolis and St. Paul while a substantial percent (34%) are employed in
Fagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley and Bloomington/South Hennepin County to which no service
is available. According to the March, 1986 Transit Service needs Assessment prepared by the
RTB, transit dependency is low in Rosemount with primary work trip attractions being
Bloomington, Eagan and Apple Valley. Public transit is and will continue to be a very minor
need for Rosemount, except for the truly dependent rider, until congestion increases, parking
fees are initiated or spaces taxed and fuel costs increase dramatically. It is the City's intent to
explore with the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA), as opportunities arise, para -
transit, flexroute circulator service, park and pool service and to continually monitor and meet
the transit needs of the City. Also available is service to seniors through DARTS, service to
the handicapped through Metro Mobility, and service to those with low income through the
Community Action Council Transit System.
Another facet of public transit is the possible implementation of Light Rail Transit (LRT).
This possibility is currently being studied by several agencies. Rosemount's participation is
through the Southern Dakota County Light Rail Committee. As the planning of LRT
progresses and as the need for public transit becomes more apparent it will be necessary for
the many agencies involved in transportation issues to coordinate their efforts and finances.
Public Transit Policies
1. To encourage state and federal transportation dollars to be used more toward public
transit and less toward freeway construction to increase patronage of transit and
decrease traffic congestion.
2. To encourage larger employers to participate in Minnesota Rideshare.
3. To promote and encourage the increased use of public transit and ride -sharing as
means to reduce single occupant automobile travel demand.
4. Through participation in the MVTA, to work with the RTB to ensure Rosemount's
bus service needs are met and appropriate dollars made available.
5. Through participation in the MVTA, to work with the other opt -out authorities and
the RTB to change policies regulating transit tax dollars and bus ownership in order to
create a more favorable market for competition among transit operators.
6. As the need arises for moving or increasing the number of park and ride lots, the
location of such should be in the CBD or near other retail/commercial and higher
liq I1
density residential areas, or in high traffic volume areas such as State Highway 52
and State Highway 55.
7. To exercise local development controls and financing mechanisms to protect needed
park and ride sites from urban development.
8. To establish appropriate and supportive land uses in the vicinity of park and ride lots
to maximize compatibility and shared parking.
9. To locate higher density developments appropriately to take into account the future
availability of public transit services.
10. To encourage developers with transit corridors to design for public transit including
the orientation of building entrances to streets, reductions in setbacks, provision of
transit stops and walkways and the provision of preferential parking opportunities to
those who car and van pool.
11. To participate with MVTA, RTB, Met Council, and MnDOT to ensure that transit
facility needs are coordinated with highway planning.
12. Through participation in the Southern Dakota County Light Rail Committee, to ensure
Rosemount's interests are represented.
13. To encourage coordination of bus service and LRT service by working with all
involved transportation agencies, such as MnDOT, Met Council, RTB, LRT
committees, and other opt -outs.
Aviation Plan Elements
It is the City's intent to continue to participate in the process of selecting a area for a
new major replacement airport for Minneapolis St. Paul International.
Aviation Policies
1. To require that tall towers having a height of 200 feet or more above ground level be
subject to variance, planned unit development, or interim use permit (IUP)
requirements and procedures. Also, to include notification of MnDOT and the FAA
in said procedure.
2. To require that heliports comply with the licensing requirements of MnDOT, the
approach and altitude standards of the FAA and the noise standards of the MPCA as
requirements of CUP approval.
3. To prohibit the use of seaplanes in the City.
4 S 12
4. In the event a new international airport is approved by the Minnesota Legislature
near Rosemount to protect all airspace zones from vertical intrusions and prohibit
general obstructions to air navigation per Minnesota Department of Transportation
Rule 14 MCAR 1.3015, Subdivisions C and D.
5. In the event a new airport is developed near Rosemount, the MAC should acquire
land within the 60 Ldn Contours and the preferred take-off/landing approaches should
be clearly directed away from urban concentrations.
6. In the event a new airport is developed near Rosemount, MAC shall implement new
transportation improvements that do not change the character of existing roadways or
disrupt the character of the communities in which the roadways exist.
7. In the event a new airport is developed near Rosemount, local jurisdictions should
retain taxation and development jurisdiction of non -airport development. MAC shall
not acquire additional property beyond the area needed for safe/environmental
operation of an airport.
8. In the event a new airport is developed near Rosemount, LRT and other transit
policies should be re-evaluated.
9. In the event a new airport is developed near Rosemount, Dakota County and
Metropolitan Council highway plans need to be totally updated.
Community Services and Facilities
Public Facilities and Services Element
Objectives
1. Provide public utilities and the full range of urban services within Urban Service
Areas to maintain the health, welfare and safety of the public.
2. Provide only limited urban services (e.g. police and fire) to Rural Service Areas.
3. Provide safeguards to insure against the disruption of essential public services.
4. Expand the capacity of the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant and/or explore
alternative ways of increasing capacity in a timely fashion so that development
within Urban Service Areas is not restricted.
5. Explore service sharing and alternative methods of providing public services which
will maintain levels without substantial cost increases.
6. Communicate often and effectively with constituents to facilitate their understanding
of the essential relationship between servicing costs and demands.
7. Continue to monitor and maintain the public infrastructure to protect the public's
investment and minimize service failures.
Public Utility Policies
1. To provide public sewer service to and replace the existing rural water system in
east Rosemount to service regional -scale industrial and waste
management/processing land uses.
2. To support the expansion of the waste water treatment facilities to satisfy the
growing need for capacity throughout the City.
3. To extend public utility systems in a logical, sequential fashion, concurrent with
development, not in advance of development.
4. To define and protect potential public utility rights-of-way that may eventually be
needed to extend service to rural residential areas.
q-7
5. To require soil testing and establish minimum lot sizes on a case-by-case basis for
all on-site waste treatment systems.
6. To maintain an inventory and conduct an ongoing inspection program for on-site
septic systems.
7. To prohibit the development and use of new private waste water treatment plants
in the City and the expansion of existing systems.
8. To reduce inflow and infiltration to the sanitary sewer system and thereby increase
wastewater treatment plant capacity by continuing to upgrade the present system and
reducing precipitation induced inflow.
9. To require that the release of stormwater from a developed site comply with the
City's stormwater management plans or be retained to the extent that its release rate
is no greater than the pre -development ten year peak discharge.
10. To explore with surrounding cities the potential benefits that may accrue to
interconnecting public water supply systems in conjunction with appropriate
conservation measures to insure a minimum level of service in case of service
disruption.
11. To cooperate with the MW CC and the Vermillion Watershed Management
Organization in providing sufficient waste water treatment capacity and maintaining
surface waters quality for a growing population.
Other Public Facility and Services Policies
1. To provide fire and rescue services to all the areas of the western Urban Service
Area within the shortest time practicable a six to seven minute response time.
2. To site fire stations in locations that offer the best potential accessibility by
volunteer fire fighters and recruit daytime volunteers within a two minute turnout
time from stations.
3. To continue to cooperate with Koch Refinery and the University of Minnesota to
improve fire protection services to the more remote areas of the City.
4. To evaluate the need and feasibility of providing public water service to northwest
Rosemount only if the public health is at risk.
5. To continue to upgrade fire fighting and emergency rescue equipment and water
service as needed to maintain present levels of service and improve insurance
ratings.
4 2
6. To continue to explore cooperative cost-sharing arrangements with mutual aid fire
departments to increase efficiency and improve fire service and training.
7. To continue to promote cooperative arrangements between the Dakota County
Sheriff and all other law enforcement agencies to improve services and optimize
costs.
8. To maintain all public administration functions in a single centrally located City
Administration Center which meets accepted workspace standards.
9. To evaluate/explore service sharing opportunities with other jurisdictions and
service organizations ranging from cost-sharing to consolidation.
4`t
11
Natural Environment Outline
I. Background/Overview
A. Geomorphology.
1. Miss. Valley Outwash Plain
a. definition/characteristics.
2. Glacial Activities
a. specific names and time periods
3. Complex Moraine
a. definition/characteristics
II. Soils
A. Dominant Soils
Map of Soils, level of detail on map, determines level of detail in this section.
1. Waukegan-Wadena-Hawick Group (Soil Survey pp. 6-7)
a. location
i. NW and N Central portion of the city.
b. characteristics
i. level to very steep, well to excessively drained, silt and loam
sediments over sandy outwash.
ii. surface layer is black, dark brown or dark grayish brown
and about 8-12 inches thick.
C. uses
i. agricultural- some irrigation needed, best suited for corn,
soybeans and small grains.
id. residential- good for buildings, risk of contamination when
combined with septic tanks.
iii. resources sand and gravel.
1. Kingsley-Mahtomedi Group (Soil Survey pp. 15-16).
a. location
L NE and South half of the city.
b. characteristics
i. gently sloping to steep, well and excessively drained, loamy
and sandy glacial till and outwash,
ii. surface layer is black or dark grayish brown and about 5-8
inches thick.
C. uses
L poorly suited to cultivated crops.
ii. poorly suited to buildings and septic tanks.
iii. resources- sand and gravel.
III. Water
A. Dominant Surface Water Resources.
1. Mississippi River and Spring Lake
a. Floodplain
2. Wetlands
B. Ground Water
1. Jordan- Prairie du Chien aquifer. Need locational map here.
!�'b
2. Wells. Need well map here.
3. Drainage
IV. Vegetation
A. Indigenous vegetation
1. Oak/Savannah
2. Short Grass Prairie
3. Hardwoods [uplands]/scrub and brush [bottom -lands].
V. Objectives for Preservation of the Natural Environment.
A. Conservation of unique and essential natural resources.
B. Integration of urban development with the natural environment in an
environmentally responsible manner.
C. Protection of people and property from natural and manmade hazards.
D. Conservation of energy resources.
E. Protection and preservation of scenic and historical resources.
VI. Policies for the Preservation of the Natural Environment.
A. Wetland, Shoreland, Floodplain and Recharge Area Policies.
1. To prohibit the alteration of all wetlands which are identified by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife _ Natural Wetlands Inventory unless
replacement/mitigation is provided in the ration of two acres of mitigated
wetlands for each acre of drained or filled wetland.
2. To require that any wetland mitigation comply with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Criteria for wetland quantity, character, and diversity.
3. To prohibit the use of Type 3, 4, or 5 wetland (open water) as a primary
sediment trap during or after construction
4. To protect designated Recreational Development, General Development,
and Natural Environment Waters per the City's Shoreland Overlay
Regulations.
5. To protect areas susceptible to flooding from encroachments which could
result in property damage or impede the hydraulic efficiency of the water
body in accordance with State and Federal floodway standards.
B. Soils and steep slope Policies
1. To require site plan review and strict erosion control measures for any
development of slopes in excess of 12%.
2. To promote agriculture in designated areas which contain prime
agricultural soils.
3. To prohibit the construction of on-site sewer systems in areas having
severe or very severe soil limitations for such systems except where
alternative systems can be designed and maintained.
C. Vegetation Policies.
1. To minimize the loss of significant trees on public and private property.
Where loss is unavoidable, require replacement with acceptable substitute
plant materials in the subdivision platting process.
2. To preserve remnants of the three major natural plant communities
(oak/savannah, short grass prairie and upland hardwoods/bottomland shrubs
and brush,) on public and private lands where possible and require
replacement when loss in unavoidable. (In site review plans?)
S(
Ib
3. To require, as an element of site plan review, the identification of
significant trees and tree stands and proposals for tree preservation and
replacement with species native to Minnesota and the region.
4. To require screening, landscaping, and tree replacement as an element of
development plans.
5. To require that protected trees be marked and fenced prior to the start of
construction to minimize damage and future loss.
D. Energy Conservation Policies.
1. To consider energy conservation during site plan review including
solar access protection and the use of vegetation to facilitate summer
shading and winter solar gain.
2. To prohibit developments from shading residential structures during the
winter heating season (from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.)
3. To use available grant and loan programs to provide for the increase
energy efficiency of the City's housing stock.
4. To promote alternative means of commuting, such as the increased use of
public, (including park-and-ride facilities,) and nonmotorized transit and
ride -sharing as a means to reduce energy consumption.
E. Water Use/Quality Management Policies
1. To prohibit the use of groundwater for once -through heating and cooling.
2. To promote water conservation programs to diminish the public and
private use of water for nonessential purposes.
3. To investigate methods and programs which will minimize the use of
applied chemicals for lawn care, agriculture, and public street
maintenance.
4. To require land alteration and erosion control plans for all developments
during construction.
5. To require the maintenance of natural vegetation, shorelines, and wetland
fringes of and require minimum setbacks from protected waters as a
means to protect water quality and wildlife habitat.
6. To encourage a dual pond concept per U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
guidelines to buffer protected waters from sediment and chemical
incursions.
7. To continue to work with the MPCA and the University of Minnesota to
remediate all waste contamination.
8. To protect groundwaters by insuring that water wells are capped in
accordance with State regulations.
9. To establish a City-wide water quality management plan to protect surface
and ground waters.
F. Wildlife Habitat Protection Policies.
1. To protect the existing wildlife habitat in the Mississippi River Valley and
the northwest area of the City and City-wide through protective easements
or open space protection.
2. To support the preservation and management of rare, unique, endangered
and threatened plants and animals and prohibit any action that would
reduce or degrade the habitat supporting such species.
5Z
•
3. To protect natural habitat corridors which link major habitat areas.
4. To encourage the use of yard plantings which also serve as wildlife
habitat.
G. Historical, Scenic and Landmark Policies.
1. To protect historic, scenic, and landmark features, wherever practicable.
2. To incorporate known historical, scenic, and landmark resources, as
identified by the City or other agencies which proposed development and
redevelopment projects and, where loss is unavoidable, to mitigate losses.
3. To cooperate with and assist the State Historical Society in locating,
evaluating, and, where appropriate, preserving historical sites and
structures having significant historical or architectural values.
53
Th
Economic Development Element
Objectives
1. Provide opportunities for the attraction of new business and the retention of existing
business as means to expand employment opportunities and increase/diversify the
City's tax base.
2. Stimulate the redevelopment of underutilized, blighted, or obsolete land uses.
3. Insure that publicly assisted economic development projects meet established criteria
that guarantee public benefit.
4. Coordinate economic development activities/programs with other public agencies.
Economic Development Policies
The following are the City's policies for Economic Development as they apply to Commercial
and Industrial areas:
1. To promote public financial assistance/incentives for projects that eliminate blight,
increase or retain predominantly full-time professional, technical and managerial
employment or retain existing viable businesses.
2. To avoid public financial assistance for any business relocating or expanding where
the assistance alone makes the business viable.
3. To make public financial assistance available for economic development only when
it can be demonstrated that the project would not be feasible without public
assistance.
4. To make public assistance available only when a project can be proven to be
financially feasible and will produce long-term tax base benefits which exceed public
costs.
5. To require developer financial guarantees as part of redevelopment agreements as
the first line of defence against project failure. In other words, the developer should
guarantee that payments in lieu of tax increments will be made by the developer in
the event of a shortfall.
6. To actively identify redevelopment needs and initiate projects which meet the
City's qualifying criteria.
5- �'
7. To communicate regularly and effectively with Dakota County and the Rosemount
School District whenever tax increment financing is to be used.
8. To pursue changes to the law with the State Legislature to allow for pollution
remediation.
26 ,.
eity of (O?osemount
PHONE (612) 4234411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota
FAX (612) 4235203 Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510
TO: Mayor & City Council
Planning Commission
Port Authority
Parks and Recreation Committee
Utilities Commission
FROM: Lisa Freese, Director of Planning
DATE: June 26, 1992
SUBJ: Comprehensive Guide Plan - Special Council Meeting
6/30/92 - 6:30 p.m.
At Tuesday's meeting, I would like to focus on the items listed on the
Agenda. At the last Special City Council Meeting the sewer capacity
issues, the urban/rural residential transition area issues, and the
commercial development locational issues were discussed extensively. In
response to the concerns expressed at that meeting, our consultant Fred
Hoisington has developed a planned unit development concept for both the
residential transition area and the commercial transition area. These
concepts are included on pages 17 and 18 of your packet.
We have also been working on the year 2000 and 2010 Metropolitan
Urban Service Area boundaries. At the meeting we will be discussing our
assumptions and identifying the initial boundary delineations. Please come
with your ideas about the areas that we should try to prioritize growth for
the year 2000 (residential, commercial, and industrial).
If we are able to draw conclusions on these issues the Planning
Department and consultant can begin to put together the final document.
We are enclosing calendars for you to identify dates you will not be
available for potential Special Meetings during the months of July and
August.
Looking forward to a productive meeting on Tuesday.
6verylking s (Pouring `Up gosemounlY
MAYOR
Edward B. McMenomy
COUN¢ILMEMBERS
Sheila Klassen
James (Red) Steals
Harry Willcox
Dennis Wippermann
ADMINISTRATOR
Stephan Jilk
TO Lisa Freese, Planning Director
FROM : Marie Darling, Planning Intern
DATE : June 1, 1992
RE TAX CAPACITY ANALYSIS
As requested I have performed a tax capacity analysis on Rosemount and six other communities.
The analysis is divided into four parts and the results are shown in Tables 1-4. The first table
shows land uses and the share of the total property tax burden they represent. Rosemount is in
very good shape. The tax burden is almost evenly shared between the residents and the
merchants. As displayed in the table, homestead and non -homestead residential property share
44 percent of the total tax burden. Similarly, industrial and commercial land uses represent 48
percent of the total tax burden.
Other communities do not fair as well. For example, Apple Valley's residents are responsible
for 75 percent of the tax burden and commercial and industrial property owners are responsible
for only 21 percent.
Chanhassen is measured differently from the other communities. The city is divided between
two counties, Carver and Hennepin, and both of those counties figure the categories differently
from the method employed by Dakota County. For example, the "Commercial" and "Industrial"
categories are combined, while "Seasonal\Recreational" is included in agriculture.
The second part of the study, as shown in Table 2, shows property values, based on land use,
and the share of the total market value. Rosemount residential land represents 69 percent of the
total market value for the city, and yet they pay only 44 percent of the total tax burden. The
commercial and industrial land owners make up the 25 percent difference.
In contrast, Apple Valley residents hold 89 percent of the total market value and are responsible
for 75 percent of the tax burden. Commercial and industrial landowners only pick up 14 percent
of the tax burden in that city.
Table 3 displays the changes in the tax capacity and market values that have taken place since
the tax capacity rating was first published, (for taxes payable 1990.) As the table shows,
Rosemount's residents were steadily responsible for 42 percent of the tax burden. In 1992,
(referring back to Table 1) the residents share increased by two percent, while the commercial
and industrial share decreased by one percent.
In Apple Valley, the commercial and industrial land owners have been slowly picking up a
greater share of the tax burden, from 18 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 1992.
Table 4 reflects the changes in the property tax values over the last three years. Rosemount's
residential land share of the total and the commercial and industrial share both increased by a
negligible amount between 1990 and 1992. The same phenomenon happened in Apple Valley.
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF THE TAX CAPACITY OF ROSEMOUNT AND SURROUNDING CITIES FOR
1992.
ROSEMOUNT
APPLE
VALLEY
BURNS-
VILLE
EAGAN
TOTAL
$7,557,047
$22,335,576
$54,4631387
$56,133,723
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
HOME-
STEAD
2,577,901
34
13,964,084
63
15,655,246
29
16,602,707
30
APART-
MENT
757,387
10
2,600,816
12
8,714,913
16
7,648,751
14
COMM-
ERCIAL
805,647
11
4,507,043
20
19,006,682
35
19,514,265
35
INDUST-
RIAL
2,799,515
37
346,149
2
4,525,963
8
10,086,358
18
AGRI-
CULTURE
324,141
4
200,256
1
29,335
0
262,125
0
PUB. UTIL.
164,237
2
208,923
1
5,468,456
10
340,542
1
RAILROAD
9,695
0
0
0
19,840
0
25,845
0
SEAS./REC
0
0
0
0
16,165
0
0
0
OTHER
118,524
2
508,305
2
1,026,787
2
1,653,130
3
TABLE 1
CON'T.
INVER
GROVE
HEIGHTS
HASTINGS
LAKEVILLE
CHANHASSEN
TOTAL
$16,357,696
$8,211,785
$17,670,256
$15,174,763
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
HOME-
STEAD
6,106,945
37
3,550,481
43
8,607,387
49
7,285,700
48
APART-
MENT
3,201,364
20
1,514,708
18
1,900,864
11
1,024,707
7
COMMER-
3,698,849
23
2,130,059
26
2,556,403
14
5,687,298
37
INDUST-
695,086
4
848,854
10
3,145,391
18
AGRI-
CULTURE
257,148
2
23,500
0
704,436
4
335,273
2
PUB. UTIL.
1,881,298
12
45,748
1
85,637
0
RAILROAD
28,192
0
11,310
0
0
0
6,869
0
SEAS./REC.
0
0
0
0
18,941
0
OTHER
488,814
j 3
87,125
1
651,197
F 4
284,701
2
TABLE 2
PROPERTY VALUES OF ROSEMOUNT AND SUROUNDING CITIES
FOR 1992
ROSEMOUNT
APPLE
VALLEY
BURNSVILLE
EAGAN
TOTAL
MARKET
VALUE
$335,880,800
$1,231,149,600
$2,101,643,200
$2,175,130,800
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
HOME-
STEAD
203,441,619
61
1,010,078,065
82
1,179,664,752
56
1,240,889,272
57
APART-
MENT
26,215,668
8
87,438,459
7
275,710,920
13
242,869,494
11
COMMER-
CIAL
18,906,893
6
98,197,778
8
407,998,752
19
417,062,118
19
INDUST-
RIAL
59,554,678
18
7,599,980
1
98,430,142
5
215,178,110
10
AGRI-
CULTURE
21,590,664
6
12,701,044
1
1,874,746
0
16,580,922
1
PUB. UTIL.
3,471,931
1
4,433,116
0
115,194,863
5
7,204,042
0
RAILROAD
204,105
0
0
0
417,684
0
544,105
0
SEAS./REC
0
0
0
0
734,773
0
0
0
OTHER
2,495,242
1
10,701,158
1
21,616,568
1
34,802,737
2
TABLE 2
CON'T.
INVER
GROVE
HEIGHTS
HASTINGS
LAKEVILLE
CHANHASSEN
TOTAL
MARKET
VALUE
$741,571,300
$424,345,900
$899,617,400
$695,231,500
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
HOME-
STEAD
474,684,774
64
302,298,205
71
646,105,882
72
456,208,700
66
APART-
MENT
101,895,200
14
49,072,441
12
65,303,091
7
34,175,000
5
COMMER-
CIAL
81,526,726
11
49,537,090
12
57,258,910
6
122,371,700
18
INDUST-
RIAL
15,267,752
2
18,568,216
4
68,465,514
8
0
AGRI-
CULTURE
17,671,500
2
1,834,516
0
46,076,016
5
24,451,600
4
PUB. UTIL.
39,641,011
5
963,116
0
1,837,621
0
0
RAILROAD
593,516
0
238,105
0
0
0
144,600
0
SEASJREC
0
0
0
0
860,955
0
0
OTHER
10,290,821
1
1,834,211
0
13,709,411
1 2
15,912,100
L2
TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OF THE TAX CAPACITY FOR ROSEMOUNT AND APPLE
VALLEY
FOR YEARS PAYABLE 1990 AND 1991.
ROSEMOUNT APPLE VALLEY
1990 1991 1990 1991
ACTUAL % ACTUAL % ACTUAL % ACTUAL %
TOTAL 6,276,564 7,355,546 20,543,075 21,884,414
1,842,020 29
793,544 13
812,107 1 13
2,254,980
36
257,086
4
184,080
3
9,806
0
0
0
122,931
2
2,305,740 1 31 1 12,944,000 1 63
801,476 1 11
835,227 1 11
2,797,458
38
312,242
4
176,641
2
8,217
0
0
0
118,545
2
3,056,512 1 15
3,526,689 1 17
246,610
1
148,830
1
223,263
1
0
0
0
0
397,171
2
14,212,411 1 65'1
2,865,433 ( 13 11
3,689,230
17
298,526
1
164,344
1
218,099
1
0
0
0
0
436,371
2
TABLE 4
PROPERTY VALUES OF ROSEMOUNT AND APPLE VALLEY
FOR 1990 AND 1991.
ROSEMOUNT
APPLE VALLEY
1990
1991
1990
1991
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
%
ACTUAL
TOTAL
MARKET
VALUE
260,017,400
305,437,800
1,067,276,700
1,153,953,100
HOME-
STEAD
147,441,300
57
176,385,868
58
872,114,483
82
954,645,618
83
APART-
MENT
25,635,826
10
25,906,152
8
95,748,533
9
91,474,850
8
COMMER
15,501,070
6
18,888,169
6
72,863,261
7
77,865,572
7
INDUST.
45,078,804
17
57,107,425
19
5,151,976
0
6,349,010
1
AGRIC.
17,629,299
7
21,006,062
7
9,136,906
1
10,361,079
1
PUB.UTIL.
4,884,071
2
3,583,276
1
4,412,312
0
4,441,395
0
RAILROAD
193,794
0
166,000
0
0
0
0
0
SEAS./REC
0
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
2,429,466
1
2,394,848
1
1 7,849,229
1
8,815,576
1