Agenda 05-04-1995 0
CITY OF ELK RIVER
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
STEERING COMMITTEE
AGENDA
May 4, 1995
7:00 p.m.
City Hall - Council Chambers
ITEM NUMBER
III 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. CONSIDER 5/4/95 AGENDA
3. CONSIDER 4/20/95 MINUTES
4. CONSIDER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
-Land Use Percentage
-Consider Possible Industrial Areas
5. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. FUTURE MEETING
9. ADJOURNMENT
ilipp3owEl
• MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER STEERING COMMITTEE
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1995
Members Present: Chair Minton, Committee Members Keith Holme, Mark Lucas, Pat
Dwyer, Lloyd Barthel, Mary Eberley, Dick Hinkle, Dave Anderson,
Hank Duitsman, Bill Birrenkott and Arne Engstrom
Members Absent: Committee Members Mary McDevitt, Marly Glines, Chris Kreger
and Merry Sipe
Staff Present: Steve Ach, City Planner; Bill Rubin, EDA Executive Director; Kristy
Mansfield, Recording Secretary
1. Call Meeting To Order
The May 4, 1995 meeting of the Elk River Comprehensive Plan Steering
Committee was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chair Minton.
2. Consider Steering Committee Agenda
It was agreed by consensus that commercial development would also be
• discussed during the meeting, if the industrial development issues were
concluded.
ARNE ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 4, 1995 STEERING COMMITTEE
AGENDA. PAT DWYER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 11-0.
3. Consider Steering Committee Minutes
No action taken on the April 20, 1995 Steering Committee minutes.
4. Consider Industrial Development
Staff presentation by Steve Ach. Steve referred to information from the
American Planning Association regarding proper land use mix and concluded
that each individual city needs to determine what the appropriate mix should
be, based on its own needs, factors controlling development and business
interests. He noted that the cites surveyed had between five and eight percent
of their land dedicated for industrial development. Elk River currently has 89% of
land designated for residential (large majority is agricultural), 3% commercial
and 6% industrial. Although Elk River has an average amount of land
designated for industrial, there is a problem of not having immediate
availability.
Discussion followed regarding industrial development in Brooklyn Park and
Fridley.
•
The Committee also discussed the problems associated with too much
residential development as experienced in Richfield and Brooklyn Center.
Steering Committee Minutes Page 2
May 4, 1995
• Issues related to industrial development such as increased tax base and local
jobs were discussed.
Steve Ach reviewed 6 areas (Areas A through F) as possible locations for industrial
development, as referred to in his memo to the Steering Committee dated May 4,
1995.
Bill Birrenkott stated that the problem with many of the areas mentioned is the
lack of available sewer and water. He questioned if there are restrictions to
prevent establishing smaller-sized sewer and water districts to service these areas.
Steve Ach explained that Terry Maurer is researching the feasibility of setting up a
small water and sewer district in the southeast area of the City. Steve noted that
the City of Ramsey has stated their intent to bring water and sewer up to the
City's southeastern boundary. Discussion followed regarding purchasing services
from Ramsey vs. establishing a small sewer and water district to serve the
southeast Highway 10 corridor.
Bill Birrenkott stated he felt the Committee should decide where industrial
development should occur based on best use of land and accessibility to
highways, and that economics will determine how the property is serviced with
water and sewer.
Pat Dwyer commented that Areas A and B appear to be a natural extension of
City water and sewer. He expressed concern with Area C for industrial use
• because of its close proximity to the river, and felt that should be used for
residential. Pat stated that other areas such as E, D and F could be developed
with smaller uses without city water and sewer.
Mary Eberley suggested that public park land could be set aside in planning an
industrial park near the river.
Discussion followed regarding competition with neighboring communities for
industrial development. Bill Rubin explained that competition is based on the
level of incentives cities are willing to provide.
Pat Dwyer stated that the areas identified are likely to be long-term prospects
and that areas for immediate needs should be considered.
Bill Rubin explained developers have indicated there is a real need for industrial
property in Elk River. He suggested that area C may be a good option for a
highway industrial, multi-tenant, office/warehouse development.
Steve Ach stated industrial uses along Highway 10 after the Kelley Farm would
create a "softer" entrance to the City, rather than the more intense, highway
commercial uses.
Mary Eberley stated she supported Areas A and B since these areas are close to
city water and sewer. Also, she supported Area C,with a use as suggested by Bill
Rubin.
III
Steering Committee Minutes Page 3
May 4, 1995
• Lloyd Barthel questioned how many areas are in Areas A and B. Steve Ach
estimated a total of 140 acres in the two areas, but wetland would reduce the
number of developable acres to approximately 80. He felt that industrial park
users should pay for water and sewer and not the residents. He felt that in Area C
should be residential and the remaining area along the highway could be
industrial. He stated that it would be necessary to spot zone the area and also,
to extend water and sewer to the property. He felt the same could be said for
Areas D, E and F, unless the parcels were large enough to develop with some
type of on-site water and sewer, as suggested by Bill Birrenkott.
Steve Ach suggested a mix of residential and commercial in the southeast area
of the City to help pay for extending services.
Dave Anderson expressed his concern for residential development in this area.
Discussion followed regarding the impact of industrial taxes on residential.
Arne Engstrom suggested some type of industrial dedication fees charged to
residential developers, such as the current park dedication fees, to provide for
future industrial land and/or development. He felt that portions of the Cargill
property should be zoned industrial next to the railroad tracks. Discussion
followed regarding zoning the property for future use. He stated he was in favor
of the Specht property being zoned industrial.
Dave Anderson stated he was in favor Mary Eberley's idea for a riverside park.
• Chair Minton concluded that Areas A and B are preferences for industrial park
use and also to extend industrial along the railroad tracks down to Areas F and D.
Hank Duitsman stated that he felt the traffic problem would become worse at
Highway 169 and Main Street if industrial development were to occur in Areas A
and B. Discussion followed regarding traffic issues and also extending water and
sewer southeast along Highway 10.
Greg Renner, of Renner Well Co., expressed his concern regarding the pig farm,
the excess speed of trains in the Jarvis Area. He stated he was in favor of
developing the industrial areas from the core city area out. He felt that area F
should be industrial, not residential. He stated that if it is desired to have industrial
property in the extreme southeast area of the City, the only way it could be done
is with private systems, and it would be 20 to 30 years city water and sewer would
be extended.
Discussion followed regarding traffic congestion that would be associated with
Areas A and B.
BILL BIRRENKOTT MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT AREAS A AND B BE REZONED FOR
BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL PARK USE. PAT DWYER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 8-2-1. DAVE ANDERSON AND DICK HINKLE OPPOSED. HANK DUITSMAN
ABSTAINED.
ARNE ENGSTROM MOVED TO ZONE AREAS G AND F BE REZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL
•
USE. MARY EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 11-0.
Steering Committee Minutes Page 4
May 4, 1995
III MOTION CARRIED 8-2-1. DAVE ANDERSON AND DICK HINKLE OPPOSED. HANK
DUITSMAN ABSTAINED.
ARNE ENGSTROM MOVED TO ZONE AREAS G AND F BE REZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL
USE. MARY EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 11-0.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of a mixed-type use which would
include industrial for Area C.
Discussion followed regarding parks and trails in Area C.
Bill Birrenkott stated he was in favor of zoning everything along Highway 10
either commercial or industrial, not residential
Jeff Anderson, resident in Mississippi Heights, suggested that a residential
neighborhood be included in Area C.
Hank Duitsman stated he was not opposed to the area along the river being
zoned residential, but that he felt the rest of the area should be taken out of
residential. He suggested that Steve Ach come back with a proposal at a later
date. Hank suggested that the location could be used for a school. He stated
he did not want to see the same type of commercial that Ramsey has along the
highway.
MARY EBERLEY MOVED THAT A CONCEPT BE CONSIDERED FOR AREA C WHICH
• WOULD INCLUDE A REVISED AND IMPROVED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ALONG THE
HIGHWAY IN AREA C, A NATURE CONSERVATION AREA ALONG THE RIVER SUCH
AS AN EASEMENT FOR A WALKWAY, A RESIDENTIAL AREA IN THE NORTH, AND THE
REMAINING BALANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. DICK HINKLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Further discussion followed regarding the Specht property. Dick Hinkle
expressed concern that the Specht's were not being represented in these
discussions regarding their property.
Dave Anderson suggested that Steve Ach prepare a map outlining the zone
change described in Mary Eberley's motion.
THE MOTION CARRIED 10-1. DAVE ANDERSON OPPOSED.
Steve Ach stated that he would attempt to prepare a map outlining the
boundaries of the industrial area.
ARNE ENGSTROM MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT AREA D BE REZONED INDUSTRIAL,
WITH THE STIPULATION THAT A GREEN SPACE/PARK AREA BE LOCATED NEXT TO THE
RIVER. HANK DUITSMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 10-1.
PAT DWYER OPPOSED.
ARNE ENGSTROM MOVED TO REQUEST STAFF TO RESEARCH THE CONCEPT OF
CHARGING INDUSTRIAL DEDICATION FEES TO DEVELOPERS. PAT DWYER
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 10-1. DAVE ANDERSON
• ABSTAINED.
Steering Committee Minutes Page 5
May 4, 1995
• 9. Adjournment
LLOYD BARTHEL MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. BILL BIRRENKOTT SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 11-0.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,CLdices (,6e)11.1-4
Debbie Kleckner
Recording Secretary
•
•
,fir
( x
ity of / MEMORANDUM
F41kSteering
River T°: Committee
FROM: Steven B. Ach, City Planner,,,gL
DATE: May 4, 1995
SUBJECT: Agenda Items
Urban Service Boundary
Enclosed in your packet is a copy of the expanded urban service boundary
recommended by the Steering Committee on March 23, 1995. The new
boundary basically follows the East Highway 10 corridor to 165th Avenue,
and to the southern limits of the Specht property as it abuts the Oliver Kelley
Farm. The boundary also includes a strip of industrial property
approximately 700 feet wide along the east side of the existing railroad
tracks. The Steering Committee's recommendation also excludes the Brown
property located east of the railroad tracks and north of 173rd Avenue.
• This Exhibit has been included in the packet for the Committee's future
reference as we discuss issues relating to future development along Highway
10. Also, the Exhibit will be referred to during our discussion regarding
commercial and industrial development.
Land Use Mix
At the last meeting several questions were raised regarding the appropriate
percent of the city's land that should be dedicated to industrial development.
As previously distributed to the Committee members, I have enclosed a copy
of an article from the American Planning Association regarding land use
ratios. In addition, two other handouts illustrating the land use distribution
for eight metro communities. These two exhibits will show that most cities
have somewhere between five and eight percent of their land dedicated to
industrial development while the metro average in 1973 was 12.6 percent of
cities land area dedicated to industrial development.
In the third exhibit, Elk River's land use mix has been calculated based on
the current zoning map. Currently, Elk River has approximately six percent
of its land zoned for industrial development. With this information, I took it
• a step further and excluded the agricultural area (north of County Road 33)
to determine if there would be a significant fluctuation in the land use
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425
• distribution if this agricultural area was excluded from the calculations. As a
result, there was not much of a change in the percent of land use in
industrial, however, there was a 1.6 percent increase in the amount of land
dedicated to commercial.
In summary, as the article from American Planning Association indicates,
there is no "model" land use percentage that the city should achieve for
industrial. Rather, cities should determine what factors influence
development trends in their community and balance those needs to
determine the appropriate land use mix. I might add, that in order to
increase the percent of industrial property, approximately 200 acres would
have to be added to gain one percent increase in the amount of industrial
land.
Possible Locations for Industrial Development
As directed by the Steering Committee, staff has identified six potential
industrial areas. Each of these six areas have positive and negative factors
associated with them and these will be discussed in the following section. To
help evaluate each of the identified areas as well as possible other locations,
two exhibits reflecting the natural features (wetlands/floodplain and tree
• masses) have been included for the Cgmmittee's review.
Area A and B
• Positive
0 Within the urban service area
0 Within close proximity to existing water and sewer
0 The intersection of two County roads provides the potential for good
access and visibility
0 The area may be able to include an existing industrial business
(Industrial Hardfacing)
• Negative
0 There is an existing wetland which impacts approximately one-half
of the area labeled B.
0 Several property owners would be affected as well as existing
residential homes.
Area C
• Positive
III
0 Area is owned by one property owner (Specht)
0 Area has good accessibility and visibility from Highway 10
• 0 Except for the Mississippi River and associated floodplain, the
property is relatively free of any wetlands or significant tree masses
0 The area is within the expanded urban service area as
recommended by the Steering Committee
• Negative
0 The area is not readily accessible to city water and sewer
0 Developing this entire parcel as industrial may present the
appearance along Highway 10 of"stripped development"
0 Industrial development would eliminate the opportunity for
residential along the Mississippi River and adjacent to the Oliver
Kelley Farm
Area D
• Positive
0 Property is owned by one individual
0 Good visibility from US Highway 10
0 Potential for good accessibility via a frontage road system
0 Except for a significant stand of pine trees along the east side of the
property, the area is relatively void of tree masses and wetlands
III • Negative
0 The area is outside of the urban service limits as recommended by
the Steering Committee
0 Area includes frontage onto the Mississippi river which may be
more appropriate for residential use
0 Areas C and D begin to "sandwich" the Oliver Kelley Farm which is
a historic site with strong rural character
Area E
• Positive
0 Good visibility and accessibility from US Highway 10
0 This area could be an expansion of the existing industrial
immediately to the north
• Negative
0 The area is outside of the urban service limits as recommended by
the Steering Committee
0 Numerous property owners and existing businesses would be
impacted
IP Area F
0 • Positive
0 One or two property owners would be involved
0 The property is currently vacant
0 Good accessibility off of 165th Avenue which intersects with
Highway 10
0 Area could be an extension of an existing industrial area
immediately to the south
0 With the exception of a substantial wetland that traverses this area
from northeast to southwest, the property is relatively flat and void
of any other natural constraints
• Negative
0 Area is outside of the urban service boundary as recommended by
the Steering Committee
0 The existing wetland may impact how this area is developed
0 Land use compatibility with the residential immediately to the east
in the City of Ramsey will have to considered in developing this
area as industrial
Summary
IIIStaff will be available at Thursday night's meeting to discuss these areas in
more detail. If anyone would have any questions prior to Thursday night's
meeting, please feel free to contact me at 441-4902.
steering:agiss54
•
AUGUST 1992 " ,);
c4r^.
H5
• AMERICAN I , , °.
PLANNING
P A S Me MO
ASSOCIATION
•
k i
i•u Residential 42% fr Residential 52% Residential 40% I= Residential 48% ,
Commercial 3% Commercial 3%
, M l,` ommercial 111% ; Commercial ill%
• � ,� '', Industrial 8% `"� Industrial6%
' Industrial 7% Industrial 10% �'
Public'Use 47% �� Public Use 51%
Public Use 31% Public Use 32%
Bringing Land-Use and land-use map will have the most insight into what forces
brought the city to its current form and where it may be
Ratios Into the '90s heading in the future.
Land-use ratios are most useful to planners and developers
By Christopher Harris involved in comprehensive planning and long-range
development,because these data are necessary in determining
Every municipality is responsible for guiding future growth. what mix of land uses should be encouraged in future
The challenge is creating an appropriate mix of residential, decades. Also,developers building neotraditional towns,
commercial,industrial,and public uses in the community. planned communities,and large-scale mixed-use
One pivotal factor in this process is a solid understanding of developments on vacant land find ratios from other
• the current pattern of land uses within municipal boundaries. communities to be a good basis for land-use allocation.
Knowing what uses exist and what services are needed to It is interesting to note that the ratios from the planned
provide for those uses can determine the type and location community of Columbia,Maryland, which was built in the
of development that a municipality should plan for. early 1960s,nearly match all of the ratio averages from the
This PAS Memo summarizes a 1992 survey of 1992 survey.
land-use ratios in 66 municipalities.The American
Planning Association undertook this study in response to the Current Data Are Important
large number of requests that the Planning Advisory Service Development patterns change over time—even within a
received for an update to a 1983 study. Part of this demand is decade—and land-use ratios need to be updated to reflect
driven by the growing number of states that are mandating those changes accurately.This study will serve as an update
cities and counties to do comprehensive planning.These to several surveys of land-use ratios done in preceding
mandated plans must include an inventory of existing land decades.
uses. The first major study was done by Harland Bartholomew
Even in cities where planning is not required,there has and Jack Wood in 1955.They surveyed ratios over a 20-year
been a significant number of comprehensive plan updates span and published their results in Land Uses In American
in the last few years. Some of these communities may be Cities.Those ratios were used in a large number of the
redoing their plan for the first time since the 701 era of federally funded 701 comprehensive plans.
planning in the 1950s and 1960s. Land-use trends and A second study,by Eisner and Associates,examined ratios
settlement patterns have changed significantly since that compiled between 1939 and 1985.The usefulness of this data
time,causing noticeable changes in the land-use mix for comprehensive planning purposes is compromised by the
and a need for updated ratios. fact that the researchers analyzed ratios over a 46-year span.
Too many development trends altered land-use ratios over
Who Uses Land-Use Ratios? that period. Eisner's ranges include both pre-and post-World
Land-use ratios refer to the breakdown of various categories War II residential settlement patterns,which are vastly
of land as a percentage of the total amount of land in a different.
community. After a land-use survey,the results are mapped Yet another survey of 22 large American cities was done
or entered into a computer and total land acreage for each in 1973.The results of that study were printed in Urban Land
category is tallied. Policies and Land-use Control Measures(Vol. VI,Northern
Because the ratios are derived from acreage totals,0
America).
they do not represent the spatial patterns of cities. Spatial Finally,the most recent comprehensive look at these ratios
arrangements of land uses typically are portrayed on a land- was a 1983 survey by Gregory Longhini and Mike Sutton.
use map. Planners who understand both their land-use ratios Published by the APA, it quantified land-use ratios from
46 large and 22 small cities(See PAS Memo, May 1983). Transportation and utilities is the last public use
Most of the land-use ratios in that survey were compiled distinction.This includes rights-of-way,streets,alleys,
between 1978 and 1982. airports,rail,transportation terminals,communication towers,
• pump stations,power stations, water facilities,and other
Methodology similar uses.
Approximately one-third of the information presented here Although the categories in this study were selected to
was discovered by reviewing many recent comprehensive reduce discrepancies,the task of fitting each city's land-use
plans in the APA library. Most of the data for small cities ratios into these two tables was still extremely difficult.
was collected this way.The other two-thirds of the data, To repeat: these are only generalizations.
particularly for large cities,were collected through telephone Unfortunately,the manipulation needed to reorganize
interviews. some of the cities' ratios has weakened the results slightly.
Selection of cities for the study was based on two For example,a small percentage of the communities did not
variables:date of their land-use survey and their geographic I calculate the acreage of streets and rights-of-way. Sometimes
location.Although some of the ratios used date back seven transportation is completely ignored and other times only
years,the majority of the data were collected since 1989. utilities,bus terminals,airports,and the like are calculated as
Almost every region in the country is represented. the only transportation uses. In these cases,this category's
Land-use ratios are calculated as a percentage of the ratio is typically less than five percent.
developed land within communities.Therefore,agricultural Other inconsistencies arise because specific uses are
and vacant lands were not figured in.This results in a more handled very differently among communities,according to
accurate representation of the breakdown of land uses in different rationales. For example,a recreational facility,such
the urbanized portion of each city. as a miniature golf course or a driving range,is certainly a
One problem with the data is that nearly every city recreational use. But,by some definitions,it is also a
responded with different land-use categories.Tucson, commercial use;after all,it is earning a profit. Although
Arizona,breaks its developed land into 21 categories. the definition of recreational uses in this study includes
Baltimore responded with only five categories. For this study, for-profit uses, some cities include these uses in the
the data have been reorganized into four land-use categories: commercial category. Some cities consider railroads to
residential,commercial, industrial,and public uses.Public be a transportation use,as does this study,while others
uses are further broken into three subcategories: parks and consider them an industrial use.
recreation,institutional,and transportation and utilities. Mixed-use developments create yet another problem.
- Limiting the categories was necessary to reduce the For the purposes of this study,these percentages are figured
discrepancies between uses as defined by each city and into whichever use dominates the development,particularly
• to make comparisons with APA's 1983 study possible. commercial,residential,or industrial. For example,small
structures, such as an apartment over a retail shop, will most
Details of Each Category likely be categorized according to the use occupying the
The residential category includes single-family detached ground level—that is,commercial.
units,two-or more family attached units,apartments, Although mixed-use developments are not included as a
condominiums,and mobile homes. Noted in the table is category in this study,more cities are beginning to include
single-family detached housing as a percentage of the entire them in their ratios.Tampa, Florida; Bellevue,Washington;
developed city. and Frisco,Colorado,responded to this survey with mixed-
The commercial category includes all types of trade and use ratios. In two of the three cases, the percentages were
services.The retail portion includes strip malls, small-and minuscule.Tampa,Florida,has multiple mixed-use
large-scale shopping centers,and wholesaling outlets. Also categories,such as suburban mixed-use,which covers
included are office buildings and business parks that have 13 percent of the total developed land.
financial or administrative functions. Other general The process of recalculating data to serve the purpose
commercial uses are restaurants,grocery stores, and repair of this study is the last major methodological problem.
businesses. A majority of the ratios for each city had to be recalculated in
The industrial category includes both heavy and light order to eliminate the percentages of land that is either
industry.These uses are characterized as construction, vacant,agricultural,or nonimproved open space such as
manufacturing,warehousing and distribution,resource forest land.This,combined with rounding the ratios,is the
extraction,and,in some instances,high technology research. reason some of the totals do not equal 100 percent.
The public-use category is the cumulative percentage of
institutional uses,parks and recreation, and transportation and Residential Uses
utility facilities.Institutional uses are those owned by the I Since the first study of land-use ratios in 1955,residential
local,state,or federal government,such as schools,hospitals, uses have occupied the most land in small and large cities.
and police and fire stations. Churches,synagogues,and I In 1955,40 percent and 42 percent of the land in central
fraternal organizations,which are quasi-public facilities, and satellite cities,respectively,was used for residential
also are included in the institutional category. purposes. In the 1973 study of large cities,40 percent of land
The second public use category is parks and recreation, was residential.The boom in suburban growth in the I950s
comprising private or publicly owned areas used by citizens and 1960s increased these percentages significantly.The
•
in the community.A public area could be a municipal golf effects were evident in the 1983 study,where residential land
course;a privately owned area might be an amusement park. increased to 48 percent of a city's developed land for both
large and small cities.The residential densities in large
Christopher Harris is an APA research associate. western cities are typically lower than large eastern cities.
2
Eisner & Associates Studies, 1939-1985 two different ways: number of families per unit(e.g. single-
family and multifamily)or the number of units per acre.
• Use Range of Percentages As expected,single-family housing is by far the largest
portion of any city's housing stock.This type consumes an
Residential 35-39% average of 73 percent of the total housing stock in the 12
Commercial 4.8-5 cities for which this information was available.The averages
Industrial 10-11 for multifamily and mobile homes are 14 percent and 3
percent,respectively.The data range for multifamily housing
Streets 20-26 was from 8 percent to 41 percent of land used for housing.
Open Space,Schools,Parks 10-18 The range for mobile homes was much smaller: one-half
of 1 percent to 7 percent.
For example the residential ratio in Long Beach,California, is Commercial Uses -
79 percent. In Pittsburgh,it is only 28 percent,according to Since the 1950s and 1960s,commercial uses,which include
the 1983 survey. office and retail,have occupied an increasing amount of
Suburban sprawl also explains the residential ratio increase acreage in both large and small cities.The land-use ratios in
in small towns from 42 percent in 1955 to 52 percent in 1992. 1955 were 3.32 percent for the central cities and 2.54 percent
An increased level of automobile ownership led to the for the satellite cities. By 1992,these averages increased
creation of the bedroom community. Employment,culture, significantly,to 10 percent.
and goods and services were not necessarily needed in these The biggest factor in this large percentage increase is
communities as long as the nearby major city offered them. parking. Parking has become a major regulatory concern
Therefore,residential uses predominate the developed land. over the last few decades,as both large and small cities
These high ratios of residential land should begin have become dominated by cars. An entire parking lot is
to decline due to a combination of many economic, considered a commercial use.Many uses require parking
demographic,and regulatory trends that are decreasing that effectively doubles the acreage of commercial land.
demand for single-family detached homes.The 20-percent- Unlike in large cities,where suburban office migration has
down conventional mortgage is no longer affordable for the caused commercial land-use ratios to plateau at 10 percent,
average U.S. household. According to U.S. Housing Markets this ratio continues to climb in smaller cities.The Land Use
(January 29, 1990),a household needs an average down Institute estimated in 1986 that 57.3 percent of the country's
payment of 28 percent.The cost of the average home from total office market was located outside major downtowns.
• 1988 to 1990 increased 8.4 percent,or$11,000,while the This was an increase of nearly 10 percent from 1981.Height
average income of a household has increased only 4.8 restrictions and a strong bias toward low-density development
percent. exist in these areas,so buildings cover more acres.
Quickly rising land cost is another major factor Also contributing to the higher commercial ratio is the
contributing to the inconsistency between housing cost and rise of average square footage allowed per office worker,
income,according to an article in Building Sciences according to a 1991 Price Waterhouse Study. Between 1942
(November 1987). Land costs are now one-quarter of the cost and 1979,the average work space increased from 110 square
of a single-family home.Thirty years ago, that figure was feet to 199 square feet. In 1988,only nine years later,that
only 10 percent. average had crept up to 342 square feet.
Demographic changes are reducing demand for single- Currently,trends between office and retail development
family homes as well.Couples are purchasing houses at differ greatly.The construction of office buildings has
an older age and having fewer children.Builder magazine decreased considerably in most cities since the late 1980s
reported in January 1992 that the percentage of home buyers due to high vacancy rates. But according to Real Estate
who are first-time buyers has dropped significantly from 47.7 Perspectives magazine,retail overbuilding continued at a rate
percent to 34.6 percent in 1990. Furthermore, the 1990 nearly double its absorption rate well into the recession in
Census indicates that household size declined from 3.33 1990.The common types of retail development—strip centers
persons in 1960 to 2.62 persons in 1989. Ultimately, this and regional malls—consume large amounts of land. Given
means less space will be required for each family. In fact, that these development styles are being used in small and
surveys conducted recently by the National Apartment large cities alike,the commercial ratios in both sizes of cities
Association have noted an increase in apartment living. lean be expected to increase.
Zoning trends have become an issue as well. Recent
environmental protection regulations encourage development iIndustrial Districts
patterns such as cluster and planned unit developments. Also, In large cities,the amount of land used by industrial firms
courts are ruling against five-acre estate lot sizes and other peaked in the late 1970s or early 1980s,and has recently been
large minimum lot size zoning when the effect is to exclude declining. In 1955,the average industrial land-use ratio was
certain income groups. 6.4 percent.The 1983 survey indicated an industrial land-use
ratio of 12 percent,while this current study shows a ratio
Breakdown by Housing Type 'of only 10.5 percent. In small cities and suburban areas,
•
Although this study provides general land-use ratio the industrial land-use ratio has remained within a third
percentages for residential land as a whole, some of a percentage point since 1955,at around 7.5 percent.
communities may be interested in the housing stock The trend most affecting industrial land allocation is the
breakdown within the residential category.Cities that offer country's economic shift from manufacturing and other heavy
breakdowns within the residential category tended to do it in industry to a service industry.This may be causing what
I 3
Coldwell Banker identified in 1990 as the highest ever developed land. In El Paso,Texas,the percentage is 17
national vacancy rate(6.9 percent)of industrial buildings percent. El Paso is a county seat and therefore must offer
larger than 100,000 square feet. the entire spectrum of institutional uses to the region.
This shift has led to the conversion of many industrial
• buildings into residential loft or commercial office space, Transportation and Utility Uses
thus decreasing the industrial ratio. Transportation and utility uses have consistently covered the
Differentiating between industrial and commercial uses second highest amount of acreage in a city since these data
has also become more difficult. For example,many light were recorded. As evident from the data set,many cities do
manufacturers also have service centers, showrooms,and not include streets and rights-of-way in their acreage.These
warehouses on the premises.Therefore,when ratios are cities therefore have disproportionately low transportation
calculated,they are categorized as heavy commercial uses, land-use ratios. Because of this discrepancy,averages for
not industrial uses. this category are not listed.
As the ratios from the three studies show,economic The amount of land devoted to rights-of-way increases
restructuring has not affected the land-use ratios in suburban as a city's single-family housing stock increases. But
areas nearly as much as large cities,because heavy because many cities calculate streets into institutional and
manufacturing never was a dominant force there. recreational uses,it is extremely difficult to pinpoint
transportation land-use ratio trends. For the purpose of this
Parks and Recreational Uses analysis,it is understood that streets and rights-of-way
The following analysis is based primarily on improved parks constitute most of the transportation uses and utilities
and open spaces that are maintained by public park districts category.The utilities and communication uses are usually a
or municipalities. very tiny portion. For example,only one-half of a percent of
Historically,the rule of thumb for calculating the number developed land in Austin,Texas,is occupied by utility uses.
of acres of park land needed in a community is one acre of There are two major current planning issues that may
land per 100 residents.However,for the past 40 years,many affect future street and right-of-way ratios: the Intermodal
communities have fallen well short.In the 1955 study,the Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act(ISTEA)of 1991
percentage of park and recreation land for central and satellites and neotraditional town planning. ISTEA marks the first time
cities was 7 percent and 4.4 percent of developed land, that the federal government plans to tackle congestion
respectively.Eleven small communities from the 1983 survey problems head-on by improving the management of existing
list an average percentage of only 4 percent.These data are transportation systems and coordinating transportation
difficult to compare,in part because,in many communities, planning with land-use planning. Until now,the solution has
parks,playgrounds, and athletic fields on school property, as been to increase road capacity. Successful implementation of
well as vacant lots,are calculated into the institutional ratios high-occupancy-vehicle lanes,bus lanes,ridesharing,
rather than the parks and recreation ratio.This makes itencouraging the use of alternate modes of travel,and
appear as though less land is available for parks and ' coordinated land-use and transportation policies,could mean
recreation than really exists. that right-of-way and transportation-use ratios will hold
The explosive growth in single-family homes also had an steady even if population increases.
interesting effect on the use of public parks. Most suburban
homeowners have their own private front and back yards. Words of Caution 444
This explains, in part,why suburbs will typically have a It is not recommended that these ratios be used as urban
lower percentage of land in the parks category. Manassas, land-use models. Any city predicting its future land-use
Virginia,an outlying suburb of Washington,D.C.,has only requirements solely on the ratios of other cites could be
1 percent of its land as parks,while in St. Paul,Minnesota, seriously misguided. Every city has different factors affecting
this use covers 12 percent of the developed land. its land-use distribution. Instead of considering these numbers
as rules of thumb,consider them examples of land-use ratios
Institutional Uses that exist in cities today. Look closely at what factors affect
The percentage of land occupied by institutional uses has your own city's land use before comparing your ratios to
increased slightly in the last 50 years.The Bartholomew these data.
study indicated that central and satellite cities had about
10 percent of their land devoted to institutional uses.The
1983 survey showed that the ratio of institutional uses in The PAS Menu)is a monthly publication for subscribers to the Planning Advisory
small towns was 13 percent. No averages were calculated for Service,a subscription research service of the American Planning Association:
Israel Stollman,Executive Director:Frank S.So.Deputy Executive Director.
this study.However,the data do not differ drastically from The PAS Memo is produced by APA staff in Chicago.Research and
the earlier studies. writing by Research Department staff:Marya Morris,Editor.Production
Large cities typically will have higher institutional land- by Publications Department staff:Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor:
Dennis McClendon.Design Director.
use ratios. Uses such as hospitals,churches,schools,and
buildings are all directlyrelated to the Copyright 01992 by American Planning Association, 1313 E.60th St..Chicago.IL
governmentg 60637.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776
population;as the number of people grow, so will the acreage Massachusetts Ave..N.W..Washington.DC 20036.
of these institutional lands. Other institutional uses are not so All rights reserved.No part of this publication may he reproduced or utilized in
clear cut: state capitol grounds, museums,civic centers, and any form or by any means,electronic or mechanicrl,including photocopying,
recording,or by any Information storage and retrieval system,witi,out permission
colleges and universities are all uses that serve a regional in writing from the American Planning Association.
market and are therefore more common in large cities. Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber
An example is Hoffman Estates,Illinois,a Chicago and 10%postconsumer waste.
suburb,where institutional uses cover only 3.4 percent of Revised and reprinted April 1994
4
Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Under 100,000
Residential Right 1
0 City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'I Public Inst'l Parks of way
Aiken, S.C. 20,000 65% (60%) 9% 1% 25% 9% 16% NA
Ambler, Pa. 6,600 63 11 10 16 3 4 9
Asheville, N.C. 62,000 69 (62) 12 5 14 9 5 NA
Bellevue, Wash. 88,000 65 (57) 10 4 18 7 11 NA
Carlsbad,Calif. 51,000 57 (40) 5 9 29 3 17 9
Carrollton,Tex. 33,000 39 (34) 30 17 15 5 10 NA
Columbia,Md. 78,000 43 (32) 20(combined) 37 NA NA NA
Costa Mesa, Calif. 88,000 51 (30) 12 15 22 13 9 NA
Elgin, Ill. 72,000 37 5 4 54 10 12 32
El Monte,Calif. 79,000 57 15 15 13 5 1 7
Evanston,Ill. 72,000 45 (30) 7 4 44 10 8 26
Fishkill, N.Y. 15,000 24 (20) 4 1 70 25 33 12
Frisco,Colo. 1,600 38 13 3 45 NA NA NA
Galveston,Tex. 62,000 25 (21) 5 25 44 19 25 NA
Highland Park, Ill. 31,000 53 6 0 41 4 18 19
Hoffman Estates, Ill. 45,000 46(37) 10 2 41 3 15 23
La Verne,Calif. 27,000 67 (58) 11 3 19 19 NA NA
Lynnwood,Wash. 29,000 56(46) 22 3 19 13 6 NA
Manassas, Va. 22,000 52 (41) 8 12 28 26 2 NA
• Midway, Ky. 1.400 54 7 1 38 24 NA 14
Montpelier, Vt. 8,400 51 (45) 6 6 37 7 15 15
Mount Prospect, Iii. 58,000 65 (57) 6 16 13 4 9 NA
Northbrook, III. 32,000 46 7 8 39 7 13 19
Oak Creek, Wis. 20,000 37 (27) 8 12 43 6 23 14
Olathe, Kan. 49,000 52 (43) 7 6 35 14 9 12
Prescott, Ariz. 26,000 74(50) 8 4 14 NA NA NA
Pompano Beach, Fla. 67,000 44 (25) 10 17 39 4 17 8
Redding, Calif. 53,000 64 11 12 13 8 5 NA
St. Peters,Mo. 38,000 72 12 4 12 NA NA NA
Sedona, Ariz. 7,300 74 (71) 15 0 12 11 1 NA
Skokie. Ill. 60,000 34 6 13 47 12 3 32
Versailles, Ky. 7,200 50 9 19 23 9 NA 14
Wakefield, Mass. 24.000 54(52) 5 3 38 8 6 24
West Hollywood, Calif. 36,000 42 (8) 22 3 33 3 1 29
Ratio Averages 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA NA
How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Small Cities Over the Years
Residential
0 Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'I Public Inst'l Parks
1992 52% (41%) 10% 7% 31% NA NA
1983 48 7 8 37 13 5
1955 42 (36) 2 8 48 11 4
Land-Use Ratios (in percent) for Communities Over 100,000
Residential Right
411 City or town Population (single-family) Comm'l Ind'l Public Inst'l Parks of way
Albuquerque, N.M. 385,000 57% (47%) 15% 5% 23% 11% 8% 4%
Amherst,N.Y. 112,000 43 (40) 7 2 48 12 12 24
Atlanta 437,000 54 5 9 32 11 (combined) 21
Aurora,Colo. 232,000 44 21 17 18 NA NA NA
Austin,Tex. 345,000 48 (43) 7 5 38 7 5 26
Baltimore 787,000 42 27 6 25 16(combined) 9
Charlotte,N.C. 395,000 61 10 6 24 21 (combined) 2
Cleveland 506,000 35 5 15 45 6 7 32
Dallas 1,007,000 58 (50) 8 12 22 5 8 9
Detroit 1,028,000 43 (33) 5 9 44 13 (combined) 31
El Paso 485,000 42(36) 6 10 42 15 5 22
Evansville, Ind. 129,000 57 24 5 14 NA 8 6
Fort Worth 448,000 50(45) 7 12 31 6 13 12
Hartford,Conn. 136,000 32 11 4 53 16 16 21
Honolulu 432,000 30 34 15 12 6 6 NA
Indianapolis 742,000 55 (48) 7 10 28 28 (combined) NA
Lansing,Mich. 127,000 60 6 10 24 11 13 NA
Lexington,Ky. 214,000 58 8 8 25 18 (combined) 7
Long Beach,Calif. 440,000 48 (32) 12 22 18 6 6 6
• Madison,Wis. 191,000 39 8 4 49 7 12 30
Norfolk, Va. 266,000 44(33) 9 4 43 27 6 10
Omaha 336,000 38 5 4 53 20(combined) 33
Peoria,III. 113,000 52 8 6 34 7 21 6
Reno, Nev. 101,000 36(25) 8 5 51 25 21 5
St. Paul 270,000 37 4 14 45 7 12 26
Salt Lake City 163,000 25 (20) 7 9 59 7 7 45
Santa Clarita,Calif. 121,000 70(59) 6 14 10 5 5 NA
Tampa, Fla. 834,000 44(30) 15 26 15 10 5 NA
Tempe,Ariz. 133,000 41 (30) 8 10 41 11 16 24
Topeka, Kan. 122,000 50 10 6 34 21 13 NA
Tucson, Ariz. 419,000 52 (39) 10 5 33 8 5 20
Youngstown,Ohio 104,000 60 9 8
23 8 13 2
Ratio Averages 48% (38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA
How Land-Use Ratios Have Changed in Large Cities Over the Years
Residential Right
Year of survey (single-family) Comm'l Ind'I Public Inst'l Parks of way
1992 48% (38%) 10% 10% 32% NA NA NA
. 1983 48 (39) 9 12 31 NA NA NA
1973 40 10 5 45.. 19 (combined) 26
1955 40(32) 3 6 51 11 7 33
•
•
Land Use Tables BiGoo k1y,414rL
1981 Existing Land Use Composite Future Land Use
Residential
Low Density (1-3.9 U/Acre) 2402 acres 13.9 % 7098 acres 47.6
Medium Density (4-13.9 U/Acre) 117 acres 0.7 % 1877 acres 12.6 0/0
High Density (14-18 U/Acre) 290 acres 1.7 % 775 acres 5.2 %
Commercial
Office 21 acres 0.1 % 195 acres 1.3
Office/Medium Density Residential - acres - % 60.5 acres 0.4
Commercial 186 acres 1.1 % 417 acres 2.8
Industrial
Industrial 314 acres 1.8 % 1050.5 acres 7.0
Crystal Airport 86 acres 0.6 % 86.0 acres 0.6
111 Public
I Parks/Open Space/Schools 1169 acres 6.7 % 3324 acres 22.3
Quasi-Public 16 acres 0.1 % 24.5 acres 0.2 %
Agriculture 6040 acres 34.9 % (See Protection Element)
Vacant/Rights of Way/etc. 6575 acres 38.6 % - -
. Churches 64 acres 0.4 % - -
r
Municipal Comprehensive Plan Comparisons
Residential % Commercial % Industrial % Public
Brooklyn Park 65.4 4.5 7.6 22.3
Fridley 34.6 4.5 22.1 38.6
Bloomington 37.4 2.5 8.2 51.4
Golden Valley 40.4 4.2 7.7 47.7
Richfield 50.5 4.5 0.6 44.9
Roseville 38.6 3.0 8.7 49.7
St. Louis Park 43.5 2.9 5.5 48.2
' Metro Area* 41.8 2.5 12.6 43.1
' 1973 Metropolitan Council Data
1
•
WE MOVE EVERYTHING LNPRA1RIEI _
)M MICE To MASTERPIECES
ttrett Moving&Storage knows •`'13 ...•y:._
°\A t4LE W1oD �
a to move everything that's "`�`*, '" '"!,,
:tti.
nt to you.Whether we're i;,
,gig Your company's valuable = t, t, r,� , L . rt
,; u : � * Land Ilse to Eden Prat .1*-....,-'...-, ,*,
inters or your art galleries • w ,�t i. .
• � � T fi-T T�`� �'� -a a .� Y+�i�KS aL,+n tW Y� � t" d ..r
ALT
ks of art,Barrett has the right ' '1� Type of sages , * Percents ,L,,,�+;, •4
he right equipment,to do the 7' -4. r-r-, P " a ; R �*.. , ", f: 4t%7.1 ..: "�1 `'- = 9,5550
- - +` Commercial 7 '4.``:i `,``," , � °645
�t Barrett Moving&Storage j, er 3 /° ,r. ,.
g ss• i� �, }
move. (612) 944-6550 �. �"`. ����`�� gyr;.;�go. '�$°io� � zoa`l
Q'�{j '•,- Industrial k r: ar t » ai}M °µ'"s n �`S 4�o y r I a?� x� F 1X`� f`W "tY. T
T THE ART OF MOVING , I Parks•S ace and�n `22°0' , . `' 'p*r',5 032
i 4 e�4t"' .4+� .tct.� *,° t.:;+ ,,y'A,PT v64'1, 4,1 n«y:i { M-': sa ..
"`"...L,- '':..:. - Public scool ,city wo.�rk�.s�, airports)' ':�▪13°k 7 t7« ?'7!'�." '3 064a
r.Aoads'44'4.1. 1%34 .74: ,` .3r 4 11 % T"re g+, • "2,8 '
Source irrr ti4/ Co{miite4n Devefopri aril . , �'i. 47,-,.;,4-
• jF �13Q t S,r "C t • 4,ty. ,,,•G . -2':
1STERTHAN A XEROX 5065... merce has decided to direct ser- areas around those centers,
GER GUARANTEES THAN KODAK••• vices specifically toward the you'll see a proliferation of
city's merchants. small, specialty-type centers lo-
"We are trying to start a re- cating close by. If you have a
tail association that will be regional center in your commu-
supportive and responsive to nity,you'll have retail growth."
- the retailers in this communi- Growth in retailing, com-
0 ty," says Chamber president bined with steady housing con-
Arlyn Grussing. struction, creates the promise
F Retail in Eden Prairie encom of stable growth that businesses
}
*� passes all tiers of what Grussing find appealing, and which in-
calls "the hierarchy of shopping creases business migration to
'•T - r -.2.,...;:,,
o t, centers." That is, it includes Eden Prairie,says Enger.
`r = -1;;z( convenience stores, neighbor-
hood centers with 10 to 15 Room to grow
stores, "community centers" Enger and his team of plan-
(serving several neighborhoods) ners still consider the city to
a regional shopping center. be a work in progress. They
rHE SLARP soand• "Today, most of the retail are currently working on the
growth comes around regional development of a downtown
"ER- FROM D.C. HElf. - enters—centers like the Daless area, referred to as Eden
and Eden Prairie Center," says Prairie Market Center. It is
Grussing. "If you look at the approximately 100 acres of
high-volume Sharp SD-3075 copier delivers an amaz- 7
er minute, and comes complete with a computer forms ' 4: L�T3.,-4:--A''..-..,...-.,-,,,71., �".6;.--,'4:6f::. :77:7-
' .-.
Eden Pratrae Employment bjIndustry(1992 Data)
ating document handler, automatic duplexing and a a rg x'� 4^3j
er capacity. '�`i .-���'i�'k�.'F ^�w. �..P#'"� '�r? ' r 4�" ,.
p ty h INDUSTRYii• 7.r+,,�,.��? r i.;r EMPL OYMENT� r n• .' PERCENT'
?:,Agriculture� *~I H`z1 '.4 17-.. '4.-e; ;,xo-S4n," lx int Y r ' �a:.
ie Sharp SD-3075 is backed by D.C. Hey's exclusive --��'.4444,- --. . = F", R , ` '' t"7 0
� i Forestry Mining:., `�' ,..s t 134`cr � �0 4% -,
lifetime guarantees, including 2-hour emergency service Construction 1 081 -r ' `30%..r.=
• E • e.- �fi `� • • =+` - if-hours preventative maintenance for maximum copier s Manufacturing t{ ' ` 9503 x':0.- L r. Go.5% _
:mum productivity. Transportation Communi.ations i ,:,,,..1-1_,.:.:,::: :-.,:,:.,;;;.4s -
i\.{
Public Utilities 1,296 3.6%
'cision for your office. Cali D.C. Hey for your demon 'Trade, 1o,os� 2s1 %_
• Finance,Insurance Real Estate - 2,284 6.4
1 H EY ,Government 1 609 4.17%
2740West80th Street Other 1,075 3.0
Minneapolis,MN 55431 }iSour e:Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training F f r;:,
sults Since 1946 888-800 C -i f
INCLUDES SELF-EMPLOYED AND EMPLOYEES PAID BY COMMISSION ONLY -
Eki _vE EXHIBIT 1
• 1/243/95—
LAND USE EVALUATION
ZONING MAP RESTRICTED
%OF LAND %OF LAND
CATEGORY ACRES IN CITY ACRES IN CITY
A-1 9,266 33% 3,847 55%
R-1a 11,492 41% 1,642 24%
R-lb 875 3% 356 5%
R-I c 3,216 11% 889 13%
R-ld 185 1% 31 '**
REZ=4 E"f4r4X114.
R-l e 120 "* 3 ***
PUD 391 1% 32 0% `
R-2 32 "* 0 0% 89 CYO
*** 9 ***
R-2b 43
*** 0 0%
R-3 90
R-4 82 *** 0 0%
C-1 55 *** 0 0%
C 2 35 *** 0 0% m/KZ-Cc z
C-3 623 2% 27 *** C0L-
39
PUD 140 1% 0 ***
• I-1 854 3% 97 1%
1-2 550 2% 45 1% �/�!D(�S
BP 141 1% 0 0% 40
Total 28,190 100% 6,978 100%
riumillmn
LAND 05f Ev44.u 4 rc.•.i
( Exce-upx,47
`4- I Z•"te /'Ie,erW of CKAY .4 33
(E 5.4 r. .� A /( '(' 88. P
IE. 9a( A.) 9 0
C e AA AK.se-Cr-At- A-uti5 $5 3 q, 4 Z
T.cvusr-, L A,..eE_5 12 oR 4. S'7
LE56 33¢Ac)
To r',.- Ac-40-,3 /Ss88 /0 0
• T o
,.......,
: i -- ----1 I • i goo .. ... , .. • . . .
i . 4:: 1‘) 1---- --1 t i si •
, i
- I oWiliiii =E
• - ' ------d- 0 1
1„ _,_____._ Q :-_-__JI
Q-T— ( • ,_ 1 O
,
--- 0 0 Ilirei4 l 0 i �\N :iPikk.. ..•Abi i
k& 0 c:::) 0
i 19"t47, millk•%. Nvo'WI' •*al% ” f. .-; -• -- 'le!
z‘ da416. Nefarlippp Nil N : -_-_-_-=A:10, A 111 ---- - --- ,
s-\,0*1111111111/"I 41 mg ---
/ ° 0 ‘0- i)--- . -- P v .
\ ___ rir _•• • ;, _ -- ,c31----ut----0-
%,,k ' , sQl . c:,
16. . ft 0 .cii. a., to: i ______ ,._ g,._,
1 Ng/A
9
- - 14 --. .-.. I d's
co ! ■ � � _ ....)....
! ,-- „ gig
fir —, A . - -- ------t-_.. . L • _- -
_ Oa 'Muiiilll - 1111V . .
loll ; • 1 6$_„00-- ,,,Y ,
•
/l
// � !_ p;,
1•= •• X11, r in. go.41 lir
' �• I?' 9 ,. AIR •,
%a II IL.I.
Oh. �i/ X111 V �;1,. r ■, •
"ow 46. ���• .% ��ivtlip
AI , , }
=I�IU2- .! till E III . * f .. a ,1��' .• ;
ism:. smiiippo I Vil P ,i
tiopi um, IL ..-....„s„,p oil E 77-- S. k•WjH •'
111 ill li ainhillriNi.;
F � ■� �� iii
�� nu.l'�n # ai�I � � li
L-' • -.iiii,. ... 11 u 1,119 ,1I1,I ���to C. 8, ,111: „1,. ,11,1 . ..
ai
li7_ ----'..111) . Ilri r/: .041ii
I ego' ie. I /It p. ik,, - ......
\IWO ,,./.:t c!idil Ni'llili...7 . \
N. /Air r...:= -.A.iii ,r,.4, \
I �_...., __� IN%Alin: _ =::a _ �P -.-- -.._ ---
• " 0111111 i/�,/�lliiiim D.: w.f.,"
iii vr.
IIIIIE. EH Iv
, i , -1. ;-1 nr 1 a-
6/ ' 41>i \\\
i -- 0 • -- . [i ..
r ,,'....
4 .741 - -• 4,-.._:.
•
•
. pOt Ilk :.,'i.,?:
. . - 1 - - 0 ' - .��
) I
I �q�llllll.:�
r
I 0 d
I ' 7:::::
i
t \-\-31 ;
, (
o. ./;;;;" Y
+� :. 1
•
44,, I •x
I
d I K.
ri,..,.
1110
i .
OP —Nip itial I I , .... r,
�;� 1 ; .
't 1)
�►iiiiiat
i111 w41.11;1.1.....11/.
r - ::
AP I,IIIM. .. 4140t.
a7.'42 .
t Q C.A..... .1ii lis
•
Y) 1 1
1• ! '
/ .J •
al al 1 ti tl 1 a1 II $i $l _l Al o� of d €l -I $1 ai II
. :. ' '.`!--:-.-----...: • -4( 1 -- g
, ---1 c . .
•
. ______ . • . .. , . , t
.1 - . ..,..9 I'
• "I147
l , .°r! O \O _O—I ` .— ..•�i �♦
,
..�.� ii1. - n - ' ri tom"
.'!1`.• •-; vissow, ,$, til 0 —L
ipb •
sl x", ;
t o ,`FI# c f,,,,‘r �, / O ,a x C fe 0 11
c.
! • k
- 0 0 Q
_ e „4;4
(� 0 .... .
. Ai
1 1111111 : A.,
t) 1E: 11./ II.
- - [_-
iH•
�
yI(11w4,t�lryl �tl`� � _ k''\ •'
- --• ------,
aVICJI Ct&t. 4s4410.4.44 6 � �ynMi•• '7i illa'lit11•( lf4n1,iv{ir1•i 14'1-4;;-. ;.
i
1t,
r
1
(y � .s�,
Y
.- `W flail _ �" -
17471. T:,.qs� _ .
173R0 .(.. V. - � \' a r :lC):'1.SZy .` S - .� .. r4 • •�T.". `".5
`�'il f➢ 0
,69, J . mai• ® .:J _ ..- ` ...
I NM •
Iif's_o� 0 .".
168m ( .' IP
St
-;`• _ 16 711.... \ „. • 0 . ..,
• ii_ Re ar _
i
Inv J
q _ •}44O CD
•
d:. .4......'tQ .. ..
0 I Co ;
fK
d ilk, 1 3
161ST ILL,
Isom �, i 1• %.} \ O I
�p O 1
m i
-',1 t59m \ y'
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, °
r
I r``
f I 1 v
SHORELAND BOUNDARY/WETLAND AREA f' 1 * 1'r
5I 155m �\ - " u=
1 3 :---
Di FLOODPLAIN AREA e'" , "'
� '' t, .i,
.I
'_... 133RD
J ��
8 I is
lT31 ..si.�
n, ..� `I !I �i I a cI of iii 1 d tj tl �� FI f
1 ��f '11--4\.'' .
U / 1 �L I. *--==.--
•I • I , rye .I
. ,.. , _t___,_,/ -.
• *
i' s, „.. um:
, — r i `_)....„..,,.� r .. _. I it i '�� rT it
• - .. t,
;7,,'/ 41:'----1 I-.:: ' -. __... - ' - ,! , .. :,,./.• :-.. . .:, •.,•. .
r I' ' '. iiiir* -' r /r r .
/
(j
L.
a i
I.-- k I[C) .. S'\ .
11-01111OrtifF )-- .
r7imip ! i,'.- I
-- [[SID. .4 ``-' \ \ f
• .
I ,.4
..
N.. ]
. )(01-
t it,, on
\ ;41
' _.„..,..,,,.,,,,.t ,.- n
.� �5�/r,,���,,, mal • 1�1•G'tiWiJ,Ctil Lih/3)•►-HIIST.I�ktt1I ..- „I .. " , :‘,
s^
141164/. dlOMl�t//�W '
rl**a`fl
•
6 r
... '\ •"-- .N. 0. .17" . .._..;.._ . 1111115P—
.-
E•
• e
. 1 _ ilitZirl .-.IR:, 1
1•y:ND
1 • \ — \ . I 7•51'
l -
r \ 17OTI•
,
I (NJ I
7 i ! it-- i 111111/1116 1597F1
. -
C
Ir .
•
_
(
1- E , .# , ,..------ tRIrt•
— t
INN
I67•4
\ 1 , .
!:
•LAGTH , . .1 15611.
— •
j•
., .... .
•I 57+ 1 .-- —
A 155,1
:15
•
-,6•1‘. 15.•••1
...
1 ...
\ilk
.•r ',N..
\\N„....\..„
-',. •.,,
i of.
" !
L • ,.____________H 16 i ST
*80".• \ \ ,r,..., ....44,
s\ •:''s ...:. .... \'.,,, •
N
- 159/n \'• \ r''. -I:. . ':'
Z1 7.
-r s' A, \\ N,r,r2• 1;:,.
...,„,k., SOUTHEAST DISTRICT \ ''......-
,
...A\ .
; \ •,,, ,5.,
__ I • / ' '• fC' /./ N
----• :': / . Nr.. '; ''.A
.„,
IN TREE MASSES _...
. .. ''. ---11: ---it-i ..t *''N
cl....9\ ....
z.. •5”, — ' "- ..,/;• ir• ..._ '
.., 4.z .. —.[ — , •ts-
7
..7 -
_- 71 •••••• .
" • .1" .17:71i 11 r„...
7 -;,, -, . ' - •.- ------:7.--.I
}I .
4 •••a:
.I
----
.
: , - .... • •
. .1-,....._,
-:.
.' ' 'S ..... ....
_ ,,-- -- ---...--..------ - •-• -.--- . - • -.. . _ . _ - - -
s '... .i. .,. 1 ...
. ea , ..
_ _
POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL SITES ,9CTM .isor
.•.MOIL
ao
h a fid► diiè• • Ii : ; 111 c REALIG.... N."..•..
COUNTY ROI.
AD
I1 MH
'''.1!jillmir rii '�I�w1114E,�•. 7/�:'111.4119...1411•� gall
iV
iiia i 197TH
LION ' �IIIIIIIIII :.V'; ivres�
Ili 9 -- In11111111\� riet4 -1.......,1!Irja
�'till 96'N
III a
. '.' 185TH
i• .,.�-- —= gym. iAimmi iiir f, \
pc fib, �\ „�
.>r fin,' t��
��. .— /ICI 11111i..\\. ,ta I
11 $4.4;..!... F ' iZ 1�si�'- 1111111.. .. io. ,,I' ..--- -- ...
11 ;till 1 iii : aim'mnii 1lmomini muigEi
r ..i._ B :r.;
'� ,,,, ,,,, .. '• .1::11 MN -,:r a� �inal.c ,r . :'.......... .. D
.i-14-:-,:
=�' r ,,. •i nm �rillr•1 ,02ND
.1 i sum ,a` �`. �+ :i. ::
#14111 - • •
' IIIII
\� — /
: :::.7�• ''• ....1114135144 R51ST
' .
S[1I— �' � 180tH
Cn) PUD
HILLSIDE ; 1"
RldI �1_ .,..: 17e1H
isimplipini
- - 1=7.17
✓ 178TH ... .... i ,� 179TH
... ... ,,k, A
__
illit
/ 177TH ' II 4,‘
I IIII . 177TH
._
g , Y 1781H .. .... • 178TH
zNaimiLIII11111,
5 175TH i%I yr '• i�.��--� - 175TH
re
di
.. .. 1747H '.:: . 174TH
�-� 111 0. '
• --=ill BM.
173RD ; ...... ......
.�& ' `• '- • 173RD
..... ............
172ND ... ....... ..(':::::•' 172ND
..........
.... ..... .... 71ST
171ST $ � -- ------ - - -` �Y.
:••:
u
.... .:.
170TH s R1 a : :.•.. .:.
169TH -- - - - - -. - 169TH
MEM
•;tel somal
168TH :' mai it 11 168TH
: up"lit f
167T1i •I'. - • . -- -- - • - 167TH
�y ��
;���IJ
N
166TH :t �'" I t� i :::165TH — _
ver ��
164TH :: 184TH
S,
WA163RD 2Q,� _.. __ 183RD
111
i
162ND•
182ND
(II // • !2 161ST
1biSi �, v^•
•s
/�
v z5
yO' �
• U
160TH160TH
z y/ y4r�.,� c'-‘•\‘ g/ o
•
FP �/ .s
159TH f 159TH
Ar 1AP
4111,*11,11111;�`
, 158TH
T 158TH 1[111\
g 157TH . 157TH
&
9i4 E
Y PARK DRIVE �� ••�''
..............................
NESOTA 55108 .. \ \ S`.,
156TH ••�:•::::••• �� 756TH
12) 644-4389 8 '� '� 4` Ik '.*4 44•%%1
D. SUITE 225 _ re % 1TM
NESOTA 55416 Q 155TH t
t 2) 546-0432 ' 25 • =
.7.7.,
,- 15411-1 \1 i/ 1541H
CDSN :t
153RD •••• _ - _ lc 153RD
g 152ND 152ND
2000 0 _ �i ...... ...
8
. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
FOR UPCOMING STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS
March 9 URBAN SERVICE AREA
(completed) -East Highway 10
-Service District East
-Possible Modification to the
North
(Conclude Urban Service Area)
March 23 TRANSPORTATION
& April 6 -North East-West Route
(completed) -Hwy. 169 & 10 Corridor
-Future Collectors/Arterials
April 20 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
& May 4 -Location
• -Redevelopment
Opportunities
May 4 HOUSING
-Mix of Housing/
Land Use
-Housing Maintenance
-10 Acre Minimum Lot Size
June 1 PARKS & RECREATION
June 29 LAND USE PLAN/ZONING MAP
REVIEW GOALS & POLICIES OF
COMP PLAN
August 15 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC
• HEARING
September 25 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
s:planning:sc:schedule