Monday, 2/27/2012
REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IN PLANNERS PACKET FOR 2/28/2012
by Dennis P. Randall, drandall1@frontiernet.net
According to the executive summary regarding the proposed re-zoning of
certain areas of land in Rosemount (including a number of parks) is
based on three reasons:
1. Limit the City's exposure to potential litigation.
2. Implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
3. Provide Consistency in Zoning Standards for Public and
Institutional (P/I) Uses.
First off their explanation of avoiding potential litigation by
rezoning as far as I can see applies only to privately owned land that
is for public use (i.e., a golf course), not publicly owned land like
a City Park. The two examples that were cited, both dealt with
privately owned land.
The second reason (Implementing the 2030 Comprehensive Plan) only
discusses the City Hall, the Dakota Co. Roberts Trail Library, and the
former St. Joseph's School site as being rezoned from P/I to Downtown
Commercial (D/T) to make the zoning classification consistent with the
comprehensive plan use. Nothing is mentioned about Parks and the need
to rezone them from P/I to Residential, unless this is part of the
Comprehensive Plan and just not addressed in the information packet,
unless I missed it.
The third reason given by the City was to update the P/I zoning
district standards (Three sections - Purpose and Intent, Permitted
Use, and Conditional Uses), which according to the City revises the
accessory and interim use and development requirements. No reason is
given to state why Parks should be removed from the P/I District
Zoning and changed to Residential to update them.
Basically from what I have heard and read, the only reason which seems
to apply to the proposed zoning changes for City Parks is because in
the newer developed area of Rosemount ( a small part of the city), the
zoning for those Parks is Residential. The majority of Parks in
Rosemount are still zoned P/I. They want to make all the zoning
consistent for the City, but rather than change those few new Parks to
P/I they want to change the majority of Parks in the City to
Residential.
The other concern I have, if this change is made, is the same as you
had Ron, this is in regards to the value of the land, whether true or
perceived, if it's zoned as Residential vs Public/Institutional. I
would think a prospective buyer would value property higher if it is
adjacent to land zoned as P/I or as some other local communities have
a specific classification of land zoned just for Parks.
Dennis P. Randall
