Chapter 2 ROCOG Community Profile CHAPTER 2 Olm Population ... · Chapter 2 ROCOG Community Profile...

Chapter 2 ROCOG Community Profile

2-1 | P a g e R O C O G 2 0 4 0 L o n g R a n g e P l a n

Planning Assumptions for 2040Population and Employment Growth

Rochester share of population grows from 72% (2000) to 77% (2040)Rochester share of employment @ 94% - slight increase by 2040

106,470

144,000 193,600

70,745

106,000 149,800

73,800

103,500 159,900

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Olm Population Roch Population Olm NonFarm W&S

CHAPTER 2

ROCOG Area Profile

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview / Summary .............................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

Population.................................................................................................................................... 4

Households ................................................................................................................................. 7

Employment ............................................................................................................................... 9

Labor Force / Commuting ................................................................................................... 12

Economy .................................................................................................................................... 14

ROCOG Area Future Land Use Plans ............................................................................... 16

Coordination with Land Use and Economic Development Plans .......................... 30

Resource Plans and Inventories of Existing Resources ........................................... 30

Overview / Summary

Chapter 2 provides a summary of demographic, economic and land use conditions within the

ROCOG Planning Area and the underlying planning assumptions that were utilized in

development of the Long Range Transportation Plan. Included is a review of historical trends in

population and employment as well as future forecasts and the expected distribution of growth

by jurisdiction.

Figure 2-1: Population and

Employment Forecast

Summary

As illustrated in Figure 2-1,

population of the planning area

is anticipated to grow from

144,000 in 2010 to 189,000 by

2040, with employment

projected to grow from 102,000

to 150,000 during the period.

Regional commuters play a

significant role in meeting labor

force needs in Rochester, with



approximately 25% of local jobs filled by workers from outside of Rochester. Moving those

persons in and out of the metro area is a significant transportation issue to address on a daily

weekday basis. Similarly, an outsize share of regional retail sales also occurs in Rochester given

its role as the regional economic center for Southeast Minnesota, which also contributes to

increased travel demand in the metro area.

Changes in land use and future development will also affect transportation needs. Chapter 2

includes a review of adopted future land use plans for Olmsted County and municipalities

within the ROCOG Planning Area. A key feature of these plans is the designated urban service

boundaries and orderly annexation area boundaries that have been identified. Growth in these

urban service areas exert a strong influence on road improvement needs, as corridors

previously serving rural or suburban land use need upgrading to serve urban density

development as these areas undergo the transition from rural to urban. The Long Range Plan

also reflects consideration of a larger “Urban Influence Area (UIA)” for Rochester, reflecting

watershed topography where the extension of Rochester’s gravity flow sewer service system

could easily be extended into areas outside currently designated urban service areas. The UIA,

though not anticipated to be an area of urban growth within the 20 to 25 year horizon of this

plan, could see long term (50+ years) growth that would influence the roadway network within

the currently defined urban service boundary.

Transportation investment is important to the economic success of the community. It is critical

that transportation plans are coordinated with economic and community development efforts.

Through its integration with a joint city/county planning agency, ROCOG is involved in ongoing

public and private planning projects which help to create a two-way flow of information

between transportation planning and other community planning efforts. These ongoing

cooperation efforts are described in detail in Appendix G.

With staffing integrated as part of a multi-purpose community planning agency, ROCOG staff in

particular and its committees in general also benefit from ongoing interaction with resource

and environmental agencies. As a result, ROCOG has built an extensive library of data on

natural and cultural resources, which is summarized in Appendix H, which is used to inform the

MPO’s transportation planning efforts. Integration of the community’s planning functions in a

single agency also helps to foster discussion between the MPO and various resource agencies,

facilitating a two-way flow of information between transportation planners and environmental

resource staff that has helped to develop a number of initiatives that have addressed the

impact of transportation facilities on the environment. Ongoing consultation efforts are

described in Appendix D and summaries of projects involving environmental mitigation

activities are discussed in Chapter 4 as well as Appendix E.



Introduction

o Olmsted County has continued to see strong population growth in the first decade of the 21st Century, with a 13.7% rate of growth between 2000 and 2008 as compared to a statewide growth rate of 6.9%. Olmsted County’s growth compares favorably with past decades, which population grow 16.7% in the 1990’s and 15.7% in the 1980’s.

o The City of Rochester is the main population center in Olmsted County, with approximately

72% of the countywide population located in Rochester. Rochester has experienced a 19.4%

increase in population between 2000 and 2008, slightly lower than its growth rate in the

1990’s (21.7%) and 1980’s (22.1%), but still one of the stronger municipal growth rates in

the state. Rochester is the 3rd largest city in the State of Minnesota after Minneapolis and

St. Paul, with an estimated 2008 population of 102,437.

o The economy is built around health care, high technology and agriculture. Major employers include the Mayo Medical Center, IBM-Rochester and Seneca Foods. The Mayo Clinic and IBM combined employ approximately 40,000 people in a workforce of approximately 100,000 persons. A new University of Minnesota – Rochester branch was established in 2007 and expects to have a student population of 5,000 by the Year 2020.

o For over 140 years, the city of Rochester has remained the regional center for industry and commerce in southeastern Minnesota and northwestern Iowa. Olmsted County draws a significant number of workers from surrounding counties, with approximately 20% of persons who work in Olmsted County commuting from residences outside of Olmsted County.

o Olmsted County and the City of Rochester is an important regional retail center, accounting

for approximately 50% of sales in the seven county area centered on Rochester. A large proportion of County retailing activity occurs in the City of Rochester, which accounts for slightly over 90% of the retail sales in the county.

o The high level of job growth in the county, combined with short commuting times to jobs in

Rochester and local economic development initiatives, has resulted in historically high levels of new housing starts in small cities near Rochester. Byron, Stewartville and Pine Island all have seen record levels of housing permits issued the last 10 years as households seek out more affordable housing options than those provided for in the Rochester market while still being located within convenient commuting distance to the Rochester job market.



Population

Table 2-1i summarizes the change in the geographic population distribution that has occurred since 1980 in Olmsted County. The largest share of population growth has occurred in the City of Rochester, with small cities seeing about 1/6th of countywide growth since the Year 2000. Due to significant annexation activity, suburban townships saw a 20% decline in population since 2000. Detailed jurisdictional level trendline information is available in Appendix F.

Table 2-1: Population Trends 1980-2008

Jurisdictional Group

Population 1980's share of County Growth

1990's Share of County Growth

2000's Share of County Growth 1980 1990 2000 2008

Small Cities 8,674 10,529 13,131 15,962 13% 14% 18%

Rochester 57,890 70,745 85,806 102,437 88% 79% 107%

Suburban Townships 15,121 14,944 15,660 12,559 -1% 4% -20%

Exurban Townships 4,027 4,640 4,865 4,713 4% 1% -1%

Rural Townships 6,294 5,756 6,278 5,655 -4% 3% -4%

Population Projections

Table 2-2 summarizes population projections prepared by ROCOGii for selected years through 2040. Olmsted County is projected to reach a population of 193,600, driven by the expectation of continued strong employment growth and expected increases in energy and housing costs that will lead more persons to locate closer to their place of work. This projection tracks well with the most recent projections of the Minnesota State Demographer, which projected Olmsted County population to reach 189,130 by the year 2035.

Table 2-2: ROCOG Population Projections

Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010-2040 Growth Share of Growth

Rochester 106,850 123,860 138,968 146,700 39,850 37% 88%

Byron 5,300 6,700 7,500 8,500 3,200 60% 7%

Chatfield 1,250 1,270 1,310 1,400 150 12% 0%

Dover 665 890 1,085 1,200 535 80% 1%

Eyota 1,925 2,205 2,445 2,700 775 40% 2%

Oronoco* 1,180 1,250 1,400 1,500 320 27% 1%

Pine Island 700 1,785 2,295 3,100 2,400 343% 5%

Stewartville 6,100 6,545 7,035 7,600 1,500 25% 3%

Total for Municipalities 123,970 144,505 162,040 172,700 48,730 39%

Suburban Townships 13,385 12,785 11,500 11,000 -2,385 -18% -5%

Exurban Twps 6,000 6,390 6,260 6,000 0 0% 0%

Rural Twps 4,775 4,300 4,100 3,900 -875 -18% -2%

OLMSTED COUNTY 148,130 168,380 184,400 193,600 45,470 31%



The majority of population growth is expected to occur in the City of Rochester (88% of total

ROCOG area population growth), while Byron and Pine Island are also expected to see

significant increases relative to their existing size. Table 2-3 shows the added growth expected

in the cities of Chatfield and Pine Island which would occur outside of Olmsted County but

would be considered to be part of the base population of the ROCOG Planning Area

Table 2-3: Population Projections in ROCOG Border Cities

Border Cities Growth projections for areas outside Olmsted County Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010-2040 Growth

Chatfield / Fillmore County 1,275 1,290 1,310 1,400 125

TOTAL for Chatfield 2,525 2,560 2,620 2,800 275 11%

Pine Island / Goodhue Co. 2,800 3,500 4,300 5,000 2,200

TOTAL for Pine Island 3,500 5,285 6,595 8,100 4,600 131%

TOTAL for ROCOG Cities 128,045 149,295 167,650 179,100 51,055

Total: Olmsted + Border Cities 152,205 172,770 189,510 200,000 47,795 31%

Future population levels for individual townships in Olmsted County are not prepared by

ROCOG, but the State Demographer does estimate these numbers based on trends in factors

such as births and deaths and development activity as measured by building permits. This

information is included in Appendix F. Similar to the historic patterns, rural townships are

generally expected to see a decline in population, while suburban townships are projected to

see some increase in resident population through 2035.

Population Issues

Figures 2-2 and 2-3iii highlight distribution of population by age cohort based on Year 2000

Census data and the State Demographers 2035 projections. These population pyramids

highlight the expected changes resulting from the aging of the post-WWII baby boom, with the

numbers of persons over the age of 60 increasing significantly in the next 25-30 years. This

carries potentially significant implications in terms of transportation needs, since persons in

older age cohorts will typically create a higher demand for different types of transit services.

For example, as reported in the Year 2000 Census, approximately 20% of the 65+ population

had at least one disability. If this proportion stays constant, the population over 65 with at least

one disability will grow from 2,400 in the Year 2000 to 7,800 over the time horizon of this plan.

This anticipated increase in the numbers of persons with a disability also highlights the need to

insure that ADA compatible transportation facilities, including not only transit vehicle but

infrastructure including sidewalks and trails, need to be designed (for new construction) or

planned for upgrading (for existing facilities) to meet ADA requirements.



Research studies sponsored by US Department of Transportation and others have also

suggested that among the impacts this change will create are a need to consider items such as

larger signage, brighter pavement markings, along with higher cost items such as possible

adjustments in design, to respond to physical capabilities (or limitations) of this growing group

of users. While costs of items such as signs, pavement marking or lighting are relatively minor

when considering a single location, if considered on a network-wide basis they represent a

significant level of investment. Maintaining these elements of the roadway infrastructure

already present a funding challenge, and adjusting to respond to the needs of a growing level of

older drivers will only raise the level of importance of the issue in the future.

Figure 2-3: Year 2035 Olmsted County Population Pyramid

Figure 2-2: Year 2000 Olmsted County Population Pyramid



Households

Figure 2-4iv highlights information on household growth trends for jurisdictions in the ROCOG

Planning Area for the period 1980 through 2008. The figures indicate that the rate of growth in

the number of households in the last ten years was much stronger than the period of 1980

through 2000 in all the municipal jurisdictions, while the rate of growth in township areas has

declined. This rate of growth has exceeded the population growth rate, resulting from a decline

in household sizes and the changes in the composition and distribution of household by type.

Given the strong relationship between households/housing units and trip generation, this pace

of growth, if continued, has significant implications for future travel demand in the ROCOG

area. Further jurisdictional level information is available in Appendix F of the Plan.

Figure 2-4: Household Trends

In relation to rural travel, it is interesting to note that while the majority of the townships (14 of

18) lost population in the period of 2000 to 2008, only four townships saw a reduction in the

1,072

993

59 10 11 13 34 13

51 (63)

2.2% 2.9% 5.0% 5.6% 1.9% 3.8% 1.7% 1.4% 5.9%

-0.7%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

(200)

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Household Growth Trends 1980-2008

Annual Growth 1980-2000(Actual)

Annual Growth2000-2008(Actual)

Annual Growth1980-2000(%)

Annual Growth 2000-2008(%)



number of households, and the overall rate of household loss was only 1/3rd the rate of

population loss.

Household Composition

Table 2-4v summarizes projected changes anticipated through the Year 2035 among different

types of households. Relative to the overall 35% growth in total population expected to occur

between 2007 and 2035, the number of married couple households with children is only

expected to increase by 2% while married couple households without children is projected to

rise by 71%. Since households with children typically have the highest trip generation rates of

all housing units, it suggests that that the aggregate level of traffic as measured at a household

level may decline in the future.

There is a significant increase in single person households projected, both in the 65+ age group

as well as among younger individuals. The significant rise in the proportion and number of

single person households in the 65+ age group may have implications for the level of

community-based transit service that will be needed in the future. These cohorts may also spur

greater interest in walkable neighborhoods or mixed development areas, with greater demand

for higher density, mixed use housing opportunities, including increased demand for downtown

housing in particular.

Table 2-4: Projected Change in Composition of Households 2005-2035

Olmsted County 2005

Estimate Projected

2015 Projected

2025 Projected

2035

Change 2005-2035

Share of Change

Total households 53,713 63,020 71,290 78,320 24,607 100%

Married couples with related children 13,894 13,600 14,060 14,160 266 1%

Married couples without related children 15,848 20,300 24,470 27,120 11,272 46%

Other families with related children 4,380 5,160 5,290 5,520 1,140 5%

Other families without related children 1,699 2,060 2,320 2,680 981 4%

Living alone 14,480 17,980 21,050 24,510 10,030 41%

Living alone, age 65 and older 4,098 5,390 8,100 11,140 7,042 29%

Other nonfamily households 3,413 3,940 4,100 4,340 927 4%

Householders ages 15 to 24 3,709 3,910 4,070 4,520 811 3%

Householders ages 25 to 44 22,063 22,620 23,650 23,420 1,357 6%

Householders ages 45 to 64 18,732 24,190 24,610 25,160 6,428 26%

Householders age 65 and older 9,208 12,310 18,960 25,230 16,022 65%



-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

0,000

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

An

nu

al %

Em

plo

yme

nt

Gro

wth

Tota

l Em

plo

yme

nt

Olmsted County Wage& Salary Employment 1976-2008and Annual Percentage Employment Growth

Employment

Figure 2-5vi illustrates that wage & salary employment growth in Olmsted County has remained

generally on a steady upward path for the last 30+ years. Periods of significant growth were

seen in the late 1980’s and again in the late 1990’s. Only three years (1982, 1994 and 2008) saw

an absolute decline in the number of jobs in Olmsted County from the previous year.

Total non-farm employment reported for the 1st Quarter of 2010 by the Minnesota Department

of Economic Security placed Olmsted County employment at 102,008 jobs, which represents a

decline of approximately 4.5% from the pre-recession levels of 2007, where average annual

employment was at 106,883 jobs.

Figure 2-5: Historic Employment Growth 1976-2008

Figure 2-6vii illustrates how the change in employment locally has generally mirrored the

pattern of growth in the national economy (as measured by the annual change in GNP) fairly

closely throughout the last 30 years. This pattern is to be expected to the degree that major

employment sectors in the local economy (health care / information technology / education)

(Note that the chart does not include individuals working in farming or those that are self-employed.)



-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

20

03

20

05

20

07

Comparison of Annual Local Employment Change with National Economic Activity

Annual Change in Local Employment Annual Change in National GNP

mirror major generators of economic activity at the national level. This relationship in large

measure influences estimates of future employment growth prospects for the planning area.

Figure 2-6: Relationship of Employment Change & National Economy

Figure 2-7viii, which

highlights short

term employment

growth forecast by

Moody’s Economy

for the Rochester

MSA and the

United States,

confirms these

trends. (accessed on

USA Today web site on

May 10, 2010)

Figure 2-7: Comparison of Rochester MSA and US Employment

Growth forecasts



Table 2-5ix summarizes employment projections prepared by ROCOG for the Year 2040 by major economic sector in Olmsted County. The Health Services industry, anchored by the Mayo Medical Center and an emerging biosciences industry, is anticipated to see significant growth, along with lower levels of growth in keeping with population trends in the retailing and service sectors. A trend towards more self-employed individuals is expected to accelerate and count for a larger proportion of overall county level employment in the future.

Table 2-5: ROCOG Employment Projections for 2040

Sector 2001

Estimate 4th

Qtr 2008 / 1st

Qtr 2009

Project 2035

Employment

(2005 LRTP)

Project 2040

Employment

(2010 LRTP)

Farm employment 1,787 1,270 1,195

Agricultural Services / Forestry 101 188 100 100

Mining / Natural Resources 93 210 100 100

Construction 5,210 3,473 7,503 7,984

Manufacturing 12,641 9,898 13,305 13,472

Transportation warehousing & utilities 2,361 2,326 3,602 3,833

Information 1,080 1,419 1,648 1,754

Wholesale trade 1,763 1,966 2,473 2,599

Retail trade 12,110 10,340 16,985 17,851

Finance, insurance, and real estate 4,837 2,883 8,025 8,646

Health 32,364 38,507 53,685 57,834

Business Services 4,024 4,825 5,837 6,166

Lodging & restaurants 6,652 8,371 10,148 10,798

Other Services 10,949 8,062 16,425 17,434

Government enterprises 8,262 11,000 10,973 11,497

(Federal) 1,365 1,010 1,745 1,818

(State) 1,275 1,495 1,567 1,627

(Local) 5,622 8,495 7,661 8,052

TOTAL 104,234 114,467 152,079 161,263

Olmsted County W&S Employment (2006) 90,865 Rochester Share

City of Rochester W&S Employment (2006) 85,496 94%



0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

DODGE GOODHUE WABASHA WINONA FILLMORE MOWER

COMMUTING INTO OLMSTED COUNTY

1970

1980

1990

2000

Labor Force / Commuting

A critical transportation issue for the Rochester area economy is the sourcing of labor force to

fill local jobs. The labor force for the Rochester MSA is drawn from a significant geographic area

that extends well beyond the boundary of Olmsted County. It is estimated the labor market

willing to consider a commute for work in the Rochester MSA is close to 150,000 people. A

projected 2035 resident labor force of 99,200 (State Demographer estimate / 2007), assuming a

multiple job holding rate of approximately 20%, suggests that on the order of 40,000- 50,000

jobs would need to be filled by persons commuting into Olmsted County on a regular basis.

Commuting has been a significant factor in meeting the needs of employers in Olmsted County

historically, and it has been a growing steadily over the course of the last 30 years. Figure 2-8x

charts the growth in commuters into Olmsted County as recorded by the decennial Census

since 1970 from the six counties abutting Olmsted County.

Figure 2-9xi on the following page highlights the reach and magnitude of the Rochester labor

market throughout southeastern Minnesota. This graphic highlights the proportion of residents

at the township level who were found to commute to Rochester for work in the Year 2000.

Figure 2-8: Commuters into Olmsted County



0 – 4%

4-6%

6-20%

20-40%

40-60%

60-80%

Over 80%

% of Employed Residents working in Rochester

Figure 2-9: Residents Working in Olmsted County


2- 14 | P a g e R O C O G 2 0 4 0 L o n g R a n g e P l a n

Economy

Table 2-6xii highlights the changes that have been occurring in the local economy by primary

employment sector. The major changes involve the relative contribution of the manufacturing

sector and the education / health sector to the local economy. The share of employment

contributed by the education/health sector has risen by 10% since the year 2000, while

manufacturing has dropped by approximately 6%. Similarly, wages generated by the

education/health sector have risen by 15%, while the manufacturing share has dropped by 9%.

With the expected continued growth of health services and evolution of the University of

Minnesota-Rochester campus, it is anticipated that the education/health sector share of the

economy will continue to expand as a share of overall economic activity.

Table 2-6: Employment Sector Shares

Employment Sector

Sector Share of Employment

2000

Sector Share of Employment

2009

Sector Share of Establishments

2000

Sector Share of Establishments

2009

Sector Share of Total Wages 2000

Sector Share of Total Wages 2009

Resources and Mining 0% 0.2% 0.9% 1.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Construction 5% 3.8% 12.6% 12.9% 5.3% 4.0%

Manufacturing 15% 8.9% 3.5% 3.3% 22.1% 13.0%

Trade 16% 15.0% 25.8% 24.0% 10.8% 9.0%

Information 1% 1.5% 1.8% 2.2% 1.2% 1.4%

Finance 3% 2.7% 10.5% 10.5% 2.7% 2.5%

Business Services 6% 4.6% 12.9% 12.4% 5.6% 3.5%

Education / Health 38% 48.3% 8.9% 10.3% 43.6% 58.2%

Leisure / Hospitality 8% 9.0% 9.9% 10.8% 3.2% 2.8%

Other Services 3% 2.4% 11.7% 10.6% 1.6% 1.2%

Public Admin 4% 3.4% 1.5% 2.0% 3.9% 4.2%

Regional Trade Centers

One measure of the economic vitality of a region is to look at the communities in terms of the

services they provide to the residents and businesses of the area. The Center for Urban and

Regional Affairs (CURA) at the University of Minnesota developed the Regional Trade Center

methodology in a 1963 study to assess the robustness of a place using population and levels of

economic activity to define an eight-level hierarchy of places, with metropolitan areas at the

top (Levels 0 & 1) and hamlets (Level 7) at the base. This study was most recently updated in

2003. Table 2-7xiii indicates the most recent classification of communities in Olmsted County.

Three of the six communities moved up in the hierarchy during the 1990’s and have stayed at



0,000

0,500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

DODGE FILLMORE GOODHUE MOWER OLMSTED WABASHA WINONA

Mil

lio

ns

Annual Retail Sales by County

2007 2000 1992 1982

Olmsted County share of 7-CountyRetail Sales has risen from 40% in 1982 to 50% in 2007

Rochester share of Retail Sales inOlmsted County has ranged from90% to 95%

their new level, while one (Eyota) dropped out of the classification system for the level of a

minimum convenience center in 1990.

Table 2-7 Regional Trade Center Classifications

City 1990 1998 2003 Change from 1990 to 1998

Byron 6 4 4 From Minimum Convenience Center to Partial Shopping Center

Chatfield 5 5 5 Remained classified as Full Convenience Center

Eyota 6 X X Dropped from a Minimum Convenience Center to Hamlet

Pine Island 5 5 5 Remained classified as Full Convenience Center

Rochester 2 1 1 From Secondary to Primary Wholesale/Retail Center

Stewartville 5 4 4 From Full Convenience Center to Partial Shopping Center

RETAIL SALES

An important component of the local economy is the retail sector and the role it plays in the

regional economy. Figure 2-10xiv highlights the trend in the value of total sales of retail goods in

Olmsted and surrounding counties for selected years since 1982. Growth of retail sales in

Olmsted County as a share of regional retailing has grown from 40% in 1982 to 50% in 2007. Of

those sales, retailers in the City of Rochester have historically captured between 90% and 95%

of the total sales activity in the region. This trend implies travel demand for shopping purposes

into Olmsted County and Rochester by non-residents has likely been increasing over time.

Figure 2-10: Olmsted County Capture of Regional Sales Activity



ROCOG Area Future Land Use Plans

Olmsted County and the cities in Olmsted County each prepare land use plans or conduct land

use studies to identify future urban expansion areas and the pattern of growth that will be

encouraged within their respective urban growth boundaries through the adoption of

jurisdictional zoning or land development ordinances. These plans are key elements in

infrastructure planning, as they help to define travel needs and travel demand that can be

expected.

The Olmsted County Land Use Plan is primarily a policy plan, establishing broadly the land use

character in rural areas and, in conjunction with the local municipalities, establishing the

expected urban growth areas of each municipality. The county land use plan process plays an

important role in mediating the discussion between each city and the townships which

surround the jurisdiction in terms of defining future urban service areas, and facilitating the

development of orderly annexation agreements to provide for the orderly expansion of

municipal services into new development areas. Each city in turn has prepared plans or studies

that more specifically identify the pattern of land use expected within their respective urban

growth areas.

Generally speaking, the urban growth areas or existing municipal boundary areas that have

been established encompass adequate area to handle growth needs over a 30 to 50 year time

period. For the purposes of transportation planning, this is a useful planning horizon in that

future corridor preservation needs can be assessed for long term growth areas and efforts

made to establish corridor protection prior to the earliest intensification of land use. Figure 2-

10xv on the next page illustrates the Olmsted County Land Use Plan map.

The next section of this chapter discusses the urban growth boundary for the Rochester

urbanized area, and is followed by maps illustrating the land use plan maps for each of the

small municipalities within Olmsted County. A number of the small cities (Stewartville,

Chatfield, Eyota and Pine Island) completed updates to their land use plan in 2009 or are in the

process of completing plan updates.

The City of Rochester is also in the process of updating and refinement of its Land Use Plan,

focusing on review of the urban service area boundaries and development of neighborhood

level plans to complement ongoing infrastructure planning. Discussion of the Rochester efforts

begins on page 2-19.



FIGURE 2-10: Olmsted County Land Use Plan



ROCHESTER Urban Influence Area

The Olmsted County and Rochester Land Use Plans recognize a 50-year Urban Service Area

(RUSA) for planning purposes. Historically the RUSA boundary has been constrained by political

considerations as well as physical constraints. As a result, the 50 year area historically has not

always matched up with well with logical watershed boundaries, which are fundamental to

sewer service planning. This has raised the question of whether any flexibility in terms of the

RUSA boundary should be recognized for purposes of transportation network planning,

realizing the potential of development to easily expand beyond the 50 year boundary in some

cases and impact future right-of-way protection needs and acquisition. ROCOG has felt it was

desirable to preserve flexibility in terms of planning for roadway infrastructure concepts such as

extension of an arterial/collector grid should the 50 year boundary be expanded in the future.

To address this challenge, an “Urban Influence Area” (UIA) has been developed for use in

transportation network planning for the Rochester growth area. The UIA represents an area

including and abutting the RUSA that within a 75 to 100-year time frame could be converted to

or could be highly influenced by urban development. Definition of this land use area relies

heavily on watershed delineations, reflecting where gravity flow sewer service is possible.

Consideration of a 100 year UIA has been supported in discussions by the Olmsted County

Commissioners and Rochester City Council during recent expansion of the RUSA to include the

Northwest Territory area and the Kalmar Orderly Annexation area, at which time the need for

infrastructure planning that considered a time frame on the order of 100 years was noted.

Thus, for the purposes of the ROCOG Plan, both the RUSA as well as the UIA will be used to look

at transportation system development needs based on the following parameters:

Projected 2040 population and employment will be used to identify residential and non-

residential land needs for the next 30 years. Land areas within the RUSA most likely to be

converted to urban development to satisfy these needs would be identified, and traffic

forecasts prepared as a baseline scenario.

Remaining undeveloped areas within the RUSA would be evaluated to determine what roadway

infrastructure would be needed in those areas to meet potential capacity and right-of-way

needs resulting from future growth if market preferences, ownership patterns, and

infrastructure costs shift the direction of growth over time,.

Within the UIA, generalized corridor protection needs will be identified and an assessment will

be conducted to evaluate the potential traffic impact that could result from development of

lands in the UIA outside of the RUSA. The purpose of this assessment will be to assess right-of-

way protection needs within the RUSA area that could be impacted by development outside the

RUSA.



Further analysis of watersheds, sewer service feasibility and other potential development

constraints will occur periodically. The City of Rochester and adjacent townships are currently

reassessing the RUSA boundary, as highlighted in Figure 2-12. Other factors, such as lands in the

Marion and Kalmar Orderly Annexation Areas outside of the RUSA, are also accounted for in

this analysis.



Byron

Stewartville

Oronoco

Rochester

Byron

Stewartville

Oronoco

Rochester

FIGURE 2-11

ROCHESTER 100-YEAR URBAN INFLUENCE AREA



Figure 2-12: May 2010 Draft - Rochester Urban Service Area Revisions



Small City Land Use Plans

Beginning on the next page are graphics illustrating the most recent land use plans that have

been prepared and adopted by other municipalities in Olmsted County. The following

paragraphs highlight the vintage of each plan and other notes relative to its status.

Byron (Figure 2-10xvi, page 2-22)

The plan for Byron is adopted as part of Byron’s comprehensive plan and was last updated in

2002.

Chatfield (Figure 2-11xvii, page 2-23)

The land use plan for Chatfield was adopted as part of a Comprehensive Plan update completed

in 2009.

Dover (Figure 2-12xviii, page 2-24)

The plan for Dover is an illustrative plan reflecting current municipal limits and known

development plans

Eyota (Figure 2-13xix, page 2-25)

The Land Use plan for Eyota was formally adopted in 2008 but had been used as a guide for a

number of years prior to that.

Oronoco (Figure 2-14xx, page 2-26)

A draft land use plan for Oronoco was prepared as an adjunct to the TH 52 North Corridor Study

in 2000/2001 and has been further reviewed by the city since that time through a consultant

contract though not formally adopted

Pine Island (Figure 2-15xxi, page 2-27)

The city of Pine Island is in the final stages of a Comprehensive Plan update funded through a

Community Connections grant from 1000 Friends of Minnesota and the McKnight Foundation

Stewartville (Figure 2-16xxii, page 2-28)

The city of Stewartville adopted an updated land use plan as part of a Comprehensive Plan

updated completed in 2009.



FIGURE 2-10:

BYRON LAND

USE PLAN



FIGURE 2-11: CHATFIELD LAND USE PLAN



FIGURE 2-12:

Dover Land

Use Study



FIGURE 2-

13: Eyota

Land Use

Plan



FIGURE 2-

14:

Oronoco

Land Use

Study



FIGURE 2-15: Pine Island Land Use Plan



FIGURE 2-16:

STEWARTVILLE

Land Use Plan



Coordination with Land Use and Economic Development Plans

ROCOG addresses federal guideline calling for “…consistency between transportation

improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns”

through many varied planning activities. ROCOG through its affiliation with the Rochester-

Olmsted Planning Department (ROPD), is involved with the development of the Olmsted County

General Land Use Plan, which defines planned urban service areas and resource protection

areas, and the City of Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, which defines the type and

intensity of development expected to occur within the Rochester urban service area. Planning

for transportation network improvements is linked to these efforts through the use of common

assumptions regarding employment and population growth as well as land absorption needs to

support the level of planned growth. ROCOG through the ROPD is also involved in the planning

of sewer, water, open space and educational infrastructure, and capital improvement

programming at the local jurisdictional level.

ROCOG directly and through the ROPD also works with organizations and businesses regarding

future economic development goals and the transportation implications of economic

development initiatives. Periodic updating of Campus Master Plans for businesses such as the

Rochester International Airport, the Mayo Medical Center, IBM and the Rochester Area

University Center provide an opportunity to work directly with these key players. The 2010

Rochester Downtown Master Plan and Mobility Plan is a major planning efforts that promise to

establish the character of the major activity center in Rochester for decades to come. This

project in particular has set an aggressive goal for travel demand management of reducing

single occupant vehicle travel by 20% over 20 years, using multiple strategies including parking

changes, enhancement of alternative modes, and a changing mix of land uses to reduce private

vehicular travel.

These ongoing efforts in both service area planning and economic development visioning are

described in detail in Appendix G also with an overview of the development review / approval

process and ROCOG’s role in that process.

Resource Plans and Inventories of Existing Resources

With staffing integrated as part of a multi-purpose community planning agency, ROCOG staff in

particular and its committees in general also benefit from ongoing interaction with resource and

environmental agencies. SAFETEA-LU requires that transportation plans be compared to

available state or local conservation plans, maps and inventories for purposes of assessing

potential areas of impact early in the planning process. ROCOG has built an extensive database

of resource mapping in GIS format in cooperation with the City of Rochester and Olmsted



County that is utilized throughout the transportation planning process to inform ROCOG

decisions. These datasets are described in detail in Appendix H. They include the following:

1. Surface Water Resources

Rivers / Streams / Lakes / Flood Control Reservoirs

Floodplains / Floodprone Areas

Shoreland Areas

Stormwater Management System

2. Groundwater Related Resources

Wetlands

Seeps and Springs

Fens

Wellhead Protection Areas

Decorah Edge

3. Biological Resources

Endangered, Threatened and Species of Special Concern

Rare & Native Plant Communities

4. Cultural Resources

Parks and Trails

Historic Properties

Archaeological Resources

Contaminated Sites

5. Landform Features of Importance

Sinkholes

Karst

Steep Slopes

Erodible Soils

Aggregate Resources

Integration of the community’s planning functions in a single agency also helps to foster

discussion between the MPO and various resource agencies, resulting in a two-way flow of

information between transportation planners and environmental resource staff that has helped

to develop a number of initiatives addressing the impact of transportation facilities on the

environment. Ongoing consultation efforts are described in Appendix D and summaries of

projects involving environmental mitigation activities are discussed in Chapter 4 as well as

Appendix E.



ENDNOTES

i See Endnote 1 ii Population projections prepared by ROCOG utilize a modified cohort survival model accounting for patterns in

births, deaths and migration by five year age cohort, adjusted for labor force needs as reflected by labor force participation rates, percentage of jobs filled by non-resident commuters and percentage of persons holding multiple jobs. iii Figures 2-2 and 2-3 from Minnesota Geospatial Information Office, accessed online at

http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/php/census2000/c2000_menu.php iv Figure 2-4 based on data from Minnesota Department of Administration, Office of Geographic and Demographic

Analysis, State Demographic Center, access online at http://www.demography.state.mn.us/a2z.html#Households v Table 2-4 data from Minnesota Department of Administration, Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis,

State Demographic Center, access online at http://www.demography.state.mn.us/a2z.html#Households vi United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Series, available online at

http://stats.bls.gov/sae/ vii

Refer to Endnote 9 for Employment Data; GNP data from Economic Research Division, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, accessed online at http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GNP/ viii

Graphics in Figure 2-7 courtesy of USA Today, accessed May 10, 2010 at http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-02-06-new-jobs-growth-graphic_N.htm ix Table 2-5 employment projections by ROCOG based on analysis of multiple data sources including LAUS, CES, BEA

and input from local employers and industry representatives x Figure 2-8 derived from County to County Worker Flow Files, U.S. Decennial Census, available online at

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html xi See Endnote 12

xii Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Security, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

(QCEW), accessed online at http://www.positivelyminnesota.com/Data_Publications/Data/All_Data_Tools/Quarterly_Census_of_Employment_Wages_(QCEW).aspx xiii

Trade Centers of the Upper Midwest, 2003 Update, May 2003, Minnesota Department of Transportation, by SRF Consulting Group, accessed online at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/pdf/2003RTCReport.pdf xiv

Retail Sales data from Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minnesota Sales and Use Tax Statistics, access online at http://taxes.state.mn.us/legal_policy/pages/research_reports_sales_use_statistics_main.aspx xv

Olmsted County General Land Use Plan, available online at http://www.co.olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning/olmsted_county_general_land_use_plan_update.asp xvi

Figure 2-10 courtesy of Byron City Administration xvii

Chatfield Comprehensive Plan, Chatfield Planning Department, 2008, available online at http://www.ci.chatfield.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B7A8298AF-61FA-481A-AC21-C8996E201CE8%7D/uploads/%7B3208EF27-9DA8-4FE0-BE28-D81832EE43FD%7D.PDF xviii

Figure 2-12 courtesy of Rochester – Olmsted Planning Department xix

City of Eyota, Comprehensive Plan 2009, prepared for City of Eyota by McGhie & Betts, Inc. xx

City of Oronoco Comprehensive Plan, 2008, available online at http://www.oronoco.com/localgovt5544013.asp xxi

City of Pine Island Draft Comprehensive Plan, August 2010, prepared for City of Pine Island by Municipal Development Group Inc., available online at http://cc.pineislandmn.com/downloads/entire_document_8210.pdf xxii

City of Stewartville Future Land Use Map, 2003, prepared for City of Stewartville by Yaggy-Colby Associates Inc., available online at http://www.stewartvillemn.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={1B0D1579-3689-4F4C-9B3A-B2280A413F6B}

http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/php/census2000/c2000_menu.php

http://www.demography.state.mn.us/a2z.html#Households

http://www.demography.state.mn.us/a2z.html#Households

http://stats.bls.gov/sae/

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GNP/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-02-06-new-jobs-growth-graphic_N.htm

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html

http://www.positivelyminnesota.com/Data_Publications/Data/All_Data_Tools/Quarterly_Census_of_Employment_Wages_(QCEW).aspx

http://www.positivelyminnesota.com/Data_Publications/Data/All_Data_Tools/Quarterly_Census_of_Employment_Wages_(QCEW).aspx

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/pdf/2003RTCReport.pdf

http://taxes.state.mn.us/legal_policy/pages/research_reports_sales_use_statistics_main.aspx

http://www.co.olmsted.mn.us/departments/planning/olmsted_county_general_land_use_plan_update.asp

http://www.ci.chatfield.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B7A8298AF-61FA-481A-AC21-C8996E201CE8%7D/uploads/%7B3208EF27-9DA8-4FE0-BE28-D81832EE43FD%7D.PDF

http://www.ci.chatfield.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B7A8298AF-61FA-481A-AC21-C8996E201CE8%7D/uploads/%7B3208EF27-9DA8-4FE0-BE28-D81832EE43FD%7D.PDF

http://www.oronoco.com/localgovt5544013.asp

http://cc.pineislandmn.com/downloads/entire_document_8210.pdf

http://www.stewartvillemn.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7b1B0D1579-3689-4F4C-9B3A-B2280A413F6B%7d

http://www.stewartvillemn.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7b1B0D1579-3689-4F4C-9B3A-B2280A413F6B%7d

Chapter 2 ROCOG Community Profile CHAPTER 2 Olm Population ... · Chapter 2 ROCOG Community Profile...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 2 ROCOG Community Profile CHAPTER 2 Olm Population ... · Chapter 2 ROCOG Community Profile...