HomeMy WebLinkAbout9D - Rezoning Deerfield Industr
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JULY 7, 2003
9D
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
REZONING FROM C-5 TO R-4, AND FROM C-5 TO C-4 AND
FROM C-5 TO 1-1 FOR PROPERTY IN THE DEERFIELD
INDUSTRIAL AREA (Case File #03-048)
History: The City Council has previously approved an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan consistent with this request. Deerfield
Development has filed an application for a rezoning for a portion of
the 60.1 acres of vacant property located east ofFish Point Road, on
the east side of the Deerfield Development and south of Cottonwood
Lane and Adelmann Street. The proposal includes the following
amendments to Zoning Map:
. Change 4.25 acres from R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential)
to R-4 (High Density Residential)
. Change 6.14 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to C-4
(General Business)
. Change 13.35 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to 1-1
(Industrial)
This property is presently zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential) and C-5 (Business Office Park). On March 17,2003, the
City Council approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Map redesignating the 6.14 acres to C-CC (General Business) and
the 13.35 acres to I-PI (Planned Industrial). On May 5, 2003, the
Council also approved an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map redesignating the 4.25 acres to R-HD (High Density
Residential). These amendments were subsequently approved by the
Metropolitan Council.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 9, 2003 to
consider this proposal. The Planning Commission felt the rezoning to
the C-4 and the 1-1 districts were consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, and therefore, recommended approval of this request. The
Commissioners, however, could not agree on the request to rezone the
1:\03 files\03 rezone\deerfield indus park\cc report.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4.25 acres to the R-4 district. A motion to recommend approval of this
request failed on a 2-2 vote. The Commission decided to forward this
request to the City Council without a recommendation. The draft
minutes of the June 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting are
attached to this report.
Current Circumstances: The total site consists of approximately 60
acres. The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 24 acres.
This property is primarily vacant pasture. There are existing trees
located on the west side of the site.
Most of the site drains towards a wetland on the west side ofthe site.
A small portion of the site drains towards the wetland along the east
boundary. The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland
Conservation Act. A specific delineation will be required as part of
any development application.
Access to this property is presently from CSAH 87 along the east
property line. There is also an easement on the private streets in the
Deerfield development on the south side of the site that provides
access to the 4.25 acre parcel. The private street leading to this site has
not been platted at this time. Adelmann Street now stops at
Cottonwood Lane, and does not extend to this site. Development of
this property will require the extension of Adelmann Street through
City property to CSAH 87.
Sewer and water services can also be extended from the Deerfield
development to the south. Again, these utilities have not been platted.
To the north of this property is the Norex property and the City
Maintenance Center, zoned C-5 (Business Office Park). To the west
and south of this property is the Deerfield development, zoned R-2.
The property to the east is an industrial building, zoned 1-1 (Rural
Industrial) on the Scott County Zoning Map.
The Issues: The applicant is proposing to develop this property as
part of the Deerfield Industrial Park. An application for a preliminary
plat for the entire 60 acres has been submitted; however, this
application is incomplete.
It must also be noted that there are no services adjacent to this site.
Development of this property will require the extension of Adelmann
Street to the south and extension of sewer and water. An
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) will also be required for
the development of the site. The staff is in the process of selecting a
consultant to prepare the EA W, in anticipation of a complete
preliminary plat application.
1:\03 files\03 rezone\deerfield indus park\cc report. doc
Page 2
CONCLUSION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
Section 1108.600 of the Zoning Ordinance identifies the following
policies for amendments to the Official Zoning Map:
· The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and
goals of the Comprehensive Plan, or the land was originally zoned
erroneously due to a technical or administrative error, or
The current zoning of the property is inconsistent with the 2020
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is consistent with the
land use plan designations.
· The area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is
changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone
so as to encourage redevelopment of the area, or
The applicant has submitted a development plan, in the form of a
preliminary plat, for this property. Although the application is
incomplete, the proposed rezoning is consistent with this plan.
· The permitted uses allowed within the proposed Use District will
be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with
adjacent properties and the neighborhood.
The uses permitted in the proposed districts are consistent with the
zoning of the adjacent property.
Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865, Subd. 2, also provides in
pertinent part "[a] local governmental unit shall not adopt any official
control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive
plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system
plans." Minnesota Statutes Section 473.865, Subd. 3, provides in
pertinent part "[i]f an official control conflicts with a comprehensive
plan as the result of an amendment to the plan, the official control
shall be amended by the unit within nine months following the
amendment to the plan so as not to conflict with the amended
comprehensive plan." The rezoning ofthis property is consistent with
this statute.
As noted above, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the rezoning to the C-4 and 1-1 districts. The Commission has no
recommendation on the request to rezone the 4.25 acres to the R-4
district. The staff recommends approval of this proposal as requested
on the basis it is consistent with the amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Bud1!et Impact: There is no budget impact as a result of this action.
Approval of the project will facilitate the development of the area and
increase the City tax base.
1:\03 files\03 rezone\deerfield indus park\cc report. doc
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt an ordinance approving the zone changes as requested.
2. Deny the rezoning on the basis they are inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinances and/or the
Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the Council should direct the
staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact based in the record
for the denial of these requests.
3. Defer consideration of this item and provide staffwith specific
direction.
The staff recommends Alternative #1. This action requires the
following motion:
1. A motion and sec nd adopting an ordinance rezoning the described
property to the -4, C-4 and 1-1 districts. Approval of this
rdin ce r ui s a majority vote ofthe City Council.
1:\03 files\03 rezone\deerfield indus park\cc report. doc
Page 4
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 03-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.700 OF PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE AND
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain:
1. The Prior Lake Zoning Map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700, is hereby
amended to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from
C-5 (Business Park) to R-4 (High Density Residential).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (R-4):
That part of the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 114,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, which lies southerly and westerly of Registered Land
Survey No. 98, Files of Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota, and which lies northerly
and westerly of Registered Land Survey No. 128, files of Registrar of Titles, Scott County,
Minnesota, and which lies easterly of DEERFIELD, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer of Outlot C, said DEERFIELD; thence South 00 degrees 54
minutes 33 seconds East, along the east line of said Outlot C, a distance of 324.27 feet;
thence South 32 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, along the east line of Outlots C and D,
said DEERFIELD, a distance of 182.57 feet; thence North 89 degrees 05 minutes 27 seconds
East, along the north line of said Outlot D, a distance of 23.48 feet; thence North 70 degrees
46 minutes 58 seconds East, along the North line of said Outlot D, a distance of 346.13 feet
to the northeast comer of said Outlot D; thence North 39 degrees 01 minutes 11 seconds East,
a distance of 133.46 feet; thence northerly 288.99 feet, along a nontangential curve to the
right, having a radius of 290.16 feet, a central angle of 57 degrees 03 minutes 53 seconds, a
chord length of 277.20 feet and a chord bearing of North 22 degrees 26 minutes 52 seconds
West, to the north line of said Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 27 minutes 21
seconds West, along said north line, a distance of 374.84 feet to the northwest comer of said
Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds West, along the north line
of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 57.51 feet to the point of beginning.
2. The Prior Lake Zoning Map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700, is hereby
amended to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from
C-5 (Business Park) to C-4 (General Business).
1:\03 files\03 rezone\deerfield indus park\ord03xx.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (C-4):
That part of the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 114,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, which lies southerly and westerly of Registered Land
Survey No. 98, Files of Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota, and which lies northerly
and westerly of Registered Land Survey No. 128, Files of Registrar of Titles, Scott County,
Minnesota, and which lies easterly of DEERFIELD, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast comer of said Registered Land Survey No. 128; thence North
00 degrees 25 minutes 24 seconds East, along the east line of said Northeast Quarter, a
distance of315.10 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described: thence North 89
degrees 27 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 658.28 feet; thence southwesterly 115.68
feet along a tangential curve concave to the left, having a radius of 355.00 feet and a central
angle of 18 degrees 40 minutes 13 seconds; thence westerly 321.90 feet along a reverse curve
to the right, having a radius of 280.00 feet and a central angle of 65 degrees 52 minutes 07
seconds; thence northwesterly 11.32 feet along a reverse curve to the left, having a radius of
530.00 feet and a central angle of 01 degree 13 minutes 26 seconds; thence North 44 degrees
28 minutes 10 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 343.55 feet to the
southwest comer of said Registered Land Survey No. 98; thence South 89 degrees 27
minutes 21 seconds East along the south line of said Registered Land Survey No. 98, a
distance of 835.79 feet to the east line of said Northeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 25
minutes 24 seconds West, along said east line, a distance of 312.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
3. The Prior Lake Zoning Map, referred to in Prior Lake City Code Section 1101.700, is hereby
amended to change the zoning classification of the following legally described property from
C-5 (Business Park) to I-I (General Industrial).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (1-1)
That part of the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 114,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, which lies southerly and westerly of Registered Land
Survey No. 98, Files of Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota, an which lies northerly
and westerly of Registered Land Survey No. 128, Files of Registrar of Titles, Scott County,
Minnesota, and which lies easterly of DEERFIELD, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer of said Registered Land Survey No. 128; thence North 00
degrees 25 minutes 24 seconds East, along the east line of said Northeast Quarter, a distance
of 315.10 feet; thence North 89 degrees 27 minutes 21 seconds West, a distance of 658.28
feet; thence southwesterly 115.68 feet along a tangential curve to the left, having a radius of
355.00 feet and a central angle of 18 degrees 40 minutes 13 seconds; thence westerly 321.90
feet along a reverse curve to the right, having a radius of 280.00 feet and a central angle of 65
degrees 52 minutes 07 seconds; thence northwesterly 11.32 feet along a reverse curve to the
left, having a radius of 530.00 feet and a central angle of 01 degree 13 minutes 26 seconds;
thence South 44 degrees 28 minutes 10 seconds West, not tangent to said curve, a distance of
260.87 feet; thence South 59 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of 281.90 feet;
thence South 22 degrees 57 minutes 28 seconds West, a distance of 304.17 feet to the
1:\03 files\03 rezone\deerfield indus park\ord03xx.doc
Page 2
northerly line of said Registered Land Survey No. 128; thence South 89 degrees 20 minutes
55 seconds East, along the northerly line of said Registered Land Survey No. 128, a distance
of 1022.92 feet; thence North 00 degrees 25 minutes 24 seconds East, along the westerly line
of said Registered Land Survey No. 128, a distance of 239.32 feet; thence South 89 degrees
20 minutes 55 seconds East, along the northerly line of said Registered Land Survey No. 128,
a distance of 590.57 feet to the point of beginning.
This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 7th day of July, 2003.
ATTEST:
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on the 12th day of July, 2003.
Drafted By:
Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
1:\03 files\03 rezone\deerfield indus park\ord03xx.doc
Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 2003
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING FOR THE PRIOR LAKE PONDS ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO JUNE 23, 2003.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case #03-47: Deerfield Development is requesting to amend the Zoning Map
designation on 4.25 acres from R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-4
(High Density Residential), 6.14 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to C-4
(General Business), and 13.35 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to 1-1
(Industrial) in the Deerfield Industrial Park.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 9, 2003, on
file in the office of the City Planning Department.
Deerfield Development has filed an application for a rezoning for a portion of the 60.1
acres of vacant property located east ofFish Point Road, on the east side of the Deerfield
Development and south of Cottonwood Lane and Adelmann Street. The proposal
includes the following amendments to Zoning Map:
· Change 4.25 acres from R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) to R-4 (High
Density Residential)
· Change 6.14 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to C-4 (General Business)
· Change 13.35 acres from C-5 (Business Office Park) to 1-1 (Industrial)
This property is presently zoned R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) and C-5
(Business Office Park). On March 17,2003, the City Council approved an amendment to
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map redesignating the 6.14 acres to C-CC (General
Business) and the 13.35 acres to I-PI (Planned Industrial). On May 5, 2003, the Council
also approved and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map redesignating
the 4.25 acres to R-HD (High Density Residential). These amendments were
subsequently approved by the Metropolitan Council.
The applicant is proposing to develop this property as part of the Deerfield Industrial
Park. An application for a preliminary plat for the entire 60 acres has been submitted;
however, this application is incomplete.
There are no services adjacent to this site. Development ofthis property will require the
extension of Adelmann Street to the south and extension of sewer and water. An
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) will also be required for the development
of the site. The staff is in the process of selecting a consultant to prepare the EA W, in
anticipation of a complete preliminary plat application.
Staff recommended approval of the rezonings as requested.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN060903.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 2003
Questions from Commissioners:
Criego questioned who owned the adjoining southerly property. Kansier responded it
was part of Deerfield which will be the last phase of the development.
Comments from the public:
Scott Kilau, 5431 Fawn Court, said he was surprised to see the City Council overturned
the Planning Commission's decision. His main concerns are for the building height and
maintaining the tree line.
Mike Gressman, 17260 Revere Way, owns the southerly property adjoining the proposed
development. Gressman has a privacy berm around his property. However, when the
survey company came out to stake the property, the privacy berm appears to be in the
middle ofthe property line. He was wondering what is going to happen and could he get
it moved to his side ofthe property line. Stamson said generally the developer will berm
the area under the ordinance. The issue is rezoning at this time. They have to have some
kind of setback space. Kansier said it is something he can negotiate with the developer
during the grading. It would be more appropriate to discuss during the Preliminary Plat
process. In the meantime he can contact the developer.
Renae Shrader 5425 Fawn Court, just recently bought the property because ofthe trees
and privacy. They had no idea the intention ofthis area and would also like to keep the
privacy with the trees.
Lee Redman, 17355 Wilderness Circle, said he missed something, does the City know
what business are going in? Kansier said the City does not have the specific plans or
business information. Kansier explained it is not required at this stage to know the
businesses. Redman question the residential density. Stamson explained that is part of
the discussions but the City had previously held a public meeting. He did not see any
credible information to support the need to add high density housing, with the exception
that these businesses would be importing workers who are below the average income. In
order to import the businesses, do we need to import some lower income housing or
smaller condos that sell for less?
Redman said it is clear to him the developer has some plans to bring those types of folks
to Prior Lake and that is why we have to rezone. His concern is not so much for the tree
line. He questioned "As a concept for this community are we deciding to move in the
direction of bringing in lower per capita income and heavy industry in this particular
arena of our town? And if so, it is important to know."
Criego responded there is very little commercial property in Prior Lake and the property
in question is one of the first developments the City has undertaken. The City would like
to see more but there is limited space for it. That particular area is good for commercial
because there are already a number of properties that are commercial. The real question
is do we need high density next to it? That is the issue the Commissioners have to
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN060903.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 2003
address tonight. The City Council will take the information from tonight's meeting into
consideration.
Redman questioned if it is pretty much the only reason to have high density next to
commercial areas. Kansier explained the City Council's goal is to facilitate commercial
and nonresidential development in the City. That is why they amended the
Comprehensive Plan. Tonight's action is the public hearing then on to the City Council.
There will be opportunities to discuss the specific development of the whole parcel and
probably each individual lot as it proceeds. Redman said he works for Norex and moved
here because of Nor ex. His concern is if the City is looking to attract businesses like
Norex there is no need to rezone and second, he would expect the City to detract from
that type of organization (lower income) moving in.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. This is very familiar, we did discuss this a number of months ago as it relates to
the Comprehensive Plan. My thoughts have not changed.
· Do agree that rezoning to C4 and II is appropriate for the area.
. The 13.5 acres which is requested to be rezoned to 11 and the 6.14 acres being
requested to C4 is consistent with the entire industrial area developed over the last
10 to 15 years. There is long term benefits for that area.
. The 4.25 acres in Deerfield is requested to be high density. The surrounding
community helped the City zone it R2. To spot zone 4.2 acres for R4 is not an
appropriate use.
· There is no reason someone cannot rezone R4 on the south portion of Deerfield
that is not developed. In my opinion, the City would have hard time justifying not
rezomng.
· The City has designated the area north of County Road 42 to be high density. It is
appropriate in that location.
· Agree with zoning the 1-1 and C4, against rezoning the current R2 to R4.
Lemke:
. Criego made compelling arguments. When I looked at the property it seemed a
higher density was appropriate as a buffer between the neighborhood and the
commercial area. Agree with that and the other rezoning requests as well.
. Questioned staff on the permitted uses in an industrial area? Kansier explained
the uses.
· This entire area has been intended to be named Deerfield Industrial Park for some
time.
. Supported staffs recommendation.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN060903.doc 4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 2003
Ringstad:
· Relying on Criego and Atwood's memory of the development. Both agree that
the discussions that took place were with the neighborhood residents that 4.25
acres should be R2.
· Did not support this two months ago when this was before us as a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. See nothing more to compel me to support. The current R2
zoning ties in well with the surrounding community and for those reasons can
support the 6.4 acres and 13.3 acre zoning change.
. Cannot support 4.5 acres from R2 to R4.
Stamson:
. The C4 and II districts make sense for a healthier business mix. It would provide
better sales and tax base. The layout works. Supports.
. Agree with the Commissioners feelings on the R4 issue, however, since the buck
stops at the City Council and they decided to designate this R4 on the
Comprehensive Plan, I will respect that decision. As far as the zoning, it is high
density in the Comprehensive Plan. Although I did not vote for it to be R4 in the
Comprehensive Plan, it will make sense for R4 zoning.
. Do not see a massive negative if it is R4, it is an unusual spot, would rather see it
commercial and build on the commercial base.
. Support staff s recommendation.
Open Discussion:
Ringstad said being respectful to the City Council's overrule, do not necessarily agree
with the reasons for rezoning. It will end up back in the City Council's decision
however; he would like to stay consistent with his beliefs.
MOTION BY LEMKE SECOND BY RINGSTAD to rezone 6.14 acres from C-5
(Business Office Park) to C-4 (General Business) and rezone 13.35 acres from C-5
(Business Office Park) to 1-1 (Industrial).
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, to Rezone 4.25 acres from R-2 (Low
to Medium Density Residential) to R-4 (High Density Residential)
Vote taken ayes by Lemke and Stamson, nays by Criego and Ringstad. THE MOTION
FAILS.
After a brief discussion, the Commissioners decided to forward the Motions as is to the
City Council for their July 7, 2003 meeting.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO DEFER THE REZONING
OF THE 4.25 ACRES FROM R2 TO R4 TO CITY COUNCIL WITH NO
RECOMMENDATION.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comrn\03pcMinutes\MN060903.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 2003
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case #03-51: Consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow
religious institutions as uses permitted with conditions in the C-l, C-2, C-3 and C-4
Commercial Use Districts.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the planning report dated June 9, 2003, on file in the
office of the City Planning Department.
The purpose ofthis public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow religious institutions as uses permitted with conditions in the C-l (Neighborhood
Commercial), C-2 (Community Business), C-3 (Specialty Retail), and C-4 (General
Business) use districts. This amendment would provide additional use districts for
religious institutions, such as churches, to locate within the City. The impetus for this
amendment is the potential reuse of the Assembly of God Church located at the
intersection of Boudin Street and TH 13. The property to the north is zoned and
designated for commercial uses. Furthermore, it is located on an arterial roadway, which
lends to more intense land uses.
The proposed amendment would allow a religious institution as a use permitted with
conditions in the C-l, C-2, C-3, and C-4 use districts. The purpose ofthe change is to
allow the reuse of existing churches as commercial uses. Any adverse impacts on
adjacent residential uses would be mitigated with the proposed conditions.
Staff recommended approval of the amendment as proposed.
Questions from Commissioners:
Stamson questioned if the City currently has any churches in the commercial districts as a
nonconforming use. Kansier said "No". At the time the City did the 1999
Comprehensive Plan they made sure all the churches were out of the commercial
districts. The Prior Lake Baptist Church is currently zoned Industrial and in order for
them to do an addition, it was rezoned to a residential district.
Stamson asked why it couldn't be rezoned when a church sells it property. Kansier
explained a situation and the problems that would occur. This issue has come up because
of the Assembly of God Church near commercial property. Kansier explained the
marketing situation. The staff is looking at all churches and zoning when looking at the
Comprehensive Plan.
Criego questioned if this is for existing churches or new churches. Kansier responded it
is for both.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MN060903.doc 6
Location Map for
Deerfield Industrial Park
Rezoning
Ma ay Lake
6.14 acres to
be zoned C4
800
I
o
800 Feet
I
N
+
CQ) .i~
~.. III jal 1 h~
!i .JII .a E I- ~.t:
III 2' c: .flIl5 lU l/I.g
".j; !l! OJ 15.,:j!j.!:! a..
!~g~~~jj.l~
~.!I!!~.I~i...o
j!:~ -E01
"tJ ."" t) 12 f!!-
~lI!C:OJ ..-gu
8oi:>>~!~..11!
l!!=..~ .~~~8
>-j ~ u~.. ~..)
'ii 1!151!115
liP lU ::J15-
1ii1lE.~ ~ ~ ~~":
ldl~.-;~ ~~~
.c~ 'B-co-5
"li"" .!!! l!!!! .d!-
c:c:elUl<iII-"'OJl!
.11 ~ '15 11 ol< h.~ ~ ..
Q.- c:"E~ OJ 15::J Sl
.1;; 1'\.0 lU !I ...<: OJ.o
~~'ii~ !5a..:e
I!.!!! 'is. ell m'15 .8.
"""tJEX:!;!.!! ""..
~ ~ 8lS.xm~.~ n
I- ...~ J::: 0 .. .-
.ifrn- :g~
..
~.OJ
j
~
l5 IV
'C 2
D.. ~
_ .E
o ~
b
(3
(")
o
~
fi
IIID.
~C
co:.
Zz
~j
ID.
D.III
~fI)
0::)
UD
oz
NC
- .
.9"-
(l)U
~-o
(0)
coe:
v2
'"":0)
CO.c
~ ~
~ "8: ~
., ~ .2 "B:
Ii E Ul~
'i ~oE' ~~
c: -It! 0:"
!lf~~iJt
S -~C~-5,E
::> . ~ ~ ~ .. ! !
-g-~~~O~8
~~o!:o!:o!:~oo
i . ~
<X)
en
0>8
....0
~C\1
.0 .c.
E~
Q)CU
~~
Zoo
"0
ooQ)
"0 -
Q)CU
a.X
.g=>
L.-
a.
Cii~
tsc:
Q)~
'(5" 8:
L.-E
%'8
.5 c:
Cco
c_
cua.
a: a.
-:':E
X.C?
i 8
] -i: !
!~.f !.
i.2 II 1Ii 0
~Cl-Wl!:~ oil
E~!E011 Ii 1!
~sj!il!i >- ~
~l~~~t~ ~ ~
g~jlil~o,.~~-i:t~l1l
OO]O-.o!:.r~~~
- 0
...1!..~.nn
.
1: CD .5 ~
ii7....~1l~..~~
~.!/l.~3l:~~.! l5
.. 2'..~.1Ill5!! !II.",
.. > <;._-@l5a.
~.~ E1!,g R..c="iZ 'l5
g l!.R~ '"11.11'5 ~
~~ JJ IIij 2-j ero
~j!:-@ea.-El!!.!
-!l!~~e~~g~
~06lD~l!!'-"c
i!-:t._~ b~~B
"'1"i "'~!l ~ ., ""
"1i -l5E"E5"l!sl.glU
lil' .. III 'IS ,?;o.Jl!
a; 11 :!;;. 8 ~ .. ~~ ~
lK.9fh,:; lii"i ~.!!! <;
.E. :;,It-cO-i!
_""iUlD-2.,.gol!
l!<;I'!1Vsllli.,l!!
.!! ~'15lii Ii.... ~ ..
Ol.- k"E al ., l5 :,j!
<;1'iIl..!j"'<;!l!g
le!!~..aQ...l\l..
u.'!!! '~5,Q III .,; c.
~"E B B~'i~.~ ~
....10 ~~-=Oftl~
'0" :g ""
J
~
'"
z~oo
.. 111
02 (Y)
A: ~ ~
Q~
~
(3
IL
CC
:IE
o
z
-
z
o
N
1i
~ i _..._
E:2 1i
~ .. l I $~
! l!' ~ ': i ~ :!
<; ~ 'f! 0:: - 15 2'
:~~~~~u~
;~'f~~tl~
~~2:J~2:.<:~o
''''!'!~~'5-a.~
~~.....3~'fzu
~
~
~ ~
~ Ul
m:! ~
.5 2' -" rg
~5 rr -
~ ~ III :g
.lJ ~ .! ~ ,.,
~ 5i !J 5i ~
Ul Cl lD C) ~
~ N ~ V N ~ V ~ ~
OC OC OC ~ U 0 U U 0 ~ ~
Ul
"0
.C
1il
is
lB
;:)
,.,
1 ~ ~
-g ~
~ .2
~ ~
Ul
<( Ii:
I III 111110 I~~
('t')
0)0
0)0
O)N
-d
""':N
>,.c
ro~
:iro
::a
"0..
!i
on;
"0'0
<(a.
::>
L-
a.
~
~
'c
o
.!::l
C)
c
'2
o
~
'e-
~
'2
c
co
a..
...-
X
--1--1-___
,- -=- -7= L-- q _
I I).:' I ':" I
I 1,:::/ I
I .:t I I" ,-,., I
I ' . ':'.'- I
I.:"::'. I h.
I ./ I .::' I
I I ...~:. / I,. .r'. J I,.
~ "! I
I,:.;. I
,'.~,
.:::: I
I.}:
I ,~.;.:~ r,q
1..::.,
/ ~/r~ I
I I,:, I
/ .:.r- /
-.-.
I :t"' /
/ '?/
/
~
a:
~~
l~
~~
js
Cl:~
ffi
~
r=
I
tjntH
11;i.ll!
J!~fi:;
! H'~i'
ii'fllf
.IFf' .
, l;f1W
!I'I~j
& Lj ~fi'
~ I H!lii if
. !!:~t,h
l 'HI..H
. ~'lhi
llf=i,l
f'i H.H
""li)
,I. ' ,
,llllI.
-,.
'.
'."
"-
-,.
'.
I . ~
;~:
.~':
f
· I
f i I
j: !f tl
· I J ~
~I . .1 l
ni i.! H i
I I !tr
II 11 i
I 1 jj 'r
~! H !
l~J
I: i
:i!
>-1
Ii!
I>
'.,
'"
" ,
'"
",
'..
-;;:,.
~ :~
~ :~
-;:,.
-.
".
:';
- z
Ii
Gis .!:
'I}
j - '. ' '~J w
id!.;h h
~z~ ,l "
~ i ;0'0 I
~lli'H.,] .II ~ i~ ~d
I {ji'f oj t:" iJ
~ l~ ~ll I i U fi~ ~
~ Jh It1.. " Itj l ~ ~ r !
~ .
.. ~ 'lJt'ti !d; .'1 lW j
i l. - iii
] Ii :.I~ I f i:! i I Ii,
..I!hl f~ I~ :11
f~t ~ !~l t II a
~~liill' ~~ j~ ~i ~.
i~nlf1 h j i I~P ~ j ~
,,; 1 !! .1. . 1.1 ~ I
--------
?2
:E
,';:1'
" .
:::
':~.'
/..
",
'..
".
'-.
'IlO'L"
f.,
.....--.......
,.i .--..............._...........
. ,
'..
~r
;i
....~\:y:.
'"
f..
~i
ll)
I
(,r' '.. ..
........
.....j---
I-..,/t
,0 ~ ,+'
/~
::;)
o
h...
: ."
".'. "
.- ....
,~~~,~.~~/~ .:~::5 .) \
,
I
I
I
I
, .
I ...
',.......' /.,
~i~ 1.1
~ ~il . ~
hi 11 Ai
~I !!!~ .hle
flAm hili
I ..-
I .' ..
.,....\ \ i..... \)
..:~..:.... ~~,//'\
( \\
i ...._ / I,......
1/\ ....../(:
I
,I I j
~IJJHJ I 1t!jJ
~ ulfil!JhHlJ
. D. J I I . .00.4 t n
iT pall II
"