The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8A - Commercial Bs.Office Park MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DECEMBER 4, 2000 8A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM THE R-LIMD (LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DESIGNATION TO THE C-BO (COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OFFICE PARK) DESIGNATION FOR 33.54 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 (Case File #00-076) History: On October 9,2000, the City of Prior Lake Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for 33.54 acres ofland located on the north side of CSAH 42 and on the east side ofCSAH 18. The proposal is to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the current R- L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designation to the C-BO (Business Office Park) designation. The Planning Commission initiated this amendment at the request of the City Council to replace the 25 acres of land owned by Shepherd of the Lake church that was recently changed from the C-BO designation to the R-HD designation. This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain the available supply of commercially designated land. The Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public hearing on November 13, 2000. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. A copy of the draft minutes from that meeting is attached to this report. Current Circumstances: This property currently consists of 4 parcels with three separate owners. There are three single family dwellings located on the site. There are also several stands of trees located on the site. 1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-076\00076cc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: The site generally drains to the west to a wetland located in the northwest quadrant of the site. The site is subject to the provisions of the State Wetland Conservation Act. A specific delineation would be required as part of any development application. Access to this property is presently from CSAH 18 and CSAH 42. There are three driveways leading to each of the separate dwellings. Sewer and water services must be extended from the existing services located in CSAH 42 to serve this site. Adjacent to the north and east of this property is agricultural land, currently zoned A and designated for Low to Medium Density Residential uses. To the west is the Vierling property, currently zoned A and designated for C-BO uses. To the south, across CSAH 42, is the Sand Pointe development, zoned R-l and designated as R-L/MD. This property is currently outside of the MUSA boundary. However, this property is consistent with the criteria for the extension of MUS A as listed in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan The Issues: The purpose of this amendment is to identify those properties most suitable for future commercial development. The amendment would not affect the current zoning of the property or the current use of the property. The existing single family homes on the property would not be considered nonconforming since the current zoning will remain as is. The proposed C-BO designation is consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it maintains the amount of land designated for commercial development at its current level, it encourages a mixture of land uses, and it is a location with suitable access for future development. The Council previously determined the supply of land planned for future commercial and office park uses should not be reduced. This amendment will replace the 25 acres previously designated for R-HD uses, and is consistent with the policy of maintaining the current supply of commercially designated land. Conclusion: The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of this request. Bud~et Impact: There is no direct budget impact involved in this request. The City Council has three alternatives: 1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-076\00076cc.doc Page 2 RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the C-BO designation as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Direct the staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact denying the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the C-BO designation. 3. Continue the review for specific information or reasons per City Council discussion. Alternative #1. A motion and second to adopt a Resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to designate this property as C- BO is required. 1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-076\00076cc.doc Page 3 RESOLUTION OO-XX RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 115, RANGE 22 MOTION BY: SECOND BY: RECITALS WHEREAS, the City of Prior Lake Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the City of Prior Lake 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from the R-UMD (Low to Medium Density Residential) designation to the C-BO (Business Office Park) designation for the property legally described as follows: That part of the West ~ of the Southeast "/4 lying south of the north 1500 feet of the West ~ of the SE "/4, Section 24, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing was duly published and mailed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and Prior Lake City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 13, 2000, for those interested in this request to present their views; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on the basis the C-BO designation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2000, the Prior Lake City Council considered the proposed amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the designation of the above described property to the C-BO designation and; WHEREAS, the City Council received the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment along with the staff reports and the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony, staff reports and other pertinent information contained in the record of decision of this case. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that: 1. The above recitals are herein fully incorporated herein as set forth above. 2. The proposed amendment to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to designate the above described property as C-BO (Business Office Park) is hereby approved. 1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-076\rsOOxxcc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ....... -<-~;~-".~."......~,-,.'~'~~-'---- ---r- 3. Approval of this amendment is subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Council. Passed and adopted this 4th day of December, 2000. Mader Mader Ericson Ericson Gundlach Gundlach Petersen Petersen Zieska Zieska YES NO {Seal} Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake 1:\OOfiles\OOcompam\OO-076\rsOOxxcc.doc Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2000 1. Call to Order: Chairman V onhof called the November 13, 2000, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Stamson and Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson. 2. Roll Call: Atwood Criego Stamson Vonhof Present Absent Present Present Planning Director Don Rye and Commissioner Criego arrived shortly after the opening for the public hearing. 3. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the October 23, 2000, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 4. Public Hearings: Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the first meeting. A. Case File #00-076 City of Prior Lake is considering a proposed Amendment to the City of Prior Lake Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is to amend the Land Use Map from the current R-LIMD (Urban Low to Medium Density Residential) designation to the C-BO (Business Office Park) designation for the property located in Section 24, Township 115, Range 22. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated November 13, 2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. This property is presently zoned A (Agricultural) and is designated as R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density Residential) on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Planning Commission initiated this amendment at the request of the City Council to replace the 20 acres ofland owned by Shepherd of the Lake Church that was recently changed from the C-BO designation to the R-HD designation. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain the available supply of commercially designated land. L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNIl1300.doc 1 ---'-<-'-~-"~""""""""'~,",---~-~-~~-,-.._"....__.."._.,., '-'^'~'-'_.'""'-'--~'-"~-~,-,",~--, .'. "~. . ----...--."'_._._...~._---- Planning Commission Meeting November 17, 2000 The purpose ofthis amendment is to identify those properties most suitable for future commercial development. The amendment would not affect the current zoning ofthe property or the current use of the property. The Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives applicable to this request are as follows: GOAL: ECONOMIC VITALITY: Pursue a prudent use of available resources and the optimum functioning of economic systems. OBJECTWE No.1: Determine and strive for a balance of commerce, industry, and population. OBJECTWE No.2: Encourage a diversified economic base and a broad range of employ- ment opportunities. OBJECTWE No.3: Promote sound land use. Staff recommended approval of the Amendment as requested. Comments from the public: Ed Gregory lives approximately 1000 feet from the property. Mr. Gregory questioned which way would the services be coming in and assessment costs. His other concerns were for the high traffic on County Road 42, adequate setbacks and the future intersection. Mr. Gregory would like to be on a list for any future rezonings. Kansier responded the services were in place on County Road 42. At this time the City has no plans of extending the services. The City Engineer would be able to answer the approximate cost. Kansier went on to explain the business office requirements. John Nugent, 13855 Crest, questioned if this is part of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the time line. Kansier responded it was developer driven and up to the property owners when they sell the land. Nugent commented on the growing businesses in the surrounding communities and felt this intersection had to become some kind of a thoroughfare, but not residential. His main interest was the time line. Kansier responded on time lines and developments. Paula Jenkins, lives on the corner of County Roads 42 and 18, stated she is not opposed to the change and questioned the process. V onhof explained the Comprehensive Plan land use 20 years out. Kansier explained the development process. Christopher Williams, 5671 Cedarwood Street, said one of his concerns was the high traffic on County Road 42. Williams questioned if the City has taken a look at how they are going to maintain the integrity of the residential neighborhood (Sand Pointe) stating L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNll1300.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting November 17, 2000 traffic noise would get worse. He supported the City's growth but said had he known of this proposal for development, he would have never moved into the neighborhood. Mike Orrie, 5607 Cedarwood Street, said staff did not respond to Mr. Williams question on maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. V onhof said the County controls County Road 42. Kansier explained commercial buffering and landscaping and that County Road 42 has been recently upgraded. Orrie questioned maintaining the woods. Kansier spoke ofthe City's Tree Preservation and Landscaping Ordinances. Orrie also questioned when the area was originally designated "Residential". Rye explained the original designation was adopted in 1982 and amended in 1995 to "LowlMedium Residential". The City Council requested the Planning Commission to come up with 20 acres of land to be used for commercial uses. Orrie asked if the City Council would vote on this amendment. Kansier said this amendment could go to the City Council December 4th and on to the Metropolitan Council. Jamie Gapinski, 5654 Cedarwood Street, questioned ifthis area could be rezoned to commercial in the future. Kansier responded it could always happen. Anyone has the right to come in and make an application for rezoning. She went on to explain this is not a rezoning but a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Gapinski questioned the business classifications for Office Park. Kansier explained businesses allowed in an Office Park designation. Guy Beck, 5634 Cedarwood Street, presented a photo of his back yard adjoining County Road 42 and felt there were no adequate barriers. His other concerns were for the trees on County Road 42, the entrances and buffering. Vonhofstated all of these issues would be addressed at a future time when the actual development went in. Ed Gregory said he used to commute around the seven county area and dreaded driving around Scott County stating there are no good roads. Mr. Gregory went on to tell the Commissioners not to make decisions until Scott County made road improvements and had knowledge of a good system. Paula Jenkins, said she understood Mr. Gregory's concern and said the traffic has been noisy. Prior Lake is behind Shakopee and Savage in commercial development. Her property has been used and abused by snowmobilers and others. She feels she is on two main thoroughfares and it is part of the process of development. Comments from the Commissioners: Stamson: . A number of concerns have been addressed. The Commissioners reviewed the corridor to replace property that went from commercial to residential use. Only after much consideration the Commissioners felt this particular piece was most appropriate. . This smaller piece of property is not going to bring all the traffic down County Road 42. In comparison to an Rl District and the traffic it generates, the traffic L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MNll1300.doc 3 '-,- Planning Commission Meeting November 17. 2000 generated by commercial development may be more or less, depending on the type of use. . This intersection is a more appropriate use for business office park use. . Supported the change. Atwood: . Questioned staff if one resident refuses to sell, does the Comprehensive Plan have to be amended? Kansier responded it would not and explained the development process. . Pointed out that she lives by the existing office park that does not have a buffer, yet it makes for a good neighbor. . The traffic on County Road 42 is already present. Agreed with Stamson that a lot of acreage will produce differences in traffic. · Does not feel her property values lowered and does not feel it would be a huge Issue. . Encouraged the neighborhood to stay involved with the process. Talk to staff and the developers about your concerns. . Concurred this area is a good amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Criego: . The Commission has reviewed this and felt because of the location, it probably fits best as a business office park. . Prior Lake does need more businesses. It makes sense to the Commissioners with the traffic to use this parcel. It does not remove a large number of homes, yet it provides 30 plus acres for development. . Agreed with Atwood that this is only the start of the process. This is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A far cry from development of the property. . All the Commissioners are suggesting to the people who come into the community that this particular space could be developed as office space or light industrial. It does not commit the City or the existing property owners to selling. There are several processes that take place after the amendment. . Concurred with Commissioner Atwood to stay involved when and if this property is developed. . Agreed with Commissioners to amend. V onhof: . Thanked everyone for coming and offering their comments. . The Commissioners look at situations city-wide with the Comprehensive Plan and what fits together. . Because of the intersection of these two major roadways, this property has potential for this type of land use. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE 33.5 ACRES OF L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN111300.doc 4 Planning Commission Meeting November 17, 2000 LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 24, TOWNSIDP 115, RANGE 22 FROM Rl (RESIDENTIAL) TO BUSINESS OFFICE PARK. Vote taken ~ndicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This matter will go before the City Council on December 4, 2000. 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: . Kansier passed out meeting schedules for December and January. · The City Council appointed Vaughn Lemke to fill the Planning Commissioner vacancy. · Rye said staff is going to have a workshop the early part of the year and asked the Commissioners to think about what topics and issues the Commissioners would like to discuss. · Stamson recommend meeting more often with the City Council on a joint workshops. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\OOFILES\OOPLCOMM\OOPCMIN\MN111300.doc 5 -r-....--.--..---...-............ Location Map v ~ \ ~ 9 ~ Property loqation 1 QO (;'7 -/~ LTC) i I ~ J -. T. .1~1. . '1. ~~ l~~~~'\' .1.I.Bill." .J..!" .1 HI.I.I.I. .I~ M,,:,\-: . _. ' : -. I J W;.I. . . r -.' . ________ ').-....... "J.. . w -:-- '., -/ ~'.:\." ~:r.r."if,-:r.r:r: f-oJ,:!,I"'I.' 'iib..... 'r?i...,c;" , ii! ~/ tt.~~ll~:I~~~~ ~:~~~~'m ~ s,.. I-'- . i]!"" ". tS:Y l . ~/.\ Il:.lli'/ ~ . :'\. .' .. I-'- ,. ., -. ,:<'y . . Irw "'~..) L.. . :I~ ' . . 8 ,,~ : : ~ ....~.>,r;.0;):' ,':-'1 .' . . ~ tJ:. . I--'- .., ~ /0.. ,,< . . . > . "" '.... o""v". :..,,~.. - ~. . .\.\.\.\.\.c1. '. '8..~., ./. - . w :;::l :;;H~ll,\'\'\'lJF:-i '. .,<.1.\.. J..... .- :rn:.I.. _ - '. .'.'e. ~ ~ - ~ ,~ f.;}.':, I~ , ,1\JrL /g . ..l' . \ - .M.d-'~llj(~. ~ /. -- \ N A 400 0 400 Feet ~_ I ~:.>"'.." ,......'('"/N, "- , ~ ~w ..<\\).~Lll m ~R'1lTr ~ ~ M::rr=f: ~ --L J 'Y J. ILl-?' ~ '''~~ // -1-:;...;Ho_ .,/ - ...,:'\ i \~ \V\ TD 1'-l.....Y...., ill ':::::::9 ?r~ \. \F , R-II~~ f- CU/\ f- I I I I II, '" II/'" r Efg =1( ") I- ::<rrm....., ::::= t- ~ .l[~~ ____ ,~II v -(( ~ ; ill r .,E;!t ~) ~h '<< ~ ~~ ~ ~ t:il/I/ H l"'--tj I\)J...L/ H / ,"(\ I (If() ~~ ~ m; =::: ~ ""IIWTl 11ill01 ~ 1 i 11101 f 11I00 I ~ ~ ~if[1 i( ~ifllli ~H[<g _~ ~Z~ ~ hiii ~Ui ~ ~ Ii 9:Q QI coco i1i11 S ~ ~ 1f i Ql I ~ 9J ~ii i ~ ~ ~ ~~ i l1!. Ii ~ c 9 m . . ~ m III g ~ ~.z '" '\ ~~ i~ igo a.Q. ~ a ~-~ I! hv v -6= () -- ~ a -u ..., -- o ..., l>> @ g 3 "'0 lUCi3 :::J ::T c.CD -c :::J - C fa. ~ ~ ~