The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8A-County Highway 42 StudyO� P RIp ti U tzy � ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: June 17, 2013 AGENDA #: 8A PREPARED BY: Dan Rogness, Community & Economic Development Director AGENDA ITEM: County Highway 42 Study Area Plan Follow-up DISCUSSION: Introduction WSB & Associates provided prelimary findings to a joint meeting of the Prior Lake City Council, Planning Commission and Economic Development Authority (EDA). This meeting was held prior to the regular June meeting of the EDA on Monday, June 17, from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. The EDA may want to further discuss this item as it may relate to commercial /industrial land uses. Hi story A 6 -month development moratorium was approved by the City Council lasting through September 16 to allow further study of approximately 1,500 acres along the County Highway 42 corridor in Prior Lake. WSB and the City held an open house for property owners on Tuesday, June 4th. A joint meeting was scheduled on June 17th to allow the city's consultant to provide preliminary conclusions of this corridor to the City Council, Planning Commission and EDA. This meeting will allow all groups to hear early results and provide feedback to WSB. The study will be completed by the end of July, allowing time to submit any proposed Comprehensive Plan land use changes to the Met Council for review and approval during the moratorium period. Current Circumstances If time allows, the EDA may want to continue discussion from the earlier joint meeting regarding preliminary conclusions of WSB for corridor land uses. Since much of the land is currently guided for commercial and business park uses, any changes proposed by WSB may impact plans for eco- nomic development growth to 2030 and beyond. Changes proposed to reduce those economic land uses, for example, should warrant further input by the EDA. Conclusion The EDA may want to continue discussion from the joint meeting to include specific reaction to changes proposed by WSB that may increase or decrease land use designations for future com- mercial, business park and industrial land uses. ISSUES The primary preliminary conclusions of WSB are: 1. Too much land has been set aside by the city for business park, commercial and industrial needs if we believe the report the city commissioned in 2011 by Maxfield Research. 2. The locations where land has been set aside for business purposes may not be optimum. For example, the old Summit Preserve site and Vierling properties north of CR 42 have significant tree and topography issues. 3. Utilities are not universally available to every corridor parcel. Does this suggest that some kind of development phasing be reflected in our comprehensive plan? 4. Large tracts of land in the corridor are owned in fee or in trust by the SMSC that would normally absorb nearly 500 housing units and 20 acres of commercial. How does this fact change the business picture for the CR 42 corridor? 5. An obvious business focus is in the area of CR 42 and CR 21, but some of the land in this area is topographically challenged. Does that suggest that the business focus include the Vierling land north of Carraige Hill Parkway which has utilities and most transportation available now without the topograpic challenges? Should city business areas be scattered accorss the corridor or concentrated in one or a few areas? Should there be more mixed -use options shown in the corridor that allow a developer to propose a certain percentage mix of land uses rather than being more site specific? To what extent should the city concentrate more on what it is good at (e.g. creating resi- dential neighborhoods rather than emphasizing business development). Residential does not create jobs, but it does create rooftops that support more commercial development. FINANCIAL Based upon the recent SCALE Legos lessons, we know that the city will not be able to sit by pas - IMPACT: sively if it wishes development of any sort to occur — particularly business. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Provide input to staff related to initial planning conclusions presented by WSB & Associates that would be forwarded to WSB for inclusion in the next report draft. 2. Continue discussion at a future meeting. RECOMMENDED Alternative #1. MOTION: