HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Deerfield Development
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
~J +~~6t
. ^" ,~
~ri
~~
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JULY 6,1999
8A
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
(:)1
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 99~ APPROVING
A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST BY D. R. HORTON AND
DEERFIELD DEVELOPMENT FOR 168 ACRES LOCATED
SOUTH OF FISH POINT ROAD AND WILDERNESS TRAIL
AND EAST OF THE PONDS ATHLETIC FACILITY
History: On May 17, 1999, the City Council considered a request by
D. R. Horton and Deerfield Development to rezone approximately 168
acres of land from the existing A (Agricultural) District to the R-1
(Low Density Residential) and R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential) Districts. The applicant submitted the attached map
identifying the revised zoning proposal on the property. The west
97.88 acres is proposed for R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the east
70.23 acres is proposed for R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential).
The zoning district boundary follows the approximate alignment of
Fish Point Road, as extended into this site. There was a motion and
second to approve this request. This motion failed with a vote of 2-2.
On June 7, 1999, the City Council voted to reconsider this request.
The Council agreed to the rezoning, but revised the boundaries by
reducing the amount of the R-2 district by approximately 10 acres in
the southwest comer. The Council then directed staff to prepare an
ordinance that included the revised legal descriptions and findings of
fact. The matter was removed from the agenda on June 21, 1999, and
continued to July 6, 1999, since there were only 4 councilmembers
present at the meeting.
The previous agenda report identified a total site area of 164 acres, and
66.35 acres ofR-2. There was apparently a calculation error made by
the surveyor in the previous surveys. The total site area is 168 acres,
and the R-2 area was actually 70.23 acres. The applicant has not
added any property to this site; the outside boundaries remain the same
as the previously submitted surveys. The error was made in the area
calculations. The staff has checked the area calculations using the
digitizer, and these are the correct areas.
1:\99files\99rezone\99-0 14\990 14cc4.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
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
Conclusion: Attached is an ordinance with the revised legal
descriptions. These descriptions identify 109.93 acres on the west side
of the property as R-l (Low Density Residential), and 58.21 acres on
the east side of the property as R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential). This reduces the R-2 district by approximately 12 acres,
Issues: The staffhas fulfilled the City Council's direction by
providing the attached ordinance adopting the rezoning request and
establishing findings of fact. This ordinance increases the R-l area by
approximately 12 acres and decreases the R-2 by the same amount.
The City Council has two alternatives:
1. Adopt Ordinance 99- XX approving the proposed Zone Change to
the R -1 and R - 2 Districts as requested.
2. Other action as directed by the Council.
The staff recommends Alternative #1. A motion and second to adopt
Ordinance 99-XX rezoning this property to the R-1 '(Low Density
Residential) and the R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential)
districts. This ction quires approval by a 4/5 vote of the City
C07~
1:\99files\99rezone\99-0 14\990 14cc4.doc
Page 2
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORDINANCE NO. 99-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:
SECTION 1- BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed zone change on April
26, 1999, and on May 10, 1999, for those interested in this request to present their views.
2. On May 10, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of the
property to the R-1 and R-2 districts.
3. On May 17, 1999, the City Council considered the application to rezone this property to the
R-1 (Low Density Residential) and R-2 (Low to Medium Density Residential) district. The
City Council denied the request on a motion of2-2.
4. On June 7, 1999, the City Council voted to suspend the rules and reconsider this rezoning.
The Council voted 4-1 in favor of rezoning the property to the R-1 and R-2 district and to
reduce the amount of the proposed R-2 district by approximately 10 acres.
5. The Council then directed staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration on June 21, 1999.
6. This item was tabled until July 6, 1999, so that a full council could be present to vote on the
issue.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS
The City Council finds the following:
1. The R-1 and R-2 zoning districts are consistent with the R-L/MD (Low to Medium Density
Residential) designation on the Comprehensive Plan.
2. This property is located within the City's MUSA boundary and sewer and water services are
available to serve the development.
3. The proposed R-2 district provides an adequate buffer between the existing single family
development, the proposed development and the future Business Office Park.
4. The future alignment of Fish Point Road serves as a logical boundary between the R-1 and
R-2 districts.
5. The location of the R-1 and R-2 districts provides the best protection for the natural features
on the site.
6. The issues pertaining to the development of the site, such as traffic, environment, and runoff,
are most appropriately discussed at the platting stage.
SECTION 3. AMENDMENT
3.01 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 A (Agricultural to R-1 (Low Density Residential).
1 :\99fi1es\99rezone\99-0 14\ord99xx3 .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
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest
1/4 and the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, of Section 12, Township 114, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence N89049'16"W,
along the north line of said Northwest 1/4, a distance of 668.00 feet to the point of
beginning of the parcel to be described; thence S03042'16"W a distance of510.00
feet; thence SI0052'52"W a distance of 445.00 feet; thence S26056'56"E a distance
of314.97 feet; thence S16000'35"E a distance of 904.29 feet; thence S46033'19"W a
distance of 769.60 feet to the south line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4;
thence N89020'55"W, along said south line of Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4
and the south line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 1,398.05 feet
to the west line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence NOoo05'37"E, along
said west line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of2615.37 feet to the
north line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence S89049'16"E, along said
north line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, and said north line of the Northeast
1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 1,962.74 feet to the point of beginning.
3.02 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 A (Agricultural) and C-5 (Business Park) to R-2 (Low to Medium Density
Residential).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest
1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 114, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence S89027'21 "E, along
the north line of said Northwest 1/4, a distance of243.25 feet; thence S16023'55"E a
distance of 249.70 feet; thence S34017'20" E a distance of200.27 feet; thence
S 17029'04"E a distance of 446.77 feet; thence S33024'22"E a distance of 642.42
feet; thence S17016'23"W a distance of 176.54 feet; thence S74029'33"W a distance
of838.70 feet; thence S390l8'53" W a distance of234.31 feet; thence S75035'18"W
a distance of 602.70 feet; thence N16000'35"W a distance of 904.29 feet; thence
N26056'55"E a distance of314.97 feet; thence N10052'52"E a distance of 445.00
feet; thence N03042'16"E a distance of510.00 feet to the north line of said
Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence S89049'16"E, along said north line of the
Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 668.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect the day after the date of publication.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 6th day of July, 1999.
ATTEST:
1 :\99fi1es\99rezone\99-0 14\ord99xx3 .doc
Page 2
City Manager
Mayor
Published in the Prior Lake American on July 10, 1999.
Drafted by:
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Ave.
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
1:\99fi1es\99rezone\99-0 14\ord99xx3.doc
Page 3
/,
~
Q
~
II
..... .
W
-1
'<l
U
d)
I
/
/
/
/ .-
/ ~
/
J....
......."-.
~........
. )2
1;'--
II
/1
I
r-
I
J.~
~:=--
~
" "\ /f' "-
t tfy \-.
L ...L Y ./-.....
rr,--~,
-~-1 "-
Z./ T///
-1-J. / /
r-'-r ,," (, ./
I
..
..
!
.1
..
.. .
I
.
I
'"
~\
,~
I '
I '...
, -,
I r;;~~,\
\, :~~~~ '\
, .."'-1ll.... ,
! ~~::.., \
, ,.. - \. " ~ ,
" .. r:.;:. ':.-;. ;~'l.:" '\
~ 1.,,_. '-=-"'~l' 1
,J ''.,. :..,..........~...r~ :
.. " " ~~, '-e;'o' I
....,\ \. 1\t"~~~I/ 11'
'. '....::~-:~....,.
" --,""
-~"
.1
~;~~~_..
. \
, "
., . ft.", "
, ..~.;-, I
"" ...., ,...
~f~'
1,-::=1t
~~" ~
..' J"
... . \
~:~...
:::l~~~
"J&r~~~;:.
:~~..
,~~::~
"rt~
:{j
" I #,~
.'.' "'f
.. , .. ." ,,'1'.,.;::'-; ,'.': ::~~ '::--
--------,~ .-:;.~,I ,'~:_~~....-:--..~..'..;i{:/ .!<~: .:: l"','"
~"...'..~::_,~,-' ~"'.."- .0 ~,_'. .
~
w
a..
c:
~
.
.
U w ~
>
Z a2 r;;
C It')
~ ~
- Z \0
\0
~ 0 0 'lI:t
Zt5 .
l{) 'lI:t
In
O~ Z 'lI:t
Z ~
~
~~ .. $
z
~ 0\ ~
O~
::c
.
~
.
0
I
..r
i
...I
W
c
es
~
C/).z
!:YO
a:-
<(I-
cU
ZW
. ::)"
*CO C
Wm...l
t/) -
:;:I-U
W~z
-a: a: ::)
1-0
C/)U
-
Ca:
"W
Zll.
-C/)
~<(
N
~.
be in the audien
/
(1.) I intend to vote in support of the resolution adopting findings to support
the rezoning application of Horton developmen~ but I do it with grave
and serious concems-
interruption.
(3.) The Horton application to rezoning t/O acres is a case study of a flawed
process. I am embarrassed for us as a Council and I am concerned about
the process. I am also concerned that a fla"".ed process exposes us to
certain liabilities. Mr. Mayor, you are fond of reminding us about
spending legal fees~ Well, we shouldn't complain about legal fees ~-ben
we ignore opinions from our attorney advising us of our statutory
obligations and the scope of our discretion~ Her job is to keep us out of
trouble.
(4.) Some members of the Council are constantly reminding us about how
they did things in private business. But what we do when we sit up here
is the public's business and there are rules we must follow in conducting
the public's business. I am deeply committed to my responsibilities as a
ste~lard of the public's business. I intend to remind this Council when
we vary from our responsibilities to conduct public business, in public,
with an open and fair process.
(5.) The decision-making process we used in the Horton rezoning is an
example of what I view as a flawed process and let me tell you why I
think so:
(a.)The Planning Commission and City Council spent t\\"o years
working on a comprehensive plan to guide development in our
city.
(b.) We are required by statute to adopt a comprehensive plan and
have it approved by the Metropolitan CounciL
(1.) That process involves public hearings
.--.-----~---,_.~-----.-----,-~-,.+.-.---.-,. '---'~"'1'-'"" ._" ,~,,---,.., .,. ,....-...
(2_) Citizens concerned about how land near their properties
is guided should participate in the public process. Maybe
we didn~t have enough public hearings or maybe when they
were held they were not publicized enough; although Lee
Ann Shutz and the Prior Lake American does an excellent
job of reminding people to participate in the public process.
(3.) OUT comprehensive plan does not '\\iilIy-nilly designate
this property industrial, that pl-operty single family, that
property commerciaI~ that property multi-unit residential or
apartments
(a.) We studied the needs of the city
(b.) We studied our infrastructure needs and our
capacity _
(c. ) We recognized the need to diversify our tax base
as part of our overall goal to lower property taxes.
(6.) Weare required by statute to adopt roles, regulations, guidelines~ and
standards that implement the goals, objectives, policies, and land use
designations set out in our comprehensive plan_
(a.) These rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards are set out in
our zoning ordinance.
(b.) After more than a year~s work, numerous City Council
workshops,. public hearings, and the study and recommendations
from our Planning Commission, we adopted our ne,"r zoning
ordinance which became effective on Mav I.. 1999.. less than 6
weeks ago.
(7_) State Jaw requires that we rezone land consistent with how it is
designated in the Comprehensive Plan. To do so otherwise is contrary to
those statutes? it is Wlfair and it is inconsistent with our responsibility as
public stewards.
(8.)MT ll~r, our Comprehensive Pian is not just a "plan" ~ith a small"p"
that we can arbitrarily ismore if it suits ow- whims because we are faced
\\tith an unpopular decision.
(9.) The Comprehensive Plan designated the area encompassing the Horton
rezoning application as low to medium density residential.
(10_) Our zoning ordinance defmes the criteria for development of low to
medium density residentia1~ R-I and R-2 as they are referred to in the
zoning ordinance.
(a.) Horton was entitled by law to have his property rezoned R-I and
R-?
(b.) How much of the area is rezoned to R:l and how much is rezoned
to R-2 is a City Council decision_ It is a legislative decision and
one in "",-hich we have l~slative discretion according to our
lawyer.
(11.) When this matter first came before the Council, we didn't like the
amount ofR-2 the developer requested. So, first we denied the
developer> s rezoning request. I voted "no~' because the developer~ s
representative could not answer my questions, questions I needed
answered in order to make a well-informed decision. When I didn't get
answers I couldn't intelligently make a decision, hence my no vote.
( 12.) But the proper exercise of om legislative discretion does not allow us
to make "willy-nilly" decisions. And that's exactly what I think we did
at our last Council meeting.
(13.) At our last Council meeting we had before us a resolution with
findings of facts to supposedly support our decision to deny the
developer's rezoning application. Along ",,-ith the staff materials we
were provided with a privileied memorandum from the City Attonley
advising us:
(a. ) The Jaw requires us to rezone consistent with our Comprehensive
Plan_
----'.---..-~.----~--'--,-----_.__.._--------" -'--I-...........-._._.~.._..,_..,.,._-'~_._.. -'--'-'-'---"~"-"-'--"-'---""-'''-''-''-' -.." "','..--
----------r-
(b. ) We have the authority to detennine how much of the land is R-
1 and R-2:> so long as we have a rational basis for our decision.
(c. ) We have the authority to deny an application that is not consistent
with our Comprehensive Plan. But findings we make to support
denying a rezoning must be based on Facts in the record: A point I
want to come back to in a moment! In the advice Vie received we
were advised by the City Attorney to evaluate whether the
proposed t~finding)' for denying the rezoning were supported by
"substantial evidence in the record.." the legal standard applied by
courts. In preparing for our last Council meeting, I reviewed the
entire record including the information provided to the Planning
COlnmission.
(14.) IUlny judgement, there was no evidence to support the proposed
findings~ but there was evidence in the record in direct contradiction of
the proposed findings.
(15.) I am totally supportive of the concerns expressed bv the nei~;
and I pledge to ~ toni~t,. as I did at the last Council meeting~ that I
'W/ .&.&
will be vigilant as this development moves ahead through the
subdivision or the PUD process.
(16.) But what we did at the last Council meeting was as ~illv-nilly" as
what we did at the preceding Council meeting. Anxious to reduce the
amount ofR-2~ out of concern for the views and information provided
by the neighbors~ we "nego~ated" ,vith the developer at the meeting to
\0\ \~
reduce the amount ofR-2 byJ-tJ acres.
(17.) How much is R-l and how much is R-2 is our decision.. not the
developers and I believe we compromised our responsibility to make a
reasoned decision based on facts_ In retrospect:r after agreeing to
I'econsider Horton~ s applicatio~ I think we should have refelTed this
matter back to the stafflNith direction to reduce the amount ofR-2 in a
manner that is consistent with ~ood p1annini. Instead we let the
developer lop off the 10 acres he picked. Admittedly I was anxious to
negotiate a reduction in the amount ofR - 2.
1"""1-\""'.1::. J 10/ I I
(18.) Maybe we needed to set a public hearing before the City Council so
that the residents would have had an opportunity to put facts into tbe
record to support their concerns.
(19.) F aimess and the law dictate that both sides have an opportunity to
express their views. That OCellI'S in the public hearing process. To do
otherwise is to give one side an advantage, which our City Attolney and
common sense advises compromises the fairness of the proceedings. At
the last meeting;:. we may have permitted the developer to speak beyond
merely answering oW" questions. Ms.
~
did not have the
opportunity.
(20.) I am going to vote ;'''yes~~ tonight with great reluctance and with an
equally ereat amount of frustration.
(21.) After concluding the vote on this matter I intend to make a motion
that we schedule a training session, with the City Attorney and Planning
Director on zoning and the legal framework within which we must act_
She did such a workshop when I ~-as on the Planning Commission and I
found it invaJuabIe_
~ MUC, j j / .I .I
(22_) I hope when I make that motion, it will he seconded and receive a
unallinlous vote. We are stewards of not only the law~ but of the public
trust_ I am embarrassed about the way we bungled through this process.
(23.) Mr. Mayor~ colleagues, that concludes my comlnents on the matter
pending before us.
--'----"~~.-----....".~...".-"-~~.,-~--...-'.,.......-.-'.-"T..--.."'........,""..........--....,.....,.~""~~,.....,......~....,..>. "";""~_"_*'_'-";"'''-'--"~''"''''''''~''''~'-"''-~''~''''"'"'='~~'~'--"<~"""""-'-"-~~-'^--';'~'''''''._'''"''-'"-~'----'.'-"'~""''''';-~--'''-~'------