HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.b. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan AmendmentAGENDA ITEM: Implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
AGENDA SECTION:
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director
AGE
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, Plans
APPROVED B
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction
9 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
ouncil Work Session: March 22, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
It has recently come to staffs attention that there are concerns about the land use changes that were
brought about with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment approved by the City Council in July of 2005.
The designation of certain land uses which differ from the current use has raised some question as to how
the Council may wish to proceed. This issue was further reinforced during the Planning Commission's
discussions regarding text amendments for the Business Park and the Light Industrial zoning distracts.
Property owners are concerned that when their property is rezoned to bring the property into comphance
with the adopted Comprehensive Plan that the current use of their property will be affected
DISCUSSION
Staff is requesting direction from the Council on some specific parcels of land having a general discussion
on the intentions of the Council. At the present time, the City Council has adopted a Comprehensive Plan
for the entire community. However, staff has only forwarded two amendments to the Metropohtan
Council for adoption 1) approximately 2000 acres between the current MUSA boundary and the 42/52
interchange area, and 2) lands surrounding the interchange area currently in the MUSA. The remaining
portion of the plan, with the associated land uses will be used for the City's Comprehensive Plan update
due in 2008. The projected land uses will be the basis for the new plan and the plan will incorporate a
phasing plan or note a Triggering mechanism that will prompt the City to begin implementation of the next
phase of the Plan.
There is also the question of implementation for the two amendment areas currently being reviewed by the
Metropohtan Council. From a tuning standpoint these amendments will be the first areas open for
development For the most part, staff had envisioned that rezonings would occur on the properties to
bring them into comphance with the guide plan when development occurred. This would be reasonable in
areas where it is expected that development will occur in a reasonably short time; one to five years. It is
expected that most of the designated urban residential area within the MUSA expansion amendment will
be before the Council in the near term, after completion of the AUAR
It is the Business Park land, east of the new residential along CSAH 42, that has raised some concern.
Residents are concerned that they will be "zoned" off their property should the City initiate a Business
Park rezoning of their property. If rezoned, they would be allowed to continue the existing residential use,
but would be considered non conforming and would not be allowed to expand the existing principal
structure.
Vic's Crane
Land Use
In the second amendment area around the interchange there is one property in particular staff would like
to discuss The Vic's Crane site had been guided for General Industnal and is zoned GI- General
Industrial. The 2005 amendment changes the land use designation to commercial along CSAH 42 and
business park on the remaining portion of the property. The owners are concerned that their property will
be rezoned and they will become a non conforming use The crane operation would not meet the
standards in the current business park zoning distnct and would not meet the performance standards in
the proposed business park and light industrial zoning distncts recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission. In staff's opinion Vic's Crane is consistent with the General Industrial land use and the
intent of the General Industnal zoning district At this time the final draft for the GI zoning district has
not been developed so it is unclear if they would meet the proposed standards.
While the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges that a specific land use designation does not always result in
the same zoning distnct designation, it is assumed that it would often occur. In other words, a property
designation for business park could be developed as commercial, business park, or light industrial, if the
City felt the use was consistent with the goals and policies of the business park land use designation.
However, it seems unlikely that the business park designation would permit general industrial uses within
that land use category given the cnteria set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ultimately, the question is the intention of the City for reguiding the Vic's Crane property that has been re-
guided. Is the intention to limit the business to the current operations, so that current investment does
not hamper redevelopment to its envisioned land use? Or is the intent to allow the business to continue in
its current manner and permit expansion and upgrades to the site, both in terms of the buildings and
expansion of the exterior storage. If the intention is to permit its long -term operation, it may be more
appropnate to reguide the property back to General Industrial.
Budding Permet
The Vic's Crane issue came to staffs attention in part due to their desire to build a new addition to the
existing office Presently, there is an office that includes three trailers. With the proposed addition, the
trailers would be removed. The proposed addition is the approximate size of the trailers in terms of
square footage although is in a different location.
In the current condition, the property would be allowed to receive a building permit pending meeting all
existing general mdustnal ordinance standards and building code requirements. Staff is inclined to process
and issue the permit regardless of the outcome of the land use discussion raised above. The other option
would be to put a moratorium on properties not in compliance with the approved Comprehensive Plan
until the property is rezoned.
The reason this is raised is again, the intended long -term use of the property Typically staff would process
the building permit upon receipt without contacting the City Council However, the ambiguity of the
situation, because the guiding is inconsistent with the zoning makes the process less clear. If the intention
would be to ultimately have the property change to a different land use, cities often zone properties so
they are nonconforming. That status restricts the amount of additional financial investment in the
property, increasing the chance that the property will turnover.
CONCLUSION
Dunng recent Planning Commission meetings the question has been raised as to when residents reguided
to a non residential use could expect their property to be rezoned, making them nonconforming. For the
most part, staff was expecting rezonings to occur as development, or redevelopment occurs. However,
there may be a significant time lag between the guide plan amendment and the rezoning depending upon
2
Copyright 2006 Dakota County Map Date March 16, 2006
L
f
J
J
NEIN PROPOSED ADDITION PLACEMENT
5G
ALE- VIb' =I'-O"
earn
t
co
POPSII
MIMI
I
1 t rr nr 1. nn-nnn, A nri trodi 1