HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. CSAH 42 / Diamond Path Guide Plan AmendmentCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 5, 1991
AGENDA ITEM: C.S.A.H. 42/Diamond Path
AGENDA SECTION:
Guide Plan Amendment
Public Hearings
PREPARED BY: Michael A. Wozniak, AICP
City Planner
AGENDA7 O
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandums, Concept Plan,
APPROVED BYf,�%
Applicant letter, Mailing List, Public Notice
Earlier this year a development group requested an amendment to the City of
Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan to redesignate 46 acres of property
(south side of C.S.A.H. 42 abutting Apple Valley) from Agriculture to
General Commercial to accommodate future rezoning and subdivision of that
property for commercial development. A public hearing to consider this
item was scheduled for the December 18, 1990, Council Meeting. Just prior
to that meeting date I was contacted by the project architect who indicated
that it was the applicant's preference to delay discussion the project. At
the December 18th meeting City Council opened the public hearing to
consider this Guide Plan Amendment and received comment from those present.
In deference to the desire of the applicant to present the project on a
later date the City Council extended the public hearing until the February
5, 1991 meeting.
Please refer to the attached memorandum and attachments for detailed
description of this plan amendment.
Mailed notice was provided to property owners within 350' of the project
site to inform them that the hearing date had been continued.
The City Council is further reminded that amendments to the Comprehensive
Guide Plan require a four/fifths majority vote.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to deny a Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment proposed to redesignate property from Agriculture to
General Commercial designation and to include such property in the
MUSA for the purpose of development of the Rosemount Retail Center;
based upon findings of fact identified in the Planner's Memorandum
for this item dated February 1, 1991.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Denied amendment.
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
P.O. BOX 510
6?i 2875 -145TH ST. W
ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
OCe�j/B/{ ount 612-423-4411
CITY COUNCIL
MICHAEL WOZNIAR, AICP, CITY PLANNER
February 1, 1991
February 5, 1991 - REGULAR MEETING REVIEWS
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT ROSEMOUNT RETAIL CENTER
This plan amendment involves a request to redesignate approximately
46 acres of property from Agriculture to General Commercial land
use designation in ,the Guide Plan and also, to add the property to
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The request is coming from a
partnership of development interests including Virgil Hammerstad,
Herb Wensmann, Raymond Fisher, David Fisher, Curtis Fisher, Myron
Stapf, Vernon Gunderson, and Gerald Hirschhorn.
This item was considered by the Planning Commission at both its
January 23rd and February 27th Regular Meetings. The Planning
Commission recommended denial of this Guide Plan Amendment on
February 27, 1990 (see meeting minutes). At that time the
applicant decided not to request City Council consideration of the
proposed amendment, however, the applicant has now elected to re-
initiate consideration of the proposed plan amendment.
Attached with this review is the following information: conceptual
site plan for the project, copies of pages 8, 12, and 13 (Goals,
Objectives and Policies) of the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
ISSUES:
1. Does the proposed Guide Plan Amendment conform or conflict
with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Guide Plan
(pp. 8, 12, & 13)?
It is the consensus among staff that the proposed Guide Plan
Amendment clearly conflicts with the Goals, Objectives and Policies
of the Guide Plan. -Most significantly, it conflicts with the
intent to keep Downtown/South Rose Park as the primary commercial
center in Rosemount.
2. Does the proposed Amendment conflict with the City policy
of requiring that Commercial development be located
Conti uous to existing commercial areas?
g
Rosemount Retail Center
December 18, 1990 City Council Meeting
Page Two
The proposed Rosemount Retail Center conflicts with this policy
since it would require leapfrogging 1/2 to 1 mile. It may or not
may be true that the McNamara Property will eventually be developed
for commercial use, but, that would likely take a long time to
happen given current market conditions and would also require
changes to the Guide Plan and rezoning.
3. Is the necessary infrastructure in place to serve the
proposed development?
Connection to the existing sanitary sewer network at this time
would be premature. The logical timing would be to wait until
improvements to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant are complete
(1992?). If the proposed Rosemount Retail Center were to be
constructed at this time the only option for providing sanitary
sewer service would be to route wastewater from the development
through an existing sanitary sewer lift station situated in the
Wind's Crossing subdivision. The Wind's Crossing lift station was
designed for use on a temporary basis to pump wastewater from the
Wind's Crossing development through a force main in order that it
could flow to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City
has planned that eventually the wastewater flow from the Wind's
Crossing Development and other developments in Section 31
(southwest square mile of Rosemount) will be served by the Empire
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Originally the Wind's Crossing Lift
Station was intended to serve Wind's Crossing (80 acres of single
family and quad homes) and a portion of O'Leary's Hills (80 acres
of single family homes). The City has since allowed all of the
Wensmann Additions development (97 acres of single family homes) to
be served via the Wind's Crossing temporary sanitary sewer lift
station. Also, staff is working with a development interest that
intends to subdivide the Geronimie Property, 39 acres situated
immediately south of Wind's Crossing for residential development.
The point to be made here is that the City has reached a stage
where additional wastewater water flow cannot be accommodated at
this time until the City obtains permission to route additional
flow to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant or unless substantial
modifications are made to the temporary wastewater pumping and
force main system being utilized to serve most of Section 31 are
made.
Also, the development would trigger the need for construction of
street/traffic improvements such as turning and acceleration lanes
on CSAH 42 and traffic signals and these costs may be premature
since adequate infrastructure exists in South Rose Park/Downtown
Rosemount to meet current commercial development needs. It should
also be noted that Dakota County is currently planning to upgrade
the functional classification of CSAR 42 in Rosemount from Minor
Arterial to Major Arterial status. This change in functional
classification would cause the County to be more restrictive in
permitting access drives onto CSAH 42 which would preclude the
direct access to CSAH 42 shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. This
may impact the ability to market the proposed development.
F
4. Market Potential: How feasible is the proposed project
given current market conditions? What impact will it have
on development in Downtown Rosemount/South Rose Park? Is
the development premature?
Recent efforts by the City to evaluate market conditions clearly
indicate that significant limitations on Rosemount's retail market
exist. It has also been identified that there would be significant
negative impact on downtown Rosemount/South Rose Park in allowing
non-contiguous or leap -frogging of commercial development. The
applicant has provided no credible evidence that adequate market
potential exists to support the proposed development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Staff advises that the Council realize the potential negative
impact on Downtown Rosemount/South Rose Park of allowing non-
contiguous commercial development to occur at the scale
proposed. Clearly, text changes to the Guide Plan Goals,
Objectives and Policies would be necessary to justify approval
of the proposed Amendment. Staff further advises that Council
follow the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the
proposed Guide Plan Amendment due to inconsistency with the
Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Plan.
2. Staff further advises Council that the issues being addressed
while considering this Guide Plan Amendment are serious ones
which could impact community identity for many years to come.
This is not a simple land redesignation. It is most
appropriate to consider what future land use may be most
appropriate for the property in question while undertaking the
complete revision of the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
3. Staff advises Council that there would be costs associated
with construction of public improvements such as upgrading of
the current sanitary sewer network, street improvements, and
traffic signals that would be triggered by the proposed
development. It is the opinion of staff that these cost would
be premature based upon the fact that there are existing
properties available for commercial development in Downtown
Rosemount/South Rose Park which are already served with
adequate infrastructure.
4. Staff advises Council to consider conclusions of recent Market
Analysis efforts which have indicated that a commercial
development of the scale proposed situated away from
Downtown/South-Rose Park would significantly impact retail
sales volume of existing merchants and would limit the
potential for expansion of commercial development.
01
Rosemount Retail Center
December 18, 1990 City Council Meeting
Page Four
SUMMARY
In summary, staff recommendation is that Council should deny the
proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment based upon the
following findings of fact:
1. The proposed amendment is not consistent Community Development
Goals and Policies as stated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan
(p. 8) .
2. The proposed amendment is not consistent with Objectives, Plan
Elements or Policies established in the Commercial Land Use
Plan component of the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
3. Development of the site prior to the City having ability to
route sanitary sewer flow to the Empire Wastewater Treatment
Plant would necessitate premature extension of public sanitary
sewer involving significant redesign and modification of the
temporary sanitary sewer system currently serving abutting
properties.
4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS
1. A balanced and diverse community which is able to provide
needed living, working, shopping, playing, learning and
cultural opportunities for its people.
2. Preservation of natural and critical environmental, scenic and
open space resources.
3. Retention of Rosemount's "small town character".
4. Controlled growth with a minimum of urban sprawl.
5. New commerce and industry, new employment opportunities and a
more diversified tax base.
6. Preservation of agricultural lands and the perpetuation of com-
mercial agricultural production.
7. A strong downtown Rosemount which serves as the dominant com-
munity retail center.
8. Quality residential environments and housing opportunities for
people of all age and income groups.
9. A balanced and efficient transportation network.
10. Adequate and affordable public services and facilities
(recreation, hospitals, utilities, protective, etc.) to meet
the public health, welfare and safety needs of a growing popu-
lation.
11. Efficient development patterns which foster the conservation
of energy resources.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
In the interest of achieving compact growth, minimizing urban
sprawl and thus encouraging efficient development patterns, the
City has been divided into two broad development zones termed the
Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area. As a freestanding
growth center, Rosemount can determine a community Urban Service
8
Area. It is intended that this area accommodate urban densities
with lot sizes that require and in turn can support a full range
of urban services including public utilities. It is an area which
focuses on downtown Rosemount, the dominant community retail
center, and an area that can accommodate all projected urban
development in the City of Rosemount to 1990.
The Rural Service Area is not intended to be provided with the
full range of urban services prior to 1990 primarily because the
total demand for urban development can be met more efficiently and
economically within the Urban Service Area. This area, consisting
of the 2000 Urban Service Area, Agricultural Area, Rural
Residential Area, Mississippi River Critical Area, University of
Minnesota and Pine Bend industrial area, is intended to receive
all essential public services except sewer and water facilities.
Through 1990, the Rural Service Area is intended to accommodate
only large lot low density residential and other development that
can properly meet utility needs on-site.
Community. Development Policies
It shall be the policy of the City to:
1. Require all non-agricultural developments within the 1990
Urban Service boundary to connect to the public sewer and
water systems when services become available.
2. Extend no public sanitary sewer and water services into the
Rural Service Area prior to 1990.
3. Allow agricultural activities to continue within the Urban
Service Area during the period 1980 to 1990.
4. Allow sanitary landfills and surface mining activities only
within the Rural Service Area.
5. Discourage long-term agricultural investments within the 2000
Urban Service Area.
6. Review all development in the community, private and public,
with respect to its impact on the natural environment and
revise or deny proposals where the impact is determined to be
significant and detrimental.
COMMERCIAL LAND USE PLAN
Objectives
1. To meet the convenience shopping needs of Rosemount residents.
2. To facilitate growth, expansion, redevelopment and rehabili-
tation of downtown Rosemount as the community shopping center.
3. To maintain and build upon downtown Rosemount as the shopping,
cultural and historical focus of the community.
Plan Elements (Centers)
Five types of commercial developments will be required to serve
Rosemount residents based on projected population growth, popula-
tion characteristics and existing and future development patterns.
Four of them are termed "centers" reflecting an integrated design
concept. Each of these relates to a different geographic consti-
tuency and a different level of service based on convenience and
shopping goods and services needs. The fifth commercial type,
General Commercial, is one that accommodates retail shops that
normally do not lend themselves to a collective design. The cri-
teria found in Table 1 should be carefully adhered to in all deci-
sions regarding commercial rezonings.
Community Center
As growth continues in Rosemount, the retail function of downtown
will need to change or business will be lost in ever greater
amounts to centers beyond the City. It cannot compete with or
become a regional shopping center due to existing physical and
market limitations. It's function, then, is to satisfy the retail
goods and services needs of the entire Rosemount community.
Downtown is intended to continue to be the center for civic acti-
vity in Rosemount while serving as the dominant retail center of
the community. More than any other center type, it is intended
that the downtown be planned and designed in a manner which empha-
sizes pedestrian circulation and coordinated parking. An open or
enclosed pedestrian environment is desirable as a means to knit
the retail center into a unified whole. Downtown is intended to
12
be a relatively more diversified center catering to governmental
services, medical and dental clinics, general and professional
offices, public service facilities, financial institutions, high-
density residential developments, cultural and entertainment faci-
lities and a full range of retail shops including general
merchandise, clothing, hardware, variety stores, shoe stores,
restaurants and -commercial recreation facilities.
Because it is an existing center, parking improvements, redevelop-
ment and rehabilitation efforts are intended to be a public/
private effort.
Neighborhood Center
Neighborhood centers are highly specialized retail centers which
provide a sub -area of the community (one or two neighborhoods)
with day-to-day convenience retail shopping goods and services
within easy walking and biking distance of neighborhood
residences. These contain smaller shops that do not compete with
the downtown but instead serve a unique and distinctive neigh-
borhood function. When confronted with a request, and undecided
about whether such use is of neighborhood or larger magnitude, the
first test is how large a geographic area it serves; the second is
whether it or something similar is listed in the zoning ordinance
as a permitted neighborhood commercial use. Typical uses include
a small food market (12,000 sq. ft. maximum) drug store, barber
shop, beauty shop, appliance shop, small laundry and/or a dry
cleaning shop. Typical adjacent uses include small medical, den-
tal and professional offices, churches and day care and nursery
facilities. With the exception of the grocery store, individual
shops do not exceed 4,000 square feet in area.
Convenience Centers
Convenience centers are very small and provide a very small area of
the community with convenience shopping needs. They are generally
free-standing centers but might also be expected to be located in
transitional areas adjacent to other centers. Typical uses
include a superette and gas station with self service.
General Commercial
These commercial uses are relatively independent and do not always
depend on close proximity to other similar uses or a leading
tenant to attract business. They do depend on good accessibility,
high visibility and relatively large volumes of traffic and are
therefore found along major streets. Uses customarily found in
general commercial- areas are auto and implement sales, offices,
drive—in establishments including restaurants and banks, commer—
cial recreation facilities, furniture stores, wholesale businesses
and similar uses. Uses within general commercial areas tend to be
rather specialized and provide service to the entire community.
General Commercial areas are also intended to provide retail uses
which cannot be accommodated in the Community Center.
Highway Service Centers
These are exclusively highway service or traffic related centers
having high visibility and an orientation to motorists in transit.
Typical uses include truck stops, restaurants, full service gaso—
line stations and related uses.
Policies
It shall be the policy of the city to:
1. Act to facilitate the rehabilitation of sound structures and
the redevelopment of unsafe and/or obsolete structures in
downtown Rosemount.
2. Serve as a partner and facilitator in assisting the down—
town business community with planning and such implementation
programs as parking, redevelopment and landscaping.
3. Employ tax increment financing and other financial incentives
including grants to stimulate central business district
improvements and enhance their feasibility.
4. Discourage strip commercial developments which increase access
conflicts and impede traffic flows on major streets intended
to carry large volumes of traffic.
13
S. Require a market study as part of any request for a neigh—
borhood, convenience center or general commercial rezoning.
6. Underwrite the sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds for new or
redeveloped commercial enterprises in the Community Center as
a means to strengthen the. CBD.
~ I PROPOSEE
TEMPORAi
HRMA ,
H EI.5 E`'
SSgQIAI S i
ROSEMOUNT '
RETAIL CENTER