Loading...
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