Loading...
CR 92-184 Land Use Review \ y I \ 0 I j<, ,u ~ 'j , .....^.. :', .-"""f !-.I ~,_1 to !,~.! : " I i ' , I August 26, 1992 i .y "" i Council Report 92-184 i, 0" 'K \,~ I ~proDosed Aotion. LAND USE REVIEW Staff recommends the adoption of the following action: Move to affirm the city Council action of August 18, 1992 authorizing a review of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the R.L. Johnson property, located south of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority right of way, and the Pines Mobile Home Park and approval of a process as detailed by staff. If the Council affirms proceeding with the review, they should identify specific questions they feel need to be resolved to take action on this matter.. overview On August 18 the City Council considered an item to review the land use designation on both the 13 acre R.L. Johnson property and pines Mobile Home Park. This issue was presented to the Council for action following a previous discussion concerning the existing land use designation for the R.L. Johnson property. The feeling was that it was probably appropriate to review the land use designation for these properties exclusive of a specific project based on the following: 0 The Economic Development strategic Planning process 0 Development projects which have been discussed for this site 0 Existing market conditions ' ~he staff report for the August 18 meeting detailed three alternatives that the Council could follow if they wished to proceed with a review of the Comprehensive Plan ,for these sites. The Council, on a three to two vote, agreed to proceed with.areview of both of the SUbject sites based on what was identified as Alternative 3. This detailed a joint public hearing with the City Council and Zoning and Planning Commission to discuss this matter. The action presently being considered by the Council is asking for a Also reaffirmation of the August 18 action to proceed with this review. the'Council is being asked to approve a process to undertake this review which is slightly different from what was previously identified. As outlined later in this report, staff is suggesting the Council reconsider its previous action to undertake the Comprehensive Plan review process. primary Issues to Consider 0 What is the purpose of this review? 0 What .should the Council consider in reaffirming to proceed with this process? 0 What is the process recommended by staff? 0 How does this action affect the Hoyt project? 0 What is the Comprehensive Plan? Supporting Doouments . An ysis issues C rehensive plan Land Use Plan ....... , planning & Economic Development Director ~ r CR92-184 Page 2 4Ifrimarv Issues to Consider Based on the action recommended the Council has the following issues to consider: 0 What is the purpose of this review? The purpose of this review is to ~ook ~t the existing land use designations for both the R.L. Johnson property and the Pines Trailer Court to determine whether they are still appropriate. The action proposed would not address the zoning of either of these properties. 0 What should the counoil oonsider in reaffirming to prooeed with this process? The Comprehensive Plan was revised for the entire City in 1989. The City Council needs to feel that conditions have changed since that time to warrant a review of the two subject sites. It is also very important that more than a simple majority of the Council are in agreement with undertaking this review. It takes a 4/5 vote of the Council to change the Comprehensive Plan. The action on August 18 to undertake a review of the Comprehensive Plan was based on a three to two vote. As a result, staff has a concern that there is not sufficient agreement on the Council to undertake the process and . the overall level of support to consider a possible Comprehensive Plan amendment is limited. For these reasons, staff recommends the Council reconsider its action to undertake the Comprehensive Plan review process. . 0 What is the prooess recommended by staff? Alternative 3 which was approved by the City Council at the August 18 meeting involves the following process: - A joint public hearing is held with the Planning Commission and City Council on September 22 - Zoning and Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council - City Council reviews the Planning Commission recommendation - City Council may amend the Comprehensive Plan by a 2/3 vote If the Council desires to continue the Comprehensive Plan review, staff is recommending a slight change to, the process that was approved by the Council. Staff is now proposing that the joint meeting scheduled to be held September 22 not be a public hearing. staff . feels it would be more appropriate for the two groups to discuss the issues relative to the topic prior to the formal hearing process. The Zoning and Planning commission would then hold a pUblic hearing on this issue at their meeting on September 29. If they undertook action at this meeting the item could be considered by the City Council at the first meeting in October. However, there is the possibility that . ~ .,.~ CR92-184 Page 3 . the zoning and Planning commission may wish to have additional time to discuss this matter prior to referring it to the Council. If the Council wishes to proceed with this item it is anticipated that the City staff would undertake the majority of work. staff may also discuss this matter with a land use consultant but not to any significant extent. It is anticipated the review at the staff level would consist of an analysis of the following information: - The zoning Ordinance - The strategic Plan - Previous studies staff is not anticipating undertaking any in-depth analysis of marketing conditions or implications, traffic or other social/economic conditions. If the Council is interested in receiving this information, outside technical assistance will be necessary and therefore the cost of the process will' increase. Also it may require additional time to secure this information. The Council also needs to be aware that this process will probably 'not provide any significant new information. Staff feels that there are a number of issues beyond land use that need to be answered in order to make an educated decision on the appropriateness of the land use for theR.L. Johnson property. Staff would still argue that if the Council wishes to proceed with a land use review that it be completed . in conjunction with a land use and economic impact study. This type of study was recommended by staff earlier this year but did not receive approval. At the joint council and zoning and Planning commission meeting it is proposed that the following would be discussed: - Review of process - Discuss Comp Plan and Zoning - Background of sites - Discussion of other information available for this site - Discuss alternatives - Discuss other additional information necessary in order to make a decision . 0 How does this aotion affeot the Hoyt projeot? Hoyt Development has submitted a proposal for the R.L. Johnson property. In order to facilitate that project, he is required to seCure the following approval: - Conditional Use permit - Subdivision - Rezoning - Comprehensive Plan change . The above items have been continued by the zoning and Planning commission pending additional information being submitted regarding the project as well as consideration of the preliminary tax increment .. ?~ -'4 CR92-184 Page 4 . application he has submitted to the HRA. This in turn has been continued unt~l further information has been received. l The application by Mr. Hoy~ as reLates to the Comprehensive Plan was made specific to his project. The Zoning and Planning Commission and city Council have the ability to take action on his request exclusive of whether they decide to proceed or not with this item. It should be clearly understood that if the Council does not wish to proceed with it's own initiative to review the Comprehensive Plan, it should no way be construed as a denial of Mr. Hoyt's Comprehensive Plan amendment request. 0 What is the Comprehensive Plan? A Comprehensive Plan is defined by state statute as the following: "A compilation of policy statement, goals, standards and maps for guiding the physical, social and economic development both private and public of the municipality and its environs including air space and sub-surface areas necessary for mine underground development and may include but is not limited to the following statements of policies, goals, standards, a land use plan, a community facilities plan, a"transportation plan, and recommendations for plan execution. A Comprehensive Plan . represents the Planning Agency's recommendation for future development of the community. 'II The Comprehensive Plan is amended by 2/3 vote of the governing body. In the case of Hopkins this would be a 4/5 vote. Alternatives The Council has the following alternatives regarding this issue: - Proceed with the Compr~hensive Plan review using the revised process recommended by staff. This would be consistent with the action taken by the Council on August 18. In proceeding with this item, the Council needs to take into consideration various items as detailed in this report. . The city council should also outline to staff information which it desires as a part of this review. - Do not undertake a review of the R.L. Johnson property, pines Mobile Home property, or both of these sites at this time. In not reviewing the land use designation for these sites, it will remain the same. This does not restrict the land use designation being changed at a future date to' reflect a specific project. - Continue for further information. If the city Council indicates e that more information is needed, this item should be continued. However, this action would slow down the process. , t1I" r -. FIGURE 3 . - S " LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH, DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL PARK OPEN SPACE SCHOOL CHURCH . PUBLIC " .. , I ,( MINNETONKA N " ~ ' ' , I . L." I o 600' 1200' 2400' City Of 1 l HOPKINS ~omprehensive ,Ian . ffilll~'" , 25' LAND USE PLAN , ,