Agenda - Council - 03/23/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # 2.. PART A: REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MORATORIUM AND DISCUSSION ON POLICY REGARDING URBAN SERVICES By: Cindy Sherman, Community Development Director Background: Kenko, Inc. is seeking site plan review to develop a 3,575 square foot office building on Armstrong Boulevard (CSAH 83). The development is proposed on Lot 3, Block 1, HY-10 Ramsey 4'~ Addition. A detailed discussion of the site plan is attached as Part B to this report. Observations: The application is located within the moratorium area west of Armstrong Blvd. The land is currently vacant and is designated places to work in the draft comprehensive plan. The land use proposed is consistent with the plan. A related issue to the comprehensive planni. 'ng process is the policy regarding the availability of urban services to sites prior to development. Brad Scheib of Hoisington Koegler Group, the City's consulting planner, wrote a letter of review regarding the site (attached). As pointed out in Mr. Seheib's report the issues for the City to consider go beyond urban services and include long-term impacts on the area prior to conclusion of the comprehensive plan and related ordinances. Staff believes that the site plan for Kenko's office is of a design and layout that would be allowed in our urban service area. They are proposing to construct a building with quality industrial architecture and paved parking with concrete curb and gutter. The applicant previously received site plan approval that included a large shop structure and exterior storage. Both of these uses would cause concern to the staff without proper ordinances in place to regulate them. The applicant hms the risk of constructing their office building and future zoning regulations not permitting outdoor storage. At a minimum staff would anticipate that outdoor storage would have to be screened from view. They are not requesting exterior storage or a shop building and any future requests to do so would require action by the City. Since the site is designated for places to work staff believes that the office use is an appropriate use. We are concerned that the applicant be aware that the development of the site today will not guarantee future uses that they may desire. A Development Permit is attached which the applicant would be required to execute that requires them to hook up to City services within two years of them becoming available. The staging plan calls for urban services in 2005-2010, this is a general date for extension of services, and it is not a schedule for installation. With the site plan as proposed and if the applicant is willing to sign the agreement that, among other things, commits them to hooking up to public utilities then staff believes an exception to the moratorium should be granted.