HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.C.2. Draft Resolution Approving a Residential Growth Policy for the City of Shakopee-Res. No. 6279
IS; C. :L, ·
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 05-053
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Draft Resolution Approving a Residential Growth Policy for the City of
Shakopee
MEETING DATE: August 3, 2005
REVIEW PERIOD: N.A.
INTRODUCTION:
The development of a residential growth policy was undertaken at the direction of the City Council,
which has had growth management as its number one goal. The City's Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the draft on May 19 and June 9,2005, and has recommended to the City Council that it
adopt the draft resolution approving a residential growth policy for the City of Shakopee.
DISCUSSION:
Prior to the public hearing, staff provided notice of the proposed policy to developers who have recently
been active in the community. The following appeared to offer testimony, both on the growth policy and
on the proposed project-scoring guide that is also under consideration;
. Associated Capital Corporation - Jim Cooke
. College City Homes - Randy Peterson
. D.R. Horton/Ryan Contracting - Tim Keane
. Ryland Homes - Brian Sullivan
. Tollefson Development - Gary Wollschlager and Matthew Weiland
I believe it is fair to say that all of those testifying opposed numerical limitations of any kind on
development, and argued that the market should be allowed to operate without such interference. In the
alternative, a number of them asked for reallocation of lots in the proposed table. I have tried to take
those into account in the draft that is before the City Council for consideration.
It should be kept in mind as the Council discusses the draft policy that it does not propose a limitation of
any kind on the issuance of building permits. In discussions I have had the draft policy is often referred to
as a limit on the number of building permits, which it is not. Instead, it places a cap on the number of
residential unit opportunities that can be created in any year through the processes of platting (either
statutory or CIC) and conditional use permit approval.
1
It should also be noted that, as proposed, it is not just a limitation on the number of single-family lots that
can be created in any given year. If that were the case, it would be possible to see years in which 600
single- family lots are created and a large number of attached housing units were also created. The net
result could be the same or greater creation of residential units as the City has experienced from 1998 to
2004. This clearly would have no impact on rate or level of growth that the City accommodates in a
given year. Likewise, the proposed limitation should not be construed to mean that there could be no
more than about 600 residential units granted building permits in a given year, as the City has a current
inventory oflots available for single-family and attached residential development. Thus, as proposed in
this draft, the amount of building activity on the ground may look no different than it does today.
Finally, the creation of 600 residential units by platting, CUP or otherwise, is still a very substantial pace.
In the Council workshops limiting it to 400 (which is still a healthy number) was even discussed.
Throughout the discussion about growth management mechanisms, a question has been asked about how
limiting the number of lot/units created in a given year would affect the City financially. Since fees
collected for development have to be commensurate with the City's expenditures to handle development
impacts, so long as the fees are set at an appropriate level (i.e. the City collects as much as it expends),
there is no measurable impact on the overall budget.
One developer testified that new development is needed for the City to pay for infrastructure investments
it has already made. The attached June 9, 2005 report to the Planning Commission addresses that point in
part. In considering that question, the Council may want to keep in mind a study done by the
Metropolitan Council in 2001. That study, known as "The Fiscal Impact of Growth on Cities," is one that
the City paid to participate in. The report used a case-study approach to determine the fiscal impacts of
new development on eight communities in the Region. The outcomes were different for each community.
In each case the study looked at revenues, expenditures, and net revenues for the following types of
development;
. Single- family;
. Townhouse;
. Multifamily;
. Retail;
. Office;
. IndustriallFlex
Of these six categories, only single-family, townhouse, and office generated any net revenues. Of those
three categories, townhouse (perhaps counter-intuitively) showed the greatest net revenues on a per acre
basis ($568 vs. $170 for single-family and $6 for office). In other words, the net revenue return for
single-family was fairly low, amounting to about 9% of expenditures.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution No. 6279, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
ADOPTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, as presented.
2. Approve Resolution No. 6279, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
ADOPTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, with revisions.
2
3. Table the matter with direction to City staffto revise the draft resolution or for additional information.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On June 9, 2005 the Planning Commission recommended approval ofthe draft resolution, subject to
modifications that might be made by staff in response to testimony received about allocations in the draft
table.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 6279, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA ADOPTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, as presented or with revisions.
~~~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
3
RESOLUTION NO. 6279
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ADOPTING A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, as new areas for development opened up from 1998 through 2005, the
City of Shakopee experienced very high residential growth rates for each of those years;
and
WHEREAS, such continued high rates of residential growth rates require additional
expenditures for staff, equipment, and other support, which in turn have a significant
impact on the City's budget and overall fiscal situation; and
WHEREAS, dealing with such high rates or residential growth impairs the ability of
the City and its staff to adequately address other issues that are important to the health,
safety, and welfare of the City's residents and business owners; and
WHEREAS, the city's Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted by the City Council in
2004, seeks to limit growth for the short-term to those areas identified as Phase I areas for
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUS A) extension; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to limit the number oflots and/or residential
units available per year for new housing to an average of 600 lots and/or residential units
per year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the policy noted above applies to
the Phase I expansion area. The policy contained in this resolution does not apply to
properties that are already within the MUSA on the date of adoption of this resolution, as
such properties may already have been assessed for public improvements or been granted
preliminary or final plat approvals, and thus have the legal right to proceed with
development.
WHEREAS, the public welfare requires the establishment of a Growth Management
Policy and allocation system in order to 1) prevent unplanned growth; 2) to encourage
development which accomplishes the objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Shakopee; and 3) which accommodates growth within the limitations of current city
fiscal and personnel resources; and
WHEREAS, ,the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Plan provides for a phased
MUSA allocation plan as a means of implementing the plan; and,
WHEREAS, a phased allocation of development promotes a rate of growth
consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a phased allocation also promotes contiguous rational development and
the orderly provision of infrastructure to developing areas within the city; and,
WHEREAS, unplanned growth that is unrelated to community needs and capabilities
damages the public health, safety and welfare, and violates the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
H:\CC\2005\08-03\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes08032005.doc1 1
NOW, THEREFORE, for the purpose of implementing the land use and MUSA
staging components of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council of the City of Shako pee
does hereby adopt the following:
SECTION 1: Purposes of Growth Management Policy
The Shakopee City Council finds and determines:
A. The city has adopted a Comprehensive Plan that has as one of its primary goals
that;
"Promote development that generally occurs adjacent to existing development,
can be readily served by urban services, and uses land efficiently." (1999
Comprehensive Plan Update, Goal 2) .
B. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new areas to be added to MUSA where
1. ". . . utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or
extended,"
2. ".. .timed to enhance the City's abilities to plan for, develop, and/or
acquire new utilities and community facilities.. .,"
3. "... to serve the community as a whole," and
4. "preserves Shakopee's natural resources."
C. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the development of "desirable and
livable neighborhoods," which includes the improvement ofthe appearance of
neighborhoods and important corridors in the City.
D. Inadequately planned, speculative residential development has sometimes created,
and may create or aggravate, the following conditions:
1. Wasteful construction of public facilities;
2. Overburdened municipal services and utilities;
3. Decreasing availability of low- and-moder ate-cost housing to serve the
needs of the elderly and persons of low and moderate incomes;
4. Premature and inefficient commitment of undeveloped lands to
urbanization; and,
5. Environmentally detrimental development patterns.
6. Developments that do not obtain the site planning and appearance
standards the City is striving to achieve.
E. By themselves alone, the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances (City Code
Chapters 11 and 12) cannot provide the comprehensive development review
procedures that will insure the high level of environmental protection, sequential
and orderly development, and achievement of other goals set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan.
F. The public welfare requires the establishment of a Growth Management Policy.
The city hereby establishes an initial five-year phasing program for development
within the City of Shakopee in order to accomplish the following goals:
1. Prevent premature development in the absence of necessary utilities and
municipal services;
H:\CC\2005\08-03\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes08032005.doc2 2
2. Coordinate city planning and land regulation in a manner consistent with
the land use plan;
3. Implement the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan;
4. Prevent unplanned growth which has no relationship to community needs
and capabilities; and,
5. Encourage developers to dedicate additional public open space.
SECTION 2: Phasing Plan
A. The City's Comprehensive Plan Update includes a staging plan to show where
development in the city will be phased over the next 20 years. The phasing plan
was developed to accommodate an average of approximately 600 housing units
(approximately 200 acres) per year in each MUSA Phasing Area in order to help
the city manage its growth. This policy establishes the phasing plan for Phase 1
of the overall staging plan that the city has set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
and Comprehensive Plan Update.
B. A five-year Growth Management System is hereby adopted as Phase 1 ofthe
city's MUSA Staging Plan, which distributes the platting of lots and/or residential
units among the major properties/landowners/developers set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
C. As set forth in Exhibit A, the Phase I MUSA expansion areas will be developed at
a rate that will average 600 dwelling units per year.
D. Every application for a preliminary plat or PUD for any part ofthe property set
forth in Exhibit A shall include a phasing plan that complies with the five-year
phased allocation plan set forth in Exhibit A.
E. As part of each preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) approval
process, a development-phasing plan shall be approved by the City Council for
each of the tracts of land set forth on Exhibit A. Preliminary plats and PUDs shall
be reviewed and approved only in accordance with the development schedule set
forth in Exhibit A.
F. The number oflots and/or residential units created through the platting or other
approval process in a given year shall be controlled through the extension of
utilities and subsequent assessment of costs to benefited properties.
G. The developer/landowner shall have the right to accrue lots/units, such that they
may forgo platting lots and/or residential units in one year in order to plat more
lots and/or residential units in a subsequent year. However, at such time that this
policy is reviewed or revised in the future, the city reserves the right to re-allocate
lots/units that are not approved for development.
H. This policy does not allow for the outright transfer or sale of the allocation of
units between developers/landowners. However, through a Planned Unit
Development, the city may allow lots/units from one tract of property to be
transferred to another, if it promotes the goals outlined in the purpose statement of
this policy.
H:\CC\2005\08-03\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes08032005.doc3 3
SECTION 3: Exceptions
A. This Growth Management Policy shall only apply to properties in the Phase I
MUSA allocation area, as set forth on Exhibit A through the year 2009.
B. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to property located within the
2002 MUSA line. These properties may already have been assessed for public
utilities, and/or do not require the extension of municipal utilities to develop.
C. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to property located in the
Agricultural Preservation (AG) or Rural Residential (RR)-zoned areas of the city,
or to plats or PUDs that are proposed consistent with the zoning requirements of
those districts.
D. The Growth Management Policy will not apply to parcels that are 1) parcels of
record as ofthe date of the adoption ofthis policy, and 2) that are less than 20
acres in size (even if such a parcel is purchased or owned by a developer or land
owner set forth in Exhibit A, their successors, or assigns). The purpose of this
exemption is to encourage the incorporation of smaller parcels into larger
development plans to provide for more continuity of design and neighborhood
compatibility. The City Council also recognizes the adverse affects that the
inclusion of smaller parcels in the allocation process would have on the current
owners of those parcels. The density and allocations assigned to the exception
parcels ofless than 20 acres can be used anywhere within the adjacent
development of which it becomes a part.
E. In order to implement the city's greenway corridor and open space goals, in areas
guided for single-family use, if the amount of open space dedicated as part of a
PUD is more than fifteen percent but up to twenty percent, the project shall be
eligible for a bonus of five percent of the total proposed lots and/or residential
units. If the amount of open space dedicated as a part of a PUD exceeds twenty
percent, the project shall be eligible for a bonus of up to ten percent of the total
proposed lots and/or residential units.
Areas proposed to be dedicated to open space must be consistent with the city's
Comprehensive Plan provisions for greenway opportunities, park plans, etc., or
must be adjacent to or provide an enhancement to existing park facilities.
Property dedicated must be useable upland (not wetlands, ponds or utility
easements, etc.). The City Council will retain the discretionary right to determine
whether or not it will accept the property proposed to be dedicated for open space
or greenway corridors.
Additional units allowed pursuant to this exception shall be divided equally over
the entire five-year phasing plan so that an additional allocation will be made for
each year of the phase.
F. In order to implement the city's goal of providing affordable housing meeting
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency/Metropolitan Council standards for
H:\CC\2005\08-03\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes08032005.doc4 4
affordability within the City, bonus lots or units may be approved for a PUD
subject to the following schedule;
A. In projects where at least two percent ofthe units are planned to be
affordable, the project will be eligible for a bonus of up to three percent of
the planned lots and/or units.
In projects where between five and ten percent of the units are planned to be
affordable, the project will be eligible for a bonus of up to ten percent of the
planned lots and/or units.
G. In order to maintain the spirit and intent ofthis growth management policy, the
number of bonus units allowed to be platted in a given year, due to the inclusion
or the dedication of green space or affordable housing, shall not exceed 10.0
percent of the total units allocated for that year, as set forth in Exhibit A. These
bonus units shall be awarded in the development agreement for each development
as it is approved, until such time that the cap for that particular year is reached.
SECTION 4: Review of Policy
A. The city Staff shall prepare an annual report for the City Council detailing the
number of lots and/or residential units and or actually platted and built on each
year in Phase 1.
B. The City Council shall review this policy by January 17, 2006 to determine
whether it is managing the growth of the city as intended by the City Council,
whether there have been unintended consequences, and whether this policy should
be revised. The city reserves the right to amend Exhibit A and re-allocate units
that have not been approved by the City Council as part of a plat or PUD.
H:\CC\2005\08-03\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes08032005.doc5 5
EXHIBIT A
Estimated Allocation of Lots in Phase 1
I~i~~~~n~ ~ ,~~~ ~~~~~~'" - __JI20051~~~II~~!~I~-~~JI~009jO
Total
-- ,_. ~~-,,' _____ mm J~~Q~L?_~~IL~~L_~~JO
IIC~)l~~~~ide _ 437
,,,,,,,,_ """'H" nm","'" """~~'
II South Co~~~~~~~ _JL___~l ~21 41 !LmJlJOO 81
,,,,- _J[}Q]L,,_ 3511 35 il 0100___
I~w_ -- 80,
,,-"'~- """
IIPark Mead~~~_East__ 102]1 2~1 261000 79
I~geline Bluffs _wmw_ _..1____2l__ 50JI 501L~L 5~0 200
,. ,-"'''~,
~yers~de Blu__!f~ 1L___~l 3411 34L_ 331DO 101
Il~l_~c~~~ ~states ------_w-__w, ILwm~?Jl ?~JI~l,~JI ~_~JO 51
"'" """,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I~hutrop NoI!~ J 40 II wgl__~JI_____~JI._w_w~JO 40
11~~1Ut~?P~outh_m'_m_ww__ __w_m __wJI___m~JI 5oIL2~jl_m~2JI 4010 209
i~arysto~w~:L.C. mw , _ _ ~L__~I _~!L.___?)__ 2!L",-710 ?
~ C tr t' glDR H rt IDDDDDO ?
I "yan on aC,_lll . ",,: 0 on w _mw __ ' . J ,__:-1 ___...:J _,_~_...:J_w~..:J J,
ISubtotal "~We' _~w_ww __ _ JI, 13~l46211 456iL!321[]Q]0 1,278
I _ __ m_ww WWW, _ _ __ ww. __, __'^_.ww__~w..m____wwwm .we . - ----
11~_O!~!ww:\.:!!?W~dmww_m.mm_J-?~~II?~~~~jlm?OO JI 600JD 3.~~~~J
l~er:LBonUSAll:a~~~~Ye-:o 18 6ol~L601~ 300
Il!?tal with l!~~w~~!!~its _m.11 662JI 66016601~?Ql_6~0 3,300
*These numbers are estimates, based on the gross acreage of property or plans/plats
currently under review. The numbers will be refined during the preliminary plat and
planned unit development process, once detailed property information (wetland
delineation, rights-ofway, etc.) can be obtained.
? indicates that estimated numbers were unclear at the time the table was drafted.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
held this _ day of , 2005.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
H:\CC\2005\08-03\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes08032005.doc6 6
;:tF-{p
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
Memorandum
CASE LOG NO.: 05-053
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Draft Residential Growth Policy and Residential Project Scoring Guide
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2005
INTRODUCTION:
On May 19, 2005 the Commission opened the public hearing on this item, and heard from a number of
representatives of the development community. At staffs request, the public hearing was continued to
allow additional time for developers to provide written comment for the record. At the time this report
was drafted, no additional written comment had been received. This memo recaps, and provides
responses to the comments received by May 19th. Attached for the Commission's information is the
report from the May 19th meeting.
DISCUSSION:
On or by May 19th, the Commission received or heard testimony from the following persons;
. ACC/Jim Cooke;
. College City Homes/Randy Peterson;
. D.R. Horton and Ryan Contracting/Tim Kuehn;
. Ryland Homes/Brian Sullivan;
. Tollefson Development/Matthew Weiland and Gary Wollschlager
I have summarized the comments received below, and where possible provided responses to the
comments;
. The supply of residential lots available in the City of Shako pee should be dictated by market
conditions, and a limitation on the supply may have adverse economic impacts such as;
0 Increased land prices, which could result in an inability to 1) sell land for
development, and 2) develop affordable housing.
Response: Allowing market conditions to regulate the supply of lots does not assure that
development will proceed at a pace that the City can reasonably manage with the resources available to
it. For example, since TH 169 opened, the City has experienced two years when over 1000 dwelling
units were permitted. That is not a pace that the City could sustain, and also respond to additional
service needs that these new residents can bring. The pace of development not only has impacts on the
City's ability to provide services, but also the school district's ability to provide services.
G:\BOAA-PC\2005\06-09\growth management continued. doc 1
From 1997 to today, the price ofland for residential development has increased as much as tenfold.
Those increases have been the result of several factors, and have taken place despite the fact that there
have not been controls on the supply of lots, plats, or building permits. The increases have not seemed
to have any negative effect on the numbers of land sales, quite the contrary. Certainly increases in land
price have an impact on the cost of new residential units, which affects affordability. It is not the only
factor (cost of materials being another, for example). Moreover, none companies testifying on the
proposed change is developing "affordable housing" in Shakopee, i.e. housing that is affordable to
persons or households at 80% or less ofthe Twin Cities Metropolitan Region's median income. There
was testimony that one of the developers constructs housing in Shakopee that is at a lower price point
than in some other communities in which they build, allowing the company to address different
segments of the buying market.
. Additional, market-driven rather than limited, development is needed to repay investments in
public infrastructure that the City may have already made.
Response: Shakopee has long-standing policies directed at making sure that new development
pays for itself, rather than routinely making massive investments in infrastructure in advance of
development. Recent City, Shakopee Public Utilities, and ISD 720 experience would suggest that the
demands for approval of new residential developments is triggering investments in public
infrastructure in advance of the timeframes in which they might have been anticipated in previous
planning done by each of those entities. Examples might include the provision of booster stations to
insure adequate water pressure, the need for new elementary schools in advance of projections. These
additional investments can put a strain on capital planning and expenditures.
. Several of the persons providing testimony urged reconsideration of the allocations for their
projects as set forth in the draft.
Response: Staffwill consider the suggested changes prior to consideration of the draft growth
policy by the City Council, and will make changes ifthey can be accommodated within the limitation
directed by City Council.
. Regarding the project pointing guide, it was suggested that in some cases mixed use
developments might not be possible, and related scoring categories should perhaps be
optional.
Response: Staff agrees that this is a valid concern, and is continuing to look at possible revisions
that would address the concern by making it an optional category.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council the proposed Growth Management Policy and Residential
Projects Scoring Guide as presented.
2. Recommend to the City Council the proposed Growth Management Policy and Residential
Projects Scoring Guide with revisions.
3. Recommend to the City Council denial ofthe proposed Growth Management Policy and
Residential Proj ects Scoring Guide.
4. Continue the public hearing for additi<:mal information.
G:\BOAA-PC\2005\06-09\growth management continued.doc 2
5. Close the public hearing, but table the item for additional information
ACTION REQUESTED:
Take action consistent with the Commission's desires after receiving public testimony on the proposed
Growth Management Policy and Residential Projects Scoring Guide.
/~L~
/), .:;/ >~ ' ~-..t'..
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
G:\BOAA-PC\2005\06-09\growth management continued. doc 3
~~
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
Memorandum
CASE LOG NO.: 05-053
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Draft Residential Growth Policy and Residential Project Scoring Guide
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2005
,.
INTRODUCTION:
Over the past several months, staff has been working with the City Council to develop additional tools
that would 1) help to control the rate of residential growth in the City, and 2) improve the quality of
residential development projects brought before the City's Boards and Commissions and City Council.
An underlying concern driving the discussion has been the ability of the City, with its staff and
..-- financial resources, to effectively deal with the elevated levels of development the CitY- has ___.._.__ _m__ _....
experienced in the last 7.8 years and still provide other needed services to the community. Copies of
the draft proposals are attached for the Commission's use, as well as a copy of the memo to Council
fo~ its April 12, 2005 workshop for background information
The Commission is asked to take testimony on the proposed policy changes, and provide a
recommendation to the City Council regarding whether to adopt the proposals.
DISCUSSION:
In the previous workshops that have been held with the City Council on growth management, there has
been discussion of several different approaches that could be taken, including;
. Placing a temporary moratorium on new development until the completion of an update to the
City's sanitary sewer, transportation, and parks/open space/trails plans;
. Placing an annual cap on the number of residential building pennits that are issued;
. Placing a monthly cap on the number of residential building pennits that are issued;
. Placing a limitation on the amount of Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) that is
allocated each year;
. Placing a limitation on the number of new residential lots created each year.
The last approach outlined is one that has been used in the City of Woodbury, and staff conversations
with that City have suggested they have been very satisfied with the approach. The theory underlying p;/J;"
this approach is to control at the front-end supply oflots that are available for development. This has '7
two potential positive impacts. First, it should reduce the demands on both City staff and boards and
commissions during the review and implementation phases of residential plats. Second, it should also
result in a de facto limitation on demands from building permit applications based on the number of
lots that are available in any given year for development.
G:\BOAA-PC\2005\05-19\growth management.doc 1
.
As drafted, the proposed policy would limit the number of new lots that could be created to 600, with
the possible of 60 additional for projects that provide either open space or affordable housing in excess
of what is required by the City. In the last workshop held, staff had also discussed a possibility of
reducing that to about 400 lots per year, but that was not the Council consensus. A key element of the
proposed policy is that the developer would be required to provide a detailed phasing plan~ i.e. the
number oflots to be developed each year until full build-out.
In addition to concerns about the rate of growth in the City, the Council has expressed concerns about
the creativity and quality represented in some developments that have occurred in the City, Part of the
problem seems to be that both the Commissions and Council are often put in the position of trying to
negotiate even minjmal improvements in the required statutory review timeframe. With multiple
complex projects, this can be very difficult. To try to address that, staffhas put together a project-
pointing proposal based on the model developed by the City of Maple Grove. The scoring guide
establishes several categories for which points can be assigned (everything from the types of
architectural elements used in the structures themselves to the orientation of the project to existing or
proposed adjacent developments). When a development application is received, planning staff would
review it against the scoring guide. If the proj ect attains 60% or more of the applicable and possible
points, staff could positively recommend the proj ect and schedule it for review by the City's boards,
commissions. and City Council. If not, the developer would.n.e..e.dJo cnntlnllfUO :work wjtb staff.to ----
improve the project to the point where it achieves the 60% threshold or better.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Recommend to the City Council the proposed Growth Management Policy and Residential
Projects Scoring Guide as presented.
2. Recommend to the City Council the proposed Growth Management Policy and Residential
Projects Scoring Guide with revisions.
3. Recommend to the City Council denial of the proposed Growth Management Policy and
Residential Projects Scoring Guide.
4. Continue the public hearing for additional information.
5. Close the public hearing, but table the item for additional information
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staffhas distributed the proposals to several developers who have been active in the City in recent
years, and thus expects there may be substantial comment. For that reason, staff expects that a
continuance or tabling may end up being the appropriate action.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Take action consistent with the Commission's desires after receiving public testimony on the proposed
Growth Management Policy and Residential Projects Scoring ~ . ,.
. ..~~~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
G:\BOAA-PC\2005\05-19\growth management.doc 2
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Shakopee Planning Commission
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Shakopee Department Heads
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Council Workshop on Growth Management
:MEETING DATE: April 12, 2005
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this workshop is to follow up on the direction previously provided by the
Council. Specifically, accompanying this memorandum are drafts of 1) a growth
management policy in resolution format, and 2) a project-pointing proposal. In addition,
M___" . -this-meme-attempt-s-te4rigb:l:i.ght-th-e-nutlWf-e:w;--and-oomp-lex-Ielated-deG-isie11S-tJaat-the... .....
Council is faced with.
. At the conclusion of the workshop, staffhopes to receive specific direction whether or not to.
implement the attached proposals, as well as regarding the other issues addressed in this
memorandum.
DISCUSSION:
Looming Growth Management Issues:
MUSA ALLOCATION:
In 2002 the Metropolitan Council gave the City of Shakopee a "ten-year" MUSA allocation
of2180 acres. As of January 1, 2005, Council had allocated a totalof713 acres of MUS A
leaving a balance of 1,467 acres of MUS A available. At its April 5th meeting, the Council
asked the author about the number of acres of MUS A allocated so far in 2005. At the time I
mistakenly thought that MUSA was allocated for the high school site and ten acres of the
Countryside project in 2004. In fact, those allocations were made earlier this year. Thus, to
date in 2005 the Council has approved the allocation of MUS A to 167 acres in total. The
majority of this is for the high school site (about 99 acres). Thus, as of this date about 1,300
acres of MUS A allocation remains.
There are currently a number of pending applications for MUSA. These include the
1
following properties;
Shutrop North 38 acres
Shutrop South 134.35 acres
Marystown LLC (CR 15 ) 27.2 acres
Total Pending 199.55 acres
Were the Council to approve these pending applications, the MUSA allocated in 2005
would total almost 367 acres. Discounting the high school site, MUSA allocations for
residential purposes would be 268 acres, which could result in about 804 residential lots.
Through the course of the Council's discussions to date, it is clear that the Council wishes to
focus allocation to those areas that have been mapped as being within the Phasel MUSA
allocation areas. Thus, in recent decisions regarding the ACC proposal south of CR 78, the
Council did not approve MUSA for land in the Phase II area, while on April 5th it did .
approve MUSA for the Liesener and Pavek Family fuvestments property.
It also seems clear that there is a relationship between the number of lots being platted per
year (which the Council has directed should be limited) and the amount of new MUSA
------------al1ocaterteach year. For example, using an average residentlalaensity of3":Dl1'We11llig -'--.-
units/acre, the extension of MUS A to about 220 acres per year (or about 1/lOth of the
allocation granted by the Metropolitan Council in 2002) will result in the creation of about
660 lots.
While it is clear that the Council wishes to limit the rate of development, and by
extension the allocation of MUS A, it also must be noted that there are other issues and
factors that the Council may consider in determining whether to extend MUSA. The
challenge is to balance these factors, and provide clear direction to both the development
community and city staff about which balance the Council wishes to strike.
For example, the mapping of developable parcels that will be availabie at the workshop,
demonstrates that there are basically two areas of concentration of developable parcels
within the current city limits. The first is south of CR 16, between Pike Lake Trail and
McKenna Road, The second concentration is south of Valley View Road between CRs
83 and 17. The third potential area for expansion in the future is in the townships. Each
of these areas presents different challenges and issues.
East MUSA Expansion Area:
The Council has already expressed a desire to see development occur where it can make
use of existing infrastructure investments. The eastern area is one that presents that
opportunity, in that sewer capacity is available to the area via the Prior Lake futerceptor.
It is not without challenges, however, including;
. A lack of decision yet to proceed with the construction of CR 21;
2
. The need to coordinate or accommodate planning for 8tooo water management
with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) which owns several
hundred acres of land to the west;
. The need to plan and construct additional roadways to serve the area.
South MUSA Expansion Area:
In order for this area to develop, sanitary sewer service must be extended along CR 83 to
about Valley View Road. It was hoped that discussions between Ames and Centex (park
Meadows East) would result in a cost sharing agreement that would result in that sewer
being extended. However, Ames has now sold its 40-acre site the SMSC, and Centex has
pulled out of the deal to develop Park Meadows East. Another developer, Pulte, is
interested in stepping into Centex's shoes, and contribute to the extension of sewer.
However, it seems apparent that for Park Meadows East and the areas south of V alley
View Road to be developable will require that the CitY make a decision to invest in, and
get, the sewer extended. Attached for the Council's information is a draft of a proposed
action from Gonyea Land/Pulte that relates to this sewer issue.
The Township Area:
..-.... .- -_.-- ...---.---.----.
While the potential area available in the townships for sewered development into the
distant future is about 9,000 acres, sewer capacity is not yet available to serve all of that
area. The City is entitled under the agreement with the Metropolitan. Council to sewer
capacity sufficient to serve only between 800 and 1600 acres. The City has already
extended MUSA to about 277 acres (the high school and Countryside sites). Staffhas
met with representatives of Ryan Contracting and D.R. Horton Homes, which together
are developing plans for a project covering about 320 acres on the west side of
Marystown Road/CR 15.
Environmental Review:
There has been discussion at the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) and with city
staff about whether there would be benefit in conducting an Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) for the eastern area of the City. There are, of course, a number of
outstanding issues in this area of the City, including but not limited to;
. CR 21;
. Greenway corridor identification and preservation;
. Prior Lake outlet channel improvements;
. Woodland management, preservation, or replacement;
. Coordination or accommodation with SMSC planning.
Such a review may help to provide a framework for decisions regarding these issues, The
process does, however, take a significant amount oftime and cost a significant amount of
money to conduct. Generally speaking, staffhas not received a positive reaction to the
3
concept when it has been shared with those developers that currently have identified
interests in this area of the city. Such a study is not ftmded in the 2005 City budget.
ACTIONS REQUESTED:
'.. . . .'
In short, Council is asked for decisions/direction regarding the following;
. Does the Council wish to hold fast to the principle of limiting the extension of
MUS A, and by extension the platting oflots, to about 220 new acres per year (about
620 new lots per year)? In the alternative, does the Council feel that there are other,
overriding public policy issues related to either the east or south MUSA expansion
area that it believes should potentially allow for the extension of greater than 220
acres of MUS A per year in these areas?
. Does the Council wish to invest in the extension of sanitary sewer along CR 83 at
this time to serve the south MUSA expansion areas?
. Does the Council wish to pursue an AUAR for the East MUSA expansion area?
In addition, the Council is asked to provide specific direction to staff regarding whether to
---_.._- proceed with dissemination of the attached growth management policy and project-pointing
proposal for comment and eventual adoption by the Council
Independent of the requested actions/direction from Council, planning staff will move
foiward to do the following;
. Include in any future report to the Planning Commission and City Council, a
summary of the MUSA allocation and lots platted year-to-date to assist them in
evaluating requests for MUSA allocation;
. Require from applicants a specific development staging plan, so that staff, the
Commission, and the Council can better evaluate whether or not a request for
MUSA allocation should be granted.
~~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
4
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
. Growth Management" Policy
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
2005
WHEREAS, as new areas for development opened up from 1998 through 2005, the
City of Shakopee experienced very high growth rates for each of those years; and
WHEREAS, such elevated growth rates require additional expenditures for staff,
equipment, and other support that have a significant impact on the City's budget and
overall fiscal situation; and
WHEREAS, dealing with such elevated growth rates impairs the ability of the City
and its staff to address other issues that are important to the health, safety, and welfare of
its citizens; business owners, and residents; and
WHEREAS, the city's Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted by the City Council in
2004, seeks to limit future growth in those areas identified as Phase I areas for
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) extension; and
---.--.- WH..KRKAS, the CIty CouncIl Wishes to limIt the number oflots aVailable per year
for new housing to an average of 600 lots per year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the policy noted above applies to
the Phase I expansion area. The policy contained in this resolution does not apply to
properties that are already within the MUSA on the date of adoption of this resolution, as
such properties may already have been assessed for public improvements or been granted
preliminary or final plat approvals, and thus have the legal right to proceed with
development.
WHEREAS, the public welfare'requires the establishment of a Growth Management
Policy and allocation system in order to I) prevent unplanned growth; 2) to encourage
development whiyh accomplishes the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Shakopee; and 3) which accommodates growth within the limitations of current city
fiscal and personnel resources; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Plan provides for a phased
MUSA allocation plan as a means of implementing the plan; and,
WHEREAS, a phased allocation of development promotes a rate of growth
consistent with the policies ofthe Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a phased allocation also promotes contiguous rational development and
the orderly provision of infrastructure to developing areas within the city; and,
WHEREAS, unplanneq. growth that is unrelated to community needs and capabilities
damages the public health, safety and welfare, and violates the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, for the purpose of implementing the land use and MUSA
staging components of the Comprehensive PIau, the City Council of the City of Shakopee
does hereby adopt the following:
1
DRAFT
SECTION 1: Purposes of Growth Management Policy
The Shakopee City Council finds and determines:
A. The city has adopted a Comprehensive Plan that has as one of its primary goals
that;
"Promote development that generally occurs adjacent to existing development,
can be readily served by urban services, and uses . land efficiently." (1999
Comprehensive Plan Update, Goal 2)
B. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new areas to be added to MUSA where
1. ". . . utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or
extended, "
2. ".. .timed to enhance the City's abilities to plan for, develop, and/or
acquire new utilities and community facilities.. .,"
3. "...to serve the community as a whole," and
4. "preserves Shakopee's natural resources."
C. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls fo~ the__~~velo1?~ent of"d~~_i!~ble ~~L______._._____________
- ..___n____. ----livable neighborhoods:,"' whicJi-mcludes the improvement of the appearance of
neighborhoods and important corridors in the City.
D. 1nadequately planned, speculative residential development has sometimes created,
and may create or aggravate, the folloWing conditionS: .
1. Wasteful construction of public facilities;
2. Overburdened municipal services and utilities;
3. Decreasing availability oflow-and-moderate-cost housing to serve the r
needs of the elderly and persons oflow and moderate incomes;
4. Premature and inefficient commitment of undeveloped lands to
urbanization; and,
5. Environmentally detrimental development patterns.
6. Developments that do not obtain the site planning and appearance
standards the City is striving to achieve.
E. By themselves alone, the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances (City Code
Chapters 11 and 12) cannot provide the comprehensive development review
procedures that will insure the high level of environmental protection, sequential
and orderly development, and achievement of other goals set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan.
F. The public welfare requires the establishment of a Growth Management Policy.
The city hereby establishes an initia~~~M~Jii~.WI:b.;~lIJ'!I.P~ogram for development
within the City of Shakopee in order to accomplish the following goals:
1. Prevent premature development in the absence of necessary utilities and
municipal services;
2. Coordinate city planning and land regulation in a manner consistent with
the land use plan;
3. Implement the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan;
2
DRAFT
4. Prevent unplanned growth which has no relationship to community needs
and capabilities; and,
5. Encourage developers to dedicate additional public open space.
SECTION2: Phasing Plan
A. The City's Comprehensive Plan Update includes a staging plan to show where
development in the city will be phased over the next 20 years. The phasing plan
was developed to accommodate an average of approximately 600 housing units
(approximately 200 acres) per year in each MUSA Phasing Area in order to help
the city manage its growth. This policy establishes the phasing plan for Phase 1
of the overall staging plan that the city has set forth in the Comprehensive Plan
and Comprehensive Plan Update.
B. A five-year Growth Management System is hereby adopted as Phase 1 of the
city's MUSA Staging Plan, which distributes the platting oflots among the major
properties/landowners/developers set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
C. As set forth in Exhibit A, the Phase I MUSA expansion areas will be developed at
a rate that will average 600 dwelling units per year.
,- ------ ----'-'1):-Every""applicatioiiTor-iCpienmmaiy pIafoiPUDTor-anyparfoI the jJfOperty -s-ef------ -- ---.- ---- ---- .
forth in Exhibit A shall include a phasing plan that complies with the five-year
phased allocation plan set forth in Exhibit A.
E. As part of each preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) approval
process, a development-phasing plan shall be approved by the City Council for
each of the tracts of land set forth on Exhibit A. Preliminary plats and PUDs shall
be reviewed and approved only in accordance with the development schedule set
forth in Exhibit A.
F. The number oflots created through the platting process in a given year shall be
controlled through the extension of utilities and subsequent assessment of costs to
benefited properties.
G. The developer/landowner shall have the right to accrue lots/units, such that they
may forgo platting lots in one year in order to plat more lots in a subsequent year.
However, at such time that tbis policy is reviewed or revised in the future, the city
reserves the right to re-allocate lots/units that are not approved for development.
H. This policy does not allow for the outright transfer or sale of the allocation of
units between developers/landowners, However, through a Planned Unit
Development, the city may allow lots/units from one tract of property to be
transferred to another, ifit promotes the goals outlined in the purpose statement of
this policy.
SECTION 3: Exceptions
3
DRAFT
A. This Growth Management Policy shall only apply to properties in the Phase I
MUSA allocation area, as set forth on Exhibit A through the year 2009.
B. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to property located within the
2002 MUSA line. These properties may already have been assessed for public
utilities, and/or do not require the ext~nsion ofmunicipal utilities to develop.
C. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to property located in the
Agricultural Preservation (AG) or Rural Residential (RR)-zoned areas of the city,
or to plats or PUDs that are proposed consistent with the zoning requirements of
those districts.
D. The Growth Management Policy will not apply to parcels that are 1) parcels of
record as ofthe date of the adoption of this policy, and 2) that are less than 20
acres in size (even if such a parcel is purchased or owned by a developer or land
owner set forth in Exhibit A, their successors, or assigns). The purpose of this
exemption is to encourage the incorporation of smaller parcels into larger
development plans to provide for more continuity of design and neighborhood
compatibility. The City Council also recognizes the adverse affects that the
inclusion of smaller parcels in the allocation process would have on the current
owners of those parcels. The density and allocations assigned to the exception
parcels of less than 20 acres can be used anywhere within the adj acent
...-....--....-. ..~ "----a.evelopment of which It becomes a part.
E. In order to implement the city's greenway corridor and open space goals, in areas
guided for single-family use, if the amount of open space dedicated as part of a
PUD is more than fifteen percent but up to twenty percent, the project shall be
eligible for a bonus of five percent of the total proposed lots. If the amount of
open space dedicated as a part of a PUD exceeds twenty percent, the project shall
be eligible for a bonus of up to ten percent of the total proposed lots.
Areas proposed to be dedicated to open space must be consistent with the city's
Comprehensive Plan provisions for greenway opportunities, park plans, etc., or
must be adj acent to or provide an enhancement to existing park facilities.
Property dedicated must be useable upland (not wetlands, ponds or utility
easements, etc.), The City Council will retain the discretionary right to determine
whether or not it will accept the property proposed to be dedicated for open space
or greenway corridors.
Additional units allowed pursuant to this exception shall be divided equally over
the entire five-year phasing plan so that an additional allocation will be made for
each year of the phase.
F. In order to implement the city's goal of providing affordable housing meeting
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency/Metropolitan Council standards for
affordability within the City, bonus lots or units may be approved for a PUD
subject to the following schedule;
A. In projects where at least two percent of the units are planned to be
affordable, the project will be eligible for a bonus of up to three percent of
the planned lots and/or units.
4
., DRAFT
In projects where between five and ten percent ofthe units are planned to be
affordable, the project will be eligible for a bonus of up to ten percent of the
planned lots andlor units.
G. In order to maintain the spirit and intent of this growth management policy, the
.' . number of bonus units allowed to be platted in a given year, due to the inclusion
or the dedication of green space or affordable housing, shall not exceed 10.0
percent of the total units allocated for that year, as set forth in Exhibit A. These
bonus units shall be awarded in the development agreement for each development
as it is approved, until such time that the cap for that particular year is reached.
SECTION 4: Review of Policy
A. The city Staff shall prepare an annual report for the City Council detailing the
number of lots actually platted and built on each year in Phase 1.
B. The City Council shall review this policy by January 17, 2006 to determine
whether it is managing the growth of the city as intended by the City Council,
whether there have been unintended consequences, and whether this policy should
be revised. The city reserves the right to amend Exhibit A and re-allocate units
"_'M~_.""""",, that nave not been approved oYffie CIty CouncIl as part of a plat or PUD. . -....
EXHIBIT A
Estimated Allocation of Lots in Phase 1
- - l2oo5112oo6_~2007JI~~~D Total
Development
Countryside ~I 2021l 200JOODL 437
ACC 101 35~ ~IOOD 8~
Park Meadows East l_ 101~02J02J0 __92
Ridgeline Bluffs - OOQ]I 3_~)l. 50L_ 5010 200:
~ Riverside Bluffs O~~Q3JDO 101i
College City Homes 171 17L 171000 51,
Shutrop North OQ][EJOOOD 42
Shutro~ S?uth . o 50[~~~0 209:
Marystown L.L.C. o 28~ 281L ~OD 841
- .-
Ryan ContractingID.R. Horton .21 2JDDDD ?
~
Subtotal C@I 476L 46111 18zj[2Q] 1,296,
, ,
Total ~lowed I 60011 600L?OOl'- 60~L600J 3,000,
~~rBOnUSAllocationfor1heYear(10 ~ 6j 60'- 60m 300;
To!al with Bonus Units _ ~~~l 6?oll 6601L 6601'- 6~D 3,300:
5
DRAFT
*These numbers are estimates, based on the gross acreage of property or plans/plats
currently under review. The numbers will be refined during the preliminary plat and
planned unit development process, once detailed property infonnation (wetland
delineation, rights-ofway, etc.) can be obtained.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
held this _ day of . 2005.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
,
6
.
.
City of Shakopee
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
SCORING GUIDE
Draft, March 28, 2005
Revised April 27, 2005
_._-
G:\CompPlan02\Growthpointsystemdoc 1
",'
Policy Statement:
The City of Shakopee, by its City Cauncil, has determined that it is nat only impartant to
regulate the amount and the types of new residential development that occur in the
cammunity, but to alSo. provide a means by which to insure that the quality of design of
new residential developments in the City is afthe highest caliber possible.
Toward that end, the Shakopee City Council has endorsed the use afthis Residential
Project Scoring Guide (Scoring Guide) by city staff prior to farmal consideration of any
proposal far a new residential development by the City Council, or any of its advisory
baards and commissions.
Process:
In order to make sure that this process achieves its intended purpose, the following
criteria must be adhered to;
1. All applicants are responsible for providing complete information as part aftheir
.. .~ppliQatiQ;lJ,(s.)Sl,!,fficientJQ.allpw city.staffto.adequately evaluate.their.propasals . ... ..
against this guide.
2. If an applicant(s) feels that criteria may not be applicable to his/her project, the
applicant is responsibl~ for; .
a. Identifying the criteria believed to be inapplicable; and
b, Providing a written explanation for their beliefthat the criteria are not
applicable
3. In order far city staff to. consider making a recammendation for approval, the
project must receive at least 60% ofthe applicable and possible points. The
number of applicable and passible points may be different from project to project.
Project Scoring:
Prajects are scored an a number of criteria within the fallowing three categaries;
. The scale afthe project relative to the community generally (Community Scale);
. The scale ofthe project ana neighborhood level (Neighborhaod Scale);
. The design and scale of the residential themselves units in the project (Unit
Scale).
The maximum possible score is 440 points. Thus, in the case of a project that is eligible
for the maximum possible score in arder for city staffto consider a making a positive
recammendation, a score of 264 points would be required.
G:\CompPlan02\Growthpointsystem.doc 2
.....
.
Community Scale Criteria: 70 possible points
1) Land Use - The term "land use" refers to the relationship between land uses
and land forms in a proposed project and the surrounding land uses and land forms.
(a) Placement of uses and how they integrate with adjacent uses ..
25 points maximum
. 5 points will be awarded for locating private parks, open space, conservation
areas, and similar areas adjacent to existing or planned private parks, open
space, conservation areas, and similar areas, where there is a choice to locate
such areas in a different location.
. 10 points will be awarded ifthere are no restrictions on public access for
private parks, open space, conservation areas, and similar areas.
. 5points will be awarded if the project includes physical linkages (such as
trails and sidewalks) to public and quasi-public uses (e.g. schools, churches)
. 5 points will be awarded for projects that link to adjacent existing or planned
, developments.
(b) Senior Units - 1 point per senior unit - 25 points maximum
. . .~..._ ,...__...... ....__ n. ..... _ . ... ...... __ ....... h _ ._...._... ." .......... ._.~..:. ...... ,_"""".._. ._. ... ...... _.. .........".._..........._........_.......... .. ..... ...
(c) Collaboration with adjoining land owners - 10 points maximum
Projects will be awarded points for collaboration if the project application
demonstrates that the project plan has been developed with adjacent property
owners to create a more unified plan of development for the properties.
(d) Neighborhood scale commercial and office uses - 10 points maximum
(Bonus category)
Up to 10 points will be awarded for projects that incorporate small scale
. commercial/office uses.
G:\CompPlan02\Growthpointsystem.doc 3
Neighborhood Scale Criteria: 280 possible points
A. Neighborhood Scale - refers to the organization and arrangement of uses,
physical elements, and natural features within the project.
a. Identifiable neighborhood focal points (egs. Schools, parks, open space, historic
structures such as bams and granaries, monuments, gardens);
. Percentage of units within Y4 mile of an identifiable neighborhood focal point
divided by 2 - 50 points maximum
b. Distribution of Attached Units;
. - 20 points maximum
c. Creation of open space - arrangement of structures is used to create
useable open space accessible to the public - 40 points maximum
d. Vehicular access from the rear or below grade - 5 points maximum
e. Three or more styles of structure where attached housing is included in the.
project - .5 points maximum
f. Six or more styles of structure where detached housing is included in the
project - 10 points maximum
----- g;-A-tta-clred-units-are-n-o t v i.sible from arteriallmrdways -
5 points maximum
h. Landscaping to buffer homes from arterial and collector roads -
10 points maximum
i. Interior perimeter roads are not parallel to arterial or collector roadways
- 5 points maximum
J. Home fronts face arterial or collector roadways - 10 points maximum
k. Grid or modified grid street pattern - 5 points maximum
I. Internal trail connections - 10 points maximum
m. Sidewalks provided on both sides of the street - 5 points maximum
n. CuI de sacs are open-ended (i.e. pedestrian and bicycle connections are provided
~ to arterial and collector roadways - 5 points maximum
o. Park dedication is in strict conformance with the Parks and Open Space Plan
and park dedication provisions of the subdivision ordinance (City Code
Chapter 12) - 40 points maximum
. 25 points if neighborhood park(s) and/or equivalent cash dedication is
provided;
. 10 points iftrailways or greenways are included in the project;
. 5 points ifpark and trailway elements are connected to adjacent
developments and/or their park andtrail elements.
p. Open spaces (e.g. public or private parks, trails, wetlands, ponding areas and
associated green areas) are connected with green way corridors
10 points maximum
q. Tree Preservation - Used to encourage preservation of existing
woodlands rather than replacement, or to encourage replacement at a rate greater
than required by City Code - 10 points maximum
G: \CompPlan02\Growthpointsystemdoc 4
r. Natural features are retained (egs. Creeks, ravines, bluffs, hilltops, woodlands);
10 points maximum
s. Wetlands are retained and/or enhanced, not mitigated (% of wetland area
undisturbed divided by 10); - 10 points maximum
t. Internal landscaping that exceeds City Code requirements by more than 1
percent - 1 point for each percentage above 101 % of ordinance
requirements - 5 points maximum
u. Restoration of woodlands, prairies, wetlands, or other natural features, or
the use of native plantings in landscaping;- 5 points maximum
v. Environmental protection exceeding ordinance requirements -
The project provides environmental protections that are either not required (up to
5 points) under the City Code or which exceed City Code requirements (up to 5
points) - 10 points maximum
n_"'" .....___.______ --_._..~------- _....
G:\CompPlan02\Growthpointsystemdoc 5
Unit Scale Criteria - 90 Possible Points
1. Guarantee that models will not be repeated within "X" lots of each other;
a. 110t between the same model - 2 points
b. 2 lots between the same model - 4 points
c. 3 lots between the same model - 6 points
d. 4 lots between the same model - 8 points
e. 5 lots between the same model - 10 points
f. 6 lots between the same model - 20 points
2. Creation of a pattern book that provides detailed descriptions and depictions of
the organization of the neighborhood, unit architecture and materials,
landscaping, or other proposed improvements 20 points (if provided)
3. Architectural Elements:
a. Front porches provided that front on either a street or green space
outside the entry area - Points equal Percentage of Units --
_''''''M" le.g. HJO%-;SO%]li11lie neIghborhood WIth porches diVided by 5 -
20 points maximum
b. Garages set back at least as far as the front face of the structure, or side-
loaded.
Points equal Percentage of Units in the neighborhood meeting criteria divided
by5 20 points maximum
c) Use of brick, stone, or stucco.
Points equal Percentage of Units in the neighborhood utilizing materials
divided by 10 10 points maximum
G:\CompPlan02\Growthpointsystemdoc 6
ld.l.. Z.
MUSA
Phases
MUSAPHASE
I I I
IT
m
N
City Boundary
Mdewakanton. Sioux
I I I I I I Current MUSA
PRIOR LAKE ....
City of Shakopee
Comprehensive Plan
Phased Expansion of
City of Shakopee
Metropolitan Urban ~
Service Area's (MUSA)
SHAKOPEE
COMMuN1YI'ImJESlNcElS
M:\GISIMAPS\MiscProjects\MUSA Phases.mxd
08/03/2005 15:43 FAX 9522266024 RYLAND HOMES ~002
/0. Cy c2
RYLAND y
-
The Ryland Group, Inc.
i'000 CX'>rlllive I)l'ive
EctM r>'olrie, MN $5J~A
August 3, 2005 c.:onrrQclO'G lie II 2003S4.fj
WWw ..ylonr;! com
Michael Leek
Community Development Director
Shakopee City Hall
129 Homes Street South
Shakopee. MN 55379-1328
RE: Riverside Bluffs
Residential Growth Policy
Dear Mr. Leek
We are in receipt of the Draft Resolution for Residential Growth Policy for the City of Shako pee. As
you know we have been working with the City on the preliminary plat approval for Riverside Bluffs
since last October when we met with you and the property owners infonnaI1y on the project. Since
then we have made a preliminary plat submission in January of 2005 and have been working with the
City Advisory Boards and the City Council on the design and layout of the development. This
included design of the greenway corridor. stream channel design, neighborhood park location, site
circulation and grading. These subdivision design elements were carefully planned, working in
cooperation with staff and the Advisory Committees.
When we contemplated Riverside Bluffs we anticipated platting the project and starting construction
of site work and utilities in the summer of 2005. We have successfully addressed the unique design
considerations ofthis project, and we have afforded the City and staff adequate time to address the
issues that are important to the health, safety and welfare of the City residents. For this reason we do
not believe we should be su~jeot to the growth management requirements contemplated by the City
Council. If Riverside Bluffs is required to participate in the Growth Management Policy we would
request that Exhibit A be modified to allow platting of 2S lots in 2005 and the remaining 76 lots in
2006. This would allow Riverside Bluffs to move forward as previously contemplated yet is still
within the growth management goals outlined in Exhibit A
7S.~'~fl;.
Brian Sullivan
Land Resources
Ryland Home.
CC: Mark MoNeill