HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.B.1. Draft Resolution Approving a Residential Growth Policy for the City of Shakopee-Res. No. 6279
CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1s'8.J.
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 05-053
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, eommunity Development Director
SUBJECT: Draft Resolution Approving a Residential Growth Policy for the City of
Shakopee
MEETING DATE: August 18, 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 eommission 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. Based on
direction from City Council on August 3, 2005, a number of changes have been made in the draft.
Attached for Council's review is both an edited version, and a cleaned up version with the edits included.
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 POLIey, with revisions.
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.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 6279, A RESOLUTION OF THE eITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA ADOPTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, as presented or with revisions.
4~~~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
1
RESOLUTION NO. 6279
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ADOPTING A
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, as new areas for development opened up in the City of Shakopee and
adjacent Jackson Township from 1998 through 2005, the City of Shakopee has
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 has a significant
impact on the City's budget and overall fiscal situation; and
WHEREAS, dealing with such high rates of residential growth impairs the ability of
the eity and its staff to adequately address other issues that are or may be important to
the health, safety, and welfare of the City's residents and business owners and other
taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, the city's Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted by the City Council in
2004, seeks to limit sewered residential growth for the short-term to those areas identified
as Phase I areas for Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) extension; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to limit the number of lots and/or residential
units available per year for new housing to an average of 500 lots and/or residential units
per year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the policy noted above is intended
to allow sewered development to occur in the Phase I MUSA expansion area for the five-
year period from 2005 to 2009; and
WHEREAS, sewered residential development may only take place on properties in
the Phase II, III, and IV MUSA expansion areas upon action( s) by the City Council that
incorporate such properties into this policy; and
WHEREAS, this policy does not apply to properties that are already within the
MUSA and which have been granted preliminary plat approval prior to the date of
adoption of this policy.
WHEREAS, the establishment of a Growth Management Policy and allocation
system will provide a public benefit by 1) preventing unplanned growth that may result
in premature investment in the City's infrastructure; 2) encouraging development that
accomplishes the objectives of the eomprehensive Plan of the City of Shako pee; and 3)
insuring that the amount of growth occurring in the eity can adequately be reviewed,
implemented, and served within the limitations of the eity's 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,
H:\eC\2005\08-16\ease Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes rev08082005.doc1 I
NOW, THEREFORE, for the purpose of implementing the land use and MUSA
staging components of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council of the eity 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
eomprehensive 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 of the 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 oflow-and-moderate-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 eity's zoning and subdivision ordinances (City eode
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.
H:\CC\2005\OS-16\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes rev08082005.doc2 2
SECTION 2: Establishment of a Five-Year Phasing Plan for Residential
Development in the City of Shakopee
A. 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;
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 3: 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 500 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 the Phase
1 MUSA Staging Area of the overall staging plan that the city has set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Update. Sewered development in
the Phase II, III, and IV MUSA Staging Areas may be allow once the Shakopee
City Council has incorporated properties in those staging areas into the five-year
phasing plan that is adopted as a part of this policy.
B. A five-year Growth Management System is hereby adopted as Phase 1 of the
city's MUSA Staging Plan, which distributes the platting of lots and/or residential
units. Exhibit A depicts the major properties/landowners/developers of which the
City is aware.at this time, and is attached and made a part hereof.
C. As set forth in Exhibit A, the Phase I MUSA expansion areas will be developed at
a rate of 500 dwelling units per year. The City Council may, at its discretion
modify the phasing plan to 1) redistribute the allocations contained therein, 2)
allow additional allocations upon a finding that there is significant public benefit
to be obtained by making additional allocations.
D. Every application for a preliminary plat, PUD, or CUP for any part of the
properties 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, planned unit development (PUD), and CUP
approval process, a development-phasing plan shall be approved by the eity
Council at the time of preliminary plat approval. The development phasing plan
for the developments of which the City is aware is set forth on Exhibit A attached
hereto. Preliminary plats, PUDs, and CUPs shall be reviewed and approved only
in accordance with the development schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
H:\CC\2005\OS-16\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes rev08082005.doc3 3
F. The number of lots 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.
SECTION 3: Exceptions
A. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to properties that have been
granted MUSA and received preliminary plat approval prior to the adoption of
this policy.
B. 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. Such areas are not served by City water and sewer systems, and if
developed in accordance with zoning district limitations, would develop at
relatively low densities that would have minimal impact on the overall rate of
growth of the eity.
c. The Growth Management Policy will not apply to parcels that are 1) parcels of
record as of the 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 of less than 20 acres can be used anywhere within the adjacent
development of which it becomes a part.
D. 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 proj ect 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
H:\CC\2005\08-16\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes rev08082005.doc4 4
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.
E. 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.
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 ofthe
planned lots and/or units.
F. 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 and/or residential units actually created by platting, CUP, or other
mechanism..
B. The City Council shall review the report prepared by City staff and this policy
annually in order to determine whether 1) it is managing the growth of the city as
intended by the City Council, 2) whether there have been unintended
consequences ofthe policy, and 3) whether this policy and the phasing plan
should be revised. The city reserves the right to amend Exhibit A and te-allocate
Units that have not been approved by the City Council as part of a plat or PUD.
H:\eC\2005\08-16\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes rev08082005.doc5 5
C. The eity Council may also review and revise this policy and the phasing plan in
response to an application/petition, or on its own initiative.
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\OS-16\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes revOS082005.doc6 6
EXHIBIT A
Estimated Allocation of Lots in Phase 1
rl~;;;i;;ment' ~~".m.. .m_.._.~....~.ww__.W!I~~~~!I~~~12007 ~1~~o8]l2oo91U 'fwot~i
{= 'DDDDDO
I So~thCo~trysid;w I ~ 4~ w4-i-) ~woj~wollw " 8-1
J wwwwwww ww.w w ww_[~]OQ]O!JOOO
~~ _ _ I 101 35~ 80
Lwwm~~~_ww wmw w _ww w JDDDDDO..
ilRidgeline ~!?!~~ wWww ww ..........JI ~L~50IL~~Jl. 5~1 5010 _ 200
i~y~r~wide Bluffs~: Wwwww ww. J~L.w~?_~.L OILww.QJL...gJO... l.~!..
II.~lacier Estatesw.ww.w.ww~w.ww .JI~w?JLw.~L 0 II ~OO 51
~::::1 (based on ori~nal proPOSal~1 4~lyr ~L_ 4~!C4~~ -2~~'
I -- . - ~ .
11~~~!own L.L.~. _w wwwwwww .... wwJlwwwgllwjDL_~Lw~O ?
IIRyan Contr_acting!D.~. Horton***JOll~gJL!w~gJL 1301L.!~0 490'
I~ubtotal IL1011~1 22611 222]122010 1151
, W""""""'."w..w. w .www._ ~ ....~ . ~ ,
IL.~- Ww_ ....w. .... .. ww.__ _w.w._w..ww........ .w..ww..w_.~_~w____
Il!~!~!~l!~wedw_w JI 5001~g.~11500L~Qgl~g~10},00gw
1~~e:~BonnSAllOCatiOnfOrtheYear(~~ 50L5ol~[3] 250
!I!?tw~! ,,:i!~ Bonus Units w _w IL 5~1 55.Q.11 550J~59Lw?5~10 3,3~9~
*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-of-way, etc.) can be obtained.
** Ryland Homes Inc. has indicated a desire to perhaps plat the entire subdivision in one
phase.
***The project proposer indicates the project would continue to the year 2012, with 130
lots/units in each of those years.
? indicates that estimated numbers were unclear at the time the table was drafted.
H:\CC\2005\08-16\Case Log 05053 GrowthManagementRes rev08082005.doc7 7
Developers . Land Investment . Property Managers
August 8, 2005
Michael Leek
Shakopee Community Planning Director 1ft>
. ..~, .
City of Shakopee . __"tl;i/fl;'lJ ~.:. .
129 S. Holmes St. AVO 0 8 200$
Shakopee, 1m 55379
RE: Countryside and Residential Growth Policy Ordinance
Dear Mr. Leek:
As City staff proceeds with revisions to the draft Residential Growth Policy Ordinance as
directed by the City Council at its August 3rd, 2005 meeting, Tollefson Development, Inc.
respectfully requests that City staff immediately take action to remove references to phasing of
our Countryside development from this new proposed ordinance.
As you are well aware, Countryside received full preliminary plat approval from the City
of Shakopee on February 15th, 2005. In reliance upon the City's preliminary plat approval,
Tollefson has, (i) fully fInanced its development; (ii) entered into noncontingent sales
agreements with builders for virtually all of the lots in the development; and (Hi) entered into
contracts for all development construction required pursuant to approved plans, and is well along
with completion of required subdivision improvements. A signifIcant portion of the
improvements being installed are for the benefIt of the school district, the City of Shakopee, and
Scott County, all pursuant to our Public Improvements Reimbursement Agreement dated May
3rd, 2005.
Phasing the development of Countryside was never proposed by Tollefson Development,
Inc. or the City and was not made a condition of the subdivision approvals which have been
provided to date by the City of Shakopee. Tollefson Development, Inc~ has consulted with
counsel, who has advised that pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. ~462.351, et. seq., and
particularly by virtue of ~462.358, Subd. 3(c), any attempt by the City of Shakopee to impose
phasing requirements with respect to Countryside, after receipt of preliminary approval without
such phasing requirements, is legally impermissible. Indeed, the cited statute specifIcally
provides that unless the City of Shakopee and Tollefson Development, Inc. agree otherwise, no
amendments to municipal "offIcial controls" can apply to or affect our use or development of
Countryside for a period of one year following preliminary approval (and, presuming that
Tollefson solicits fmal plat approval in the near future) for two years following our receipt of
fInal approval. Further, the City may not impose .conditions upon approval of the fInal plat
which were not a part of the preliminary approval.
17271l<enyon Ave., Suite #103 · Lakeville, MN 55044 · Phone (952) 435-1010. FAX (952) 435-1020
Email - info@tdi-mn.com
www.tdi-mn.com
Michael Leek
August 8, 2005
Page 2
By the clear and unambiguous language of the Minnesota Municipal Planning Act, referenced
above, any act by the City to impose a phasing requirement on Countryside is unlawful in the
absence of Tollefson Development's consent, which shall not be forthcoming. Any attempt to
impose a phasing requirement would also be extremely injurious to Tollefson Development's
economic interests, given that Tollefson has already negotiated sale prices for the Countryside
lots and the agreements in place neither allow Tollefson to unilaterally delay sales and
conveyances, nor provide pricing adjustments for any additional carrying costs. Further,
imposition of phasing limitations on Countryside would put Tollefson Development in default
under most, if not all, of its outstanding sales agreements with several' of the most substantial
residential building contractors in the state, which would cause adverse contractual consequences
and have an extremely adverse effect upon our business reputation.
To summarize, please be advised that Tollefson Development hereby objects to the
imposition of any phasing requirements with respect to its preliminarily approved Countryside
development, and hereby serves formal notice that any attempt to subject this subdivision to a
phasing requirement is impermissible under the statute. Unless references to Countryside are
deleted from the proposed ordinance prior to its enactment, we will be forced to take whatever
action is necessary to preserve and protect our vested rights in this project.
Should you or any other representative of the City of Shakopee have any questions
concerning this correspondence feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
p7N~
Gary Wollschlager, Vice President
cc: Mayor John Schmitt - City of Shakopee
City Attorney - James Thompson
City Council Members:
Joseph Helkamp
Terry J oos
Steve Menden
Matt Lehman
Carl Tollefson, President Tollefson Development, Inc.
David Yung, General Counsel