Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.C. Comp Plan Amendment to Reguide Property, Extend MUSA, and Rezone Property-Ord. No. 739-Res. No. 6311 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1~f,0 . Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-095 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential, Extend MUS A, and Rezone Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone MEETING DATE: October 4, 2005 REVIEW PERIOD: July 28 - November 25, 2005 INTRODUCTION: Tollefson Development has made application to re-guide property from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential, and to extend Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to that same property. Additionally, they have requested that the property be rezoned from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2)Zone. The property is located south of County Road 16 and west of Pike Lake Road (Exhibit A). The property is approximately 134 acres in size. . Please find attached to this report a copy of the most recent concept plan for the site and communication from a neighboring property owner (Exhibits B and C). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their September 8, 2005 meeting. The Commission recommended approval of the MUSA extension request and the rezoning of property to Urban Residential (R-IB). (A recommendation on reguiding is not necessary since the recommended rezoning complies with the guiding in place in the draft Comprehensive Plan submittal. ) In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that development of this parcel proceed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planning Commission staff report is attached for the Council's information. Resolution No. 6311, a resolution approving the MUSA extension, and Ordinance No. 739, an ordinance approving the rezoning, based on the Planning Commission's recommendations, are attached for the Council's review and consideration. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the request to extendMUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to medium density residential and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone. 2. Deny the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to medium density residential, and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone. 3. Approve the recommendation to extend MUSA to the subject property, and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone. 4. Deny the recommendation to extend MUSA to the subject property and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone. 5. Direct the applicant that any development proposals should proceed with an application for Planned Unit Development (PUD). 6. Table the matter and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 6311, extending MUSA to the property, to approve Ordinance No. 739, rezoning the property to Urban Residential (R-1B), and directing the applicant that any development proposals should proceed with an application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Alternative Nos. 3 and 5), and move its adoption ~ - jj/~ Jl e Klilna P nner II h: \cc\2005\1 0-04 \cmpplnrezshutropsouth0509 5 .doc RESOLUTION NO. 6311 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO EXTEND MUSA TO PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 16 AND WEST OF PIKE LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, Tollefson Development, applicant, and Shutrop Properties, LLLP, property owners, have requested the guiding of property to medium density residential and the extension of MUS A to the property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: Tract 1: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, south of County Road No. 16, also known as Eagle Creek Boulevard; Tract 2: The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and Government Lot 2, all in Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; and Tract 3: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, north of the centerline of County Road No. 16, also known as Eagle creek Boulevard, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 8, 2005, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on October 4,2005; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above-named request: GOAL #1 Growth and expansion of that portion of Shakopee served by public services shall be controlled and focused to maintain the City's fiscal soundness consistent with other community-wide goals. The City Council has determined that the development of properties in eastern Shako pee that can be served by the Prior Lake Interceptor is important to the City's short and long-term fiscal soundness. GOAL #2 Any future annexation shall be undertaken in an orderly, fiscally sound manner. Property in annexed areas shall be treated fairly relative to taxes and the provision of service. Annexation is not applicable in this case. Policies: a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent with Goal #1 above. The subject property can be added to MUSA because its addition is consistent with Goal No.1. b. Areas to be added to MUSA shall be located where utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or extended. Because of development that is proposed to take place on the north side of CR 16 from CR 18 to Pike Lake Road extended, sanitary sewer and water can efficiently be extended to the subject site. The subject site also provides the opportunity to locate desirable school and transit facilities that are needed by, and would serve the community at large. However, construction of CR 21 is not planned to take place until 2008 or 2009, and the construction corridor for CR 21 is not yet final c. Designation of MUSA areas will be timed to enhance the City's ability to plan for, develop, and/or acquire new utilities and public facilities. Sanitary sewer and water services could be extended as a part of this development. Improvement of Pike Lake Road to serve this development would seem to be desirable, but does not appear to be programmed in the City's current CIP. d. The addition of new MUSA areas shall either be timed to coincide with the availability of utilities and community facilities, or be coordinated with plans to provided utilities and community facilities. Sanitary sewer and water services could be extended as a part of this development. Improvement of Pike Lake Road to serve this development would seem to be desirable, but does not appear to be programmed in the City's current CIP. e. The City will find that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. Because of the uncertainties that still remain regarding the construction ofCR 21, it does not appear that the property's suitability for development is subject to some question. f. Designation of new MUSA areas shall be undertaken to better react to the marketplace and to serve the community as a whole. The plan concept shared by the applicant seems to propose lot sizes, and by extension likely housing values, similar to numerous other developments within the City, rather than the opportunity for lot sizes and housing values not otherwise available in the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by the extension of the MUSA boundary is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota held this day of ,2005. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 739 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) ZONE TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-1B) ZONE WHEREAS, Tollefson Development, applicant, and Shutrop Properties, LLLP, property owners, have requested the rezoning of property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Tract 1: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, south of County Road No. 16, also known as Eagle Creek Boulevard; Tract 2: The Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and Government Lot 2, allin Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; and Tract 3: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, north of the centerline of County Road No. 16, also known as Eagle creek Boulevard, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 8, 2005, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the property be rezoned to Urban Residential (R-1B); and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on October 4,2005; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above-named request: Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error. Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place that mandate the requested zoning classification. Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred in that development of single family residential uses have extended in the vicinity ofthe subject site. Finding #4 The requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that has been adopted by the City Council and submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that tlW request to rezone: the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota held this day of ,2005. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Shakopee - Location Maps 6)( J1\afrrA AG G AG. 0 AG ~ .. _ Subj,ect Property SHAKOPEE ........ Shakopee Boundary COMMUNIT"iPRIDES1Na 1857 S c::J Zoning Boundary c=J Parcel Boundary Rezoning Agricultural (AG) to Medium Density Residential (R2) and Comp Plan Amendent for MUSA Expansion httn. / / cr1 C! 1{)(11 ~ nrp/~h~ lmnee/locati onman/man.asn ?title;:;::Rezoning+Agrll;alltural+%28AG... 08/05/2005 E~4IBlf B .'. \ ..-.....-- '. . I ~ I -- -- ,- I " " .,/'-.... " , -.!... - .....l__~ Commercial Acres - 7.8 acres (2 acres ponding) j Senior Housing Acres 3.32 acres School - 21 acres ) Transit station - 8 acres (280 surface spaces 4 acres of pending - County 21fTransit Station Wetland Credits -~ ~~-----\) I /;I ,'j ./ . ,,,tt~J:_-t-.f I I ~ ~ . ) ~// ( ----- il /~-- __/ ! / -fjTOUYFSON ~. ~ IWVI ._UI'\II':\T I'C - ~t~ 1&11' C, . '" August 30, 2005 . Julie Klima itC1!l~JED 'SE~ 0 1 ZO~ City of Shakopee Planning and Zoning Department 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Proposed Re-Zoning of the property located south of CSAH 16, east of McKenna Road, and west of Pike Lake Road Dear Ms. Klima: I am writing to address the proposed re-zoning of this parcel of land to medium density residential, and would like to say that I am opposed to this application. I reside at 2003 Pike Lake Road, which is immediately across the street from the land under c<?nsideration. There are a series of homes on the east side of Pike Lake Road, including my property, which are zoned Rural Residential, and it is inconsistent to have neighboring property zoned Medium Density residential. Also, the entire area is very open and rural feeling, and it would be unreasonable to add medium density housing to this beautiful, wide open area of Shakopee. Medium Density Residential has a place in the city, but seems most suited as a transition from higher density /commercial areas, rather than being placed in the middle oflow density/rural residential settings. In addition, I also understand that the recently updated Comprehensive Guide Plan for Shakopee calls for this land to be ultimately zoned Low Density Residential (R-1A). As such, this proposal directly conflicts. with the Comprehensive Plan, and would be contrary to all of the work of the Planning Commission and City Council as they thought through the future development of the City. In conclusion, I would ask that staff NOT support this application, and that the Planning Commission reject this as well. Thank you in advance for your consideration. S7jIY, -,.. Nathan Anderson 2003 Pike Lake Road Shakopee, MN 55379 612-889-5797 CITY OF SHAKOPEE ~ Memorandum CASE NO.: 05,.095 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Reguiding of property to from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential; rezone from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2); and Extension of MUS A MEETING DATE: September 8, 2005 REVIEW PERIOD: July 28 - November 25, 2005 INTRODUCTION Tollefson Development has made application for reguiding of property from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential; rezone from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone; and extension of MUS A. The property is located southofCSAH 16, west of Pike Lake Road, and east of McKenna Road (see Exhibit A). The property is approximately 134.35 acres in size. The applicant had previously requested a reguiding and rezoning to single family residential development, however, the applicant requested that the previous application be withdrawn and this application proceed. DISCUSSION The City's 1999 Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for rural residential use. The City Council has approved the Comprehensive Plan Update, which guides this property for single-family residential development, but the Metropolitan Council has not yet approved the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update, and thus the City is not yet authorized to put the update into effect. The subject property is indicated as being in the Phase II MUSA area in the draft Comprehensive Plan Update. The applicant submitted the attached concept (Exhibit B) in connection with the application. There have been discussions between the applicant and ISD 720 regarding the potential of an elementary school site east of the proposed CSAH 21. There have also been discussions between the Scott County, Shakopee, and the applicant regarding the possibility oflocating a park and ride on the portion of the site west of the proposed CSAH 21. Thus, the City's adopted plan and the interests in a school and transit site are not yet in harmony. Staffhas not received any testimony regarding the subject request. Actual development of the site is somewhat complicated by the factthe EIS for future CR 21 is not completed, and thus the actual construction corridor and details are not known at this time. The draft EIS is expected to be released at the end ofthis summer for initial review by agencies, while the EIS is expected to be adopted sometime in the spring of 2006. While the subject property is proposed to be in the Phase II MUSA area, the City does retain the authority to allocate MUS A outside of the Phase I area if the following G9.als and Policies are found to be served by the extension. Failure to comply with all goals and policies shall result in the denial of the request. Staffhas provided draft analysis of these goals to assist the Commission in its discussion. 1 GOAL #1 Growth and expansion of that portion of Shako pee served by public services shall be controlled and focused to maintain the City's fiscal soundness consistent with other community-wide goals. The City Council has determined that the development of properties in eastern Shako pee that can be served by the Prior Lake Interceptor is important to the City's short and long-term fzscal soundness. GOAL #2 Any future annexation shall be undertaken in an orderly, fiscally sound manner. Property in annexed areas shall be treated fairly relative to taxes and the provision of service. Annexation is not applicable in this case. Policies: a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent with Goal #1 above. The subject property can be added to MUSA because its addition is consistent with Goal No.1. b. Areas to be added to MUSA shall be located where utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or extended. Because of development that is proposed to take place on the north side of CR 16 from CR 18 to Pike Lake Road extended, sanitary sewer and water can efficiently be extended to the subject site. The subject site also provides the opportunity to locate desirable school and transit facilities that are needed by, and would serve the community at large. However, construction ofCR 21 is not planned to take place until 2008 or 2009, and the construction corridor for CR 21 is not yet final c. Designation of MUSA areas will be timed to enhance the City's ability to plan for, develop, and/or acquire new utilities and public facilities. Sanitary sewer and water services could be extended as a part of this development. Improvement of Pike Lake Road to serve this development would seem to be desirable, but does not appear to be programmed in the City's current CIP. d. The addition of new MUSA areas shall either be timed to coincide with the availability of utilities and community facilities, or be coordinated with plans to provided utilities and community facilities. Sanitary sewer and water services could be extended as a part of this development. Improvement of Pike Lake Road to serve this development would seem to be desirable, but does not appear to be programmed in the City's current CIP. e. The City will fmd that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. Because of the uncertainties that still remain regarding the construction ofCR 21, it does not appear that the property's suitability for development is subject to some question. f. Designation of new MUSA areas shall be undertaken to better react to the marketplace and to serve the community as a whole. .2 The plan concept shared by the applicant seems to propose lot sizes, and by extension likely housing values, similar to numerous other developments within the City, rather than the opportunityfor lot sizes and housing values not otherwise available in the City. The City's. Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoning is to conform to a city's comprehensive plan. Copies of the land use plans and the Zoning Ordinance are available for viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the July 7,2005, meeting. FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place that mandate the requested zoning classification. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development pattems.have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have not occurred consistent with the applicants request in the direct vicinity of the subject site. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The requested zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan thai has been adopted by the Metropolitan Councilor the Update adopted by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After evaluating the request against the stated criteria for extension of MUSA, reguiding, and rezoning, staff recommends denial of the request. Based on the draft findings found earlier in this report, the Commission and Council could reasonably approve MUSA, however, staff is concerned about doing so, where the zoning request is recommended for denial. 3 ALTERNATIVES 1. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to extend MUS A, reguide from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential, and to rezone the subject site to Medium Density Residential (R2). 2. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to extend MUSA, reguide from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential and to rezone the subject site to Medium Density Residential (R2), subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council. 3. Offer a motion to continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. 4. Close the public hearing, and offer a motion to table and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to extend MUSA, reguide from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential, and to rezone the subject site to Medium Density Residential (R2). j) . J1 . /.,ru,Lr[ lit 11A rL_ Julib Klima PIMner II 4 Shakopee - Location Maps . J:.YJlI S l,;'aAof1 AG [ G AG. 0 I AG ~ N _ Subject Property . SHAKOPEE ...... Shakopee Boundary COMMUNITYPRtDESlNCE 1857 S [==:J Zoning Boundary c::=J Parcel Boundary Rezoning Agricultural (AG) to Medium Density Residential (fl2) and Camp Plan Amendent for MUSA Expansion . ,. ... . ., . .. " -'"l' .,...., . ~ __ 1. 1 . n f.....n .l"" ^n '^'" ,^^",.. e,X.H 113 rr 13 ! .' ".'...J i'...> u......\ .. .........._....~...... -, (', ......,.......-.:::. \,"~., .::;\) ., ""...~..."" .... }~~~- w_ - ..;;; 1 t. 'J' ....~ .. , , ~<:";... I(jl " " ! ,. , ~ ' .... .,.. r I ' 1'.... .,.,' _/, :/' :,Y, r\~:/~:. .., >..........~......_... Row Town Homes. 162 units , / ::;::::;;:(~~: Quads - 64 units 60 Ft Alley Homes - 78 lots 70 Ft Single Family - 37 lots ..... Total Units = 341 total units (net density 5,6 unlts/acre) :;. .) i Commercial Acres - 7,8 acres (2 acres pondlng) f. Senior Housing Acres 3.32 acres .... } School - 21 acres Transit station - 8 acres (280 surface spaces) 1 <:,.r,::-'--) "" ..................... ...... , , .,J :::. .C. .::<, ::;>r "'.' "n'.' ...... .' .. /".... t ........ / " ./ , ,," ,", /"/.... .'1:. ..... ( , f r \' 1 ... . _ ~ ,J ( ~/.-.::--:~~><~-~~~~~~l ' ".:1..: \ . ,. '> ' 'hl~ \ ' -. .' ""-0- "J '--. --'-.~. . W . .. ilT \--- _n_~_._n_r::t= ,,_. : ' . ......... ,.... v \ . / ' ;:WI 'TO (J FFSON '., & t . ,.;:)Jii QJ .,-_.~.'-."-:,.""'-_!~,..-"-"_.. J ~ l . /<.,~.>:--':.~- :.~ .< . ):.:li' 0J l'l:V!:.1.(il'fYH:i,TJ\;(' ..,!, .---------- ----_._~---.-^-_._.- -----~~-~- --_.---.-.----._- -~~~-- ---_._---_._-~-----~-~---,.- _.__._---~- 1'1. C ~ ... rt \: ,_...._____.r-......, L jl~ '...:~~.~: ~ '_.... '5 ~. __A... " r ..... . "" " ~ hS-'" ".... .....-.., ..~.~ .............. -c. '~ " _ ~, ~ ......~ -.. ~..." , ......... ~~."'- ~.. ...... ----...... "'" ......, I, ! 1 ~ ....~.::..~ ~ -'"<~~..~ -"'" --',- 11 '. --. '- .... - '. .. ----... ~ .....~.~_ __ ....,.""" ...,. 'W. ~~. "'""........ ~.~ '" -~_... "- -'--- ~~.>~~::~-_.:-~~~~~i~:~~ . . '. '., .- ,...... ....... ';. . ~. " ,. . ".". -, ". " - "- '.. ---.... '., '. '" ... '-... . " '" . '. '" , ~- \ II ..- '" .... ...... " " .., ".._ ',. .". _'.. . 'J~ -) ..... ~.. ". _. .~. ._ ~ v ._'" ~.\ -,"",-":"-~r'.~ '~-. -. -' Development Summary --- ~ ",,,,'" oI;?~.,.- '. .-.-_.4... . . f .,/ . /". ~._-_/ Row Town Homes - 162 units ) ('-"-~" -,- ....,.. _..-.- ./ ,. , Quads - 64 units' " ,/ T ". 60 Ft Alley Homes - 78 lots ! ...... '" - ~,~ .... -- -- , /" ;.. .,r-..., / - 70 Ft Single Family - 37 lots ....~--.- ('.) .-!~-"./;< Total Units = 341 total units (net density 5.6 units/acre) I J . r ( Commercial Acres - 7.8 acres (2 acres ponding) Senior Housing Acres 3.32 acres School - 21 acres Transit station - 8 acres (280 surface spaces) ..- /' ...-""""'-----'..., ~"'-.~ j 4 acres of ponding - County 21/Transit Station ~ ~--------- Wetland Credits ~ ~ /; /i t! I li~~. /' i f~} 1 \ 1 : J \ l . \ .> '( I \ \:>1 \ W --r=--\"~--l~'u_u~=-_u_---~.~ --. \ , :-I; ncl TOLLEFSON C~~~-.~ I;'! ~.--------~ LJJo, III VI'LOPME~T 1',(, ! / ____-../ .~~-- _~~_+__.___,__._._. "____n_________. _._._._._-~.- .--