HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.A. Comp Plan Amendment, MUSA Extension and Rezoning Request -Res. No. 6322-Ord. No. 739
CITY OF SHAKOPEE /1. A.
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 MUSA, and Rezone
Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density
Residential (R2) Zone
MEETING DATE: November 1, 2005
REVIEW PERIOD: July 28 - November 25, 2005
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council reviewed this issue at is October 4 meeting and requested that additional
information be provided regarding:
1. MUSA allocation for 2005;
2. An update on ISD 720's preferred alternative(s);
3. An update on Shakopee Public Utility (SPUC) concerns and costs; and
4. Revisions to the MUSA staging plans.
Please find attached to this report a memo to R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director,
outlining the MUSA allocations for 2005. In short, the City has allocated 222.28 acres of MUS A in
2005.
Regarding ISD 720's preferred elementary school sites, since October 4th City staff, as well as
SPUC staff, have continued to meet and work with District staffto give the District the information
it needs to make its ultimate decision(s) on school sites. Staff understands that SPUC's
infrastructure costs to serve the subject site would be in the area of one million dollars.
Regarding revisions to the City's MUSA staging plans, because of other looming issues, planning
staffhas not been able to spend much time on these since October 4th, and thus, does not at this
point have anything new to report relative to the subject site.
DISCUSSION
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 arid 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 ofthis parcel proceed as a
Planned Unit Development (PUD).
The Planning Commission staff report is attached for the Council's information. Resolution No.
6322, 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 extend MUSA to the subj ect 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-IB) Zone.
4. Deny the recommendation to extend MUSA to the subject property and tq rezone the
property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R-IB) 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. 6322, extending MUSA to the property, to approve
Ordinance No. 739, rezoning the property to Urban Residential (R-IB), 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
h: \cc\2005\ 10-04 \cmpplnrezshutropsouth05095 .doc
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner IT
RE: MUSA Allocation 2005
DATE: October 7, 2005
To date in 2005, the City has allocated 222.28 acres ofMUSA. These allocations have been as
follows:
. ISD 720 Property 98.78
. Powers Property 9.5
. Liesner Property 14.1
. Glacier Estates 34.7
. Shutrop North 38
. Marystown LLC 27.2
Total 222.28
The MUSA allocation provided to the City in 2002 was 2186 acres. Ofthe original 2186 acres,
1234.71 acres remain available to allocate. The City currently has a request in for Shutrop South
which proposes 134.35 acres of MUS A.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
h:\musa\2005allocations.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 6322
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 ofthe 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 Intercepto~ 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 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 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 conceptshared 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
I
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, 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 Planning Commission recommended that the property be rezoned to
Urban Residential (R-IB); 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, thClt the request tQ rezone the property from
Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) 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)( a,eafn- A .
G ll<\.G
AG.
AG
~ 4- _ SubJect Property
SHAKOPEE ....."shaKopee Boundary
CCMMUNI!'Yl'RlDSSiNCE 1857 S [=:I ZonIng Boundary
D Parcel Boundary
Rezoning Agricultural (AG) to
Medium Density Residential (R2)
and Camp Plan Amendent for
MUSA Expansion
- .... - ~ . . ... .. . ^, "",.., JI "....., r\ n In,. I" n" I:'
E~1.t 1811 B
"
. " . ..~ '. .
'. .."
. -,
.. -.
.. - . ~....
" -",'
.....
...
".., '. ".
..~.... - .
". """':..
..Y0 ."...... .. ,. '" Development Summary
. ......~~.......
~ ....,.. . _. .. Row Town Homes .. 162 units
~. -~. Quads.. 64 units
. ~., ,'......,.. ~.,
'. h..' 60 Ft Alley Homes.. 78 lots
'. .... ... .. 70 Ft Single Family.. 37 lots
.- ...... Total Units = 341 total units (net density 5.6 units/acre) ,
':....... ,
..
Commerclai Acres.. 7.8 acres (2 acres pondlng)
Senior Housing Acres 3.32 acres }
School.. 21 acres
Transit staDon .. 8 acres (280 surface spaces)
"'(~J
'---.
/, .
!/ ,
~~~~----1=
V',. ,I"
~I _/
'.El-~;(J.I ',I "J,:X:?Fr:! II /----.--- ~ -'
- - f; XJ.41 &rT C,'
-
..
August 30, 2005
.
Julie Klima REtE1V"ED '5Ep.0 1 t~
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
consideration. 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
Icommercial areas, rather than being placed in the middle of low 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-IA). 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.
s~ ---....
Natlian Anderson .
2003 Pike Lake Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
612-889-5797
CITY OF SHAKOPEE dI(,
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 05-095
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner IT
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 south ofCSAH 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 subj ect property is indicated as being in the Phase IT 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 of locating 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 fact the 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 of this summer for initial review by agencies, while the EIS is expected to be
adopted sometime in the spring of2006.
While the subj ect property is proposed to be in the Phase IT MUSA area, the City does retain the
authority to allocate MUSA outside of the Phase I area if the following Goals and Policies are found to
be served by the extension. Failure to comply with aU goals and policies shall result in the denial of the
request. Staff has provided draft analysis of these goals to assist the Commission in its discussion.
I
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 Sha.kopeethat can be
served by the Prior Lake Interceptor is important to the City's short and long-term jiscalsoundness.
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 ofCR 16 from
CR 18 to Pike Lake Road extend eft 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 notyetfinal
c. Designation of MUS A 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.
'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 opportunity for 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 patterns 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.
STAFFRECO~NDATION
After evaluating the request against the stated criteria for extension of MUS A, 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 MUSA,
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 andlor 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).
4
I L.{. ft.
H~~4
Tuesday, November 01, 2005 ~.
Dear Council Members,
As homeowners adjacent to the Shutrup South area, we would like to express our great
concern for the possible addition of town homes and multiplexes to this development!
We feel this would depreciate the value of our existing home. We base our concern on
the vast amount of town homes and multiplexes that the city has allowed to be built in
recent years. These areas have seen a substantial amount of crime within the area; some
so bad that the tax payers of Shakopee needed to pay the rent of city police officers to
actually live in a few ofthe units in order to deter crime! We feel that the future
neighbors and all of the citizens of Shako pee would further benefit from single-family
homes being built in this area instead. Weare also concerned what the impact of 1400 +
additional people would have on the traffic on Eagle Creek Blvd. and surrounding roads.
We don't understand how any additional building can possibly be considered until the
community decides on the referendum for additional schools.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jeff and Dina Menke
~~~
~ ~