Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.D.2. Comp Plan Amendment to Reguide Property, Extend MUSA, and Rezone Property-Res. No. 6357-Ord. No. 745 CITY OF SHAKO PEE J2.D.L, Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-079 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 Single Family Residential, Extend MUSA, and Rezone Property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone MEETING DATE: February 7, 2006 REVIEW PERIOD: Applicant has extended the review period to March 1,2006 INTRODUCTION: CJM Properties has made application to re-guide property from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential, and to extend Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to that same property. Additionally, they have requested that the property be rezoned from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone. The property is located south of Hillwood Drive and east of County Road 79. The property is approximately 4.5 acres in size. Please find attached to this report a copy of a communication from a neighboring property owner (Exhibit 1). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its January 5,2006 meeting. The Commission recommended approval of the reguiding, MUSA extension request, and the rezoning of property to Urban Residential (R-1B) by a 3-2 vote. The Planning Commission staff report is attached for the Council's information. Attached to the Planning Commission report, please find a copy of the concept plan proposed by the applicant for this site. Resolution No. 6357, a resolution approving the reguiding and MUSA extension, and Ordinance No. 745, an ordinance approving the rezoning, based on the Planning Commission's recommendations, are attached for the Council's review and consideration. VISIONING RELATIONSHIP: This action supports Goal D "Vibrant, resilient, and stable", Strategy 11 "Ensure Range of Housing". AL TERNATIVES: 1. Approve the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to single family residential and to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone, subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Deny the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to. single family residential, and to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (R-IB) Zone. 3. Table the matter and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 6357, reguiding the property to single family residential and extending MUSA to the property, and to approve Ordinance No. 745, rezoning the property to Urban Residential (R-IB), (Alternative No.1), and move its adoption h:\cc\2006\O 1-17\cmpplnrezcjm05079 .doc RESOLUTION NO. 6357 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REGUIDE PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND TO EXTEND MUSA TO PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF HILL WOOD DRIVE AND EAST OF COUNTY ROAD 79 WHEREAS, CJM Properties, applicant and property owner, has requested the guiding of property to single family residential and the extension of MUS A to the property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: Lot 1, Block1, Beckrich Park Estates, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 7,2005, August 4,2005, and January 5,2006, 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 January 17, 2006; 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 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 subject property is in an area very near where the City has guided and approved sewered development. To that extent, and when coupled with the developers obligation to pay the cost of any sewer extension, the proposed expansion of public services will not have a negative impact on the City of Shako pee s 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. Sanitary sewer and water can efficiently be extended to the subject site from property to the east. 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. Serving the subject site may be beneficial to other properties in the vicinity ifand when, the City requires or desires further extension of services. 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. Serving the subject site may be beneficial to other properties in the vicinity if and when, the City requires or desires further extension of services. e. The City will find that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. The subject site would be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. 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, that are larger than are typically seen in the Urban Residential (R-IB) zoning district. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by reguiding the property to single family residential and 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 ,2006. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk h:\cc\2006\O 1-17\cmpplnrezcjm05079.doc ORDINANCE NO. 745 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OFSHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-IB) ZONE WHEREAS, CJM Properties, applicant and property owner, has requested the rezoning of property fromRural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Beckrich Park Estates, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 7, 2005, August 4,2005, and January 5,2006, 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 January 17, 2006; 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: 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 the request to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR) 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 ,2006. Mayor ofthe City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk h:\cc\2006\O 1-17\crnpplnrezcjrn05079.doc JAN-10-200613:48 DONALDSON COMPANY J..)G, CCJr ,.J,"-,""'''' , . '-'...~-- January 7, 2006 .f"XHJF>lf .t OBJECTION TO REZONING PROPOSAL To: John Schmitt, Joseph Helkamp, Teny J005, Steve Menden, Matt Lehman, Julie Klima and Michael Leak. I recently attended a city planning commission meeting on January st\ 2006 to express my concerns over a rezoning proposal. Considering the infonnation presented in the meeting and prior meetings related to this parcel of land I was surprised to see the planning commission approve the application. Below are .sorne of the reasons: 1. The proposal was basioally the same proposal submitted approximately 2 yrs ago by Beckrich Park Estates to rezone to an RIB classification. This proposal included the 4.5 acre parcel ofland in question in the meeting on JanSth, 2006. This earlier proposal was denied. The issue was higher density housing not conforming to the surrounding area and MUSA. a. The outcome from the decision was to look into alternative zoning proposals that would confonn better to the surrounding area that would allow water and sewer service availability. 2. The eJM Properties application was submitted in the spring of2005. It is basically the same proposal as the 2004 application. The main.difference was that it just included the 4.5 acre parcel ofland located between Beckrich Park Estates and Hillwood Estates to rezone from RR to RIB. a. The meeting was scheduled for July 2005 but was delayed. b. My discussion with Michael LeakJust prior to the July 2005 meeting on this indicated that the proposal did not meet certain requirements to include: i. Did not confonn to the surrounding area ii. MUSA not available or unknown capacity at sewer interceptor. c. Therefore, application was delayed until January 2006 in anticipation of Met Council decision on city compreh~sive plan / MUSA / interceptor capacity in the area 3,' Details of January 5th 2006 meeting. a. I presented my reasons for tne objection to the proposal at the meeting. Details for objections can be found in a separate letter created for theJan 5th 2006 meeting. This letter is located at the end of this document. b. Julie Klima indicated that no formal response had been supplied by the Met Council related to comprehensive plan / MUSA. Just verbal indication that there is some capacity in the interceptor located by new high school construction. c. The proposal was approved, but I question why based on the above I information. The first proposal was denied back in 2004; This latest proposal is no different. This latest proposal just includes less land and it was submitted by another person. Other reasons include: . i. No fonnal response from Met Council, just verbal response. ii. Does it make sense to have an RIB zone when a RR zone surrounds it on all sides? I talked to Julian Smith (Met Council JAN-10-2006 13:49 DONRL..JJ:iUN \..UI'Il""HI'l1 - - January 7, 2006 representative for the Shakopee area), he commented he would be surprised if a city placed an RIB zone in the middle of an RR zone. iii. Would this be an efficient use of MUS A? iv. Adding another road entrance onto a busy CR79 road could cause traffic I safety issues. There are already four roads entering in this area within -1/3 of a mile from each other. v. What ever happened to looking into altemativezoning options that was an outcome from the iiritial proposal by Beckrich Park Estates back in 2004? Base on the above infonnation, past decisions on this land and related. property, I question why this proposal should be approved? I understand the desire of the property owner to develop the land, but if approved, the only person who benefits is the property owner. They assumed a risk when they purchased the land. What about the desire of the existing surrounding property owners who desire to maintain the feel and look of the more open area. This is the biggest reason we moved to the area we are at. This is a well established developed area. What about our rights to maintain it that way? A proposal of 3 to 4 houses would fit fine within the surrounding area. We hope you seriously consider our conoerns and viewpoints. Respectfully, f!:,~ ~ Brian L Mandt .t~. ~ Cindy I. ~andt CITY OF SHAKOPEE ~~ Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-079 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Reguiding of property to Single Family, Extension of MUS A, and Zoning to Urban Residential (R-IB) MEETING DATE: January 5, 2006 REVIEW PERIOD: Applicant has granted an extension of the review period until March 1,2006 INTRODUCTION CJM Properties (Jim & Mike Monnens) has submitted applications for the reguiding of property from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential, extension of MUS A, and rezoning to Urban Residential (R-IB) zone. The property is located south of Hillwood Drive and east of CSAH 79 (see Exhibit A). The property is approximately 4.4 acres in size. DISCUSSION The public hearing on this item was opened on July 7th and at the applicants request, continued to August4th to allow time to work toward a resolution regarding the capacity issues with the Shakopee Chaska Interceptor. At the August 4th meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to January 5, 2006 with the applicants' consent. At that time, the Metropolitan Council indicated that a study of the capacity of the Chaska-Shakopee Interceptor would be completed by the end of2005. Since that time, the Metropolitan Council has indicated that the study will actually be initiated in early 2006, however, the Met Council has completed some preliminary research indicating that adequate capacity would exist to serve this property. The following Goals and Policies contain provisions for the granting of MUS A only if all ofthe following circumstances are found to exist. Failure to comply with all goals and policies shall result in the denial ofthe request. GOAL #1: Growth and expansion ofthat 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. 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. Policies: a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent with Goal #1 above. b. Areas to be added to MUSA shall be located where utilities and community facilities can be ~fficiently located or extended. 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. 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. e. The City will fwd that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. f. Designation of new MUSA areas shall be undertaken to better react to the marketplace and to serve the community as a whole. The subject site is located within the Phase II area for extension of urban services. Sanitary sewer flow from this site would be handled by the Shakopee Chaska Interceptor. While sanitary sewer is nearby, it has not been extended to serve this site. 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 with a city's comprehensive plan. Copies ofthe land use plans and the Zoning Ordinance are available for viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the January 5,2006, meetip.g. Other staffwere provided the opportunity to provide comments regarding this application. The City Clerk has commented that approval of this request would result in spot zoning. However, because the requested zoning is consistent with the proposed guiding for this area, this does not appear to be a real concern. The Engineering Department has commented that due to the Comprehensive Plan Update not being approved by Metropolitan Council that this application is premature and recommends action not be taken until resolution with Met Council occurs. Because of Engineering concerns, the draft findings below reflect these concerns and staff is not providing a clear recommendation. Staffhas received comment from a concerned resident regarding this application. Communication from the resident will be forthcoming to the Commission for their review. FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with draft 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 in the immediate 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 that has been adopted by the Metropolitan Council. However, the requested rezoning is consistent with the guiding proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to extend MUS A, reguide from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential and to rezone the subject site to Urban Residential (R-IB), subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to extend MUSA, reguide from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential and to rezone the subject site to Urban Residential (R-IB). 3. Offer a motion to continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. 4. Offer a motion to table a decision and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion consistent with the wishes of the Commission, and move its adoption. h:\boaa-pc\2005\08-04\reguiderezmusacjm05079.doc Shakopee - Location Maps Page 1 of 1 t;;X1+1BIT!t I -- I \ - . \ ~ i I=l criED"""! AG r ~ N _ Subject Property W*E SHAKOPEE ....ltlt.. Shakopee Boundary COMl-fUNlTYPJUD.ESINCE 1857 S [:J Zoning Boundary [=:J Parcel Boundary CompPlan Amendement and Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family (RIB) and MUSA Expansion . - a- ooeefocationmao/mao.aso?title=Comp+Plan+Amendement+and+... OS/26/2005 CJM PROPERTIES 1?;(ftl13rT B PO Box 277 Shakopee, MN 55379 May 25,2005 City ofSbakopee 129 Holmes St S. Sbakopee, MN 55379 RE: Rezoning Request Dear City of Shako pee Officials: We are requesting MUSA extension and rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Beclaich Park Estates (Pill 271650010). We would like the existing zoning ofRRRural Residential to RIB Urban Residential to accommodate a 7 lot subdivision. The 4.4 acre lot is currently vacant Existing water and sewer mains would be extended :from AC.C. Second Addition approximately 650 feet east of 1he proposed site. It is our understanding that Shakopee Public Utilities would like the watennain extended through this parcel, which is one reason for developing the property at this time. We believe the proposed 7 lot subdivision will blend in with the neighboring subdivisions. Although the potential for this lot with an RIB zoning would be approximately 13 lots, we are only proposing 710ts to help maintain the larger lot feeling of the area. This site was included in a rezoning and MUSA extension request by the Beckrich Park Estates homeowners association in Spring of2004. It is ourunderstanding that this request was denied due to the large amount of MUS A area it would have encompassed along with the potential for a lot splits within Beclaich Park Estates. We understand the difficulties the city faced in approving the previous request, but believe this request is different for the following reasons: 1. The lot we are requesting rezoning on was not intended to be one single family lot The way it was originally laid out and separated from Beclaich Park Estates made it ideal for subdivision. 2. Unlike many of the Beclaich Park Estates lots which could be split, the subdivision we are proposing could have no additional lot splits. 3. The proposed 710ts on 4.4 acres appears to be an adequate density for MUSA extension when compared to oilier MUSA extensions within the city. We believe the proposed change is in con:lp1iance with the Comprehensive Plan. The four criteria for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will be addressed below. 1. The original zoning ordinance is not in error. 2. Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. 3. Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. Growth is occurring to the west and the potential for utility extensions have made this parcel desirable for development 4. The comprehensive plan does not appear to require a different position. Because at least one of the criteria has been met, we believe this application does constitute a change in the zoning map and MUSA boundary. Sincerely, CJM PROPERTIES ~/?~ ~~4c:'?H~~ Jim Monnens Mike Monnens Preliminary Layout for Rezoning and MUSA Extension Request I I fl I I EXISTING DRAINAGE I & UTILITY EASEMENT L__ r----~.r--~- -------~r------~ I I r--------lllr---------, r-----------7f, Ir------------1 I I I I / 1/ I I 1 II II I I /1(. / I I I II I 1/1;/ I UTILITY CONNECTIONS I I I 1111 .... I 3 /", 'I. / I I TO EXISTING STUBS g I 1 1<<> I I~ if, / I APPROX. 650 FT EAST. ~ I lIT II 2 I 16,818 sq.ft. / '/, / J I I 18.408 sq.ft. I I 17,571 sq. ft. . 0.39 acres. . if,. / 4 I ~<:,~ :\ I I 0.42 acres II II 0.40 acres I L _ - - - _ _ -J~ 1/ 38,515 sq.ft. I I 10) I II ) '/ / 0.88 acres I R-~~ ~~X-~ I L________J I I L________ - _ ~ Z I I ~c;:, \) ~~s \ ....-- 77 ~' I 't-~S';0\'\ ./'"\./'" ,: L _ _ _ _ -.J L _ _ - _ \ 16" WATERMAIN FOR : I u. '0 ..............' ." 115 110 .~\ SPUC MAINLINE LOOP I ,./'"' / / ~ \ J L\ I /7 Z \_ _____1-1 rr- > 185 /7/ ." 115 110 rr-----J~ /7 / Ie '----l r--- / / ) I .,,)/ I r--------11 I r------ "1 ~'O\ / ,,/) / I I I I "-, ~\ / 5 ,," / /7 / I I : I I: ~ \ '\ "'''' .qft. / / /' ^\ I I I I 6 I ~\ 0.78 acres ,," /' " I I 7 ,~ 1\ ....-- - - . \ ,,/ / / ~ I I 'T I' 17.4# oq.ft. I~' ~D1NG \\ / / ./". ./ ~ I 19,888 sq.ft. I I 0.40 acres I\-" /' \ 1 I 0.46 acres II II . /) " "./ I I I I '- _' "y/'./ I I I 11 _-----1 \" ./ I 80 FT. I I J I L..--- ./ \ I L_ . -- J L _ --~ ." ./ I L -. ~ --- \ ~ r- ,... r- r<> 'T' ^ -r -',' /) ^ D 1/ L- ~ I r'\ I L.. I (' I' Cl I (' U . :- r'\ \ , .1 \ \ ...... r < \\ \ v " . EXISTING LEGAL. DESCRIPTION . 0 L. v 1 \ .. /'" \ . :t I Lot 1. Block 1, BECKRICH PARK ESTATES, Scott County, Minnesoto. /' - I Existing Zoning: RR Rurol Residential . / \ \. tN Proposed Zoning: R1BUrbon Residential - -) 0 DEC-29-2005 07:31 DONALDSON COMPANY 952 887 3059 P.02/03 December 20, 2005 OBJECTION TO REZONING PROPOSAL To: John Schmitt, Joseph Helkamp. Terry Joos, Steve Menden, Matt Lehman, Ryan Magin, Larry Meilleur, Steve Clay, Deb Amundson, Gayl Madigan, Mary Romansky, Michael Willard and Julie Klima We recently received a notice of public hearing in the mail for the Shakopee Planning Commission to meet and consider an application by eJM Properties for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and for the rezoning of property. The comprehensive plan amendments propose the reguiding ofland use and to extend MUSA to subject property. The rezoning proposes a change from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (RIB) for the property located south of Hill wood Drive, east ofCSAH 79 and north of Barrington Drive. This recent request does not look much different than a similar request that was denied approximately one and a half years ago. The denied request included the same 4 Vi acre parcel of land, but also included the rezoning of Beckrich Park Estates from Rural Residential to Urban Residential (RIB). At the time the request was denied, the planning commission said they would work with the agency that grants the surrounding cities MUSA and see if another zoning classification could be offered (lower density) or if water and sewer could be granted under a Rural Residential zoning classification. Whatever happened with this? Was this pursued? After seeing this recent request, I don't see anything different other than the proposal does not include Beckrich Park Estates and a different person submitted it. The people in the Hillwood Estates area moved and built homes here because of bigger lot sizes, more open space,. and the privacy it provides. With the rapid growth of Shakopee and rapid increase in high density housing already taking place just to the north, to the east, and now northwest of Hillwood Estates. as well as multiple other areas of the city. we have a deep concern that we will loose this open space and privacy we once had if the rezoning is allowed to take place. We fully. expected that at some point in the future someone would build homes on the 4 ;I,. acre parcel just to the south of Hillwood Estates, but we would hope that the existing layout of the sUITounding area with larger lot sizes would be preserved. To allow multiple homes to be built between subdivisions created as 2.5 acre lots would be terribly wrong, look out of placet and deter from the aesthetic layout of the larger lots in the surrounding area. The people in Hillwood Estates do not intend to prevent homes from being built on the lot south of us; we just don't want to see a large number of homes sprout up like they have to the north. east, and now northwest of us by the new high school location. All we are asking for is similar sized lots in relation to the surrounding area. We have seen the proposal for seven lots on this parcel of land. A majority of the lots are less than one-half acre. We feel that three lots would fit much better into the surrounding developments of Beckrich Park Estates and fiillwood Estates. Anything more would go against the original intent of the developments and negatively affect the character of the area originally intended for larger 1.5 to 2.5 acre lots. DEC-29-2005 07:31 DONALDSON COMPANY 952 887 3059 P.03/03 December 20. 2005 Another concern I have with the current proposal is the possible increase in surface drainage. Currently, the water drainage from this 4 112 acre lot goes through my front yard. The current proposal could potentially increase the drainage through my front yard as well as my neighbor's front yard. This could make it very difficult to keep dry, be able to mow, and keep from looking unsightly. I have only been a resident of Shako pee for about 5 years noW. We moved here because it still had the small town atmosphere. Over this short 5 years, I have personally seen a big ohange in the city, which concerns me. With the high density housing to the north and east of Hillwood Estates, and now the land next to the future high school, traffic in the area has noticeably increased and problem intersections have already shown up due to this high-density housing influx. I understand that there is a balance between high and 10w~density housing, and if done correctly, can still preserve some ofthe small town atmosphere. I believe the key to this is slower, more controlled growth. Even though some oftbe elected officials have said they want to slow down the growth, I am disappointed to see that this has not taken place. Again, we in the Hillwood Estates area moved and built houses here to enjoy the privacy provided by larger lot sizes. Weare an established neighborhood and are concerned that we may loose some ofthis privacy by the higher density housing proposed on the 4 'h acres to the south of us. We don't feel the rezoning of the property is necessary. Why can't three houses be approved which would fit in much better between the two subdivisions of HilIwood Estates and Beckrich Park Estates? I believe three houses had been approved through a variance with the previous owner of the land. We are not apposed to housing in this area, we just don't approve of the seven houses proposed. We in the Hillwood Estates area would greatly appreciate your consideration in this matter. Please take a close look at what can be done to satisfy everyone involved without disrupting the zoning and potentially the character ofthe area that has predominantly larger lot sizes. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully, B~/' ~ Brian L Mandt ~l~ Cindy I. andt TOTAL P.03 - I).D.L. ItJGClJ1li ,- Bi Ii>> JUL () OBJECTION TO REZONING PROPOSAL 6 20fJJ To: John Schmitt, Joseph Helkamp,. Terry Joos, Steve Mendell, Matt Lehman, Ryan Magin, Larry Meilleur, Steve Clay, Deb Amundson, GaylMadigan, Mary Romansky, Michael Willard and Julie Klima In early April of2004 we were given notice that the.Shakopee Planning Commission was to be meeting to consider application by Beckrich Park Estates for the amendments to the Comprehensive PIan and for the rezoning of property. The comprehensive plan amendments proposed the reguiding of property from rural residential to single family residential and the extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary (MUSA). The rezoning proposed a change from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (RIB) for all ofBeckrich Park Estates including property on Barrington Drive, Carriage Circle, Cortland Circle and Hampton Circle as well as the CJM Properties. Upon a detailed review at the time, the Shakopee Planning Commission wisely decided to reject the application for an Amendment for good reason. Recently, we received another notice that the Shakopee Planning Commission will be meeting to consider application by CJM Properties, for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to reguide land use and to extend MUSA to property located south ofHillwood Drive, east ofCSAH 79 and north of Barrington Drive and Rezoning of said property from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (RB I) Zone. As a life-long resident of Shako pee and, more importantly, of near by Hillwood Estates, this proposal concerns us significantly. When Beckrich Park Estates was zoned Rural Residential (RR) as a planned unit development, it was required there be an average of 2.5-acres per household including the open spaces. Moreover, there was a similar 2.5- acre requirement for the adjacent Hillwood Estates development. Therefore, it would seem somewhat contradicting, self-serving, and entirely unnecessary to allow this property to be rezoned and/or reclassified as RIB solely for the purpose ofeJM Properties. More importantly, allowing there to be five houses per acre in between and in the midst of these 25.acre plots would be beyond comprehension, especially given the original intent of the 2.S-acre land owners and the vastamount of high density housing already in Shakopee. Furthennore, if the proposed rezoning would be allowed, Beckrich Park Estates could again request. that property be rezoned as well. .This would potentially allow property owners to subdivide their existing lots. This would destroy the original intentions of the development and the reason a majority of the owners purchased the land to begin with- space. We realize that every town needs an appropriate balance ofhighllow density housing, but it seems like over the past several years Shakopee has allowed a significant amount of high-density housing. However, we were sincerely encouraged as we listened to the controlled growth proclamations. of those recently elected. As such, we would be extremely appreciative if you could ensure that the properties of Beckrich Park, Hillwood Estates and eJM Properties retain their RR classifications, therefore, preserving the area's integrity, character and original intent. Thank you, .l!tb!jjtl-- Ro~rt J. St~ ~\~M~ ~ ~rfi Wendy M. Stlttk .... P.S. It is our opinion that a new zoning classification be created for areas that are RR but are being added to the MUSA boundary. This currently exists in adjacent towns. As Shakopee continues to grow, there will be numerous similar scenarios where rezoning will be required to convert existing rural water and septic systems to city water and septic systems. As such and similar to other cities, Shakopee should have a rezoning classification to be solely utilized to facilitate the conversion from rural water and septic to city water and septic. In fact, it is my understanding that the city was going to review this very possibility as a result of the April 2004 rezoning request mentioned previously.