The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7. Petition of Ryan Contracting/DR Horton for the Annexation of Land located in Jackson Township CITY OF SHAKOPEE ~, Memorandum CASELOG NO.: 06-037 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner IT SUBJECT: Petition of Ryan Contracting/DR Horton for the Annexation of Land located in Jackson Township MEETING DATE: May 2, 2006 INTRODUCTION The City received a petition from Ryan Contracting/DRHorton for the annexation of approximately 340 acres ofland from Jackson Township into the City of Shako pee. The subject property is located south of Highway 169 and west of Marystown RoadlCSAH 15. The Planning Commission reviewed this request at its April 20, 2006, meeting. Please find attached, for the Council's reference, a copy of the April 20 report to the Planning Commission. The City Council's past practice in connection with annexation petitions has been to act only after learning that the Township Board of Supervisors has considered the petitions and has not objection to the subject properties being annexed by the City. The City has not yet received notification form the Township Board of Supervisors. In addition, the City Council has recently authorized the distribution of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W). It is expected that staffwill be bringing forward any comments received on the EA W to the City Council on June 6. For reasons outlined above, staffis recommending that the public hearing on the annexation be continued to June 6 in order to allowtime for the township to notify the City of its position on the petition, and for comments tobe received regarding the EA W. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW As indicated in the staffreport to the Planning Commission, staffwas recommending approval of the annexation of approximately 70 acres. Atits April 20th meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council the approval of the annexation of the entire subj ectproperty. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the public hearing to June 6 to allow time for the Township Board to notify the City of its position on the proposed annexation, and for EA W comments period to be received and respondedto. 2. Direct staffto prepare a resolution of approval of the proposed annexation for action at a future Council meeting. 1 3. Direct stafftoprepare a resolution of denial ofthe proposed annexation for action at a future Council meeting. 4. Table the item for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion and pass a motion continuing the public hearing to June 6, 2006. In the event that the Council chooses not to continue the public hearing, it should pass a motion consistent with Alternative No.2 above, i.e., directing staffto prepare a resolution of approval for action at a future meeting. ~Li~ ulie Klima Planner II h:\cc\2006\05-02\annexryan 06037.doc 2 CITYOF SHAKO PEE Memorandum CASELOG NO.: 06-037 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II . SUBJECT: Petition by Ryan Contracting for the Annexation of Land located in Jackson Township MEETING DATE: April 20, 2006 INTRODUCTION The City has received a petition from Ryan Contracting for the annexation of approximately 340 acres ofland from Jackson Township into the City of Shako pee. The subject property is located south of Highway 169 and west of Marystown Road/CSAH 15. On May 2, 2006, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the requested annexation. The Conunission is asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on whether the City should proceed with annexation of the subj ect property. DISCUSSION The City's Land Use Plan (included in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update adopted by the City Council) identifies this area primarily for single-family residential development with some area for medium density residential and commercial development, as well. The Metropolitan Council has stated that any annexations from Jackson Township will require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, while the Metropolitan Council has informally indicated that capacity exists within the Shakopee-Chaska interceptor, the Met Council has not completed an analysis to quantify that cap~city. On Tuesday, April18th, the Council will consider awarding a contract for updating the City's sanitazy sewer plan. That process is expected to be completed in the next several months of 2006. Staff believes thatthe analysis done as apart of that update should quantify the remaining capacity in the Shakopee-Chaska futerceptor, as well as any new capacity that will need to be created through the construction of additional sewers. ExhibitA identifies the properties proposed for annexation. The light orange colored property (Friendship Church) at the northwest comer of CSAH 15 and County Road 78 is NOT proposed for annexation, nor are the 3 small parcels (green, blue (the small blue parcel), and peach colored) on the west side of CSAH 15. The parcels indicated in purple and pink (in the northwest portion of the exhibit) are currently located within the Phase! area for extension of MUS A. The remainder of the subject properties are within the Phase II area for MUSA extension. In analyzing the present request, staff has looked to recent Council actions. fu January 2006, the City Council denied a petition for annexation of a 45-acre site on the east side of CSAH 15/Mazystown Road citing the following reasons for denial: H:\BOAA-PC\2006\04-20\annexRyan06037.doc 1 1. The subject property was not now urbanizing and that urbanization ofthe subject property is not imminent; 2. That the City of Shakopee had sufficient land available for development needs in the immediate future without the annexation; 3. That in 2005, the City allocated MUSA to nearly 400 acres of land from its MUSA allocation; 4. That the land to which MUSA is allocated is sufficient to meet the City's development needs for the next couple of years; and 5. That the City has designated phasing areas for the extension of MUS A, and that the subject property was in a later (phase II) phasing area for MUSA. In 2002, the City was granted a MUSA allocation of 2184 acres. When the allocation was granted, it was With the general understanding that it was believed to he roughly a 10-year allocation. Today, a bit less than 4 years later, approximately 1092 (or about half) of those acres remain available for allocation within the City. Applications requesting that 160 of those remaining acres be designated are currently being processed. If those requests are approved, approximately 932 acres would remain available. ill addition, the City is currently in the process of reviewing or expecting applications for the following developments (acreages and lot counts included). 172 acres 437 lots 13 acres 78 lots 4.5 acres Unknown 40 acres 79 lots 115 acres Unknown 35 acres 49 lots 45 acres 54 lots 80 acres 153 lots 58 acres 101 lots 80 acres Unknown 3.3 8 lots 80 acres Unknown 725.8 acres 959 known lots + 4 projects (for a total site area of 279 acres) with unknown total lots To assist in comparing these lot counts to recent building activity, Building Department records indicate that 568 single and multiple family units were issued building permits in 2005 and 744 were issued in 2004. Staff is cognizant of the substantial efforts that have gone into developing an overall plan for the subj ect property, and specifically one that could include a future elementary school, and is generally supportive of planning for larger areas. However, because of the direction Council has taken in evaluating requests in the Phase IT MUSAarea; because of the sanitary sewer capacity issues which are under analysis; the number and level of current developments and acreages either underreview or H:\BOAA-PC\2006\04-20\annexRyan0603 7 .doc 2 expected to be received, at this time staff would recommend that only those parcels within Phase I MUSA staging area (parcels shown in purple and pink) be annexed into the City of Shakopee at this time. The development of the remaining parcels does not yet appear to be timely, and therefore staff recommends denial of the annexation of those parcels at this time. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council that the proposed annexation proceed, in its entirety. 2. Recommend to the City Council that a portion of the proposed annexation proceed at this time. 3. Recommend to the City Council that the annexation not proceed at this time. 4. Continue the item for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative no. 2 for the reasons outlined above. RELATIONSHIP TO VISIONING This action supports Goal D. Vibrant, Resilient, and stable and Goal E. Financially Strong. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion recommending to the City Council that the annexation of property within the primary MUSA staging area proceed at this time and that the remainder ofthe subject properties not be annexed at this time, and move its adoption(Alternative No.2). rJ <: la0~ / / L.' , u ie Klima anner II H:\BOAA-PC\2006\04-20\annexRyan0603 7 .doc 3 - I ~ m :a Ei .s .' . " ... " ~ II ~ .' ~ k~I~! ~ IU~! ; ! ~~ II a , .l!lulI ' , ! lJJi 1 f I ' I I I I I i ~ I . i II i I! _ ,lh ~ . ~ tlttt.gtoOO1.S:;OOCl/61101 I5a FEO.:DlSLaoltOll~\e.P\I.801tOlli!'0d :oJ