HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.A.3. Rezoning, MUSA Extension-Res. No. 6443-Ord. No. 765
CITY OF SHAKO PEE s: ~. 3.
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 06-059
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council CONSENT
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Rezoning of property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Low
Density Residential (R-IA); and Extension of MUS A
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006
REVIEW PERIOD: April 19 -August 17, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Council is asked to consider Bert Noterman's request to I) rezone property from Agricultural
Preservation (AG) Zone to Low Density Residential (R-IA) Zone; 2) and extend MUSA to said
property. The property is located south of County Road 78 and west of CSAH 17 (see Exhibit A).
The total acreage of the properties is approximately 29 acres. A copy ofthe report that went to the
Planning Commission for consideration on June 8, 2006 is attached for the Council's consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
After considering the request at its June 8th meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended to the Council that the eastern parcel be rezoned from Agricultural Preservation (AG)
Zone to Low Density Residential (R-IA) Zone and have MUSA extended to serve the eastern
parcel.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Offer and p~ss Resolution No. 6443, a resolution ofthe City of Shako pee to extend MUSA to
the eastern most parcel; and offer and pass Ordinance No. 765, an ordinance rezoning property
from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Low-Density Residential (R-IA) Zone.
2. Offer and pass a motion directing staffto prepare alternative an alternative resolution/ordinance
for action at the Council meeting of July 5, 2006.
3. Table the request to seek additional information from the applicant and/or staff.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer and pass Resolution No. 6443, a resolution of the City of Shakopee to extend MUSA to the
eastern most parcel; and offer and pass Ordinance No. 765, an ordinance rezoning property from
Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Low-Density Residential (R-1A) Zone.
h:\cc\2006\06-20\rez&musa noterman 06059.doc
1
RESOLUTION NO. 6443
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKO PEE APPROy:INC; AREQ(TESTTO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO EXTEND MUSA TO PROPERTY, WlIICH IS
LOCATED WEST OF CSAH 17/MARSCHALL ROAD AND SOUTH CSAH 78
WHEREAS, Bert Noterman, applicant and property owner, has requested an amendment of
the Comprehensive Plan to extend MUSA to the property as described below; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as:
The east 10 acres of the East 1309.20 feet (as measured at right angles) of the North Half of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on June 8, 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 June 20, 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 Shakopee served by public services shall be controlled and
focused to maintain the City's fiscal soundness consistent with other community-wide goals.
Finding: Growth and extension of services to the eastern parcel subject to this request would be
directly adjacent to property within the existing MUSA line and areas recently developed.
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.
Finding: The property is already within the city limits.
Policies:
a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent with
Goal #1 above.
Finding: The eastern parcel 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.
Finding: Services can be extended to serve the eastern parcel from the adjoining
property within the MUSA boundary.
c. Designation of MUSA areas will be timed to enhance the City's ability to plan for,
develop, andlor acquire new utilities and public facilities.
4
Finding: Sanitary sewer and water services could be extended to the eastern parcel as
a part of this development. As part of Valley Creek Crossing water infrastructure
improvements have already been planned or constructed, to wit a booster station for
pressure purposes.
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.
Finding: Sanitary sewer and water services are approaching the eastern parcel with
the development of adjacent parcels. Sanitary sewer and water could be extended as a
part of this development.
e. The City will fmd that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within
the timeframe being considered.
Finding: It is feasible that development of the eastern parcel is likely to occur in 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.
Finding: Designation of MUSA. to the eastern parcel may allow for open space
connections to serve the community, as well as, development of additional single family
detached dwelling units with amenities that are not necessarily readily available in
other parts of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED, that the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
extend MUSA to the property described above 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
5
ORDINANCE NO. 765, FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEe. 11.03 BY REZONING
LAND LOCATED WEST OF CSAH 17/MARSCHALL ROAD AND SOUTH OF CSAH 78
FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) ZONE TO LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R-IA) ZONE
WHEREAS, Bert Noterman, applicant and property owner, has requested an amendment of
the City Code to re-zone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential
(R-IB) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as:
The east 10 acres of the East 1309.20 feet (as measured at right angles) of the North Half of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on June 8, 2006, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity
to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the
subject property instead be re-zoned to Low Density Residential (R-IA) Zone, and the applicants
have indicated that the recommended zoning change is suitable for their purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on June 20, 2006; 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. The 1999 Comprehensive Plan guides the property
for single-family residential use, and the Council adopted Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Update guides the property for low density residential development, consistent
with the zoning proposal.
Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred in that residential
development is occurring within the vicinity of the subject property. Rezoning the
eastern parcel Low Density Residential (R-1A) would allow for connections to be made
between development projects.
Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, by the Shako pee City Council is consistent with
the request.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED, that the request to rezone the property from Agricultural
Preservation (AGY Zone to Low Density Residential (R -lA) Zone is hereby approved.
2
Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Milinesota held this day
of ,2006.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest:
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of ,20_.
3
CITY OF SHAKOPEE -#:;:
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 06-059
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Rezoning of property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Low Density
Residential (R-IA) and Extension of MUS A
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2006
REVIEW PERIOD: April 19 - August 17,2006
INTRODUCTION
Bert Noterman has made application for rezoning of property from Rural Residential (RR) to Low
Density Residential (R-IA) Zone; and extension of MUS A.
The property is located south of County Road 78 and west of CSAH 17 (see Exhibit A). The
property is approximately 29 acres in size and is composed of2 non-adjacent parcels.
DISCUSSION
The City's 1999 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for rural residential use. The City
Council has approved the Comprehensive Plan Update, which guides this property for low-density
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 IIMUSA area in the draft Comprehensive
Plan Update. The eastern parcel, however, is directly adjacent to a parcel that is currently within
the MUSA boundary and a parcel that the Planning Commission has recommended for inclusion in
the MUSA boundary. The City Council will consider that request for MUSA extension to that
property at the June 6 meeting.
The applicant submitted the attached concept (Exhibit B) in connection with the application, The
conceptual sketch is for illustrative purposes only. The Planning Commission and City Council are
not being asked to take any action with regard to the proposed site plan. It is worth noting that the
Scott County Highway Dept. has commented that it will not support direct driveway access onto CR
78.
While the subject property is proposed to be in the Phase II MUSA area, the City does retain the
authority to allocate MUSA outside ofthe Phase I area if the following Goals 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. Staff has provided draft analysis ofthese goals to assist the Commission in its discussion.
Of the 2186 acres provided to the City for MUSA expansion, a total of 1012.64 acres remain available.
h12006, the City has allocated 87.72 acres of MUS A to date. An approximate 15 additional acres are
pending approval.
1
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 cornmunity-wide goals.
Growth and extension of services to the eastern parcel subject to this request would be directly
adjacent to property within the existing MUSA line and areas recently developed.
GOAL #2
Any fuhrre 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.
The property is already within the city limits.
Policies:
a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent with
Goal #1 above.
The eastern parcel 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 efficientiy located or extended.
Services can be extended to serve the eastern parcel from the adjoining property within
the MUSA boundary.
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 to the eastern parcel as a part of
this development. As part of Valley Creek Crossing water infrastructure improvements
have already been planned or constructed, to wit a booster station for pressure
purposes.
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 are approaching the eastern parcel with the
development of adjacent parcels. Sanitary sewer and water could be extended as a part
of this development.
e. The City will fmd that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within
the timeframe being considered.
It is feasible that development of the eastern parcel is likely to occur in 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.
Designation of MUSA to the eastern parcel may allow for open space connections to
serve the community, as well as, development of additional single family detached
dwelling units with amenities that are not necessarily readily available in other parts of
the community.
2
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 confonn 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 June 8, 2006, meeting.
The applicant has requested that the entire subject property (both parcels) be rezoned to Low
Density Residential (R-1A). The purpose of the R-1A zone is to allow large-lot single-family
development in areas of the City served by sanitary sewer and water. Ryan Hughes, Natural
Resource Specialist, has commented on the natural resource features that exist on the subject site
and within its immediate vicinity. Please see Exhibit C for his specific comments.
The R-1A zoning district, because of its increased lot size requirement has been viewed as an
appropriate zoning district for areas of the city that provide increased opportunity for natural
amenities. The subject property appears to provide the natural amenities that the City was
envisioning when creating the R-1A zoning district.
The City Council will be considering a text amendment to the R-IA zoning district at its June 6
meeting. The text amendment proposes changes to the lot size requirements for the R-1A district.
Specifically, the amendment eliminates the lot depth requirement and proposes a lot width of 95
feet and minimum lot area of 12,800 square feet.
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. The 1999 Comprehensive Plan guides the property
for single-family residential use, and the Council adopted Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Update guides the property for low density residential development, consistent
with the zoning proposal.
Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have
occurred; or
Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred in that residential
development is occurring within the vicinity of the subject property. Rezoning the
eastern parcel Low Density Residential (R-1A) would allow for connections to be made
between development projects.
Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision.
Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, by the Shakopee City Council is consistent with
the request.
3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After evaluating the request against the stated criteria for extension of MUS A and rezoning, staff
recommends approval of the request to extend MUSA and rezone the eastern parcel to Low Density
(R-1A) Zone. The western most parcel may be premature at this time due to the inability to provide
consistency and continuity in development.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to extend MUSA
to, and to rezone the eastern parcel to Low Density Residential (R-1A), subject to approval by
the Metropolitan Council.
2. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval ofthe request to extend MUSA
to and to rezone both parcels to Low Density Residential (R-IA), subject to approval by the
Metropolitan Council.
3. Offer a motion to continue the public hearing and request additional infonnation from the
applicant and/or staff.
4. Close the public hearing, and offer a motion to table and request additional infonnation from the
applicant and/or staff.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to extend MUSA to,
and to rezone the eastern parcel to Low Density Residential (R-IA), subject to approval by the
Metropolitan Council, and move its approval.
h:\boaa-pc\2006\06-08 drafts\rezmusa noterman 06059.doc
4
Shakopee - Location Maps .a.Yoo"'" ... -.... ...
GYIi/grr ,4.
",~uu...j AG
.~
\ ~~(
~~~~l ~
"~r;;;RR1""" \ I l I
..- -~.\
~ RR .<~v~
,t. . J) .-"~,.. 11
~~ AG '~~3 H1.k-.
~* .. --J- I
oor .I \ -
Qt
~"::..8 N _ Subject Property
W.E
SHAKOPEE ....? Shakopee Boundary
,.,. c=I Zoning Boundary
COMMUN1TYl'RlDESlNCIl18S1 s
o Parcel Boundary
Rezoning Rural Residential (RR)
to Low Density Residential
(R1A) Zone and Amendment to
Camp Plan for MUSA Expansion
and Reguide to Single Family
Residential
http://gis.logis.org!shakopee/locationmap/map . asp ?title=Rezoning+ Rural+Residential+%... 05/02/2006
e;YHIBrr B ~~ If"
300 FIRST AVE N TEL: 612-339-3300 CQMMUNITY PLANNING
SUITE 210 FAX: 612-337-5601 LAND PLANNING ~~~
MINNEAPQlIS. MN WEB: DSUPlAN,CQM URBAN DESIGN
55401-2609 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
MARKET RESEARCH DSU
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 24, 2006
TO: City of Shako pee
FROM: Jon Scalzo
RE: Request for Rezoning and MUSA Extension
Bert Noterman Property
,,--- ... ~ _"'=00:0' "'''' , ~_>W____~____"""__",..,_____'"
Site location and Existing Conditions
The property consists of two parcels, a 19 acre parcel and a 10 acre parcel. These two parcels are
separated by a 10 acre parcel not owned by Mr. Noterman.
Mr. Noterman's existing home is on the west 19 acres along with a tennis court and out buildirig. This
parcel features gently rolling topography with a series of interconnected trails that wrap around a
complex of wetlands. There are three large open grassland areas and several stands of woodlands also
located on the property. Stonebrooke Golf Club borders this portion of the property on the west,
Fairhaven Drive to the south and the dividing 10 acre parcel to the east.
The 10 acre parcel is the east portion of the subject property. This portion consists primarily of
woodlands with two wetlands within its boundaries. County Road 78 is the northern boundary, the
dividing 10 acre parcel is to the west and Associated Capital's property is to the east.
Site Development
The existing zoning is RR with Mr. Noterman requesting a rezoning to RIA and a comprehensive plan
amendment for MUSA extension.
A concerted effort has been made to complement the surrounding properties with this development.
The development plan features lots consistent with the RIA zoning. The plan shows a total of 22 lots,
10 on the west parcel and 12 on the east parcel. The west parcel will get access from County Road 78
to the north and from Fairhaven Drive to the south. The east parcel will get access from the associated
capital property to the east with a joint planning effort suggested by city staff previously. Mr. Noterman
has had periodic conversations with Mr. Huss, the owner of the 10 acre parcel that divides Mr.
Noterman's property and as such has shown a possible roadway connection that could take place
should Mr. Huss decide to apply for and subdivide his property.
We look forward to working with the city as we progress through this application process.
N
I , Approximate Site Boundary NotermanParcel Wetland Boundaries w.'
Approx. WeUand Boundary Clarification of Jurisdictional Types
*' ,Culvert 0 0.02 0.04
Miles S
* Sample Points Noterman Parcel
I!<l
-+
:<!; .
. ~.
10::
- .' .
. .
\
.\
" ..
: '-
~
:\
)
l
\
a
=
c$
r
il
on
,0
From:
Date:
Case Number: 06059
Subject: 27-919011-1, 27-919011-2
Rezoning RR to R1A and Comp Plan Amendmentfor
MUSA Expansion
Based on a review of the application materials provi~ed, staff is providing the following
natural resource information about the site: .
1. The area is within the approved Natural Resource Corridor map, dated December
2005.
2. The areas within the Natural Resource Corridor are designated as Best Quality,
Better Quality, Good Quality, arid Buffer as identified on the attached map.
3. The areas within the Natural Resource Corridor on this site are contiguous with
areas designated as Best Quality, Better Quality, and Good Quality to the west and
east.
4. According to available information the site contains high quality Maple-Basswood
forest, medium quality upland deciduous forest, medium quality lowland hardwood
forest, seasonally flooded deciduous shrubland, wet meadow, various types of
wetlands identified on the National Wetland Inventory, and wildlife habitat.
5. The area identified as Best Quality on the Natural Resource Corridor ~ap is one of
the largest connected privately owned Best Quality Corridors in the City of
Shakopee.
Please contact.me if you have questions or comments regarding the natural resources
on this site.
- I
'\.~
U:\Plan Review Memos\032406 . Case 06059 Noterman.doc