HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.A. Rezoning-Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone-Ord. No. 673
11.ft
,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum CONSENT
CASE NO.: 03-041
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Rezoning - Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB)
Zone
MEETING DATE: June 17,2003
REVIEW PERIOD: April 11, 2003 to August 8, 2003 ./">
INTRODUCTION
Rob Larsen has submitted an application for a rezoning from the Rural Residential (RR) Zone to
the Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. The subject site is located on the south side of Valley View
Road, east of Pheasant Run and west of Williams Street (Exhibit A). The site is presently being
utilized as one single-family residence.
CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted land use plan which guides it "single
family residential". Refer to Section 11.24 (Rural Residential Zone) and Section 11.28 (Urban
Residential Zone) for a listing of the uses, both penriitted and conditional, which are allowed in
these zones.
Other staff were provided the opportunity to provide comments regarding this application. No
comments concerning the rezoning request were received by Planning staff. Planning staff have
noted that the proposed development appears to comply with the minimum requirements for lots
and blocks, as noted in the City Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their June 5, 2003 meeting, and by a 7-0 vote,
they recommended approval of the request. The June 5, 2003 staff report to the Commission is
attached for the Council's information.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Ordinance No. 673, an ordinance approving the request to rezone the subject
property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone.
2. Do not approve Ordinance No. 673, an ordinance approving the request to rezone the
subject property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone.
3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff,
4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer and approve a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 673, an ordinance approving the request to
rezone the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone.
~
Planner I
G:Cc\2003\06-17\rezlarsen.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 673, FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEC. 11.03 BY
REZONING LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF V ALLEY VIEW ROAD,
EAST OF PHEASANT RUN AND WEST OF WILLIAMS STREET FROM RURAL
RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-IB) ZONE
WHEREAS, Rob and Debra Larsen, applicants and property owners, have requested the
rezoning ofland from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as:
That part of the East one half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying South and East of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the South line of said East one half of the Southwest Quarter
distant 200.00 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northwesterly at an angle of 69
degrees, 53 minutes, 20 seconds (as measured East to North) a distance of 623.76 feet to the
center line of a town road; thence Southeasterly along said center line a distance of 1075 feet
more or less to its intersection with the East line of said East one half of the Southwest Quarter
and there terminating; and
WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on June 5, 2003, at which time all persons present were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on June 5, 2003, recommended approval of the
rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of June 17, 2003, and
found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the
City within which it is located.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1: That the following findings of fact are hereby adopted relative to the
requested rezoning;
Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error.
Finding #2 The applicant is proposing a development that will be consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
Finding #3 Development of the subject property for single1amily residential lots will be
consistent with desired development patterns for this area of the City.
Finding #4 The requested zoning is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan land use
map.
Section 2 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by
rezoning the property referenced herein, from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to the Urban
Residential (R-1B) Zone.
Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage
and publication.
Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota held this day of ,2003.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest: ,
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of ,2003.
~'1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 03-041
TO: Plamling Commission
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Rezoning - Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-lB)
Zone
MEETING DATE: June 5, 2003
REVIEW PERIOD: Ap1ill1, 2003 to August 8, 2003
Site Information
Applicant: Rob Larsen
Propeliy Owners: Rob & Debra Larsen
Location: 2424 Valley View Road
Existing Zoning: Rural Residential (RR) Zone
Prop.osed Zoning: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone
Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone
South: Rural Residential (RR) Zone
\Vest: Rural Residential (P,-,-ll) Zone
East: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone
Camp. Plan: Single Family Residential
Acreage: 7.0 Acres
MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary.
Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map
Exhibit B: Site Plans
Exhibit C: R. Michael Leek Memo and Related Materials
INTRODUCTION
Rob Larsen has submitted an application for a rezoning from the Rural Residential (RR) Zone to
the Urban Residential (R-lB) Zone. The subject site is located on the south side of Valley View
Road, east of Pheasant Run and west of Williams Street (Exhibit A). The site is presently being
utilized as one single-family residence.
This item was scheduled for the May 22, 2003 meeting, but due to the applicant absence, the
item was tabled to the June 5, 2003 meeting. The Plarming Commission will also be asked to
review the preliminary plat application for this property at the June 5, 2003 meeting,
CONSIDERATIONS
The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City. The
purpose of designating different areas for residential, conunercial, 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.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted land use plan which guides it "single
family residential". Refer to Section 11.24 (Rural Residential Zone) and Section 11.28 (Urban
Residential Zone) for a listing of the uses, both pellnitted and conditional, which are allowed in
these zones. 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 5, 2003 meeting.
Planning staff have been asked to research the process of extending MUSA to this property as
well as others on Valley View Road and the reguiding of these properties for single-family
development. R. Michael Leek, Conununity Development Director, has provided a memo
(Exhibit C) that attempts to address this issue, Included as related information to Mr. Leek's
memo is a January 16, 2001 memo from Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, to the City
Council and minutes from that Council meeting.
Staff have noted that the proposed development appears to comply with the minimum
requirements for lots and blocks, as outlined in the City Code,
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 The applicant is proposing a development that will be consistent with the approved
Comprehensive Plan.
Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns
have occurred; or
Finding #3 Development of the subject property for single-family residences will be consistent
with desired development patterns for this area of the City.
Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision.
Finding #4 The requested zoning will be consistent with the approved Comprehensive Plan
land use map.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property
from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone,
2, Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject
property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone.
3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff.
4. Close the public he81ing, but table the matter and request additional infonnation,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recOlmnends Altemati ve No.1; recommend to the City Council the approval ofthe request to
rezone the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer 811d approve a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone
the subject propeliy from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone,
~.~
Mark Noble -
Planner I
G: 80 AA-P C\2003\06-05\rezl arsen .doc
e.)G\-\ ,~,--y- A
~__J I I v /"'- "'-'~l4-lill\ l.-1 \- J!J~'_-L-'" -r'-- ,--- '-"'--1
AG .~. '~ /" \ ' , I' " ,I . \ I
--'1: "I "'-.;,.' ._l-.-J [:J.{. I /-- I i II I 'Ih.--,;""- '_
r----j ..... I " . . I:;;: I ' " I ~
'-_ "'.;' I . 'J ,. "", \ . . -~._L~'., / / ;'--1... II :' I L-, .-- --.!...
I .: .:.... ,.~,>/ ~--,~---,-f I' ,--.... '<. i { /~ .. I., , .....
~__.___ I I I, -__. . / \ Ii. I \ ,I J .' . "'-...t / / .... I. l .~ ~'_h . -...........
1 h--l I ' /, \ I . 1 ! I t' I-! ........ ..... I / .. --: -\'- .~- j - ..- .........
L'-'; ~ ~ I"--~ -! /'<J--f.-Ltif' \ l--:;&~'-r'.,l.::::-'/ /'~ \ \<--; /-- -..!
L3J I '! :-. I ~ I i I -. iJ/. f.-...-l /........1\ '\ ....... ~ \. '. "'-/ ~'--- -j
. , " ,I I . --....., " ,---. --
LJ hI1 LJn uJ l--n_J-J~4 ! I-~ \ Ct-:~/~/i ',-- .~~
1, I Rtrffil I I .,---,--ll" I '1--!t---7, ' ,/(i'lL-L ,'~ -q-L .: ;"",:- ~- -~
-.;:~ l7j I. i I ! -l , ii, 11 ( r--~~..j! i=li Ii t~-L 1 t= ~._J
~JJr 'hrld \ ,~I U I ! 'I j Ir-R I I II--L_i: I r----+--i ~_I.-':L~_ __J
~, ,I.......... I I Ir-J~n ~~f-+--j i r~' I
\ ----=;n' L.: . I I I I " YlL. I I I~~j L.J--i~~ 'I I :.0:- :j
/ '\ ,I I I ~ L..r---l '----L I I---'~ ---1
- L....-: ,I I ~~ri--- .:/ )--J-ki I --: : I r~_----j
I I !1-L--l/' :f21 Ii; II L:J
I 1'- I..... d"! L!~ . I
I U I I - .--, )..!--.:----1
I 'I I " i I
-.LJ ~"-_.~J
ITl t-_LJJ:--~
I , . I I ,J! I I
B1=B--D1L-q
J----i I C-~,
, f-~
, R
a
B-,'-
I
~ N
~2~ w*,
Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) S
to Urban Residential (RIB) Zone
D Zoning Boundary
. Parcel Boundary
_ Parcel Area in Question
I
f:x-'-"~'T e .
_ l
~, N~ .
I 0 ''''"''' (.)
. IRON FOUND c: U1
I ~ "M' ." - ~-
GUY WIRE o. ,..,
-0- PO WER PO LE [;j :;:l
, /' I : '" ""'IT.",' "'" -:",'. ~
,if, 0 '''''''' '"' "'"'' = ~ .,
/' ~'^ '""'" "" ..,.... ~ ..
'" " . ""'""" ........ , ,~
o WELL tn' ~ s::
m TELEPHONE PEDESTAL . es cce
. METAL GUARD POSTS ~ ....... ~~
tf ...... :z - to.
o SCALE IN FEET 0 HYDRANT ~ :; - 8
r""t.-r":'o 100 1S? '1)t'I'-O:':';;, DECtDUOUS TREE CJ') ~,~~ ~
'" / ' .. . . .', l",,~1 ~,"m "''''''' C1> ....
_ c=J U'1 ct:.cclW
. . a::: " _U
, "" CONCRETE SURrACE E .........:; ~ ~
'-... D ""'" "''' "" '" ~ ~;; i
_ _ -' ,.,',.. -:;) a:: S'l 3? ~
'-... ----C;.:'" -- ""TI" "",,'" ". "
/ . - '''''"''' <IT'"" ""' ~
" ~' "'" ""'
I ~ "",,,,, "'"
, TREE LINE
I ___ / ,/ /-- ~ '",TI" ""'"'' "" ~'
-- --/ / I '"
( I \ "- , ' .' , I
-\ \ " ~ i~~~l: ·
:i 'S.".;~ t
I ' .,."" .
____ __ \ \ " /' i;,!,;l I
I ' ""'1"
~ '-. ~ .'0,,,_-
" / ~J!~_>~O
t"O 0.""5.5 .. ..
" .",." .
^ , . '0 "- ' ,...... ,
/..... "",-l..,~.' j '-. ,
/ '" ~ o,~ "'" 'j
)... ,'- f
,,' / ' /"-.... ~<I" /
" ~/1;'<.." / ..... . ',...;"~" / /
I /,'., ,;) "- ~ '-... /' /
I I' "'-. - ----, / /
'" ___=\ z '"
, 0 en .
a 0 . r- _ '-0'\ / e: 5 l
~ / 7 (I \ 0 \ / >-< -. ~
CO / 0 ~'/' / ",,!:: tl.
. . ,', 0 '" · '" ,
O . 0 /J: , / \ o}) ,:', / / < 15 [Q l
I /1 :':- ' ... ".J.-- -- '{ I " 5 <e: '"
(1 / \ \ <Cwu...,...J.c
I "i ,..... ~ - ' It g
,,, . ::l 0 co ro"
1)')1).. / ", L Cr:l ~ ~ 0 ~
I' ,- ,~ <>: '"' ""
~ ., J / en -
<Y . 'l.'< "- - - '" x '
o Ei!):-'" ,:,~'7;::;:7.-,':"~,' ;' v.1 I" / ~ / I \ ~ ~ ~
., .. . ..,' ' - - ~ .
a ".,~,,,.,. .'..' - -
I a a <';&'){(f~~, "'^' " '~, \
[ 0 ........""'.iG. )^ \
. '::<.~':}/.:::;',:::"':::;ltb:;,~:~~<r.:.~.\:" "" <,' '..,
O 0 ....F.'" ", '.... ,. " ') " '
. .\..,....,...-.... '
. <Y~ -;. ..r"'.,.,.''''......' " I ',;c', ",::;.< ,/ "^"N"
\ ~ t- _../
( , ;,r <" RSS
\ '1 ./ .I
= '.', , ' ""
I' 00 "" / '/ ~~ C~'" 09/13/02
r ~, ,"
u @ .; , REVISIONS
I . .. ' " " ,.""
...... 0'- ~ ,.' 'I
.' I ' '. . om, '"'
,;t'..' \ 1...' .&:~~~ . "'\:":
J '.", (DCJa r J ,l ;;-:
" . <<,.":",,,.C0. n r. .'C' U _.r. ,"'"'''' NO
_ _ _~_ _'. _ . . ../ "___"~-'- . /' --.J '"''o) '('~~. . ,:.) O'-:.L~J : ,,-:-._.J .' . -L.. ""'"
- - ... .. -, ~,~. ,.." . .. . -'"
. , . _ _ _~_ rrr-r-r-rrrrrr-rr-rrr--- r~. 'J ,,~.:. ".,t/;v.. '. '. CAD ~ ~
.. ," ...._~ _" . ,>C,
.. .. ..,. " , ,,,,,--,
a "I I ' .-0'
,. ! _ _ PROJECT NO.
________ 2C565
~ _ FILe: NO.
~. ____ ____ __ DRAY~~
SHEET 2 OF 6
E)(: oW' e ,.,... e"2...
I : I .
\ \ \ ~~"
'"
\ \ \. Prooertv Demiotion ocr Document No. 342.365 ~ _~ U"l
~ "- LOTS 9 = ~ ~ ~
. PROPOSED ZONING R-18 -- V1 . I
I \ '-. TI",.portorthc E",' one holror the Southwest Quoro:rorSeetion 17, Township 115, R.mge 22, Scott Coon"., EXISTING ZONING RR (RURAL RESIOENTlAlJ ~ ::l g
" ......... MiMcsot.d.)'"mg South 3nd E:1St of the roUo,,,ingdcscribed line: . DENSITY 0.78 O.U./ACRE ...... ........... ~ ~
I ~ " GROSS 7.00 ACRES U'l j:!ri
"I Beginning i11 a point on the South line of sOlid EilSt one h<LIf of the Southwest Quarterdist:mt 200.00 reet EilSt of the LOTS 5.67 ACRES . E5 . ~
'" _ . Soumwcstcomcr thereof; thence Northwcstcrly~t ill] mgle of69 degrees 53 minutes 20 seconds (35 mC3SW'cd E:1St to R.O.W. 0.80 ACRES t:C' W ~ ~
^' L 1 ~ ..... '" / / North):J distomec of623.76 feel to the center line of:lLOwn rO:ld~ thence Southe~tcrl~' 3lon,g said center line 3 distance OUTLOT A 0.5.3 ACRES .~ : ~ :!:
,t...) I ~ I'')~~.. ~ I I of 1075 reet more: or less [0 its intersection with the Ei1St line orsi1id EilSt one hillfoClhe Southwest Qu<Utcr ~d there TOTAL 7.00 ACRES ~ 5.. 8
/,)I/"" ..~(_;...~......... / tcrmin::lting. ,^ W Vl~C5 ~
('", I(~............ " "'" ~~~x
"'\'-:,,,, ~ "1' ~ '-. / / AVERAGE LOT AREA 27,400 S.F. Q) in &~ ~
'- ."\ '-. MINIMUM LOT AREA g.OOO SF"", .;::;- \E
""'l/ ~/).. '" ...... ,\... / /. / M'NIMUM LOT \\lOTH AT SETBACK 60 FEET E ......, &:!ri :;:
I '" ' / ',/('. .... ~ ' ... MINIMUM LOT OEPTH 100 FEET _ z: '" ~'"
<....... "-. 't ~.. (., I "W Z W..
I,J I " .. (. 1>- (" ;-' MINIMUM SETBACKS ....... :s 8 e ~
l., '4 IJ_v F'RONT .30 FEET ." c.. ~ s: ~
I '" '" ',,/ / /....... / ORA/NAGr ANO UTILI;' rASrMrNrs SlOE (S1'REET) 20 FEET
"- ", .., ~,~ ~< "~OW"'" 'rr' '. ~
.... '" ,-'(' -.... REAR JO FEET
~" '" '~01 / -T-;-~ ;-T-- ~
" ~
.... " / / II
...... 0 I I Q
'" . - II -
I / / __L_-, ,-__1-_
I I II I I N
~ ( I \
'" 0~ \ \ ,
Ie '" , "-
I '" ''''''lS", \ "'- '"
""'l,4/).. " ~
I '" "/ .... "'" NO~'"
/'" ~/') / Z 11:
I G;4, '" ~<::s '" / 5CALE IN FEET 8 E-< ~
" ).. ;./, '-. ' 0 50 100 150 E-< <
/ " '" ...........:>;,7 ,~ " / / / r"'--..... ' >-<.....J ~
1')/1,.... .......... '", / 1 inch = SO I.., C1 ;!. 0... 3.;
,"'ll' "".........___ ,",0 ...... u
,() ".......... _ --- ........~:>-< CIJ~
1 """,- ,/' / <Cz ~ ~~
'i'] ,,- =\ ;;<~<":
I C()I -- ( <C8Z",.....J1l
I' /"r/ "'- \ ~ ~ -.. !i
I /01 ___ ",) ~ ~ ~ CO.
1 ~' - \ --, \ 0 \ r>::l ai::J 0 ~
l") -:_ 0::: ~ ~ ~
\(.~) ~ '5
C. , Q >
~ ~\'\ ~,) \. I ....... 0... ..
/..J I 1_-' J... '- ______ ---..... .....-.' !;;!
~1/.1 \ \ '" <C N
"'') ,"\ "............
~ -1 ,
....... 'I
I I,v> ~ -_ I
I 1~'-'G'4 '" ) I \
, /
" ,.("~ '" /' \
l-.' ----../' "
G~) '<J,
I /).., .....)/~ \
~/ (,'
",1 '''''?'l
I I()'] , 1."
C ,).. ,-. )71
1/;,,, \_~:-, /(,./')., DRAWN SY
I l-., ~ / I \ .".' _ /' PLM
V E <"(\1 ....<) DATE
8 LO CK 1 ' ./" '';.. 'e', 09/13/02
_ ... ... " 1
~ /:/ " / REVISIONS
....... - 5 01 03 R._'s.
.......... _. , Nom ~ &' Lot
: i(r,;~ Lo'out. KMG.
I 1 I 5 -e),
1.:~;7lj Z.. :::! / ....
--. 9 ~ '<- SOOK/PACE
I / ,,-.. -- I .n , ) '1-"-
" _." .. .: -..... 1,/ "'Jl" :.
/ ---- TI " CONTROL NO.
) __ 20965
, . -
r . i . , . .. - - CAD FILE
,...EOC, Oi' >F.:1',-,,<o.., . " au TL 0 T /J" :.::'--.-..... sgo 004-0 '1/ 2QS65ppd"9
_ ~;;!J7'f~?:.~:.,_ ' " _ _ _ / _ /_ u _ _ _ "". _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~;;,_:;g:,~'~:'; _ _,>X :'~': " ,,~4 C o~ - ":!f'~,"
.' _ 1-02-2.2
;:.[.. ~I~I:.~" -,.:: :112 tj; r..;: :I/\/J.-'" --- - - SHEET 3 OF 6
ElCM \O!)"" t:::..
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.:
TO: Mark Noble, Plamler I
FROM: R, Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Plalming Commission Questions or Concerns Regarding Robeli Larson
Preliminary Plat
DATE: May 27,2003
REVIEW PERIOD: NA
INTRODUCTION
It is my understanding that at its May 22nd meeting the Commission expressed concerns about the
subject property being zoned and platted for single-family development. In this memo I will
attempt to address those concerns describing the process that lead to the extension of MUSA to
the subject property (as well as others on the south side of Valley View Road) and re-guiding for
single-family use.
DISCUSSION:
The Transportation Plan, first developed with the assistance ofWSB and finally adopted by the
City Council in the spring of 2002, identifies the 2020 functional classification of Valley View
Road as "collector," That classification recognizes that in the future it will serve an impOliant
transportation function for the residential areas that have been under development since 1995.
As the development of new homes continued east of Marschall Road between STH 169 and
Valley View Road, the need to upgrade Valley View Road to provide an alternative route to the
south became ever more apparent.
On January 16, 2001 the City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for the
improvement of a portion of Valley View Road, At that same meeting, recognizing that there
would be substantial assessments for the improvements that the City would otherwise have to
, pick up, the Council also directed staff to take action to have MUSA allocated on the south side
of Valley View Road, and to allow direct access from lots on the south side of Valley View
Road, so as to make the project feasible, In connection with the development of the Valley View
Road project, a great deal of staff, consultant, and attorney time was spent on 1) what
assessments would be reasonable for the properties on the south side of Valley View Road, 2)
what likely development scenarios would be for the properties south of Valley View Road, A
concern of the Public Works Director was the impact of direct access, and he has concluded that
the access represented by the proposed Larson plat is reasonable in light of Valley View Road
function and configuration in this area,
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2ITl \PPLARSOJ\TROADIN"'FO,doc
When staff was fInally able to bring the Comprehensive Plan fOlVlard for consideration by the
Planning Commission on March 21,2002 staff outlined and asked for direction on establishing
MUSA on the south side of V alley View Road; While the Commission at that time
recommended that the Council adopt the Comprehensive Plan, it did not provide direction
regarding the extension of MUSA to the sourth side of Valley View Road.
p // ~
A/~ .... ~.
""",., /",,:/.. ./' . ..:~-' X. _ ~
/" / ./ ,/ ~r..~....' ...."'....~.:,.A-.._./ Lt~.....~
.... ~....~_:,..o: _ _.._." . .
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
C:\WI1\TDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1Ql \PPLARSON"ROADlJ\TFO,doc
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Sarazin Street, from Mooer's Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley
View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6th
Addition
DATE: January 16, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
Staff is requesting Council direction in the preparation of the feasibility report for the
above referenced proj ect.
BACKGROUND:
On November 6, 2000, City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for an
improvement to Sarazin Street, from Mooer's Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley
View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6th Addition,
Currently the property on the north side of Valley View Road lies within "MUSA", while
the property on the south side of Valley View Road does not. In the City of Shakopee's
"Draft Comprehensive Plan" submitted to the Met Council, the property on the north side
of Valley View Road land use is designated single family and the property on the south
side of Valley View Road land use is designated rural residential. Staff is anticipating
Met Council approval by April or May of this year, which would allow the City of
Shakopee to have a floating "MUSA" boundary.
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has indicated that they would like to have
waterrnain installed along Valley View Road as part of their system and also to provide a
waterrnain connection to the new water tower. By placing the properties along the south
side of Valley View Road into "MUS A" , staff feels that this would allow some of the
properties to subdivide, which would help offset their special assessment for the
improvements to Valley View Road, In order for these parcels to subdivide, driveway
access would need to be given to Valley View Road, Since there are already driveways
onto Valley View Road staff would recommend additional driveway access be granted,
ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide staff direction on the feasibility report on whether the parcels along the south side
of Valley View Road being placed into "MUSA" and direct lot access should be granted.
~~f
Public Works Director
BL/jd
Memojan16
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 13
Cncl. Morke asked about assessing the costs of the sanitary sewer costs to the residents along Holmes
Street between 7th Avenue and 10th. Avenue. Mr. Loney stated th~t back in 1980 the sanitary sewer fund
did not pay for replacing the sewer main so the residents in this area requested that the sanitary sewer
main not be replaced at that time. Ifwe do the project today, the project gets paid for out of the sanitary
sewer fund.
McrrkelI:.ink offered Resolution No. 5472, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On The
2001 Street Overlay Project - Holmes Street, from 3m Avenue to lOth Avenue, and moved its adoption.
Motion qarried unanimously with Cncl. Sweeney abstaining.
Mr. Loney discussed the preparation of the Sarazin Street and Valley View Road feasibility report. The
feasibility study is being done to improve Sarazin Street and curve it to the east plat line of Pheasant Run
6t1:J. Addition to Valley View Road. This improvement to Sarazin Street is being done so collector routes
can be built and other paved access can be made a.vailable for the developments out in that area.
Shako pee Public Utilities is going fOrn'ard and building a water tower and an extension of a water main is
needed in the water tower area. The extension ofthe watennain, therefore should be part of this project.
We are also finding on the south side of Valley View Road, which is not in MUSA and zoned rural
residential, the amount that can be assessed is much lower than ifthere was sewer and water available and
people could subdivide their property. Mr. Loney had a copy of the Comprehensive Plan that was
submitted to the Metropolitan Council. If these improvements to Sarazin Street are assessed based on
our policy, Mr. Loney feels the assessments would be exceeding the benefits the property owner would
receive. If direct access is given to some parts of Valley View Road, there are some buildable lots to
allow expansion in this rural residential area. The assessments the City would roost likely need to pay, if
the-land-isn'treguided along Valley View Road to urban residential is approximately $300,000 plus. The
Council needs to answer the question regarding the south side of Valley View Road. Do you see the land
on the south side of Valley View Road 1) always being rural residential or should the City allow that area
to be reguided to urban residential and 2) should the City of Shakopee allow MUSA and direct lot access
. from Valley View Road on future subdivided lots. Valley View Road will be a collector street and the
City's current policy tends not to allow access onto a collector street. . Depending on the policy direction
of the two questions that the engineering department has, the feasibility report can then be finished.
+ Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct the City staff to take appropriate action to have MUSA allocated on
the south side of Valley View Road as far as needed to make improvements to Valley View Road
feasible.
Mr. Loney asked how the Council wanted this area developed,
There was discussion on a future intersection point with Valley View Road and property owners having
the ability to develop their property.
Cncl. Sweeney stated that sewer and water lines may be running past 10 acres parcels and the Council
needs to accept the fact that these people VIill need to be able to subdivide their property or there VIill be
assessment appeals,
, '
. - . .....:.. ......lo. .""
, Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 14
Cncl. Morke wondered what the position ofthe Metropolitan Council would be on this area being asked
to have MUSA made available? Mr. Leek approached the podium and addressed this question. He
suggested that the City not submit a separate application for this area, but essentially that the Council
determine that this is a priority area, so that when there is an agreed acreage amount for a five year
increment for residential development, that this would become one of the areas that the City would
extend the MUSA to and report back to the Metropolitan Council under the floating MUSA agreement.
Mr. Leek also stated that the land use is also a component of extending MUSA
Mayor ~rekke did not see the south side of Valley View Road as a priority for allocating MUSA He
liked the idea of preserving this area as rural residential and preserving the bluff line. He would rather see
MUSA extension on the east side of CR. 83 on the abutting parcels to the Mdewakanton Sioux property
and getting developments along C.R. 83 as soon as possible.
Cnel. Sweeney said he would oppose vehemently the paving of Valley View Road at the expense of the
general taxpayers.
+ Motion carried 3 - 2 with Cncl. Morke and Mayor Brekke dissenting,
The discussion on having MUSA on the east side of c.R. 83 adjacent to the Mdewakanton Sioux
property v,ril.l be scheduled for a future meeting.
~ Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct staff to allow appropriate direct lot' access from the south side of
Valley View Road in the event that Valley View Road is improved, Motion carried 3 -2 with encl.
Morke and Mayor Brekke dissenting.
Mr. McNeill reported on the Public WorksIPolice building roof repair. Approximately a year ago the
City hired JEA Architects to perfonn an analysis on City facilities. In a report dated May 15, 2000.JEA
Architects noted that the Public WorksIPolice building needed replacement of the existing root: which is
25 years old. This roof replacement was listed as a high priority in the JEA analysis. JEA has supplied a
cost estimate to be somewhere between $310,000 to $350,000. JEA Architects will prepare the plans
and .specifications on a hourly basis at a cost not to exceed $30,500 plus reimbursables,
Cncl. Link thought this figure was extremely high.
According to }Jr. McNeill, because of the amount of the estimated cost a formal bid process is needed.
MorkelSweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement with JEA
Architects for architectural services needed for the reroofing of the Public Services building located at
476 Gorman Street, a total not to exceed $30,500, plus reimbursables. Motion carried unanimously.
Link! Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement 'With WSB
for the installatlon design of the EVPS System and obtain quotes for the actual installation. Motion
carried under the Consent Agenda),
c, . "
'-, . .....,.....:.. .,'
~'1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 03-041
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Rezoning - Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB)
Zone
MEETING DATE: June 5, 2003
REVIEW PERIOD: April 11, 2003 to August 8, 2003
Site Information
Applicant: Rob Larsen
Property Owners: Rob & Debra Larsen
Location: 2424 Valley View Road
Existing Zoning: Rural Residential (RR) Zone
Proposed Zoning: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone
Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone
South: Rural Residential (RR) Zone
West: Rural Residential (RR) Zone
East: Urban Residential (R -IB) Zone
Compo Plan: Single Family Residential
Acreage: 7.0 Acres
MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary.
Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map
Exhibit B: Site Plans
Exhibit C: R. Michael Leek Memo and Related Materials
INTRODUCTION
Rob Larsen has submitted an application for a rezoning from the Rural Residential (RR) Zone to
the Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. The subject site is located on the south side of Valley View
Road, east of Pheasant Run and west of Williams Street (Exhibit A). The site is presently being
utilized as one single-family residence.
This item was scheduled for the May 22, 2003 meeting, but due to the applicant absence, the
item was tabled to the June 5, 2003 meeting, The Planning Commission will also be asked to
review the preliminary plat application for this property at the June 5, 2003 meeting.
CONSIDERATIONS
The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development ofthe 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 with a city's comprehensive plan.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted land use plan which guides it '~single
family residential". Refer to Section 11.24 (Rural Residential Zone) and Section 11.28 (Urban
Residential Zone) for a listing of the uses, both permitted and conditional, which are allowed in
these zones. 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 5, 2003 meeting.
Planning staff have been asked to research the process of extending MUSA to this property as
well as others on Valley View Road and the reguiding of these properties for single-family
development. R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director, has provided a memo
(Exhibit C) that attempts to address this issue. Included as related infonnation to Mr. Leek's
memo is a January 16, 2001 memo from Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, to the City
Council and minutes from that Council meeting.
Staff have noted that the proposed development appears to comply with the minimum
requirements for lots and blocks, as outlined in the City Code.
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 The applicant is proposing a development that will be consistent with the approved
Comprehensive Plan,
Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns
have occurred; or
Finding #3 Development of the subject property for singlejamily residences will be consistent
with desired development patterns for this area of the City,
Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision.
Finding #4 The requested zoning will be consistent with the approved Comprehensive Plan
land use map,
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property
from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-lB) Zone.
2. Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject
property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-lB) Zone.
3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff.
4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative No.1; recommend to the City Council the approval ofthe request to
rezone the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-lB) Zone.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer and approve a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone
the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone.
~~
Mark Noble '
Planner I
G:BOAA -PC\2003 \06-05\rezlarsen,doc
E."'-\ '~n- A
AG ~-='.~ LlH~~'" v ~"'\~V\JltlUl\ ~'1 ~.1 / liJlI~7Tt-r T~~. :-~ '-Tl
r- !' --....__ ' . ',- \ _' .-.' - I~.' /' I I ! ~ I.. i f-
L.._._ I '\ ' 1;.-1- ". / / / I ,-. ""
I :: ' . 1--. ;.. ,,>/ --------,-1",. I~. "{...~/,I .... ; !.- , l--~ :....... ......
~----., I ' !. ---. ~/ /\ I I 'i' I II '... "'- I II / 'v' _'-..-'''' ... ...........
\ h~ I . I.. \ I' I' \, 1-1- ....z i,l '-"\ ,', ......... I
f--_...J I ,~._-~ 0-''-'' l..-mk 1>/ -, ~ "'~. / \ \'-""-.. :._- -. I
L I . I ,- I '- .l--'"r<- \' '-.{.~-~--./ "'-I.~ I \, \ '- :... I
--~, I {' I -I ~ ~ \" ,,---- I
"L ' I -. -. ,~. ~' , '-" -
I ,,, I ' ,~ "./ I
, : '-----i I " ... \ . \--. --
-8-tIJj l___~ rlBJ, ~-_riJ-]~-2f-.! f.._{ \. ~"''''''-'/'~\'/\I ~-- -~
, -(R ~1 I I ,f------, ~ -r-:, 1< J
, '.--T--, ,/' I IZ' ' '\ ~j 1 , ' y'- ~ - -
~ lli10 RHEE,I tili' III I ~ r it=t: j 8 ~~ t:j-J ~ f--I
~""krld \ ~I' I I ~ ' -, \ I Hr-'r"!!- I I-~ r IL~ I
~ ' I I 'M I I <1 Ij-r---i~ - --1
\ L.. Q' I I liB ffi' ~A2 --) J' 1Lt=G ~: I. r- J~~ ~~
I ' I I i--.. -1 I --',' I it:' ,
\ ' . ~ ' r----r---rr! >---;
" I ' r
I I I I!" I r---r---- ~. -- 8.
~ I f.i.l.-.---+-/I j2 I I I"f.-
, 0 I i I IV',
I ! L..-J1__) t-- '!
I J ~.,--
lPi--~ ~Lh
Tl-1-= ! - -L ~
.A....l-. I ' , J
- Urn~!
~~
~
N
IIIIlMi!i1II w* E
~~~~1~ S
Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR)
to Urban Residential (RIB) Zone
D Zoning Boundary
! Parcel Boundary
_ Parcel Area in Question