The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14.E. Comp Plan Amendment to Add MUSA-Res. No. 5898 /Y.E, CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Add MUSA MEETING DATE: June 17,2003 REVIEW PERIOD: April 24 - August 22, 2003 CASELOG NO.: 03-052 INTRODUCTION: Mark and Joel Liesner have submitted an application requesting that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to extend MUSA to their property. The subject site is located north of CSAH 16 and east of Pike Lake Road and west of Foothill Trail (see Exhibit A). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its June 5, 2003 meeting, and by a unanImous vote, recommended approval of the requested comprehensive plan amendment, subject to the City's ability to, at its discretion, remove the MUSA allocation if the property does not receive preliminary plat approval within one year of being granted MUSA. A copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission is attached for the Council's information. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5898, approval of the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to Extend MUSA. 2. Do not approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to extend MUSA to the subject site. 3. Table the item and request additional information from the applicant or staff. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion to approve Resolution No. 5898, approving the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to extend MUSA subject to the City's ability to, at its discretion, remove the MUSA allocation if the property does not receive preliminary plat approval within one year of being granted MUSA. iFf lUta ? lie Klima - lanner II g:\cc\2003\06-17\musaliesner.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5898 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKO PEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE 1999 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO EXTEND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) TO PROPERTY WHEREAS, Mark and Joel Liesner, applicant and property owners, have requested the extension of MUSA to the property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as attached on Exhibit A; 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 City Council heard the matter at its meeting of June 17,2003; 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 Comprehensive Plan is not in error. Finding # 2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. Finding #3 Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. The subject property is, essentially, sandwiched between properties within the MUSA boundary. As well as the development occurring and proposed in the vicinity of the subject property qualify the property for the extension of MUSA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update by the extension of MUS A to the site is hereby approved subject to the City's ability to, at its discretion, remove the MUSA allocation if the property does not receive preliminary plat approval within one year of being granted MUSA. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota held this day of ,2003. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 5898 T~e West 410. feet ofthe Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, MI:mesota, lymg North of the North boundary of County Highway No. 16, according to the Umted States Government Survey thereof and situate in Scott County, Milmesota. AND That part o~the East Y2 of,the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Mmnesota, descnbed as follows: Commencing on the Northeast comer of said East Y2 of the Southeast 1/4; thence South along the East line of said East 12 ofthe Southeast 1/4 a distance of 1167,10 fe~t to the center line of County Road No. 16; thence deflecting to the right 101 degrees 25 mmutes 30 seconds along said center line a distance of255.05 feet to its intersection with the We~t line of~ast, 250.0 feet of said East Y2 ofthe Southeast 1/4, said intersection being the actual pomt ofbegllmmg; thence continuing Westerly along said center line a distance of 200,0 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said East Yz ofthe Southeast 1/4 a distance of 444.40 feet; thence Easterly to a point in the West line of the East 250.0 feet of said East Y2 of the Southeast 1/~, said point being 444.40 feet North from the point of beginning; thence South along the West lme of the East 250.0 feet of said East Y2 of the Southeast 1/4 a distance of 444.40 f~et to ~he point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and SItuate m Scott County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. AND ~- The West 341.75 feet ofthe East 591.75 feet of the Southeast 1/4, and the West 341.75 feet of the East 591.75 feet of the East Yz ofthe Southeast 1/4 lying northerly ofthe center line of County Road No. 16, all in Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, except a tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said East Y2 of the Southeast 1/4; thence south along the east line of said East Y2 of the Southeast 1/4 a distance of 1167.10 feet to the center line of County Road No. 16; thence deflecting to the right 101 degrees 25 minutes 30 seconds along said center line a distance of255.05 feet to its intersection with the west line ofthe East 250,0 feet of said East Y2 ofthe Southeast 1/4, said intersection being the actual point of beginning; thence continuing westerly along said center line a distance of 200.0 feet; thence north parallel with the east line of said East Y2 of the Southeast 1/4 a distance of 444.40 feet; thence easterly to a point in the west line ofthe East 250.0 feet of said East Y2 ofthe Southeast 1/4 said point being 444.40 feet north from the point of beginning; thence south along the west line of the East 250.0 feet of said East Y2 ofthe Southeast 1/4 a distance of 444.40 feet to the point ofbegiIming, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Scott County, Minnesota, AND That part of the East 1i of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, which lies Northerly ofthe centerline of Scott County Highway No. 16 as the same was laid on July 5, 1968, except the East 591.75 feet (also described as the East 15 acres) thereof, Scott County, Minnesota. CITY OF SHAKO PEE :#,0 Memoralldum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Add MUSA MEETING DATE: June 5, 2003 REVIEW PERIOD: April 24 - August 22, 2003 I CASELOG NO.: 03-052 Site Information: I Applicant: Mark and Joel Liesner I i Property Owner: Mark and Joel Liesner Location: North ofCSAH 16, east of Pike Lake Road and west of Foothill Trail Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-1B) South: Agricultural Preservation (AG)/Rural Residential (RR) East: Agricultural Preservation (AG)/Light Industrial (n) West: Rural Residential (RR)/Urban Residential (R-1B) MUSA: The site is NOT within the MUSA boundary INTRODUCTION: Mark and Joel Liesner have made a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to extend MUSA to the subject site. The subject site is located north ofCSAH 16 and east of Pike Lake Road and west of Foothill Trail (see Exhibit A). The property is approximately 42 acres in size. In 2002, the Metropolitan Council approved a 2186 acre ten year MUSA allocation to the City of Shakopee. The City is permitted to distribute the MUSA designations to properties while reporting those designations annually to the Metropolitan Council. To date, the City has allocated 482.5 acres of MUS A. Leaving a total available allocation of 1703.5 acres, Minnegasco has commented that a natural gas pipeline crosses the property. The developer should contact Minnegasco for further information. The Engineering Department has provided comments which are attached as Exhibit C, The Engineering Department has recommended that ifthis property does not receive preliminary plat approval within 1 year after being granted MUSA, that the City of Shakopee, at its discretion, can remove the MUSA allocation. 1 The City's adopted Comprehensive Plan currently guides the property for single family residential development. The MUSA boundary was extended, in August 2002, to include the property between the applicant's property (the Eagle Creek Stables property currently proposed for development by Randy Noecker). Also, the property to the east (the 80 acres owned by Shakopee Crossings along CR 18) is within the MUSA boundary. The subject site is included within the Primary MUSA expansion area as identified in 2002. FINDINGS: The Zoning Ordinance does not specify criteria for granting a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment. Though reasonable criteria would be Criteria 1-3 for Zoning Ordinance amendments. Staffhas provided Criteria 1-3 for the Commission's review and discussion. Criteria #1 That the original Comprehensive Plan is in error; Finding #1 The original Comprehensive Plan 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, Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. Finding #3 Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. The subject property is, essentially, sandwiched between properties within the MUSA boundary. As well as the development occurring and proposed in the vicinity of the subject property qualify the property for the extension of MUSA, ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval ofthe request to extend MUSA to the subject site subject to the City's ability to, at its discretion, remove the MUSA allocation if the property does not receive preliminary plat approval within one year of being granted MUSA. 2. Recommend denial to the City Council of the request to extend MUSA. 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 a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval ofthe request to extend MUSA to the subject site, subject to the City's ability to, at its discretion, remove the MUSA allocation if the property does not receive preliminary plat approval within one year of being granted MUSA, and move its adoption. *11. tLLH1./L Julie Klima Planner II g: \boaa-pc \2 003 \06-05\musa-liesners,doc 2 I I II I I I ~F r.r- ---=::: :: r- AG Itk-~-::::---c=C ~ ~t Cd ...:.1 ..--,,--- I I f !J .... ~ AlG j~ AG fJ I I I 11 __J I I~L1Q~~<T-7T ~XH-JBrrA. N ~ W*E SHAKOPEE COMMl1NTlY PRIDE SlNCE 1657 S Request for Extension of MUSA D Zoning Boundary ---', Parcel Boundary . ---~._.- _ Parcel Area in Question """ ~/BfT f3 ..-::..., dJ},; _. ;~' ~~ .~ November 22, 2003 "- f)vil~ .. Mr. Mark McNeill .. {I J z z,lq'~ City Administrator ..' ..:' ":, ',' .": .' :".'~ .': .' ", . '"," 129 Hohnes St. S. ,..'," ' .' ....... . Shakopee,~ 55379 '., Dear Mr. McNeill: Please consider extending theMUSA line to include four additional parcels in the urban service area. These parcels are currently located onthe North side ofCSAH 16 at 7755, 7501 and 7051 Eagle Creek Blvd., PID numbers 279140090, 279140050, 279140051 and 279140020. (The property is highlighted on the attached diagram). The city recently granted approval to include the property located between these two parcels known as Eagle Creek Stables ii1 the urball ~5~.ce area. We appreciate your timely consideration of this request and look forward to your response. If you would like'to discuss this request, please feel free to contact us at (612)237-5522 or (612)964-8128. Sincerely, ff~ 1--;:<._.... , . oel M. Liesener ~;1!J~ . ", .. . :.'~ .~ E:XfrlBrt C. t City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Julie Klima, Planner II c5~~~ FROM: Scott A. Smith, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Extension of MUS A PID No.: 27-914002-0,27-914005-0,27914005-1,27-914006-0 & 27-914009-0 CASE No,: 03052 DATE: May 22, 2003 The application indicates the desire to have extension of MUS A. After reviewing the referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: Street. Utility and Storm Drainage Extension Engineering wants the applicant to be aware of some issues for the property so they can better plan for development. Currently no city street, sanitary sewer, storm sewer or watermain is available to this site. There have been plans presented to city staff showing possible locations of street and utilities both for this property and for the property that is between the applicants parcels, as shown the map submitted by the applicant, but nothing has been approved. Street aJigmnents will need review and approval by the City of ShakQpee. Access to county road 16 will need review and approval by Scott County. Sanitary sewer extension as well as sanitary sewer trunk fees needs to be worked out. Storm water drainage and ponding will need to be established for this site as well as storm water trunk fees will have to be paid. Watermain will need review and approval by SPUC, Recommendation Recommend approval with the following condition. 1. If this applicant for this property does not received preliminary plat approval within 1 year after being granted MUSA, the City of Shakopee, at its discretion, can remove the MUSA allocation, ./