Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.B. Comp Plan Amendment to Reguide Property and Zoning Map-tabled 1/21 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Ii (j . Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property and Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone Property MEETING DATE: March 4,2003 REVIEW PERIOD: October 17, 2002 - March 6, 2003 CASELOG NO.: 02-118 INTRODUCTION: The Council reviewed this request at its January 2l, 2003, meeting. At that time, the developer granted a 20 day extension to the review period. The review period for these applications is due to expire on March 6,2003. Noecker Development has made a request to reguide and rezone property. Specifically, the requests are to 1) amend the Comprehensive Plan guiding of property from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential while retaining a portion of the site as Single Family Residential and 2) to rezone the property from Light Industrial (ll) and Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R-1B), Medium Density Residential (R2), and Multiple Family Residential (R3). The applicant did withdraw his request to reguide and rezone a portion ofthe site for Planned Residential District (PRD) uses. His original intent was to construct a senior center on the PRD property, however, he has withdrawn that portion of the request. A copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission is attached for the Council's information. The City Council did extend the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUS A) boundary to this site in August 2002. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing on the subject request at the meeting of December 5th. At the conclusion ofthe public hearing, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the requested amendments. The City Council reviewed this request at its December 17, 2002, meeting and at that time tabled action in order to receive further information on the land use guiding of properties adjacent to the subject site. City staff has been in contact with NAC regarding the land use guiding of adjacent properties. NAC recommends that the existing Comprehensive Plan be implemented and further states that plans that are contrary to the adopted land use plan are premature. 1 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt a resolution of denial based on the Planning Commission recommendation and Northwest Associated Consultants report. 2. Adopt an ordinance of approval, contingent upon approval by the Metropolitan Council of the land use reguiding. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion consistent with the wishes of the Council. ~m~ Planner IT g: \cc \2003\03-04 \compplalll1oecker .doc 2 ,. *'7 Noecker Development, LLC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 January 31, 2003 R. Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minn. 55379-1351 RE: Eagle Creek Ponds Reguiding and Rezoning Application Dear Michael, This letter is written to describe my situation, as it relates to the Eagle Creek Ponds development. If you would, please give a copy of this letter to the mayor and each council member. Also, it is my plan to personally meet with the council members one on one, to eX'Plain my situation briefly, about the lawsuit and share the logic for my plat request. Several items within this project effect the overall plan. Key issues are about timing, quality materials, type and style of homes and building pad elevations. The county highway 21 timing issue is certainty significant. However, Pike Lake Trail, is built as a part of the project and is a 4 lane collector and none of the engineers involved in discussions have indicated that Pike Lake Trail is inadequate to handle the traffic from the development. High quality materials used in the construction of these buildings, add to the atheistic value and "look" of the overall prqJect and this issue is definitely a major concern of mine and in my projects is controlled by an "Architectural Review Committee" , which is basically me. Proper exierior choices greatly enhance the appeal and overall look of the homes and therefore the material selected in construction is significant. Proper choice of the type and style ofhome(s) within a project is also critical within the "demand area" relative to competition from similar products and the timing thereof. However, in this particular situation a "site specific" condition drastically effects the most appropriate choice of type and style of home. This condition is the proposed "building pad" or basement elevation above the "flood plain". At the meeting today, my engineer stated that the 40 acres north of the creek has an average fill of 5 feet above exiting ground levels, which thereby causes a huge demand for additional structural material (like sand); in this case the material balance calculations show a deficiency of over 58,000 cubic yards and this means, it must be hauled into the site. Another interesting fact is that, after this 58,000 cubic yards is brought into the site, we are then at a height of only the basement floor elevation. It may be cheaper to remove units than haul material of this quantity into the site. This then is the crn.....: of the entire problem, because it is not economically feasible to raise 40 acres of land another 4 feet to get split entry homes, like in a single family development. The best solution therefore, is to build "slab on grade" units. It is also highly recommended to pick the best selling units in "slab on grade" designs. These are "back to back" units because they appeal to such a variety of buyers; the elderly, singles and young married couples. The back to back units proposed in Eagle Creek Ponds are large and will likely sell just under $200,000; end units might go for $225,000. Demand for this style of living is strong, it is what people want. Base prices might be at $179,000 to $189,000 and with 12% to 14% in upgrades, it will become a great neighborhood to call home. Single family "slab on grade" homes cannot be built on large lots because you will not sell them, therefore the 60 to 65 foot lot would be best. These are likely to sell for $139,900 to $159,900. At the last meeting, the mayor asked me why I was proposing multiple housing on such a large area in this project and it is because the alternative is single family "slab on grade" homes and no one except for seniors is willing to buy these and they are usually built in twins or quads, not in single family units. The single family buyer is not purchasing a home \vithout a basement. This is the single biggest problem with this land. The decision can be made to build Town homes in the $180,000 to $220,000 or you can build small single family homes on 60' - 65' foot lots, with homes "slab on grade" priced (rm guessing at $119.900 to $159.900 ) T .aTQ'e Jot!': cannot he cTeated for ~lah ~inQ'le faml1v home~ heC;J\lf;;e there i~ 110 market for "~l;Jh on l2Tade" homes. Senior residential homes "slab on grade" might do better but Scott county has too much senior housing planned at this time. Other issues like the proper depth of utility pipes passing under highway 21 have been addressed in Craig Jensol1' s letter when he stated that the highway will be raised in this area so the existing pipes can continue at the depth they are now at. Highway noise questiol15 are being addressed with our proposed noise study to be completed soon. Also, the highway aligmnent issue is being discussed but is unlikely to change in light of the high cost of land and the lack of county funds available to purchase R of W. Besides, I am involved in another road alignment in Savage; it is a 4 lane called South Park Drive and it has a R of W only 80 feet wide. In 1998, I purchase the Eagle Creek Stables property and proceeded immediately with my first formal request for MUSA exiension that fall. I wish to thank the city council members and the Mayor for allowing the MUSA extension to this 80 acres of land. Mr. Hanson, however, purchased another large 280 acre farm in Carver county, to operate his horse boarding business, with the expectation of closing the Eagle Creek Stables property. Much hardship has been forced onto Mr. Hansoll in trying to operate two boarding facilities. I am trying to get approval for Eagle Creek Ponds rezoning, from the city, prior to closing with Hanson and the courts have recently agreed that my agreement is valid. It is not rigllt to delay this project. Sincerely, Zk/~~ Randall R. Noecker, president Noecker Development, LLC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 Cell 612-741-2662 Office 763-786-6387 This letter is written to grant a 20 day extension oftime for R & R application consideration. It is however, my desire to develoD this oroDertv immediately and throulili a Dlan mutually acceotable. hooefullv show an adeauate ability RESOLUTION NO. 5862 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE 1999 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TO REGUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO A COMBINATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY RESDIENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (11) TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R- IB), MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R2) AND MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R3) WHEREAS, Noecker Development LLC, applicant, has requested the re-guiding ofland from single family residential to a combination of single family residential, medium density residential, and high density residential and the rezoning of property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Light Industrial (Il) to Urban Residential (R-IB), Medium Density Residential (R2) and Multiple Family Residential (R3); and; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: That part of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, lying northerly of the North right-of-way line of County Road No. 16, excepting therefrom the West 410 feet thereof; and the Southwest Quarter of the of the Northeast Quarter; the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter excepting the Easterly 591.75 feet thereof; all in Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 5,2002, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at the meetings of December 17, 2002, January 21 and March 4,2003; and WHEREAS, the period for review of the requests was extended to March 6, 2003 with the applicant's request. 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 No.1: The 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update is not in error; Finding No.2: Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place that would require or suggest that the subject property be re- guided as requested. Finding No.3: Significant changes in City wide or neighborhood development patterns have not occurred, that suggest the use of this site for medium and high density residential is desirable. 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update by re-guiding the subject property from single-family residential to a combination of single family residential, medium density residential, and high density residential and the rezoning of property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Light Industrial (11) to Urban Residential (R-IB), Medium Density Residential (R2) and Multiple Family Residential (R3) is hereby denied. 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 6 JP7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property and Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone Property MEETING DATE: December 5,2002 REVIEW PERIOD: October 17 - February 14, 2002 CASELOG NO.: 02-118 Site Infonnation: Applicant: Noecker Development Property Owner: Terrance Hanson (Eagle Creek Stables) Location: North ofCSAH 16. south of South bridge residential development Adjacent Zoning: North: County Road 2 1 Right-of-WRY South: County Road 16/ Rural Residential (RR) East: Agricultural PreseIVation (AG)/Light Industrial (ll) West: Agricultural PreseIVation (AG)/Light Industrial (II) MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary INTRODUCTION: Noecker Development has made a request to reguide and rezone property. Specifically, the requests are to 1) amend the Comprehensive Plan guiding of property from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Planned Residential while retaining a portion of the site as Single Family Residential guiding and 2) to rezone the property from Light Industrial (II) and Agricultural PreseIVation (AG) to Urban Residential (R- IB), Medium Density Residential (R2), Multiple Family Residential (RJ) and Planned Residential District (PRD). Please see Exhibit B for development plans. The subject site is located north ofCSAH 16 and south of the Southbridge residential development (see Exhibit A). The property is approximately 79 acres in size. The applicant has expressed his intent to develop the property with single family dpt~.:hed residential units, townhome units and a 3 to 4 story senior center. Please see E;;1.ibi, 2, the applicant's narrative. The City Council did extend the Metropolitan Urban SeIVice Area (MUSA) boundary to this site in August 2002. The adopted Land Use Plan guides the entire subject site for single family development. Had the applicant's request been for a rezoning of the entire site to a single family residential zoning district, staff would be in the position to provide a positive recommendation for 1 the development of this parcel. However, given the mixture of proposed types of development, several issues may require further attention, such as: . The ease and cost of extending services to this site. Services to this site would need to cross the right-of-way offuture County Road 21, the completion of the construction of which is not expected within the next 3 years, and would have to cross adjacent property owners lands which are currently outside of the MUSA boundary. . Determining whether this location best suits the type of development proposed. While viewing the parcel in its current state, it is easy to view the proposed development in isolation. However, the construction of County Road 21 and the upgrade of County Road 16 will vastly change the character of this area. The Engineering Department has provided comments which have been attached as Exhibit D. 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. 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. Staff has provided Criteria 1 - 3 for the Commission's review and discussion. Criteria #1 That the original Comprehensive Plan is in error; Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. The Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria for granting a Zoning Map Amendment. An amendment may be granted when one or more ofthe following criteria exists. Criteria #1 That the original Comprehensive Plan is in error; Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns; Criteria #4 That the Comprehensive Plan requires a different provision. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to reguide and rezone the subject property, as requested, contingent upon approval from the Metropolitan CounciL 2. Reconunend denial by the City Council of the request to reguide and rezone the subject property as requested. 2 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional infonnation from the applicant or staff 4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional infonnation. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion consistent with the wishes of the Commission. uhe ~~ Planner II g: \boaa-pc\2002\12-05\compplannoecker .doc 3 - RIB '\ ~. .\ I I I I \ \ I "I I I I \ ~ / C AG ~ 12 ~ ~ 12 .,. ~ A I I I~ ~ EKHfBf/A.,.E SHAKOPEE COMMlJNl1YPlUDESlNCE 1857 S Reguiding and Rezoning of subject parcels. o Zoning Boundary ! ! Parcel Boundary _ Parcel Area in Question EX-If/BfT C. Noecker Development, llC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 October 17, 2002 Mark Noble City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minn. 55379 RE: Rezoning and Guiding Applications Dear Mark, Today I am submitting my rezoning and guiding plat applications for the Eagle Creek Stables property at 7301 Eagle Creek Blvd ( # 16). The project will be called Eagle Creek Ponds and your suggestions and help to date are appreciated. The property has 17 acres on the bluff and 63 acres below. South Bridge is acljacent to and directly north of my project, except for the 200' R ofW dedication therein. The plan I am submitting is a "mixed use" plan with R-2 and R-3 up against the highway and RI-B (with smaller and large single family lots) on the south half of the project. The site also has a planned senior center with about 100 units and a large park with several thousand feet of asphalt trails. This area of the City is now guided for single family, but several site issues dictate that single family is not really appropriate for some of this site. I purchased rights to this property in 1998 and in the fall of 1998 we began studying the site to determine the best logical uses for the area and the creek relationship issues along with wetland mitigation criteria. The creek and the wetlands are tied together and through.numerous meetings and phone calls with city staff, Pete Willenbring (WSB), Paul Nelson at Prior Lake-SPWSD and various wetland agency representatives, the issues seem to be coming together into an acceptable plan with the creek moved slightly from it's existing location. Although recently changed to single family, the use of all the land, does not really fit that type of proposal best in an area wide master plan concept. Several reasons effect the best and most appropriate long term use of the land and are obvious after our perusal. These include; highway #21, the best residential use for the property, the most appropriate uses for property near shopping centers, existing topographical conditions and today's market demand. The site conditions, it's location and area wide issues have lead to the plan herein submitted. A few copies of the proposed preliminary plat are also attached. I plan to immediately submit the preliminary plat in November, because of court ordered issues (from the lawsuit as previously explained). The plan being proposed by my people has R-3 and R-2 backing up against Highway #21. Proper design techniques suggest turning the buildings on end as it faces the 4 lane. This method is proposed for all the R-3 and the R-2 units except where a few of the units in the R-2 area have the back yards to the pond. The common ground of an association has usually been deemed to be more appropriate than the back yards of SF homes in areas of acljacent high traffic roads. The other areas in the site have the SF on or near the bluff. With Highway #16 (Eagle Creek Blvd.) generating less traffic, SF zoning is best here than elsewhere and the lots backing up to #16 have been made deeper to overcome traffic problems. As a developer, we see the demand and the need for senior housing in the future, especially near shopping centers. As a part of the R-3 zoning a 3-4 story building with underground parking would be built in the 84 -120 unit size. Efficiencies of operation dictate this for management issues and for other aspects of a senior center, like transportation needs and activities for the seniors. Until we complete a market feasibility study for the senior center, the number of units best suited for the area is unknown, but the plan will fit all aspects of the R - 3 zoning when completes. My level of experience includes development projects in Chanhassen, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie, Savage, Blaine and rural acreage lots elsewhere with 25 years in real estate as my occupation. Featherstone Lake Estates in Savage was started in 1998 and 65 SF lots and 90 town homes were designed in the preliminary plat. This project incorporated 59 acres of land Large parcels of ground give more creativity to site design than small sites and "mixed use" sites in areas like this, usually work best in the long run for the conununity because of the diversity. One of the primary "site condition" factors is the 200' wide Highway #21 Right of Way (2,000+ feet long) and adjacent to the north side of my land. In years gone by city planners deemed it acceptable to put single family next to major highways, but todav mo~t of the exnerienced metro nlanner~ know that indllmial. commercial or multi-familv i~ he~ in the~ area~ alonll maior high~ays in the long run. We all can identify with SF sites ill the metro backing up to busy highways; even as recently as when South Bridge was approved, it was acceptable to think single family was okay neA1 to a future 4 lane highway. Through shared information and increased knowledge, we have been able to expand our understanding of proper planning techniques to a much greater degree than ever before. This parcel is 80 acres in size and as a result, the design flexibility of the site can enjoy much creativity and unlike some large sites which do not allow for the ability to incorporate a senior center, this site has several unique factors which contribute well to a senior center complex within a mixed use development. In other situations, like in my 59 acre site in Savage, the layout of the land around that lake was too narrow to make a senior center work Often a large flat project like this is needed to design amenities like a senior center within a master plan or area of the city. Other design goals were achieved through much planning and redesign which has allowed us to implement desired benefits. For example, we have used the creek to separate the Single family from the senior center and R-2 land We have located the wetlands near the trail system to enhance views and we have kept the park trail next to the creek whenever possible. With this basic layout, we have also used our ponds effectively to contribute to the lifestyle and natural beauty the residents will enjoy while living in this neighborhood Other issues playa part in the design aspects of this project. South Bridge, for example, is a mixed use development and it is logical that this land would also be rezoned to a "mixed use" being adjacent to South Bridge. Also, normal design criteria places "mixed use" land near shopping centers to increase residential concentrations. Often, as in this case, when high traffic roads are adjacent to the site, this multi~residential use is usually more appropriate. The last issue I wish to comment on is market demand. All of us ill the business know that the demand for town homes is not decreasing. Lifestyle desires create a demand for town homes that appears not to end, especially for certain types of housing and after 25 years in the real estate business the trend toward town homes is constantly increasing. We all recognize this fact. Our busy lifestyles contribute to this type of demand in housing. We as developers satisfy a housing need; we cannot control the need, we only ride the "demand wave" and the demand is still there and growing for this type oflifestyle living. Another area of demand in today's marketplace is single family lots on smaller parcels, because some buyers still prefer to have that single family house but they do not want the large yard. My plan will have some ofthese smaller lots below the bluff to accommodate this need. This decision came at the very end after it was detennined we should eliminate the twin homes from previous plans. Much thought has gone into this plan as it relates to "lifestyle demand" issues. This project, it's location, the conditions of the site, the area surrounding the site, the market demand and even construction issues, which relate to the limited amount of material available, all lead to the same outcome; a residential project under a "mixed use" format is the best master plan for this land considering all the conditions and issues involved. In my opinion, this plan has the most probable and proper mix of unit styles for future demand in the City. The highway issues, the site location and it's nearness to shopping, the housing diversity, the lifestyle issues and other related factors have lead us to create this plan as the best fit for future needs of the City. Also, if you have seen some of my projects in Savage (Featherstone Lake Estates), Eden Prairie, Maple Grove or Chanhassen you will recognize that my neighborhoods are usually a step above surrowlding developments in value. The resulting appearance of properly designed developments is enjoyed by the residents and the community for generations to come. This plan is ideal considering its location, the adjacent highway, its access to shopping and most important, proper site design for the land given its conditions and issues for development. If you will investigate my previous developing activities in other connnunities, you will see this prevailing attitude of "upper bracket plans" in previous projects I have designed. The senior center, for example, is so obvious as a current and future need,. yet its placement surrounded by single family homes is not the best design plan. The residential units next to highway #21 need to be multi-family, not single family. This combination is then best solved with the senior center next to the high density units. In summary, not matter how we look at it, if we want to properly build for the future, this plan or one very similar to it will generate the best overall desire for our needs in the future. If you have any questions, please give me a call. S~b; Z;; ~ _~~_/4Ud~ RandaU R. Noecker, president Noecker Development, LLC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 Cell 612-741-2662 ()ffil'<> 7~<_7SV:;_k<2'7 -EXHIE>/T b City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Julie Klima, Planner II /J .- jJ Scott A. Smith, Assistant City Engineer ~. ._~ SA r1 FROM: "". /'. 1./' c;::;:;;:~;c -:<J4'::.::-..-->-"'"'" v' j ~ SUBJECT: Reguiding and Rezoning - Proposed for Eagle Creek Stables PID No.: 27-914001-1,27-914001-2 & 27-914010-0 DATE: November 25,2002 The application indicates a desire to reguide and rezone three parcels of land currently known as Eagle Creek Stables, 7301 Eagle Creek Blvd. After reviewing the referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: Several concerns regarding the site and future grading ofthis property exist. 1. Wetlands on site have not been mitigated as oftoday, but efforts by the applicant are attempting to address them. 2. The channel through the property will need several items addressed. These chalU1el items include possible re-location, size, construction and easements. Preliminary talks and layouts have been presented, but to date nothing has been approved or accepted. 3. Issues with extending sanitary sewer, storm water management, street design and street locations have not been decided. Concepts have been looked at, but nothing has been finalized or approved. 4. The applicant has significant access issues with Scott County and City of Shakopee. The access issues are being worked on, but no final agreement or understanding with adjacent property owners, Scott County and the City of Shakopee have been made. A 429 proj ect may be requested to move forward with his future plans. This will require City Council action and approval. 5. The Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the water system necessary to serve the proposed development. There have been discussions on the availability of water to this site, but they involve crossing the future County Road 21 corridor. At this time Scott County has not approved any water main alignment involving future County Road 21. Recommendation Recommend approval of reguiding and rezoning with the above noted concerns. --------- ----- COUNTY ST"'TE AlD HICHW"Y NO. 21 EAGL .-.. ... '. ."- 200 fool rlqhl-Of-..oy 1-- 940' ~I~ (unimproved) REZONING PLAN R-2 R-3 SHAK OPEE, MN 10.8 ACfES QAOBB ;"':j, ~~.~'S MEHT '8A ACRES CJlOS8 2.6 ACRES P\B ~ S11t:ET 1.9 ACfES P\BJC STF&:T 8.2 ACfES tEl" 18.6 ACFES tEl 5.7lNTS I ACFE U lNTS I ACRE \ \ to O"l P .R.D. \ <Xl I 0 ! ,.,.::~;~- :' " 9:7 ACRES QAOBB I", I 0 .q- I 0.2 ACfES PlBJC S nul \2 co 9.5 ACRES teT "," 1=1 PI"! \._~l 1O.1lNTB I ACfE \,- ,- o I t"-j I I 1 CREEr: I ---------- I ----- ---..... ---- "~-.. . ._-....... CREEl'< -- CREEr. t "t' ...- .q- ~ 1-- 410' R-1B 738' --4"10,0'1- 40.5 ACFES aROSS --721;3.:20-- 8.2 ACfES PUBLIC SlAa::ET 34.3 ACfES ~ 2.1lNTS I ACfE I ! ! 01 I 1 CJ!"" ex) DO"l ['r) N . "}) t'--- to CI IX) 'D (: co ! LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That port of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 115. Range 22, 1\ lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line of County Rood No. 16, excepting therefrom the West 410 feet thereof, ,';:) , The Southwest One-quarter of the Northeast One-quarter: the Southeast One-quarter of the CRAPHl<:: SCALE Northeast One-quarter excepting the Easterly Five Hundred ninety-one and seventy-five one J.. ,~/) ':"', :"" .Il;; hundredth feet thereof; 011 in Section Fourteen, Township One hundred FHteen, Range ........----- --.- Twenty-two, Scott County, Minnesota. ~ ' IN f'"EET i ~ -. . .:.. -, . .. ; ,.~']b '" ;%1) ~~. NOTE: Area of parcel 3,460,423 Sq. Ft. (79.44 Acres) -- .-- ~ EAGLE "REEK i_ "., '. - - _ _ '- BOULEVARD~--";' :'..j' -- -- -- PREPARED FOR: I hereby certify that this plan )liDS prepared by me or under C,A,P, rA/f''''JIIII''UtlQlrHWI 5ITC """""'" ~ my direct supervision and thm I om 0 duly registered pro- NOECKER DEVELOPMENT 10/11/02 f~si'onal engineer (J1'1~ the laws of the State of Alinne-sota. C.....P. IliI4$oW MIO I'JC/J NO PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 8315 Pfeosent View Dr, SHEET 1 of 1 C.W.P. gl8D lEXHGTON AVE~ N. E. Mounds View. MN 55112 TEl.: (76S) 7B'-I().4J CIPCI.E PINes. /IN 5~'" FAX: (lfJ) lB6-E()t)7 DATF:: 10/23/02 REG. NO. 18221 TEL. (163) 786-6381 -------------------- ----- - COUNl'l $TATE AID 1:I1GtlWAV NO. 21 " AGLE CREEK PONDS 200 1001 lighl-ol-way I~ 940' "'l~ (unimproved) - REGUIDING PLAN \ \' HGH DENSITY RE~ SHAKOPEE, MN ~D. DENSITY RES[)9l11AL 18A ACfES QROSS \\ 19 ACfEB PlB ~ STREET 1).8 ACf& (ft)88 18.8 ACI& teT \ \ 2.6 ACRES PUBUC &ncel U lNTB J ACfE CO 8.2 AaEB JET , \ .- 5:7 lNTS / ACfE \ '" " \ \ P .R.D. \ \ I I \ \ c i I \ cO 9.1 ACfEB 0R0S8 tr'J c '<j- 0 0.2 ACfES P\BJC Sl n:l:f \9 0 .,- G.s ACFES tEl" " tr'J j") IUlNT8/ ACfE \.- - I " I I I I CREEK .... '::~,,~:..,'., .--, """,,-, C~[C!-~ , -'- _.. -_. CREEY '. N , 01 L{") - EX. Sr. RESIDENTIAL QU[)E[) 1- 410' 223' .....~ 515' ...\ --410,0'\ .- NO REQLI:)tO CHANOE 40.5 ACfES OAOSB --7.~SCl.20-- 8.2 ACfEB PUEIUC 61 t1E:CT 34.3 ACfES lET 2.1lNTS I ACfE i I \ ('1 I 1 o:~ OJ r'! r~, 01 N . 2T;t'- lO ('-.J , " OJ '.0 ( ; co I I LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That. port of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 14. Township 115. Range 22. 1\' lying Northerly of the North right-of-way line of County Rood No. 16. excepting therefrom .1' the West 410 feet thereof. ::i)) GRAPHIC SCALE The Southwest One-quarter of the Northeast One-quarter; the Southeast One-quarter of the . ~1I ~I) ':00 .'~ "" r-- .....- Northeast One-quarter excepting the Easterly Five Hundred ninety-one and seventy-five one ji hundredth feet thereof; all in Section Fourteen, Township One hundred Fifteen, Range ! IN F'EE'T 1 Twenty-two, Scott County, Minnesota. : H'lr:n . l2v f\. -. ~: .~ r :; - - ._~ ..:. .' ,.. "'-. NOTE: Area of parcel 3.460,423 Sq. Ft. (79.44 Acres) EAGLE CREEK - ? j.. .-- _ _ _ _ . 80ULEVARO-- -'"'":;'.j ~ -- ---- -- -- ---.... PREPARED FOR: I hen!1t1y c-<rlffy thot fhis pion was prepared by me or under c.....P. snc~ ENG/NCERtNG my direcf stJp~ision and that I am a duly r~istt:'~ pro- NOECKER DEVELOPMENT 10/11/02 10/I'/CW.r uor ~ !e-ssionol ~ngintftN under fh~ lows of th~ Slut~ ()f Minnesoto. C.A.P. ,......- __ ~JI.A JIIfD1. PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 8315 Pleasent View Or. SHEET 1 of 1 """"'" 9160 l.EXINCTON ...vrML N. E. Mounds View. UN 55112 C.W.P. m.. (71Ul nJ!S-7IHJ oRCLE PfHES, UN 55014 "0(: (16:1) _-1iD01 ClArE:: 10/23/02 REG. NO. /8221 TEL. (763) 786-6387 - From : NUt;CKci'< lJt::Vt::LUt"'rlt::N I , INL. t"'HUNt:: NO. . (0,,) (00 <:::J.J. ( rt:::!J.c:o c:~~..J ..J.~or-1'1 rt:JJ. ,4-, B, o ,,\ too I\l '-I L.. Noecker Development, LLC 11'\~l~ 8315 "'Plensl\nt View Drive Mo\mdlf View, Minn. ~~112 FebrUQry 27, 2003 Crllig'Jensol\ Sectl C'dlunl)' 1 ti\\hwlIY DCI)l. (,DO ClluntI'V TrllH B Jordan, Minll, SSS3Z RE: 17J\p,lc Cl'eck POilUS Development J)ear Craig, 1l haR came h' my /lllellliOIl lhallhe Cily has voiced theil'need to the County tAl get County HigllW4Y 21 huill fOI' mallY yelll'll. At ~ur 1115l Juecling with ..tAll l\ few weeks IIgo. you illdiC8\t:t1 thlll no l)lllllll were complele for Ihis road, ~vcryol\e undersUtUds tblll. (fu!l oonstmcllOl\ dC'llwill~S lire Ilol yet complete) tllJt wc tdS(llIlluC:I'slan.llhlll preliminary l,ll\ns are lIvailuNe which I /llld ( I believe) cYel}'j)OlIl\cllmember IUts $ecn, These: preliminary plum: show \hc flI'Opo~'Cd CR 21 going down \he middle of it's 200' iO<lt R. of W in Sou\hbridge 1I1l11 i~ has 1lever ShOWll J1ighwl1Y 21 clIlel'ing nlY land, A'/o II t'e~~lll of your u\tendu/lce lit tl,is slaO'meding ymlllre fully BWUt'e of Ihe situa\ivl\ wi\b the IIlW..uit between the luud OWU(:I' IIlld myself, wbich nUI\lc1nlc~ HI)' r<<luil'e1ll0ntR to get the properlY (levl;\oped Sllon lIud )'O\IlU'C lIwaro vf the problems crl"Jlled wIlen YOIl snid lhat you mighl WUllt to tllke 2() or SO (II' 100 or 200 feel fnllll my y<;velopnlenl. At this I\\eeting IlllKdc cveryulIe Ilwure of !1ow expensive it woUld be fill 111e: COllllty to luke 11111<.1 [in CVl."ll Q &inf.1L~ fumily laking proj>09III), especilllly since the cmll\ty \V(1\lld llavc (lecided to \.like ii, (1ll1y oCter 111111 in v8I'iou,-; Vlat requests wiU\ the city, 11us makes Ole IlIl\d eveu mOl~ expensive', I'm !lurc even 30 li.-.et would be well over" million inllll\d 001\\11 Gild dtUllages, '!1le City ,'eany needs 10 kllU\.1! ifl.ht COU1\ty wisltc."$ to tbllow thi8 Ilcql1isilion or even the po&!\ihililY of it I too need this anli'Wer al1l\o!\1 iltun.edi&lely. .A81lil\, limn cu1\versflliollS Ilt thllllllccling Ihis blWl\\lit mllY Onre up Ilgllil1l111d if drll~ged back inlu 00\111, it ll\llY involll8 legat expetllle fOI" dIe county llllCllh~ cily \x.:cIlIlse as y"U kl1llW 1 mu~l d~fend mYlIelrfrom that ridicules lanu owner. J>lellsc Iludersllllld lh!lt I C\UTently hAve 4 other }IT'Ojecls going Oil in the MC1TO /lm1 would hc willing to wait fur SOllie tldditioJlIlI t\1l\ounl oftime, b\lllhe sc:lIer willllot. which \bet' })1I\1l l)rcssure oil me llll-\c\ answers, so Ihot Ihill dcveh>jllIlenl ClIl\ get approval, I do 1101 desire tn CIlU!1e the Counly or tlle City OilY legalcx.pense:in IlIis situlltiun, but il would be IIpprol'ri/lle for Ihe Cmully tn Bi"e some immedillte 1Illswel'll relative to this issue: "ud for this pl'edictltnent I find Olysc1Ciu. Please llelp me IlIlllOOI1 tiS l'O!\~iblc, will, IlJllII\l>Wcr lo the pl'tlblem. l..ois face it Croig, it i~ very doubtful (with alllhe "oven:ptmdlng invCllligl\tiol\s" gninJ!, 01.\ in 1\U111<:rOllS ~llvernmcultll tlgencic~) lllnt Scot( CO\llIty would put i1l1clf t1\Io~h II possihle "overspending" inquiry by pllrcll~sing )lmu Iv widen llIl cxi!\lin~ R (JfW Ihlll ttdCClulIlcly handieR (i lane!; l1(\W. 1'"01' years., (he Cily lias requested 1l11illhis CH 21 ~et in~ltllled and lhl' yea!'l: 1.1,e ~)U"ty hall giyt:ll Cl<CU""~ aud wlfurtu\U\lely lheae exCuse~ nUl)' now lead liS inlu ICf!,ol6Cliuu lh!!! J tllll \l1\lIhle 10 prevcnt The City cellnot elfect.ively make plans by ll)ll'l'Oving a 1,lul ifthc:: C<1tl1lly will not ~ive flll answer lolhe Ill\~$IiCln tmd since l:\1l CR 211~llln!l to dllle Maw n\e C('unty U!lill[l. the existing 200' R ofW Dlld nol uny nfthc land ill my dcvclolllll(!Ilt, wIlY would Ihe c(l\\nty illC\ll' nddiriOllltl cXI)elI$e [ora pencling lawsuit} or in p\l1chtlsillF,11 wider ~ ofW, c9peeially when issuclI Clf oVllilQl\le money I'(lf road C(>n~lI11Clill1\ !Ire ever p1't:llellt. Also, the nt>ilic prohlem fl)l' RauU\hridge Te!udCl\I.ll could be 11lmdIccl with II 6' to 8' fence.:, as it will he i1lll1Y development. I nUl cloill8 p rood noise aluc1y noW, My question (.0 soon Counly is this: Why wuuld Scolt COllnly spcnd 1none)' IQt'lSllUll1l wldenlt.s eXlsling 200' R fJfW. WhC11 it !Ill:'> ~LI(l\IBh 1.1Il! widlh fiv- tJ 610111'1 highwuyand why would it Kj'>cud lell timcK lhe money III buy lanu fromlhe HlIgle Creek Pcmd/l developlllent when it could Jm1 uj) II fence: (0 stop uny pOlential l\uise problclll, jusl likc I clIn UO III my JevdOl"nc..'ll? AI. pl'escn(, Ihe ollly 1IJ1J1t(renl.ll(llllljOl1l1vll;h~1>lt~ to Ihe CilY is to as\; lhr n 10' to ;10' foot easelllenl tthlUl:f, lhe J'll"e~en1200' Jt nfW for CR 21 (Inlhe nurlll Ride ur I1IY properly IIml J h!lve lulcllhe City "no", \\nle.'1~ the County 1)1' the-City wi II pay fill' it. The Mise Sludy elC~')OlS have R!:KlIrcd me II smull [(,'1lCC will curb I\\lY noise 1'l"('hlc-111 i/l\l\10S, ifl"C()\lJrcd, The ncxt mccting wilh the City Council is on MllrcnJt 2003- 1 Bin Ill:II(lillg lhis let~el' via rllX, Your lilOdy rCJ;l'Cln~'\~ wC\ulU he 1I1'l1,reci!llcd and if you are IUlahlc to respond t(llhj~ !lholt 1I01ioo, IlI\igh~ be lIble to ge\ thc CI'lW'\cII vole extended 11110t her two week:;; ple:tlse colllnulIedilllcly l\() we can disc\1llll. 1 prefer hi !lOlve my land Ilellcr i~sue!l quiclc:ly, '!1llulk you lilr your hell)' ~vg'LZ.. Rondtlll R. Noecker, Jlre:'lidcnt Noecker Developmcnl, r.Le 83l.S PleulIul View nri\lll Moun& View, Miun, 55112 Cell (j 12-741-26(,2 Office 7(,3-786 ,(,3&7 cc BrUt.,.,; Lolley, City of ShllKOpee cc Drod LarllOtl, Scotl COIl Ill,)' llig.hwu.y Dcpl .. li.P. I Noecker Development, LLC h~Nl 001:. 8315 Pleasant View Drive A-t ).(~~t/.N,\ Mounds View, 1\'Iinn. 55112 February 28, 2003 Brad Larson Scott County Highway Dept. 600 Country Trail E Jordan, Minn. 55532 RE: Eagle Creek Ponds Development Dear Brad, A letter dated yesterday was sent to Craig Jenson and a copy was given to you and this letter asks for a return letter from Craig or you, stipulating if possible the county desires for Right of Way width requirements between Eagle Creek Ponds and South Bridge. Presently the County owns 200' all along the north 2057' ofthe Eagle Creek Ponds development. Last week, Terry Joos, City Council member, suggested that by determining other Right of Way widths in the County, it would be a method to identify the Right of Way needed for Highway 21. For example, please note (after investigation with your staff) the following COffilty highway do not need more than 200' and these are equal to or higher in traffic needs than that of Highway 21. list: Scott County Highway # 13 has a Right of Way of 200' or less between Highway 169 (in the Valley Fair area) Shakopee. Scott COlmty Highway # 18 has a Right of Way of 200' or less south of Highway # 169. Scott County Highway # 83 has a Right of Way of 200' or less in the Highway # 16 area, south of# 169. Scott COlmty Highway # 16 has a Right of Way of ISO' orless between # 83 and #18. With this infonnation, it becomes quite obvious that highways of similar or higher traffic counts all exist on 200' of Right of Way or less and it is apparent that no additional Right of Way width is needed in the 200' Right of Way owned by Scott COlmty for the proposed Highway # 2 I between the Eagle Creek Ponds Development and the South Bridge Development. If you can help us out, my desire is simple. A letter from you is needed. The City ofShakopee is concemed that more Right of Way may be needed because of previous comments made by the County. My Council meeting is Tuesday night, March 4th, 2003. It would be greatly appreciated if you could issue a letter indicating no need for additional width for Highway # 21 or because no other Right of Ways for like demands in Scott County exceeds 200' we (the county) do not anticipate a need for a wider width than 200' feet. All of my investigation tells me that Scott County does not have any Rigllt of Way's in excess of200' feet except for Highway # 169. Your help in this matter is greatly appreciated. As a add-on, let me suggest that the County explore the possibility of building Highway # 21 up to the intersection of Pike Lake Trail from # 18. This would solve all the immediate concems of the City and many county problems alike; like the temporary access issues from Sam's Club in the South Bridge Shopping Center and it would solve the problem of issues of traffic safety and traffic route levels from my development. Bruce Loney has suggested that Pike Lake Trail extend through Nonn Shrutrop's property to cOlmect up with the cul-de-sac at the west end of the South Bridge development. Bruce's idea is excellent because emergency vehicle issues have more access points and residents from my development can use the South Bridge streets to drive directly to the Shopping center, which reduces traffic on # 16. Also, with County budget issues, the funds required for building Highway #21 up to Pike Lake Trail are less than going all the way to #16. To my knowledge, Nonn Shrutrop wants to continue fanning and does not want that road through his land anyway. This phase one idea for #21 has a lot of benefits and might be a better plan considering budgets for 2003 and 2004. Hope this idea works for you guys, because this portion of# 21 could easily be built this fall or early in 2004. sZ/~~ Randall R. Noecker, president Noecker Development, LLC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 Cell 612-741-2662 Office 763-786-6387 cc Broce Loney, City of Shakopee cc Michael Leek, City of Shakopee .. t' Noecker Development, lLC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 February 27, 2003 Craig Jenson Scott Coooty Highway Dept. 600 COlmtry Trail E Jordan, Minn. 55532 RE: Eagle Creek Ponds Development Dear Craig, It has come to my attention that the City has voiced their need to the Comity to get County Highway 21 built for many years. At our last meeting with staff a few weeks ago, you indicated that no plans were complete for this road. Everyone lUlderstands that (full construction drawings are not yet complete) but we also understand that preliminary plans are available which I and (I believe) every council member has seen. TIlese preliminary plans show the proposed CR 21 going down the middle of it's 200' foot R of W in Southbridge and it has never shown Highway 21 entering my land. As a result ofyollr attendance at this staff meeting you are fully aware of the situation with the lawsuit between the land owner and myse] f, which mandates my requirements to get tIle property developed soon and you are aware of the problenls created when you said that you might want to take 20 or 50 or 100 or 200 feet from my development. At this meeting I made everyone aware of how expensive it would be for the Coooty to take land [in even a single family taking proposal], especially since the county would have decided to take it, only after I am in various plat requests with the city. TIlis makes tIle land even more expensive; I'm sure even 30 feet would be well over a million in land costs mid damages. The City really needs to know if tIle COlUlty wishes to follow this acquisition or even the possibility of it I too need tIlis answer ahnost itmnediately. Agaitl, from conversations at that meeting this lawsuit may flare up again and if dragged back into court, it may involve legnl expense for the coooty and tIle city because as you know I must defend myselffrom that ridicules land owner. Please understand that I currently have 4 other projects going on in tile Metro and would be willing to wait for some additional mnount oftime, but tIle seller will not, which then puts pressure on me to get answers, so that this development can get approval. I do not desire to cause the County or the City any legal expense in this situation, but it would be appropriate for tIle Calmly to give some inunediate answers relative to this issue and for tIlis predicament I fmd myself in. Please help me as soon as possible, with an answer to tile problem. Lets face it Craig, it is very doubtful (with all the "overspending investigations" goitlg on innumerous governmental agencies) that Scott Coooty would put itself through a possible "overspending" inquiry by purchasing land to widen an existing R ofW that adequately handles 6 lanes now. For years, the City has requested that this CR 21 get installed and for years the coooty has given excuses and unfortooately these excuses may now lead us into legal action that I am l\flllble to prevent. TIle City cmmot effectively make plmls by approving a plat ifthe COlUlty will not give an answer to the question and since all CR 21 plans to date show the coooty using the existing 200' R ofW and not any of the lmld in my development, why would tIle county incur ndditional expense [of a pending lawsuit] or in purchasing a wider R ofW, especially when issues of available money for road construction are ever present. Also, the noise problem for Southbridge residents could be handled with a 6' to 8' fence, as it will be in my development. I am doing a road noise study now. My question to Scott County is this: Why would Scott County spend money for land to widen it's existing 200' R ofW, when it has enough land width for a 6 lime highway and why would it spend ten times the money to buy land from the Eagle Creek Ponds development when it could put up a fence to stop' any potential noise problem, just like I can do in IllY development? At present, tlle only appRrent solution available to tile City is to ask for a 10' to 30' foot easement along the present 200' R nfW for CR 21 on the north side of my property and I have told the City "no", unlells the County or the' City will pay for it. The noise study eXJ)erts have assured me a small fence will curb any noise plOblcm issues, if required. The next meeting with the City COlmcil is on March 4 1,2003. I am sending tIlis letter via fax. Your timely respom;e would be appreciated and if you are unable to respond to this short notice, I might be able to get the council vote extended another two weeks; please call immediately so we eml discuss. I prefer to solve my land seller issues quickly. Thank you for your help. SinCerelY,~ ~CL ~~;?;~ ""- Randall R. Noecker, president Noecker Development, LtC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 Cell 612~741-2662 Office 763~786-6387 cC Bruce Loney, City of Shakopee cc Brad Larson, Scott County Highway Dcpt .- -- .. ~... Noecker Development, lLC 8315 Pleasant View Drive :Mounds View, Minn. 55112 February 27, 2003 R. Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minn. 55379-1351 RE: Noise study for Eagle Creek Ponds Dear Michael, As per your recommendation to complete a noise study for my development, I hired David Braslau a few weeks ago to complete this study, with the understanding that the City IJ;!.ay require a 6'- 8' fence on the property line, if noise levels are deemed to be too high. This study should be completed w~thin a week. szg%a /' Pi.r~ Randall R. Noecker, president Noecker Development, LLC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 Cell 612-741-2662 Office 763-786-6387 Please ~vy fl90PY of this letter to each council member. Thank You. -- (~~t&a0PlBl:' ! \1t\.'iU;~~" . ,.,..1) 1~~Llkl ~~'bregW -2 ~ ,~, IAI1i1V-\ft8WDr. tI ......=.=,~/ 2~c( R~ W rJ:t-~ ~":t- J\ ). Y7- 'J ~ ~ ~/l1 ~l (0 "g iO ll>& [0 . ( I~~ f~+ ( -ZJ5 ;)8 dOa I -(Z- - '2.. ~ , -= (2- -'--leS ~ IZ/~ ...... 2. 8 - ---~,........'"' 14~ , ,A ~ Jk,e- )/4""/ iA)j{ ;;l. jJk ~ )<u1\U- ~ be- Q..""st"J-J. F,~ I~ ~ ~ )Ae. ~ A oA,i",- I ~ f--- 5~~. . ...