The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14.D. Comp Plan Amendment-Res. No. 5841 CITY OF SHAKOPEE J if. D. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential and Extend MUSA to a Portion of the Site MEETING DATE: January 21, 2003 REVIEW PERIOD: November 20, 2002 - March 10, 2003 CASELOG NO.: 03-004 INTRODUCTION: B. J. One L.L.C. has made application to re-guide a portion ofthe subject property that is outside the current Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential, and to allocate MUSA to that same portion ofthe subject property. A copy of the report that went to the Planning Commission on this request is attached for the Council's information. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve resolution no. 5841, a resolution ofthe City of Shako pee re-guiding certain property from rural residential to single-family residential, and extending MUSA to said property (alternative no. 1) 2. Deny the request to reguide the subject property as requested, and direct staff to prepare findings for adoption at the Council's meeting of February 4,2003. 3. Table the matter and request additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held the public hearing on this request at its meeting of Thursday, January 9,2003. After the public hearing, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. G:\CC\2003\0 1-21 \CompPlanGonyea.doc 1 ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve resolution no. 5841, a resolution of the City of Shako pee re-guiding certain property from rural residential to single-family residential, and extending MUSA to said property (alternative no. 1) ~-d;~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director G:\CC\2003\01-21 \CompPlanGonyea.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 5841 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO REGUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND EXTEND MUSA TO SAID PROPERTY WHEREAS, B. J. One L.L.C., applicant has requested the re-guiding of certain property from rural residential to single-family residential, and extending MUSA to said property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as; The West Half of the South West Quarter of Township 115, Ranger 22, Scott County, Minnesota WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 9,2003, 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 January 21,2003; 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 No.1: The original Comprehensive Plan is not in error. Finding No.2: Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. Finding No.3: Significant changes have occurred in neighborhood development patterns. Specifically, since adoption of the 1995 Comprehensive and Land Use Plans, development has proceeded apace to the boundary of the subject property, and it is now appropriate to re- guide that portion that is outside the current MUSA boundary so as to make the entire property available for residential development. G:\CC\2003\0 1-21 \CompPlanGonyea.doc 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update by re-guiding the subject property on the Land Use Plan from rural residential to single- family residential, and by extending MUSA to said property is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk G:\CC\2003\0 1-21 \CompPlanGonyea.doc 4 ~.'6 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential and Extend MUSA to a Portion of the Site MEETING DATE: January 9, 2003 REVIEW PERIOD: November 20, 2002 - March 10, 2003 CASELOG NO.: 03-004 Site Information: Applicant: B. J. One, L.L.C. Property Owner: Harold A and Roberta R. Schneider Location: North of Valley View Road and west of CSAH 83/Canterbury Road Adjacent Zoning: North: Agricultural Preservation (AG) South: Rural Residential (RR) East: Agricultural Preservation (AG) West: Single-Family Residential (R-1B) MUSA: The site is pmiially within the MUSA boundary INTRODUCTION: B. J. One L.L.c. has made application to re-guide a portion of the subject property that is outside the current Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential, and to allocate MUSA to that same portion ofthe subject property. With the 1995 Comprehensive and Land Use Plans, the MUSA line in this area was drawn along the line of the fonner railroad bed. As a result this, and other properties ended up being partially within and partially outside the MUSA area. In addition, these same properties ended up being guided for one land use where the property fell within the MUSA line, and another and far less intense use outside the MUSA line. That portion of the subject property that is currently within the MUSA area is guided for single- family use. There do not appear to be any specific factors, such as proximity to arterials, that would suggest a different land use would more appropriate in the circumstances. G:\BOAA-PC\2003 \0 1-09\CompPlanGonyea.doc 1 At the time that this report was prepared, staff had not received any comment that was adverse to the subject request. 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, as well as draft findings for the Commission's review and discussion. Criteria #1 that the original Comprehensive Plan is in error; The original Comprehensive Plan is not in error. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. Criteria #3 that significant changes in Citywide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. Significant changes have occurred in neighborhood development patterns. Specifically, , since adoption of the 1995 Comprehensive and Land Use Plans, development has proceeded apace to the boundary of the subject property, and it is now appropriate to re- guide that portion that is outside the current MUSA boundary so as to make the entire property available for residential development. 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. Recommend denial by the City Council of the request to reguide and rezone the subject property as requested. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1, i.e. recommend approval of the allocation of MUS A to the balance ofthe subject property, and re-guide to single-family residential that portion now guided rural residential. G:\BOAA-PC\2003\O 1-09\CompPlanGonyea.doc 2 ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval ofthe allocation of MUSA to the balance of the subject property, and re-guide to single-family residential that portion now guided rural residential. 4d;,J~J~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director /" G:\BOAA-PC\2003\O 1-09\CompPlanGonyea.doc 3 .... J L u - A ~ ~ l-l = ,.Q l-l ~ l:l ~ U ~ N W*E SHAKOPEE COMMtlNlT"t PIUOESlNCE la57 Reguiding of property from Rural Residential to s Single Family Residential o Zoning Boundary , i Parcel Boundary , . Parcel Area in Question