The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14.F. Comp Plan Amendment-Res. No. 5846 CITY OF SHAKOPEE / 'I. F I Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide property from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential MEETING DATE: January 21,2003 REVIEW PERIOD: June 19 - October 17, 2002; Review period extended indefinitely by letter dated October 15, 2002; Placed on current agenda at applicant's request. CASELOG NO.: 02-069 INTRODUCTION: Cletus Link is requesting that the City reguide property in the Comprehensive Land Use Map from single family residential to medium density residential. The property is located North of Vierling Drive, east of Presidential Lane, and west of Jefferson Street (Exhibit A). The adopted Comprehensive PlanlLand Use Plan guides this area for Single Family Residential development at this time. Accompanying this report for the Council's information is a copy of the October 1, 2002 Council report and August 8, 2002 Planning Commission report on this item. BACKGROUND: Following is a recap ofthe review process for the subject application. . June 18, 2002 Application Received . August 8, 2002 Public hearing held at the Planning Commission . September 3,2002 Review continued to September 17,2002 at applicant's Request . September 17, 2002 Review continued to October 1, 2002 at applicant's request . October 1, 2002 Review continued to October 15, 2002 . October 15, 2002 Applicant submitted a letter requesting indefinite suspension of review Because there was testimony at both the Planning Commission and Council regarding this request, a copy ofthe report is being forwarded to those who testified so that they are aware it is being considered. G:\CC\2003\01-21 \CompPlanLink12l 03.doc 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At its August 8 meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and reviewed this request. After review and discussion, a motion to recommend approval of the reguiding request failed with a vote of 2 - 3. A motion was then made to recommend denial of the reguiding request. That motion was approved on a 3 - 2 vote. Provided for your reference is a copy of the August 8, 2002 memorandum to the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the request to reguide property from single family residential to medium density residential, contingent on Metropolitan Council review ofthe amendment. 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the request to reguide property from single family residential to medium density residential. 3. Table the matter for additional information, and with the applicant's written consent. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion adopting a resolution consistent with the Council's preferred approach. G:\CC\2003\0 1-21 \CompPlanLink12 1 03 .doc 2 1P& CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandu m TO: Shako pee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide property from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential MEETING DATE: August 8, 2002 REVIEW PERIOD: June 19 - October 17,2002 CASELOG NO.: 02-069 Site Information: Applicant: Cletus Link Property Owner: Cletus Link Location: North of Vierling Drive, east of Presidential Lane, and west of Jefferson Street Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-IB) South: Urban Residential (R-IB) East: Urban Residential (R-IB) West: Urban Residential (R-1B) MUS A: The site is within the MU$A boundary INTRODUCTION: Clete Link has made a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan guiding of property from single family residential to medium density residential. The subject site is located north of Vierling Drive, east of Presidential Lane and west of Jefferson Street (see Exhibit A) and is 4.88 acres in size. The adopted Land Use Plan guides the subject site for single family development. Please find attached as Exhibit B, the narrative portion of the application submitted by Mr. Link 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. 1 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 Corrunission's review and discussion. Criteria #1 That the original Comprehensive Plan is in error; Critel.ia #2 That significant changes ill community goals and policies have taken place; Criteria #3 That significant changes in City~wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to reguide the subject property, from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential. 2. Recommend denial by the City Council of the request to reguide the subject property from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential . 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 info nnatio n. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion consistent with the wishes of the Commission. g:\boaa-pc\200 2\08-08\co m pp lanl ink. doc ,- 2 . -- .._. . I~ Y:~ L-L-Jl-tttrA-ve'.-~---'-' ,-: '>- , . c- I I I I I I I I I ---::t-: ..r-' ---f- ,......l.- r-- L- --...,=1, R r-p.. .Er.; I I I T I I I - -, --+- ~ >-_. M - . "" . I -:j: _I I 'l.-J' S ~ T.:t:re T 1. ';sIll _ =~ ::::t=: >=-, . ; -'-'~ '" ~ enn.e , _ -1- -- I' I -r- '::-1 J,..(- -::: I _- -- . 'CJ"J. ---.:l Q) - =;- ,-~=t::: d= -- 3= + --~ 1"" ~ -J ~ EfFFft1~ -.;" :.0- ~.'.:::+=- I -- I =t= - -.;i. - ~ "-' >,- -<- IFj Et~ ==t=FEj 81th - _2TTl III 'Il: D 3:]fu -L ~ ~ YlI~, u= )- R1B )lJIJ III I Irr: ~~==(- J~~~~~~='~ ~ 1JQ~t '" . -f- ~- ~- I I f= 0 -f.- - 7 L~'-< "-I \ J ~ m== =~~-= f ~~ i/~~yg;; D =- - I I = ~ ~ - =t t' C/ iA 1(111\ -'" rp '~11 I I v Ylerlm"n'r ~ ./ -< ~T l' -, ..., ~ I l' -I '\ , I :/ '\ , ./ ~~~ . 1\ aD fIJJJrsJn.'8 ~ % ~ Rl .' 7'~' Y :::J ~~ IIIII~ ~C ~'f. ~ RH ::j~ il- I AG ~ "=--nrr; :: f..<.1..J..L I r\'Y 3Z ~ ,-/'~" ~ ) ~ STH169 ~. ~J/ ~ '{Iv. '/:X.I- A N ~ W*E SHAKOPEE CoMM'Jl-m'rroDeSlNCl! 1657 S Proposed Comp Plan Amendment to reguide from Urban Resdiential to Medium Density Residential o Zoning Boundary : ( Parcel Boundary 6;c1t./&rif (5 18. Significant changes in corrrnunity goals and J:X)licies are taking place as a result of the plats that are l:eing sub:nitteCi with smaller lot and m::>re density. These are goals and p:llicies that the Metrop:llitan Council is prcrooting to preserve land and .its cost. 19. I see significant changes 6ccu:tJ:::.tng.;.in city wide. neighb::Jrhcod.:develop.nent patterns with R--~ East of this p~sed project on Vierling Dr. and R-3 West of this. proj.ect known as Stone Meadow Addition on Vierling Dr. 'J;'his proj ect offers a gocd buffer be:ing Vierling Dr. is a city collector street, with single family heroes to the North. An upscale townhome would be more canplementary .to Tahpah park across the street than low cost, rnin:i.mum standard single family housing... that could probably beccme a l::;>lighted area in 5 to 10 years. OUr clientele are retired people who pay school taxes but do not use the system verses low income housing which generates a larger number of students being added to our already financially strapped schools. - CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide property from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential MEETING DATE: October I, 2002 REVIEW PERIOD: June 19 - October 17, 2002 CASELOG NO.: 02-069 lNTRODUCTION Clete Link is requesting that the City reguide property in the Comprehensive Land Use Map from single family residential to medium density residential. The property is located North of Vierling Drive, east of Presidential Lane, and west of Jefferson Street (Exhibit A). The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Single Family Residential purposes. PLANNING COMJ.\1lSSION RECOMMENDA nON At its August 8 meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and reviewed this request. After review and discussion, a motion to recommend approval of the reguiding request failed with a vote of2 - 3. A motion was then made to recommend denial of the reguiding request. That motion 0<; was approved on a 3 - 2 vote. Provided for your reference is a copy of the August 8, 2002 memorandum to the Planning Commission. AL TERNA TIVES There is still time remaining before the review deadline. It is for that reason that staffhas not prepared a draft resolution for Council action this evening, but is instead seeking Council direction regarding what resolution to bring back for action. 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the request to reguide property from single family residential to medium density residential, contingent on Metropolitan Council review of the amendment. 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the request to reguide property from single family residential to medium density residential. 3. Table the decision and request additional infonnation from the applicant and/or staff ACTION REQUESTED Offer and approve a motion directing staff to prepare a resolution consistent with the Council's preferred approach. g:\ccI2002\ 1 0-0 1 \compplanlink.doc 1P& CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide property from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential MEETING DATE: August 8, 2002 REVIEW PERIOD: June 19 - October 17, 2002 CASELOG NO.: 02~O69 Site Information: Applicant: Cletus Link Property Owner: Cletus Link Location: North of Vierling Drive, east of Presidential Lane, and west of Jefferson Street Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-IB) South: Urban Residential (R~lB) East: Urban Residential (R-lB) West: Urban Residential (R-IB) MUS A: The site is within the MUSA boundary INTRODUCTION: Clete Link has made a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan guiding of property from single family residential to medium density residential. The subject site is located north of Vierling Drive, east of Presidential Lane and west ofJefferson Street (see Exhibit A) and is 4.88 acres in size. The adopted Land Use Plan guides the subject site for single family development. Please find attached as Exhibit B, the narrative portion of the application submitted by Mr. Link. 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. 1 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 Compl.ehensive Plan is in error; Criteda #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Cl'iteda #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or AL TERNA TIVES: l. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to reguide the subject property, from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential. 2. Recommend denial by the City Council of the request to reguide the subject property from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential . 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. g:\boaa -pc\200 2 \08-08\compp III n I ink. doc 2 - ~ ::=- ~ )~ 8TH 169 ~V --.:..... .- ~-V FfJu'/vi/- A N ~ w*, SHAKOPEE COMMtJNIlY!'IUPESlNCE 1S57 S Proposed Comp Plan Amendment to reguide from Urban Resdiential to Medium Density Residential o Zoning Boundary . Parcel Boundary C;(}1A biT' D 18. Significant changes in ccmmmity goals and policies are taking place as a result of the plats that are being subnitted with smaller lot and lTOre density. These are goals and l;X)licies that the Metropolitan Council is prcrnoting to preserve land and its cost. 19. I see significant changes 6ccutring::.in city wide neighborhcx::x:l:development patterns with R--2 East of this p~sed project on Vierling Dr. and R-3 West of this project known as stone Meadow Addition on Vierling Dr.'l;ihis project offers a good buffer being Vierling Dr. is a city collector street. with single family homes to the North. An upscale townhome would be more canplementary to Tahpah park across the street than low cost, mi.nimum standard single family housing, that could probably beccme a l?lighted area in 5 to 10 years. Our clientele are retired people who pay school taxes but do not use the system verses low income housing which generates a larger number of students being added to our already financially strapped schools. ii,P. To: Shakopee City Council From: Judith A. Tomczik 1232 Monroe Street Shakopee,~ 55379 (52)496-2774 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide property located north of Vierling Drive, east of Presidential Lane and west of Jefferson Street from single family residential to medium density residential. I respectfully disagree with this proposed change-not because I have any agenda against the developer, whom, in fact, I respect. We intend to stay in our home for many years, so deteriorating value is not a primary issue. However, the thought of looking out our backyard to the sameness of all those duplexes is very disquieting. Please consider the following points: . The argument has been made that changing the zoning of this land would serve as a buffer between the single family homes and Tahpah Park. In fact, Exhibit A, which was enclosed in the mailing I received, illustrates that the section in question is actually the final missing piece in the puzzle of an entire neighborhood of single family dwellings. Except for a strip along busy Hwy 15, everything north of Vierling is single family dwelling. . The developer makes the argument that upscale duplexes would be better suited to Shakopee's needs than "low cost, minimum standard single family housing that could probably become a blighted area in 5 to 10 years." Are these the only choices for this area? Considering the cost of lots in this area, low-budget homes seem incongruous. Indeed, this choice between two radically different building scenarios suggests a threat to encourage residents to agree with the proposed change. According to the original plat we have from when we built our home 15 years ago, the lots in question are no smaller than some of the other lots in the neighborhood, and there are very nice homes built on these smaller lots. . When I attended the Planning Commission meeting this summer, I was very impressed by the work that they do. Although many sympathetic proposals were put before them, they changed policy only when there was a compelling reason for the change. The only reason to change the zoning on this property is that the developer wishes to have it changed. There would be little point in developing a plan if citizens couldn't rely on it. We relied on the Comprehensive Plan as it now exits when we built our home. I question the timing of this request. Some of the lots that abut the property in question have fairly recently been developed. Changing the Comprehensive Plan only after all of the lots are developed. and all of the home owner's have built a home relying on that Plan, seems unfair. Of the various homes in this area of town, the people most involved in this issue would be the owners of those homes whose property abuts the area in question. There are at least 3 of these homeowners who do not want this change. Opinions of non-adjacent homeowners should, of course, be taken into account, but in my opinion, those opinions are less pivotal than those of the homeowners most immediately affected. Two comments about this process: 1. This will be our third meeting to try to have resolution on this proposal. We received notice of this meeting on Saturday, January 18th. Since we had such short notice, we were unable to change previously made plans. On Monday City Hall was closed due to the MLK holiday. That gave us one day to access information from City Hall about how to register our opinion on this proposal. 2. The last time this proposal was presented to the council, the developer repeatedly alternated between addressing the council and taking his seat on the council. Additionally, although all audience members were directed to speak only once and were under a time constraint, the developer was allowed complete discretion in these areas. Finally, the developer was whispering to council members while members of the audience were presenting opposing views. The developer is a much-respected council member and businessman in our community, but when the applicant is also a member of the council, all effort should be made to avoid even the appearance of bias. 14. F Shakopee City Council 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,~. 55379 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We live at 1240 S. Monroe Street. Our property is adjacent to the land Clete Link wants to get changed from R-l to R-2. In 1990, when we were negotiating with Clete to buy our lot and build our house, we asked him if anyone could build townhouses adjacent to our property. He told us that he owned the land abutting the property we were thinking of buying from him and assured us that he would build only single family dwellings as nice or nicer than ours in this area. We then checked with the city and were told the Comprehensive Plan guided the property under discussion to be zoned single family residential. We were also told that the Comprehensive Plan protects homeowners from the whims of developers because once the plan is approved, it is not changed unless a compelling reason arises to change it. We bought our lot and built our house based on this information. In the latest version of the Comprehensive Plan approved by the Metropolitan Council, the property under discussion is still zoned single family residential. There is no compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan. The area being discussed is surrounded on four sides by property zoned single family residential. The area to the west is almost fully developed so there will not be increased traffic when Vierling Drive is extended to the east. The new parking lot by Tapah Park will eliminate the congestion caused by people parking along Vierling Dr. while attending events at Tapah Park. In fact, the thing most likely to cause traffic on Vierling Dr. to increase is to increase population density by allowing construction of more multiple dwellings. We respectfully request that Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and not approve rezoning of the area north of Vierling Dr., west of Jefferson St. and east of Presidential Lane. ~1 .'l..~"'~->'70€~ Tom and Charlotte Steininger ~ /~/,F, -" ."............ .... .. h~" . - .... . .. ...... " ......... '"' . MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL I am a property owner within the 350' radius of a request for a comprehensive plan change from R1 single family residence to .R2 for upscale townhomes. I fully support this zoning change. J /)'l((J- 1 ~_f' 0-../411\ cuvt.e( , ' \0 f'\ C C-L \J Cv~ /0'14- 13 T-tJA~1 ll0). . f5 ,-f-fv1Id~ek ~ .-,v'" i.Y' . 1'2; ~! J't'{Pe.t-Ju- S1Y~,J-". <;.- b~'- ~~ I G\~,+~fDO\UVu3- IIDI w (~~~CL~ -'.....-- Cif~~'--J~~ . - -, -- 'f:: ( : "~~ C9- 'V .-j L 'v' t~,-,. \. ,. - 4,~~~ (,"T' I?- ~c2 ~ f(7 VI ~ .' ~~ b \ . I- <:J --e -.:. '''r e /, )' tP 1{J7Jd# /l-0t,/}1t7il~ sTSZJ \ ",-.0 ...,.,......=:.. .__",":=. r- ~.. _ .. .'.~"~~._'~"'''';: .".__..."=~...._".:::::,,. ,,..-_. ..,.......,.., -"'~"""f."'~"-_'";''""''''''' ",...~.,,""-".-:;;cS-""""'" _""'.": . . " . ..:.-H'..._.._..,....:;~.. ""M'__",,,,,,," _.~ -.~... ".. -._.. ,...~~..~"..._'-'="'- -- [...."."..' ">"~'",,~'.' ......."'""'.. .,. '~-'-"-""';" ....."."....., .__,.".,H .~--.........~..:::-....---..'""""..-~ -.. '1:''''-~,''''' '."'-.~ :-. ..l!1~XgJ?,j~::I:'!':Y...S2g~-~.:r:~......._...._.........._.-._. ...... .......-..-..-.........-. ........-................-..-.... . ... . ..-..-.-..-... I am a property owner within the 350' radius of a request for a comprehensive plan change from R1 single family residence to R2 for upscale townhomes. I fully support this zoning change. ~;...._. , \ " 1 ;! 1 .l ' "-.~."< (~Li .::t- ~l"'; r:.~ /1/'!.fl/! e..f.e V I J 7~ 7 llrs'i,;~.".!-I'ei I L ..-' . ~ f~? ~\,,' ~q J')<.(. i ./I;I.I~/ .~('] ') C, I . ., /? ..,:-:::- - " "/a"~ ""., J'g/ </ . ,.>..... { ,/ /.p..... I ./ " I .' /,r'/ - .. .....----. // ;::/ ....- --.. ..- I~,,) /1 f!.. D -!., /7/ J4 /I. d J 1'1 (/7 Jj{ F s; D"" tJ-r I ALL.J 5' , , C / C 1-+ '-/ / / ,. /7 /] . ) -- l-t;q /{ d ,'.)!3" c.. f '-:t J01l / / / ,/ V' / I) ! /1 /riU.fr?'-y I I .J :)\ / ./.1" I.., L,.... ~._.f'\J..-/1 '. '. i, (. -1 \,' ~-_....-.~-, , ! ,,'/!/ J;tl J{tfY1vU0d- I ,l5 0, Btc/J, JJ}i ' ~ [/ ~I "111 .' ,/ I, ~') -LCtLIGll S5j7Vj \ 'J---0.__....... "- ,---1.""'1'\ l, ./ "\., I' \ :.'", . . I " ....! /' ~ ./ J;~,~, L[?U' 1 W UA/ r -'''/'- ( ~ .c<" t~ J-f jd,:. - 7 '0 VJrf/c) IG7i nil! f)\/e~ (A./ C; (Lcd OJ tfe '(}Il/[/) ') ~ 7 7' -. . MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL I am a property owner within the 350' radius of a request for a comprehensive plan change from Rl single family residence to R2 for upscale townhomes. I fully support this zoning change. IJ/7 ) )7)~v4;;V I I iLl '1"\ c: /Y't, r~ '- :... I' r,-' _..-- I /.') ~ S ,LL \ \ t\.\) \ .:.n..;.....;.. -~ \ . ,........., \\ ~ ,^,....'Lo(;;Q j) \ ".....1\--1 '. I tt {/l;:i t ,,;; ,. I _' , # ( ," .i! }/6'~~ /., 'f t \~' . : I 1,Jt.l-S- ~. . . r~\}.\,!J :-)\~ prJyu i d ~ ~ ....,L- .(C"fl~ t.... ~<..J ,. -- ~ - C~ ,/ l~:'U" . . Kt~ ~- -- '~) IS?- 7 /(&' /?:~'?- ,', ;P7/' )"xr;if;;,~.tf-rL/ 50.3 '7 <1 - . . RONALD W. KNUTSON ................................................................,.......................................................................,.........,,,.....,................................................................................' 1276 Quincy Circle Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 952-233-1276 rknutson l@msn.com January 18, 2003 To: Members of the Shakopee City Council Reference: Land Located at NW Corner of Jefferson Street and Vierling Drive We are property owners residing at 1276 Quincy Circle, which is a single-level twin home in a development built by Link Construction. Weare in favor of Link Construction developing the ,~bove.oreferenccd property .,;vith single-level twin homes similar to those on Quincy Circle. Sincerely, ~i;~ (!J . !. ", 1:J;ja-a'(Rlo V tt..t-L (; .ttt,.'r -. ,. t, ) Ronald W. Knutson Claudia J. Knutson - "," . FEBRUARY 20, 2003 RE: LINK CONSTRUCTION CO SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 PERMIT TO BUILD TO THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL: WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MR LINK GET THE PERMITS TO BUILD ONE LEVEL TOWN HOMES ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF JEFFERSON STREET AND THE NORTH SIDE OF VIERLING DRIVE, WHICH IS OWNED BY LINK CONSTRUCTION. WE LIVE IN A TOWNHOME BUILT BY LINK CONSTRUCTION AND BELIEVE THAT THEY BUILD A GOOD HOME, AND DO A COMPLETE JOB AS TO LANDSCAPING, ETC. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS MATTER, PLEASE ADVISE. YOURS VERY TRULY, ~~ 19~ ~t NORM AND DOLORES NORRING 1272 QUINCY Cl RCLE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 - TELEPHONE # (952) 496-1372