Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.A.1. Rezoning a portion of 1716 Stagecoach Road from Rural Residential(RR) to Multiple Family Residential (R#) and a portion to Urban Res. (R1-B) General Business 11. A. 1. SHAKOPEE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alex Sharpe, Planner DATE: 11/17/2015 SUBJECT: Rezoning a Portion of 1716 Stagecoach Road from Rural Residential (RR) to Multiple Family Residential (R3) and a Portion to Urban Residential (Ri-B) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential Guiding (A,B) Action Sought The City Council is asked to approve one of the following; Ordinance 920, an ordinance amending the zoning map adopted by City Code 151.003 by rezoning land to Multiple Family Residential (R3) and Urban Residential (R1-B) from Rural Residential (RR) and Resolution 7622, a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan for land guided Single-Family Residential to High Density Residential. or Resolution 7623, a resolution denying the request to rezone land to Multiple-Family Residential (R3) and Urban Residential (R1-B) from Rural Residential (RR) and amending the Comprehensive Plan for land guided Single-Family Residential to High Density Residential. Background MWF Properties LLC has submitted an application for rezoning of 1716 Stagecoach Road from Rural Residential (RR) to Multiple Family Residential (R3) with a portion of Urban Residential (Ri-B) and a Comprehensive Plan amendment to reguide the property from Single Family to High Density Residential. The 10 acre site is currently used as a horse stable facility and single family dwelling. If the rezoning is approved, MWF proposes to develop workforce housing on the site. The original concept plans reviewed by the Planning Commission proposed a three-story, 60 unit apartment building located on the southern 5 acres with the northern 5 acres reserved for future development of an additional 60 unit apartment complex. In response to the Planning Commission and adjacent resident concerns the developer has amended their submission. The new site plan includes one 66 unit apartment complex for workforce housing, and single family homes. The design attempts to buffer the Rural Residential homes along Stagecoach Road with single family lots. The single family lots are proposed to be served through an alley, and the apartment complex through a new connecting street from Stagecoach to Riverside Drive. This proposal is a result of meeting with staff at the Development Review Committee on Tuesday November 10. Adjacent sites are zoned Rural Residential and Community Commercial. To the west is Riverside Grove townhomes, which have a density of 12 units per acre. Properties to the north, east and south are primarily large-lot single family residences. The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2009, guides the site for single family residential use. If rezoned to R3 and R1-B, as requested, a density of 12 units per acre would be permitted for the R3 section, and 5 units an acre for the single family R1-B.This would allow for a 66 unit apartment home and approximately 11 single family homes. If not rezoned, the property would remain Rural Residential, and no further subdividing of the property would be allowed, as it is already at the one unit per 10 acre minimum required by City Code. Planning Commission The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the rezoning request on October 8, 2015. A total of 12 individuals addressed the Commission, with all but two speaking in opposition to the rezoning. The primary concerns raised by neighboring property owners were that it would significantly change the character of the neighborhood and that it would bring increased traffic to the area around County Rd 18 / County Rd 21 /Highway 169. Many speakers noted that they had relied on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's guiding of the site as single-family when making the decision to purchase/invest in the area. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6 — 0 to recommend denial of the requested rezoning. The Planning Commission has not reviewed the current proposal by MWF Properties. The City attorney has been consulted and a revised rezoing and Comprehensive Pan application is not required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission provided the request is for a less intensive land use, which this proposal is. The original site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission as well as the revised application are attached to this report. Multi-Family Housing When considering the requested rezoning, the Council should be aware of the following factors: 1. The City currently has one parcel of vacant land guided and zoned for higher density multi-family residential development, however the lot may be undevelopable due to site constraints and easements. For development of multi-family housing to occur the City will need to rezone parcels that can accommodate multi-family development or redevelopment. 2. The Metropolitan Council has established affordable housing targets for each city in the seven-county metropolitan area. The target for Shakopee is 943 units by the year 2040. Of this amount, 530 are to be affordable to households earning 30% or less of the area median income, 140 units to households earning 31 - 50% of area median income, and 273 units affordable to households earning 51 - 80% of area median income. In order to have the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan approved, the City will be required to demonstrate that it has an adequate quantity of land zoned for multi-family development to achieve this target. Attached to this memo are numerous comment letters submitted by surrounding property owners. Also attached is a traffic study completed by WSB that was not available at the time of the Planning Commission meeting, but does address the issue of traffic impacts. Recommendation Based on the targets established by the Metropolitan Council and the need to identify additional land to accommodate multi-family housing, staff has recommended approval of the rezoning. While not perfect, the site in question is a good site for a multi-family development because of its proximity to transit and services. However, as noted above, after conducting the public hearing, the Planning Commission has recommend denial on a 6 — 0 vote. Requested Action The City Council is asked to approve one of the following; Ordinance 920, an ordinance amending the zoning map adopted by City Code 151.003 by rezoning land to Multiple Family Residential (R3) and Urban Residential (Rl-B) from Rural Residential (RR) and Resolution 7622, a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan for land guided Single-Family Residential to High Density Residential. or Resolution 7623, a resolution denying the request to rezone land to Multiple-Family Residential (R3) and Urban Residential (R1-B) from Rural Residential (RR) and amending the Comprehensive Plan for land guided Single-Family Residential to High Density Residential. Attachments: Zoning and Guiding Map Resolution 7623 to Deny Resolution No. 7622 and Ordinance 920 to Approve Request Applicant Materials Reviewed by Planning Commission Applicant Revised Application Traffic Study Resident Letters WO S C a 45 4-! C VI I +o+ lii O 0 d m w o on CO dD j oo GL - g (' .te 0 CJS N x A ¢_r 0: A s C� U 3 rsgi, N d W U a a: x x a IE 0X d t, „ / . J bit /,_ xT`socuxas or r noa o 1 RS7H I l �� J w� SS�V2NW Cl / lin $1a SO �dS X08 f if S ,.. m mi i?I`� gat I = E ii „. (Lwrii11 ,\ _ __ _, . , , , .. . .... .-- - -.--::� v GEOOAc� Iii, .._.. .,... yo o :�' 110 Sk 7. tg ....•....■....—..a icaaa[sxanix del a, '4.4- ----...aa caEsxx3zxnl� __C?.--- i�� , o k.sincmf LIN so a w W o_ Nit I E o� �► o5a �� ! l IIII nu vmvxn u N,- i Off•!. a„>..,:.,:.._ v , OXOO - CO xP: m ,� v NS CF.DSO.. 1 169 TO 7 �' 1 T wa TTdaTHH _..SBH 1101 \ Wit = t . / NUM Milli ' NIB' o • N r �nos.td txscaacrR ink ii 11 ra MN Mill yti4 vitaim al nt,.t. 5 � � E \/ ;z :irIi, � � / � ��f��JTfJ LIMS � Arr ,I or � OR ler a r, xstt� o5 110 o' L4 %MI 11 y \,.., „t„.___,),,!,,,,,tau y:ca8 I P8 it ,, , i 1111 I II , `o O R(7^1 , - I 7N.L;I7IHLOOd' US:INZ.TTfHI.00d�N� CI,�1_. C�'” I:��.- _—i7 ...._'yam a _..,_.x"I Tmrs)nIO i L'7 1iJ -W \ ' 1111 z X11111gib — ��. �Il 1111 X1111 r li =a ` Li - �I(Ili I 11 I I 1 n a CT X. %`-- sub e--(111771-4. ot-fir / \ \ - _ A 7�-- RESOLUTION NO. 7623 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A REQUEST TO REGUIDE THE PROPERTY AT 1716 STAGECOACH ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR), TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL (Rl-B) WHEREAS,Jerilynn Wilking,property owner and MWF Properties LLC,applicant, have requested reguiding of a portion of the property located at 1716 Stagecoach Road from Single- Family Residential to High Density Residential and to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR)zone to the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) and Urban Residential (R1-B); and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: That part of the North % of the Northeast'/a of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast'/; thence Easterly along the North line of said Northeast'/a distance of 387 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Scott County Road No. 89; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to the South line of said North 1/2 of the Northeast'/; thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 700 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said North 1/2 of the Northeast'/; thence North along the West line of said Northeast%to the point of beginning, except the North 180 feet thereof and also except the South 200 feet thereof Scott County, Minnesota (PID No. 27-9130190 WHEREAS,notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 8, 2015 at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the subject property not be rezoned as originally proposed through a unanimous 6-0 vote; and WHEREAS,the applicant(MWF Properties)revised their application to include single-family development combined with multiple-family development. WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on November 17, 2015; and 1 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: FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below for the City Council's consideration. Criteria#1 The original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding#1 There has been no evidence that the original zoning classification is in error. Criteria#2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding#2 There have not been significant changes in community goals and policies. Criteria#3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3 There has been no evidence presented that either city-wide or neighborhood development patterns have changed enough to warrant the rezoning and reguiding of this parcel from a single family use to include a multiple family use. Criteria#4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4 The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the area for Single Family, and this property is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR), which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the request to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR)to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) combined with Urban Residential (R1-B) and to amend the Comprehensive Plan by reguiding from Single Family to Multiple Family Residential to allow multi-family development of the property is hereby denied. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 17th day of November, 2015. Brad Tabke, Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Lori Hensen, City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. 7622 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO REGUIDE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1716 STAGECOACH ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS,Jerilynn Wilking,property owner and MWF Properties LLC,applicant, have requested reguiding a portion of the property located at 1716 Stagecoach Road from Single-Family Residential to High Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: That part of the North '/of the Northeast'/ of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast'/; thence Easterly along the North line of said Northeast'/a distance of 387 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Scott County Road No. 89; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to the South line of said North '/2 of the Northeast'/; thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 700 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said North '/2 of the Northeast'/; thence North along the West line of said Northeast '/ to the point of beginning, except the North 180 feet thereof and also except the South 200 feet thereof Scott County, Minnesota (PID No. 27-9130190 WHEREAS, the portion of the subject property to be reguided as High Density Residential is legally describe as: That part of the previous described property: That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,Minnesota, described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence easterly along the North line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 387 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Scott County Road No. 89; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to the South line of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 700 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North along the West line of said Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the North 180 feet thereof and also EXCEPT the South 200 feet thereof Lying southwesterly, westerly, and southerly of the following described line: 1 Commencing at the northwest corner of said south 200.00 feet; thence easterly on an assumed bearing South 88 degrees 30 minutes 58 seconds East, along the north line of said south 200.00 feet, 434.25 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 18 degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds West 488.80 feet; thence northerly 203.05 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 1363.52 feet and a central angle of 08 degrees 31 minutes 56 seconds; thence North 01 degree 42 minutes 57 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, 122.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 17 minutes 03 seconds West to the west line of said Northeast Quarter and said line there terminating. WHEREAS,notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 8, 2015 at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the entire subject property not be reguided as High Density Residential through a unanimous 6-0 vote; and WHEREAS,the applicant(MWF Properties)revised their application to include single-family development combined with multiple-family development. WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on November 17, 2015; 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: FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below for the City Council's consideration. Criteria#1 The original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding#1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error. Criteria#2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding#2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Significant changes in goals or policy have not taken place, however the demand for multiple family housing in the City has increased. The City has placed greater emphasis on finding new areas for multiple family housing because all existing parcels are utilized and there is no remaining land zoned or guided for multiple family residential within the City. Criteria#3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred. There are limited remaining parcels for multiple family residential within the City. With the increased business community the demand for affordable housing has increased. Without rezoning additional land the City will not be able to accommodate any multiple family housing developments. Criteria#4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4 The Comprehensive Plan requires a different provision. The Comprehensive plan guides this as residential. Part of the application is to reguide the land to High Density Residential,which would keep the zoning and guiding consistent. 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the request amend the Comprehensive Plan by reguiding from Single Family Residential to High Density Residential to allow a Multiple Family Residential use of the property is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 17`h day of November, 2015. Brad Tabke, Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Lori Hensen, City Clerk 3 ORDINANCE NO.920 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE 151.003 BY REZONING LAND LOCATED AT 1716 STAGECOACH ROAD TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R3)AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL(Rl-B)FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL(RR) WHEREAS,Jerilynn Wilking,property owner and MWF Properties LLC, applicant,have applied to rezone the a portion of the located at 1716 Stagecoach Road from the Rural Residential(RR)Zone to the Multiple Family Residential (R3)zone and a portion to the Urban Residential(R1-B)zone; and WHEREAS,the property is legally described as: That part of the North '/z of the Northeast'/of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast'/; thence Easterly along the North line of said Northeast'/a distance of 387 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Scott County Road No. 89; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to the South line of said North '/of the Northeast'/; thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 700 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said North '/2 of the Northeast'/a; thence North along the West line of said Northeast'/a to the point of beginning, except the North 180 feet thereof and also except the South 200 feet thereof Scott County, Minnesota (PID No. 27-9130190) WHEREAS, the portion of the subject property to be rezoned as Multiple Family Residential is legally describe as: That part of the previous described property: That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence easterly along the North line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 387 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Scott County Road No. 89; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to the South line of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 700 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North along the West line of said Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the North 180 feet thereof and also EXCEPT the South 200 feet thereof Lying southwesterly, westerly, and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said south 200.00 feet; thence easterly on an assumed bearing South 88 degrees 30 minutes 58 seconds East, along the north line of said south 200.00 feet, 434.25 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 18 degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds West 488.80 feet; thence northerly 203.05 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 1363.52 feet and a central angle of 08 degrees 31 minutes 56 seconds; thence North 01 degree 1 42 minutes 57 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, 122.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 17 minutes 03 seconds West to the west line of said Northeast Quarter and said line there terminating. WHEREAS, the portion of the subject property to be rezoned as Urban Residential is legally describe as: That part of the following described property: That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter; thence easterly along the North line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 387 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Scott County Road No. 89; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to the South line of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 700 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter; thence North along the West line of said Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the North 180 feet thereof and also EXCEPT the South 200 feet thereof Lying northeasterly, easterly, and northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said south 200.00 feet; thence easterly on an assumed bearing South 88 degrees 30 minutes 58 seconds East, along the north line of said south 200.00 feet, 434.25 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 18 degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds West 488.80 feet; thence northerly 203.05 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 1363.52 feet and a central angle of 08 degrees 31 minutes 56 seconds; thence North 01 degree 42 minutes 57 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, 122.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 17 minutes 03 seconds West to the west line of said Northeast Quarter and said line there terminating. WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted,and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 8,2015 at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the subject property not be rezoned as originally proposed through a unanimous 6-0 vote; and WHEREAS,the applicant(MWF Properties)revised their application to include single-family development combined with multiple-family development. WHEREAS,the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on November 17,2015; 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: FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below for the City Council's consideration. Criteria#1 The original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding#1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error. Criteria#2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding#2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Significant changes in goals or policy have not taken place, however the demand for multiple family housing in the City has increased. The City has placed greater emphasis on finding new areas for multiple family 2 housing because all existing parcels are utilized and there is limited remaining land zoned or guided for multiple family residential within the City. Criteria#3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred. There are limited remaining parcels for multiple family residential within the City. With the increased business community the demand for affordable housing has increased. Without rezoning land the City will not be able to accommodate any multiple family housing developments. Criteria#4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4 The Comprehensive Plan requires a different provision. The Comprehensive plan guides this as residential.Part of the application is to reguide the land to High Density Residential,which would keep the zoning and guiding consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the request to rezone the property as stated in this ordinance is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 17`h day of November, 2015. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of ,20 . 3 21. Please provide any additional information that would be helpful for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or Planning Commission when reviewing this request: Shakopee has been very successful in bringing new retail,commercial and service jobs into the community.The developer intends to create new housing to help fill the need generated by those new jobs and to support the City's efforts bring additional jobs to the community. The location is well suited to housing since it is within walking distance to new retail and services development, has easy access to major roads, and is within a 1/2 mile of a park n' ride station. The 10 acre parcel will be platted into two 5-acre parcels. Under the R3 zoning,the maximum density is 12 units per acre—providing for up to 60 units for each of the two parcels. The south parcel will be developed first.The north parcel will be platted as an Outlot,with the specific development program for that half of the site to be determined in the future. The current plan for the south parcel is to develop a 60-unit, 3-story apartment building with below grade parking. The mix will be 15 1-bedroom, 30 2-bedroom (2 bathrooms), and 15 3-bedroom (2 bath) units.The project will be funded using the federal tax credit program administered by the Minnesota Housing and Finance Authority(MHFA). It will be intended for families with annual household incomes between approximately$30,000 and $60,000(depending on household size) - based on 60%of the area median income limits established through MHFA. Rents will be based on 50%of the average median rents also established through MHFA and will range from approximately$800 to$1,100 per month. There will be 67 below grade parking stalls and 68 surface stalls,for a total of 135 stalls-meeting the requirements for 2.25 stalls per unit.A playground for residents will be provided.As requested by the city, a public access trail along Stagecoach Road will be constructed to provide the basis for the future development of a more extensive trail along Stagecoach.The expected total"hard scope" of building footprint, driveway and parking lot area and other hard surfaces,will result in a lot coverage of less than 40%, leaving 60%open space—far greater than the 15%open space required by the R3 zoning ordinance. The development on the south parcel will be oriented toward the west and middle of the 10 acre parcel, with the goal of maintaining significant open space to the east and south of the building to provide buffer to the single family home to the south,and to the single family home neighborhood to the east. Landscaping will be oriented to support that buffer concept.The intent is to have vehicle access to the phase 1 development from Riverside Drive,with no connection (except for controlled, emergency vehicle access to Stagecoach if required by the Fire Department). The developer will be holding a neighborhood meeting to discuss the project.All of the property owners within 350'of the property will be invited. The intent it to hold the neighborhood meeting prior to the Planning Commission meeting and public hearing for the Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning application. 22. Does the request meet the criteria necessary to grant approval(please refer to the informational handout)? According to the handout,one or more of the following criteria must exist: 1. The original Zoning Ordinance is in error: N/A—the original ordinance was not in error at the time it was enacted. 2. Significant changes in the community goals and policies have taken place: There has been substantial job-creating commercial development near this site, in addition to the jobs being created by the recent influx of major employers. This has created an additional need for workforce rental housing. The Housing section of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan states that an important factor for achieving the City's strategy of increasing the percentage of residents who work south of the Minnesota River"will be the availability of a range of housing types and costs." The Plan goes onto to note the need for additional affordable housing units in the city of Shakopee,and says"Among the ways that a City can set the stage for the development of affordable housing is by guiding sufficient land to accommodate such housing." The proposed comp plan amendment and rezoning, and the propose project,are consistent with the City's objectives. 3. Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred: Meeting the additional housing needs for Shakopee by allowing R-3 zoning at this location is consistent with other recent developments west and north of the subject property where housing has been developed (via PUD)on what was guided (and is still zoned)for Commercial development. The density allowed in the proposed R-3 district is comparable to the density in those housing developments. 4. The comprehensive plan requires a different provision: The Comp Plan does need to be amended to change the zoning. — H- 0 (D 0 (.0 H- r--- co in ..... (0 u.... ...L... IA- 0. Ls-) r--, re) CN re) 0 0 0 0 ,zt. r..0 (.0 r•O „..... c.,„j „...... Lo li) Cr) Cr) 0.4 2 41116 li 0 0 0 NV < 0 0 0 00 0 0 I— h: C<I" N- w \-- 0 N 0 0 F— U) Iii 5 z z Lu (f) 2 2 0 0 CIC -r D < 0 r _( 0 -0 <_J iLC— 'El - 00000 3 I-- -'— CC CO CO CO CO CO ___I CC — ° (-) 0 Lu 0 cn 0 Lu CL 0 5 <CO < I— w LL, Z D H..>- Z. cn 1--- (r)D V) w < 0 < u...1 P--L z I ,_°- w > 6 < >- - NI •.,' < Li j 1_ < CO CCI 0 0 LLI LLI -2 F--- I— I— < < < C7) — (f) WV) 0 I o C0c , , : -,`C-„ C .,_. °' ,, ,,,....., o. , , ., ,,,, ,... .. ... :. _ ... _,,,... ,,...„.. :,....,..„.,. , _.,tiliOtlf:. -,:.AN:-4.;,'3 -- 1.. •t"--21 ....- — r r A,,., r r r .. . r- ,I. ,,,-- , 14. r .., .I.- r .., -.. r .., r r ,! . _ - Lu --- 0._ \r— io • in . ..Tia 4 — - . . \ A, n , IJ-I 1 Li C.)Ct .1' w )..... 1 ') --, _LIJ r I.,. lirti3 0 Cr) liitj 1'4'74' 1 , i $ 1... 04 L L.,.......d. ..' 1716 Stagecoach Road, Shakopee MN Why R-3 Zoning is Needed October 1, 2015 The density provided by the R3 zoning(12 units per acre) is needed to make the project economically feasible. The R2 density of 8 units per acre will provide too few units to bear the land, development and financing costs while meeting financial underwriting requirements and the requirements of the tax credit program that will be the primary financing mechanism for the project. We will be incurring substantial costs in acquiring and developing this site. One of the goals of our proposed development is to provide for as much green space as possible—as an amenity to our residents and to provide buffer to neighboring properties.We think that is an important benefit to the neighborhood and the city,and helps with the transition from the dense development west of the site to the single family home neighborhoods to the east and south. To that end,we are planning to meet the covered parking requirement through the use of below grade parking rather than surface garages. Doing so creates additional costs. And while that open space will not create any revenues, acquiring and improving(clearing,grading, landscaping, etc)that open space will create additional costs that need to be paid for. In addition, meeting the city's requirement to extend the public water system from Riverside to (and along)Stagecoach will also create costs far beyond what would normally be incurred in bringing utilities to a single building. Finally,the tax credit funding process brings with it higher financing underwriting and transaction costs than does a typical "market rate" project. All of the costs described above, as well as the cost of constructing the building itself, contribute to the total development cost per unit. If that total cost per unit is too high,the project will not meet underwriting standards and cannot be financed. In addition,the tax credit program has cost containment goals that effectively cap the total development cost per unit for projects that are funded with tax credits. Without the higher density of the R3 zoning there will not be enough units to cover the development costs without exceeding the cost containment goals.Without the R3 density,the project will not be funded. MWF Properties LLC MWF Properties 7645 Lyndale Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55423 TEL 612.243.4636 FAX 612.243.4660 MWFPROPERTIES.COM September 2, 2015 Fi1VsIF properties Dear Neighbor of 1716 Stagecoach Road, Shakopee: We have proposed rezoning the property at 1716 Stagecoach Road from Rural Residential to Multiple Family Residential. The City will be scheduling a public hearing for this request. We would like to invite you to attend a meeting we are planning to hold on Monday,September 14 to discuss the rezoning and to answer any questions you may have about the proposed development. The meeting will be held at 7:00pm at the Youth Building at Lions Park,located at 1099 Adams Street S,Shakopee. We look forward to seeing you there. In the meantime, if you have any questions you call me at the phone number listed below. Peter Worthington MWF Properties 612-259-7110 21. Please provide any additional information that would be helpful for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or Planning Commission when reviewing this request: Shakopee has been very successful in bringing new retail, commercial and service jobs into the community.The developer intends to create new housing to help fill the need generated by those new jobs and to support the City's efforts bring additional jobs to the community. The location is well suited to housing since it is within walking distance to new retail and services, has easy access to major roads, and is within a1/2 mile of a park n' ride station. The 10 acre parcel will be platted into two parcels. One parcel of 5.5 acres will be zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential. Under the R3 zoning,the maximum density is 12 units per acre—providing for up to 66 units.The balance of the property(approximately 4.5 acres)will be zoned R-1B Urban Residential. The R-1B parcel will wrap around the east and north of the R-3 parcel, providing a buffer of single family residential land between the R-3 parcel and the existing single family properties to the east and north of the proposed multiple family development. The proposed plan for the R-3 parcel is to develop a 66-unit, 3-story apartment building with below grade parking. The mix will be 15 1-bedroom, 30 2-bedroom (2 bathrooms), and 21 3-bedroom (2 bath) units.The project will be funded using the federal tax credit program administered by the Minnesota Housing and Finance Authority (MHFA). It will be intended for families with annual household incomes between approximately$30,000 and $60,000(depending on household size)-based on 60%of the area median income limits established through MHFA. Rents will be based on 50%of the average median rents also established through MHFA and will range from approximately$800 to$1,100 per month. There will be 73 below grade parking stalls and 76 surface stalls,for a total of 149 stalls-meeting the requirement for 2.25 stalls per unit.A playground for residents will be provided. The expected total "hard scope" of building footprint, driveway and parking lot area and other hard surfaces,will result in a lot coverage of less than 40%, leaving 60%open space—far greater than the 15%open space required by the R3 zoning ordinance. The building on the R-3 parcel will be sited so as to meet or exceed the various set back requirements. Landscaping will be oriented to create further buffer between the building and surrounding properties. . The intent is that access to the whole development will be from Riverside Drive,consistent with the recommendation of the traffic study recently commissioned by the city. Within in the R-1B parcel we have provided for an internal road with a 60' Right of Way(ROW)from Riverside Drive, across the property and running south to the south property line. All of the single family home lots will be accessed from that internal road.The driveway for the 66 unit building will initially come from Riverside, but when the internal road is constructed the driveway to the apartment building will be from that internal road. No connection at Stagecoach Road is planned. The plan provides for a cul-de-sac at the south end of the internal road if required.That will be worked out in the site engineering process. 22. Does the request meet the criteria necessary to grant approval(please refer to the informational handout)? According to the handout,one or more of the following criteria must exist: 1. The original Zoning Ordinance is in error: N/A—the original ordinance was not in error at the time it was enacted. 2. Significant changes in the community goals and policies have taken place: There has been substantial job-creating commercial development near this site, in addition to the jobs being created by the recent influx of major employers. This has created an additional need for workforce rental housing. The Housing section of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan states that an important factor for achieving the City's strategy of increasing the percentage of residents who work south of the Minnesota River"will be the availability of a range of housing types and costs." The Plan goes onto to note the need for additional affordable housing units in the city of Shakopee, and says"Among the ways that a City can set the stage for the development of affordable housing is by guiding sufficient land to accommodate such housing." The proposed comp plan amendment and rezoning, and the propose project,are consistent with the City's objectives. 3. Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred: Meeting the additional housing needs for Shakopee by allowing R-3 zoning at this location is consistent with other recent developments west and north of the subject property where housing has been developed (via PUD)on what was guided (and is still zoned)for Commercial development. The density allowed in the proposed R-3 district is comparable to the density in those housing developments. 4. The comprehensive plan requires a different provision: For the R-1B parcel, no change is required because the current guidance for the entire 10 acres is for Single Family Residential. The Comp Plan does need to be amended to change the zoning for the R-3 parcel. E . A Y 'Zt3NE R-t8 b Mtt < R041 e ✓ i I f i '".-.'i:' r� x` e y.y� � . nom . , i # I p ' * 7 C' r , .1 1 ; 1 ......„,..,,-.'"" 4;17,,, I. , ;---‘- ie; I j, i 7,,, 4Jt o ' .,_ ► a . I L 44 r r . EPt. x Tv 'URS t } /',frdrretti'itti,,‘-it)i'l" Q II sz c € -b t i.f�!el .2 a § 1 Z m f q !!! t xn 231 _ i _ =';.E.i gad €8' zi if. ' .--lif24 g^ism.F 8 &£3 n° i °3°px 8 x :ax£1;21111214 _E- 1FP .1!,:;.6ry£`0„ 5 3-s4e V2,1'h� e`11m Effiae (Y Ya 4�F n E ae s'v�' i,40 N.2ocaiE frgap5°p55s'• 90-Q-ve FF'14 iLt2r-'T zBL'I:g9gC�g E ysm pz:1,10 era§3 ' � 3q a;8s3 fr§gym€ � >S gini°4 a S%m y e€- € SW ai F t�E°E a b�mx3 C of(x l., t- x": V .0.ftz `°08s- a '-=iaea%is- lm$ �F eiPp 5 si=siF$y;°14 i °�; 8�3 ap @ 11 i°-3 . €i 11=110 a�34-nPliin °i 2; ZoiiI g Vila3;1311: of Ji :n l - g ak -OF ' it laa? g.5 3Y EO44E -S _S osi M- E xO sa s$.s ` - irfd :: �a sz az:o"24 €osoamEasa% o� € I �:a `e° x eso_ °pg9 9 21iWR 1 3mxn:;e`er M oR i Pz�z�$l P I ;DOA 9 "i!€x€-lroiiiii:�� S s �xd%= =s x S:ise€ sm�£�-ia log,s"at g -4111e€�, s ti,i1T§g _o !z IH€.Y r9 rE€'F._V .Fa€�t lig211, zR41rza r e�� l,3'F3ayEza 3Q$e_=o; t sea"y gxm«agoz° �W"-9£Si o 1 sF€" g€° g x': �'-A::2:t ii 1 sj;;l3 a okxa§ a�5 .2 %yyg3gg3q a = °szs i € s�a`ga3 3 3;$§ % r =s:Y i s` #i sss€ ixio" ° i e i a`^J8°q E.a Epiv Fs Willi! 1 N4Il fil Sg ii g grns'`F ru°°y CFY8 2"G= E. §aE9 8 m °9`.T E=88 8 -Y-a3 ti%alg°s S € 3_v__ �' tQ,R_3 mg F: �ax3xa % E8 3�''t� J ,°„93 e7 F: x°&o IIL 8 '111 o _— I — I 1 .rte/• '` i�r� ! I -_f. —c I1 z g.2 I — — STAG 0 No.g9) ���s+xe -- ,/ I g � (ow g 1 j; o [6s� m��w:_ 'lye——— _ swan-e ' --- p xtnp' I b Y n i- ®---�`- CC m a Z - 2 I 'Or 6 R O py N�C y�y _ I �C Z if 8 --_` Rz!iy, �R' *- o ao yae. L 1 I — m ~ U i1 ', C k I I q i i 41 I 1 W k i g U I >C1 4, g9 E 1 1 —y hI N a j ip • 9 in -- e- q 11 i 1,.,j Ai 1 cam uc:s'.ax I _ I HANG W/SEMAN .1::1 1 c; 11 ,: lin 1::1 pi:11.i.1 :: I :ii:I II,. ,,,, I 1 ;1 VTi I 11I I --I r;- I ;1 I:;•I T' I o 1 .., I T---------41-== ___�-_-r-- 1 I I ,.•'I,I,,.,j.._I 1 I F I 1 :•' 'i !i 11 .. IL J I I I I...':. ...! V. J.':,I. 1...1...1 ,.. 1:•E .., II W II IFF I I I I ,b:,I -M1 1, --]�(;;:':::.�1:. 1 ;,f;;;; -;, I I ;-f :5 1e,.' 1 i Y' ..I, --• L J r -_L_J__L__J L__J__L_L_J__L__J r --17+,.•••_'• I :: '1"'-•.; ••+', 1 I_ ;{..L_ _w r, 'f" II l l ''.„I IJ+. I I .i.,::(.'_.:.q:.' iii. 1 :.i, 1I II 1 L__1-_L_L_1__L__J L__J__L_1_1_L_ J r 11 Q II.____ I - I I j I -I I- i 1 I I----- .,. I, I •. I I :... !1 I! A WSB Infrastructure• Engineering• Planning•Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite#300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 &associates,Inc. Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 Memorandum To: Alex Sharpe, Planner Bruce Loney, PE, Public Works Director City of Shakopee From: Chuck Rickart, PE,PTOE, Transportation Engineer WSB &Associates,Inc. Date: October 15, 2015 Re: 1716 Stagecoach Road Traffic Study City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1811-540 Background The purpose of this study is to determine the potential traffic impacts the proposed development of 1716 Stagecoach Road has on, site access and operation on adjacent roadways. The site is located between Stagecoach Road and Riverside Drive, north of CSAH 18, in the City of Shakopee. The project location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site development is planned to be constructed in two phases. The first phase would include 60 multifamily residential units and is assumed to be completed and open in 2017. The second phase has not yet been determined however,the maximum development size would be an additional 60 multifamily residential units and assumed to be completed and opened by 2020. The proposed site plan for phase 1 is shown on Figure 2. Access illustrated on the site plan is shown from Riverside Drive; however, the developer has indicated access can be provided from either Riverside Drive or Stagecoach Road. The traffic impact of the proposed development was evaluated at intersection and access locations on both Stagecoach Road and Riverside Drive. The following sections of this report document the analysis and anticipated impacts from the proposed development. Existing Traffic Characteristics Stagecoach Road is a north/south 2 lane rural roadway with paved and gravel shoulders. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 50 mph. The current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on Stagecoach Road south of Boiling Springs Lane/16th Avenue, adjacent to the proposed site is 2900 vehicles per day. Access to the roadway is from residential driveways and street connections at Boiling Springs Lane/16th Avenue and Hansen Avenue. There are no turn lanes provided at any intersection or driveway along the corridor from CSAH 18 to north of Hansen Avenue. Boiling Springs Lane/16th Avenue and Hansen Avenue are stop sign controlled accessing Stagecoach Road. 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 2 of 12 C m CI) gl3 LL V 0J Z : /0/�� O W o �L✓ �O !/ © L 11�— ,111 ..,—,—"R\—Rte— 0 -Rt— \\\—.\R— \\ ��� .1 —RC—Rte— ' d. !!(VIG V 2 30QIb O N3�aJ . tit ++ Vl SDN1adS DM-0g -- • 6 bF���O a '1S SVaVIN V g SDNIa � ON 137JNrlj08 3 } �w �- J 3Aa353ad m AGEGD AGN ? it 0 a E I o 'aI3 3a7�� cr CD 30ISa3AI21 & 2 yFra-7,17.....,4„1-1g H I •Z9 G er 02i 102itlHN zSONISSOa3a4, rN a C w a s. \lilt \ U� CD, L/).> 0 i(�J 2 AVMVX3f11 o 6 ao 'a0 37V011IH ":4k\ \.1) d,9J :10,;,.1:690,61," ca PENS�F N '13 30tlIaa� Ss.6 S�' ro I'aT3 3f13S33 CD 0 . 1 1NJIIMS aLA cc" „N sy ,c�c w v / \ '64viiauMS S�wL1C ' vi a J O1p !/// 10 3A21I' \\ 4I� l"ti c:iIL \ illioar r6 ina XOJ\ J 2 'a1- c/llIHl00J A — 'Tz O 7-7 J d'U d N d' 3 W O r i-- ¢ O 41 m N rJ v to U N a (n a o '13 c —' 2 ( 1110 $ LJ v 0 ca Lo �. 'a13 i] 0 =ao ,NIM ii O 0 z ” • 3 D °- Y a1313 i] a DL u� URVE vi oi J`' 'O O, o O�� �. i 300Ia VO o C QG 5 L z 3 ti '0a 3)IV1 3XIdCe ~ S • m�frJ v \,..../7,-- ‘2- 6I rJ a Li - N v>I 4 d)� 119 = Sd8 is a O N i D�N 7� } �6 �J �� a 0 v d03 y mP Q o . Y GPS O. NIM O o CD ate'" Cti cYio p. .i,.ru, C!) cc. 4,6„ r� CO 0 •.— u" E i co 4~ qDU ao \` rl� V i a ,, Q� ,`. •• " y3XVM oQo 4,. esu W w '13� V �..� 0 3NanoeNsd a a J 1 p0 LI CD TC i 1iI . •I Cl 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 3 of 12 c4 ! CD 42) +- c' f, p� u7 h r1 N M a 0 0 0 1\ cp cep rn �A l7 N �L co .—,N Lo ER t of GS �� < 0 0 0 co O0 r CS 1--- C Cs N D Cl) vl ! 3 a � z Z w o a C0 CU L �, a l d' W 6 j a Ca 0 0 n n_ CC CD I— u Q Q }— CS fC aQ S ec 2 Cl) laJQ LS Q W W W a a [�'lY £>7 C7 Q N ., Y p �— Z La L 'or Z 2 '; we !J) � 1 C!i ii, 4 Q .1 N t S.„ K 1‘.1, 91h. . LI # '.^4####..-- I '''' ' ,„.,i° / Li 0 r rta ,..,...- OVA )- fc , _ , r , r r r r P l ,- ' . , f* ►� re r co c N rr t =r c j r W x R CD CD - 0' Q t. s. + '� v �e u) 0 P:3 1 z, ,.: ` , - Fes- C.� of il a°4 4 , Lei i 164,1 I::: 4,10:_11 ' '0 sem" 4� r Cin 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 4 of 12 Riverside Drive is a north/south local 2 lane urban street with parking allowed on both sides. The posted speed limit on the street is 30 mph. The current ADT adjacent to the proposed site is 500 vehicles per day. Access to the street is from residential driveways and street connections at Grove Place and Grove Circle. All intersections and driveways are uncontrolled. Crossings Boulevard is a 3 lane north/south collector roadway with a center left turn lane providing access to the residential and commercial property in the area. The posted speed limit on Crossings Boulevard north of CSAH 18 is 30 mph. The current ADT north of CSAH 18 is 4000 vehicles per day. Access to the roadway is only at street connections. Right and left turn lanes are provided at all intersections including Grove Place and Grove Circle which would provide access to the proposed site. All street connections are controlled with side street stop signs allowing Crossing Boulevard to flow without stopping. AM and PM peak hour turning movement and daily counts were conducted during the week of October 5, 2015. These counts were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. Background (Non Development) Traffic Growth Traffic growth in the vicinity of a proposed site will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other development within the region. This background growth must be accounted for and included in future year traffic forecasts. Reviewing the historical traffic counts in the area, traffic has stayed somewhat constant or dropped in the past few years. However, in order to account for some background growth in traffic a growth factor of 1%/year was used to project traffic from the 2015 counts to the 2017 and 2020 analysis year. Development Site Trip Generation The estimated trip generation from the proposed 1716 Stagecoach Road project is shown below in Table 1. The trip generation used to estimate the proposed site traffic is based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The table shows the Daily, AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the proposed development of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Table 1 -Estimated Development Site Trip Generation Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Size Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Phase 1 - Apartments 60 units 400 200 200 31 6 24 37 24 13 Phase 2 - Apartments 60 units 400 200 200 31 6 24 37 24 13 Total Site 800 200 200 62 12 48 74 48 26 Source:Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 5 of 12 Trip Distribution Site-generated trips were distributed to the adjacent roadway system based on several factors including the existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and the travel sheds for the major routes that serve the site. The generated trips for the proposed 1716 Stagecoach development was assumed to arrive or exit using driveways on Stagecoach Road or Riverside Drive and was assigned to the area roadways. Future Year Traffic Forecasts Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2017, which is assumed to be the year phase 1 of the development would be completed and opened and, 2020 conditions which was assumed as the year the site would be fully developed. Three improvement alternatives were evaluated. 1. No Build—Assuming existing lane configurations and traffic control 2. Access Alternative 1 —Access to Stagecoach Road 3. Access Alternative 2—Access to Riverside Drive The traffic forecasts were prepared by adding the projected annual background traffic growth to the existing 2015 traffic counts to determine the "No-Build"traffic conditions. The anticipated development traffic was then added to the no-build traffic conditions to determine the 2017 and 2020 Build traffic conditions. Based on these assumptions the following projected ADT and peak hour traffic volume would be present on the two primary impacted roadways. Stagecoach Road Existing 2015 Projected 2020 ADT=2,900 vpd No Build/Alt 2 ADT=3,100 vpd AM Peak Hour=330 Build Alt 1 ADT= 3,900 vpd PM Peak Hour=225 No Build/Alt 2 AM Peak Hour=350 Projected 2017 Build Alt 1 AM Peak Hour=412 No Build/Alt 2 ADT=3,000 vpd Build Alt 1 ADT=3,400 vpd No Build/Alt 2 PM Peak Hour=240 Build Alt 1 PM Peak Hour=314 No Build/Alt 2 AM Peak Hour= 340 Build Alt 1 AM Peak Hour=371 No Build/Alt 2 PM Peak Hour=230 Build Alt 1 PM Peak Hour=267 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 6 of 12 Riverside Drive Projected 2020 Existing 2015 No Build/Alt 1 ADT= 525 vpd ADT= 500 vpd Build Alt 2 ADT= 1,325 vpd AM Peak Hour=35 PM Peak Hour=65 No Build/Alt 1 AM Peak Hour=37 Build Alt 2 AM Peak Hour= 99 Projected 2017 No Build/Alt 1 ADT= 515 vpd No Build/Alt 1 PM Peak Hour= 69 Build Alt 2 ADT= 915 vpd Build Alt 2 PM Peak Hour= 143 No Build/Alt 1 AM Peak Hour=36 Build Alt 2 AM Peak Hour= 67 No Build/Alt 1 PM Peak Hour= 67 Build Alt 2 PM Peak Hour= 104 Traffic Operations Existing and/or forecasted traffic operations were evaluated for the intersections and access driveways. The analysis was conducted for the following scenarios. 1. Existing 2015 2. Projected 2017 No-Build 3. Projected 2017 Alternative 1 4. Projected 2017 Alternative 2 5. Projected 2020 No-Build 6. Projected 2020 Alternative 1 7. Projected 2020 Alternative 2 This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations for each scenario. Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000(HCM).The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service(LOS) grade from"A"to "F"to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 7 of 12 handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign-controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all-way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through-street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un-signalized intersections are shown in Figure 3. The threshold LOS values for un-signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing)the number of lanes, changing traffic control arrangements,adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Figure 3:Level of Service Ranges for Signalized and Un-signalized Intersections LOS F 80 d o w U LOS E -� LOS F 73 17) a, 55 m �' v = T t 50 LOS D LOS E -o c 35' u m 35 cuU LOS C E o LOS D m U 2 25 •20 0 `o LOS C LOS B Z 15 LOS B v 10 10 LOS A LOS A Z Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection SOURCE:Level of Service thresholds from the Highway Capacity Manual,2000. LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all-way stop could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 8 of 12 The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: • Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each intersection and provide an input database for turning-movement volumes and lane geometries characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. • SimTraffic is a micro-simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes and intersection configuration. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Existing Level of Service Summary Table 2, below, summarizes the existing LOS at the primary intersections in the study area based on the current lane geometry, traffic control and 2015 traffic volumes. The table shows that all intersection are/would be operating at an overall LOS A during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours with all movements operating at LOS A. Table 2—Existing(2015) Level of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour IntersectionLOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Stagecoach Rd at Boiling ( ) ( ) Springs Lane/16th Ave A A 4 A A 5 Stagecoach Rd at Hansen Ave A(A) 5 A(A) 7 Riverside Dr at Grove Cir A(A) 1 A(A) 1 Riverside Dr at Grove PI A(A) 1 A (A) 1 Crossing Blvd at Grove Cir S A(A) 6 A(A) 7 Crossing Blvd at Grove P1 A (A) 6 A(A) 8 C=Overall LOS, (D)=Worst movement LOS Source: WSB &Associates, Inc. Forecast Traffic Operations A capacity and LOS analysis was completed for the study area intersections for 2017 and for the 2020 conditions. The results of the analysis are discussed below and shown in Tables 3-5. Table 3—Forecasted No Build, shows that all intersection will continue to operate at overall LOS A in 2017 and 2020 during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Overall delays will increase slightly from the existing conditions to the 2020 conditions; however, the level of service will still remain at LOS A overall with all movements at LOS B or better. 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 9 of 12 Table 3 —Forecasted No Build-Level of Service 2017 2020 Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Stagecoach Rd Boiling A (A) 5 A(A) 6 A(A) 6 A(A) 8 Springs Ln/16 Ave Stagecoach Rd at Hansen Ave A(A) 6 A (A) 8 A(A) 9 A (B) 11 Riverside Dr at Grove Cir A(A) 2 A (A) 2 A (A) 3 A (A) 3 Riverside Dr at Grove P1 A(A) 2 A (A) 2 A (A) 3 A(A) 3 Crossing Blvd at Grove Cir S A (A) 7 A(A) 8 A (A) 9 A(A) 10 Crossing Blvd at Grove P1 A (A) 7 A (A) 9 A (A) 9 A (A) 10 C=Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB &Associates, Inc. Table 4—Forecasted Build Access Alternative 1, shows that, assuming access from Stagecoach Road, all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS A in 2017 and 2020 during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. All movement will also be operating at LOS B or better in 2017 and 2020. Overall LOS and delays do not show any significant changes from the No-build condition. Table 4—Forecasted Build Access Alternative 1 -Level of Service 2017 2020 Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Stagecoach Rd at Boiling A(A) 7 A (A) 8 A(A) 8 A(A) 10 Springs Ln/16thAve Stagecoach Rd at Hansen Ave A (A) 8 A(A) 10 A (B) 11 A(B) 12 Stagecoach Rd at Site A(A) 3 A(A) 4 A(A) 4 A(A) 5 Entrance Riverside Dr at Grove Cir A(A) 2 A (A) 2 A(A) 3 A (A) 3 Riverside Dr at Grove P1 A (A) 2 A(A) 2 A(A) 3 A (A) 3 Crossing Blvd at Grove Cir S A(A) 7 A(A) 8 A (A) 9 A(A) 10 Crossing Blvd at Grove P1 A(A) 7 A (A) 9 A(A) 9 A(A) 10 C=Overall LOS, (D)=Worst movement LOS Source: WSB &Associates, Inc. 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 10 of 12 Table S—Forecasted Build Access Alternative 2, shows that, assuming access from Riverside Drive, all intersection would continue to operate at overall LOS A in 2017 and 2020 during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. All movement will be operating at LOS B or better in 2017 and 2020. Overall LOS and delays do not show any significant changes from the No-build condition. Table S—Forecasted Build Access Alternative 2-Level of Service 2017 2020 Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour elay LOS Delay LOS (sD/veh) LOS (selay D/veh) LOS (selay D/veh (sec/veh) ) Stagecoach Rd at Boiling A (A) 5 A (A) 6 A (A) 6 A(A) 8 Springs Ln/16 Ave Stagecoach Rd at Hansen Ave A(A) 6 A (A) 8 A (A) 9 A (B) 11 Riverside Dr at Site Entrance A (A) 2 A(A) 2 A(A) 3 A (A) 3 Riverside Dr at Grove Cir A (A) 3 A(A) 3 A(A) 4 A (A) 4 Riverside Dr at Grove P1 A (A) 3 A (A) 3 A (A) 4 A (A) 4 Crossing Blvd at Grove Cir S A(A) 8 A (A) 9 A (A) 10 A(B) 11 Crossing Blvd at Grove P1 A (A) 8 A(A) 10 A (A) 10 A (B) 12 C =Overall LOS, (D) =Worst movement LOS Source: WSB &Associates, Inc. Access Analysis A basic traffic engineering approach to improving operational and safety characteristics of a roadway is managing access to it. The spacing of intersections and driveways should be controlled as defined by roadway functional class and traffic volumes. The level of control is determined by the type of access being considered and the functional classification of the roadway itself. Arterials need the most access control to provide their primary function of mobility(longer- distance trips at relatively high speeds). Local streets, on the other hand, carry short trips and primarily serve an access function. Collector roadways serve both a mobility and access function in roughly equal measures and access should be managed accordingly. This approach limits the impact of intersections and driveways on average speeds and levels of service on roadways appropriate to the function of those facilities. Some linkage to land uses may become somewhat less direct, but this needs to be balanced against the overall gains in terms of operational and safety conditions. 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 11 of 12 New developments and sites which are being developed should follow these general guidelines: • Provide internal traffic design to limit the number of driveways to the roadway system and/or to provide that access on appropriate roadways. • Shared driveways should be provided where abutting properties have similar land uses. • No driveway on a local street is to be within 50 feet of a street intersection • When properties adjoin two streets, the access should be to the lower volume street. • Access should align with other access driveways or streets where possible. Based on these guidelines and the alternatives traffic operations analysis access to the 1716 Stagecoach Road site could be provided from either Stagecoach Road or Riverside Drive. Access to the proposed development should designed to accommodate both phases of the development at one location. In access alternative case the traffic from the proposed site together with the existing roadway traffic are not factors in the overall traffic operations of the site driveways or associated roadways or intersections. The primary advantage of the Stagecoach Road access (Alternative 1) is that the roadway is a collector type roadway with fewer adjacent residents. Access to the site can be provided at the existing Boiling Springs Lane/16th Avenue intersection. However, the speed of traffic on Stagecoach Road is a safety concern requiring addition of left turn lanes on Stagecoach Road to remove turning traffic from the through lane of traffic. The primary advantage of the Riverside Drive access (Alternative 2) is that the roadway is a local low volume 30 mph street. No turn lanes or other roadway improvements would be needed. However, traffic on the local street will increase from the existing 500 vpd to up to 1325 vpd impacting more existing residential properties. This traffic will be distributed between the Grove Place and Grove Circle to Crossings Boulevard intersections, lessening the impact to the adjacent residents. Conclusions/Recommendation Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, WSB has concluded the following: • The proposed 1716 Stagecoach Road development will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 will include 60 multifamily residential units and be completed by 2017. Phase 2 would include an additional 60 multifamily residential units and would be completed by 2020. • The site is anticipated to generate at full development up to 800 daily trips, 62 trips in the AM peak hour and 74 trips in the PM peak hour. • Existing (2015) traffic operations at all intersections and driveways on Stagecoach Road and Riverside Drive are operating at overall LOS A in both the AM and PM peak hours. 1716 Stagecoach Rd Traffic Study City of Shakopee October 15,2015 Page 12 of 12 • Intersection traffic operations for the No-Build conditions in 2017 and 2020 will continue to operate at an overall LOS A for the AM and PM peak hours • Two build site access alternatives were analyzed. Access Alternative 1 would provide access from Stagecoach Road to the site. Access Alternative 2 would provide access to the site from Riverside Drive. • Intersection traffic operations for both access alternatives in 2017 and 2020 will continue to operate at an overall LOS A for the AM and PM peak hours. • Access could be provided from either Stagecoach Road or Riverside Drive without impacting traffic operations at the site driveways, adjacent roadways or intersections. • Access to Stagecoach Road(Alternative 1)will impact the least number of residential properties and could be aligned with Boiling Springs Lane/16th Avenue. However, due to the speed of traffic on Stagecoach Road, left turn lanes would be required for safety. • Access to Riverside Drive (Alternative 2) will provide a safer alternative and would not require any roadway improvements. However, this access will impact more residential properties and more than double the daily traffic volume. Based on these conclusions the following is recommended. 1. Provide site access to Riverside Drive -Although access to either Riverside Drive or Stagecoach Road would not impact traffic operation, the access to Riverside Drive would provide a safer condition for the adjacent roadways. However, access to Stagecoach Road could be accommodated safely with the addition of left turn lane improvements at Boiling Springs Lane/16th Avenue and the site access. 2. Access to the site is designed to accommodate both Phase 1 and Phase 2 in one driveway location. If you have any question or comments please feel free to contact Chuck Rickart(612.360.1283) Alex Sharpe From: creatingspaces72@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, October 07,2015 10:58 PM To: Brad Tabke; Matt Lehman (External); Michael Luce; Kathi Mocol;Jay Whiting;Alex Sharpe Subject: Pine Ridge Stable Proposed Rezoning Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you in response to the rezoning application submitted by MWF Properties for 1716 Stagecoach Rd, Shakopee MN from rural residential to R3 multi-family. My husband and I built our home in Eagle Creek Preserve 15 years ago. We research the community and development plans for the area when we chose this area to live and raise our family. We are opposed to the rezoning and believe it will have a significant negative impact on our neighborhood and community. As I understand the proposal, here are key items that are of concern: • The proposal is to rezone the property from Rural Residential to R3 Multi Family (density of 12 units per acre) • The project is being funded through the use and sale of tax credits, which are made available by the "Section 42 Low Income Tax Credit" program the Government offers. • Housing will be for people that make 60% or less of the average median income. If you make more than this you would be turned away from the apartment complex. • MWF is proposing to rezone the 10 acre site into two separate 5 acre parcels, with the option to sell the other parcel. This means after the rezoning of the property there is no guarantee of how the property will be developed. • Project is for a phase 1 of a 3 story 60 unit apartment building, with parking below the building at ground level. Phase 2 is proposed to be an additional 60 unit apartment building to be build in 3-4 years. I am very concerned about the safety of my family and children with a low income housing facility only blocks away. In a recent hearing in the Chaska community, Shakopee police testified that a complex similar to this in Scott County had significantly increased police calls and criminal activity in the area surrounding the complex. Would it be possible to get a summary of the police reports around this other complex here in Scott County? I think this is critical information for the home owners in the surrounding neighborhoods to have access to. Additionally, I am confident that the additional of this complex will reduce the value of the homes in the area. We have invested significantly in our home over the past few years. We made the decision to invest in a pool a couple of years ago with the intent to stay in our home for many years to come, but if this proposal is passed we may need to reconsider and look at other communities. I am concerned that the value of our home will be significantly impacted with the passing of this proposal. Do you have any information on the change in the value of homes when complexes like these are placed in a neighborhood? I think this should be researched and shared with the community before a decision is made. 1 I am also aware the there are 4 four criteria that must be met in order for the Planning Commission and/or City Council to rezone an area: 1. That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error 2. That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place 3. That significant changes in the City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred 4. That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. I would like to understand which criteria this change is being considered under and the rationale, as I don't believe it meets any of these criteria. We are extremely upset by this proposal and the recommendation to approve this by our city council members. I would like to know what the community can do to have this proposal rejected and keep the current zoning plans in place. I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission Meeting tomorrow night but I wanted to make sure I communicated my concern and opposition for the proposal. Please get back to me with answers on the above questions at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Kari and Jeff Schmitz 1936 Creek Ridge Ct Shakopee, MN 2 Alex Sharpe From: Amber Quiring <amberquiring@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,October 07, 2015 9:00 AM To: Alex Sharpe;Jay Whiting; Kathi Mocol; Michael Luce;Matt Lehman (External); Brad Tabke Subject: request for reconsideration To whom it may concern, Our family moved into the Eagle Creek Preserve area approximately 3 years ago. Our residence is on Boiling Springs Circle. We love living here and chose this location VERY carefully. When we chose to purchase our home on Boiling Springs Circle,there were many considerations. The biggest being location. We love that we are close to many conveniences and stores,but far enough away that it still feels a bit rural. We greatly desired for a low-traffic area,with homes that were separated by large yards, beautiful landscape and green nature. We like the fact that our neighborhood is single family homes and not a densely populated area, and that for the most part...they are well kept,nice homes. When we heard of the proposal for the apartment building,we were quite upset... as we purchased this property for much of the above reasons.... and placing a low income apartment building just 2 blocks down,would greatly take away from our peaceful,beautiful, single family, somewhat rural neighborhood that we desired and payed big money to purchase our dream home at. We ask that you would reconsider allowing an apartment building to be placed at the old farm. Please do not take away what so many of us love and appreciate and worked so hard to be in. We are not opposed to additional single family homes being placed there, as it would flow with what is already surrounding. Humbly, Amber Quiring 612-490-0161 1 1 October 6, 2015 To Whom It May Concern; I am writing as a 38 year resident of 1818 Stagecoach Road in Shakopee Minnesota. I was moved here by my father who was a resident of Bloomington Minnesota and wanted a better atmosphere to live and to raise children in. In 1989 I bought 2.5 acres from my father right next door because I too,wanted a quality environment to start and raise my family one day. Now 26 years later here is where I live with my wife and children. The re-zoning of the property on Stagecoach Road from Rural Residential to R3 Multi Family is something I am strongly against for the following reasons. • I chose to buy property from my father because I wanted to provide a quality of life for my family. • I chose to improve my property and home rather than re-locating over the past years to preserve the value and continue to invest in the future of my family based off of the city's plan for this neighborhood. • I chose to live where I live to have less traffic. If this property in questioned is re-zoned that will no longer be an option. I feel like we have already given up some of the quality of our lives here in regards to traffic for the cities other needs such as...a transportation station, re-routing county road 18 and 21 and many other things. • More people, more problems. I already have individuals from the complex behind my home coming through my yard,starting fires in my woods,axing down no trespassing signs and at times leaving my family feeling un-safe. • Most property owners along stagecoach road have 2.5—5 acre lots. The reason they purchased larger lots was to have more space and less people. A feeling of rural living. Yards, woods, solitude. This is what we purchased and I believe this is what we should rightfully be able to maintain. I have seen many changes in this"neighborhood"over the past several years. The re-zoning of the property in question is a change that there is no going back from. The preservation we once knew, loved and have worked so hard for will be in uncertain. As a second generation land owner who chose to stay in a community to give his family a life he was so fortunate to have, as a tax payer who has rolled with the many changes to our community on the East side of town, I ask that you carefully consider the lives that have been here,that are currently here and the impact this will have on them. Sincerely, Chris Steinert ��i Alex Sharpe From: Kami <k4skoglund@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 10:17 PM To: Alex Sharpe Subject: Letter regarding Proposed Rezoning on Stagecoach Rd In Regards To:The proposed rezoning of the current single family residence and Pine Ridge Stables located at 1716 Stagecoach Road,Shakopee. Dear City Council Members, Planning Commission,&Community Representatives: My husband,Adam, and our two boys,4 and 2 years old,have truly loved our home on Stagecoach Road in the city of Shakopee. We were first time home buyers when we purchased our home on Stagecoach Road just 2 years ago. My husband grew up in a rural area and I in a small town.Although we never pictured ourselves raising a family in the metro area,we have worked hard in our careers and found ourselves putting down roots in this area. When we looked to purchase our first home we wanted to provide our family with a rural/small town atmosphere that we grew up with. We searched across the west metro to find a home with a rural look and feel, as well as a strong Catholic faith and schools to raise our children. With the mission of the City of Shakopee being "to provide the opportunity to live, work and play in a community with a proud past,promising future, and small-town atmosphere within a metropolitan setting", we were ecstatic to fmd our home on Stagecoach Road in Shakopee. The mission of the city and unique neighborhood surrounding Stagecoach Road in Shakopee fit exactly what we were looking for. Prior to the purchase of our home my husband and I thoron•hly reviewed the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan and also spoke with a city staff member to confirm city zoning and future plans. Based on our research and conversations,we were confident this neighborhood zoning would remain single family residential. We love Shakopee and have grown close to other young families in our neighborhood who purchased their - homes based on similar aspirations of raising their families in a rural residential, single family home area. I am proud to work in Shakopee and look forward to continuing to grow in this community. However,I have concerns regarding that aspiration if the property across the street from our home is rezoned to R3. Our home will lose the unique aspects that drew us to this city. We will no longer be able to enjoy the rural look and feel, small town atmosphere, and privacy that we love about our home. I am asking that you, as the planning committee and city council members,uphold the 2030 plan(zoned as single family) and preserve the neighborhood that brought my family to the wonderful city of Shakopee. Thank you for your time, Kami Schmidt 1 Dear City Council Members and Planning Commission: My name is Adam Schmidt a current resident in Shakopee. My family was recently notified from MWF Properties regarding rezoning the property at 1716 Stagecoach Rd,from rural residential to multiple- family residential. The proposed rezoning is directly across the street from our home. I am married to my wife Kami and we have two little boys. My family and I moved into our current home (1685 Stagecoach Rd)from outside Shakopee less than 2 years ago (October 15, 2013) because of the unique opportunity for a young family to be able to purchase a single family home with space. Before deciding to relocate to Shakopee my wife and I lived in apartments in Falcon Heights and St. Louis Park, then to a small rental home in Hopkins. As our first son got older we soon realized we needed a bigger yard and wanted a small town feel for our children to grow up in. My wife and I grew up in southwest rural MN,so finding a home in a low density neighborhood was the most important criteria for us to feel comfortable living in the metro area. My wife and I worked very hard and sacrificed a lot. We moved away from family and friends for job opportunities and saved any extra money we could to be able to finally have enough of a down payment to purchase our first home. When looking for homes we were initially looking for something north of the river for my work commute. However, when we were shown our current home/property by our realtor we were excited about the neighborhood,zoning, and oak woods. I then started to do my research about the Shakopee area and I was impressed with the mission statement and the community. I felt the mission statement(included below) included exactly what we were looking for. MISSION STATEMENT: The mission of the City of Shakopee is to provide the opportunity to live,work, and play in a community with a proud past, promising future, and small-town atmosphere within a metropolitan setting. Before deciding to purchase the home I thoroughly reviewed Shakopee's 2030 zoning plans that state single family housing in the area (including the address in question). To confirm I called an employee from the Shakopee Planning and Zoning Department and discussed specifically whether the horse stable across the street would remain in single family homes. After that discussion I believed the property across the street was to remain in single family housing, which led to our decision to purchase the home. If I would have been informed by Planning Department employee that the property across the street may be rezoned to R3,we would not have purchased the property. Since moving into the home, we have worked extremely hard and spent our savings updating the home and property to make it into the place we want to raise a family. In recent years,four other neighboring homes have been purchased by young families seeking the same dreams. { Since being notified of the proposed development I have had conversations with Peter Worthington at MWF,the Planning and Zoning Department,Shakopee Public Utilities and the Public Works Department to better understand what is being proposed. Based on my conversations with city employees and after receiving the proposed building map from MWF,the proposed apartment complex would include two phases (two- 60 unit buildings,totaling 120 units). The current zoning of the property would allow four homes(2.5 acres/home); if it were rezoned to the 2030 Plan for single family with smaller lots it would be 20 single family homes at most. If the property were to be rezoned as proposed it would exceed the planned density by 100 families(over 300 people). Also a consistent concerning phrase I have heard is that after rezoning is approved based on the proposed plan,the plan could change. Driveways may be added to Stagecoach Road directly in front of our home (where the current resident's driveway is),the second parcel could be sold for unknown plans, or build the apartment building on the eastside of the lot(instead of the proposed west side). In addition, depending on the type and location of sewer and water lines ran on the new development, it could financially impact our assessment when the city decides to run sewer and water along Stagecoach Road. In regards to the developer planning on dividing the parcel in to two properties,the current residence on the property is nice and located on the south side amongst old oak trees. The current proposal would bulldoze the current residence and trees and build the first apartment building in that location and leave the north parcel, which has no trees, buildings, or homes to be determined in the future. By doing this it completely takes away the rural residential feel of our neighborhood. The proposed development has a major impact on my family. My understanding is that the City's Primary Goals are incorporated into daily business. I believe these goals also mimic the goals I have for my family. - High quality of life. - My goal was to raise my family in a quiet, low density neighborhood. I did my research, I talked to city representatives before purchase, and if this proposal passes I honestly feel like I let down my family and friend who bought a neighboring property after visiting our home and also feel in love with the neighborhood. -Great place for kids to grow up. -The reason we left the inner city was to give our children some space to play,grow, and learn how to work hard through outside/active chores. With two little boys we soon found they could not be contained in a small backyard. We wanted a home where as they get older we can feel safe having them play outside on their own. The proposed development could increase the number of people across the street to over 300 people,which would increase foot and vehicle traffic in front of our home. -Vibrant, resilient and stable. - Our neighborhood has been evolving as young families have purchased their homes in recent years. We are all excited about the neighborhood and are all investing into our home sand properties for the future. The proposed development has created an unstable environment as our neighborhood residents question plans for future development beyond the proposal. - Financially strong. My family has put everything we have into our home physically and financially. If this rezoning takes place my family would have no choice but to slow or stop investments into our home due to the uncertainty of future development,the estimated costs of future water and sewer tax assessments (Minimum$50,000), and impact of our home's value and marketability if we have to sell due to changes in our neighborhood. In conclusion, I believe it would be best for the neighborhood (including the property on 1716 Stagecoach Road)to remain as single family housing as defined by the 2030 Plan. I encourage you to take a drive down Stagecoach, and I believe you will understand why we are concerned about the proposed development's impact on our community and on our family. Regards, Adam Schmidt 1685 Stagecoach Road Shakopee, MN Below is the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that shows our neighborhood was to remain in single family housing. I have also marked our home as reference. Nir-V4,71Ninv i Alf i ''';'"2? P, ii ...: ztai ��:f VV-4441.-z_. Pim tri ZNa '' �� /1111,1 . 3. .,- 14 -4.....„,-,z,___..,,--:---„-,_,-, ,,.t.„ • ,,-* „ ..---; .i 3^�' 171651y ,% f^ u '� AI* V Illlll 1111111111!e4, , Itt. N.r/Meato Aka A. ft 111.41) ''%',, \(.5 r.. rii F.. fain IIMIRVtA■ O L_— 1 Single Family Res.(3-5 Units/Acre) ' ,- e � ,. . ' '''° `1 Va 63* Y r �,xr Li , _- Y `,...4 d " r^j t3?" ' !"' 4.0 [ � C1,0 4 rr�T F+y J O N i 1' M 't+ eM kit:' � II cc � `' � t `�„�� err►' ' I It # 4.M r�- —y „i7. 4t. : •-� ! ' „ ; i...-„.1:-.:11*"2 4 P. 01 wl CD oomdiradon* ,_ Y LL ' . : _ ' 1! 1 § § g § § 1 ' I�M, , - t 4:-. v ro :::4 rimews : : i _ _- -tayr f _T e iE p. ” gw t + - - a#bs! % '° G C 5 ax 3rr;y , ` + ai x a umiak e w.',, c a y e -APOa y, pi 144 If. f ao _ 1""! ., • ffiY ` Z Mia P" . 4 ti• M+.l vz . ^a•Lesww. `•,_ '�' - , IV N , a 4. „ i . . ;_. „„,„ , a .• 1' 41 .3 $ 't^ ` ” 'ry'. i ^ u w'c n`, Alex Sharpe From: Chad &Kari Herrgott <theherrgotts@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 08,2015 8:29 PM To: Alex Sharpe Subject: Rezoning of Stagecoach property- Letter without typos:) Please disregard 1st email Dear Mr.Sharpe, We are sending this letter in regards to the proposed rezoning of the property on 1716 Stagecoach Road in Shakopee.We are residents of the adjacent Eagle Creek Preserve development and reside at 2023 Boiling Springs Circle.We are concerned that the rezoning of this property will have several negative impacts on our property.We purchased our property in 2007 with the intention of living and raising our family in a rural residential area.Changing the zoning so close to our property will change the feel and value of our home from the rural residential we bought into 8 years ago.We have noticed the traffic patterns change over the years with the increase in new housing and businesses.What used to be a doable commute on 169 North has turned into a nightmare do to the influx of traffic both in the morning and evening.Adding more housing to this area will only make this worse.There are several mornings when the line of cars to get onto 169 is backed up through the light at 18&21.This is a potentially dangerous situation as cars are not able to get through the light due to the amount of traffic trying to get on 169.Adding to the influx of people trying to get onto 169 at 21 will cause more accidents,and further frustration to those of us that work north of the river,but chose to buy a home south of the river to enjoy all that a rural residential neighborhood with acreage has to offer. We ask that the city consider the financial impact to our property,the integrity of the rural residential neighborhood we bought into,and the traffic impact that rezoning would have on us personally,as a neighborhood,and as a community as a whole. We ask that the Stagecoach property zoning not be changed,but remain in compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as Single Family Residential. Thank you for your time, Chad and Kari Herrgott 1 Dear City Council Members, Planning Commission,&Community Representatives: Below are the points I spoke to at the Planning Commission Meeting on October 8th. I am including them in a letter format so they are available to read,in addition to the audio commentary of the Planning Commission Meeting. Good Evening—My name is Dan Buzicky. My wife and I live right across the street from the single family residence located at 1716 Stagecoach Rd. I also submitted a letter to you as the Planning Commission and the City Council addressing further detail then I will be able to cover tonight in the allotted time. To provide some background I grew up in Richfield, MN. Growing up in this City I knew,while it was nice, it was not the setting I wanted to raise my family in due to the housing densities,feel, and atmosphere of the City.As I got older I purchased a starter home in Bloomington.Again the community was nice, but with the mix of close quarter single family housing, apartments, and town homes I found myself searching for a place with more green space, more trees, larger lots, and single family housing.This time I was searching with my wife and we were looking for a place to raise our family and live in for many years to come. I bring this up so that you understand we searched out an area like this and would otherwise have moved and invested in another community which had that rural and small town feel. The first item I want to address is where does the Staff Recommendation consider if this rezoning is better for the people who have invested in our community and currently live in it? How does it take into account our view as the neighborhood and community? How does it consider those that used the information from the city, including the 2030 Plan, as a guide to make a decision to purchase and invest in this community? The next item that needs to be addressed is that in the report it states "The property owner has unsuccessfully attempted to sell the property as a single family home or hobby farm for many years".To address this issue I inquired with local real-estate professionals,as they are the experts.What I found out is that with a price tag of$950k to$lmillion dollars it is extremely unlikely that a single family could ever get financing to purchase this property.The reason is that based on market values it would be unrealistic to get an appraisal for this price,which is required for financing. I have attached in the hand out a report from the Association of Realtors,which states the estimated market value for this home is $625k,which is significantly under what the asking price is.The reason this information is important is that if any person is trying to sell a home above market value it will not sell.Additionally, at no time did the seller consider the market and alter the price to be in line with single family housing.The tax basis and other sales in the community further evidence this as being the case.The point is that it is unfair to say that the seller has been put in a situation of undue financial hardship due to the property not selling as a single family residence when it was priced out of the market. Further, Per City Code 11.24 Rural Residential Zone it does state that lots approved after 1994 have a maximum density of 1 dwelling per 10 acres. Prior to this the City allowed for 1 dwelling per 2.5 acres. We were told by the City that this was due to the Met Council enforcing this. Per Deb Barber,the Met Council Member for District 4,these statements were not true and the Met Council in no way has authority to enforce this. It is strictly a matter of the city.As such you,the City, have the authority to change this and it is appropriate to ask you why you would not allow development of this site as 4, 2.5 acre rural residential lots to ensure the community and small town feel is maintained for its current residents? Or some variation where the Home with its septic system is rezoned as a smaller lot and the remaining area is turned into a park or community setting? The next item to note is that Statistically speaking when you add more people to a neighborhood your chances of increasing disturbances to the community rise(regardless of the type of disturbances).This could be in community feel, stability, and many other areas.Assuming conservatively low fill levels it would be more than appropriate to expect an influx of 300+people into our neighborhood on the 10 acre site.This is more than the entire area zoned rural residential around it,which currently supports densities of roughly 1-2 people per acre.This certainly seems like a rather drastic transition from high density R3 to low density single family. Further,this development is in an area with limited access to retail and activities within convenient walking distance,and has no large parks for sports or other activities. Do you really expect residents of the proposed apartments to cross one of the most major intersections in the community without any increase to accidents and safety concerns at that intersection?Also,what does the City of Shakopee intend to do for these 300 individuals who have limited amenities on the 10 acre site? Has the city considered turning this 10 acre site into a park and adding green space to the area for the current the community and residents to enjoy and support a higher quality of life? Another element we value in our community is stability. Residents in the rural residential area fall into two main categories,first they have either been in the community for many years,some as long as 40+, or second they are new young families who have invested in the area to live and raise their families for many years.As noted by the speaker for Vesta Property Management during the community meeting with MWF,the average tenure for someone in the apartments is roughly 3 years.So on average you could turn over roughly 100 residencies in these proposed properties every year. How does turnover like this promote the stability we all seeked out?Which influenced our decisions to buy our homes and live in this area?Stability is one of the Primary Goals for the City Council. How does this support that goal? As I reflect on this process and consider what the future will bring the reoccurring question that keeps running through my mind is who will be our voice and stand up for my family and the current citizens and community members in our neighborhood? Much of the talk is around development and bringing in more jobs and more housing, but who is going to stop and consider what the current community wants? In the community survey conducted and presented to the city council in 2014 the residents top three things citizens liked most about the city were Small Town, Neighborhood/housing, and Quiet. Further the most serious issue identified was Growth.The very issue in front of you today is the reason why residents are concerned about growth, as it will take away the quiet small town neighborhood we invested in. As you consider this issue I urge you to put yourself in our situation, as the current community and tax payers, and ask yourself if you would be ok with loosing what you had worked many years to be able to afford and find? The Planning Commissions Decision:After some very good discussion the 6 Planning Commission members unanimously voted against the proposed rezoning. In addition to many of the issues identified by the community,the Commission spoke to issues of walkability, safety risks crossing major intersections, and dramatic changes to our neighborhood.All 6 members of the Planning Commission recommended to City Council denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning. Mark Seifert stated "I don't think it's the right spot to put it in that area" and "we owe it to the neighborhood to be consistent with the 2030 Plan". Michael Klemm also stated he was "concerned about the domino affect" in the rest of the neighborhood. Commission Chair Joe Collins made a final address to the Commission and audience stating"You guys chose the city of Shakopee based on the 2030 Plan" and that the "Community want outweighs technical recommendations". As members of the community, we urge you to take into consideration the many Resident Letters,the facts around the project, and the unanimous recommendation by the Planning Commission to not allow the rezoning of this area.Thank you for your support. Dear Mayor Tabke, I am writing to you in regards to rezoning the property at 1716 Stagecoach Rd, Shakopee. I live at 1723 Stagecoach Rd which is across the street from the property that is being discussed. My husband Dan and I moved to Shakopee a year and a half ago. We saw our property up for sale when visiting friends, who also live on Stagecoach Rd, and we instantly fell in love with the city, the neighborhood, and the lot that was for sale. We put everything we had on the line to purchase the home and we were able to buy the house and the property of our dreams. We both wanted a home in a city that had that "small town"feel but also was close to the city that we work in. I teach fourth grade and Dan is an accountant in Bloomington. We love "crossing the river" and feeling like we are out of the big city when we get to our neighborhood. We often have visitors who cannot believe the neighborhood that we found, they say they would love to live here! Dan and I are hoping to have children in the near future and want them to grow up in this neighborhood with that small town, country feel. We did a lot of research on the city and found that between the mission statement, 2030 comprehensive plan, and the community survey, that we would NOT have to worry about losing that small town feel. Until now.... I cannot express how heartbroken I feel to be in this position of fighting for what we were lead to believe based on the information published by the City of Shakopee. Here are some of the items from the city that gave us the confidence to purchase our home: The mission of the City of Shakopee is to provide the opportunity to live, work, and play in a community with a proud past, promising future, and small-town atmosphere within a metropolitan setting. What do you like most about living in Shakopee (Per the 2014 Morris Leatherman Survey) The Top 3 Responses were: Small Town Feel 23% - We have that now Neighborhoods 18% - We have a great neighborhood Quiet/Peaceful 15% - Our Neighborhood is quiet and peaceful The city conducted this survey and it states that the city will use the results of the study for future planning and growth. It seems very clear-the city needs to keep the small town feel, and also keep the 93% of people who stated their Quality of Life was excellent or good living in Shakopee, continuing to feel that way. The community needs to be able to trust that the City they invested in will maintain the small town feel and the 2030 comprehensive plan. We invested in our property, we invested in our home, and want to continue to invest our time and money to be able to have our dream home in Shakopee. As our City Council you have the ability to pass this rezoning request, but at what cost, knocking down a beautiful single family home? Removing green space?These things do not coincide with what I have read as the plan for Shakopee. Have you all considered other opportunities for this property such as subdividing and making the north plot a park? In the Shakopee 2030 plan it talked about the importance of parks to the city. We don't have a park nearby, the closest is a mile away, behind town homes, with no parking and is in Savage. My husband and I attended the City Planning Commission meeting on October 8th along with many of our neighbors. We were grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the proposal and to voice our concerns. At the conclusion of the hearing, we heard all six members of the planning commission speak to the proposal and were happy to learn that all six members had similar concerns. Concerns of walkability, safety with HWY 18 and HWY 21, traffic concerns, drastic changes to the unique neighborhood, and an understanding of the investments we have made to our homes to be able to live in Shakopee. We sought out this neighborhood and this town. Commissioner Seifert stated that this is not the right spot for a development of such high density. He also stated "we owe it to that neighborhood to be consistent to the 2030 plan" speaking to the large acre rural residential lots currently in Shakopee including our neighborhood. Commissioner Klemm pointed out that the "points" given for the property were not looked at with the level of detail needed. This property is not walkable to retail or grocery. The commission already talked about not increasing the pedestrian traffic with the upcoming movie theater that will be adjacent to the horse stable property. Traffic is a problem in this area. Adding 200-300 people to this small area adds more traffic. Also, residents in this area are closer to retail in Savage rather than Shakopee because downtown Shakopee is 15 minutes away, with no traffic. This area will not increase the number of people who live, work, and shop in Shakopee. All in all, we love Shakopee, and we love our neighborhood and our neighbors. We love the peaceful quiet country feel that we are so lucky to have found. I am asking you to follow the planning commission's recommendation to the city council for denial of the requested comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning and therefore, upholding the 2030 plan to keep this area zoned as single family. You cannot "make" a small town feel, you have to preserve what is already there. Thank you for your time, Leah Buzicky 1723 Stagecoach Rd Shakopee, MN Alex Sharpe From: creatingspaces72@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 10:58 PM To: Brad Tabke; Matt Lehman (External); Michael Luce; Kathi Mocol;Jay Whiting;Alex Sharpe Subject: Pine Ridge Stable Proposed Rezoning Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you in response to the rezoning application submitted by MWF Properties for 1716 Stagecoach Rd, Shakopee MN from rural residential to R3 multi-family. My husband and I built our home in Eagle Creek Preserve 15 years ago. We research the community and development plans for the area when we chose this area to live and raise our family. We are opposed to the rezoning and believe it will have a significant negative impact on our neighborhood and community. As I understand the proposal, here are key items that are of concern: • The proposal is to rezone the property from Rural Residential to R3 Multi Family (density of 12 units per acre) • The project is being funded through the use and sale of tax credits, which are made available by the "Section 42 Low Income Tax Credit" program the Government offers. • Housing will be for people that make 60% or less of the average median income. If you make more than this you would be turned away from the apartment complex. • MWF is proposing to rezone the 10 acre site into two separate 5 acre parcels, with the option to sell the other parcel. This means after the rezoning of the property there is no guarantee of how the property will be developed. • Project is for a phase 1 of a 3 story 60 unit apartment building, with parking below the building at ground level. Phase 2 is proposed to be an additional 60 unit apartment building to be build in 3-4 years. I am very concerned about the safety of my family and children with a low income housing facility only blocks away. In a recent hearing in the Chaska community, Shakopee police testified that a complex similar to this in Scott County had significantly increased police calls and criminal activity in the area surrounding the complex. Would it be possible to get a summary of the police reports around this other complex here in Scott County? I think this is critical information for the home owners in the surrounding neighborhoods to have access to. Additionally, I am confident that the additional of this complex will reduce the value of the homes in the area. We have invested significantly in our home over the past few years. We made the decision to invest in a pool a couple of years ago with the intent to stay in our home for many years to come, but if this proposal is passed we may need to reconsider and look at other communities. I am concerned that the value of our home will be significantly impacted with the passing of this proposal. Do you have any information on the change in the value of homes when complexes like these are placed in a neighborhood? I think this should be researched and shared with the community before a decision is made. 1 I am also aware the there are 4 four criteria that must be met in order for the Planning Commission and/or City Council to rezone an area: 1. That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error 2. That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place 3. That significant changes in the City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred 4. That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. I would like to understand which criteria this change is being considered under and the rationale, as don't believe it meets any of these criteria. We are extremely upset by this proposal and the recommendation to approve this by our city council members. I would like to know what the community can do to have this proposal rejected and keep the current zoning plans in place. I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission Meeting tomorrow night but I wanted to make sure I communicated my concern and opposition for the proposal. Please get back to me with answers on the above questions at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Kari and Jeff Schmitz 1936 Creek Ridge Ct Shakopee, MN 2 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing to you in response to the rezoning application submitted by MWF Properties for 1716 Stagecoach Rd, Shakopoee MN from rural residential to R3 multi-family. Originally from Winnipeg, MB Canada, I had the privilege of visiting Shakopee growing up when my dad would attend Mopars in the Park car show at Raceway Speedway. Not wanting to spend hours a day looking at cars, I would hop on the provided school bus and go shopping at the Burnsville Shopping Center. Each year,the bus would take us along Hwy 101, under the over pass and over the railroad tracks through this amazing neighborhood of beautiful acreage yards,gorgeous mature trees and unique homes. Living in a city, I remember thinking how lucky these families were to have such secluded homes with all the amenities of city living.As a jealous 12 year old little girl, I went back home telling all my friends how amazing Shakopee, MN was. Fast forward 15 years and one move across the border later,who would have thought that I would have met and married a man that lived in the exact neighborhood that I once envied as a child. Unfortunately, the neighborhood I remembered had changed a bit. Of course there was more "city life"then "rural life" now with Home Depot,townhomes and a White Castle, but some growth was to be expected after 15 years. However, it wasn't just growth, but the state of the homes and the age of the neighborhood that was disappointing to me as well.We had a choice to make. Should we stay and invest our time and hard earned resources into the small-town atmosphere we loved in the hopes that the community would turn around or do we pack up and find a new beautiful place to live.Sure there is Trout Run just up Hwy 18 with gorgeous homes,young families to raise our children with and a 20 minute drive to work each day. But lost in that and any other new neighborhood is Shakopee's rural history.The mature trees that tell stories with each tire swing they hold or the childhood memories that I continue to hold so dear to my heart. I was convinced that we needed to stay. So we began slowly investing in our old home, both inside and out. Repainting aged walls, repairing the torn pool and over grown backyard and replacing worn out roofs,windows and septic system. Of course we didn't decide to make these investments purely based off emotions,we also wanted to be sure that the city had the same rural vision for our neighborhood as we did. Referencing the City of Shakopee Comprehensive 2030 plan beforehand,we learned that our neighborhood was zoned as rural residential and outside the MUSA boundary for sewer service until 2030.The plan was updated and formally adopted by the city on August 28, 2009 to "ensure that it continues to meet the City's needs in guiding growth and development through the year 2030 and that it meets the requirements of the state's Metropolitan Land Planning Act". 1 As we continued to invest,the neighborhood itself started to change as families with young children began to recognize the value in our small-town atmosphere and purchased their dream homes as well. Elated,we made the decision 6 years later to continue investing into our community.To continue investing based off the city's mission statement of providing"...the opportunity to live,work, and play in a community with a proud past, promising future, and small-town atmosphere within a metropolitan 12030 Comprehensive Plan, http://www.shakopeemn.gov/city-government/departments/planning-zoning/2030- comprehensive-plan setting"'and the city's vision "where the city's unique historic personality is thoughtfully balanced with easy access to urban conveniences"3. Investing in the quality of life that we deliberately chose for our children. We did so by refinancing and making the commitment for the next 20 years to stay in the home and community we had worked so hard for and grown to love. I understand that the city did not go searching for this opportunity. But we did search for this small- town atmosphere.We did search for this lifestyle.We did search for these childhood memories for our children, much like mine when I was a 12 year old little girl. We did search and made our decision based off the city's commitment and plan to protect our investment. My niece,who is now 12 years old herself visits from Canada a couple of times each year.She loves staying to shop, swim and play with her auntie who lives in the United States, it makes her feel like a big girl. Last time she visited, she commented as we walked around the neighborhood, "it's not fair,your yards are bigger than my school yard". I can't speak for the rest of my neighborhood, but those feelings, those memories are the reason why we continue to stay committed to the improvement and betterment of our special and unique neighborhood.Or when people ask"You live in Shakopee?That's so far and industrial", I take pride in seeing their faces when they come to visit and realize that our yards with mature trees and homes acres a part from the next prove them wrong. We are a very close and tight knit community, like many others.We watch out when someone is out of town,we run over to borrow milk when needed and we all have young children that we are working hard to provide for and raise according to the values we were raised with. For one reason or another, we have all picked this community based off the city's 2030 comprehensive plan as a place to grow and invest in. I ask you as our representatives, our voices to please honor the plan the city had the foresight to create in 1999 then update and approve in 2009.The one we all researched and took into consideration, much like we considered the number of rooms, how big the kitchen is or acres in the yard when we first took the big step in purchasing our family homes. Sincerely, Shauna Brick 8615 Boiling Springs Lane, Shakopee, MN 55379 2 2030 Comprehensive Plan, http://www.shakopeemn.gov/home/showdocument?id=364 3 2030 Comprehensive Plan, http://www.shakopeemn.gov/home/showdocument?id=364 In Regards To:The proposed rezoning of the current single family residence and Pine Ridge Stables located at 1716 Stagecoach Road, Shakopee. Dear City Council Members, Planning Commission, &Community Representatives: My Wife Leah (a 4th grade elementary school teacher)and I (an accountant for a local manufacturing company) worked many years to establish ourselves and build our careers. One of the main reasons we worked so hard was to be able to afford a place we could call home and have a mix of a rural country feel with a closer proximity to the city.When we found out our home on Stagecoach RD was for sale last year,we were ecstatic to learn there was a community in Shakopee zoned Rural Residential,where the lots are a minimum of 2.5 acres and are single family. It took everything we had, but we were able to purchase our home located at 1723 Stagecoach RD, which was a dream come true, and would be a great place for our kids to grow up. As anyone going through the process to purchase and invest in a home,that we worked so hard to be able to afford,we did our due diligence prior to making the investment. We did the basics like touring the community, contacting people at the City to ask questions,talked with the neighbors, and reviewed the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive 2030 Plan. With an area like ours it was an initial concern before we purchased that it could be developed. We were purchasing and investing in the community as it stands and needed to be sure that the City would protect it and keep it as is.As we looked to the City we reviewed their mission statement,which states"The mission of the City of Shakopee is to provide the opportunity to live,work, and play in a community with a proud past, promising future, and Small-Town Atmosphere within a metropolitan setting". From this statement we felt connected to the city with the Small-Town Atmosphere being at the heart of this statement. We also extensively reviewed the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the correlating report. From that information we understood that the areas around us could eventually be changed to encompass additional single family housing, but gained comfort that the feel of the community would be preserved, and the small- town atmosphere would be protected. Unfortunately the very things we used to guide us in our home purchase are being challenged by developers. We recently learned that our rural residential community(with its small-town feel)could be drastically changed.A landscape transforming from single family homes with 100 year old oak trees into a 3 story high density housing structure, requiring rezoning and deviation from the Comprehensive Plan. We also learned that the zoning would change from RR to R3 and that this change would be made even before a feasibility study would be completed for the site.Additionally, we learned that the developers are proposing subdividing the property into two sections, which creates the opportunity for them to sell the second parcel as R3 to another, unknown buyer, and eliminate all potential possibilities that it would be single family homes.This action would mean they would tear down the current single family residence (which is a very nice home)that aligns with the 2030 plan,to make way for rezoning and high density housing.This information is concerning as our family invested in our home,the community,and the city because of the offerings this rural residential area had to offer, as the small-town single family setting is what we were searching for. Another item we must consider as part of this rezoning proposal is that at some point if the city plans to run city water and sewer down Stagecoach Rd,that cost is generally burdened on the residents that live on that street. If the 10 acre site is rezoned to R3 and city water and sewer are run from the town home development(for the R3 complex), how would the 1,000ft of road frontage of that development on Stagecoach be assessed for the Stagecoach city water&sewer?Or would that additional burden of cost fall on our family and the other community members to absorb? Estimates are already in the neighborhood of potentially$50-$100k per home. With an added financial burden it could drastically impact my family's wellbeing and ability to afford our home. Another item you will be considering as you make a determination on this project is that one of these four criteria would be met to allow the rezoning: 1. That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error 2. That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place 3. That significant changes in the City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. 4. That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. As we look at these four criteria a couple are ruled out quickly,which are "That the original zoning ordinance is in error"and "That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision" (it states single family residential).As I look at"That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place" I would struggle to justify that this is true.This is evidenced by our involvement in the neighborhood and community, and through that involvement,that the people have the community goal to maintain this area as rural residential and single family(which also aligns with the Comp Plan and Mission Statement).The final item to consider is "That significant changes in the City-Wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred".As I evaluate this one there have been some changes in the greater Shakopee community in regards to development and growth, but the reason why my wife and I, and many people (multiple new young families) in our community have moved to this area, is because of its current feel and atmosphere. If my wife and I had intentions to live in a more urban setting we would have moved to Richfield (where I grew up) or Bloomington (where we moved from). We added length to our commutes to embrace what Shakopee had to offer.Additionally, as you look around our area it is prominent with single family homes which support development patterns consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive plan. For this reason and others I could not support the statement that there is significant development patterns in our neighborhood which would support or justify this rezoning. I ask that you take a look at these criteria and as our elected officials, place yourself in our shoes as the surrounding community members, and take a hard look at how you would justify and be comfortable with a rezoning based on each of the above criteria. Your decision on this project directly affects my family, our financial wellbeing, and "the small- town atmosphere"we love.We invested our savings into the purchase of our home and continue to make enhancements that improve the property and make it a place we can raise our family with a high quality of life. We would be heartbroken to have worked so hard, invested so much money,time, and effort into our home and property,to learn that the basis for which we bought it, as a single family residential area,was falsely stated. I ask that you use your planning, zoning, and other regulatory power to protect our existing residential neighborhood and support the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,the mission, and community goals,which our family and other families in our neighborhood, used as a guide to put our concerns at ease with purchasing our homes. As our representatives and voice, I greatly appreciate your support and protection of our community. Best Regards, Dan Buzicky 1723 Stagecoach RD Shakopee, MN 55379 Attached Please find: • Images of our view of the residence and Pine Ridge Stables from our home and yard • A copy of the published 2030 Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use Map & Key. y.. t- f"` t�."_.T 717 M .. .t3` "�` . 9[ }} i1.• ',IP -c, y • • ....,arc^»... :.... .141KAgia, s• . '1.7•4S•;11.• ...—.." .. • .4 . • ..., „.... . • ti„ ..- .• • . . , ..., , •_ . '-' ' 4C. —' •" ,.r . , 4. ' , , - • .,. - • 1 -........ ...„.:-. __ -- -- -' * . .....-_.---...,,, , .., -. i!...,. •- . ., lt 1 , 1 ..- 1 ii II i , 1 NI . . i ,„ II” .. "I s. : ..' • . ' 11 k f .. :t.• : !,....- t4 II , ! , '.,,,,,-. ,..s,..":.'-'.';- •,,P4, ..1"-.4 ...,•,--' . ''. ''''' if \ - ' ,,----...,'",•;,,;...k , ''• • ' - .• ; . 41* . ' -'4P.:- - • ' . , .•4 -1)•..-1'•- 0'4, ::',.. ..• , . , • 1 , , , ,..4 I I 5 .& ). "), .1 ,1, •;:", g, ,v liall :-. . ." 1 - bliiiil 0 •-"j . ... i 1AlirtIM! „ 1 .L ;.. s mrpeapTt* 7 1 JOE]1 1[J-n-- -,,,,-,-//it ..ntt t*.4" :,.:4.1.„1"'"It'44,7;"'.j,-,.:ti'••,1417fti 11. '' .:::;.r'tr‘t"...g*It-61141 1 ,, slivi, , hc.,%.,-4•111-. , . 4,, ,„„ f . ....,,,,...... 11104.-A Alai ) ,. 1.-:.4.. 0 A If4Tim`-its7s4 1,s-P4tiliti .i.iTif 4 ,./ 4 atifimit _t.-. 04- „eir 1., 10..,.... 1. ...:1,-,. ffil ,. • -- frA) .' .' N ._.,.. .. . Nil i /) 114 - es its ‘,,•014.° ,,,,,,,1-rf1 :- ‘s. 'ein-,:7,-,4`,-f. •::--, - • , _ : & .s. • N '‘‘‘ • , 4 imi,,,.. ff.,„ s :I, 1 7,, 4,',.1-1',-"Al,„--;---=r '.•..., 611-:'*? ':.-F`,.,. \,.•1,13, .--z-,, Asa:7 iv' rir: :.t.,..1,,,,,.... ,..,....i.ii\ri:•l4, N, .\. 1, 1: '''''‘Y.'‘,41.<rair•wt:-.4;4IST' milt mit Ali ,..I;,',•; ,.• •,,,, .411 : k ....• Arm.22:17...... ....k., ,\ ,,\,‘• . / -/ ' tel ikmim ON _140'.'" ,\`'\ • --.• i .,. I i ' wl% 11 / ,, _ ,_ _, 44.",,A'-- .; , , tir.k.3,- • 1911-,- -c7 - - '!;:, .*'N.•Ii.br-Z-1`•1/4",,c, ,,,:',..:e. sr .k,:-.4;;:r , ,,_,,T_____., - •:f.,-4-a,kov N , , ,.,\, yr' ,, N, •. ic --0 1. •,1 41 1 ,..ltr , t.. „;.,..3.:. ... - — ,...L: ,-.1.4 vap '.:, ,.... rirm,e-#E• eltliti.1 ..1= roimi'!-,,--- 1 4:t.Au,,IFfitl , '. 1%zipt- am..-,--, s'..•...‘.c4,- ' \ 1 '. yi.,,..„4 f .,-... , ,,..:_!..-•-• 1 14 7 Ili ,...3::,....,..--,.:„.... ... ..,:„: ....,\,',.................,--, ,; --77_,, IE. - , ,,, .41,,,,,v4,, , rt. . fr..tr,‘ti,-----.'4, ..,..,.4t,„ 11-1 .,...,.... i,. .,,,,,,t.i.,.fri„. ....:...titi,,..1:„.. ,..*. co° Yt...i,':1.7,':Ii'l...•7. , .k..- - ''''"‘-'::''''''''!,i';',,':-:-,2.;',..!.`•'''',.:°:.' ' . - . 'F'-'1":11111111 let 110, `..:>,--..,,, 4','::::..,-. •*.. •' . .....111L 7 --IFJ Oft,',:4,friszffil i .. :-._ „..,,. ‘,,,... .1,-ktitira - 6, 1 1 ' , t!lyrij1)-'-' ' " ',,--ill inili , Ill. :1-177"77'1 1 RI '1111 ' P, '''' .10 . .in 1 2., Nor ... \ \, , Alex Sharpe From: Mark Noble Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:03 PM To: Alex Sharpe Subject: FW: Potential Rezoning of Pine Ridge Stables Fyi. Mark Noble Piiik.,„A Senior Planner, Planning Division j IAKOPEE 129 Holmes St.S.,Shakopee MN 55379 (952) 233-9348 I mnoble@ShakopeeMN.gov I www.ShakopeeMN.gov From: Brad Tabke Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:33 PM To: Diane Von Bank<dvonbank@comcast.net>; Mark Noble<MNoble@ShakopeeMN.gov> Subject: Re: Potential Rezoning of Pine Ridge Stables Thank you for contacting me, Diane! The project is currently going through our planning department and has quite a distance to go before it gets to City Council. We'll watch it and see how the process moves along. Have a great day! Brad From: Diane Von Bank<dvonbank@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2015 1:55 PM To: Mark Noble; Brad Tabke Subject: Potential Rezoning of Pine Ridge Stables TO: Brad Tabke, Shakopee Mayor Mark Noble, Shakopee Senior Planner We have recently learned a developer has requested the City of Shakopee rezone the current Pine Ridge Stable property on Stagecoach Road from the current Rural Residential Single Family designation to R3 Multiple Family. The potential re-zoning is more than greatly disappointing to us. Before we bought property and built a new home, we very thoroughly researched cities and areas. We were so excited to find a beautiful location in Shakopee zoned as Single Family Rural Residential, which had 1+acre lots with many beautiful trees and was also conveniently located to a major roadway (Highway 169). The City of Shakopee's 30 year plan, defines this area as Single Family Rural Residential, and based on that premise we purchased a lot and built our 'forever' home, assuming we could trust the city plan. If the city rezones this property, we all know how much easier it would be to continue to grant additional rezoning designations to each adjacent property, right up to Preserve Trail, forever changing the landscape of the peaceful rural residential, and the dreams we have of this being our 'forever' home. We request that the City think long and hard about making zoning changes, and to follow the City of Shakopee 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which so many utilize to make important business and personal decisions. Respectfully, John & Diane Von Bank 1943 Boiling Springs Circle Shakopee MN 55379 2 Alex Sharpe From: Alex Sharpe Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 8:00 AM To: 'wery.blake@gmail.com' Subject: Rezoing Stagecoach Area Hello Mr.Wery, I apologize, it appears I did not respond to your message yet! I am the planner that has been assigned to manage this proposal and have received many responses to this request. Somehow yours fell through the crack and I missed it, I am very sorry. The property located at 1716 Stagecoach road,the horse stable area has an application for rezoning to multiple family residential from rural residential.This is very early in the process, and the first public hearing is on October 8 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. From a technical standpoint I can see how the project can work on this site, but I understand the concerns of the neighbors and want to ensure that these are expressed to the Planning Commission, and eventually the City Council. The way a rezoing process works is that a public hearing is held at the Planning Commission first,that is on October 8. This body provides a recommendation to the City Council who makes the final decision. It is my job to create a report which illustrates the positives and the negatives to the potential rezoning. I would like to include your previous email into my report if possible. I have several other letters which I am including as well, part of my job is to make sure your voice and opinion are part of the public record. If you would like to write an additional letter that further explains your concerns I would gladly accept that as well, otherwise I would like to include your email below. Thank you, Alex From: Blake Wery [mailto:wery.blake@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:56 PM To: Mark Noble<MNoble@ShakopeeMN.gov> Subject: Rezoning Stagecoach Road Area Hi Mark, My name is Blake Wery,and I live in Glacier estates (very near the 16/18 intersection). My backyard overlooks Cty Rd 18. A neighbor mentioned the area on the other side of 18 is potentially being rezoned and apartment complexes constructed. Can you confirm this is the case? We moved into the area last winter and one of the selling points of our house was a great view with how tranquil the pond area is. It'd be very disappointing for within a year of being in the area to have a major development change all that and potentially diminish our property value or curb appeal. Would you be able to explain how far along this process is and what actions I can take if I deem this damaging to my property? Thank you Blake Wery 1 Alex Sharpe From: Alex Sharpe Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:03 AM To: Mark Noble Cc: Kyle Sobota Subject: RE: Strongly Opposed to Rezoning of Stagecoach Rd Stables to Apt Building Mr.And Ms. Pouti, Thank you very much for your email. Mark Noble forwarded me the email as I am the project manager for the rezoning of 1716 Stagecoach rd. In order to best answer your questions I am going to break down your email, answers will be in red. Can you please share with me our options and best course of action to participate in this matter? Such as the next public meeting slated to discuss in more detail—is it Oct.8th? And at which location and time? What is the format of the meeting? Can we sign up to speak on this topic? The best way for you, or any community member to participate is to come to the public hearing on October 8, at 7:00 at City Hall.As there are several other items on the agenda please look at the City webpage on Friday October 2"d, or after for a suggested time to arrive at the meeting. I will be purposely erring on the side of caution,which will require you and others to wait through other agenda items, but I do not want you to arrive too late to speak. A public hearing allows anyone from the community to speak about that item, and the applicant. If you are unable to attend you can send a letter,or I can take the beginning of this email as your submission. I will include this in the agenda packet for the Commissioners and eventually City Council to review. Can you also provide an update with us of the current status of this request?What phase is it in with the city? Early stages of review? The applicant has submitted an application to the City to rezone the property.This means that they are in the very early stages of review and don't have any detailed site work or plans.This process can be done for any property in the City, but it does not require that the City approve the request.The Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council at the public hearing on October 8.That is the first City public meeting on this item.The item will then go to City Council for a final decision on October 20th How often and under what circumstances has the City of Shakopee approved such a request? Each case is site specific and unique.Some rezonings are easy and non-controversial. Others, like this one are understandably more difficult. Ultimately the City Council will make the decision, however the Planning Commission is an important recommendation. Can/will the city send a mailing to all adjoining neighbors to give all the chance to weigh-in? The City is required by law to send public hearing notices to all properties within 350 feet of the adjoining property. Your property is around 1700 feet away, so you will not be mailed with the notice. However, I welcome your email and have provided you with far more information that what is contained in the public notice.Should you have any neighbors that also have concerns or questions please have them contact me via email or the phone. The developer has had one meeting already,they invited all neighbors within 350 feet.They were not required to host the meeting,and have done so as a courtesy to the neighbors to inform them about the project and receive any input on how they could improve their project. I attended this meeting as well to ensure that I would be able to accurately represent the neighborhood's concerns at the Planning Commission and City Council when I present on this item. 1 I would like to speak with you via the phone if you have any questions. My direct line is 952-233-9347. I am in meetings at 10:00—11:00 and from 3:00—4:00 today. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions about this process. Alex Sharpe From: Mark Noble Sent:Thursday,September 17, 2015 8:21 AM To:Alex Sharpe<ASharpe@ShakopeeMN.gov> Cc: Kyle Sobota<KSobota@ShakopeeMN.gov> Subject: FW: Strongly Opposed to Rezoning of Stagecoach Rd Stables to Apt Building Fyi. 11111114-40111111 Mark Noble Senior Planner, Planning Division SE IAKOPEE 129 Holmes St. S.,Shakopee MN 55379 (952) 233-9348 I mnoble@ShakopeeMN.gov I www.ShakopeeMN.gov From: Darcy Pouti [mailto:Darcy.Pouti@chrobinson.com] Sent:Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:44 PM To: Mark Noble<MNoble@ShakopeeMN.gov> Cc: dark2marcy@aol.com Subject:Strongly Opposed to Rezoning of Stagecoach Rd Stables to Apt Building Hello Mr. Noble, It's been brought to our attn.that a developer is looking to have the Stagecoach Rd Stables property rezoned for multiple housing units, and apartments at that. This is very concerning and grave news to my husband and I as we moved into the neighborhood as of Aug 2014 and invested a significant amount of money in purchasing our property,which is 9427 Boiling Springs Lane. While we validated the development options to the adjoining property to us which caused us concerns we did not expect to run into this situation presenting itself today. We are strongly against this rezone from occurring and vote for the City of Shakopee to deny the rezoning request of turning Stagecoach Rd Stables into R3 Multiple (correct term?)family/apartments. Why are we against it and what do we perceive the negative outcome to be? Several points: 1. Devaluation of all of our properties 2. Greatly reduced appeal to our neighborhood, which is already surrounded by heavily used routes such as 18, 21, 169 and retail establishments &traffic carriers traffic noise to our doors 3. Increased traffic and congestion to an area which already realizes heavy AM & PM commuters 4. Threat to our property security of increased opp. of personal safety,theft and vandalism 5. Not in alignment with the rural/acreage outlines per family dwelling which our neighborhood is designed for and has kept to 6. Decrease of nearby comps when refinancing or selling 7. Increased potential of assessments for city sewer and/or water, etc... 8. Concern with City of Shakopee approving such a request when us residents look to the city to protect current zoning req's which are so critical to our location. 2 I've spoken to many neighbors and co-workers in the area who have the same concerns, and like us only learned about this now. We have several questions for your team: Can you please share with me our options and best course of action to participate in this matter? Such as the next public meeting slated to discuss in more detail—is it Oct. 8th? And at which location and time? What is the format of the meeting? Can we sign up to speak on this topic? Can you also provide an update with us of the current status of this request? What phase is it in with the city? Early stages of review? How often and under what circumstances has the City of Shakopee approved such a request? Can/will the city send a mailing to all adjoining neighbors to give all the chance to weigh-in? Sorry for the long e-mail! Just that this news came as quite a shock to us and honestly, it really makes me sick to my stomach thinking about it. Sincerely, Mark& Darcy Pouti Darcy#612.840.5779 ****************************************************************************************** ******************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of C.H. Robinson. C.H. Robinson accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. (IP) C.H. Robinson Worldwide, 14701 Charlson Road, Eden Prairie, MN, USA ****************************************************************************************** ******************************* 3 Alex Sharpe From: Alex Sharpe Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:37 PM To: Mark Noble; 'sedeyjw@gmail.com' Subject: RE: Proposed re-zoning Jason, Thank you for your email/letter. I assure you that I have read it and will be including it in the report that I will create for this item. I believe there may be some benefits for the City, and for the area. However my review is technically based,and I do not have a personal stake in the surrounding area. I understand your concerns and will do my best to voice these concerns on October 8. *** Please tell neighbors that I have moved the agenda around and will be placing this item as the first item for the evening. Previously I have stated that residents should show up later as there were other agenda items, but I do not want to make a large number of people wait through those.Thank you for your assistance in passing the word. *** Alex Sharpe From: Mark Noble Sent:Thursday,September 17, 2015 10:04 AM To:Alex Sharpe<ASharpe@ShakopeeMN.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed re-zoning Fyi. 11111111—. Mark Noble Senior Planner, Planning Division AKOPF F: 129 Holmes St.S.,Shakopee MN 55379 (952)233-9348 I mnoble@ShakopeeMN.gov I www.ShakopeeMN.gov From:Jason Sedey [mailto:sedeyjw@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:00 AM To: Mark Noble<MNoble@ShakopeeMN.gov> Subject: Proposed re-zoning Mr.Noble: I am writing to express my objections to the proposed re-zoning of the land currently occupied by Pine Ridge Stables located at 1716 Stagecoach Rd in Shakopee. My wife and I have lived in Shakopee for almost 15 years now. We started out in a town home off of Liberty St. and about 5 years ago moved to where we are now on Preserve Trail. We have always considered our current home to be our forever home, however after finding out about this proposed re-zoning, my wife and I have started to reconsider our long term plans, or at least ask ourselves"what if'. I don't see any benefit to having large apartment buildings added to the neighborhood. MFW may construct buildings that they consider to be aesthetically pleasing,but at the end of the day you live by large apartment buildings. My neighbors and I purchased our homes with the understanding that the area around us would stay a single family home community. Anyway I don't want to waste too much time writing something that may not be read or telling a similar story that you have already heard, as I'm sure you have heard from others. My wife and I plan to be at the hearing on October 8th, aside from that, is there anyone else I should contact or anything else I can do about this? Like I said, I can only see the negative in this proposed zone change, so if there are positive upside to this please let me know. Sincerely, Jason Sedey 9105 Preservie Trail Shakopee, MN 55379 2 Alex Sharpe From: Mark Noble Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2:44 PM To: Alex Sharpe Subject: FW: Re-zoning of Stagecoach Rd Fyi. Mark Noble Senior Planner, Planning Division 129 Holmes St. S., Shakopee MN 55379 (952)233-9348 I mnoble@ShakopeeMN.gov I www.ShakopeeMN.gov Original Message From:Ann Studnicka [mailto:ann_0603@yahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday,September 22, 2015 2:34 PM To: Mark Noble<MNoble@ShakopeeMN.gov> Subject: Re-zoning of Stagecoach Rd Hello, I am a Shakopee resident near the Stagecoach neighborhood. I have concerns over re-zoning that area to include apartments. 1. Every morning I sit in my car for about 15 minutes just trying to merge onto 169N. I cannot imagine a few hundred extra cars entering into that same on ramp without major infrastructure changes. Is that part of the re-zoning plan? 2. Part of the reason I opted to move to this area was to live in a neighborhood with permanent tenants. I feel it is a safer environment for my kids and am concerned property values in this area will decline. Thanks, Ann Studnicka 8396 Portage Ln W Shakopee, MN 55379 Sent from my iPhone 1 Alex Sharpe From: Kami <k4skoglund@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 10:17 PM To: Alex Sharpe Subject: Letter regarding Proposed Rezoning on Stagecoach Rd In Regards To:The proposed rezoning of the current single family residence and Pine Ridge Stables located at 1716 Stagecoach Road, Shakopee. Dear City Council Members, Planning Commission, &Community Representatives: My husband, Adam, and our two boys,4 and 2 years old, have truly loved our home on Stagecoach Road in the city of Shakopee. We were first time home buyers when we purchased our home on Stagecoach Road just 2 years ago. My husband grew up in a rural area and I in a small town. Although we never pictured ourselves raising a family in the metro area, we have worked hard in our careers and found ourselves putting down roots in this area. When we looked to purchase our first home we wanted to provide our family with a rural/small town atmosphere that we grew up with. We searched across the west metro to find a home with a rural look and feel, as well as a strong Catholic faith and schools to raise our children. With the mission of the City of Shakopee being "to provide the opportunity to live, work, and play in a community with a proud past,promising future, and small-town atmosphere within a metropolitan setting", we were ecstatic to find our home on Stagecoach Road in Shakopee. The mission of the city and unique neighborhood surrounding Stagecoach Road in Shakopee fit exactly what we were looking for. Prior to the purchase of our home my husband and I thoroughly reviewed the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan and also spoke with a city staff member to confirm city zoning and future plans. Based on our research and conversations,we were confident this neighborhood zoning would remain single family residential. We love Shakopee and have grown close to other young families in our neighborhood who purchased their homes based on similar aspirations of raising their families in a rural residential, single family home area. I am proud to work in Shakopee and look forward to continuing to grow in this community. However, I have concerns regarding that aspiration if the property across the street from our home is rezoned to R3. Our home will lose the unique aspects that drew us to this city. We will no longer be able to enjoy the rural look and feel, small town atmosphere, and privacy that we love about our home. I am asking that you, as the planning committee and city council members,uphold the 2030 plan(zoned as single family) and preserve the neighborhood that brought my family to the wonderful city of Shakopee. Thank you for your time, Kami Schmidt 1 DATE: 10/15/2015 TO: City of Shakopee FROM: Jerilynn Wilking (Owner); Tammy Brown, (Director of Broker Services for KWMidwest); Katie Hedlund (Realtor, KWCRNW) and Marie Corbett(Realtor, KWCRNW) RE: 1716 Stagecoach Road - Proposal to Rezone per Applicant, MWF Properties URGENCY TO CONSIDER CITY APPROVAL of REZONING to MULTIFAMILY We are writing to the key decision makers of the City of Shakopee in hopes to address vitally important points mentioned in the planning meeting on October 8th, 2015. And in doing so,we hope to make your decision process less burdensome. First, I would to briefly provide background on the owner of the property 1716 Stagecoach Rd.,Jerilynn Wilking. Jerilynn and her husband Jerry have lived and worked on the property for over 50 years. They moved when Shakopee was country land and their horses could roam, run and be well cared for. Jerry passed away within the last decade and this left the business,home,land and horse boarding facility to Jerilynn to maintain on her own. Though seeing growing changes,population increase, and the encroaching city approach them more each year,the family still continued their horse operation. Despite Jerilynn's age, mid 70's, many recent injuries, and day and night care for the horses, she has continued until she felt she no longer can manage it. During storms she must run out, sometimes la or 2a in the morning to secure and provide safety to the 30+horses on her own. With all things considered she has been ready to move on. She never got the choice on where to move or what her profession would be or what growth and changes would become of her surroundings. She met and married her first love and moved where he moved. They raised their family, made their investment in their property and built a reputable business together. She is the most innocent person in all of this. She is the hardest working, non-complaining, animal appreciative, enthusiastic, humorous,person I have ever met. I've become fond of her beyond words. When I met Jerilynn at our initial talks and we discussed her background,her need to move,it was important to ensure she do this while she is still able. There is a dire need to move at her stage in life. My fellow Realtors,Tammy Brown, Katie Hedlund, and myself had to do extensive research in preparing the listing.A previous Realtor had the property on the market for over a year in attempts to get a buyer interested in the horse boarding business or land had been unsuccessful. In doing our market analysis we took into consideration recent sales, not only residential,but also retail and commercial and land values due to her property size and expected area growth. With more recent sales in the area of$2.4 mill for the River Valley Church site,this paled in comparison, and she was considered the next in line if their current site wouldn't have worked out. In gathering more research and making calls in preparation to list Jerilynn's home, I found the city was well aware of the property and mentioned there have been neighboring complaints of too many animals,too smelly, and too unsightly muddy at times. It seemed the opportune time to move forward again in attempts to sell the property. Placing the home on the market would alleviate the neighboring concerns, help expected city growth, concerns for horses well-being, and help Jerilynn move on in life. Marketing land of 10 acres with unique placement within a city means boundlessly moving forward with any motivating leads in hopes of capturing the right buyer. I reached out to two other Realtors of different strengths in hopes to capture the right buyer audience for Jerilynn's property. Tammy Brown, Director of Brokerage Services,with strengths in commercial real estate and complex land sales. Katie Hedlund,with strengths in new construction real estate as well as residential. We placed ads in the local papers, continuously marketed to our spheres, social media, emailed and endlessly called to prospective buyers and reverse prospects. All the responses received from equestrian interests were that the land wasn't scenic enough,wasn't private enough, and didn't provide enough acreage for the horses to roam and live.We received interest from an animal sanctuary prospect interested in the property,we met and further discussed their needs in a property,there were too many obstacles in how they would secure the multiple dozens of various dog breeds on site and how to give them ample indoor and outdoor space to run as well as the noises that would soon become an issue. Then we received high interest from a Truck Driving School which would have ended up needing special weight bearing roads, driving courses,and parking spaces for the rigs. Then roughly 10 months into our listing we began conversations with a reputable developer, MWF Properties and accepted their offering letter of intent. After researching this prospect,we further approved of their high standards and reliable reputation for quality housing projects. MWF Properties not only was the strongest ideal match for the community we felt they were conscientious and had an upstanding reputation with several former projects. MWF Properties plans to make the first phase of development beginning in 2016 with 36 units. Their potential plans are to build additional units would be in phases. With Shakopee's growing population marked at 39,167 people in 2013, MWF's project is certainly a good start but surely not enough for the expected 10% population growth by 2019. The community is growing and changes above and beyond the former 2030 comprehensive plan have already been made to accommodate the growing area.We have heard of reports of renters on wait lists, and seeking desirable, suitable,well-maintained housing in the area. This is a growing concern. Service people, and everyday professionals are seeking rental accommodations in the area.At the meeting on October 8th, MWF not only promised continued maintenance for their developed property over the next 20years or so, they will also be receiving$27k that goes to directly improving provisions for its residence. Once rezoned,this property will be approved at a compatible zoning to the directly neighboring community. Rebuttal to arguments mentioned on the October 8th Planning Commission Meeting. Addressed by Topic: 1. Density-Proposed zoning is highly compatible with current zoning,being nearby neighboring town homes,retail, and other business. Current property owners won't be rezoned or become any denser. 2. Traffic- MWF is conscientiously undergoing a traffic study that will gather information about current patterns and take into consideration some of the current road construction that affects the area. They may even have plans to explore more convenient retail or park spaces in their development; the future site is still in development. 3. Crime -As with every growing city,there is always a concern for safety and well being. Law enforcers respond accordingly and produce annual reports and provide adjustments as needed within the City and County limits. Moreover, Shakopee has a 600-inmate, mixed custody, correctional facility with no fence. With concern to addressing growing PD enforcement needs, this project pales in comparison. Suggestions that renters need more police enforcement than owners borders on discrimination. 4. Aesthetic View-This newly proposed project will be a brand new construction with mature trees and plentiful green spaces.The residents that complained about the looks and smell are now complaining that the horse facility is a main reason they moved to their location. If the view was the most attractive reason to move,the proposal by MWF is intent on not only being aesthetically very pleasing, and maintaining the property above most standards,but they are still in talks of further beautification developments and convenient retail for the site. Any neighbors of interest have had 2 years to pool their money together if they truly intended to keep it's current view. 5. Land Values - Homes are compared to similarly sold properties looking back 6 months as a best practice. With expected growth and mixed zoned sales in the area,the future is limitless for what current owner's properties may be valued at. There isn't supportive evidence currently indicating that the neighboring residents values would definitely decrease at all. As stated in the detailed analysis and unbiased report of Alex Sharpe, City Planner for Shakopee,there is a need for quality rental communities in Shakopee. There are many professionals that you bump into each day, teachers,accountants, mechanics, engineers, retail and healthcare workers, etc.,that need quality rental options in these city limits.We have the offer on the table, development is already in process, and a assured project that's been researched,well planned,promised to be future maintained for the longevity of most homeowners. And again,to mention the homeowner at a most trying stage of her life with the current demands of upkeep and maintenance to her land and business; she is ready to move forward. Your difficult decision at hand will ultimately provide the continued support the city and current arrangement desperately are in need of. Your urgency to please consider the rezoning approval is imminent. Thank you for reading our letter and for carefully considering your voting decision on Tuesday, October 20th, 2015,whether to rezone the property: 1716 Stagecoach Rd. Alex Sharpe Planning Commission City Council City of Shakopee October 17,2015 My daughter and 1 attended the October 7 meeting of the Planning Commission regarding the rezoning of 1716 Stagecoach Road which is adjacent to our 3 parcels at 1746 Stagecoach Road. We have made Shakopee our home for over 42 years. When we purchased the first two lots,the road was gravel,there were open fields behind the house,and there was no Home Depot, Sam's Club,or town homes. When the lot to the south of us came on the market, we purchased the lot to preserve our view. We have seen more than our share of changes to the neighborhood. We,along with other long term neighbors, fought to have 21/169 run behind our properties rather than through our front yards at great personal expense of time and money in order to protect our neighborhood, quality of life and property values. This development further threatens our rural neighborhood,property value and ability to sell our home. The proposed 3 story rental unit is not compatible with our rural neighborhood. We were shown preliminary drawings of the front of the first building but we would be looking at the back. In addition to the dramatically increased number of people in the neighborhood,we are concerned about the noise and lights created by the building and cars coming and going. With another 3 story rental unit to be added in a few years will only increase the problems. The Wilking property isn't big enough to solve the affordable housing problem in Shakopee. Maybe the City should buy out the neighborhood rather than destroy it piece by piece. There needs to be transition from the townhomes to the single family homes.Perhaps double bungalows or townhomes, but rental apartments are not transitional. We would prefer to keep the rural feel of our neighborhood and to continue to live in our home as we have.However,if this project is approved,we request that our property also be rezoned so that we have a chance to sell our property as well. Sincerely, Barbara and Donald Booth 1746 Stagecoach Road Shakopee,MN 55337 11.4. 1 Cati44‘'en( Edna Nicholas QQkh`e� From: Alex Sharpe Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 2:37 PM To: Edna Nicholas Subject: FW: Rezoning Proposal of 1916 Stagecoach Road For the table From: bjvermeer@comcast.net [mailto:bjvermeer@comcast.net] Sent:Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:35 PM To: Alex Sharpe <ASharpe@ShakopeeMN.gov> Subject: Rezoning Proposal of 1916 Stagecoach Road Dear Mr. Sharpe, We request that the letter below be put on file in regards to the rezoning proposal of 1716 Stagecoach Road. We apologize for sending it by email rather than letter, but we were not aware of this until recently and it seems to be moving very quickly. We realize this is on the agenda for this Tuesday's meeting and hope that we can get this message to the council as well. We also see that you have already made a recommendation, but would still like to have our view noted. Thank you. Alex Sharpe City Council Members of City of Shakopee Planning Commission RE: 1716 Stagecoach Road — Proposal to Rezone per Applicant MWF Properties We live at 1762 Stagecoach Road two properties south of the proposed rezoning property. We are writing to make you aware that we too are opposed to the rezoning of 1716 Stagecoach Road. Our reasons are many of the same that have already been made by other residents in our neighborhood. We have chosen to live here because of the neighborhood and its rural feel. We have relied on the City of Shakopee 2030 Comprehensive Plan when choosing to make improvements to our home and property. We are very concerned that if this one section of property is rezoned to multi housing rather than the single family zoning that is stated in the long term plan, it will just be the beginning of the end. One argument we have read is that this 10 acres is highly compatible due to the neighboring town homes. We were opposed to that 2002 development for many of the same reasons we are opposed to this proposal, and now that argument is being used against us. So if this property is rezoned then won't the next property owner who receives a lucrative offer from a developer be saying their property should be rezoned and that the property is compatible because of the apartment building? The other argument that is being made is that the community of Shakopee needs more affordable housing. Mayor Tabke has recently stated that the planning commission no longer needs to weigh in on this matter and it is up to the City Council to make this decision. We don't know the city regulations 1 as you do, but we are surprised that finding the affordable housing that the city desires would be handled in this manner. Should it not be something that is planned rather than having a seller and developer make a deal that may piecemeal ruin established neighborhoods? We fear that bit by bit our rural neighborhood is being chipped away. It is not right that we cannot rely on the 2030 City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. This is a major change that is being requested and it is being pushed through and pushed on the neighborhood. We have been long term residents who have relied on what we thought was a plan and we think as long term residents we deserve better than this. We implore you to deny this rezoning request. Sincerely, Steve and Barb Vermeer 1762 Stagecoach Road Shakopee, MN 55379 2 RESOLUTION NO. 7623 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A REQUEST TO REGUIDE THE PROPERTY AT 1716 STAGECOACH ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR), TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL (Rl-B) WHEREAS,Jerilynn Wilking, property owner and MWF Properties LLC, applicant, have requested reguiding of a portion of the property located at 1716 Stagecoach Road from Single- Family Residential to High Density Residential and to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR) zone to the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) and Urban Residential (Rl-B); and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: That part of the North '/z of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast ''/a; thence Easterly along the North line of said Northeast'/a a distance of 387 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Scott County Road No. 89; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to the South line of said North 1/2 of the Northeast%; thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 700 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said North 1/2 of the Northeast%; thence North along the West line of said Northeast 1/4 to the point of beginning, except the North 180 feet thereof and also except the South 200 feet thereof Scott County, Minnesota (PID No. 27-9130190 WHEREAS,notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 8, 2015 at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the subject property not be rezoned as originally proposed through a unanimous 6-0 vote; and WHEREAS,the applicant(MWF Properties)revised their application to include single-family development combined with multiple-family development. WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on November 17, 2015; ar42015. 1 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: FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment arc listed below for the City Council's consideration. Criteria#1 The original Land Use Classification and Zoning Ordinance isare in error; Finding#1 The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Single Family Residential Use. The parcels on the north, east, and south sides of the property are all guided for Single Family Residential Use. Re-guiding a portion of the property_or hi.h densi residential use would be incompatible with the existing and future surrounding land uses. There has been no evidence that the original land use classification and zoning classification is in error. Criteria#2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding#2 There have not been significant changes in community goals and policies. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies a need for additional single family residential development and that need still exists. Criteria#3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3 There has been no evidence presented that either city-wide or neighborhood development patterns have changed enough to warrant the rezoning and reguiding of this parcela portion of the property from a single family use to include a multiple family use. Criteria#4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4 The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the area for Single Family Residential Use, and this property is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR), which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning a portion of the property to R-3 would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR) to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) combined with Urban Residential (RI-B) and to amend the Comprehensive Plan by reguiding the property from Single Family Residential to Multiple FamilyHigh Density Residential to allow multi-family development of the property is hereby denied. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 17th day of November, 2015. Brad Tabke, Mayor of the City of Shakopee 2 Attest: Lori Hensen, City Clerk 3 RESOLUTION NO. 7623 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A REQUEST TO REGUIDE THE PROPERTY AT 1716 STAGECOACH ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR), TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL (Rl-B) WHEREAS,Jerilynn Wilking,property owner and MWF Properties LLC, applicant, have requested reguiding of a portion of the property located at 1716 Stagecoach Road from Single- Family Residential to High Density Residential and to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR) zone to the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) and Urban Residential (Rl-B); and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: That part of the North 1/2 of the Northeast% of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast'/<; thence Easterly along the North line of said Northeast 1/4 a distance of 387 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of Scott County Road No. 89; thence Southeasterly along said Right-of-Way line to the South line of said North 1/2 of the Northeast`/a; thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 700 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said North % of the Northeast ''/a; thence North along the West line of said Northeast 1/4 to the point of beginning, except the North 180 feet thereof and also except the South 200 feet thereof Scott County, Minnesota (PID No. 27-9130190 WHEREAS,notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 8, 2015 at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the subject property not be rezoned as originally proposed through a unanimous 6-0 vote; and WHEREAS,the applicant(MWF Properties)revised their application to include single-family development combined with multiple-family development; and WHEREAS,the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on November 17, 2015. 1 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: FINDINGS Criteria#1 The original Land Use Classification and Zoning Ordinance are in error; Finding#1 The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Single Family Residential Use. The parcels on the north, east, and south sides of the property are all guided for Single Family Residential Use. Re-guiding a portion of the property for high density residential use would be incompatible with the existing and future surrounding land uses. There has been no evidence that the original land use classification and zoning classification is in error. Criteria#2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding#2 There have not been significant changes in community goals and policies. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies a need for additional single family residential development and that need still exists. Criteria#3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3 There has been no evidence presented that either city-wide or neighborhood development patterns have changed enough to warrant the rezoning and reguiding of a portion of the property from a single family use to a multiple family use. Criteria#4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4 The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the area for Single Family Residential Use, and this property is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR), which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning a portion of the property to R-3 would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the request to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR)to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) combined with Urban Residential (Rl-B) and to amend the Comprehensive Plan by reguiding the property from Single Family Residential to High Density Residential to allow multi-family development of the property is hereby denied. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 17t day of November, 2015. Brad Tabke, Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Lori Hensen, City Clerk 2