Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.A. Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning from Highway Business (B-1) to Light Industrial (I-1) Zone Requested by Liberty Properties LLC-Res. No. 7030-Ord. No. 835CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 10-012 Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Mark Noble, Planner II /2, A, Rezone Property from Highway Business (B-1) to Light Industry (I-1) Zone, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Guide the Property for Industry Use MEETING DATE: August 17, 2010 REVIEW PERIOD: April 23, 2010 - A;u~ust 20, 2010 INTRODUCTION Liberty Properties, LLC made application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to guide property that they are interested in buying for industrial use, and to rezone the property from Highway Business (B-1) Zone to Light Industry (I-1) Zone. The subject property is located at 7800 Hwy. 101 East (see Exhibit A), is approximately 5.6 acres in size, consists of two parcels, with several large buildings occupying the majority of the site. The site was formally occupied by Peterson Seed Company and most recently an automobile sales operation. The existing buildings are presently vacant. The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their June 3rd, July 8di, and August Sd' meetings, with the latest action including a renotice of the public hearing to include a third property (Total Sanitation, located south of the former Peterson Seed property) in addition to 7700 Hwy. 101 East (Robert Pearson's property, which was added for the July meeting) and 7800 Hwy. 101 East, and that these three properties be included in the consideration for rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A copy of the staff reports to the Planning Commission are attached for the Council's information. Since the applicant has not provided an extension to the review period for this application (deadline of August 20d'), the Council must take action on this item at their August 17d' meeting. Staff has prepared the appropriate resolutions and ordinances for the Council for their adoption, whether it is for approval or denial of the requests. FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings from the Commission for the Council 's consideration. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is in error. The original zoning ordinance established a zoning boundary that is not compatible with several existing uses in this area and does not provide for an opportunity to utilize the sites for industrial activities. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies that concern these p~ope~ties have taken place. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have. occurred for the subject properties. Adjacent uses include a vehicle rental facility, which is a Conditional Use in both the existing B-1 Zone and the proposed I-1 Zone, a sanitation operation, an architectural coating business, and a commercial vehicle repair business. Other long time uses continue to operate in this neighborhood, and the Commission feels that this change would create a good buffer zone between the heavy industrial businesses to the West and the commercial businesses to the East. Criteria #4 That he comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Shakopee City Council, guides these properties for commercial use. It was commented that this area of the City should have been studied in greater detail as part of the 2030 Plan. The applicant is requesting an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for industrial use of these sites. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed this request at its June 3, July 8, and August 5, 2010 meetings. At the August 5~' meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City Council by a 6-0 vote. VISIONING RELATIONSHIP: This action supports Goal B "Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth, development and change". ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Resolution No. 7030, approval of a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide these properties for Industrial use, and Ordinance No. 835, approval of a request to rezone the subject sites to Light Industry Zone. 2. Approve Resolution No. 7032, denial of the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide these properties for Industrial use, and not rezone the subject sites to Light Industry Zone. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to Approve Resolution No. 7030, approval of a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide these properties for Industrial use, and Ordinance No. 835, approval of a request to rezone the subject sites to Light Industry Zone, and move their adoption. _ Mark. Noble H:\CC\2010\08-17\10-012 rez_7800 hwy lOl.doc Planner II 2 ORDINANCE N0.835 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B-1) ZONE TO LIGHT INDUSTRY (I-1) ZONE WHEREAS, Liberty Properties, LLC, applicant, and Minnwest Bank Metro, Robert G. Pearson, and Tassi Properties LLC, property owners, have requested the zoning of property from Highway Business (B-1) to Light Industry (I-1) Zone; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: The East 225.0 feet of the West One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 11 S, Range 22, lying south of State Trunk Highway No. 101; the West One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying West of the East 225.0 feet, except Parcel 2 of Scott County R.O. W. Plat # 11; 4.90 Acres North of the Railroad in the West One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Sectionl2, Township I1 S, Range 22; the East SS. 0 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Sectionll, Township 11 S, Range 22, lying North of the Railroad right-of--way; and the East SS. 0 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 11 S, Range 22, lying South of State Trunk Highway No. 101, except Parcel 2, Scott County R.O. W. Plat # 11; Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 3, July 8, and August 5, 2010, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the property be rezoned from Highway Business (B-1) to Light Industry (I-1) Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on August 17, 2010; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above-named request: Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance established a zoning boundary that is not compatible with several existing uses in this area and does not provide for an opportunity to utilize the sites for industrial activities. Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies that concern these properties have taken place. Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred for the subject properties. Adjacent uses include a vehicle rental facility, which is a Conditional Use in both the existing B-1 Zone and the proposed I-1 Zone, a sanitation operation, an architectural coating business, and a commercial vehicle repair business. Other long time uses continue to operate in this neighborhood, and the Commission feels that this change would create a good buffer zone between the heavy industrial businesses to the West and the commercial businesses to the East. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Shakopee City Council, guides these properties for commercial use. It was commented that this area of the City should have been studied in greater detail as part of the 2030 Plan. The applicant is requesting an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for industrial use of these sites. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to rezone the property from Highway Business (B-1) to Light Industry (I-1) Zone is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 2010. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk 4 RESOLUTION N0.7030 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO GUIDE PROPERTY FOR INDUSTRIAL USE WHEREAS, Liberty Properties, LLC, applicant, and Minnwest Bank Metro, Robert G. Pearson, and Tassi Properties LLC, property owners, have requested the reguiding to allow industrial use of the property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: The East 225.0 feet of the West One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 11 S, Range 22, lying south of State Trunk Highway No. 101; the West One- Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying West of the East 225.0 feet, except Parcel 2 of Scott County R.O. W. Plat # 11; 4.90 Acres North of the Railroad in the West One Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Sectionl2, Township 11 S, Range 22; the East SS. 0 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Sectionll, Township 11 S, Range 22, lying North of the Railroad right-of--way; and the East SS. 0 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, Township I1 S, Range 22, lying South of State Trunk Highway No. 101, except Parcel 2, Scott County R. O: W. Plat # 11; Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 3, July 8, and August 5, 2010, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on August 17, 2010; and NOW, THEREFORE SE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above-named request: GOAL #1 Growth and expansion of that portion of Shakopee served by public services shall be controlled and focused to maintain the City's fiscal soundness consistent with other community-wide. goals. Growth and extension of services in this area have been discussed with the property owners, who have expressed interest in sitting down with the City to develop a plan to extend municipal services to their properties. GOAL #2 Any future annexation shall be undertaken in an orderly, fiscally sound manner. Property in annexed areas shall be treated fairly relative to taxes and the provision of service. 5 The property is already within the city limits. Policies: a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent with Goal #1 above. Redevelopment of this property is consistent with Goal #1 above. b. Areas to be added to MUSA shall be located where utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or extended. These properties are generally located where utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or extended. c. Designation of MUSA areas will be timed to enhance the City's ability to plan for, develop, and/or acquire new utilities and public facilities. Further extension to this project area facilitates economical services of this area of the City. d. The addition of new MUSA areas shall either be timed to coincide with the availability of utilities and community facilities, or be coordinated with plans to provided utilities and community facilities. Extending MUSA to these properties is timed to coincide with the availability of utilities and community facilities, or shall be coordinated with plans to provided utilities and community facilities. e. The City will fmd that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. The City has determined that in extending MUSA to these properties, it will be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. f. Designation of new MUSA areas shall be undertaken to better react to the marketplace and to serve the community as a whole. Granting MUSA to these properties is undertaken to better react to the marketplace and to serve the community as a whole. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by reguiding to allow industrial use of the property is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 2010. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Judith S. Cox; City Clerk 6 RESOLUTION N0.7032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO GUIDE PROPERTY FOR INDUSTRIAL USE WHEREAS, Liberty Properties, LLC, applicant, and Minnwest Bank Metro, Robert G. Pearson, and Tassi Properties LLC, property owners, have requested the reguiding to allow industrial use of the property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: The East 225.0 feet of the West One-Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, Township 11 S, Range 22, lying south of State Trunk Highway No. 101; the West One- Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying West of the East 225.0 feet, except Parcel 2 of Scott County R.O. W. Plat # 11; 4.90 Acres North of the Railroad in the West One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Sectionl2, Township 11 S, Range 22; the East SS. 0 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Sectionll, Township 11 S, Range 22, lying North of the Railroad right-of--way; and the East SS. 0 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 11 S, Range 22, lying South of State Trunk Highway No. 101, except Parcel 2, Scott County R.O. W. Plat # 11; Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 3, July 8, and August 5, 2010, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on August 17, 2010; 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: GOAL #1 Growth and expansion of that portion of Shakopee served by public services shall be controlled and focused to maintain the City's fiscal soundness consistent. with other community-wide goals. Growth and extension of services in this area may not be controlled and focused in order to maintain the City s fcscal soundness. Several properties in the area are not presently served, and there has not been much success in the recent past to work thru the issues in order to extend the services to this area. GOAL #2 Any future annexation shall be undertaken in an orderly, fiscally sound manner. Property in annexed areas shall be treated fairly relative to taxes and the provision of service. 7 The property is already within the city limits. Policies: a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent with Goal #1 above. Further development of these properties may not occur due to the inability to work thru a process to extend services to this area. b. Areas to be added to MUSA shall be located where utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or extended. These properties are generally located where utilities and community facilities may not be efficiently located or extended. c. Designation of MUSA areas will be timed to enhance the City's ability to plan for, develop, and/or acquire new utilities and public facilities. Further extension to this project area facilitates economical services of this area of the City, although there is not a consensus on this issue with a number of current property owners. d. The addition of new MUSA areas shall either be timed to coincide with the availability of utilities and community facilities, or be coordinated with plans to provided utilities and community facilities. Extending MUSA to these properties is not timed to coincide with the availability of utilities and community facilities. This request would be forcing the issue to again be brought up in debate with a large number of property owners who are divided on this issue. e. The City will fmd that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. The City has determined that in extending MUSA to these properties, it will unlikely be suitable for further development within the timeframe being considered. f. Designation of new MUSA areas shall be undertaken to better react to the marketplace and to serve the community as a whole. Granting MUSA to these properties is undertaken to better react to the marketplace and to serve the community as a whole. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by reguiding to allow industrial use of the property is hereby denied. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 2010. Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Mayor of the City of Shakopee 8 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 10-012 TO: ~ Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Mark Noble, Planner II SUBJECT: Rezone property from Highway Business (B-1) to Light Industry (I-1) Zone, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Guide the Property for Industry Use MEETING DATE: June 3, 2010 REVIEW PERIOD: Apri123, 2010 -August 20, 2010 SITE INFORMATION Applicant: Liberty Properties, LLC Property Owner: Minnwest Bank Metro Location: 7800 CSAH 101 East Current Zoning: Highway Business (B-1) Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway 101 South: Highway Business (B-1) Zone East: Highway Business (B-1) Zone West: Highway Business (B-1) Zone Comp. Plan; Commercial Lot Size: 5.6 Acres Attachments: Exhibit A: Site Location/Zoning Exhibit B: Applicant Narrative Exhibit C: Shakopee Fire Dept. Memorandum Exhibit D: Scott County Environmental Health Dept. Memorandum Exhibit E: Shakopee Public Utilities Memorandum INTRODUCTION Liberty Properties, LLC has made application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to guide the property for industrial use, and to rezone the property from Highway Business (B-1) Zone to Light Industry (I-1) Zone. The subject property is located at 7800 Hwy. 101 (see Exhibit A), is approximately 5.6 acres in size, consists of two parcels, with several large buildings occupying the majority of the site. The site was formally occupied by Peterson Seed Company and most recently an automobile sales operation.. The existing buildings are presently vacant. The applicant intends to request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if the rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment are approved in order to allow a multiple of uses on the site, with Liberty Brush proposed for the northerly one-third of the northerly building on the site. Liberty Brush currently operates at 1475 Maras Street, but would like to expand their operations and this building provides them with that opportunity. They would require approval of a CUP as the use assembles sweeper brushes for street sweepers and other industrial grade sweepers/scrubbers, with manufacturing, fabrication, processing, and assembly operations a listed Conditional Use of the Light Industry (I-1) Zone. Additionally, they are intending to request an exterior storage CUP for an area of their property south of the buildings. Planning staff did receive several memorandums from reviewing agencies, which have been attached to this report. Shakopee Public Utilities commented that the site is presently served with electric and water services and-that any expanded use shall first be required to contact their Planning and Engineering Dept. for review and conditions. The City Fire Marshal noted a number of fire code related requirements, including the potential for requiring of a fire sprinkler system for -the buildings, and Scott County $nvironmental Health commented that the applicant will need to apply for an obtain a hazardous waste license in accordance with their hazardous Waste Management Ordinance, and that the septic system on the property must have a compliance inspection completed, whether the rezoning is approved or if it continues as a B-1 Zoned property. The Planning Dept. had requested of the applicant to pursue contacting the property owners of the adjacent parcels to inquire whether they would be• interested in being incorporated with this request. In the end, the application pertains only to this singular property, which presents a spot zoning. if approved. Additionally,. the City just adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which identifies this area for business use. The purpose of the Light Industry Zone is to provide an area for industrial, light manufacturing, and office uses which are generally not obtrusive and which serve as a transition between more intensive industrial sites and residential and business .land uses. The purpose of the Highway Business Zone is to provide an area for business uses fronting on or with immediate access to arterial and collector streets. By defuution, based on the proximity to CSAH 101, the Business Zone appears to be more appropriate, especially when considering the rezoning only factors this singular property rather than the review of this area in a broader view. The Planning Department was questioned whether the Business Park Zone may be a more appropriate zone for this area, as the purpose of the BP Zone is to provide areas for the development of office, business and light industrial uses meeting high standards of design and construction and having close proximity to major transportation corridors and /or other industrial zones. The Planning Dept. recommends that the Commission discuss whether this one property should be considered for a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, whether they believe that the greater area should be studied for consideration of change, or whether they believe the current (and recently approved) Comprehensive Plan guiding and existing zoning are appropriate. If they believe the greater area should be involved in the discussion, they should direct the applicant to contact those other property owners of this proposal and invite them to the public hearing for discussion on the matter. If there is support by the Commission for extending the area for consideration, there will be a need for a new public hearing and notification of property owners both in the area for consideration as well as within 350 feet of the area. If they believe that the existing guidelines are appropriate or the application request is appropriate, .they should forward an appropriate recommendation to the City Council for their action on this item. FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; • Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error The original zoning ordinance established a zoning boundary that is compatible with several existing uses in this area 2 and provides for an opportunity to utilize the site for commercial activities, which is consistent with the commercial guiding of the. property. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies. have taken place; Finding #2 Sign cant changes in community. goals and policies that concern this property have not taken place. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have not occurred for the subject property, although there are some uses in this area which might be construed as industrial in nature. Previously, Peterson Seed occupied this site; however, that use has not existed on this site for at least the last 8-10 years. Adjacent uses include an automobile sales operation, which is a Conditional Use in-the B-1 Zone and a vehicle rental facility, which is a Conditional Use in both the B-1 and the I-1 Zones. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 -The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Shakopee City Council, guides .this property for commercial use. The .applicant is requesting an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for industrial use of this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After evaluating the request against the stated criteria for rezoning, staff recommends that the Commission table this item and consider whether a rezoning of the larger extent of the area be evaluated rather than this singular property. Should the Commission not, support this evaluation, staff recommends that this request be denied as the criteria for granting. a change have not been adequately met. ALTERNATIVES 1. Offer a motion to recommend to the. City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject site to Light Industry Zone, and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide this property for Industrial use. 2. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone the subject site to Light Industry Zone, and that the Comprehensive Plan not be amended to guide this property for Industrial use. 3. Offer a motion to continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant, including contacting property owners within 350 feet of the area for consideration of the expanding rezoning and Comprehensive PIan guiding area. 4. Close the public hearing, and offer a motion to table and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant, including contacting property owners within 350 feet of the area for consideration of the expanding rezoning and Comprehensive Plan guiding area, and rnove its approval. Mark Noble Planner II H:\BOAA-PC\2010\06-03\10-012_rez 7800 hwy lOl.doc .:~ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 10-012 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Mark Noble, Planner II SUBJECT: Rezone property from Highway Business (B-1) to Light Industry (I-1) Zone, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Guide the Property for Industry Use MEETING DATE: July 8, 2010 REVIEW PERIOD: Apri123, 2010 -August 20, 2010 INTRODUCTION Liberty Properties, LLC has made application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to guide the property for industrial use, and to rezone the property from Highway Business (B-1) Zone to Light Industry (I-1) Zone. The subject property is located at 7800 Hwy. 101 (see Exhibit A), is approximately 5.6 acres in size, consists of two parcels, with several large buildings occupying the majority of the site. The site was formally occupied by Peterson Seed Company and most recently an automobile sales operation. The existing buildings are presently vacant. At the June 3, 2010 Planning Commission, the Commission tabled this item and requested that the applicant proceed with contacting adjacent property owners for consideration to be included with a rezoning of the larger extent of the area, rather than this singular property. The applicant has contacted several of the businesses, and the property directly west has requested to be included with the current rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment requests. Staff did mail out public hearing notices for this additional property and did have contact with one of the adjacent properties, who did not express any issues or concerns. Late Wednesday, June 30th, staff did receive a fax that included signatures from the property owners to the south regarding inclusion in the rezoning and comprehensive plan requests. Staff has had discussions with several of the property owners to the east about their interest, but none were committed with wanting to be included with this request. The applicant intends to request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) if the rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment are approved in order to allow a multiple of uses on the site, with Liberty Brush proposed for the northerly one-third of the northerly building on the site. Liberty Brush currently operates at 1475 Maras Street, but would like to expand their operations and this building provides them with that opportunity. They would require approval of a CUP as the use assembles sweeper brushes for street sweepers and other industrial grade sweepers/scrubbers, with manufacturing, fabrication, processing, and assembly operations a listed Conditional Use of the Light Industry (I-1) Zone. Additionally, they are intending to request an exterior storage-CUP for an area of their property south of the buildings. As previously noted, Planning staff did receive several memorandums from reviewing agencies, which have been attached to this report. Shakopee Public Utilities commented that the site is presently served with electric and water services and that any expanded use shall first be required to contact their Planning and Engineering Dept. for review and conditions. The City Fire Marshal noted a number of fire code related requirements, including the potential for requiring of a fire sprinkler system for the buildings, and the Scott County Environmental Health Department commented that the applicant will need to apply for an obtain a hazardous waste License in accordance with their hazardous Waste Management Ordinance, and that the septic system on the property must have a compliance inspection completed, whether the rezoning is approved or if it continues as a B-1 Zoned property. As previously noted, the Planning Department had requested of the applicant to pursue contacting the property owners of the adjacent parcels to inquire whether they would be interested in being incorporated with this request. In the end, the application pertains only to this property and that property directly west (which includes a use that is Conditional in the B-1 Zone and not permitted in the I-1 Zone) and that property directly south, which staff has determined would still represent a spot zoning if approved. Additionally, the City just adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in the fall of 2009 which identifies this area for business use (the guiding remained unchanged from the past approved Comprehensive Plans). Staff believes that if the Comprehensive Plan is to be amended, it should include the entire area that is presently zoned B-l, rather than select out a few properties, thus creating a fragmented mix of land use guidings for these properties. Lastly, as noted by Scott County Environmental Health Department, there are outstanding comprehensive sewer issues for this area, .which is presently located outside the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) boundary. Staff believe there should be extensive discussions on the long range service issues'for this area of Shakopee, as well as study and formulate a plan on how this area should be redeveloped for in the future. The purpose of the Light Industry Zone is to provide an area for industrial, light manufacturing, and office uses which are generally riot obtrusive and which serve as a transition between more intensive industrial sites and residential and business land uses. The purpose of the Highway Business Zone is to provide an area for business uses fronting on or with immediate access to arterial and collector streets. By definition, based on the proximity to CSAH 101, the Business Zone appears to be more appropriate, especially when considering the rezoning only factors two parcels rather than the bulk of the B-1 zoned properties of this area. The Planning Department was .questioned whether the Business Park Zone may be a more appropriate zone for this area, as the purpose of the BP Zone is to provide areas for the development of office, business and light industrial uses meeting high standards of design and construction and having close proximity to major transportation corridors and /or other industrial zones; however, staff did not believe that the BP Zone was appropriate for this area, The Planning Dept. recommends that the Commission discuss whether these properties should be considered for a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or whether they believe the current (and recently approved) Comprehensive Plan guiding and existing zoning are appropriate. If they believe that the application request is appropriate, they should direct staff to renotice the public hearing to include the third property (Total Sanitation, Located south of the former Peterson Seed property) and bring this item back for the August 5~' meeting. If they believe that the existing zoning and guiding is appropriate, or if they believe that the City Council should discuss the future use of this area of the city before they make a recommendation on this request, they should forward an appropriate recommendation to the City Council for their action. FINDINGS . The. criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration: Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; 2 Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error. The original zoning ordinance established a zoning boundary that is compatible with several existing uses in this area and provides for an opportunity to utilize the site for commercial activities, which is consistent with the commercial guiding of the property. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies that concern this property have not taken place. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Sign cant changes in development patterns have not occurred for the subject property. Adjacent uses include an automobile sales operation, which is a Conditional Use in the B-1 Zone and a vehicle rental facility, which is a Conditional Use in both the existing B-1 Zone and the proposed I-1 Zone. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Shakopee City Council, guides this property for commercial use.. The applicant is requesting an amendment of the Comprehensive"Plan for industrial use of this site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After evaluating the request against the stated criteria for rezoning, staff recommends that the Commission deny this request as the criteria for granting a change have not been adequately met. ALTERNATIVES 1. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject site to Light Industry Zone, and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide this property for Industrial use. 2. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial, of the request to rezone the subject site to Light Industry Zone, and that the Comprehensive Plan not be amended to guide this property for Industrial use. 3. Offer a motion to continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant. 4. Close the public hearing, and offer a motion to table and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone the subject site to Light Industry Zone, and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide this property for Industrial use, and move its approval. Mark Nob e Planner II H:\BOAA-PC\2010\07-08110-012 rez 7800 hwy lOl:doc CITY OF SFIAKOPEE MemoYandum CASE NO.: 10-012 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Mark Noble, Planner II SUBJECT: Rezone property from Highway Business (B-1) to Light Industry (I-1) Zone, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Guide the Property for Industry Use MEETING DATE: August 5, 2010 REVIEW PERIOD: Apri123, 2010 -August 20, 2010 INTRODUCTION Liberty Properties, LLC has made application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to guide the property for industrial use, and to rezone the property from Highway Business (B-1) Zone to Light Industry (I-1) Zone. The subject property is located at 7800 Hwy. 101 East (see Exhibit A), is approximately 5.6 acres in size, consists of two parcels, with several large buildings occupying the majority of the site. The site was formally occupied: by Peterson Seed Company and most recently an .automobile sales operation. The existing buildings are presently vacant. The Planning Commission has reviewed this item at their June 3rd and July 8~' meetings, with the latest action directing staff to renotice the public hearing to include the third property (Total Sanitation, located south of the former Peterson Seed property) in addition to 7700 Hwy. 101 East (Robert Pearson's property) and 7800 Hwy. 101 East, and that these three properties be included in the consideration for rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The applicant, if the request is approved, intends to request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)' in order to allow multiple uses on the 7800 Hwy. 101 East site, with Liberty Brush proposed for the northerly one-third of the northerly building on the site. Liberty Brush currently operates at 1475 Maras Street, but would like to expand their operations and this building provides them with that opportunity. They would require approval of a CUP as the use assembles sweeper brushes for street sweepers and other industrial grade sweepers/scrubbers, with manufacturing; fabrication, processing, and assembly operations a listed Conditional Use of the Light Industry (I-1) Zone. Additionally, they are intending to request an exterior storage CUP for an area of their property south of the buildings. As previously noted, Planning staff did receive several memorandums from reviewing agencies, which have been attached to this report. Shakopee Public Utilities commented that the site is presently served with electric and water services and that any expanded use shall f rst be required to contact their Planning and Engineering Dept. for review and conditions.. The City Fire Marshal noted a number of fire code related requirements, including the potential for requiring of a fire sprinkler system for the buildings, and the Scott County Environmental Health Department commented that the applicant will need to apply for an obtain a hazardous waste license in accordance with their hazardous Waste Management Ordinance, and that the septic system on the propekrty must have a compliance inspection completed, whether the rezoning is approved or if it continues as a B-1 Zoned property. The Planning Department staff has determined that this proposal would still represent a spot zoning if approved. Additionally, the City just adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in the fall of 2009 which identifies this area for. business use (the guiding remained unchanged from the past approved Comprehensive Plans). Staff believes that if the Comprehensive Plan is to be amended, it should include the entire area that is presently zoned B-l, rather than select out these three properties, thus creating a fragmented mix of land use guidings for these properties. Lastly, as noted by Scott County Environmental Health Department, there are outstanding comprehensive sewer issues for this area, which is presently located outside the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) boundary. Staff believe there should be extensive discussions on the long range service issues for this area of Shakopee, as well as study and formulate a plan on how this area should' be redeveloped for in the future. The purpose of the Light Industry Zone is to provide an area for industrial, light manufacturing, and office uses which are generally not obtrusive and which serve as a transition between more intensive industrial sites. and residential and business land uses. The purpose of the Highway Business Zone is to provide an area for business uses fronting on or with immediate access to arterial and collector streets. By definition, based on the proximity to CSAH 101, the Business Zone appears to be more appropriate, especially when considering the rezoning only factors three parcels rather than the majority of the B-1 zoned properties of this area. The Planning Department recommends that the Commission discuss whether these properties should be considered for a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or whether they believe the current (and recently approved) Comprehensive Plan guiding and existing zoning are appropriate. If they believe that the application request is appropriate, they should direct staff to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for their action. If they believe that the existing zoning and guiding is appropriate, or if they believe that the City Council should discuss the future use of this area of the city before they make a recommendation on this request, they should forward an appropriate recommendation to the City Council for their action. FINDINGS The criteria required for the granting of a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error. The original zoning ordinance established a zoning boundary that is compatible with several existing uses in this area and provides for an opportunity to utilize the sites for commercial activities, which is consistent with the commercial guiding of the property. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place;. Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies that concern these properties have. not taken place. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have not occurred for the subject properties. Adjacent uses include a vehicle rental facility; which is a Conditional Use in both the existing B-1 Zone and the proposed I-1 Zone. Other long time uses continue to operate in this neighborhood. ' 2 Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires. a different provision. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Shakopee City Council, guides these properties for commercial use. The applicant is requesting an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for industrial use of these sites. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After evaluating the request against the stated criteria for rezoning, staff recommends that the Commission deny this request as the criteria for granting a change have not been adequately met. ALTERNATIVES 1. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject sites to Light Industry Zone, and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide these properties for Industrial use. 2. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone the subject sites to Light Industry Zone, and that the Comprehensive Plan not be amended to guide these properties for Industrial use. 3. Offer a motion to continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant. 4. :Close the public hearing, and offer a motion to table and request additional information-from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to rezone the subject sites to Light Industry Zone, and to deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to guide these properties for Industrial use, and move its approval. Mark Noble Planner II H:IBOAA-PC\2010\08-OS\IO-012_rez_7800 hwy lOl.doc 3 ~.. ~ ~•S~,nry~Jd ~ • G' ~ I f ~5r 4 I.'wfk. Y IY ~ b~ a I~, di~nn~•~i X43 ~ y ~1 s i r~''~~ Y~' \~ yff x. ~a ~ J ~ .~ zr p~~ xkers~~, f~ ~ i~? ~~7i A ... ~ s. ~ n t ~'N, NI~j('}'~~y~yL Kr ~~ ,R r s } ~u ti ~yi i lA ~t. r. ~ V _i ~} ~rf~SL k,,~ ~"ae ~ ,~ ~~4~~ ~ _ ~t ~~,, _ 4'm~Ti' ~'" _ ' .n s 'fir +-~ ~ x 6°' m, 1° '~, °-3 + °E, ~'d t\ ~. T _ -~_ J~'~ ~ 1 cti ~ ~ 'fir-Ie~ 1 '~~ I~ rr ~ . 1l.. k ' ih'11 ~ ~ s14 = --"~~ ~_` _ ,AFT _ F , ~~ n ~ 1 ;' ~4 ;'~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ Y ~~ (BETE7CAV E ~~~ ~ ,! ~'.~ P'~ ~, ,~ r3, ` ';~ W` i se~ -~ F •. _ ~ J a ~ _ ~ l '~ Vie. ~k~ ,F; ~ ~ i '{~~ ~Cm'~.d, n~~ 1Sa.mak~i~w~~~ :L f`'. ei .. ` ~ 1~eSx . ,rzfY S SR _.. ~.:.~ ..1 .. _ m. ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~\ gy'p`. ; ~~ ~®.~®:~~'~~.~ if ~Gj: ..~ .L ~~ ' D~HYL•N Blc ~cl.Y' ~IoJ j~n.an. faYSb FL Pd EVS Apri121, 2010 Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194 ceNena~: 952-835-3800 r-ar,: .952-89G-3333 wea: www.larkinhoffman.com Re: Liberty Properties Re-Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application - 7800 County Road 101 East, Shakopee, MN Dear Michael: Liberty Properties, LLC ("Liberty") is pleased to submit this application and narrative fora re- zoning and Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan") amendment to the City of Shakopee ("City") for the property located at 7800 County Road 101 East, Shakopee, MN (the "Property"): Minnwest Bank Metro ("Minnwest") is the Property owner. Liberty has entered into .a purchase agreement with Minnwest to utilize the currently vacant Property as a new location for Liberty Brush Manufacturing, LLC ("Liberty Brush"), as an assembly plant for its line of sweeper and scrubber brushes and brooms. A portion of the existing building will also be leased out to compatible tenants. This application-will be followed with an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow Liberty to utilize the property for light industry uses. In order for Liberty to utilize the property as conternplated under its purchase agreement, a re- zoning and Comp Plan amendment are necessary. This application addresses the City Code requirements for such a request. Zoning Code Requirements The existing zoning on the Property is Highway Business ("B-1"), which allows for a variety of uses, but excludes any Light assembly and/or manufacturing. The parcels directly adjacent to the Properly are also zoned B-1. However, the character of this area has developed around light and heavy industry; the majority of the area is zoned Heavy Industrial ("I-2") and Light Industrial ("I-1 "). The I-1 District is a better fit for the Property. In granting a zoning map amendment, the City will consider the following criteria: 1. That the of°iginal Zoning Ordinance is in of°ror. While there has not been a clear error made in the Zoning Ordinance, it does not appear that the zoning on the Property has beeri addressed in a way that considers appropriately the surrounding uses and occupancies to allow for a District that is best suited for the City's purposes as well as for Michael Leek April 21, 2010 ' Page 2 economic development. A number of the uses in the area have been in place for several decades, and there has been no catalyst for review of the Property's zoning. At this time, Liberty requests that the City re-zone the Property to be consistent with the area. 2. That sign cant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. It is unclear whether the City addressed this area specifically in its -last Comp Plan review and update. The Comp Plan states: Since the 1970's, the City has actively identified and guided areas that are ideal for industrial development, i.e., those having good highway and/or rail and good access to utilities service. The City's goal is to reserve sufficient industrial land for the City's ultimate development and regional needs so that possible, negative land use impacts can. be concentrated in large areas rather than scattered throughout the City. Comp Plan, Sect. 3.3. Liberty understands that the Metropolitan Urban Services Area ("MUSA") has not been extended to the Property to date. However, the Property is a relatively small parcel with sufficient septic to handle the proposed uses. Portions of the nearby I-2 District are also outside of the MUSA boundary line. Liberty also assumes that eventually, MUSA will extend to the Property.. Concentrating industrial uses in the area fits within the goals and policies expressed in the Comp Plan. 3. That significant changes. in City-wide or neighbor^hood development pattef^ns have occurred. To the contrary, this area has been utilized for Light and heavy industrial uses, alongside highway business uses for several decades. There is an overlap of permitted and conditional uses in the B-1 and I-1 Districts. The fact that significant changes have not occurred and that this area is currently used for industrial and industry-related business uses makes it reasonable for the Property to be re-zoned to I-1. This will allow for uses consistent with the area. It will be difficult to draw in new tenants with the limited. B-1 uses, especially with industrial uses surrounding the Property. 4. That the Comp Plan requires a d~ef^ent provision. The area and the Property do not currently meet the Comp Plan guidance and description for the B-1 Zone. The Comp Plan states: The B-1 Zone is intended for destination retail uses that have a strong need for visibility from major roadways which generate significant traffic loading on roads and streets within the community, and require large areas for parking. Comp Plan, ~ 3.3.3. The Property and surrounding parcels do not serve as a destination retail area. Instead, the Property fits the guidance for the I-1 District. The I-1 Zone is intended to accommodate industrial, office, and manufacturing uses that are relatively unobtrusive, and which can Michael Leek Apri121, 2010 Page 3 serve as transitions between more intensive industrial sites and residential or other, less intense business uses. Comp Plan, ~ 3.3.4. This is clearly more descriptive of the uses in the area. While Liberty is applying only for a re-zoning of the Property, the re-zone to I-1 will not negatively impact the surrounding property and/or uses. In fact, the majority of the surrounding uses also fit better within the context o£the I-1 District. This is not, however, spot zoning. Spot zoning applies to "zoning changes, typically limited to small plots of land, which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island of nonconforming .use within a Larger zoned district." Rochester Assn of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 891 (Minn. 1978). In Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, the court held that spot zoning amendments are those which `YeSUlt in total destruction or substantial diminution of value of property affected thereby." 125 N.W.2d 583 (1963}. This holding was confirmed in a more recent case that took place in Watab Township, Minnesota. Watab Township Citizen Alliance v. Benton County Board of Commissioners, 728 N.W.2d 82, 91 (Minn. App. 2007). In Watab, the court reaffirmed both the holdings above as well as the court's unwillingness to treat a spot zoning argument as an administrative or quasi- judicial act. Instead, the court states that "land-use classifications are the county's expression of how it desires the various areas of the county to develop. Such goals and policies are in the nature of legislative acts that are within the domain of the governing body." Id. Courts have also factored into their determination whether the zoning change was consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan. See Watab at 91. See also City of St. Paul v. Chicago, St.P., M., & O.Ry. Co., 413 F.2d 762 (C.A.Minn. 1969), and Newton v. County of Itasca, WL 771719 (Minn. App. 2006). The burden of proving that spot zoning has taken place is on the individual(s) affected by the change and will be upheld unless it can be proved that the "classification is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health; safety, morals, or general welfare, or that the classification amounts to a taking without compensation." Rochester at 888. Here, the zoning change would occur in conjunction with a Comp Plan amendment that would bring the Property more closely. in Line with the stated guidance in the Comp Plan. In addition, the zoning change would be .consistent with surrounding uses. This area is not intended to be a destination retail area; the Property is not compatible with its existing designation. Comp Plan Amendment For the same reasons as stated above, Liberty requests that the City approve an amendment to its existing Comp Plan. The current Comp Plan guidance for the Property is Commercial. Liberty requests that the Property be guided Industrial. Michael Leek April 21, 2010 Page 4 Conclusion Liberty looks forward to working with the City as this application moves forward. A Conditional Use Permit application will be• submitted in the next several weeks, understanding that the City cannot process the CUP application until the re-zoning and Comp Plan applications have been addressed. Liberty believes that these changes are not only consistent with the goals and policies of the City but will, in the future, help maintain a strong and vibrarit business and industrial mix in the area. Sincerely, ~t ~ ~ c ~%' ~-' N. Boe, for Larkin Hof&nan Daly & Lindgren Ltd. Direct Dial: (952) 896-3390 Direct Fax: (952) 842-1756 Email: rboenn.larkinhoffman.com 1302098.1 City o~ Shak©pee - ~hako~ee dire De~ai-tment staff Review Case Number: 10012 From: Tom Pitschneider, Fire Marshal Date: 05/05/2010 Request: Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning from B-1 to !-1 Staff Recommendation: Approved Comments and/or Conditions: 1. Existing building was used as a processing and storage facility, proposed use appears to be manufacturing, assembly and storage. Such changes and the addition of leased tenants may require compliance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1306 requiring the addition of a fire sprinkler system to the building. 2. Existing building contains several fire separation walls and fire. doors which were required by the previous occupancy. Such locations may not be suitable to the proposed occupant but shall not be removed without prior review by the Shakopee Building. Department and Shakopee Fire Department.. The installation of a fire sprinkler system may allow the occupant to remove additional fire separations. 3. Comply with Minnesota State Building Code; Minnesota State Fire Code; Shakopee City Ordinances and Fire Department Policies. 4. Subject property is not within Insurance Service Office (ISO) requirements forfire department engine company coverage or fire department ladder company coverage based on current~fire.station placement. Requirements for.ISO are an engine company within 1.5 miles and a (adder company within 2.5 miles. \kl\~ • ~ ~.. _r 4 ~ ~ \ /~. SCOTT COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTi H ©EPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CENTER 200 1=OU.RTI-1 AVENUE WEST SHAKOPEE; MN 55379-1220 MEM©RANDUM T®: Mark Nobel, Project Manager FROM: ~ Steve L. Steuber, Environmenfafist 11 DATE: May 11, 2010 SUBJECT:Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning from B-1 to. I-1 PlD# 27-901007-0 & 27-901008-0 Each businesses operating on the property that generates hazardous waste must apply for and obtain a license in accordance with the Scott County Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance. Prior to the City's approval of.the rezoning, the applicant must provide Scott County with the following information with regard to any and all septic systems on the property: ~1. A .compliance inspection must be done on al( septic systems on the property as per the Scott County Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS).Ordinance section . 7.03 G below. 2. If the system fails, an .alternate septic. site must be located. The time period to upgrade is ten. months. As long as the system(s) is not an imminent health threat, replacement is not required if municipal sewer service is expected within five years. 3. Determine the average and maximum volume of wastewater that is expected to be sewered in one day (daily flow). 4. -Determine if any wastewater hot meeting the definition of sewage (commercial and industrial wastewater, etc.) will be generated. if so, Scott County will require information regarding the general chemistry of the wastewater, the processes that generate the wastewater and to where the wastewater will be plumbed. The following ~is from Scott County's Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTs) Ordinance #~ which.states in part: . 7.03 COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS REQUIREQ. A comp}lance inspection is required: A. When an inspection is done far any new or replacement SSTS; B. If a permit or variance is applied for to alter an existing- SSTS; C. Any other,time an SSTS is reviewed to determine if fhe SSTS is in compliance; D. When a permit is applied for a bedroom, to build a horizontal addition onto an existing structure, or to build an accessory structure on a fot having an ISTS; E. Any time the Scott County Zoning Ordinance No. 3 requires an inspection of an SSTS; F. Where a. permit or an amendment to an existing.permit is required for a .change in use of a property (i.e. residential to commercial; commercial to industrial, etc., or the addition of a business, or a change of a business type or use). including additional parking or outside storage:area; or G. When ariy parcel of land is developed,. subdivided, rezoned or split and there is an existing.SSTS on any of the parcels. H. Exemptions: The compliance- inspection requirement may be waived when Department .records indicate that tha existing SSTS is not a cesspool; drywell, seepage pit, leaching pit, or other pit in an area highly susceptible to ground water contamination, is not an imminent threat to . public health; and 1. There are acceptable design, construction, maintenance and .location records of th.e SSTS; or 2. There are kmited options to locate a replacement SSTS and the . permit activity will not result in an increase in water usage. Prior to approving the permit, the inspector may require the identification of an alternate site and that the tanks} be pumped if records show that- it has been more than six years since the tank(s) was {ast pumped: The action proposed in the building permit application shall not encroach upon the alternate site or the existing. SSTS. Even if there will be no rezoning of this property, the following still will be applicable: D. When a permit is applied for a bedroom.,, fo build a horizontal addition onto an existing structure, or to build an accessory structure on a lot having an {STS; F. Where a permit or an amendment to an existing permit is required for a change in use of a property (i.e. residential to commercial,.commercial to industrial, etc., or the addition of a business, or a change of a business type or use) including- additional parking or outside storage area; or SHA.K:O~'EE I'I~LIC I;ITILYTIES C01~'IMISSION "'Lightin°g the Way - yesterday, Today and Beyond" 1~'IEMORANDUM TO: ShalEOpee Community Development Departrr~ent FROM: Joseph I?. Adams, planning and Engineering Directo SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD COMMENTS for: Comp Pian Amendment and Rezoning for B-1 to I-1 CASE NO; 10012 DATE: S/21/10 COMMENTS: lvZunicipal water service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions, These include, but are not Iimited to: installing a lateral water main distribution system in accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspections costs, paying the Trunk Water Chagge, and paying the Water Connection Charge. Underground electric service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These include, but are not linuted to: entering into axt Underground Distribution Agreement, gxanting any necessary easements, and paying the associated fees. Street Lighting installation is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These are contained in the current City of Shakopee Street Lighting Policy. Applicant must pay the associated fees. Applicant should contact Shakopee Public Utilities directly for specific requirements relating to their project. Note: Site is presently served with electric aad water services. Any expanded use shalt first be required to contact Shakopee Public Utiii.ties Planning and Engineering department for review a;nd conditions. Post Office Box 470 ~ 255 5arazin Street ~ Shakopee, Minnesota 553'74-4470 (952) 44.5-1.988 • Fax (9S2) 445-77b7 www, shakopeeutilities.com TOTAL P. 83