HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.A. Re-guiding, MUSA Extension and Rezoning Application-Res. No. 6409-Ord. No. 755
CITY OF SHAKOPEE /2. It.
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 06-034
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property from Rural
Residential to Single Family Residential, Extend MUSA, and Rezone
Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential
(R-IB) Zone
MEETING DATE: April 18,2006
REVIEW PERIOD: February 9 - June 9, 2006
INTRODUCTION:
Premier Properties has made application to re-guide property from Rural Residential to Single
Family Residential, and to extend Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to the subject
property. Additionally, they have requested that the property be rezoned from Agricultural
Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone.
The property is located north and south ofCSAH 16 and east of Foothill Trail. The property is
approximately 80 acres in size. Please see Exhibit A for location.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its April 6, 2006 meeting. The
Commission recommended approval of the reguiding, MUSA extension request, and the
rezoning of the portion of the property north ofCSAH 16 to Urban Residential (R-IB) and the
rezoning of property south of CSAH 16 to Low Density Residential (R-IA).
The Planning Commission staff report is. attached for the Council's information. Attached to the
Planning Commission report, please find a copy of the concept plan proposed by the applicant for
this site. Resolution No. 6409, a resolution approving the reguiding and MUSA extension, and
Ordinance No. 755, an ordinance approving the rezoning, based on the Planning Commission's
recommendations, are attached for the Council's review and consideration.
VISIONING RELATIONSHIP:
This action supports Goal D "Vibrant, resilient, and stable", Strategy 11 "Ensure Range of
Housing" .
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to single family
residential and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban
Residential (R-1B) Zone north ofCSAH 16 and Low Density Residential (R-1A) south of
CSAH 16, subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Approve the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to single family
residential and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban
Residential (R-1B) Zone, subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council.
3. Approve the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to single family
residential and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Low
Density Residential (R -1 A) Zone, subj ect to approval by the Metropolitan Council
4. Deny the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to single family
residential, and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Single Family
Residential (R-1B) Zone.
5. Table the matter and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 6409, reguiding the property to single family residential
and extending MUSA to the property, andto approve Ordinance No. 755, rezoning the property to
Urban Residential (R-1B) and Low Density Residential (R -lA), (Alternative No.1), andmove its
adoption
h: \cc\2006\04-18\cmpplmezpremier06034 .doc
RESOLUTION NO. 6409
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REGUIDE PROPERTY TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND TO EXTEND MUSA TO PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH
AND SOUTH OF CSAH 16 AND EAST OF FOOTHILL TRAIL
WHEREAS, Premier Properties, applicant and property owner, has requested the guiding
of property to single family residential and the extension of MUSA to the property; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as:
(For the MUSA extension): The North 40 acres of the West Half of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota AND The. West Half of
the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota
EXCEPT the North 40 acres of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of SeCtion 13, Township
115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; and
(For the reguiding to single family residential): The West H aif of the Southwest Quarter
of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota EXCEPT the North 40 acres of
the West Haifofthe Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range22, Scott County,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on April 6, 2006, 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 April 18, 2006; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council ofthe 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.
The City Council has determined that the development of properties in eastern Shako pee that can
be served by the Prior Lake Interceptor is important to the City's short and long-term fiscal
soundness.
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.
Annexation is not applicable in this case.
Policies:
a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent
with Goal #1 above.
The subject property can be added to MUSA because its addition is consistent with
Goal No.1.
b. Areas to be added to MUSA shall be located where utilities and community
facilities can be efficiently located or extended.
Because of development that is proposed to take place on the north side of CR 16
from CR 18 to Pike Lake Road extended, sanitary sewer and water can efficiently be
extended to the subject site.
c. Designation of MUSA areas willbe timed to enhance the City's ability to plan
for, develop, and/or acquire new utilities and public facilities.
Sanitary sewer and water services could be extended as a part of this development.
The City is currently working toward completing a transportation study to evaluate
the roadway needs in this area overall.
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.
Sanitary sewer and water services are approaching this parcel with the
development of adjacent parcels. Sanitary sewer and water could be extended as a
part of this development.
e. The City will find that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development
within the timeframe being. considered.
It is feasible that development of this parcel is likely to occur in 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.
Designation of MUSA to this property may allow for transportation. and open space
connections to serve the community, as well as, development of additional single
family detached dwelling units with amenities that are not necessarily readily
available in otherparts of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
reguiding the property to single family residential. and the extension. of the MUSA boundary is
hereby approved.
Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota held this
day of ,2006.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
. Attest: ,
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 755
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO
REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) ZONE TO
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-IA) AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-IB) ZONE
WHEREAS, Premier Properties, applicant and property owner, has requested the
rezoning of property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R~IB)
Zone; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as
The North 40 acres of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township
115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota AND The West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section
13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota EXCEPT the North 40 acres of the West
Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on April 6, 2006, at which time all persons present were given an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the property be rezoned to
Urban Residential (R-IB) north ofCSAH 16 and Low Density Residential (R-IA) south of
CSAH 16; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on April 18, 2006; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of
Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above-named request:
Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error.
Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place
that mandate the requested zoning classification. The adopted
Comprehensive Plan and the draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan guide the
property for single-family residential development, consistent with the
zoning proposal.
Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred in that residential
development is occurring within the vicinity of the subject property.
Rezoning the property to Low Density Residential (R-IA) or Urban
Residential (R-IB) would allow for connections to be. made between
development projects.
Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, is consistent with the request on the
northern half of the subject property. The southern half of the subject
property has been guided for Low Density Residential development by the
Shakopee City Council and is pending review by the Metropolitan Council.
BE IT FURTHERRESOL VED, that the request to rezone the property from
Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Low Density Residential (R-IA) north ofCSAH 16 and
Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone south ofCSAH 16, is hereby approved.
Passed in regular session of the City 'Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota held this
day of ,2006.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest: ,
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
#-1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 06-034
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II
SUBJECT: Reguiding of property to from Rural Residential to Single Family
Residential; rezone from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban
Residential (R-IB); and Extension of MUS A
MEETING DATE: April 6, 2006
REVIEW PERIOD: February 9 - June 9, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Premier Companies has made application for reguiding of property from Rural Residential to Single
Family Residential; rezone from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB)
Zone; and extension of MUS A.
The property is located north and south of CSAH 16, east of Foothill Trail, and west of Hill dale
Drive (see Exhibit A). The property is approximately 80 acres in size.
DISCUSSION
The City's 1999 Comprehensive Plan guides the north half ofthe subject propertyfor single family
residential use and the south half of the subject property as rural residential use. The City Council
has approved the Comprehensive Plan Update, which guides this property for low density
residential development, but the Metropolitan Council has not yet approved the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Update, and thus the City is not yet authorized to put the update into effect.
Therefore, the applicant is only requesting a reguiding on the southern half ofthe property to single
family residential.
The north half of the subject property is indicated as being in the Phase I MUSA area and the
southern half is indicated as being in the Phase II MUSA area in the draft Comprehensive Plan
Update. However, the portion that is in the Phase II MUSA area is immediately adjacent to
property that is located the Phase I MUSA area. With the City's construction of the sanitary sewer
line on the north side ofCSAH 16, sanitary sewer service to property south ofCSAH 16 has
become increasingly accessible. While the subject property legally exists as two separate parcels
(one on either side of CSAH 16), because they are under common ownership an opportunity exists
to plan and develop the parcels as one project.
The applicant submitted the attached concept (Exhibit B) in connection with the application. The
conceptual sketch is for illustrative purposes only. The Planning Commission and City Council are
not being asked to take any action with regard to the proposed site plan.
While the subject property is proposed to be in the Phase II MUSA area, the City does retain the
authority to allocate MUSA outside ofthe Phase I area ifthe following Goals and Policies are found to
be served by the extension. Failure to comply with all goals and policies shall result in the denial of the
1
.
request. Staff has provided draft analysis of these goals to assist the Commission in its discussion.
Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) has conunented that a booster station may be required for the
southern area of the project.
Ofthe 2186 acres provided to the City for MUSA expansion, a total of 1092.64 acres remain available.
In 2006, the City has allocated 7.72 acres of MUS A to date.
GOAL #1
Growth and expansion. of that portion of Shako pee served by public services shall be controlled and
focused to maintain the City's fiscal soundness consistent with other conununity-wide goals.
The City Council has determined that the development of properties in eastern Shako pee that can. be
served by the Prior Lake Interceptor is important to the City's short and long-term fiscal soundness.
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.
Annexation is not applicable in this case.
Policies:
a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation is consistent with
Goal #1 above.
The subject property can be added to MUSA because its addition is consistent with
Goal No.1.
b. Areas to be added toMUSA shall be located where utilities and community
facilities can be efficiently located or extended.
Because of development that is proposed to take place on the north side of CR 16 from
CR 18 to Pike Lake Road extended, sanitary sewer and water can efficiently be
extended to the subject site.
c. Designation of MUS A areas will be timed to enhance the City's ability to plan for,
develop, and/or acquire new utilities and public facilities.
Sanitary sewer and water services could be extended as a part of this development. The
City is currently working toward completing a transportation study to evaluate the
roadway needs in this area overall.
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.
Sanitary sewer and water services are approaching this parcel with the development of
adjacent parcels. Sanitary sewer and water could be extended as a part of this
development.
e. The City will find that new MUSA areas will be suitable for development within
the timeframe being considered.
It is feasible that development of this parcel is likely to occur in the timeframe being
considered.
2
f. Designation of new MUSA areas shall be undertaken to better react to the
marketplace and to serve the community as a whole.
Designation of MUSA to this property may allow for transportation and open space
connections to serve the community, as well as, development of additional single family
detached dwelling units with amenities that are not necessarily readily available in
other parts of the community.
The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose
of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the
location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in
close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City
implements the Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoning is to conform to a city's
comprehensive plan. Copies of the land use plans and the Zoning Ordinance are available. for
viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the April 6, 2006, meeting.
The applicant has requested that the entire subject property be rezoned to Urban Residential (R-IB).
However, staff is asking the Commission to consider whether or not this property should be zoned
Low Density Residential (R-IA). The comprehensive plan guiding of single family does not
differentiate between R-IA and R-IB zoning. The purpose of the R-lA zone is to allow large-lot
single family development in areas of the City served by sanitary sewer and water. Ryan Hughes,
Natural Resource Specialist, has commented on the natural resource features that exist on the
subject site and within its immediate vicinity. Please see Exhibit C for his specific comments.
The R-IA zoning district, because of its increased lot size requirement (minimum 80 feet in width
and 160 feet in depth), has been viewed as an appropriate zoning district for areas of the city that
provide increased opportunity for natural amenities. The subject property appears to provide the
natural amenities that the City was envisioning when creating the R-IA zoning district. The R-IA
district is currently only utilized in the western most portion of Southbridge (along the east side of
Dean Lake). Current development of projects zoned as R-IB include Countryside (437 total lots);
River Valley Estates (79 total lots); Glacier Estates ( 49 total lots); Riverside Bluffs ( 101 total lots);
and Ridgeview Farms (54 total lots).
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.
Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place;
Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place that mandate
the requested zoning classification. The adopted Comprehensive Plan and the draft
Comprehensive Land Use Plan guide the property for single family residential
development, consistent with the zoning proposal.
Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have
occurred; or
Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred in that residential
development is occurring within the vicinity of the subject property. Rezoning the
3
property to Low Density Residential (R -1 A) or Urban Residential (R -1 B) would allow
for connections to be made between development projects.
Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision.
Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan, as adopted, is consistent with the request on the northern
half of the subject property. The southern half of the subject property has been guided
for Low Density Residential development by the Shako pee City Council and is pending
review by the Metropolitan Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After evaluating the request against the stated criteria for extension of MUS A, reguiding, and
rezoning, staff recommends approval ofthe request to extend MUSA and reguide propertyto single
family residential development. Staff also recommends that the subject property be rezoned to Low
Density Residential (R-IA) Zone.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to extend MUSA,
reguide from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential, and to rezone the subject site to
Low Density Residential (R-IA), subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council.
2. Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to extend MUSA,
reguide from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential and to rezone the subject site to
Urban Residential (R-IB), subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council.
3. Offer a motion to continue the public hearing and request additional information from the
applicant and/or staff.
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 extend MUSA,
reguide from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential, and to rezone the subject site to Low
Density Residential (R-IA), and move its approval.
tA..
h:\boaa-pc\2006\04-06\reguiderezmusazoschke06034.doc
4
Shakopee - Location Maps _ r <:toY .1 U.l .1
l::"Xtf I Blr A
11
'---.....
-.......~
RllB
---
l,~- - .
BJJ
~. RR
F~; ,'_
f~'-\')J ~.~ ~-- .
;~-1l AG
AG
0
~ N _ Subject Property
W~~E
SHAKOPEE ........ Shakopee Boundary
.COMMUNIT\' PRlDESlNCE 1857 S CJ Zoning Boundary
CJ Parcel Boundary
Rezoning Agricultural (AG) to
Urban Reesidential (R1B) &
Comp Plan Amendment
httn -II crt ~ In ai c: nr(7/~h~ konee/locationmao/map .asp ?title=Rezoning+ Agricultural+%28AG... 02/28/2006
........J L_~- --<,' 1-_. ---1 )----1 C ~ l3X/-{fBlt l3
-r-r-\ \ J- 7 I .
......_-r-r I \ \ \ ---I J----J
\ \ I \" 1 I .
\ \ I I \ t-,f-, j-__-' r--I
\ .J- J- -L .-J-r ~\ \ '1 , D L--J rL..,
'\ II I \ \ \ y'.............. I ,. L.J
\ I \ \ \ _ / ^ ...... ~I I I
\ \ I I \_/"./, 1 I ,
\ I J-- -"" , ~ I (i . I I ,-
J.- -L -'- - ..-< \ " ,--L., ~
\ \...- . -\4 \ \ ,I L-J b~j I,
\ . -r \ \ \ I ( I,
"\ CfTI \ \ -+-~'>- 7> ~/, ~ ~~,(';; ,L", ,! . f il
\ 1_+1"--,1-- I / !( \ f\ '7 ~ E I ~T ~
_~ L-t-r I I : .1 / ...-1 ft~~\ 25/ 26/ 27 28/ 29 30 /31, 1& 76 : 78 7918 81~'
\ I I I 1 I /).--.( ............, J J..<:6~~ ~ ~ Ii 1($1 L- 82
\ __.L-L-LJ-~ Y I '1 ~ ~~ i ~ ~ I, 83 CONSERVATION AREA
I J- __ I 1)22/'1; 'l .V::; fi&--
I ~-T-r-r-rTl~ --i ,~ 'I ~ 1,,1 B;:::c,,:' .. ~ G: I '[;f ,..1ft,. ..
I I I I I I \ I f/ 21 f"l"---1 EJ '-I?!J~O is@'12385
I I t I I I \ / I = ,I-- r ,\ 32 0 {' iD '-r-:::::- @
_,__ _+- +++~-L_ \ I )- \ ~ '~ ";~ \ c~ A [72 ~ 12 86
I I I I I / / r- - ~ -I ~ - ~ r'1 11 /1 ~ '/ r l2 2 ~
I I I I. I ,/ r,J 19 ~ 0 @ r--, 00' g .~ (L 29... 12 87 ....
..J _ _.L -L -L -1-..( / .... / ,. :::;; ~ ~:" . Uo/~/r---. I ,/ .
'< .... .... 18 59 37 0 31 120 88
-r- -T-r-r--r-\ y, {\,~ L ="@Jl.EJj".l ~ '/cnD~ ~. ~~
I I I I I ) L I J J-= 60.0 I- - riD ~ .., -r::= P 10 132 V ,~
I I I I I I ---17 l ~ 17 - 0 @j /1,/ ctJ . ~ r--l 142
-f-- -++++-1 ~---H, ( L 7J1 161 ~ -lij;f looo1.~ f67 ~- 141 ~ 33 118 9~ I{-.:J.----
I I 1 I I J I -V r"" / ~ r;::::-;;;:: r--!:::!!Y Lii7 :;;.. ~ 134 .\ 117 ~1.J /j
I I I I I r-- t L1~ [627 G97 1::--::::10 .do' "' POND ~ ~ ~r...-J \. I :=1 ~
_ L _ .L -L -L -L- / /'- I _ . ~ 41" - :-::-, ~ \ 135 J r:Yl
- ..-< ............... ~i WElLAND (L ?-::1 "0" 0" ~ ~. g rss ~ ~j 116 I~
-,- - T -r -r --r-( \ '}:!. , - - , . ~ 147 PAR N ~ :J!f; t :-- :IP 139 36
I II I 1 \ / . \ .l137'1 46 . .. j" ~.I ~ @ ,L--....'7
-1_ 1 I I 1 y..... I' ~ l 45 ~. : l . ,,-~63 7 /;" --.M ~ 115
I /" I~ <( \ POND 1>- J 12 I 43 44 ~. ~. ~ /~., 9
I II'...... I-~ \ I 1 " ........,~) 107 114
_L_ '-- / r t!';. / I ~ 1_ ~ 3 ~. ~ 9 -----
I 1-----....... / /". ( I I L 10-r 'W~ 5~V ~ ~ 96 ~
i I I I / - .l_ -,J -' I j liS ~_\ 6 OND PO D Ii 105 I........ r .1. ~ 97 {
! ) II / / ,// ...- :;;;(:z:,.~lIiJ//LJ V - - - - ~ Q \.' ~ Ii 106/104 h03 ~-~01 8fr;-H~'
f-l-"-~ - " - '/IUI "'<...t: yY" '- /;... \. ~ r IL::J! .~
I -......... / / '1V[fr-- ,.. I I "lJi\ 1'-'''' V/ 11 [i .J I 'f.. r-r .\
I I 'Z / ~'/' 1'/ I I I ~.Vf/.II I J IT I 11'-'.1 i: '\}, I --1......._ t '
I I V ~1- /.... ~ 1'- ;; \ ~ ~ "'\ J I I I I I 1 1 r 't'r;} r\, I ~ I ~ I
__J I '-x/ /", J Ii 1~...D~~, I I I I~I I,~:. r J \\ D' I I I "-
I ' / .. )~ 2)) 0 - I:: <.: I ~\ I ,I I I
y /"" - ,( I
_ _ ., I / / . -\ ~ ~ ".LL "
1 , ,-r, I -< ~ .,2 1 L MONUMENTS
I I '-.../.. / ~a I~ I . I '.0.. '-.-:7.> 1 ~ / /
I I ......-J e"'" ---1 ~--.,)" If' I, - .
--E~ I :". ~ 0 I I. - I ====L I I J '. r L 0 [J 0
I I ~~~: ~ ----1 1----+--- I=~=:=j -1', sm: DATA: "
I 0 ~ ~ I I .----r---- - I ","===-
~~ I __ _------ .___~ r===='\---:'" -1_1-1-.-1- I, PRE~IER PROPERTY:
")'.J. r----to TL.OT C ARK) I _ I LQ'~1Q ~:::::::::'_~______-:::J 1 .65, LOTS. (INSIDE DASHED LINE): 65 .
(1 I _ _____---.,..- =l ~f--~ - '" " 80 LOTS. 83
,.... I 1- - - - - - - ~{\\ ITI1)T 0 (PARK) _ - ir....... ,- I()........ ~ / \ 1 ~ TOTAL LOTS: 148
v .... , _ ,-- ......." / / 1-_ -I ~
_~.G-L---'-___-_ _ - ""'- " 6ft
.r\ ~ . 1,--- I i~--"",. "-- '< / / ,~j, 1,' NET GAIN ON RYLAND PROPERTY (65' LOTS): 2 LOTS
GROSS AREA: 80 ACRES
PROPOSED HOA PARK/TRAIL CORRIDOR ON NORTH: 1 ACRE
PROPOSED HOA PARK/TRAIL CORRIDOR ON SOUTH: 2 ACRES
NORTH SIDE OUTLOT: 13 ACRES
gg~~J~v~~I~ ~AtlJt~T ciN6 S^oC~~~ 4 ACRES".i~ z: Qlmffi.m"~ftH,,m~
NET AREA: 55.4 ACRES
PI aNEERengineering
"Icwa.tlG/l1lG 1.AICI~1;I:i ,,",,1II_pe," ~.w~ lltonb7;mi1')'1Jl.~,r.n_JI'lI'ftl.,. ...w... 11I5W
1m~Dtn McndOfl Hcight1Offic:e a:..IUtlIA--fIl,", ..........'oIl/w:I.......II....W1J NaN o.c. ~ PULTEHOMES
~-=.~;:--...~~~ (76J.~tt'~=.lkU ::z~.:::";'~==.=:- .q.~ ~ lIolt-UL- 0..1 xxx CONCEPT Pl.AJ'! au NDRTHWESTPAltKWAY,SUtTB140 PREMIER PROPERTY 1 OF 1
e:.." lI:XX EAOA."f. MlNNESOTA'SI:!1 SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA
&'iffl BIT 6
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Julie klima, Project Manager
From: Ryan Hughes, Natural Resource Specialist 1Zff
Date: March 29, 2006
Subject: Zoschke Property
PID# 27-913046.0,27-913047-0
Rezoning AG to R1 Band Comp Plan Amendment
Based on a review of the application materials provided, staff is providing ~he following
natural resource information about the site:
. .
1. The area is within the approved Natural Resource Corridor map, dated December
2005.
2. The areas within the Natural Resource Corridor are designated as Best Quality,
Better Quality, Good Quality, and Buffer as identified on the attached map.
3. The areas within the Natural Resource Corridor on this site are contiguous with
areas designated as Best Quality, Better Quality, Good Quality, and Corridor
Connections to the northwest, northeast, southwest, south, and southeast.
4. According to available information the site contains medium quality upland Oak
woodlands. that contain slopes greater than 18%, medium. quality lowland hardwoods
next to the wetland area that contain slopes greater than 18%, drained wetlands
identified on the National Wetland Inventory that have restoration potential, and
wildlife habitat.
5. A future pedestrian transportation trail is identified on the Natural Resource Corridor
map along the north side of County Road 16. This future pedestrian transportation
trail system will extend from Canterbury Road to County Road 18.
Please contact me if you have questions or comments regarding the natural resources
on this site.
U:\Plan Review Memos\03296 - Zoschke Property.doc