Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.E. Recommendation from the Environmental Advisory Committee to Consider ab AUAR for Eastern Shakopee I 'f. E;, CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director Michael Leek, Community Development Director Meeting Date: May 17, 2005 Subject: Recommendation from the Environmental Advisory Committee to Consider an AUAR for Eastern Shakopee INTRODUCTION The Environmental Advisory Committee is recommending that the City Council order an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for approximately 2,000 acres south and east of Dean Lake. DISCUSSION As you are aware, there are several developments planned for a portion of eastern Shakopee that is generally east and south of Dean Lake bounded by the South bridge development on the north, the southern Minnesota River Bluffs on the south, and CR 18 on the east. The following is an update on the status of each of these developments, and are shown on the attached map: A. Tollefson Development - Shutrop property north of CR 16: Applications for MUSA extension being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Consideration has been continued to June. Preliminary Plat application returned to applicant as incomplete. B. Tollefson Development - Shutrop property south of CR 16: Applications for MUSA extension being reviewed, C. Noecker Development - Hanson property north of CR 16: Preliminary plat application deemed incomplete. D. Ryland Homes - Liesener property north of CR 16: Preliminary plat application being reviewed. MUSA extension approved. Preliminary plat recommended for denial at May 5 Planning Commission Meeting. Scheduled for City Council review on May 17. E. College City Homes - Pavek property north of CR 16: MUSA recently granted. Preliminary plat application returned to applicant as incomplete. In addition, "F" shows the location of the land owned by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. In December 2004, we held a meeting with the developers that were proposing developments in this area. At that meeting, we specifically asked the developers to work together to coordinate their proposals to address the street, utility, park, outlet channel, and greenway considerations. Instead of working together on a unified plan, we have received separate concepts and plat applications from individual developers. The lack of coordination among the developers has resulted in a significant amount of additional work both for staff and the city's boards and commissions as we try to sortthrough these issues.