Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Council Workshop on Growth Management +3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Shakopee Planning Commission Mark McNeill, City Administrator Shakopee Department Heads FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Council Workshop on Growth Management MEETING DATE: April 12, 2005 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this workshop is to follow up on the direction previously provided by the Council. Specifically, accompanying this memorandum are drafts of 1) a growth management policy in resolution format, and 2) a project-pointing proposal. In addition, this memo attempts to highlight the numerous and complex related decisions that the Council is faced with. At the conclusion of the workshop, staff hopes to receive specific direction whether or not to implement the attached proposals, as well as regarding the other issues addressed in this memorandum. DISCUSSION: Looming Growth Management Issues: MUSA ALLOCATION: In 2002 the Metropolitan Council gave the City of Shakopee a "ten-year" MUSA allocation of2180 acres. As of January 1, 2005, Council had allocated a total of713 acres of MUS A leaving a balance of 1,467 acres of MUS A available. At its April 5th meeting, the Council asked the author about the number of acres of MUS A allocated so far in 2005. At the time I mistakenly thought that MUSA was allocated for the high school site and ten acres of the Countryside project in 2004. In fact, those allocations were made earlier this year. Thus, to date in 2005 the Council has approved the allocation of MUS A to 167 acres in total. The majority ofthis is for the high school site (about 99 acres). Thus, as of this date about 1,300 acres of MUS A allocation remains. There are currently a number of pending applications for MUSA. These include the 1 following properties; Shutrop North 38 acres Shutrop South 134.35 acres Marystown LLC (CR 15 ) 27.2 acres Total Pending 199.55 acres Were the Council to approve these pending applications, the MUSA allocated in 2005 would total almost 367 acres. Discounting the high school site, MUSA allocations for residential purposes would be 268 acres, which could result in about 804 residential lots. Through the course of the Council's discussions to date, it is clear that the Council wishes to focus allocation to those areas that have been mapped as being within the Phase I MUSA allocation areas. Thus, in recent decisions regarding the ACC proposal south of CR 78, the Council did not approve MUSA for land in the Phase II area, while on April 5th it did approve MUSA for the Liesener and Pavek Family Investments property. It also seems clear that there is a relationship between the number of lots being platted per year (which the Council has directed should be limited) and the amount of new MUSA allocated each year. For example, using an average residential density of 3.0 dwelling units/acre, the extension of MUS A to about 220 acres per year (or about 1I1Oth ofthe allocation granted by the Metropolitan Council in 2002) will result in the creation of about 660 lots. While it is clear that the Council wishes to limit the rate of development, and by extension the allocation of MUSA, it also must be noted that there are other issues and factors that the Council may consider in determining whether to extend MUSA. The challenge is to balance these factors, and provide clear direction to both the development community and city staff about which balance the Council wishes to strike. For example, the mapping of developable parcels that will be available at the workshop, demonstrates that there are basically two areas of concentration of developable parcels within the current city limits. The first is south of CR 16, between Pike Lake Trail and McKenna Road. The second concentration is south of Valley View Road between CRs 83 and 17. The third potential area for expansion in the future is in the townships. Each of these areas presents different challenges and issues. East MUSA Expansion Area: The Council has already expressed a desire to see development occur where it can make use of existing infrastructure investments. The eastern area is one that presents that opportunity, in that sewer capacity is available to the area via the Prior Lake Interceptor. It is not without challenges, however, including; . A lack of decision yet to proceed with the construction of CR 21; 2 . The need to coordinate or accommodate planning for storm water management with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) which owns several hundred acres ofland to the west; . The need to plan and construct additional roadways to serve the area. South MUSA Expansion Area: In order for this area to develop, sanitary sewer service must be extended along CR 83 to about Valley View Road. It was hoped that discussions between Ames and Centex (park Meadows East) would result in a cost sharing agreement that would result in that sewer being extended. However, Ames has now sold its 40-acre site the SMSC, and Centex has pulled out ofthe deal to develop Park Meadows East. Another developer, Pulte, is interested in stepping into Centex's shoes, and contribute to the extension of sewer. However, it seems apparent that for Park Meadows East and the areas south of Valley View Road to be developable will require that the City make a decision to invest in, and get, the sewer extended. Attached for the Council's information is a draft of a proposed action from Gonyea Land/Pulte that relates to this sewer issue. The Township Area: While the potential area available in the townships for sewered development into the distant future is about 9,000 acres, sewer capacity is not yet available to serve all ofthat area. The City is entitled under the agreement with the Metropolitan Council to sewer capacity sufficient to serve only between 800 and 1600 acres. The City has already extended MUSA to about 277 acres (the high school and Countryside sites). Staffhas met with representatives of Ryan Contracting and D.R. Horton Homes, which together are developing plans for a project covering about 320 acres on the west side of Marystown Road/CR 15. Environmental Review: There has been discussion at the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) and with city staff about whether there would be benefit in conducting an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the eastern area ofthe City. There are, of course, a number of outstanding issues in this area ofthe City, including but not limited to; . CR21; . Greenway corridor identification and preservation; . Prior Lake outlet channel improvements; . Woodland management, preservation, or replacement; . Coordination or accommodation with SMSC planning. Such a review may help to provide a framework for decisions regarding these issues. The process does, however, take a significant amount oftime and cost a significant amount of money to conduct. Generally speaking, staffhas not received a positive reaction to the 3 concept when it has been shared with those developers that currently have identified interests in this area of the city. Such a study is not funded in the 2005 City budget. ACTIONS REQUESTED: In short, Council is asked for decisions/direction regarding the following; . Does the Council wish to hold fast to the principle of limiting the extension of MUSA, and by extension the platting of lots, to about 220 new acres per year (about 620 new lots per year)? In the alternative, does the Council feel that there are other, overriding public policy issues related to either the east or south MUSA expansion area that it believes should potentially allow for the extension of greater than 220 acres of MUS A per year in these areas? . Does the Council wish to invest in the extension of sanitary sewer along CR 83 at this time to serve the south MUSA expansion areas? . Does the Council wish to pursue an AUAR for the East MUSA expansion area? In addition, the Council is asked to provide specific direction to staff regarding whether to proceed with dissemination ofthe attached growth management policy and project-pointing proposal for comment and eventual adoption by the Council Independent of the requested actions/direction from Council, planning staffwill move forward to do the following; . Include in any future report to the Planning Commission and City Council, a summary ofthe MUSA allocation and lots platted year-to-date to assist them in evaluating requests for MUSA allocation; . Require from applicants a specific development staging plan, so that staff, the Commission, and the Council can better evaluate whether or not a request for MUSA allocation should be granted. ~~ R. Michael Leek . Community Development Director 4 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XXXX Growth Management Policy City of Shakopee, Minnesota 2005 WHEREAS, as new areas for development opened up from 1998 through 2004, the City of Shakopee experienced very high growth rates each year; and WHEREAS, such elevated growth rates require additional expenditures for staff, equipment, and other support that have a significant impact on the City's fiscal situation; and WHEREAS, dealing with such elevated growth rates impair the ability ofthe City and its staff to address other issues that are important to the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, business owners, and residents; and WHEREAS, the city's Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted by the City Council in 2004, seeks to limit future growth in the areas added to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to an average of 600 housing units per year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the policy noted above applies to the Phase I expansion area, which consists of about _ acres as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The policy contained in this resolution does not apply to property already within the MUSA on the date of adoption of this resolution, as such properties have already been assessed for public improvements, and thus have the legal right to proceed with development. WHEREAS, the public welfare requires the establishment of a Growth Management Policy and allocation system in order to 1) prevent unplanned growth; 2) to encourage development which accomplishes the objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan ofthe City of Shakopee; and 3) which accommodates growth within the limitations of current city fiscal and personnel resources; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Plan provides for a phased MUSA allocation plan as a means of implementing the plan; and, WHEREAS, a phased allocation of development promotes a rate of growth consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, a phased allocation also promotes contiguous rational development and the orderly provision of infrastructure to developing areas within the city; and, WHEREAS, unplanned growth that is unrelated to community needs and capabilities damages the public health, safety and welfare, and violates the goals ofthe Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, for the purpose of implementing the land use and MUSA staging components of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council of the City of Shako pee does hereby adopt the following: 1 DRAFT SECTION 1: Purposes of Growth Management Policy The Shakopee City Council finds and determines: A. The city has adopted a Comprehensive Plan that has as its number one goal that "Growth and expansion of that portion of Shakopee served by public service shall be controlled and focused to maintain the City's fiscal soundness consistent with other community-wide goals. B. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new areas to be added to MUSA where 1) ". . . utilities and community facilities can be efficiently located or extended," 2) ". . . timed to enhance the City's abilities to plan for, develop, and/or acquire new utilities and community facilities.. .," 3) ".. .to serve the community as a whole, " and 4) "preserves Shakopee's natural resources." C. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the development of "desirable. and livable neighborhoods," which includes the improvement of the appearance of neighborhoods and important corridors in the City. D. Inadequately planned, speculative residential development has sometimes created, and may create or aggravate, the following conditions: 1. Wasteful construction of public facilities; 2. Overburdened municipal services and utilities; 3. Decreasing availability oflow-and-moderate-cost housing to serve the needs of the elderly and persons of low and moderate incomes; 4. Premature and inefficient commitment of undeveloped lands to urbanization; and, 5. Environmentally detrimental development patterns. 6. Developments that do not obtain the site planning and appearance standards the City is striving to achieve. E. By themselves, the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances (City Code Chapters 11 and 12) cannot alone provide the comprehensive development review procedures that will insure the high level of environmental protection, sequential and orderly development, and achievement of other goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. F. The public welfare requires the establishment of a Growth Management Policy. The city hereby establishes an initial five-year phasing program for development within the City of Shakopee in order to accomplish the following goals: 1. Prevent premature development in the absence of necessary utilities and municipal services; 2. Coordinate city planning and land regulation in a manner consistent with the land use plan; 3. Implement the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan; 4. Prevent unplanned growth which has no relationship to community needs and capabilities; and, 5. Encourage developers to dedicate additional public open space. 2 DRAFT SECTION 2:.Phasing PIau A. The City's Comprehensive Plan Update includes a staging plan to show where development in the city will be phased over the next 20 years. The phasing plan was developed to accommodate an average of approximately 600 housing units (approximately 200 acres) per year in each urban phase in order to help the city manage its growth. This policy establishes the phasing plan for Phase 1 ofthe overall staging plan that the city has set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Update. B. A five-year Growth Management System is hereby adopted as Phase 1 ofthe city's MUSA Staging Plan, which distributes the platting oflots among the major properties/landowners/developers set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. As set forth in Exhibit A, Phase 1 shall be developed at a rate that will average 600 dwelling units per year. D. Every application for a preliminary plat or PUD for any part of the property set forth in Exhibit A shall include a phasing plan that complies with the five-year phased allocation plan set forth in Exhibit A. E. As part of each preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) approval process, a development-phasing plan shall be approved by the City Council for each of the tracts of land set forth on Exhibit A. Preliminary plats and PUDs shall be reviewed and approved only in accordance with the development schedule set forth in Exhibit A. F. The number of lots created through the platting process in a given year shall be controlled through the extension of utilities and subsequent assessment of costs to benefited properties. G. The developer/landowner shall have the right to accrue lots/units, such that they may forgo platting lots in one year in order to plat more lots in a subsequent year. However, at such time that this policy is reviewed or revised in the future, the city reserves the right to re-allocate lots/units that are not approved for development. H. This policy does not allow for the outright transfer or sale of the allocation of units between developers/landowners. However, through a Planned Unit Development, the city may allow lots/units from one tract of property to be transferred to another, if it promotes the goals outlined in the purpose statement of this policy. SECTION 3:, Exceptions A. This Growth Management Policy shall only apply to property in Phase 1, as set forth on Exhibit A through the year 2005. B. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to property located within the 2002 MUSA line. These properties have already been assessed for public utilities, and/or do not require the extension of municipal utilities to develop. C. The Growth Management Policy shall not apply to property located in the Agricultural Preservation (AG) or Rural Residential (RR)-zoned areas of the city. 3 DRAFT D. The Growth Management Policy will not apply to parcels of less than 20 acres in size, even if such a parcel is purchased or owned by a developer or land owner set forth in Exhibit A, or their successors or assigns. These exception parcels shall be of record as ofthe date ofthe adoption of this policy. The purpose ofthis exemption is to encourage the incorporation of smaller parcels into larger development plans to provide for more continuity of design and neighborhood compatibility. The City Council also recognizes the adverse affects that the inclusion of smaller parcels in the allocation process would have on the current owners of those parcels. The density and allocations assigned to the exception parcels ofless than 20 acres can be used anywhere within the adjacent development of which it becomes a part. E. In areas guided for single family use, and in order to implement the city's greenway corridor and open space goals, ifthe amount of open space dedicated as part of a plat or PUD reaches 15 percent, the density shall be allowed to reach _ units per acre. Ifthe amount of open space dedicated as a part of the development reaches 20 percent, the density shall be allowed to reach _units per acre. Areas proposed to be dedicated to open space must be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan provisions for greenway opportunities, park plans, etc., or must be adjacent to or provide an enhancement to existing park facilities. Property dedicated must be useable upland (not wetlands, ponds or utility easements, etc.). The City Council will retain the discretionary right to determine whether or not it will accept the property proposed to be dedicated for open space or greenway corridors. Additional units allowed pursuant to this exception shall be divided equally over the entire seven five-year phase so that an additional allocation will be made for each year of the phase. F. In order to maintain the spirit and intent ofthis growth management policy, the number of bonus units allowed to be platted in a given year, due to the inclusion or the dedication of green space, shall not exceed 10.0 percent ofthe total units allocated for that year, as set forth in Exhibit A. These bonus units shall be awarded in the development agreement for each development as it is approved, until such time that the cap for that particular year is reached. SECTION 4: Review of Policy A. The city Staff shall prepare an annual report for the City Council detailing the number oflots actually platted and built on each year in Phase 1. B. The City Council shall review this policy by January 17, 2006 to determine whether it is managing the growth of the city as intended by the City Council, whether there have been unintended consequences, and whether this policy should be revised. The city reserves the right to amend Exhibit A and re-allocate units that hav~ not been approv~<.l by the City Council as part of a plat or PUD. 4 DRAFT EXHIBIT A Estimated Allocation of Lots in Phase 1 rr="~'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' " ""'''''''''' - ,,'" . """~,,-~,, "", rc~~::nt _ _ _ _ _ ~::~~~~2oo~12oo~p T:: L" ",,"" "__" """"~" ", '" ,~~~OOO IIACC " "'" ~"",,,,,, """".II 101L~1 35iL_~~IOO 80 I[Park Meado",ws~~~!",,,,,,,,,JL 1011 2~L 27JL"" 27J1. ",~JO 92 I~~~~~~~e~!~ffs""""""",,_ ,JOL__50t?,,~1 50IL,,~~iO ,~~o Il~i.y~r~ide Bluffs",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ",,,,,,,,, ,,,L,, oil, 3~Jl ~4IL~,,~11 . 10 101 II~ollege City Homes """,,,,,,, """"L 1711. 12JL 17L",~1 0.10 51 'I I~~~~~O I Shutrop~ort~"_,, ",,,,jL~LEt,,,,,,,~J~l~,,,,gJ,, 42 ~Uth _ _ ~~ .49!~~Ol) Il~arysto~"~.~.C."",,,,, ''''''~, 11""""",~JL,,~~,~l ~8il 28Jl 0ID~~4 IIRyan Contrac!i.~~:~:~orton """ "",,,,,,,JL ?JI.?II"~Jl,,,,]JI ?JD~? ~bto!~!""" .. t 8211 47611 46111 ,,~L~D 1,296! II ' I'"'''''''''''' '''' '~~~~~"O;"" ""',,' II!otal All?wed "" "" """", ""'" "JL~~~JL,,~~~JL~j~gll~qQJ 3,0,00 1~~um~onus~OCati:fOrtheYear(lO 1~16~ 51 6OL60~_~ II Total with l!C)~~~!!~!!~"",,_JL6601L?6oIL,,~60IL~?011 6,,~0 3,300' *These numbers are estimates, based on the gross acreage of property or plans/plats currently under review. The numbers will be refined during the preliminary plat and planned unit development process, once detailed property information (wetland delineation, rights-of-way, etc.) can be obtained. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of . 2005. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 5 City of Shakopee RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS SCORING GUIDE Draft, March 28, 2005 1 Policy Statement: The City of Shakopee has determined that it is important to regulate not only the amount and the types of new residential development, but to provide a means by which to insure that the quality of design of new residential developments is of the highest caliber possible. Toward that end, the Shakopee City Council has endorsed the use of this project scoring guide by city staff prior to consideration of any proposal for a new residential development by the City Council, or any of its advisory boards and commissions. Process: In order to make sure that this process achieves its intended purpose, the following must be adhered to; 1. It is the responsibility of any and all applicants to provide information as part of their application(s) that will allow city staffto adequately evaluate their proposals against this guide. 2. In the event, an applicant feels that criteria may not be applicable to hislher project, it is the applicant's responsibility to a) identify the criteria believed to be inapplicable, and 2) provide a written explanation for their beliefthat the criteria are not applicable 3. In order for city staff to consider making a recommendation for approval, the project must receive at least 60% ofthe applicable and possible points. The number of applicable and possible points may be different from project to project. Project Scoring: Projects are scored on a number of criteria within the following three main categories; . Scale ofthe project relative to the community generally (Community Scale); . Scale of the project on a neighborhood level (Neighborhood Scale); . The design and scale ofthe residential units in the project (Unit Scale). The maximum possible score is 440 points, thus in order for the city to consider a making a positive recommendation, a score of 264 points is required. 2 Community Scale Criteria: 70 possible points 1) Land Use (a) Placement of uses and how they integrate with adjacent uses 25 points maxImum (b) Senior Units - 1 point per unit, maximum of25 points (c) Collaboration with adjoining land owners - 10 points maximum (d) Neighborhood scale commercial and office uses - 10 points maximum 3 Neighborhood Scale Criteria: 280 possible points 1) Identifiable neighborhood focal points maximum; (a) Percentage of units within ~ mile of an identifiable neighborhood focal point - Maximum 50 pointsmaximUffi 2) Distribution of Attached Units; - 20 points maximum 3) Creation of open space... - 40 points maximum 4) Vehicular access from the rear or below grade; - 5 points maximum 5) Three or more styles of structure where attached housing is included in the project; 5 points maximum 6) Six or more styles of structure where detached housing is included in the project; - 10 points maximum 7) Attached units are not visible from arterial roadways; - 5 points maximum 8) Landscaping to buffer homes from arterial and collector roads; - 10 points maxImum 9) Interior perimeter roads are not parallel to arterial or collector roadways; - 5 points maximum 10) Home fronts face arterial or collector roadways; - 10 points maximum 11) Grid or modified grid street pattern; - 5 points maximum 12) Internal trail connections; - 10 points maximum 13) Sidewalks provided on both sides of the street; - 5 points maximum 14) CuI de sacs are open-ended; - 5 points maximum 15) Park dedication is in strict conformance with the Parks and Open Space Plan and subdivision ordinance - Maximum 40 points maximum 16) Open spaces are connected with greenway corridors; - 10 points maximum 17) Tree Preservation; 10 points maximum 18) Natural features are retained; - 10 points maximum 19) Wetlands are retained and/or enhanced, not mitigated; - 10 points maximum 20) Extensive Internal landscaping; - 5points maximum 21) Use of Native plantings in landscaping; - 5 points maximum 22) Environmental protection beyond ordinance requirements - 10 points maxImum 4 Unit Scale Criteria - 90 Possible Points 1. Guarantee that models will not be repeated within "X" lots of each other; a. 1 lot between the same model - 2 points b. 2 lots between the same model - 4 points c. 3 lots between the same model - 6 points d. 4 lots between the same model - 8 points e. 5 lots between the same model - 10 points f. 6 lots between the same model - 20 points 2. Creation of a pattern book that provides detailed descriptions and depictions of the organization of the neighborhood, unit architecture and materials, landscaping, or other proposed improvements 20 points if provided 3. Architectural Elements: a. Front porches provided that front on either a street or green space outside the entry area. - Points equal Percentage of Units in the neighborhood with porches divided by 5 (20 points maximum) b. Garages set back at least as far as the front face of the structure, or side- loaded. Points equal Percentage of Units in the neighborhood meeting criteria divided by5 (20 points maximum) c) Use of brick, stone, or stucco. Points equal Percentage of Units in the neighborhood utilizing materials divided by 10 (10 points maximum) 5 ~ City of Shakopee Building Rental Charges 2006 BUDGET Total Total Year Amount Annual Rent Monthly Annual BF Monthly Monthly Annual Buildino Purch Life Prooram Paid Charoe Rent Maint Maint Inflator Rent Rent City Hall 1991 20 0181 1,463,146 73,157 6,096 417 32% 2,080 8,593 103,120 Library 2003 50 182 4,404,604 88,092 7,341 500 14% 1,100 8,941 107,290 Police 2003 50 311 5,618,734 112,375 9,365 750 14% 1,420 11 ,535 138,420 Fire Station # 1 1950 50 0321 204,021 4,080 340 417 32% 240 997 11,960 Fire Station # 2 1998 50 0324 2,729,417 54,588 4,549 792 32% 1,710 7,051 84,610 Fire Station #3 50 - Public Works 1975 50 441 835,000 16,700 1,392 750 32% 690 2,832 33,980 Public Works 2005 50 441 I... 5;000,000 100,000 8,333 750 0% - 9,083 109,000 - Youth BuildinQ 1989 50 0628 120,000 2,400 200 417 32% 200 817 9,800 Youth Bldg Remod 2001 38 0628 75,000 1,974 164 - 17% 30 194 2,330 Civic Center 1995 50 0753/0754 5,458,702 109,174 9,098 1,250 32% 3,310 13,658 163,900 Comm. Center Exp. 2006 40 ' 25;000:000 625,000 52,083 1,250 - 53,333 640,000 Pool Filter BldQ 1975 25 7752 9,720 389 32 417 32% 140 589 7,070 Bath House Bldg 1975 40 7752 59,400 1 ,485 124 417 32% 170 710 8,520 - Pool 1975 25 7752 100,000 4,000 333 417 32% 240 990 11,880 Pool system Recon 1999 25 7752 900,000 36,000 3,000 500 26% 910 4,410 52,920 Total 1,229,414 102,451 I 108,500 I 9,042 12,240 123,733 1,484,800 .