Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.C. Request to Extend MUSA, and Rezone Property-Res. No. 6217-Ord. No. 729 CITY OF SHAKOPEE /'1, c. Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUB~ECT: Request to 1) Extend MUSA, and 2) Rezone Property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone MEETING DATE: J\pril 5, 2005, 2005 REVIEW PERIOD: December 20,2004 - April 19, 2005 INTRODUCTION: Pavek Family Investments (aka College City Homes) has made application to rezone property from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential, and to extend Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to those same properties (about 34.7 acres). Please note that the report to the Planning Commission (a copy of which is attached) incorrectly states that the applicant is also seeking are-guiding of the property, and that the property is currently zoned AG. The property is already guided for single-family residential use under the existing, adopted Comprehensive Plan (i.e. the 1999 Comprehensive Plan), therefore re- guiding is not needed. DISCUSSION: 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 with a city's comprehensive plan. The adopted Comprehensive Plan guides this property for single-family residential development. This land use guiding is carried forward in the 2002 Draft Comprehensive Plan Update. SPUC has recommended approval subject to the comments that were attached to report to the Planning Commission. Key among the comments is the need to loop the watermain system in compliance with SPUC's looping policies. The applicants will need to contact SPUC regarding any questions they may have about the comments. G:\CC\CmpPlnRezPavek04052005.doc 1 I TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ISSUES: Consideration of this item was delayed to allow for Scott County to conduct a study related to safety concerns involving future traffic on County Roads 16 and 18. That study was undertaken by CH2MHILL, and a copy of their technical memorandum, as well as the County's March 31, 2005 cover letter, are attached for the Council's information. The memo demonstrates that 2 of the keys to long-term traffic safety in this area of the City are 1) construction of additional, contemplated streets/access routes in this part of the City, and 2) control or limitation of access to County Road 18 as traffic volumes increase. A few ofthehighlights ofthe technical memorandum are: . Current crash rates at the Preserve Trail and County road 16 intersections are in line with expected state crash rates. . All crashes at Preserve Trail were vehicles turning left onto County Road 16. . For topographic reasons, signalizing the legs of County Road 16 is not feasible now or in the future, and in fact would worsen safety conditions. The memo provides 2 alternatives for the future; 1. Realigning County Road 16 to Preserve Trail, and in the future, signalizing that intersection. Along with the realignment, the north leg of County Road 16 would become a right in/right out only; the south leg would become a % intersection. 2. Not realigning County Road 16, and restricting Preserve Trail and the County Road 16 intersections to % access. None ofthose intersections would be signalized under this scenario. Council is asked to provide direction to the applicant regarding which of the future alternatives it wishes to pursue. Staff is of the opinion that either is workable under the terms outlined in the attached technical memorandum. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION REQUESTS FOR MUSA: The following Goals and Policies within the City's Comprehensive Plan contain provisions for the granting of MUSA only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Failure to comply with all goals and policies shall result in the denial of the request. The attached draft resolution contains draft findings relative to these provisions. 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. GOAL #2: G:\CC\CmpPlnRezPavek04052005.doc 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. Policies: a. New areas will be added to MUSA only when that designation 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. 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. 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. e. The City will find that new MUSA areas 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. CRITERIA FOR GRANTING ZONING REQUESTS: The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Council'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. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Sewered development has proceeded in the area of the subject properties, which is a significant change from the previous rural residential development pattern. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 Zoning of the subject property to Urban Residential (R-1B) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 6217 extending MUSA to the subject property, and Ordinance No. 729 approving rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (R-IB). G:\CC\CmpPlnRezPavek04052005.doc 3 2. Direct staffto prepare a resolution(s) of denial for the subject requests for adoption by the Council on April 19, 2005 3. Continue for matter to April 19, 2005 for additional information from the applicant or staff. 4. Provide the applicant with direction regarding the Council's preferred alternative for future traffic safety improvements in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's request at its February 3,2005 meeting, voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of 1) the extension of MUSA, and 2) rezoning ofthe subject property from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (R- IB). ACTION(S) REQUESTED: Council is asked to take the following actions; 1. Offer and approve Resolution No. 6217, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO EXTEND MUSA TO PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 18 AND NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 16. 2. Offer and approve Ordinance No. 729, an ordinance of the City of Shako pee rezoning the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (R- IB). 3. Offer and approve a motion providing direction to the applicant regarding whether the Council supports a) realignment of County Road 16 to Preserve Trail, with eventual signalization at that intersection, or b) eventual limitation of access at Preserve Trail and both legs of County Road 16 to % or right-inlright-out access, without signalization at Preserve Trail. G:\CC\CmpPlnRezPavek04052005.doc 4 RESOLUTION NO. 6217 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO EXTEND MUSA TO PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 18 AND NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 16 WHEREAS, Pavek Family Investments, applicant; and Dean and Christina Berg; Henry and Chris Blaskowski; Larry and Ann Kraayenbrink, property owners, have requested an amendment ofthe Comprehensive Plan to extend MUSA to the property as described below; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as found on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 3, 2005, 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 AprilS, 2005; 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 No.1: Because public sanitary sewer and water service are reasonably available to this property, development of the property will not have an adverse impact on the City's fiscal soundness. Finding No.2: Development ofthis property is consistent with community-wide goals for the development of residential uses in this part of the City. Finding No. :. This property is currently within the City limits, and therefore is not a request for annexation. Finding No.4: Extending MUSA to this property is timed to enhance the City's ability to plan for, develop, and/or acquire new utilities and public facilities. However, as the applicant develops this plat, particular attention should be paid to the effect of future, possible roadway safety improvements in the area of County Road 18. Finding No.5: Extending MUSA to this property is timed to coincide with the availability of utilities and . community facilities. G:\CC\CmpPlnRezPavek04052005.doc 5 Finding No.6: The City Council has determined that in extending MUSA to this property, it will be suitable for development within the timeframe being considered. Finding No.7: Granting MUSA to this property 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 to extend MUSA to the property described above is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2005. Mayor of the City of Shako pee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk G:\CC\CmpPlnRezPavek04052005.doc 6 ORDINANCKNO. 729, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEe. 11.03 BY REZONING LAND LOCATED NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 16 AND WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 18 FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-IB) ZONE WHEREAS, Pavek Family Investments, applicant; and Dean and Christina Berg; Henry and Chris Blaskowski; Larry and Ann Kraayenbrink, property owners, have requested an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to extend MUSA to the property as described below; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as found on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 3,2005, 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 AprilS, 2005. 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 No.1: The original Zoning Ordinance is not in error. Finding No.2: Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. Finding No.3: Sewered development has proceeded in the area of the subject properties, which is.a significant change from the previous rural residential development pattern. Finding No.4: Zoning of the subject property to Urban Residential (R-IB) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. G:\CC\CmpPlnRezPavek04052005.doc 7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2005. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2005. G:\CC\CmpPlnRezPavek04052005.doc 8 Legal: ~hat part of the east one-half of the Southwest Quarter of Seotion 13, ~ownahLp 115, Range 22, Soott County, Minnesota lying north and east of the fOllowing described linea commenoing at the interseotion of the east line of said east one-half of the Southwest Quarter and the oenter line of County Road No. 16; said point being 1486.36 feet south of the northeast corner thereof, thence north along said east line a distance of 427.49 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described, thence west at right angles to said east line a distance of 615~9a feet more or less to its intersection with the east line of the plat of ZOSCHKE'S ADDITION '1'0 SHAXOPEE, Soott County, Minnesota; thence north along said east line of said ZOSCHKE'S ADDITION '1'0 SBAKOPEE to the ,north line of said east one-half of the Southwest Quarter and there terminating. AND ~hat:"part of the east one-half the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Soott County, Minnesota, described as followSI Commencing at ths intersaction of the east line of said east one-half of the Southwest Quarter and the center line of County Road No. 16; said point being 1486.36 feet south of the northeast corner thereof, thence north along said east line.& distance of 427.49 feet to the aotual point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence west at right angles to said east line a distance of 300 feet, thence south 82.49 feet; thence east 300 feet; thence north to the point of beginning. AND A tract of land in the east one-half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, desoribed as followsr Beginning at the intersection of the east line of said east 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 with the center line of Co. Rd. No. 16 said point 1466.36 ft. south of the northeast corner thereof; thence north along said east line a distance of 345.0 feet; thenoe west at right angles a distance of 300.00 ft.; thence south and parallel to said east line a distance of 364.44 feet to the center 11ne of said Co. Rd. No. 16; thence easterly along said center line a distance of 302.58 feet more or less to the point of beginning. AND The East 300.00 feet of the West 600.00 feet of the South 904.00 feet ofthe North 1049.00 feet <as measured at right angles) ofthe Southeast Quarter of SectIon 13, Township 115, Range 22, Scott Counfy, Minnesota AND The West 300.00 feat, EXCEPTING the North 145.00 feetthereof <as measured atrlght angles) of that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 115, Range 22, lying Northerly ofthe center line of County Road No. 16. Scott County, Minnesota . ' . e:XH I E> IT A f:lf.1. ND. ":2.1;' I ,; rsJou SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ,600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST 'JORDAN, MN 55352- 9339 (952) 496-8346 . Fax: (952) 496-8365 'www.co.scott.mn.us lEZlIE A. VERMILLION If'l..lBlIC WORKS DIRECTOR March 31,2005 Michael Leek City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 HE: MUSA Extension and Rezoning- College City Homes CSAH 16 west of CSAH 18 Dear Michael: As you are aware, the proposed development for College City Homes raised concerns over the long term intersection operation and safety of CSAH 16 and CSAH 18. The County therefore retained a consultant (CH2MHill) to evaluate safety issues that will arise along CSAH 18 if developments such as this continue in the area, and as traffic volumes continue to grow in general. Attached you will find a copy of a technical memorandum. prepared by CH2MHill which outlines the safety concerns of the intersections ofCSAH 16 and CSAH 18. In summary, there are two potential mitigation strategies that are suggested: 1. If the City chooses to allow development of this property without consideration for realigning CSAH 16, the plan for dealing with safety issues as they arise would be conversion ofCSAH 18's intersections with CSAH 16 and Preserve Trail to a % design. 2. If the City chooses to consider a realignment of CSAH 16 to Preserve Trail where approach grades on CSAH 18 are more reasonable, a signal system would be considered in the future to deal with operational and safety issues as they arise. The existing intersection would be considered for a conversion to right-in/right-out. This choice would result in the need for further study on the alignment, environmental and land use impacts, and feasibility of such a connection. Please keep in mind that each option has both positive and negative aspects to the long term transportation system in the area, but both provide a plan for dealing with future safety issues on CSAH 18 through the bluff area. The County is agreeable to either of these options. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Craig Jenson Transportation Planner TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL Scott County CSAH 18/ CSAH 16 Intersection Study DATE: March 31, 2005 Problem Statement CSAH 16/18 intersection is a full access T-intersection with a Thru/STOP control. At the intersection CSAH 18 has a steep 6% grade. Potential development near the intersection has prompted the need to determine if realigning CSAH 16 north of its present location to create a four-leg intersection with Preserve Trail is the most favorable alternative based on: . future roadway system needs . safety considerations In addition to creating a four-leg intersection other alternatives would include modifying the access to a % design or right~in/ out to lower the crash rate and improve safety of the intersection. Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes TABLE 1 2004 ADT Existing TraffIc Volumes Preserve Trail 2,000 vehicles. CSAH 16 (West) 2,600 vehicles CSAH 18 (N. of CSAH 16 16,500 vehicles CSAH 18 (S. of CSAH 16) 14,700 vehicles CSAH 16 (East) 6,800 vehicles ,. Estimated based on peak hour count information FIGURE 2 Operations Intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) A during both the AM and PM peak hours. Safety The crash statistics (using 2000-2004 crash records) at the intersections are: CSAH 18 and Preserve Trail 1.4 crashes per year Crash Rate = 0.3 CSAH 16 /CSAH 18 (North Jet) 1.5 crashes per year Crash Rate = 0.3 All crashes at CSAH 18 ami Preserve Trail were vehicles turning left from westbound Preserve Trail to southbound CSAH 18 being hit by northbound traffic. 3/31/2005 I CH2MHILL TABLE 2 Expected Crash Rates I Expected State Crash Rate1 T-intersection (Thru-STOP) 0.21 . T -Intersection (Signalized) 0.55 % Intersection (Thru-STOP) 0.202 Right-in/Right-out (Thru-5TOP) 0.102 Full Intersection (Thru-STOP) 0.23 Full Intersection (Signalized) 0.82 Source: 1. Minnesota Crash Records Database (Suburban), 2000-2002 2. Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook, 1999 Source Data (Note: Estimated based on limited sample of MnDOT data) future Conditions : TABLE 3 Forecasted 2025 ADT I Forecasted Traffic Volumes (CSAH 21 EIS Traffic Study) : CSAH 16 (West) 9,000 - 13,000 vehicles I CSAH 18 (N. of CSAH 16) 24,0000 - 32,000 vehicles CSAH 16/18 Intersection Study 35,000 . 30,000 2025 (CSAH 21 EIS No-Build Alt) _ 25,000 ~ . 2025 (CSAH 21 (J EIS Build Alt) u:: 20,000 I~ Ii) . .. ~ 15000 0- ' EXisting 2004 If No Volume 0i"4: ::ED Volumes ReducUon Used w ~ 10,000 If 30% Volume w ReducUon UlI8d ~ 5,000 Warrant Not Met** 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Minor Street APPROACH VOLUME NOTE: A major street ADT and minor street approach volume falling outside of the indicated regions indicates hourly approach volumes will be needed to draw any conclusions whether the signal is or is not warranted under Warrant 1. . A major street ADT and minor street approach volume falling in this range, will likely warrant a traffic signal under Warrant 1A (95% confidence leveQ. .. A mlljor street ADT and minor street approach volume falling In this range, will not warrant a traffic signal under Warrant 1A (95% confidence leveQ. SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Warrant 1A. Minimum Vehicular Volume CH2MHILL Research findings Bled of Grades: . NIntersections should be I;:arefully located to avoid steep profile grades and to ensure adequate approach sight distance." Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets/ Fourth Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Page 392, Intersection Design - Rural) . "The intersection and approach where vehicles are stored while waiting to enter the intersection should be designed with a relatively flat grade; the maximum grade on the approach leg should not exceed 5 percent where practical. Where ice and snow may create poor driving conditions, the desirable grade on the approach leg should be 0.5 percent with no more than 2 percent wherever practical." Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets/ Fourth Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Page 404, Intersection Design - Urban) . /J\1though the relationship between vertical alignment and crash frequency is not as strong as horizontal alignment, grades different from zero have been shown to increase crash frequencies." Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis, Center for Transportation Research and Education, October 2004. . "Grades different from zero appear to increase crash counts . . . " Crash Models for Rural Intersections: Four-Lane by Two-Lane Stop-Controlled and Two-Lane by Two-Lane Signalized, FHW A-RD-99-128. Bleds of Number of Approach Legs: . Intersections with three approach legs have lower crash rates and better levels of traffic operations than similar intersections with four approach legs (due to fewer confliets, fewer turning maneuvers and simpler signal phasing) - for both Thru/STOP and signal control. . The most hazardous movements at full access, four leg intersections are the minor street crossing and minor street left turn onto the major street - this is the reason behind crash rates being lower at T, % and Right In/Out intersections. Corridor Planning Consideraffons: . Intersection spacing suggests that the next signalized intersection along CSAH 18 would be Preserve Trail, however it appears unlikely that this intersection would meet a signal warrant at any time in the near future. . The CSAH 16 intersections are poor candidates for signalization due to the steep grades on the approaches. . Crash concerns are developing at the Preserve Trail and CSAH 16 intersection and the typical mitigation would be installing traffic signals. However, Preserve Trail is unlikely to meet a warrant and the CSAH 16 intersections have geometric (grades) constraints. Mitigation Alternatives Two potential mitigation strategies are available to address concerns about safety (specifically angle crashes caused by left turns onto CSAH 18), including: (1) Modifying each intersection along CSAH 18 (preserve Trail, N Jet CSAH 16 and S Jet CSAH 16) to a % access design (2) Realigning the west leg of CSAH 16 to the. Preserve Trail intersection, installing a traffic signal (based on the system warrant if diverted volumes are not high enough) at the new 4- leg intersection and then modifying the Old CSAH 16 N Jet intersection to Right In/ Out and the CSAH 16 S Jet to a % access design. 3/31/2005 3 ounty wy 0 Minnesota River Cretex Ave iij J::: <5 "- :18 - - -- ------ .....'"'-- ..... \ ,- \ / \ cr~\!l.gs.l'\':.1I:;; -- I \. - - - I~ I :::T r= I -l liil I - I I ~ I CSAH 16 N I I I Intersection I I I I I I I I I I !l2 I ..: I I 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Figure 1 Study Area en N g ". <0 A (f> -0 ::>. :> to <Jl r- III I I I ~ , , , creeK BNd , E.ag\e , M guire Cir ~ :;: c ::r ;r ;;; III :> :J ::r ::r III '" ~ ~ <;? i;il Alternative 1 Alternative Reafign CSAH 16 to Preserve Trail with Traffic Signal 3/4 Access at all three T':'intersections Right InfOut Intersection at the N Jct CSAH 16 intersection 3/4 Intersection at the S Jct CSAH 16 intersection , I I I I 1:1 I I Legend I I J I ~ I I Four-Legged Signalized Intersection I I I I 'it Thru-STOP 3/4 Access T-Intersection co I I ..- .. :I: I I cJj I I ..... --------- 0 I I ~ I I Right-in/Right-out Intersection I fi1i I I I I I I I I I I Figure 2 3/4 Access Example CH 16/18 Alternatives 4bB CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-017 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request to 1) Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Reguide Property from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential; 2) Extend MUSA, and 3) Rezone Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone MEETING DATE: February 3, 2005 REVIEW PERIOD: December 20,2004 - April 19, 2005 Site Information: Applicant: Pavek Family Investments Corporation (Pavek) Property Owner: Dean and Christina Berg; Henry and Chris Blaskowski; Larry and Arm Kraayenbrink Location: Southwest ofCSAH 18; north ofCSAH 16 Adjacent Zoning: North: Planned Residential District (PRD); Rural Residential (RR) Zone South: Rural Residential (RR) Zone . East: Rural Residential (RR) Zone West: Rural Residential (RR) Zone Acreage: 34.7 acres MUSA: The applicant is requesting extension of the MUSA boundary to include the subject property. The properties are within the Phase I MUSA area approved by the Council with the Comprehensive Plan Update INTRODUCTION: Pavek has made application to re-guide property from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential, and to extend Metrop9lit~ Urban Service Area (MUSA) to that same portion "..,' ...... ......, G:\BOAA-PC\2005\02-03\CmpPInRezPavek.doc 1 of property, and to rezone from the property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. Please refer to Sections 11.24 and 11.28 of the City Code for the regulations of the RR and R-IB zones. DISCUSSION: 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 with a city's comprehensive plan. The adopted Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Rural Residential development. The draft Comprehensive Plan that has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review, but not formally adopted, guides the property for single-family residential development. At its January 25,2005 workshop, Council expressed an interest in quality development continuing to occur in this eastern portion of the City. There are a couple of issues that will need to be addressed with the prospective plat of these properties. First, is how sanitary sewer and water will be extended to the property, since there are significant wetlands on the site. Second, relates to an interest that Scott County staff has informally expressed in exploring whether CR 16 could be realigned to go through the property, and connect to Preserve Trailto the northeast. City staff s initial reaction is that, while it is an appropriate time to raise the question, bisecting a single-family area with are-aligned CR 16 may not be desirable. The City Council has initiated a strategic planning effort. Discussions have been held indicating that it may be preferable to consider action to amend the Comprehensive Plan once the strategic planning effort is well underway. With respect to applications like this, it is somewhat difficult for staff to formulate specific recommendations on such requests absent further direction relating to the City's stated goals and conclusion of the strategic planning effort. Commelzts: Comments regarding this application have been received from the following; City Clerk: The City Clerk has recommended approval "if: complies with approved compo Plan and MUSA is identified for expansion to this area now." The request is not consistent with the G:\BOAA-PC\2005\02-03\CmpPlnRezPavek.doc 2 1999 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update, and the subject properties are within the Phase I MUSA areas. Shako pee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC): SPUC has recommended approval subject to the comments attached to this report. The applicants should contact SPUC regarding any questions they may have about the comments. Others: Staff did talk with a resident whose property is adjacent to the subject site. This person had some concerns, but seemed relieved that a single-family rather than townhouse project would be proposed. Staffreferred this person to the applicant for additional details of their plans FINDINGS: The Zoning Ordinance does not specify criteria for granting a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment, though reasonable criteria would be Criteria #1 -3 for Zoning Ordinance amendments. Staffhas provided Criteria #1 - 3, as well as draft fmdings for the Commission's review and discussion. Criteria #1: That the original Comprehensive Plan is in error; Finding #1: The original Comprehensive Plan 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. Criteria #3: That significant changes in Citywide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred. Finding #3: Significant changes have occurred in neighborhood development patterns. Specifically, since adoption of the 2000 Comprehensive/Land Use Plan, development has proceeded in the vicinity of the subject property. SPUC infrastructure (i.e. water lines and storage facilities) has been extended to serve this area of the City. 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. G:\BOAA-PC\2005\02-03\CmpPlnRezPavek.doc 3 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. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Zoning of the subject property to Urban Residential (R-1B) is not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, but will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update if adopted by the Metropolitan Council. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 Zoning of the subject property to Urban Residential (R-1B) is not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, but will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update if adopted by the Metropolitan Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to extend MUSA to the subj ect property, to re-guide to single-family residential from rural residential, and to rezone the same property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to extend MUSA to the balance ofthe subject property, to re-guide to single-family residential from rural residential, and to rezone the same property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R- IB) Zone. 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff. 4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional jnfonnation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is not making a specific recommendation for the following reasons; . The current, adopted Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for "rural residential" use; . The Comprehensive Plan Update land use plan guides the subject property for single-family use and Phase I MUSA. The Update has been adopted by the City Council, but has not been approved by the Metropolitan Council; . While City Council has recently expressed an interest in development taking place in this area ofthe City, it does not appear that the property can be served by sanitary sewer from the east and north. G:\BOAA-PC\2005\02-03\CmpPlnRezPavek.doc 4 ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion to make a recommendation to the City Council consistent with the Planning Commission's wishes. d~~ · . ~~ ~/~~.-L R. Michael Leek Community Development Director G:\BOAA-PC\2005\02-03\CmpPlnRezPavek.doc 5 Shakopee - Location Maps Page 1 of 1 RIB A.G AG ~ .. _ Subject Property SHAKOPEE .......... Shakopee Boundary COMMUNITYl'IUD2SINCE 1B51 S c:J Zoning Boundary c=J parcel BOUndary MUSA Expansion and Rezoning Rural Residential (RR) to Urban, Residential (RiB) httn '//0-1" 1 00-1". nrp."/shakonee/l ocationman/mao .aso ?title=MUSA + Exoansion+and+ Rezoni... 12/28/2004 .--2005 15:46 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES 9524457767 P.03 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES MEMORANDUM TO: Shakopee Community Development Department .- ...... FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering Director SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD COMMENTS for: MUSA Expansion and Rezoning Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (R1B) CASE NO: 05017 DATE: 1/5/05 COMMENTS: Municipal water service is available subject to our standard tenus and conditions. These include, but are not limited to: installing a lateral water main distribution system in accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspections costs, paying the Trunk Water Charge, and paying the Water Connection Charge. . . Underground electric service is ava11able subject to our standard (exms and conditions. These include, but are not limited to: entering into an Underground Distribution Agreement, granting any necessary easements, and paying the associated fees. Street Lighting installation is available subject to our standard tenus 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: These parcels and the property adjoining to the west must develop an acceptable watermain distribution system that includes "looped" watermains, i.e. connection to the existing municipal watermain distribution system at two (2) separate points. Since access is likely to be limited from the county roads, watermains will have to be installed along side yard property lines.