The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14.B. Comp Plan Amendment to Reguide Property, Extend MUSA, and Rezone Property-Res. No. 6179 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1'1. (b. Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-003 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner IT SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential, Extend MUSA, and Rezone Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone MEETING DATE: March 1,2005 REVIEW PERIOD: November 24, 2004 - March 24, 2005 INTRODUCTION RADS Land Company has made application to re-guide property from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential, and to extend Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to the same property. Additionally, they have requested that the property be rezoned from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone. The property is approximately 40 acres in size and is located east of County Road 83 and north of Valley View Road extended. (please see Exhibit A). The entire property is currently guided for Rural Residential development in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The draft Comprehensive Plan update identifies this property for single family residential development. The draft Comprehensive Plan update has been approved by the City Council but has not yet received approval from the Metropolitan Council. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Resolution No. 6179, a resolution denying the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide the site from rural residential to medium density residential, and to rezone the site from Agricultural Preservation (AG) zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) zone. 2. Approve the request to extend MUSA to the subject property and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. 3. Approve the request to reguide the property from rural residential to medium density residential and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. 4. Approve the request to rezone the property to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone and direct staffto prepare the appropriate ordinance. 5. Table the matter and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its January 6, 2005 meeting. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the extension of MUS A to the site, to reguide the property . from rural residential to medium -density residential, and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 6179, a resolution denying the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to reguide the property from rural residential to medium density residential, and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Medium Density Residential (R2). and move its adoption. ~dj~~ t1~~ Julie' lima Planner IT g:\cc\2005\03-0 1 \cmpplnrezrads05003 .doc RESOLUTION NO. 6179 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REGUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM RURAL RESIDNETIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO EXTEND MUSA TO THE PROPERTY AND A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (AG) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R2) WHEREAS, RADS Land Company, applicant, and property owner, has requested the guiding of property for medium density residential development and an extension of the MUSA boundary to the property, and the rezoning of property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Medium Density Residential (R2); and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter Section 16, 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 January 6,2005, 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 March 1,2005; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shako pee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above-named requests: Finding No.1: The Comprehensive Plan is not in error. Finding No.2: Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. Finding No. 3: Significant changes in neighborhood development patterns have not occurred. Development has proceeded in the vicinity of the subject property in a manner consistent with the adopted Comprehensive/ Land Use Plan. 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: Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have not occurred that would be compatible with zoning this property to Medium Density Residential (R2). Finding No.4: Zoning of the subject property to Medium Density Residential (R2) is not consistent with the adopted or draft Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the requests to amend the Comprehensive Plan by re- guiding the subject property for single family residential development and to extend MUSA to the property, and to rezone the property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Medium Density Residential (R2) is hereby denied. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2005. Mayor ofthe City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ~7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-003 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Reguide Property from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential, Extend MUS A, and Rezone Property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone MEETING DATE: January 6,2005 REVIEW PERIOD: November 24, 2004 - March 24, 2005 Site Information Applicant: RADS Land Company Property Owner: RADS Land Company Location: East of CSAH 83 and North of V alley View Road extended Adjacent Zoning: North: SMSC Property South: SMSC Property East: SMSC Property West: Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone Acreage: 38.25 Acres MUSA: The properly is NOT within the MUSA boundary. INTRODUCTION RADS Land Company has made application to re-guide property from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential, and to extend Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to that same property. Additionally, they have requested that the property be rezoned from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone. Please refer to Sections 11.22 and 11.32 ofthe City Code for the regulations ofthe AG and R2 zones. The property is located east ofCSAH 83 and north of Valley View Road extended. The property is surrounded on 3 sigel) by property owned by the Shakopee Mdewankanton Sioux Community (SMSC). The remaining property line is bounded by CSAH 83. The property is 38.25 acres in size. Comments on the applications have been received from Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC), Time Warner Cable, and the Fire Inspector. Their comments are as follows: . SPUC commented that it will require the extension ofwatermains form the west and north to serve this parcel; . Time Warner commented that any adjustment or relocation of existing facilities will be subject to reimbursement to Time Warner and is subject to scheduling of work requested; and . The Fire Inspector provided comments attached as Exhibit B. These comments address, among other issues, the State Fire Code requirements for fire access based on the number of units within a project. The applicant has not yet provided information regarding the number of units proposed. The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development ofthe 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. The applicant is requesting that this property be guided instead for medium density residential development in order to allow the construction of a townhome community. In April 2004, the City Council adopted as its No.1 goal to "manage the City's growth". The primary action step toward meeting this goal was to "identify and implement additional mechanisms to limit and constrain development so that long range planning can take place." 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. Sanitary sewer service to the subject site would have to be accomplished through the extension of a trunk gravity line along CSAH 83 or construction of a temporary lift station. The extension of the trunk line would provide capacity to serve the subject site, the majority of the proposed Park Meadows East plat on the west side ofCSAH 83, and properties south of Valley View Road upon development. It is the City's policy to fully fund the construction oftrunk sanitary sewer extensions. The SMSC has title to the property on the east side of CSAH 83 between Church Addition and the subject site. The SMSC and the County have reached an agreement to dedicate additional right-of-way along this corridor however the dedication has not yet occurred due to the need for Congressional action regarding the SMSC property. Because no design work has been done for this project, it is unclear if the agreed upon dedication will be sufficient for the placement of utilities. Additional right-of-way and/or easements may be necessary to construct a trunk sanitary sewer line along the east side of CSAH 83. 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. I 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. 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. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Zoning of the subject property to Medium Density Residential (R2) is not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, but would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the requested revision is adopted by the City Council and Metropolitan Council. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 Zoning of the subject property to Medium Density Residential (R2) is not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, but would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the requested revision is adopted by the City Council and Metropolitan Council. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to medium density residential, and to rezone the same property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone. 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to extend MUSA to the balance of the subj ect property, to re-guide to single-family residential that portion now guided rural residential, and to rezone the same property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) 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 information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the current, adopted Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for "rural residential" use; because the draft Comprehensive Plan land use plan guides the property for a different land use designation than the one requested and is not yet adopted; at this time staffis not making a specific recommendation of approval of the request to extend MUSA to the subject property, to re-guide to medium density residential, and to rezone the same property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone. ACTION REQUESTED Offer and approve a motion to make a recommendation to the City Council consistent with the Planning Commission's wishes. g:\boaa-pc\2005\O 1-06\cmpplnrezaccnotermann.doc Shakopee - Location Maps Page 1 of 1 eKN/Slr A -.-J AG ~, AG c:::J C AG RIB RR [ AG RRp . . . . . .. . .. ... .., .. L ~ .' _. Subject Property . .. ... Shal<opee Boundary SHAKOPEE 'tY COMMUN~pmDsS~E~~ S CJ Zoning Boundary D Parcel Boundary Rezoning Argicultural (AG) to Medium Density Residential (R2), Comprehensive Plan Amendment and MUSA Extension httn'l/ 17i s.l o2:is.org/ shakopee/locationmap/map .asp ?title= Rezoning+ Argicultural +%28A G... 11/23/2004 ~YltIB/r 13 City of Shakopee - Fire Prevention Bureau Staff Review Project Manager: Julie Klima From: Tom Pitschneider Date: 11/24/2004 Request: Rezoning from Ag to Medium Density Residential, MUSA extension and Comp Plan amendment Comments and Conditions 1. Street names shall be approved by the City of Shakopee Planning Department. 2. Public and private streets and private driveways less than 32 feet in width per City of Shakopee design standards shall be posted for no parking on 1-side. 3. Public and private streets and private driveways less than 28 feet in width per City of Shakopee design standards shall be posted for no parking on 2 sides. 4. Temporary street signs shall be installed and maintained by the developer until such time that permanent street signs are installed. Disposal of temporary street signs shall be the responsibility of the developer. -.....,.....-.. .._._._.._.._...._...-..~_.._. .____._..._._..__._..__._.___....__H_.._._. " _. 5. Property address series signs shall be posted at driveway and/or access road entrances. (ie: 1542 -1665 or 1492 -1544 even) 6. Emergency vehicle apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with the MN State Fire Code. Access roads shall be provided during construction. a. Emergency vehicle apparatus access roads shall be provided as required by MN State Fire Code Appendix D. i. SECTION 0106 - MULTIPLE.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 0106.1 Projects having more than 100 dwelling units. Multiple-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having up to 200 dwelling units may have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings. including nonresidential occupancies, are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 of the International Fire Code. 0106.2 Projects having more than 200 dwelling units. Multiple-family rel1i(.1enti::j1 projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped with "\ an approved automatic sprinkler system. -'-'C-'" , ii. SECTION 0107 - ONE- OR TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS 0107.1 One- or two-family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3. Exceptions: 1. Where there are 30 or fewer dwelling units on a single public or private access way and all dwelling units are protected by approved residential sprinkler systems, access from two directions shall not be required. 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the code official. 7. Location of fire hydrants shall 'comply with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission requirements. I I I