The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14.F. Comp Plan Amendment to Reguide Property, Extend MUSA, and Rezone Property-Res. No. 6176-Ord. No. 723 I tf, F, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-007 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: February 1,.2005 REVIEW PERIOD: November 24, 2004 - March 24, 2005 INTRODUCTION Associated Capital Corporation has made application to re-guide property from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential, and to extend Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to a portion of that same property. Additionally, they have requested that the property be rezoned from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. DISCUSSION This item was tabled by the Council on January 18, 2005 until after the goal-setting workshop scheduled for January 25,2005. At that meeting, councilmembers discussed directing development to occur where the City and or the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has already made infrastructure investments that can and should be maximized. The subject property would utilize the SPUC booster station for water to be constructed in the plat of Valley Creek Crossing across CR 78, and help to offset those costs. The property is located south of County Road 78 and west of County Road 17 and is 80 acres in size. (Please see Exhibit A). The entire property is currently guided for Rural Residential development in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the 25 acres located in the northeastern portion of the site are already within the MUSA boundary (please reference exhibits provided in the memo to the Planning COmhlission). The applicant is asking that the entire site be reguided and rezoned from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (R-IB) and that MUSA be extended to the remaining 55 acres. The City Council has. approved a draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan update. The update proposes the use ofthe subject property as single family residential. The Metropolitan Council has not yet approved the Land Use Plan update. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Ordinance No. 723, an ordinance approving the request to rezone the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. 2. Approve Resolution No. 6176, a resolution approving the request to extend MUSA to the balance of the subject property and to re-guide the entire site from rural residential to single family residential. 3. Deny the request to extend MUSA to the balance ofthe subject property. 4. Deny the request to reguide the property from rural residential to single-family residential. 5. Deny the request to rezone the property to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone from Rural Residential (RR) Zone. 6. 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 approve the extension of MUS A to the remainder ofthe site and to reguide the entire property from rural residential to single family residential and rezone the entire property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-1B). ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Ordinance No. 723, an ordinance approving the request to rezone the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone and to approve Resolution No. 6176, a resolution approving the request to extend MUSA to the balance of the subject property and to re-guide the entire site from rural residential to single family residential, and move its adoption. g:\cc\2005\02-0 1 \cmpplmezacc05007 .doc RESOLUTION NO. 6176 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REGUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM RURAL RESIDNETIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO EXTEND MUSA TO THE BALANCE OF PROPERTY WHEREAS, Associated Capital Corp., applicant, and Associated Capital Corp; Bert Notermann, and Charles Huss, property owners, have requested the guiding of property for single family residential development and an extension oftheMUSA boundary to the balance of the property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota AND the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, 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 January 18, 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 request: 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 occurred. Specifically, since adoption of the 2000 Comprehensive/ Land Use Plan, single family residential development has proceeded in the vicinity of and adjacent to the subject property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by re- guiding the subject property for single family residential development and to extend MUSA to the balance of the property is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2005. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: , Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 723, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEe. 11.03 BY REZONING LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 78 AND WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 17 FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-1B) ZONE WHEREAS, Associated Capital Corp., applicant, and Associated Capital Corp., Bert Notermann, and Charles Huss, property owners, have requested the rezoning of property from Rural Residential (RR) Zone to Urban Residential (R-lB) Zone; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota AND the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, 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 January 18,2005; 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: 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: Zoning of the subject property to Urban Residential (R-lB) is not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, but will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update if adopted by the Metropolitan Council. Finding No.4: Zoning ofthe subject property to Urban Residential (R-lB) is not consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, but will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Update if adopted by the Metropolitan Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the request to rezone the property from Rural Residential (RR) to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone is hereby approved. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shako pee, 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. $9 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 05-007 ^ '~~:"~~ ." Sltm&pee PlanniIigCb:nunission .. . 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: January 6,2005 REVIEW PERIOD: November 24, 2004 - March 24, 2005 Site Information Applicant: Associated Capital Corp. Property Owner: Associated Capital Corp.; Bert Notermann, Charles Huss Location: South of CSAH 78 and West of CSAH 17 Adjacent Zoning: North: Rural Residential (RR)/Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone South: Rural Residential (RR) Zone East: Rural Residential (RR) Zone West: Rural Residential (RR) Zone Acreage: 80 Acres MUSA: Approximately 25 acres ofthe site in within the MUSA boundary, the applicant is requesting to include the remaining 55 acres within the MUSA boundary. INTRODUCTION Associated Capital Corporation has made application to re-guide property from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential, and to extend Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUS A) to that same portion of property. Additionally, they have requested that the property be rezoned from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R- IB) Zone. Please refer to Sections 11.22 and 11.28 of the City Code for the regulations ofthe AG and R-IB zones. The property is located south of County Road 78 and west of CSAH 17 (Exhibit A). The property is 80 acres in size. The northeast portion of the property is currently within the MUSA boundary (please see Exhibit B). The applicant is request that the remainder ofthe property also be included within the MUSA boundary. "~""",jA~~~:~ The- City's"e-omprehensive 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. 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. Comments on the applications have been received from Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) and Time Warner Cable. SPUC's comments are attached for the Commission's review. SPUC has commented that the development of property south of County Road 78 is desirable to justify the investment it is making in the booster station to be constructed within the Valley Creek Crossing development on the north side of County Road 78. Time Warner Cable has commented that cable exists in the County Road easement. Time Warner should be contacted directly for further information. Extension of MUS A to this property would bring municipal water and sewer services closer to existing rural residential developments. Developments in this vicinity, such as Beckrich Park Estates and Stonebrooke have expressed a desire to be allowed to hook up to MUSA. City staff has proposed to the Metropolitan Council an approach for dealing with the City's MUSA allocation by acres and the provision of services to existing rural residential developments. However, the Met Council has not provided direct feedback on that proposal. Staff is working with the Met Council to set up a meeting to discuss this and other issues. 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 findings for the Commission'sreview and discussioii: . 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. The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below withproposed 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 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 ofthe request to extend MUSA to the balance of the subject property, to re-guide to single-family residential from rural. residential, and to rezone the same property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial ofthe request to extend MUSA to the balance of the subject property, to re-guide to single-family residential from rural residential, and to rezone the same property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) '.'-":-~oneitcr11rban.Residentia1:"~lB)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 is not yet adopted; at this time staff is not making a specific recommendation of approval 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 Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R-IB) Zone. ACTION REQUESTED Offer and approve a motion to make a recommendation to the City Council consistent with the Planning Commission's wishes. ~aLLi rJ./~ Jul' Klima . PIa er II g: \boaa-pc\2005\O 1-06\cmpplnrezaccnotermann,doc Shakopee - Location Maps Page 1 ot 1 ~XH-IBlr A AG RR ~ :N ~ subject Property W.E SHAKOPEE I. .... ... Shal<opee Boundary Cc.:>MMUNCl'YPRlOESINCl! 1851 S c=J zoning Boundary o Parcel Boundary Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning from Agricultural (AG) to Urban Residential (R1B) http://gis.logis.org/shakopee/locationmap/map .asp ?title=Comprehensive+ Plan+Amendme... 11/29/2004 Shakopee - Location Maps J;\lHIBrr 8 Page 1 of 1 o PII .....' I<,}l <f? 0 . 0 € )01<, 0 Ie" 0 0 I . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. -'] .. .. B rnm \, ~' .. .. ~~ [;;RR AG ~~ ~. / \, . / Title: t....................~.........w.......N" ....1 Search by PID: r..... ...1 ~~f~'!ii~~,5!![f - l J Subject Property Boundary arm Parcels Currently In MUSA FZZlI Parcels Proposed for MUSA http://gis.logis.org/shakopee/locati onmap/ default.asp?action=zoomin&x=3 26&y=25 8 12/29/2004 ...04 10:45 SH8KOPEE PUBLIC UIlLlI1t::.~ ;J..Ji:::.'-t...,oJ I I U I I .Wl'..... , I ,.'':1 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES &XfI I '8rr ~ MEMORANJ)UM TO: Shakopee Community Development Department - .....- ,;.r:,',.:> '": FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering Director fi SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD CoMMENTS for: Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning AG to RIB ,. , CASE NO: 05007 DATE: /~Z~'f 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 available subject to our standard terms 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 terms 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 specifLc requirements relating to their project. Note: A portion of the Valley Creek Crossing Addition and the subject parcels are located in the 2nd High Elevation Service District for water service. SPUC's Comp Water Plan identifies the facilities required to serve this area of the city with municipal water service, including a pressure booster station to be located in the Valley Creek Crossing Addition. SPUC and the developer of the Valley Creek Crossing Addition, also applicant here, are in the process of negotiating an agreement on the donation of land and construction of the booster station. Additional . development in the 2nd lIES District, beyond Valley Creek Crossing, is desired to justify the investment in the booster station. It.(F While at City Hall this morning, I received a copy of a message from Councilor Lehman to Mark McNeil asking about " what timeline SPUC is . . . on for this booster station to be built? "Can they wait or are they pressed for this property to come online?" The timeline SPU is on is dependent on the City's desire for the Commission to invest in the infrastructure to serve portions of the water system's 2nd High Elevation Service District (areas above 920 feet msl) . SPU does not need a booster station save for serving lots in the 2nd HES District. So far, the Commission has only authorized the design of the booster station. Construction of the booster station is on hold pending further review by the Commission. It will be approximately one year before the booster station will come on line after the Commission authorizes construction. The cost of the booster station, $789,000, is of a concern if it is going to serve only the 26 lots in the Valley Creek Crossing Addition for the foreseeable future. The booster station is funded from the Commission's Connection Fund (water connection charges are currently $2,300 per equivalent SAC unit). The amount of WCC for the 26 lots in Valley Creek Crossing equals only $59,800. The economics alone do not justify the expenditure at this time. SPU is requesting an affirmative statement that the Council desires for this area of the City to develop now. Also, its been pointed out that granting MUSA to an area if and of itself does not cost the City dollars. Can someone quantify the dollars the City, not the developer, might be expending on infrastructure with development in this area? Any trunk sanitary sewer, trunk storm sewer, regional storm water ponds, collector streets, etc.? Also, I have been told by Mr. Dahlke that 30 of the 80 acres south of CR 78 already has MUSA, but I can find no information to verify that. Can you tell me if that is the case, and if so when MUSA was extended? I have the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan as the first sign of proposed MUSA extension (2000 MUSA designation) to the Marschall farm site (Valley Creek Crossing) , is that correct? Thanks. Joe Adams SPUC