HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07La ((e
N®R, 7
January 29, 2013
Item No.
February 4, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
2010 MUSA COMPEHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Proposed Action
Staff recommends
Comprehensive PI
2010 MUSA Servi(
Adoption of this n
evaluated accord
Overview
In 2010 the City co
MUSA. It was de
single family lots,
development.
ioption of the following motion: Move to approve a resolution to amend the Lakeville
to bring the areas within the 2010 MUSA into the Current MUSA and to adopt the
ability Map and 2010 MUSA Development Policy.
:)n will allow development proposals for properties within the 2010 MUSA to be
to the 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map and 2010 MUSA Development Policy.
pleted a study to determine the supply of residentially zoned land within the current
rmined at that time that due to the surplus of available land, the absorption rate of
nd the state of the economy that the 2010 MUSA would not be opened for
Staff completed an L pdate to the 2010 MUSA study in 2012 and determined the overall acres of available
land and the number lots had not significantly changed. However, further research found that many of
the undeveloped p perties within the Current MUSA require significant extensions of trunk sanitary
sewer or watermair services and potentially sanitary sewer lift stations for those areas to develop;
meanwhile, some p perties in the 2010 MUSA had City services within close proximity. Therefore, it is
reasonable to review the 2010 MUSA based on what areas could be serviced rather than based on the
amount of available land in the Current MUSA. This study produced the 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map
and the 2010 MUSA Development Policy which requires the adoption of a comprehensive plan
amendment to bring all of the area within the 2010 MUSA into the Current MUSA.
The Planning Com fission held a public hearing to consider the proposed 2010 MUSA Comprehensive
Plan Amendment at their January 17, 2013 meeting. There were several questions of clarification and
support for the amendment from the public which were addressed by staff. The Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, serviceability map and
development policy. Planning and Engineering staff also recommend approval.
• How was the 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map created?
• What is the 201Q MUSA Development Policy and how will it be used?
• Staff Analysis of Issues
• Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan
• January 17, 201 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• January 10, 201 Planning Memo, 2010 MUSA Development Policy and 2010 MUSA Serviceability
Map
nen, ANCP, Associate Planner
Financial Impact: $ Non s Budgeted: Y/N Source:
Related Documents (CI , ERP, etc.): 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Notes:
• How was the 20�1 0 MUSA Serviceability Map created?
The attached 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map divides the properties within the 2010 MUSA into three
categories — green, yellow and red indicating the property's proximity to City services according to the
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and the Water Services Master Plan adopted by the City Council in 2008.
Green indicates that both sewer and water are available at the property boundary. Yellow indicates that
both sewer and water are available within '/ mile or less from the property boundary. Red indicates that
sewer and /or water is more than '/ mile from the property boundary. In evaluating the 2010 MUSA,
according to the property's proximity to City services, we can realize areas that are available for
immediate developrr ent with nominal costs associated with connecting to City services. This evaluation
method also provid s a guide for orderly and contiguous development of land. Dividing the properties
within the 2010 MUSA into green, yellow and red serviceability areas provides for an orderly pattern of
development capital zing on existing infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner to avoid premature
investment in additio al utilities and services.
• What is the 20101 MUSA Development Policy?
The 2010 MUSA Se iceability Map with the 2010 MUSA Development Policy provides the City Council,
Planning Commissi n, and staff with a guide in evaluating individual development requests and its
potential impact on ity services, infrastructure and finances. The following criteria will be used when
considering and eval sting individual development proposals for properties within the 2010 MUSA:
1. Are public sanil
downstream faci
2. Will allowing the
development rel
credits, collector
3. Does the devel
connections, coi
municipal needs
4. Is the proposed
Comprehensive
sewer and water utilities in place adjacent to the site and do the existing
have the capacity to serve the site?
arty into the current MUSA unduly burden the City or adjacent properties due to
costs or long term maintenance (i.e. trunk oversizing and /or regional ponding
Nay financing, park development)?
)ment of the property provide for or include a public purpose (i.e. major street
munity park and recreation facilities, regional stormwater drainage basins or other
opment compatible with present land uses and future land uses guided by the
Use Plan within the area?
2
(Reserved for Dakota
Recording Information)
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
BRINGING MUSA EXPANSION AREA A INTO THE CURRENT MUSA
WHEREA S5, the City of Lakeville has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
bring the area wit iin the 2010 MUSA into the Current MUSA and to adopt the 2010 MUSA
Serviceability Mar and the 2010 MUSA Development Policy; and
WHEREA , the property owners within MUSA Expansion Area A were notified of the
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map and the 2010
MUSA Development Policy; and
WHEREA , the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map and
the 2010 MUSA D velopment Policy were reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREA , the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map and
the 2010 MUSA Development Policy does not require approval by the Metropolitan Council;
and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map and
the 2010 MUSA D velopment Policy is acceptable to the City.
NOW, TH> REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lakeville City Council:
1. The Co�prehensive Plan Amendment does not have a substantial impact on or
contain substantial departure from the Metropolitan Systems Plan.
2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2010 MUSA Serviceability Map and the 2010
MUSA Pevelopment Policy are hereby approved.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4 t1i day of February 2013.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
Uld
Matt Little, Mayor
ATTEST:
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
STATE OF M ESOTA )
(
CITY OF LAKE ILLE )
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. is a true and correct copy of the
resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lakeville at a duly
authorized meeting thereof held on the 4 day of February, 2013, as shown by the minutes of
said meeting in m possession.
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
(SEAL)
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
NING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 17, 2013
Chair Lillehei c Iled the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City
Hall. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was given.
Members Present: Chair Brooks Lillehei, Bob Boerschel, Joe Blee, Linda Maguire,
Bart Davis, Ger�y Grenz, Karl Drotning, and ex- officio Shawn Fitzhenry.
Members Abselnt: Paul Reuvers.
Others Presen : Daryl Morey, Planning Director; Zach Johnson, City Engineer; and
Penny Brevig, Flecording Secretary
3. Approval of the Meeting Minutes
The Decemk er 6, 2012 Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved as
presented.
The Decemb�r 6, 2012 Planning Commission work session minutes were approved
as presented
4. Announcements
Mr. Morey tated that the following items were distributed to the Planning
Commission Ot tonight's meeting:
A. Draft mo ion from the January 16, 2013 Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resource Committee meeting regarding the commercial /industrial park
dedication.
Mr. Morey r minded the Planning Commission of the work session immediately
following the egular meeting tonight.
Mr. Morey ongratulated Commissioner Drotning for being chosen the 2012
Business Per on of the Year by the Lakeville Area Chamber of Commerce.
5. City of Lakeville
Chair Lillehei opened the public hearing to consider an amendment to the Staged
MUSA E x pain ion Areas component of the City of Lakeville's Comprehensive Plan
concerning M SA Expansion Area A. The Recording Secretary attested that the
legal notice h d been duly published in accordance with State Statutes and City
Code.
Planning Commssion Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2013 Page 2
Associate Planner Allyn Kuennen presented the planning report. Mr. Kuennen
stated that tall has completed an update to the 2010 MUSA study and determined
the overall cres of available land and the number of lots had not significantly
changed fro the study that was done in 2010. However, further research found
that many of the undeveloped properties within the current MUSA required
significant a tensions of trunk sanitary sewer or watermain services and potentially
sanitary se er lift stations for those areas to develop, while some properties had
City service within close proximity. Therefore, Mr. Kuennen indicated that it would
be reasonable to review the 2010 MUSA based on what areas could be serviced
rather than t ased on the amount of available land in the current MUSA.
He stated th t in evaluating the 2010 MUSA, according to the property's proximity to
City servic s, staff can determine areas that are available for immediate
develop men with nominal costs associated with connecting to City services. He
indicated th t this evaluation method also provides a guide for an orderly pattern of
developmen capitalizing on existing infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner.
Mr. Kuennerli stated that staff is recommending that in addition to the map, the
following for criteria be used when considering and evaluating individual
developmentJ proposals for properties within the 2010 MUSA:
1. Are publi sanitary sewer and water utilities in place adjacent to the site and do
the existi g downstream facilities have the capacity to serve the site?
2. Will allo ing the property into the current MUSA unduly burden the City or
adjacent roperties due to development related costs or long term maintenance
(i.e. trunk oversizing and /or regional ponding credits, collector roadway financing,
park deve opment)?
3. Does the evelopment of the property provide for or include a public purpose (i.e.
major str et connections, community park and recreation facilities, regional
stormwat r drainage basins or other municipal needs)?
4. Is the pro osed development compatible with present land uses and future land
uses guid d by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan within the area?
Mr. Kuennen stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission previously
expressed s pport for the study and the accompanying policy and recommend
approval of th Comprehensive Plan amendment, as presented.
Chair Lillehei Opened the hearing to the public for comment.
Gene Jacobs�n, 8472 195 Street
Mr. Jacobson asked for an explanation of why his one piece of property is split with
one half bein labeled yellow and the other half labeled red on the 2010 MUSA
Serviceability ap. He asked if sanitary sewer is extended to the yellow section of
his property, ten can the red section of his property be developed.
Planning Comn
Rick Murra.
Mr. Murray
Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2013
Page 3
Meridian Land Company, 3500 W. American Boulevard, Bloomington
Map.
his property to be included in the green area on the 2010 MUSA
Mr. Morey suggested to the Planning Commission that instead of considering the
merits of servicing individual properties within MUSA Expansion Area A tonight, they
instead add ess the Comprehensive Plan amendment as a whole and staff will
follow up wit i property owners after the meeting.
Mark Zwebe�, P.O. Box 809, Lakeville
Mr. Zweber attended tonight's meeting to say thank you to staff and the Planning
Commission for putting together the MUSA study and Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Jacob Fick, Tradition Development
Mr. Fick supports staff's ability to logically determine whether property owners within
MUSA Expa sion Area A can develop or not.
Motion was made by Davis, seconded by Boerschel to close the public hearing
at 6:17 p.m.
Ayes: Blee, Maguire, Boerschel, Lillehei, Davis, Grenz, Drotning.
Nays: 0
Chair Lilleh i asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Discussion
points were:
• The Plan ing Commission asked that staff re- explain how the MUSA map works.
Mr. Kuen en displayed the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Staged MUSA Expansion
Areas Map. He indicated that everything in white is within the Current MUSA and
can be cserviced with water and sewer. The area in green is the MUSA
Expansio Area A (not before 2010). Mr. Kuennen stated that the study divided
MUSA E -a n sion Area A into 3 categories - green, yellow and red. Any property
with water and sewer immediately available is green. Any property where both
sanitary sewer and water is within '/ mile is yellow, and property where either
sanitary sewer or water is more than'/ mile away is red.
• The Planning Commission agreed that this map makes sense and gives greater
flexibility io staff and property owners when determining if a particular property
within MUSA Expansion Area A can be developed.
• Regarding Mr. Jacobson's question about his property being divided into yellow
and gree , Mr. Morey explained that even if the yellow half of Mr. Jacobson's
property were to develop, it does not necessarily mean that the red half would
automatically be available for development. Various factors need to be
considered such as topography, there may be two different sanitary sewer lines
Planning Commi#ion Meeting Minutes, January 17, 2013 Page 4
serving i
Mr. Mor(
also inc
subdivisi
• Commis:
the plane
the supr
secondt
a contra(
ie property, the red half of the property may require a lift station, etc.
y stated that all requests will be looked at on a case by case basis. He
cated that the City's Subdivision Ordinance includes premature
)n criteria that would have to be met.
ioner Grenz commented that the last sentence in the first paragraph of
ing report that it states "Urban growth in Lakeville is directly related to
y of buildable land and the availability of utility services." But in the
aragraph, it indicates that the economy is also a factor. He feels this is
iction.
Motion wasl made by Maguire, seconded by Davis to recommend to City Council
approval of t e Comprehensive Plan amendment concerning MUSA Expansion Area
A, as presen ed.
Ayes: Maguire, Boerschel, Lillehei, Davis, Grenz, Drotning, Blee.
Nays: 0
There being �o further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
The Planninj Commission immediately went into a work session.
Respectfully (submitted,
Penny Brevi6, Recording Secretary
Brooks Lilleh�i, Chair
Lakeville
Mem
To:
From:
Copy:
Date:
Subject:
Agenda Item;
item No. �
City of Lakeville
Planning Department
randum
Planning Commission
Allyn Kuennen, AICP, Associate Planner��
Zach Johnson, P.E., City Engineer
Daryl Morey, Planning Director
January 10, 2013
Packet Material for the January 17, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Concerning MUSA Expansion Area A.
BACKGROUN INFORMATION:
The 1998 Lak ville Comprehensive Plan established MUSA staging areas as a means of
managing the rate and location of development while maintaining an adequate land supply.
This policy ha been continued with the 2008 update of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The designate MUSA expansion areas, staged in five year increments, generally follow
watershed bo ndaries and sanitary sewer service districts established by the Comprehensive
Sanitary Sewer Plan. The four MUSA staging areas within the City promote infill development
of the existing MUSA and expansion in a contiguous development pattern and full utilization
of in place uti ity and transportation infrastructure. Urban growth in Lakeville is directly
related to the s pply of buildable land and the availability of utility services.
In 2004 the Cit completed a study to determine the supply of residentially zoned land within
the current M SA and determined that the 2005 MUSA staging area did not need to be
opened for de elopment until November of 2005. The City followed a similar process in early
2010 to deter ine the supply of residentially zoned land and the number of available lots in
the 2010 MUS . It was determined by the City Council at their June 28, 2010 work session,
that due to the surplus of available land, the reduced absorption rate of single family lots, and
the state of th economy that the 2010 MUSA would not be opened for development. The
City Council als directed staff to update the study within the next two years to determine if
the need for la d in the 2010 MUSA had changed.
Staff has comp) ted an update to the 2010 MUSA study and determined the overall acres of
available land a d the number lots had not significantly changed. However, further research
found that man of the undeveloped properties within the current MUSA require significant
extensions o trunk sanitary sewer or watermain services and potentially sanitary sewer lift
stations for t ose areas to develop; meanwhile, some properties in the 2010 MUSA had City
services withi close proximity. Therefore, it is reasonable to review the 2010 MUSA based on
what areas c uld be serviced rather than based on the amount of available land in the current
MUSA.
The attached ap divides the properties within the 2010 MUSA into three categories - green,
yellow and re indicating the property's proximity to City services. Green indicates that both
sewer and wa er are available at the property boundary. Yellow indicates that both sewer and
water are av ilable within 1 /4 mile or less from the property boundary. Red indicates that
sewer and /or ater is more than 1 /4 mile from the property boundary. In evaluating the 2010
MUSA, accor ing to the property's proximity to City services, we can realize areas that are
available for i mediate development with nominal costs associated with connecting to City
services. Th s evaluation method also provides a guide for orderly and contiguous
development f land.
Dividing the properties within the 2010 MUSA into green, yellow and red serviceability areas
provides for n orderly pattern of development capitalizing on existing infrastructure in a
fiscally respon ible manner to avoid premature investment in additional utilities and services.
Staff is recommending that in addition to the attached serviceability map, the following
criteria be us d when considering and evaluating individual development proposals for
properties wit in the 2010 MUSA:
1. Are public) Sanitary sewer and water utilities in place adjacent to the site and do the
existing do nstream facilities have the capacity to serve the site?
2. Will allowi g the property into the current MUSA unduly burden the City or adjacent
properties due to development related costs or long term maintenance (i.e. trunk
oversizing and /or regional ponding credits, collector roadway financing, park
developm nt)?
3. Does the d velopment of the property provide for or include a public purpose (i.e. major
street con ections, community park and recreation facilities, regional stormwater
drainage b sins or other municipal needs)?
4. Is the prop�sed development compatible with present land uses and future land uses
guided by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan within the area?
The City Counc
2012 work sessi
at their Decerri
criteria provide!
individual devel
finances. The C
the accompany
Lakeville Compi
and to adopt t
individual devel
I reviewed the serviceability map and the above policy at their November 26,
:)n. The Planning Commission also reviewed the serviceability map and policy
ber 6, 2012 work session. The serviceability map with the accompanying
the City Council, Planning Commission, and staff with a guide in evaluating
opment requests and its potential impact on City services, infrastructure and
ty Council and the Planning Commission expressed support for the study and
ing policy and directed staff to move forward with an amendment to the
ehensive Plan to bring the areas within the 2010 MUSA into the current MUSA
he attached serviceability map and above policy for use when evaluating
Dpment requests.
2