Site Information:

Address: 1716 and 1746 Stagecoach Road

Acreage: 4 parcels totaling 16.72 acres

Zoning: Rural Residential

2030 Comp. Plan: Single-Family Residential

Proposed Number of Lots: 60

Proposed Density: 4.02 units / acre.

Introduction:

Steve Soltau, representing Builders Lot Group, LLC has applied for rezoning from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning, a Planned Unit Development, and preliminary and final plat of Stagecoach at Southbridge. The proposed development creates 60 single-family lots and has a proposed 1.79 acre park.

Rezoning Discussion:

The City Council recently approved an amendment to the zoning ordinance on Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Part of the amendment to the zoning ordinance changes from the use of PUDs as an overlay on existing zoning, to a site being zoned PUD. The purpose of a PUD is to provide a mechanism for sites with unique or challenging features to be developed in a more flexible way than the standard zoning regulations allow, PUDs also must have enhanced design features.

This site is currently zoned Rural Residential and has been occupied by Pine Ridge Stables and two single-family homes. The 2030 Comprehensive plan guides this area for single-family residential development, so a comprehensive plan amendment is not required. The applicant is proposing to rezone the site to PUD zoning to allow for a more flexible design because of the challenges on this site due to poor soils on the site, the number of mature Oak trees on the site, and for utility considerations.

In order for this site to develop, a significant amount of grading and soil removal is required to take place. Removal and replacement of soils on the site results in the loss of trees on the site. Staff has worked with the applicant to minimize tree losses on the south side of the site and within the proposed park area.  

For utilities, this site is adjacent to Riverside Drive, which does not have utility service stubs to serve development of this site. The developer is proposing to re-construct half of Riverside Drive for the installation of utility services. A previous design that avoided re-construction of Riverside Drive had all of the lots on the west side of the site having two-street frontages, which is not an ideal lot design. Staff recommended that the applicant re-design their plan to limit the number of double-frontage lots.

Other proposed layouts by the applicant involved the removal of all of the trees on the site for grading purposes, or had Booth Court connecting to Stagecoach Road, which would have resulted in additional tree removal. This proposed plan saves the highest number of trees, eliminates nearly all double frontage lots, and includes a park for this area. The current proposed plan saves 105 trees, including 71 Oak trees and several Black Cherry trees. Planning staff intends to work with the applicant to reduce front setbacks on select lots and for minor adjustments on grading limits to slightly increase the number of trees preserved on the site.  

Parks Discussion:

Currently, there is not a park east of County Roads 21 and 18 in Shakopee. Residents of Riverside Grove and along Stagecoach Road have expressed an interest in a park. Planning staff agree that there is a need for a park in this area, even though  a park in this area is not included in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space plan. The applicant has worked with staff to provide a park in a desirable wooded part of the subdivision.

The applicant is proposing a 1.79 acre park on the east side of the development. When considering the amount of park land for land dedication, the City recommends the dedication of 2.40 acres based on the proposed number of lots. The proposed park area is home to several of the mature Oak trees on the site. One of the goals of the current Parks Plan is to acquire land for preservation of high-quality natural resource areas. A strategy in the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan is also to provide a neighborhood park within 1/2 mile of residents. This site is greater than 3/4 of a mile from Riverside Fields Park and Red Oak Elementary, both of which also require crossing County Roads 18 or 21.

The proposed park area is a very similar setting to Memorial Park, which has many mature Oak trees and is a popular destination because of its unique setting. Staff has requested the removal of one lot adjacent to the southern part of the park (Lot 50) to enlarge the park area by 0.24 acres and save additional 32" and 33" Oak trees. Staff believes the park area is a high quality natural area worth protecting. The developer has agreed to remove the Lot 50 in exchange for concessions on tree replacement fees and park dedication fees, since the park is slightly smaller than the recommendation in City Code. The applicant has proposed keeping the southern driveway access as a means of vehicle access to the park from Stagecoach Road. Staff supports this request, provided the driveway is appropriate for future plans.  

Plat discussion:

The proposed access to the site from Stagecoach Road is via Wilking Way, which aligns with the intersection of Boiling Springs Lane. The other access to the site is Booth Court, which connects to Riverside Drive. The applicant is proposing generally 65' x 120' and 65' x 110'  lots with 7.5' side-yard setbacks. This lot size is similar to the recent PUD developments of Windermere and Ridge Creek. This development plan is currently drawn with 20' front yard setbacks. Staff supports a front yard setback of 20' on select lots to save specific High Priority (as definied by City Code) Oak trees on the site, but does not support 20' setbacks for the entire development. A front yard setback of 25' is considered acceptable to staff for the remaining lots. The required setbacks are listed below:  

Stagecoach at Southbridge PUD Required Setbacks:

• Front: 25', 20' on select lots in order to save specific High Priority Trees
• Side: 7.5'
• Street-side (corner lots): 15'
• Rear: 25'
• Rear Setback for Decks: 20' for decks >5' in height, 10' for decks less than 5' in height. If a double frontage lot, 25'.  
• Cantilevers may extend 2' into any required yard setback

Building Design:

City Code requires PUDs to have improved design standards and aesthetics beyond what is required by the minimum standards in City Code. The applicant has mentioned that they are working with up to four different builders and has provided photographs of different front facades of possible houses within this PUD. The majority of the proposed front elevations provided appear to meet an increased standard. Staff has provided design feedback to the applicant on elevations that are not preferred. Minimum requirements for this PUD recommended by staff are below. Adopted PUD standards would need to be met regardless of the number of builders that purchase lots.

Required Building Design Elements For All Houses:

• Stone or brick accents on the front building façade:
• Windows on all four sides of the house.
• Varying major exterior colors within the subdivision.
• Varying exterior materials on the front façade of the house.
• Varying roof lines
• The identical house plan must not be used on an adjacent lot.
• A different shade, or contrasting trim colors on the front façade

Neighborhood Comments:

The applicant held a neighborhood meeting and comments received from adjacent property owners are related to:

• Traffic at  Highway 169 / 21
• Type and character of homes to be built
• Parking for the proposed park
• Preservation of trees in total and as a buffer to the south
• Water depth in storm basins
• Speed on Stagecoach Road
• Construction timeline and hours of activity
• Variety of style and presentation of the homes
• Timing of initial work

The Planning Commission reviews and provides recommendations on Preliminary Plats, PUDs, and rezoning applications. The City Council approves these applications and final plats. The Planning Commission must decide whether the proposed project meets the criteria for rezoning. Draft findings and criteria are listed below.

Rezoning Criteria:

Criteria #1: The original zoning ordinance is in error.

Finding #1: The original zoning ordinance is not in error.

Much of this area originally developed as part of Eagle Creek Township, when sewer and water services were not available and larger lots were required

Criteria #2: Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place.

Finding #2: Changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Shakopee has seen significant employment growth and until recently, limited residential growth to match the increased number of employees. This proposed subdivision provides single-fma

Criteria #3: Significant changes in development patterns have occurred.

Finding #3: Sewer and water service is available to this site. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with single-family homes, which complies with the comprehensive plan.

Criteria #4: The comprehensive plan requires another provision.

Finding #4: The comprehensive plan does not require another provision. This site is guided for single-family residential development and is staged for MUSA service by 2020.

PUD Criteria:

1. Is the proposed development consistent in all respects with the comprehensive plan?

The proposed development complies with the current guiding for the site.

2. Is the proposed development, including deviations from design standards compatible with surrounding land uses?

The proposed development as single-family homes on generally 65' x 120' lots serves as an appropriate transition from the townhomes of Riverside Grove to the surrounding rural residential neighborhood.

3. Does the proposed development provide adequate open space, circulation, pedestrian orientation, parking, recreation, screening, and landscaping.

The applicant is proposing to have sidewalks on one side of each street, a future trail along Stagecoach Road, a 2.04 acre park, adequate street connections to existing streets. Boulevard trees are also proposed.

4. If the primary function of the PUD is to encourage development which will preserve and enhance worthwhile natural terrain characteristics, it should not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed.

The proposed development plan is below the typical maximum density of single-family residential developments of 5 units / acre.

5. Does the PUD provide an overall compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development. The architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan.

The applicant has proposed building elevations that are above the minimum standards provided in City Code. Staff has proposed conditions for the appearance and aesthetics of building elevations.  

6. Whether the proposed PUD plan would offer a greater general public benefit than would be realized under the underlying zoning district and/or general zoning provisions.

The Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan does not call for a park in this area. The applicant has agreed to provide a neighborhood park that preserves many High Priority trees, as defined by City Code.

Proposed Conditions of Approval:

1. Comply with Engineering Memo Dated June 25, 2018.
2. Comply with Shakopee Public Utilities Memo Dated June 7, 2018.
3. The applicant must remove existing driveways to Stagecoach Road. An existing driveway to Stagecoach Road for the park area may remain if the existing driveway is deemed appropriate.
4. Lot 50 must be added to the proposed park. Tree numbers 596, 597, and 598 must be saved.
5. Sidewalks are required to be installed on one side of Wilking Way and Booth Court as shown on plans.
6. A sidewalk and pedestrian ramp must be provided from the cul-de-sac of Booth Court to the park property.
7. The applicant must provide an approved cash escrow amount for the construction of a future trail along Stagecoach Road. A trail connection to the park area and the sidewalk on Booth Court must be provided.
8. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the dripline of trees and inspected prior to any tree removal or grading.
9. The applicant must provide financial security for the proposed plantings in accordance with City Code.
10. Unauthorized tree removal is subject to the fees in City Code ($500 / caliper inch). If a measurement of the size of the tree removed is not available, a minimum fee of $15,000 will apply.
11. Boulevard trees and required landscaping are required consistent with City Code requirements and must have a 2-year warranty. Financial security must be provided in accordance with City Code.
12. Boulevard tree species and spacing must comply with the Forestry Specifications Manual. Tree planting locations must be marked and approved by the city prior to installation.
13. Soil provided for tree planting areas and yards must meet City Code requirements for soil material and compaction.
14. The applicant must work with city staff to select specific lots with 20' front yard setbacks to save additional High Priority trees near currently proposed tree protection limits and also to adjust grading limits to save additional trees that are currently near the proposed limits of disturbance.
15. The applicant must provide a revised Woodland Management Plan that shows both tree identification numbers and limits of disturbance.
16. The applicant must provide a revised landscape plan that shows easements and utilities.
17. Required setbacks for structures are as follows:
    • Front yard: 25', except approved select lots with a 20' front setback to allow for saving of High Priority or exceptional trees as defined by City Code.
    • Side yard: 7.5'
    • Street side (corner lot): 15'
    • Rear yard: 25'
    • Rear setback for decks: 20' for decks >5' in height, 10' for decks less than 5' in height. The rear setback for a deck on a double frontage lot is 25'.
    • Pond setback is 30' from HWL.
18. Building Elevations for all houses must comply with the following requirements:

1. Stone or brick accents on the front building façade:
2. Windows on all four sides of the house.
3. Varying major exterior colors within the subdivision.
4. Varying exterior materials on the front façade of the house.
5. Varying roof lines
6. The identical house plan must not be used on an adjacent lot.
7. A different shade, or contrasting trim colors on the front façade