Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/1991 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 15, 1991 Mayor Gary Laurent presiding. 1] Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2] Update on labor negotiations 3] Other business 4] Adjourn to Tuesday, January 22, 1991 at 7: 00 P.M. 5] Convene as The Committee Of The Whole for a worksession with the Planning Commission to discuss the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan: 1990 - 2010 DISCUSSION GUIDE A] Purpose of the Worksession B] Decision Making Process C] Overview of Comprehensive Planning D] Review of Volume 2: Goals, Policies, Objectives and Plans 1 - Citywide Goals 2 - Economic Development Plan 3 - Population and Households Plan 4 - Land Use Plan 5 - Transportation System Plan 6 - Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan 7 - Image and Urban Design 8 - Housing Plan 9 - Community Facilities Plan 10 - Sanitary Sewer System Plan 11 - Surface Water Management Plan 12 - Aviation System Plan 13 - General Management and Implementation E] Comprehensive Plan Implementation F] Recommendation to City Council 6] Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator MEMO TO: City Council/Planning Commission FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Shakopee Comprehensive Plan: 1990-2010 DATE: January 9, 1991 INTRODUCTION Enclosed is background material for the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on the Comprehensive Plan. Included is the meeting agenda, worksheets for note taking and the comments from Mr. Jon Albinson representing Allianz Investment Corporation. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan work session is two fold. First, the meeting is intended to present the variety of goals, policies and objectives listed in the draft plan to the City Council in a meaningful way. The second purpose of the work session is to build consensus on the draft plan at the Council level. The City Council is the body responsible for making the final decision on the content of the Comprehensive Plan. The role of the Planning Commission is advisory to the Council. AGENDA The agenda has been prepared in an effort to organize the dicussion in a useful manner. Staff is recommending that discussion be focused on the individual review of the twelve plan elements (i.e. Economic Development, Land Use, Transporation, Parks, Housing, etc. ) These plan elements form the bulk of Volume 2 . Please note that the chapters in Volume 1 provide background information and analysis for each of the twelve elements in Volume 2. The individual review of the twelve plan elements will be presented in the following format: 1. Overview of each plan element - Staff 2 . Presentation of plan concepts - Staff 3 . Identification of alternative points of view - Staff 4 . Discussion and questions - City Council 5. Response to Council a. Planning Commission b. Staff c. Public 6. Consensus Several of the twelve elements should be simple enough in scope to allow for consensus to be reached on the entire element. The Population and Households Plan (PH) is one example. The Land Use Plan (LU) is more complex in content and may require separate decisions to be made during the discussion. WORKSHEETS Staff has attached worksheets for each of the twelve plan elements. These worksheets are intended to provide a quick resource for Councilmembers as they review the plan. There is a space in the left hand margin for page numbers and reference numbers. All policies and objectives have been given a reference number (examples: LU-b is a policy, LU-21 is an objective. ) Please list any comments or questions on these worksheets for discussion points at the work session. COMMENTS FROM ALLIANZ CORP. As recognized by the Planning Commission the list of comments from Jon Albinson have been included. These comments will be incorporated into the appropriate plan element discussions by staff. CONCLUSION A comprehensive plan is a guide for the physical development of a community. It represents the community's vision for the next fifteen to twenty years. Almost immediately after the plan is adopted some items in the plan will become outdated based on changes that occur. The draft Comprehensive Plan has been organized in a simple outline format so that it can be more easily updated as well as used in daily operations of both the private and public sectors. LSE/jms compplan WORKSHEET SHAKOPEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1990-2010 Joint Work Session City Council/Planning Commission Tuesday, January 15, 1991 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ED) Pages 16. 1 - 16.9 Page Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS PLAN (PH) Pages 17. 1 - 17 . 2 Page Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . Comp Plan Worksheet Page -2- LAND USE PLAN (LU) Pages 18 . 1 - 18 .20 Paae Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TS) Pages 19 . 1 Page Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . Comp Plan Worksheet Page -3- PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAIL SYSTEMS PLAN (PT) Pages 20. 1 - 20. 10 Paae Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . IMAGE AND URBAN DESIGN (UD) Pages 21. 1 - 21. 3 Page Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . Comp Plan Worksheet Page -4- HOUSING PLAN (HP) Pages 22 . 1 - 22 . 3 Paae Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN (CF) Pages 23 . 1 - 23 .4 Page Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . Comp Plan Worksheet Page -5- SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM PLAN (SS) Pages 24 . 1 - 24. 12 Page Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SW) Pages 25. 1 - 25.7 Parte Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 3 Comp Plan Worksheet Page -6- AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN (AS) Pages 26. 1 - 26. 3 Page Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Pages 27. 1 - 27. 16 Page Ref. 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . COMP PLAN Comments From Philip Carlson - Dahlgren Shardlow & Uban and Jon R. Albinson - Canterbury Business Park (Soon to be known as River Valley Park) PRIORITY ONE ITEMS General *A Bypass Corridor Plan may be appropriate to integrate into the Comprehensive Document. Page Document Reference Reference Comments 16.3 ED-i Reference to "and allows for additional housing development near the lake" appears to be out of context by way of being included in the Industrial and Office Development policies portion of the document. We would suggest that this is sufficiently clarified in other portions of the document. 16.3 ED-q We understand there may be industrial land currently zoned within the City of Shakopee that may not be served by sewer or water before the year 2000. We believe this reference pertains to land not currently zoned industrial that qualifies under the "before the year 2000" guideline. A clarification of this within ED-q would be appreciated. 16.6 ED-4 We would suggest additional language be inserted to better clarify the task when it is assigned. Suggested language would be to add the following to the end of the existing sentence, "which will maximize development potential of the area and increase the economic and aesthetic impact to the City" . 18.4 LU-u We would suggest there will probably be a need for an east/west collector road built south of the Bypass for which a study, in concert with our planning for this area, would provide direction. By defining the exact location for this collector road, which has been accomplished by the wording within this item, is not appropriate. PRIORITY ONE ITEMS Page 2 18. 6 LU-3 The objective of creating a future Business Park land use designation is discussed throughtout the document. The definition of what this ordinance will look like is generalized in these references so as to offer guidance when these objectives are worked upon. We will look forward to working with the staff and the City on creating a Business Park Ordinance that will function for the City and the owners of Canterbury Business Park that is within the scope of good planning. 18 .7 LU-5 We understand that it may be in the interest of good planning to restructure some of the existing B-i land in favor of B-2 . We would suggest this point be expanded upon to better define the B-i land that is being considered for rezoning to B-2 . The current zoning around County Road 83 , which we have previously done extensive "concept planning" on, would be an area that we have concern with if changes were to be made at this location. 18 .7 LU-6 There appears to be some ambiguity with LU-5 as it may relate to the statements made in LU-4 . With the manner in which the comprehensive plan is drafted, it leads us to believe the current zoning designations used by the City of Shakopee will be redrafted and recodified to accommodate the new land use plan categories defined on page 18. 12 and 18. 13 . We would appreciate a better understanding of this and how these changes would affect the future development possibilities we currently have in and around the County Road 83/101 Bypass interchange that are permitted under the existing B-1 zoning. 18. 12 B.P. During the task force meetings, discussion took place as to whether there would be any "light industrial" activities that could not be allowed within the Business Park zoning. The ability to offer all light industrial uses within the permitted use category could be accommodated with the drafting of "performance standards" that would assist in maintaining the integrity of development within the Business Park zoning while at the same time not restricting the possibilites for various uses. 18. 12 Industrial The ordinance currently provides for some commercial uses to coexist within the industrially zoned areas. We do not see this as incapatable inasmuch as the commercial uses are limited and restricted to the "conditional use" category. The ability to maintain and control commercial activities within the industrial zoned land seem to be well provided for, and that disallowing all commercial use may be overstating the position. PRIORITY ONE ITEMS Page 3 18. 15 BP The issue surrounding the area north of the Bypass guided Business Park was discussed at length at the task force meetings. It is our understanding the area noted as BP on page 18. 13 should be scaled back to an area defined by 12th Avenue. The land north of the existing 12th Avenue and that land which would exist north of 12th if 12th was continued easterly to the Open Space area should be designated as industrial with the land south of that line noted as Business Park, excluding that portion which currently exists as C-Commercial. 18 . 15 RT The Koskovich property, located at the southwest corner of 4th Avenue and County Road 83 , is currently defined on the land use plan as RT. There was an agreement at the public hearing that the Koskovich property should be guided as I, in conformance with its current zoning designation of I-1. 18. 15 HC The land use plan noted on page 18. 13 currently specifies a large area of HC east of Scott County Road #18. The residential neighborhood south of this area spoke on this issue at the public hearing, for which an agreement was made that HC designation would be inappropriate for this area and an I designation should be accommodated. 19. 3 TS-j The task force discussed whether sidewalks should be required in the Canterbury Business Park area. A determination was made that, because of the type of development that takes place within a business park, sidewalks would not be appropriate. This item does not appear to address this issue by specifying same. We believe a clarification is appropriate such as "along all its residential collector and minor arterial". 19.5 TS-9, 10 As previously discussed, a reference to sidewalks not being a required item within the Canterbury Business Park area may be appropriate for this portion. 20.4 PSS-5 To preclude "wetlands, ponding areas, and steep slopes" from a calculation for park land purposes would seem to be eliminating any possible future opportunities that may be in the best interest of the City to give consideration of. Intigrating wetlands and ponding areas into a development can provide direct benefits to the general public when designed accordingly. We would suggest that completely disallowing these areas from park land calculations would be inappropriate and that a "case-by-case" analysis may be more beneficial. PRIORITY ONE ITEMS Page 4 20.5 Park Dedication The City Council recently directed staff to address possible inequities in the current park dedication fee portion of the ordinance by researching and presenting a new ordinance for Council's action. Taking this into consideration, portions of this page may be best redrafted to exclude any position statement as it may relate to a future direction for park dedication fee payment requirements or "land in lieu of" requirements. PRIORITY TWO ITEMS Page Document Reference Reference Comments 16. 3 ED-p Currently, the City zoning ordinances allow for on- site storage uses with performance standards required. We would suggest the use of the word "encourage" indicates a change would take place over that which currently exists for the ordinances as they relate to on-site/outside storage. We suggest the wording be changed to "the City will continue to allow. . . . " verses the way it is presently stated. 16. 6 ED-3 This item would structure a very useful resource report in which to use for the development of the City. We would suggest that, because of rapid changes in the market place, quarterly updating may be more appropriate. 18. 1 Goal 7 The City of Shakopee stretches for quite a distance to the east, to County Road 18. We would suggest a better definition of "the south and east fringes" may be appropriate. 18. 1 Goal 10 We would appreciate clarification or softening of the word "strengthen". 18.2 LU-d We hope the coordination of efforts would promote a more efficient and timely process versus creating additional levels of complexity in which to accommodate land subdivision/development. 18.4 LU-v We would suggest the word "gradually" , which appears in the first sentence, is unnecessary when taken in the context of the rest of the sentence. The idea of "development warrants" and market demand considerations would seem to be an appropriate method and appears to be the intent of the sentence. 18. 6 LU-af The City has historically agreed to enter into "Plan B" improvements by way of the City's Developer's Agreement which provides for the City designing, engineering, constructing and assessing new residential and commercial/industrial streets and utilities. The way this item currently reads, commercial/industrial streets and utilities have not been referenced. We would suggest the elimination of the word "residential" in the first line may clarify this issue accordingly. PRIORITY TWO ITEMS Page 2 Additionally, the statement in the last sentence, "such improvements are expected to be made privately" seems to be a change of attitude on the City's part as it may relate to continuing the opportunity for developers to chose the "Plan B" method. We would appreciate a better understanding of this issue. 18. 6 LU-ag Development of the major intersections along the bypass will be a key component to the future of the City. It appears that reference to County Road 83 has been inadvertantly overlooked. 18.6 LU-ai Wetland development is an area about which we are very sensitive for they are an important part of our environment, i.e. , watersheds, ground water and wildlife habitat. The ability to develop or disturb wetlands is severly limited by federal and state statute. We will certainly "protect" welands as required, but to "enhance" them may be interpreted as spending time and money to improve them beyond their natural state, which we believe is not intended or appropriate. 18. 12 Racetrack This land use designation was created in 1985 as a buffer zoning for the land surrounding Canterbury Downs Racetrack. To date, we have had one development project in the racetrack district, i.e. , Canterbury Inn Hotel. We are concerned that this zoning district may be too restrictive and too narrow in its purpose and it might be worth while for the City to analyze the usefullness and/or the intent of this zoning as to future demand considerations for development of same. 20.3 PT-8/9/10 Private easements leave open issues of maintenance and liability, not to mention compensation, for such a trail system. 20. 10 PT-8/9 As previously noted, we are concerned about the arrangement for completing the trail - purchase, dedication, easement, etc. 21. 1 UD-d/e The wording, "tightly regulate" can be construred in some negative ways. We suggest a clarification. 21.2 UD-g Signage is already regulated. Is it to be further restricted? Signage is critical to highway frontage. We suggest "reasonable" sign regulations. PRIORITY TWO ITEMS page 3 21.2 UD-9 The idea of a strong landscape plan in the vicinity of Canterbury Downs, the County Road 83 interchange, is one that we will look forward to integrating into our development plans. We assume the planning process for this would involve our input and be timed in a manner that would be consistant with the development for that area. The fact that the timing and method of payment has been left unanswered in this clause lends itself to possible misinterpretations. We would suggest a redraft to accommodate the cooperation of the public/private sector in developing a concept plan. 22. 1 We would suggest that the first line of the Housing Plan have the words "successful development" added after "promoting". 24.4 The reference to areas south of the Bypass includes land which will likely develop in business - Industrial uses, not just residential. We believe that some of this land will develop before the year 2000 and so the references to "rural" and "residential" ought to be clarified. Table 24 . 10 (VIP) The estimates in the table indicate a relatively "Table 24" small development of industrial acreage in coming years. We believe there may be much greater demand for the land in Canterbury Business Park than estimated here and would like to suggest some more optimistic numbers before firm decisions are made based on this absorption schedule.