HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/1994 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 22 , 1994
LOCATION: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding
1] Roll Call at 5: 30 p.m.
2] Other Business
3 ] Adjourn
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOVEMBER 22 , 1994
1] Roll Call at 5: 30 p.m.
2 ] Other Business
3 ] 1 Adjourn
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE NOVEMBER 22 , 1994
1] Roll Call at 5: 30 p.m.
2 ] Comprehensive Plan Mapping - Residential/MUSA
3 ] Other business
4] Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
Committee of the Whole meeting: November 29 , 1994 at 5 : 30 p.m.
on Community Center Phase I - Final Report
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner
DATE: November 22, 1994
RE: Comprehensive Plan Mapping-Residential/MUSA
INTRODUCTION:
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the Planning Commission's MUSA expansion
recommendation. In addition, staff intends to provide an update on growth projections and
planning for commercial centers. Exhibits A-C are draft copies of graphic mockups for Volume 3
of the Comprehensive Plan and are therefore not in their final form.
DISCUSSION:
Residential Land Demand/MUSA
Exhibit A contains two charts that illustrate the City's actual annual building permit information
for 1990-93 against two different projection techniques. The "MC Projected New Units" line is
the latest projection from the Metropolitan Council and seems to indicate a potential under-
projection of units for the City's growth. Staff has superimposed a growth line that is based on
the 1980-93 building permit trend. This line appears to be similar to the actual data and is
therefore, the projection the staff is recommending be presented to the Metropolitan Council.
Single Family Chart: It is likely that since the historical trend does not necessarily take into
account increases in growth rates due to the new transportation improvements, the staff
projection is also underestimating the future growth. For strategy purposes, staff has chosen not
to attempt to project the bridge's effect because it necessitates the use of additional assumptions
that could be challenged by the Metropolitan Council and would be difficult to defend. Staff is
instead proposing that actual growth rates be monitored closely and when the impact of the bridge
begins to materialize, additional MUSA expansion request(s) be submitted if necessary.
Multi-Family Chart: At first glance, it appears that the actual new multi-family growth is
significantly underperforming both the historical trend projection and the Metropolitan Council
projection. This is misleading because multi-family construction is much more sporadic than
single family growth. A large number of units are created in years when major developments
occur and other years may have very little multi-family development. 1990-93 appears to be one
of the periods with very little new multi-family development. It should be noted that in the
recently approved Prairie Bend development alone, over 260 new multi-family units have been
approved and will likely start obtaining building permits in 1994 or 1995. This should bring the
multi-family figures more in line with the projected levels.
Exhibits B and C take the staff projection values and translate them into actual acreage amounts
of new MUSA needed for each residential land use category (Exhibit C). These values are in a
very rough form at this time since the actual acreage for each vacant land trade has not been
calculated yet. This can't occur until the land use map is finalized and changes in land uses (if any)
are accounted for.
MUSA Expansion Locations
The technical analysis of the various options for MUSA expansion brings together many of the
elements that the Planning Commission and City Council have previously reviewed. In particular,
the primary determining factors in the staff recommendation were the natural environmental
conditions, the sanitary sewer plan, financial impacts, existing and probable development, the
transportation plan, the draft County Plan and finally the housing analysis.
When all of these issues were brought together, staff identified one preferred option (Exhibit D)
that minimized uncertainty and public expenditures while maximizing the range of housing options
for current and future Shakopee residents. The Planning Commission concurred with the staff
recommendation. Staff has further provided a phasing scenario to reduce speculative activity in
areas where the City would not anticipate providing services in the near future. This should
reduce some uncertainty in the marketplace.
Commercial Locations
Although the actual allocations of land uses is a topic that still must go before the Planning
Commission in December, staff has included two rough diagrams (Exhibits E and F) to illustrate
how planning for commercial areas can greatly impact the eventual traffic patterns at an
intersection. The diagrams show a diamond interchange configuration(Bypass intersected by an
arterial which is then intersected by two collector streets), but the planning concepts can be
applied to any intersection.
In the diagrams "Commercial" indicates a larger commercial center that is intended to serve
residents beyond the neighborhood level. "NC" is intended to indicate a small neighborhood
commercial center that would primarily contain convenience retail uses and be used by the
residents of the immediate neighborhood. Staff intends to briefly outline some of the implications
of how commercial areas are planned, both from a safety and financial point of view. These
intersection drawings should not be viewed as proposals for any particular intersection. Staff
recognizes that some similar areas, like the Wal-Mart properties at CR 17, may be in conflict with
sound commercial planning, but due to previous commitments will not be proposed for any
change of land use designation. The concepts presented, however, could be used in areas where
the City has not made previous commitments.
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for informational purposes only.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide direction to staff for preparation of the Comprehensive Plan map.
2
EXHIBIT A
•
•
Single Family •
City of Shakopee, MN
>3-.) 350 -
a 300 -----
t- 250 •
43 200
n..
150 - — -
•._
co 100
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
• co • •
Year
MC Projected New Units -°-Actual New Units • •
-I- 1980-93 Trend Projection
: •
- -
. .
•
. Multi-Family
City of Shakopee, MN
as
>`:`-! 200
i-E 100 --------------
a.
-id 50 -------------- -------------------
._
- 0
u_ 90 91 • 92 93 I 1
945 96 97 98 99
• . Year
MC Projected New Units -4-Actual New Units
-4- 1980-93 Trend Projection •
EXHIBIT B
Table 1:
Household Projections
Met Council City Projection
1990 4163 4163
2000 6150 7330
Table: 2:
Residential Land Demand
1990 2000
Population 11,739 20,011
Households 4,163 7,330
Household 5-Yr Oversupply 1,584
Potential Households 8,914
Increase in Households 4,751
Additional SF Units (63%) 2,993
* Less Existing Unsewered Lots 2,793
Additional Sewered SF Acreage
c@D 2.5 du/ac 1,117
Additional Medium
Density Units (20%) 950
Additional Sewered Medium
Density Acreage 190
Additional High Density
Units (17%) 808
Additional Sewered High
Density Acreage 81
EXHIBIT C
Table 3: Single Family Residential
MUSA Acreage Analysis
Vacant SFR Land in MUSA (1990) (See Table***) 409
SFR MUSA Expansions (1990-95) 156
Proposed Land Trade Into SFR 59
Less Proposed Land Trade Out of SFR 15
Total Available Vacant SFR Land For 1990-2000 609
Projected SFR Demand (See Table***) 1,117
Additional Sewered SFR Land Required 508
Table 4: Medium Density Residential
MUSA Acreage Analysis
Vacant MDR Land in MUSA (1990) (See Table ***) 107
MDR MUSA Expansions (1990-95) 13
Proposed Land Trade Into MDR 35
Less Proposed Land Trade Out of MDR 3
Total Available Vacant MDR Land For 1990-2000 152
Projected MDR Demand (See Table ***) 190
Addtional Sewered MDR Land Required 38
Table 5: High Density Residential
MUSA Acreage Analysis
Vacant HDR Land in MUSA (1990) (See Table ***) 111
HDR MUSA Expansions (1990-95) 0
Proposed Land Trade Into HDR 42
Less Proposed Land Trade Out of HDR 44
Total Available Vacant HDR Land For 1990-2000 109
Projected HDR Demand (See Table ***) 81
Additional Sewered HDR Land Required 0
,/0/' t� » I
flR.1 I /`
. ; / ...,\,,..; ,, 1 1 r--.1—— _.._. - r.....1311111[1.17--./.., , . . . • ••• ..
I[ , I ./...):H1 1 1. :II.
A I. r— -il•E I 140441 .—----------• -••--;„ or 4••7-7...7.-+P.-.1 .. "". . ^. 5
( ; .) i
1 • r::....
0„
_--__ _ 1 J.-- .k....---e.rOT . , I •IP‘.4 ,/ .
\\ \ ' , fI
1 .1 1 Til tti :;/
-•
> 1 r.
\`. I' .. =7/s I �d'
1 1' \ „ _ le�ra`Yr`a r' / I / IL IIYs) e.�.�F--
.
..r 1
..
.__ ..
.t 7;......7c) ;A.
,) ' // /.:, # .. ., • ,
i i
, • •/ /
rL 1 y _.. /p/ TIY A, .J• , / i I
................i
/ 1 • II
•,I i 1.....................1 ..)I i' - tO • ,,
tU UU O: I i • •
Siiiir
r.
1. ._........_.......
.
I
1 �' / 1 cs,:), Vb tet •
111, . • 1
_...�.�._...
ct
as Il /1 /�
, ,y ...._..... ,
..e...! cf) , 4k/s,\\,- I.'',,;-••.. /•/
•
ITf , .
;...4
, ot .----.A&
'011
li ',At
•
c.) 0 ,, ,e AP ..1 \IIVIIIIIII.OIL 1414 ,
tt ,
. , LI
.. s 4.,,. ....„, , ,f
, ,... .;
0414 /4.1„ 2 1 ..‘
) .\\o /10. ---'''''' L----/,,,•=7.:.,:ri. n 111#011101"Wilk lit‘SVV4kik -- •
llii .
,t-Plik‘Nalk.‘14 Ill
Ai.44. 1\14 1‘1\111 .0.
\ Viiklilk
/ 1 ' [...,) :i).11 • I/ \t.11.'
t„,:r..j .4•44.1.1 .V 0 gag TO ak kik
k%1113
/2411"
I * ?. .." 2 • / A tow.
1 .I7 J!& II
ll 1. trtik
II ,
',... 1111
/
1.......rt.,:.
O 011 )$YY» ,1l�.) 1 IYII LI /IY5 .�' 1 •m.�� M1 :�l..i ' �/O oW -- t� 1T
i) 1
1 KI.t
` ,
V, n I I
\.„,,-4 vs, __ •r• .- ,... ! •IIpr17)1 . .. o I I • w ¢ ! . 1,
Or:
/\\ lg.A .e .;rM ??? f i ,,.,yam. .. - i s'.• Q, --- _ _ - .
(: '�ille,.. 7 r.L all*':r -,•. 1�,1�.;;
1
a Skip
..fit f �`1 n' » i
WI 7 1511 Y
/.7 , 1
.711-ii
...I�-,,,, ....., ,-,.
..,..
... .1 . • Y ✓ » '
�],� . V M V I•�1.1
. z
v, ' :Ii + 1' .. P T"— Ir ' LOU 07 . �� —,5 .. 4 - I
ti.
' 1 ...'c . ' - A l I .,.r / i \ c
• 4 3 rt) 41 ‘...‘ 4 f '-'' s%•
a.
, 1 \ILA\ !
\ \• .1 l.1 r' 4..1�I, -1 ;C - -- 0•1 rrua n Si .wYS�.-...4'.
1111
\ ,\ 1 \,. .. (� t�4, '
S . lilt 1-—-...—.....o t
\ �I. e .I•.'�ll
1
/ V I ••7
tri\r —_.J ~
6A \
Sir
w1aara'1
74-.., ,.„,,......y.
i,
i •/ I
I , : I
r. \`. o _
--
II
. t 1
Existing Dev. Pattern
EXHIBIT E
x21/ NC I NC
Commercial Commercial
Commercial Commercial
416
s '
NC NC adm
" Optimum " Dcv. Pattern
EXHIBIT F
Commercial NC/Residential
NC/Residential Commercial
Commercial NC/Residential
Viy.
NC/Residential
Commercial
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shakopee City Council
FROM: Mark Erickson, Asst . City Attorney
DATE: November 22, 1994
RE: Abandoned Home on Sharon Parkway Cul-de-sac
BACKGROUND:
On November 14, 1994, the City received a complaint regarding
a house that was left in the middle of a cul-de-sac near 1380
Sharon Parkway. The house was purchased by Bob and Diane Waker
from the State of Minnesota and was previously located on the
bypass right-of-way. The house mover contracted by the Waker' s,
Orvin Voigt, moved the house to the cul-de-sac without permission
from the City or without a permit. The house was cut in half, and
currently one half of the house is set up on wood blocks completely
on the right-of-way, and the other half is half on the right-of-way
and half on a lot owned by the City.
A resident of the cul-de-sac has complained that the house
prevents the school bus from turning around and is worried about
snow plowing and the safety of children in the area. The owner of
the house is currently injured as a result of trying to put plastic
on the home and probably does not have the financial means to move
the home. Orvin Voigt told the police he would have the home moved
from the site by November 18, but the house remains on the site.
Staff has been unable to contact Mr. Voigt .
The staff is concerned about the safety concerns as well as
the City' s obligation to clear the right-of-way.
ALTERNATIVES:
(1) Determine if Orvin Voigt is willing to move the house to a
different location, or to the lot owned by the City on the cul-de-
sac.
(2) Determine if the State of Minnesota will take on the
responsibility to move the home.
(3) Contract with another mover to move the house to another
location, such as the lot presently owned by the City, or another
City lot such as the Public Works lot .
(4) Demolish the building on the site.
(5) If no immediate action can be taken, take appropriate measures
to make the structure safe.
I
(6) Take no action
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Authorize the staff to take the necessary action to
immediately remove the house from the City right-of-way.
-a Z Z IS X) -oco
o o a
Ax CD -a
N
C c
0 d m m
co co
a m 0 '< '< r <
PT j — m a
CD A N `CG m N V 0, Fi3C
. r — C 0 01 N0> O
0 — N
C - 0! 0 0 0
.0 N 0 0 0 0
■ r D ZLa
La
* • c.
< c_ "1 0 N x S
io c N a t� t� v.rs) to al 40 -< C °_' �° c
* * * m rn co co o e
> > > A A A A U)m x m
o n 0 . V A .. A p m
3 3W 0
N
so aN a A co A A A O
m o m V V V V V .c
b
* - -,
N co V
O A N N
i 0 0 0
to
"" P.' Ca
13 X -� 1 x o X
44 40 44 44 44 c7 0
p co co co co CD) r- o 0
N N N N
A
• co co co co v p
-+ V V V V rn
Co vs O A CO CO co A r
O
* -13
..i
0
Z
D D X co U)
A A A 0 m D
O V CoN ••••1
so
co co V O 0 n
O %T
O O O O co - co 0 0 0 <
. ID
* =
x x co
I 176
X x x x I
7.
0 0
:74D D x• .. m
X o •t&
V V
A N N N N D '- N 0 N
o O O O O to O O O
o
U. DI
m x
to C)
co so
a �+
0 co 44 rn -4 CD D O 0 0
CA X '� -4
0 co V 0 o m D
o, N w A U) r
is o
v co 0 o w o
o
'T1 p Ts
CD xy 33 - V A N
44 d► v► ;1 cn O O -n iv 0) ze
o W . r 'D m -
bt
.03 0) A rn< rn
CDWmz mp rn m
X995 � 5
Taxable ..
Tax Capacity = Net Levy Tax Rate:' House 74; TAS
Fay Sy 9,182,499.00 2,487,925.00 " 27.0942% 944.00 255-.77
pAy 93 10,025,926.00 2,659,128.00 26.5225% 1,060.00 281.14
tC
9.19% 6.88% -2.11%
Taxable
Tax Capacity Net Levy , Tax Rate'S
9,182,499.00 2,487,925.00 27.0942% 944.00 255,77
10,025,926.00 2,487,925.00 24.8149% 1,060.00 263.04
9.19% 0.00% -8.41%
' 0/7' Pay 94 Pay 95
e t "1
Total Taxable Tax Cap" 9,182,499 10,025,926--- 9.2% C"` 4P\ (ft
EMV EMV NEW EMV':
Residential 291,937,900 334,115,500 14.4% 21,987,700 7.5%
Comnercial/indust. 176,492,700 194,511,400 10.2% 12,863,700 7.3%
Apartments 22,235,400 21,795,000 -2.0%
Agricultural 24,408,500 24,603,700 0.8% 70,800 0.3%
515,074,500 575,0.2-5e,6600 11.6% -, 34,922,2006.8%
-v ,
Tax Capacity 13,356,769 14,806,860 10.9% i LA
TIF 1,919,057 1,730,925 -9.8% (� ^ JIA) " WO
FD Cont 2,109,842 2,747,942 30.2% tom'�," 0,Q ,
Rural Dist Adj. •(
0
9,327,870 10,327,993
#####################################################################
Total Taxable Tax Cap 9,182,499 10,025,926 9.19%
Net Levy 2,487,925 2,659,128 6.88% Q- _ c
Tax rate 27.0942% 26.5225% -2.11% oQ,l,v ti✓1 �I�G(tX
i t, (I °I1
14
`)10,-, 944 TC 255.77 •
—{J /D
°ry✓•' 1,060 TC 281.14 9.92% C/y Q114t.fia. 'i'� '11
f (J t®.2. r0
#####################################################################
"41)
TIF Dist #4 LA. '30,2— C1l°
27-904013-0 732,100 732,100
27-905001-0 3,722,800 3,722,800
27-908071-0 1,220,100 1,220,100
EMV 5,675,000 5,675,000
Tax Cap 515,900
TC after FD 309,540
p
City of Shakopee
Pay 95 tax levy 6\()
1 REF 93/94_ 94/95 Change ")
1
2 General Fund 2,535,243 2,535,243 `r,�, 01`'
3 Est. Value growth 4.0% 101,410 ^ wy ` 61bn4 TIF # 4 Closure 1.7% 43,099
5 _ Q /A.
6 Total General Fund 2,535,243 2,679,752 144,509 5.7% �0-
7 �� ....../ ,1/4,,,,,,
8 Debt Service �i Q
9 1986A Imp 36,114 /��
10 1986B Imp 33,839 32,092
11 1987A Imp 779
12 1988A Imp 16,684 17,332-,
13 1990A Imp 136,465 137,729
14 1991A Imp 13,172 39,086 AY I T1
15 1992A Imp 33,629 33,747
16 19936 Imp 0
17 ,���1
18 Total Debt Service 270,682 259,986 (10,696) W9 �
20 __Totals Levy;;', 2,805,925 2,939,738 .133,813; 4.SX R'
21
22 Fiscal Disp Dist (318,000) (280,610) 37,390
23 .4 O `
24 Net Levy to spread 2,487,925 2,659,128 171,203 6.9% I) ,Q
25 . �k ,
26 Allowance for Uncoil. (64,044) (58,795) 5,249 `r
27 v . -( ti\ O
28 Budget Amount 2,423,882 2,600,333 176,452 7.3% G.
29
\1:k- /
30 General Fund 2,423,882 2,340,347
31 Debt Service Funds 0 259,986
UAL/A—dabC6
L 's gct4.14 dal'Alitd-
,w41-e PdrAll iS `144 /1"-A
.1)444 644
44)1 1",33Z Ien caltut 6 04)
(o-to
3-Atib0 — `to(a C
b.teew Aati ra.A.6.. _ (444e4.0( Ikia- -Ati
16,te4?
14i