HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 23, 2001 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 23, 2001
-MONDAY-
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Jon Brekke presiding
1] Roll Call at 6:00 p.m.
2] Pledge of Allegiance
3] Approval of Agenda
4] Discussion Items
A. Comprehensive Plan (6:00 pm)
B. Organization Update /Compensation Plan (7:00 pm)
5] Other Business
6] Adjourn
/ , ,
i
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Workshop Discussion of 1) Direction Regarding Future MUSA Expansions;
2) Proposed Changes to Medium Density and Multi - Family Residential
Zones (R -2 and R -3); 3) Requests for Proposals for Comprehensive Plan
Revision and River /1 Avenue and Downtown Corridor Study
MEETING DATE: April 23, 2001
In connection with the current draft Comprehensive Plan, staff has prepared estimate needed MUSA
acreage during the 2000 -2010 and 2010 — 2020 period. Staff estimates a need for about 2,400 acres of
additional MUSA during that 20 year - period. In the long -term some of that acreage may come from
infill in areas that are currently rural residential. However, in the short-run, preliminary work done by the
Engineering staff suggests that only about 1500 acres could readily be made available for development in
the near future. Limitations include 1) existing rural residential plats that would not be economical to
serve with municipal water and sewer, 2) land that is in trust for, or owned by, the Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC), and 3) topographic limitations (e.g_ the bluff line, large
number of wetlands in the far southern part of the City. Clearly some of the acreage estimated by staff
would have to include the extension of MUSA to areas that are currently in the township(s).
While there has been some brief discussion about 1) extending MUSA to properties that are partially in
and partially out of the MUSA area, and 2) properties on either side of the SMSC properties, further
discussion of and clarification of the Council's positions on MUSA expansion is requested. Specifically,
Council is asked to discuss 1) areas for expansion by order of priority, and 2) possible staging of these
areas over the next 20 years.
Related to this discussion is a discussion of what land uses the Council might envision for the balance of
the City over the next 20 years. The City's current plans do not guide any significant new areas for
commercial, industrial, Business Park, or multi - family uses. There are decisions that should be made
about these uses in the future, and later in this memo the Council will be asked to consider authorizing
staff in the very near future to seek proposals for the completion of a new revised Comprehensive Plan
that would address these decisions.
Proposed Changes to Medium Density and Multi- Family Residential Zones (R -2 and R -3)
The changes directed by Council, and provided by staff to the Planning Commission for review
would make the allowable densities as follows,
• R-2 - 5.01 to 8 dwelling units per acre
• R -3 - 8.01 to 12 dwelling units per acre (a density bonus of 2 dwelling units per acre
would be possible if parking and open space requirements were exceeded)
Concern was expressed by some of the Commissioners that the proposed change would essentially
eliminate the possibility of apartment construction in the City in the future, and that such a result is
undesirable. The Council is asked to discuss that concern, and provide staff with direction about 1)
whether that is the Council's intent, and 2) that is not the intent, where in the City the Council might see
possible future apartment development being likely or desirable.
For the Council's information, staff has attached a recent publication of the National Multi Housing
Council that has published regarding housing policy.
Requests for Proposals for Comprehensive Plan Revision and River 11" Avenue and Downtown
Corridor Study
As the Council well knows, the process of preparing and adopting a Comprehensive Plan is very time -
consuming. Development of the current adopted plan was begun in the late 1980's; approval took nearly
2 years. The current draft plan was largely developed in 1997 and 1998; it was submitted to the
Metropolitan Council initially at the end of 1999. Given the rapid pace of change in the community, and
the issues at stake, the Comprehensive Plan can easily become outdated, and I believe it is important to
try to get the jump on planning for the future. In light of the other work of the planning staff, and in
order to manage the comprehensive planning process, I believe the services of a consultant will be
necessary. For that reason, I will be asking Council for approval to prepare an RFP for services.
On a similar note, I believe an update for the river /1' Avenue/Downtown Corridor is overdue. Last year
I had sought Livable Communities funds for this effort but they were not approved. I am not sure if this
should be the subject of a separate RFP at this time, but I believe this work should be done. It would, of
course, be coordinated with current ongoing efforts such as those of Vision Shakopee! And the EDAC.
Discuss the issues described above, reach some consensus on them, and provide direction to staff
regarding any consensus reached.
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
CD Z
CD 1 )
rh rh
0 0
D
e-+
2
0
( n
(n
0 n
n. 0
rF
0 �.
o
� C
� a
Z
2
n
m
d
o_
N
O
O
C
Vt
n
O
3
3
m —
m
v 1!.
co
v
v
CD
n.
9" w ro r
N 7"
z
Z
O
c
r'
v.
FU
t
'c
x
UA
�� ky
P�
r ta�` x
�V
}
,
Sv
a V�
r�i
x
}
,
Sv
a V�
c
w
rl
s
0
c
as
CD
w
CL
O
r°
s
(D
R
S
S
O
3
(D
N
O
f
l<
7
O
m
rt
7
3
FD
u;
m
=
Q
f
FD
o
3
s
O
+
c
Z
O
n
m �
(D
cA cA
N
(D
w
a-
0
a
(D
(D
n
as
w
0
O
C
s
0
c
trq
N
O
C
(
< N
w
a
w
00
m
C
•-• W
c Q. O_
N � D
° CD
CD
S 7 n
O d 7
� T
0
� O
0 3 c
CD
C O
(D
7
O
g"
w
a
n
(D
w
(D
d
w
n
a?'
m
om
o�
m = D D ;
D
O o
o a v -0 3 = <
`�° w (D CtQ
c 3 a s C m 3 (D (D �
3 3? O s fD
ID
o_ !2. m o < m w r
Y oa 0 o=a Os m
_' O w 0_ N p n 3 -
(D O R S n �* (D `< i
fl -w S S
� y N N
R O O
R
fD a c M O s w �, � O 1
�� ? 3 (D m
m w o °' m O o 3 s ID �.
O -z 3 N O (D
0
(D (A v s rt 3 X< c
N 3 O w O
o n< m ; CD m' _0 CD
r tra C O _0 O r
O � 0 O F: d
3
S S C
d
S H
co D
R C (D S S �• m 3 0• N'
R n = (D y w w �' O w
0- w o c o <
W y'
p rn O
(D 0
(D (f s Os R w O
D
m p 0 w w w m p w
M �
(D s - 0 (D r* a 3 O � ° -
W It CD O
o x- v `— w o
Vi
w m O n
N o d
c 3
O
�f wo
� Q
m
F
� o
a T
c
m
yo
•
n
n aZ N
C
O
T M
O
W
m
O
J
Z
i Z
i � v
i V
m M
A
J
_
in rn
0 CA
m
� m
rn
Z
fD
CD
D w
o 3
z
m p n ,
(D N
n 0
(D 0 O
C
0 R.
N O
m w
N
CD (D Z
n
w O
(D 3
C
c 3
p O
(D
c c
d N
C
N
N O
E ; 0
0
s A
0- N
S
O
C
04
Z
k
Jd
m
Z
+
c
Z
O
n
m
�(
u)
0
cn
- j
_
m
r
V
O
m
G7
D
m
0
m r
2
O
n
n
< Ln
C
Z
n
D
z
m
=
)
N
z
°
D
D
N
o
�_
of
n
=
O
O
m '
m
D
Z
Z
A
m f
rn
m
n
-
Z
D
°
Z
O
O
rn
0
C
ti
Z
C
D
=
-
71Z
m
m
n
O o
o a v -0 3 = <
`�° w (D CtQ
c 3 a s C m 3 (D (D �
3 3? O s fD
ID
o_ !2. m o < m w r
Y oa 0 o=a Os m
_' O w 0_ N p n 3 -
(D O R S n �* (D `< i
fl -w S S
� y N N
R O O
R
fD a c M O s w �, � O 1
�� ? 3 (D m
m w o °' m O o 3 s ID �.
O -z 3 N O (D
0
(D (A v s rt 3 X< c
N 3 O w O
o n< m ; CD m' _0 CD
r tra C O _0 O r
O � 0 O F: d
3
S S C
d
S H
co D
R C (D S S �• m 3 0• N'
R n = (D y w w �' O w
0- w o c o <
W y'
p rn O
(D 0
(D (f s Os R w O
D
m p 0 w w w m p w
M �
(D s - 0 (D r* a 3 O � ° -
W It CD O
o x- v `— w o
Vi
w m O n
N o d
c 3
O
�f wo
� Q
m
F
� o
a T
c
m
yo
•
n
n aZ N
C
O
T M
O
W
m
O
J
Z
i Z
i � v
i V
m M
A
J
_
in rn
0 CA
m
� m
rn
Z
fD
CD
D w
o 3
z
m p n ,
(D N
n 0
(D 0 O
C
0 R.
N O
m w
N
CD (D Z
n
w O
(D 3
C
c 3
p O
(D
c c
d N
C
N
N O
E ; 0
0
s A
0- N
S
O
C
04
w O
�L c
N Q
5' (D
(D
N
C O
G
(D
M
n
c=
N
Q
CD
`
O
(D
CD
=O
N -1
7 N
o
o w
'O
O 0
DI , N
w N
N
C
(D
�,
- t
w
^
C
v
S
(D
O
t�
D
\V
O
. -
CD
CD
Q
�p
n-
O
3
z
(D
M
(D
CrQ
p
7
fD
(D
X
CD
N
�*
3
C O
0
w
N'
O
6Q
ID
O
m
C
a-
(D
d.
:3
m
z
(D
r+
n
O
p
O
p
3
N
n
M
(D
N
O
O
<
m
n
(D
aq
f
-0
'D
fD
<
n
7
m
w
l<
O
o
d
N
CD
-s
CA
3
w
(
(D
N
CD
CD
(D
w m
2
O
(D
'S
7"
O
p
(n
s
c
w
O
O
w
3
w z
N
C
y.
(A
3
3
�
m
w
o(D
N
M
-Op
�
a
m
_N
N
OQ
(D
(D
_
�*
O
(Q- >
rt.
9
a
v
z
(o
p
m
O
v
o
O
w
3
p
N m
D
p
(D
o
m
O
cn
c
3.
ID
w <'
O
3
o
cr
m
O
(=D
°Q .
0
3
o
N
m
m
(D N
n
Q
a
m
3
=
m C-
Q_ w
F
'05
crq
w
N
O
0
0'Q
N
CD
Q_
S
`�
OQ
Q
O
O_
•.
7
f
O_
S
N
.Q
N
n
(D
�•
y_•
N M
1
O Ln
(D
n
n
p
n
O
o
w
7
(D
a
n 3
C ( D
CD
3
2.
o �+
=
3
W
v
N
m
N
N
OR
p
n
O T
<
7
w
CA
7
a -
(D S
(D
O
fD
o
m
Q_
n
o0
o
m
y
w O
�L c
N Q
5' (D
(D
N
C O
G
(D
M
n
c=
N
Q
CD
`
O
(D
CD
=O
N -1
7 N
o
o w
'O
O 0
DI , N
w N
N
C
(D
�,
- t
w
^
C
v
S
(D
O
t�
D
\V
lV
( D
S �. 'n m 2 m m y s
CD Z- - y 3 3 w-< c
0 w 3 o <
(D (D Ti C
m r
(D v fD �* c y
Otil O O fD S O <
P m O (D r w ° trQ O rt
M O rr 0 Q_ �' ° w (D y s S n
O (D
O m aQ c O n w m m
It (D fD w w p DQ oQ (D Y •
N �
3 EA aQ Q O M
y O z M o w
`�° O y °o o
7 w w S '•�-' O 0 0 � d C
a Q m w I c = < O t/9
p N v N O M 3
3 0 5 m O < O n'
3 ti �° m p 3 .� m
(D O (D W 'O
N N (D N < N O Z
n O Y S O N \ (
w' T w m (D
N p N D•Q s w C ( C
CD m m c 3 m fD
O
m T o
N nw m oo 3 s
< o m v �' 0 C N H 3
CD 3
m w O = (
S N
fD
w < C (D N GQ N w p
CD w go
O (A Q Q
�p
n a
CD P
c=
' r- '
m
w
3
=O
N -1
7 N
o
o w
'O
O 0
DI , N
w N
N
C
(D
�,
- t
w
^
C
v
S
(D
m
3
(D
m
O
(D
(D
N
(nD
m
(D
N
�'
m
0
C
�p
n-
O
3
z
(D
M
(D
CrQ
p
7
fD
(D
X
CD
N
�*
3
C O
0
w
N'
O
6Q
ID
O
m
C
a-
(D
d.
:3
m
z
(D
r+
n
O
p
O
p
3
N
n
M
(D
N
O
O
<
m
n
(D
aq
f
-0
'D
fD
<
n
7
m
w
l<
O
o
d
N
CD
-s
CA
3
w
(
(D
N
;
w m
2
'S
7"
O
p
(n
s
c
w
O
w
(D
=-
w z
N
C
y.
3
y
N•
a
(D
N
N
O
N
s
3 p
�
oa
w
a
(D
�*
O
a
fD
rt.
9
fD
( D
CD
s
p
p
(D
o
m
<
ID
O
3
s
(D
m
O
C
o
3
m
m
n
O
<
O
w
:3
0
�p
n a
CD P
ID
w
CD
O
O
3
a
w
w
=O
N -1
7 N
o
o w
'O
O 0
DI , N
w N
N
C
(D
�,
- t
w
^
C
v
S
(D
(D
n
C
W
3
N
(D
O
O
O
's
rt
m
w
(D
m
O
s
C
0Q
?
(D
m
O
(D
(D
N
(nD
m
(D
N
�•
aQ
°
(D
(D
M
m
r t
w
s
N
S
00
C
ora
w
(D
w
w
n
O
n
z
w
z
n
O
O
�
m
6
?.
0
0
z
(D
M
(D
CrQ
p
7
fD
(D
X
CD
N
�*
3
3
r'
O
N
(D
P!
^
n
n
=
S
0
w
N'
O
6Q
ID
O
m
C
a-
(D
d.
:3
m
z
(D
r+
n
O
p
O
p
3
N
n
M
(D
N
O
O
<
m
n
(D
aq
f
-0
'D
fD
<
n
7
m
w
l<
O
o
d
N
CD
-s
CA
3
w
(
(D
N
S
S
N'
�'
fD
O - 3
0
p
(D
A)
n
p
N
a
*
(D
>'
m
n
c,
oa
mO
fD
- 2
0
CD
n
3
c
m'
N *
y
r,
(�
N
((DD
:7,
s
�
L
m
w
3
w
d
m
a
w
a
3 •
l<
m
-�.
O
�?
_
m
N
0
w
V,'
rt
s
o
z
w
N
,
p
3
rt
N
fw'1
d
p
Z
j
,
X
O
OQ
�.
�
c
o
(D
N
F*
m
(D
N
w
�
y
w
a
�•
N
(D
((DD
m
y
- 1 0 0
m
c
N
O
n•
w
W
0
O
m
O
w
`p
w
0
o
O
-�
O
m
n
d
rt
°+
(D S
0 .
w
=
m
n
rt
O-
O
0
�
w
3
M
N
w
7
O p„
(D
w
�
a
0
Q=Q
y
m
R!
1
O
=
f
O
3
3
2
V
-
m
=
(D
O
a
w
ID
S
M
(D
n
s
d
m
w
N
Cn
m
3
S
m
QQ
ID
o
°�
O
p
o \ ° \°
�-
m
—
s
�
w
�,
c
7
Fi;
7
a
o
v
=
0
w
N
n
OS
O
(D
0•
!„
z
D..
!�
v
rt
(D
n
S+
=
o<
a
'
E
x
m
m
y
?
<
w
N
m
C
^
Ai
w
Z
n
C
(
3
�D
CD
w
a
w
(D
(D
O'Q
D"
,
O
O
p-
S,
m
a
m
O
a>
to
r '
w
a
m
(D
w
N
rl
n
w
(D
v
a
N
-
(p'
o_
=r
o
0
a
D
(D
a
(D
v
m
�'
N•
oo
z
N •
�
S
0
(
v
w
3
�'
3
W
w
v
N
rt
O
-i
N
n
O
0
rr
w
3
N
s
w
i
- D
n
'*
CD
p
�
o
p
N
a-
3
3
w
w
n
w
(D
G•4
0
C
S
3
- O
O .
M
-o
o
7
0
w
D
N
3
p
m
O
3
3
7
w
(D
rt
�
�G
N
(D
o-o
q
w
N
O
z
..1
Vf
m
64
m
m
�
y
W
m
a
C
p eT m o
Ys
a B
B: M
M CD -
- M
Z y
M n
n 0
0- �
� f 1
1C'"
19
A)
d
O
(D
X
E -
0
fD
S
3
O
(D
S
w
3'
(D
n
O
3
(D
(D
D-
M
w
VI
T7
a
m
O
7
d
C
n
O
O
w
a
3
w
N
Z
w
s*'
w
a
O
T7
w
N
(n
Dq
O
z
0
c
O
3
C (D
m
w'
N
m
m
3
C
m
(D
fD
m
o 3 3 A � 3 w 0 m
D v
N Q.. (D
j O 0 c CD ° rt a (p a (D (D n a
p? D. (D S a N (D
w 7 w H P? n (D D O (�D 3 O '
(+ O (D N
Z N S N 50 � 3 Z w (D w 7 Z T
O n a ON (D N n
D'Q N D_ P? y' rt " N 0 T
oq p rt 0 a p O N H m �
N n
C w (D m N v D p b• S 3 N 3
N O O rt w m
o w w 3 _�" �' a° c
r1• O T7 w
r+ NW N D O Z
OC C �- w N Oq' p S
N O O `� - O• C. j p �w c
_ n rr,
vn v O S w O R 00
M rt r v y
I
p 0 A
O N
A D
= W
D a
a B
B: M
M CD -
- M
Z y
M n
n 0
0- �
� f 1
1C'"
I
a
5 o 3
n $
f\a
Eo!
§ $ a
m cl
O�
mom
§/)
; ; I
EP
n C
/mc
> M
; i i
m
�
m
»
n
m
}
/
\
J
ƒ
\
§
\
(
\
\
2
\
j
\
»
■
�v
M.
�
\ D
.�
2 /
� \
�
\
\
\
[
»
f
/
\
(
)
\
)
\
\
(
(D
/
/
(D
&
\
\
\
E
\
%
)
e
}
\
F1
\
\
±
\
/
\
g
2
7
/
\
\
\
G
$
)
2
/
-
\
\ §
a
®
\
.
d
q
G
\
^
2
§
]
&
q
/
?
m
0
;
/
�
ƒ
®
8
\
$
c
_
\
a- »
n
2 _1
ƒ
f E
» >
0 2
0
S
g
\
§
\
/
®
§
/
«
7 \
/ m
. ƒ
@
�
E
@
On
A
\
]
\
n
LA.
&
/
\
2
(
»
■
A
\
\
/
/
o��
m ±E
7G�
2 f
\�
§
�
I
_
�
f \
c
/
/
\
\
0 \
2 ƒ
\
\ k
` J
\
�
\
2
e
� f
&
\
\
/
� \
\
f
$
k
\
ƒ
\
\
ƒ
�
e
/
\ §
) �
>
ƒ
]
k
\
/
�
E
\�
\
/
6�
k \
M
;ZA
m
\ «
IN
IL
E
S
f7
3
O
Z
0
c
3
0'Q
O
n
N
s -°
O O
3
E . y.
(D
O O
< "T
f1
w D
n 3
N DIQ fD
c w n D
o 3
fD
(D y fD
X :3
O
a fD S
m 3 ^ O
O
O o- C: (D
C: (D
s
m C o
DD w
N N
O 0 -a
c 3 o
n � —
n fD
N O <.
0
Z3 3
w �
�
N �
0 - N
< v w
o fT
3 'n
7 v N
n :3
fD
O
D
o
3
3 O O
o-
v m fD
CD w
N
3 O O
C
n
N
X C
3 N d
rr
O O s
S (D
o a
Z _
0 c 0
w
m
� v a
m �
3 N
fD
O
n 3
S y
fD
0
s
m
N
0
m
N Z
0 O
Z
>C O
4 m
C m
m Z
tZ
0
7 w O s
Z(D
o (D
® y
O N S d
tD m
o N
fT
CD y N
�m 3
o °
w � m
oDp o
Z w 0 N
o a �
W � N
n
w
pj w w
3 a a
-n O N
� w O
O
3 N (1
• O
fD
O
<
3
0
/� C
D
0O
m
N w
<
fl
m
H S M w
fD
7
v,%3
O
-o
3
C
0
3
p
O
3
B
'r W p S
I
(YQ
fD
Op OQ N
O (,�
O
'-r
;; m
N
°'
m
LA L a O
O w
0
o
z
0
S n ; x
�-
C
f7
H
�'
N Z •1
ru
tZ
0
7 w O s
Z(D
o (D
® y
O N S d
tD m
o N
fT
CD y N
�m 3
o °
w � m
oDp o
Z w 0 N
o a �
W � N
n
w
pj w w
3 a a
-n O N
� w O
O
3 N (1
• O
fD
O w < C 0
fD E N
0 N 3 3 O 3
D fD 0 3 3( 3
r�-r• 3 N \<
N N
o
w' � w w m : � 3
s O o; m y
O m O N �•* < N < N
a, S m -S CD y n z <
_ .< N 3 0 .
O w w (D CF i
m 0
fD n n 3
-' m
W O a 3 0 5-0 O
O n fD
w :� c fD
ID o
c 3 w 3 0 0
<
(D o C
7 D 3
O N
(Z
N
O
<
3
0
/� C
D
0O
m
N w
<
fl
m
H S M w
fD
7
v,%3
O
-o
3
C
0
3
p
O
3
B
'r W p S
I
(YQ
fD
Op OQ N
O (,�
O
'-r
;; m
N
°'
m
LA L a O
O w
0
o
z
0
S n ; x
�-
fD
f7
H
�'
N Z •1
ru
O _ S
ft
n
N
s
= O w
_0
o
o -%
3 Z °
a
n n 7
v
O r w
n
n
n
(D =
N w 0
o w
0
G
-o
3
O
D w N
o
n
O
z a
m
Pn
=
w
0
�
O w < C 0
fD E N
0 N 3 3 O 3
D fD 0 3 3( 3
r�-r• 3 N \<
N N
o
w' � w w m : � 3
s O o; m y
O m O N �•* < N < N
a, S m -S CD y n z <
_ .< N 3 0 .
O w w (D CF i
m 0
fD n n 3
-' m
W O a 3 0 5-0 O
O n fD
w :� c fD
ID o
c 3 w 3 0 0
<
(D o C
7 D 3
O N
(Z
N
o
(D
2 s
o
o
�
O
3
t
O
S N_
O
3
B
O
N
CD
fD
Op OQ N
L'*.
°'
N
N
°'
d
O w
0
o
m
�-
3 � n
H
O
ru
o
n
fD S
®?
fD
_0
n n 7
0
.a
v
w
n
fD
n
w
O
0
O
Pn
=
0
On
G
-Z
On
s
w
Z
0
N
Cr
C
(
U
d
�
�
rt
N
O w < C 0
fD E N
0 N 3 3 O 3
D fD 0 3 3( 3
r�-r• 3 N \<
N N
o
w' � w w m : � 3
s O o; m y
O m O N �•* < N < N
a, S m -S CD y n z <
_ .< N 3 0 .
O w w (D CF i
m 0
fD n n 3
-' m
W O a 3 0 5-0 O
O n fD
w :� c fD
ID o
c 3 w 3 0 0
<
(D o C
7 D 3
O N
(Z
N
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
- S - ff-VZ1# 7
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FR OM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJE Workshop Discussion of 1) Direction Regarding Future MUSA Expansions;
2) Proposed Changes to Medium Density and Multi - Family Residential
Zones (R -2 and R -3); 3) Requests for Proposals for Comprehensive Plan
Revision and River /V Avenue and Downtown Corridor Study
1 1 7 1, re 9 1 mo it
rW�1
Attached for the Council's information are copies of the 1999 actual land use map and land use acreage
table recently submitted to the Metropolitan Council in connection with its Comprehensive Plan update.
These are being provided in the hopes that they will help the Council in answering some fairly basic land
use questions that it is either facing or has raised. Specifically, these include;
1. Does the Council continue to believe that the City should plan to accommodate projected
population growth?
Current population projections for the City indicate a year 2020 population of about 38,000,
about 17,500 more than the City's 2000 population of 20,568. This amounts to the addition of
about 900 persons to the City per year on average. .
2. Does the Council believe that additional population should be added only through the
development of new single-family detached housing, or should new -areas be identified for
additional medium - density (1. e. townhouse) and/or high-density (i. e. apartment) development?
While the Council has certainly reviewed several medium - density and a few high density projects
in the last 4 years, the remaining areas guided for such development in the City are relatively
limited. It seems to be a fair assumption that if only single- family detached housing is planned,
then to accommodate the projected population growth would require the annexation and
development of significant township areas.
3. Over the long -term, does the Council wish to maintain the current ratio between residential
development and commerciallindustrial development?
Based on the acreage table prepared for the Metropolitan Council, the percentages of
residentially, commercially, and industrially developed areas are as follows;
LowD
Resid.
Commercial
Industrial
1999 Development of
Current MUSA
3210A/15.6% 4580A/22.3%
621A/3.0% 938A/4.7%
1928A/9.4 3138A/15.2%
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
2010 2020
5592A/27.2%
938A/4.7%
3238A/15.8%
6592A/32.1%
938A/4.7%
3238A/15.8%
With full development of land guided for low- density residential, commercial and industrial use, it is
estimated that for every one (1) acre of commercial/industrial land there are 1.12 acres of low density
residential land. By 2020 that ratio would be one (1) acre of commercial/industrial land for every 1.58
acres of low density residential land.
2
1999 . Land Use Acreage Table :514AKOWM, MI MNC
L USE _
-
,stn
SA -
- Enstin LL
Tf3TAI, -=
1ZCFSA
Expansion
°-- 20004010
SA_
Expansion
OIQ �202Q
2020
Agriculture
5
0
Agriculture Preserve
Subtotal - Agriculture
—
.3'00
—
0,700
O
CD
d
Rural Residential (RR)
Urban Reserve incl. RR
—
—
—
—
—
Low Density Residential
3
2 2 1 0
Low Medium Density Res.
—
—
—
—
—
Medium Density Residential
—
—
—
High Density Residential
Subtotal - Residential
l Z
—
U
—
—
—
—
Commercial
2 t
(0 3 d
0
O
Business Park
v
v
Industrial
CD
Public/Semi'-Pu I
A 5L)
—
Natural Open Space
Environmentally Sensitive
—
—
Restricted Development
—
City Parks and Open Space
Right -of -Way (Roads/Highways)
Total - Developed
3 (v 940
5,99
—
Vacant Low Density Residential
70
1 D .4
Vacant High Density Residential
Subtotal - Vacant Residential
' O
114-5n
400
OCR
Vacant Commercial
32-0
32- D
Vacant Industrial
3(y)
too
t on _
Dv
Total - Vacant
3.52-0
a
300
Total Land
1 '�
�O
Water
TOTAL AREA
&
S7_ o
,
City of Shakopee, Scott County
1997 Preliminary Generalized Land Use cV TO a ,
4 ,..,,,,,r, ._ ,L___t4k T -- _ - __I c . 3 .1.:10' /
OM— APP1L. 2001
�- L v 1 •
- 1 JP .... , .„ .....,,,... . . ... ...... Tr:: ,, a.‘ ■,....3 : 4,1 Iiii '
Ir .., ,,, - _-____„„.__,,,,,,,,.-....,......,.-,. o r f� ` M I1
: 1 ' A ' A A A A A A . 6 ....„ NOW ... , . -. . ' •1111.:: ' ' '. .--......... ' 4 % ' ' " kdll
..
....... A ..... _... . .. . -..... 7. - r , „ A • " " A " A " " A A \\,‘, :,,,
I ;r46111 ---- 7 T-17.. N 1 ****------- ---. .- - - / 'N..--
A ! + �- - L 1 . I r ` . ; i ;'* r 1 1 WI I �' •
I ter, _' �`R •�.�ia \' ■
. � . �..: � ` . " Shako, - e ^ \ \I * "�� . • , . •
I . ' p
J ckson TWp. ''...----J-- • , - I is r .0 °A h h . . •
;.s....- __ s a � Vi i )- r i
. Y s -
?oeiTecom.4ir t._.
� ' �� h : w " ►-
uis e T h _ .�..� , h 1 �� • � . Prior e
' 1" h� y P
M J /fir -. �' d' •
1 ______I •. , .,.. . s ' , .,:., -• ' '..? I ' : i ' " 410 ( - .- C`7 •
M sr.' h ..K�...- h1 . h�4i Kt a ' t ` , " rj�. • ^ v ; _ .__ �i
• -.L - 6 % :: ••• • 1 - r r, _.. ) ..,, 4- • • - '' : •--- . ..
- - -- r\. -44. - , , .,c___ ...h..
. .. ,\...._, ._-__I I .--4 .— ..... I:1 (C), -., 2'1%1 Iv n
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles
Preliminary 1997 Land Use Undeveloped/Underutilized Land ®6.14t4, TRU6T
Single Family Residential ® Major Four Lane Highways @. 44,0
Multi- Family Residential Open Water Bodies ,.^ 61 , ' FEE L." , ‘
Commercial Farmsteads
Industrial I Industrial Parks not Developed
Public /Semi- Public Public /Semi - Public not Developed
Airports 1 Extractive
t - ? Public Industrial
Parks & Recreation � -
Wetlands (NWI) , " \ : Roads (TLG, 1999) o \/ MCD Boundaries
0
I I I
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Organization Update /Compensation Plan
DATE: April 20, 2001
During the second half of the workshop meeting on April 16 there will be a discussion
of the services being performed by RDK with the City Council.
Consultant Rod Kelsey wants an opportunity to discuss with the Council any questions
that you may have on pay equity, and your perception of the City's pay plan.
There will be a brief background in terms of what the City has provided in the past, and
needs to be updated. For example, Shakopee's philosophy for several years has been to
pay between 95% and 105% of the median top pay for Stanton Group Six Cities
(populations from 10,000 to 25,000 population). By doing that, the City is
acknowledging that some jobs will be as much as 5% under the median. In addition, by
adhering to the median, it also indicates that the City will not be as much as an average of
half of the cities within Shakopee's population size. That may have worked when
Shakopee's population was closer to 10,000; it is now one of the larger Group 6 Cities.
Within the next few years, it will go to Group 5 status.
Mr. Kelsey also asks that you as Council give some thought as to what cities might be
seen as "benchmark" comparisons. In other words, when it comes to paying employees,
what are the cities with whom we are in "competition", and which are most similar to us
in terms of demographics, workload, and the like? Obviously, Chaska, Chanhassen, Prior
Lake, and Savage would seem to be comparable. However, it might also be reasonable to
expect other developing cities such as Woodbury or Andover to be seen as comparable.
In addition, for some positions (notably Engineering), it is the private sector with whom
Shakopee is competing, and not other cities.
Enclosed please find a portion of Rod Kelsey's proposal to us for the compensation
proposal.
We look forward to discussing this with you on April 23
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
The City of Shakopee, Minnesota intends to retain outside pay equity consulting expertise to plan,
conduct, document and report on a classification / compensation study of approximately 43 separate,
distinct City positions, currently held by approximately 88 full time employees.
We understand the following considerations and expectations as primary reasons the City believes the
proposed study is necessary:
1. A formal, comprehensive classification / compensation study has not been performed since 1996,
although the plan has had periodic updatings.
2. About 28% of the City classifications have no accurate match to the Metropolitan Areas Salary
Survey that has for many years served as the benchmark pay information resource for cities in
the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area.
3. There is concern that the existing 8 -step pay plan is excessively long. Therefore, the City is
interested in alternatives that either shorten the timeframe of pay progression and /or accelerate
the progression through the existing plan. (There is also a 5 -step pay plan covering the
Recreation Center classifications.)
4. The City intends to be, and needs to be, competitive when it comes to the "hot" jobs in the
general marketplace, whether public or private. The potential challenge is to stay competitive and
also in compliance with the State's Pay Equity law.
5. There is a need to investigate, and confirm, the FLSA status of City classifications and thereafter
determine the adequacy of pay practices covering legitimate exempt positions.
6. There is a need to evaluate selected classifications held by long- service employees whose actual
job content duties may have changed, but without any perceptible change in job title,
classification or pay.
7. There is a need to explore the feasibility of performance pay.
u
U
u
8. The resulting pay system must be easily updated, kept current, and be in compliance with Pay
Equity.
The study will include using current job descriptions that must be up -to -date; application of an alternative
job evaluation methodology on all positions included in the study; collection of benchmark survey data
from the public and private sectors; review of study results with a representative advisory committee of
City employees; preparation of a final report; presentation of findings and recommendations as directed
by the City; and follow up to help facilitate implementation and administration of the revised pay plan.
RTLFV DE" "M®NN & TZTZTSTdV TTY
1
Initial Meeting Covering the Proposed Classification / Compensation Study
1. The consultant will meet with the Payroll /Benefits Coordinator, City Administrator and
department heads to review each phase of the proposed work plan, decide the manner and
timing of announcing the study to employees, and protocol to select an advisory team of
employees to work with the consultant throughout the study.
2. All job descriptions will be collected and thoroughly reviewed by the consultant. The
consultant, Payroll / Benefits Coordinator, and management team will decide where it is
necessary to distribute our job description questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire, which
can be tailored to specific City needs, is included in the Section 7 of this proposal.
3. In those cases when our job description questionnaire is distributed, the consultant will
interview the employees completing the questionnaire in the most efficient manner hat may
be a combination of telephone, on -site and in groups.
4. The consultant will schedule meeting time with the project advisory team once it is
established by the City to define its role and involvement in the study, emphasizing that the
consultant is expected to and will be accountable for the findings and recommendations in a
final report to the City.
5. The consultant will evaluate all positions included in the study using the RDK proprietary job
evaluation methodology. A copy of the evaluation methodology narrative is also included in
this proposal.
6. The consultant will meet with the management team and advisory committee to review
results of the job evaluation process for comment and input.
7. The consultant will select, collect and compile, and project benchmark survey data from our
extensive pay data library for the purpose of determining the City's competitive position to
comparable jurisdictions. The City and consultant will decide which jurisdictions have been,
and are to be, used as benchmarks. Recommendations for revised base pay guidelines are
part of this step.
8. The consultant will again meet with the management team and advisory committee to review
results of the survey benchmarking process for comment and input.
9. The consultant will develop a new pay structure for non - contract positions. Contract
classifications will continue to be bargained as before.
10. Pay Equity testing will be done by the consultant to determine the effects and impact of
revisions to internal job relationships and application of survey data.
11. A final report will be prepared including all findings, observations and recommendations of the
consultant.
12. Presentation of the final report will be done as directed by the City.
RILEY. DETTMANN & KELSEY LLc
M