shakopee west end study

8/18/2019 Shakopee West End Study

1/45


2/45

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the Spring of 2015, the City of Shakopee

initiated a process to complete a master plan for an

approximately 850 acre area in western Shakopee

and Jackson Township. This area is the next logical

area for future municipal growth. The purpose

of the land use study is to determine optimal

mix of land uses within the area and to provide

a preliminary guide to the future installation of

infrastructure (roads, sanitary sewer, potable water,

and storm water) that will help facilitate growth in

the area.

To complete the study, the City of Shakopee

retained the services of Hoisington Koegler

Group Inc., a planning and landscape architectureconsulting firm based in Minneapolis, working

in collaboration with SRF Consulting Group,

a multidisciplinary consulting firm based in

Plymouth.

The project began in April of 2015.

The final study was accepted by the City Council on

_______________, 2016.

The project was overseen and managed by KyleSobota, Senior Planner with the City of Shakopee.

Figure 1: Project Area Context 1Figure 2: Property Ownership 3

Figure 3: Slope Percentages Throughoutthe Project Area 4

Figure 4: Existing Roadway FunctionalClassification 6

Figure 5: Existing Sanitary Sewer Utilities 7

Figure 6: Drinking Water Utilities 8

Table 1: Regulatory Matrix ForStorm Water Treatment 9

Figure 7: Stormwater Features 10

Figure 8: Utilities Summary Diagram 11

Figure 9: Future Land Use Plan 13

Figure 10: Existing Zoning Map(City of Shakopee) 15

Table 2: THRIVE MSP 2040 DevelopmentProjections for Shakopee(Current as of 2015) 19

Figure 11: Existing Vacant Land in Shakopee 19

Figure 12: Land Use Master Plan 22

Table 3: Development Summary 23Figure 13: Proposed Parks & Open Space 26

Figure 14: Ridge Feature & Land UseInteraction 27

Table 4: Stormwater BMP FootprintBased on Development Program 29

Figure 15: Phasing of Infrastructure 30

Figure 16: Proposed TransportationInfrastructure & Access Points 31

Table 5: MnDOT Access Management

Guidelines 32

Table 6: Scott County AccessManagement Guidelines 33

Table 7: Four Levels of FunctionalClassification 33

Figure 17: Right-of-Way Sections 34

Figure 18: Development Phasing Concept 37

Figure 19: Opportunities for HigherDensity Housing Dependingon Market Demand 43

CONTENTS

01 | INTRODUCTION + PROCESS 1

02 | PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION 3

03 | POLICY DIRECTION GUIDING DOCUMENTS 13

04 | MASTE R PLAN CONCEPT 21

05 | IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 39

TABLES + FIGURES


3/45

1

I N T R O D U C T

I O N

+P R O C E S S

W E S T E R N S H A K O P E E J A C K S O N T O W N S H I P L A N D U S E S T U D Y & M A S T E R P L A NDRAFT

01 | I N T R O D U C T I O N + P R O C E S S

PURPOSE AND PROCESS

The Western Shakopee/Jackson Township Land Use Study and Master Plan

was initiated to coordinate development potential and public improvementneeds within an undeveloped portion of Western Shakopee and a portion of

Jackson Township. The master planning process conducted in 2015 included

conversations and meetings with larger land owners within the project area in

addition to key agencies: Jackson Township, MnDOT, Scott County, Shakopee

Public Utilities, and the various departments within the City of Shakopee.

Historically, a number of planning concepts have been explored by private land

owners for portions of the project area, mostly the area within the current city

limits. These concepts date back to 2005 and before in some cases. Propertyowner meetings revealed a lot of common concepts and understanding of

issues over the years. This master plan carries many of these concepts forward,

validates many assumptions, and moves many of the outstanding questions

a little closer to clarity. The master planning process included exploring

and evaluating a range of concepts and alternatives ultimately arriving at a

preferred master plan concept which is the subject of this plan.

The land use study seeks to illustrate the relationship between land uses and

community systems needed to serve the development. Community systems

include transportation (roads/transit/trails), sanitary sewer and potable water

infrastructure, stormwater, and parks/open space networks.

WHAT THE MASTER PLAN IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT

The master plan establishes a land use pattern and development projection

that informs the sizing (capacity) and location of key infrastructure. This master

plan provides a basis for more detailed infrastructure planning and design that

would ultimately provide information to update the City’s Capital Improvement

Program (CIP). The master plan also informs implementation of broader city

Figure 1: Project Area Context

A 2005 developer submitted concept for a portion of the project area “The Bluffs at Marystown”

PROJECTAREA


4/45

2

I N T R O D U C T I O N

+ P R O C E S S

W E S T E R N S H A K O P E E J A C K S O N T O W N S H I P L A N D U S E S T U D Y & M A S T E R P L A N DRAFT

policies regarding park and recreation systems,

natural resource/open space preservation, storm

water management approaches, and development/

infrastructure phasing.

This master plan is not an amendment to the

Comprehensive Plan; however, the information

and analysis contained within it may be used to

evaluate upcoming comprehensive planning

processes.

The master plan is not a “law” or legal document.

The master plan does not amend the current

orderly annexation agreement between the City of

Shakopee and Jackson Township nor does it initiate

any annexation of lands in Jackson Township into

the City of Shakopee. The master plan may be usedas a source of information to inform or evaluate

such requests for annexation.

The master plan does not “rezone” property. Official

public hearings and ordinance adoption is required

to rezone property. The master plan may inform or

help to evaluate revisions or amendments to the

City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The master

plan provides a basis for evaluating future zoning

requests or re-zoning requests initiated by private

land owners or developers.

WHAT THE MASTER PLAN DOES

The land use master plan serves the following

functions:

» The plan provides continuity across time

» It is a means by which a community can

balance competing private interests » It is the means by which a community can

protect public investments

» It allows communities to plan development in

a way that protects valued resources

» It provides guidance for shaping the

appearance of districts or neighborhoods

within the community

» It promotes economic development

» It provides justification for decisions

» The process allows for stakeholder dialogue

and expression of a collective vision

Source: Adapted from an article by Gary Taylor, Iowa State

University Extension Service


5/45

3

P R O J E C T A R

E A

D E S C R I P T I O N


02 | P R O J E C T A R E A D E S C R I P T I O N

BOUNDARIES

The project area consists of approximately 850 gross acres and is generally

bound on the north by Vierling Drive, on the west by Old Brickyard Road (CR69), on the south by CSAH 78, and on the east by Marystown Road (CSAH 15).

Approximately 67% of the project area (570 acres) is located within the City

of Shakopee’s current city limits. The remainder (280 acres) is located within

Jackson Township.

PARCELS/PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

The vast majority of property is owned by a handful of family estates.

Some of the City of Shakopee holdings include Tahpah Park and remnants fromthe Old Brickyard Road (CR 69) and Highway 169 interchange construction. The

remnant parcels are available for development.

Green Acres (MS 273.111)

A large percentage of the land holdings within the project area are enrolled

in the Green Acres program. The Minnesota Green Acres Program provides

property tax relief for owners of agricultural property in areas where the market

value of land is being affected by development pressure, sale of recreational

land, or other non-agricultural factors. Properties are enrolled in the program atthe request of the property owners through the county assessor. To be eligible

properties must meet certain requirements including being at least 10 acres in

size, or a nursery or greenhouse; and be primarily devoted to the production of

agricultural products among other requirements.

Once enrolled, property owners will pay real estate taxes based on the

agricultural value of their land. The difference between the agricultural taxes

and the higher value taxes is deferred until the property is sold or no longer

qualifies for the Green Acre program. Once the property is sold, transferred or

Figure 2: Property Ownership

CSAH 16

CSAH 78

C R 6 9

C S A H 1 5

HWY 169

VIERLING DR

Project Area

Shakopee City Limits


6/45


7/455

P R O J E C T A R

E A



no longer qualifies the deferred tax for the current

tax payable year and two prior years must be

paid to the county. In addition to local property

taxes, special local assessments may be deferred

while in Green Acres. Special assessments are due

with interest accrued when the property is sold,

transferred, or otherwise withdrawn from theprogram.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES/NATURALRESOURCES

A large ridge line runs from the northeast portion

of the property to the west central portion of the

project area and continues beyond the project

area to the west, see Figure 3. This ridge consistsof steep and severely steep slopes and wooded

areas. The ridge itself has been minimally disturbed

and only a few home sites have been built within

it. A 2002 natural resource inventory studied the

ridge line and in 2005 the City established the

City of Shakopee Natural Resources Prioritization

Matrix which categorized city resources into three

categories: good, better, and best. The ridge line

through the project area contains some of thegood and better resources in the City. A portion

of the ridge like feature contains slopes exceeding

18%. Some of these meet the definition of “bluff”

as provided in the Natural Resources Corridor

Design Criteria (NRCDC). The City of Shakopee

Subdivision Ordinance requires application and

adherence of these criteria. Anything meeting the

requirements of a bluff or within the bluff impact

zone is considered non-developable. Other steep

slope areas (defined as averaging over 10%) are

also subject to certain regulations under the

NRCDC; however, steep slopes less than 18% that

are not considered bluffs do not prohibit new

development.

The significance of the natural ridge line that

extends through the project site is that it would

be one of the largest intact woodlands left in

Shakopee. It is considered high quality woodland

based on the species present (oak, hickory, maple,

etc) and the minimal impact from invasive species.

A number of woods, draw like features, and rolling

topography extends across the remainder of the

site. The highpoint of the site is located on the

south central tier of the project site.

EXISTING LAND USES

South of Highway 169, the project area consists of

farmsteads and agriculture fields predominantly.

A few scattered single family estate residents also

exist. North of Highway 169, urban land uses exist

including low and moderate density housing and

public park facilities. Adjacent land uses within

the City of Shakopee include similar urban land

use patterns while unsewered lands adjacent the

site are mostly similar ag uses with some rural

residential land use patterns. A number of public

facilities are adjacent the project area including

churches, Jackson Town Hall, an elementary school

and Fire Station.

Farmstead in southern project area on CR 78

Forested & agricultural land in the southwest project area

Open field adjacent to Friendship Church

http://www.shakopeemn.gov/home/showdocument?id=262http://www.shakopeemn.gov/home/showdocument?id=262http://www.shakopeemn.gov/home/showdocument?id=262http://www.shakopeemn.gov/home/showdocument?id=262


8/456

P R O J E C T A R E A D

E S C R I P T I O N


TRANSPORTATION AND ROADS

Roads serving the project area consist mostly of

County Roads and limited local streets. Access to

Highway 169 is available at two interchanges: one

at Old Brickyard Road (CR 69) and one at Marystown

Road (CSAH 15). Transit service currently does not

extend to the project area; however, the recently

constructed Marschall Road Transit Center is located

less than two miles to the east of the project area.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES

Sanitary Sewer

Existing sanitary sewer and water infrastructure is

available to serve the site at its edges on the north

and north east. A Metropolitan Council Sanitary

sewer interceptor runs along the south side of

Highway 169. The line runs largely within the

highway ROW and thus any easement does not

materially affect project development. Metropolitan

Council Environmental Services (MCES) policy is

that connections to the interceptor be through

approved connection points via city sewer mains.

The existing interceptor along the north propertyline is a two barrel forcemain (30” and 20” pipes).

MCES does not allow for a direct connection into

their forcemain as it is a pressurized system. The

interceptor changes from forcemain to gravity

sewer at Marystown Road.

Potable Water

Future water supply connections are available

east of Marystown and south of Highway 169

Figure 4: Existing Roadway Functional Classification


9/457

P R O J E C T A R

E A



Figure 5: Existing Sanitary Sewer Utilities

View of powerline at top of ridge

Commercial land for sale in the eastern project area

Existing CR 69 running north

Gas Line

Easement


10/458


E S C R I P T I O N


Figure 6: Drinking Water Utilities

for the majority of the site. Existing facilities will

adequately provide services to the portion of the

project area that lies north of Highway 169 with

minimal upgrades. Areas south of Highway 169 will

require extending water supply infrastructure via

existing connection points. Capital improvements

made to provide potable water facilities forthe project area need to consider long term

development implications beyond the project area

consistent with the Future Facilities Plan and long

term planning done by Shakopee Public Utilities

(SPU). Future water system and utilities should be

coordinated through both SPU and the city.

Storm Water

The project area spans two watershed agencies, theLower Minnesota River Watershed District and the

Scott County Watershed Management Organization

(WMO). The Lower Minnesota River Watershed

District has rules defined in the Third Generation

Watershed Management Plan, but defers plan

review to Local Government Units. However, the

Lower Minnesota River Watershed District should

be notified about projects throughout the design

process. The Scott County WMO also has rulesfor the incorporated areas of the project area.

Furthermore, the City of Shakopee has stormwater

management policies defined its Comprehensive

Water Resources Management Plan 2012. This

management plan has specific policies for the

unincorporated Jackson annexation area.

Each of these agencies have requirements for water

quality treatment, the control of peak discharge

Gas Line

Easement


11/459

P R O J E C T A R

E A



rates, and volume reduction. Due to the fact that

the project area has several different regulatory

jurisdictions, the most stringent rules were applied

to determine the estimates for water quality

treatment. See Table 1 for the regulatory matrix,

with the most stringent requirements shown in

bold.As development occurs, projects will be subject to

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Permit requirements. In addition, the

project area drains to the Minnesota River, which

is an impaired water and is within one mile of the

project area. Thus, the Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency will require that the Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be submitted for review

30 days before construction.

Other notable requirements include:

» No karst features, FEMA floodplain, or public

waters were found within the project area.

» Some small, isolated wetlands are shown on

the National Inventory of Wetlands in some

low lying areas and will need to be considered

during the design phases of the development.

» A Scott County Natural Area Corridor is located

within a large portion of the project area;

however, the land use concept recognizes this

area by preserving the land for future parks

and open spaces.

» The proposed development is almost entirely

(98%) located within a Drinking Water Supply

Management Area (DWSMA) and the designer

AGENCY RATE CONTROLWATER

QUALITYVOLUME

CONTROL

EROSIONAND

SEDIMENTCONTROL

COMMENTS

C i t y o f S h a k o p e e

C i t y o f S h a k o p e e

Shall not exceed 1/3 cfsper acre for 100-yearcritical duration events,

but the minimum outletorifice must be at least an8-in opening to allow thedetention area to drawdown to within one footof the normal run-outelevation within 72 hours.

Permanent pool

volume at least2.5” rainfall overthe contributingdrainage area(assuming fulldevelopment).

J a c k s o n T o w n s h i p

a n n e x a t i o n a r e a

2-, 10-, and 100-year stormevents to presettlement

rates with given CNs forsoil groups.

L M R W D

Shall not exceedpredevelopment conditionrunoff rates for the 1- or2-year, 10-year and 100-yr24-hour storm events

Shall meetNPDES Permitrequirements

0.5 in of newimpervioussurfaces,except whereinfeasible

Shall meetNPDES Permitrequirements

S c o t t C o u n t y

W M O

Unincorporated areas –discharge rates shall notexceed pre-settlementrates.

Control .5 in ofrunoff for newimpervioussurfaces

Additional

rules: ScottCountyNatural AreaCorridor – Bluffconstraints

N P D E S / M P C A WQ Volume of

1” of runoff fromnew impervioussurfaces shall betreated beforeinfiltration.

At least 1” ofwater qualityvolume shallbe infiltratedwhereconditions

allow.

See NPDESPermit fortemporary andpermanentErosion ControlRequirements

Table 1: Regulatory Matrix For Storm Water Treatment


12/4510


E S C R I P T I O N


should confirm with the City, watershed

agency, and Minnesota Department of Health

whether infiltration practices will be allowed.

» The area below the ridge line south of

Highway 169, may have poor drainage

conveyance. Detailed planning and design

of building and public improvements shouldconsider this issue early in the process.

Private Utilities

A major Excel Energy transmission line also spans

the northern portion of the site south of Highway

169. This transmission line includes a 240 easement

that prohibits building development but would

allow roads, parking area, landscaping, and storm

water uses. Two gas lines also cross the propertyincluding an excel energy gas line running north/

south through the center of the site and a Rahr

Malting gas line running along the western edge of

Marystown Road (CSAH 15).

SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES ANDCONSTRAINTS

In summary, the project area offers a numberof opportunities and challenges. The ridge line

and natural resources present the greatest site

opportunity. Such features provide a desirable site

amenity and one that could include an improved

trail network for recreation purposes. Such trail

and open space resources are a desirable amenity

for neighborhood residential development as well

as employment opportunities. The ridge line also

presents a physical development barrier. Steep

Figure 7: Stormwater Features

Gas Line

Easement


13/451 1

P R O J E C T A R

E A



Figure 8: Utilities Summary Diagram

RAHR Gas PipelineEasement

slopes create challenges for road connections and

development.

Large parcels under common ownership presents

opportunities for master planned communities

and coordinated development. Proximity to utility

(sewer and water) connections will dictate to a

large degree the phasing and timing of futuredevelopment.

Power line easements and gas easements create

physical development barriers and in many cases,

the locations of these easements in proximity to

other physical barriers such as steep slopes or

existing highways can often create challenges

with how parcels are configured for development

purposes.

Coupled with the topographic challenges and

various easements, gaining access from the

regional roadway network becomes vary limited

to key locations. Such access challenges can have

an impact on key land uses. However, proximity to

two key interchanges on Highway 169 and visibility

from the corridor makes the northern portion of the

project area well suited for larger retail uses in the

eyes of developers and landowners.


14/4512


E S C R I P T I O N


THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


15/45


16/45

14

P O L I C Y D I R E C

T I O N

G U I D I N G

D O C U M E N T S


Scott County Comprehensive Plan guides the

area south and east of the Old Brickyard Road

(CR 69) and Highway 169 interchange as Urban

Business Reserve, generally consistent with the City

Comprehensive Plan.

Parks, Trails, and Open Space

The comprehensive plan establishes the following

park categories:

» Neighborhood Parks – 2 to 10 acres in size with

a ¼ to ½ mile service radius.

» Hybrid Park – 10 to 20 acres in size with a ½

mile to 1 mile service radius. Intention is to

create a larger amount of open space and

more diversity in activities. Hybrid Parks could

include an entire neighborhood.

The Project Area is within a search area (Figure 3.5

of the comprehensive plan) for future parkland and

focus for this area is emphasized as an opportunity

for an Active Park/Natural Resource park facility.

For comparison purposes, national park standards

include Neighborhood Parks – 2.2 acres per 1,000

people to 6 acres per 1,000 people.

The plan identifies a series of key “Tactics” including

» 1.1c Provide system wide safe trail access

within ¼ mile of all residents.

» 1.2a Provide neighborhood parks within ½

mile of homes.

» 1.3a Review and enhance the current zoning

ordinance requiring developers to dedicate

trail easements to the City

» 1.3b Strongly encourage that all trails not

follow a road system.

Roadways and Transportation

The comprehensive plan depicts the extension

of 17th Avenue (CSAH 16) through the site as

a Collector street. A frontage road connecting

Marystown Road (CSAH 15) with Old Brickyard

Road (CR 69) was also envisioned at the time the

plan was updated. Since the comprehensive plan

has been completed, this connection has been re-

evaluated and would likely serve as more of a local

frontage road. Further evaluation of this concept

poses many difficult challenges including: access

to Marystown road and intersection controls, steep

topography, parcel usability based on the impacta new road corridor would have on developable

area, and navigating the existing utility easements

in the corridor. Future land uses may warrant the

need for a local frontage road. There are potential

constraints with this endeavor that will likely make

it challenging to construct and increase costs.

ZONING ORDINANCE

The majority of the project area is currently zoned

to residential or commercial zoning districts. Within

the City of Shakopee, the residential districts

include the:

» R1B Urban Residential district which

allows single family detached or attached

development at a maximum density of 5 units

per acre.

Search area map - Figure 3.5 of the City Comprehensive Plan


17/45


18/45

16


T I O N

G U I D I N G

D O C U M E N T S


development with municipal infrastructure is most

efficiently coordinated.

SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THENATURAL RESOURCES CORRIDOR

Sect. 12.24 Design Criteria states that the City has

established certain design criteria to which all

divisions of land must conform. This includes the

Natural Resources Corridor. Section 12.32 states

that sidewalks and trail shall be provided where

specified in the City’s sidewalk and trail plans.

Section 12.34 addresses Park Land Dedication.

A standard of one acre of parkland for every 75

people is established. Population assumptions

include: 3 persons per lot for Single-family and

Duplex-Twin homes; 1 person per bedroom forApartments, Townhomes, Condominiums, other

multiple family dwellings. For non-residential uses

and plats, the subdivision ordinance requires that

an amount of land equal to 10% of the buildable

land as guided be dedicated for park land.

ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENTOAA

Approximately 1/3 of the project area is located

within Jackson Township. An existing orderly

annexation agreement is in place between Jackson

Township and the City of Shakopee. Jackson

Township has conducted recent fiscal impact study

(Ehlers) to understand the impact on the township

of future annexations. The study found that the

land area within the project area will not have

a significant impact on the township when it is

annexed into Shakopee. Key points of consideration

regarding the orderly annexation agreement are as

follows:

» Currently the Municipal Boundary Adjustment

Unit (MBAU) of the Office of Administrative

Hearings administers and adjudicates the

system of municipal boundary adjustments.Consideration by the MBAU is not needed if an

annexation occurs as stipulated in the OAA.

» All land in the Township is subject to

annexation according to the OAA. The City is

limited to a maximum of 250 acres per year of

City-initiated annexation area of developed

and undeveloped property. The limit does not

include publicly owned or properties exempt

for local property taxes. (Sections I. 6 & IV.1)

» Joint Board (Sections I. 13 -16) – Jackson/

Shakopee Joint Orderly Annexation Board was

established between the Township, City, and

Scott County. Land Use and planning authority

of the annexed land rests with the City once

the MBAU orders the annexation. Prior to

annexation, planning and land use authority

for lands outside of the City rests with Scott

County.

» Property Owner Annexation Petition (Sections

II. 2 & 4)

- Any landowner or combination of multiple

landowners with contiguous property adjacent

to the municipal boundary may be annexed.

http://156.142.28.130/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=111296&dbid=0http://156.142.28.130/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=111306&dbid=0http://156.142.28.130/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=111306&dbid=0http://156.142.28.130/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=111296&dbid=0


19/45

1 7

P O L I C Y D I R E C T I O N

G U I D I N G

D O C U ME N T S


- Adjacent means 50 feet or more of the subject

annexation area boundary is shared with the

boundary of the City

» City Initiated Annexation (Sections II. 3, 7 & 8)

- Undeveloped property – The City of Shakopee

may annex undeveloped property or multiple

properties which are at least 50% surrounded by

the municipal boundary of the City based on the

perimeter of the entire area to be annexed.

- Developed Property – City may annex

developed property or multiple properties which

are completely surrounded by the municipal

boundary of the City. The City must provide a

minimum of one year notice. The pay back time

on assessments for improvements associatedwith the annexation shall be for a period of not

to exceed 10 years, unless requested by property

owners for it to be extended.

» Township Requested Annexation (Section

IV. 2) – the township can require the City

at any time to annex properties that are

completely surrounded by the City. If this

occurs, the City shall have a period of one year

to initiate the annexation of the properties.

No reimbursement shall be required and the

annexation would not contribute to the area

limitation for City initiated annexations.

» Municipal Reimbursement (Section III. 1)

- Reimburse for a period of two years of the

proportional amount of taxes that would have

been due the Township without annexation

based on the assessed value of the annexed

property as of January 2nd the year the parcel is

annexed.

- Reimbursement for publicly owned or local

property tax exempt properties is not required.

2014 Ehlers Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis

In 2014 Ehlers was engaged through Scott County

to assist Jackson Township in evaluating how

potential future annexations would affect the

Town’s future property tax collections and overall

finances. The objective was to determine a “tipping

point” at which it is no longer financially feasible

to operate as a separate unit of government. The

analysis developed a set of 5 annexation “target”

areas with which to evaluate the potential fiscalimpact of future annexation. Target Area B, which

encompasses 7 parcels with 226 acres, is the

portion of this project’s study area that falls in

Jackson Township south of Highway 169. The area

represents 3.1% of the Town’s total market value

and 1.2% of the Town’s net tax capacity ($1,752 levy

dollars). Relevant findings of the study include:

» The low tax values on agricultural and green-

acres designated parcels means that although

the entire set of target areas evaluated in

the Fiscal Impact Analysis comprised more

than 1,600 acres, the total tax capacity of the

75 parcels equaled only 26.4% of the Town’s

existing tax base.

» 2013 rates were 12.207% for Jackson Township

and 41.996% for Shakopee


20/45

18


T I O N

G U I D I N G

D O C U M E N T S


» Estimating the fiscal impact of an annexation-

driven reduction is complicated by the fact

that the Town’s annual levy is generated from

two sources: (a) the Town’s net tax capacity

after its contribution of commercial tax

based to the Fiscal Disparities (FD) pool and

(b) its Fiscal Disparities distribution. Whileestimates can be made on how annexations

will affect the Town’s levy and/or tax rate, it

is difficult to know the impacts to the Fiscal

Disparities distribution so the study assumed a

proportional reduction.

» The study found that the annexation of Target

Area B would have an impact of 1.2% of tax

base.

» Analysis of budget expenditures indicate that

the Town’s annual costs would not decrease

notably through annexation. This means that

reducing annual expenses to be a potentential

fiscal response to annexation. The Town will

likely have to either use fund balance and/or

raise the tax rate.

» Analysis found that if the Township wished

to remain autonomous there was not an

annexation scenario that would present the

financial “tipping point” whereby it is no longer

financially feasible for the Town to operate.

THRIVE MSP 2040

Shakopee is designated as a Suburban Edge

community by the Metropolitan Council Regional

Plan. This designation covers cities that experienced

significant residential growth beginning in the

1990s where there are still significant amounts

of land for future development. Shakopee will

be required to plan and stage development for

forecasted growth through 2040 and beyond at

overall average net densities of 3 to 5 dwelling

units per acre. Jackson Township is designatedas Diversified Rural. The project area consists

of lands in both categories. Because there is an

existing orderly annexation agreement (OAA) in

place, there is an expectation that the current

designation of lands within Jackson Township may

be re-designated to an urban designation. In order

for this to occur a more detailed staging plan for

orderly annexation needs to be completed.

One of the components considered in community

designation assignment implies that the Urban

categories are in the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban

Services Area) and the rural designations are not.

Approximately 120 acres of the project area is not

within the planned MUSA area (see Figure 10 which

shows the current MUSA boundary.)

MUSA is distinguished from the Rural Service Area.

Community and land with MUSA receive a higherlevel of regional services in exchange for building

higher levels of development that economically

support the regional services. MUSA supported

through investments such as regional wastewater

services, regional highways, transit service, the

Regional Park System, and programs that support

redevelopment.

Thrive MSP 2040 community designations


21/45

1 9

P O L I C Y D I R E C T I O N

G U I D I N G

D O C U ME N T S


SHAKOPEE SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Shakopee School District (ISD 720) currently

has lands within the project area or immediately

adjacent (Jackson Elementary) the project. At

this time, there are no plans for additional school

facilities in the project area. However, as residential

growth occurs in the project area, additionaldemands will be placed on schools and the

possibility of locating a school in the project area

may be a future consideration.

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS ANDLAND DEMAND

In 2012 Maxfield Research Inc. conducted a

Commercial/Industrial Market Analysis for ScottCounty. The focus of the study was to estimate

excess demand for commercial and industrial

acreage in Scott County from 2012 to 2030.

Scott County has a 2030 goal to employ 50%

of the County’s labor force within Scott County.

Absorption of commercial and industrial space

is expected to expand between 2012 and 2020.

1,500 acres will be needed (county-wide) to

accommodate projected growth. The study

generally indicated adequate land was available

to accommodate growth demand through 2015,

but additional lands would need to be guided to

account for growth beyond 2015.

Shakopee currently has less than 170 acres of land

guided for commercial, business park, or industrial

type uses, a portion of which is located in the

project area along Highway 169.

FORECAST YEAR HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION EMPLOYMENT

2010 12,772 37,076 18,831

2020 15,400 43,900 25,500

2030 18,400 52,800 28,500

2040 21,600 62,300 31,9002010-2040 Growth 8,828 25,224 13,069

Table 2: THRIVE MSP 2040 Development Projections for Shakopee (Current as of 2015)

Figure 11: Existing Vacant Land in Shakopee


22/45

20


T I O N

G U I D I N G

D O C U M E N T S


The Metropolitan Council Thrive MSP 2040 process

provided development projections for the City of

Shakopee, which are displayed in Table 2.

RESIDENTIAL LAND DEMANDANALYSIS

Maxfield Research also prepares periodic housing

studies for Scott County communities. Using key

assumptions from the Maxfield Research, and

looking at recent building permit trends for the

City of Shakopee, we have projected a demand

for roughly 1,800 acres of residentially guided

lands over the next 25 year period, to 2040. Using

historical data and Maxfield Research assumptions,

this figure can be split into 1,360 acres of low to

moderate density guided lands and 440 acres of

more moderate to high density guided lands (see

Figure 11).

The City of Shakopee currently has available for new

development less than 200 acres of moderate to

high density guided lands and nearly 2,000 acres of

lower density guided lands. However, a significant

portion (300-400 acres) of the lower density guided

lands are in areas that are highly difficult to serve

with municipal sanitary sewer and as such are likely

beyond the 2040 planning horizon.

Even if we assume some higher density housing

will be absorbed within redevelopment areas more

proximate to existing centers (such as downtown

or key commercial nodes), there is a need to guidefuture moderate to high density housing areas in

the city.

Other factors to consider in planning new land

areas for population or employment growth

include the notion that not all property owners may

be willing or interested in selling land. Furthermore,

the City needs to make sure that the land supply

available for development is planned ahead so that

the supply is not so low that it affects land prices

negatively.

To adequately serve future demand for population

and employment growth, Shakopee will need to

add roughly 500 to 1,000 acres of land to the city

within the next 25 years and absorb some future

growth through redevelopment at higher densities

near existing centers.


23/45

2 1

MA S T E R P L A

N


04 | MA S T E R P L A N C O N C E P T

This land use plan is general in nature. It does not prescribe a specific

development pattern nor does it dictate an architectural or design aesthetic. It

does define key land use patterns and quantities, the major roadway network,

a preferred land use and open space system, and general guidance for theextension of public infrastructure.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The land use pattern recommended works to balance market driven

development demands, community wide vision and aspirations, and

community planning principles. At the beginning of the process, a number of

key principles were derived from existing policy plans as a means of guiding

the master plan development:

» Expand employment opportunities in areas with good transportation

access and with compatible land use transitions.

» Create desirable and sustainable neighborhoods with a range of housing

types to meet a variety of lifestyle and economic needs.

» Encourage an efficient land use pattern that optimizes both initial

(capital) and ongoing (operations and maintenance) public infrastructure

investments.

» Balance traditional infrastructure systems with green infrastructure

strategies to enhance ecological function of natural systems.

» Protect and enhance natural features that provide opportunities for

recreation, or contribute to the ecological, social, or cultural value of the

landscape and built environment.

» Promote a range of safe and efficient transportation options (auto, bike,

walk, transit) that provide connection to local employment centers,

commercial centers, downtown, schools, and parks, while anticipating

multi-modal connections to the broader metro area.


24/45

22

M

A S T E R P L A N


Figure 12: Land Use Master Plan

Access at Marystown Road near TH 169, the

possibility of a frontage road, internal circulation,

connection/access to the extension of CSAH 16,

and development viability are all interdependent

factors for this node. All factors are impacted by

unique topography and natural features. The

illustration provides an alternative that attempts

to minimize impacts on the natural features and

allow for a mix of land uses that would contribute

to a sustainable neighborhood node. These

alternatives do not meet access guidelines and

would require variances from County and MNDOT

policies. This alternative should be considered

when development is proposed. Additional study

and analysis will be necessary, once an ultimate

land use is determined.0 500 1,000 2,000

FEET

0 500 1,000

FEET


25/45

2 3

MA S T E R P L A

N


FUTURE LAND USEDESIGNATION

TOTALACRES

% OFTOTAL

HOUSING UNITSCOMMERCIAL

SQUARE FOOTAGE

LOW HIGH LOW HIGH

Low Density (SingleFamily - SF)

134 22% 270 400

- -

Medium Density(Small Lot SF)

86 14% 260 430

- -

Medium DensityMixed (Townhouse/Small Lot SF)

81 13% 400 970

- -

High DensityResidential (HDR)

12 2% 300 370

- -

Mixed Use (HDR/Retail)

7 1% 160 200 44,300 73,800

Retail 32 5% - - 207,100 345,200

Mixed Use (Retail/Business Park)

81 13% - - 883,400 1,236,800

Parks & Open Space 120 20% - - - -

ROW 50 8% - - - -

GRAND TOTAL 603 100% 1,390 2,370 1,134,800 1,655,800

AVG. RESIDENTIALDENSITY

4.34 U/A 7.4 U/A

Table 3: Development Summary

DEVELOPMENT MAGNITUDE

Table 3 represents a development summary that is

based on the assumed residential densities outlined

above and average floor area ratios (FAR – the ratio

of gross usable square feet to the lot area) derived

from an evaluation of area development projects

and best management practices for commercialdevelopment.

LAND USE

For all residential land use categories, lot sizes and

housing types are encouraged to be varied to the

extent the market would support such variations.

Adherence to general density ranges will ensure

adequate transportation, infrastructure, and park/

open space system planning.

» Low Density (Single Family) – This land use

category is most reflective of traditional

detached single family housing. The

development pattern here is typically a larger

lot pattern with average densities in the 2 to 3

units per acre range.

» Medium Density Small Lot (Single Family) –

This land use category provides for a moremoderate density ranging from 3 to 5 units per

acre and thus a greater ability to vary housing

types.

» Medium Density Mixed (Townhouse/Small

Lot Single Family) – This land use category

bumps up the density range from 5 to 12

units per acre and thus the greatest ability to

vary housing types. This category begins to


26/45

24

M

A S T E R P L A N


Character precedent for low density development

Character precedent for medium density small lot development

Character precedent for medium density mixed development

Character precedent for high density residential development

Character precedent for retail development

Character precedent for mixed use (HDR/retail) development

Character precedent for mixed use (retail/business park) development

introduce an attached side by side housing

product or smaller vertical stacked housing

types.

» High Density Residential – This category

excludes detached single unit housing types.

Instead a vertical oriented stacked housing

product will be the primary housing type inthis district. Attached side by side with tuck

under garages may also be mixed into this

category. The density range in high density

residential category will generally exceed 12

units per acre and may range to be greater

than 30 acres depending on market forces.

» Retail – this land use is predominantly

oriented towards the sale of goods and

services and supporting professional offices.

Retail areas could include institutions such

as post secondary/tech colleges, post offices,

museums, or other similar uses. In this land use

category, the typical pattern of development

is for one or two story buildings with surface

parking.

Mixed Use is a term used to define land use

patterns where uses might be market based and

consist of one or the other identified use. Or, the

uses might consist of a vertically oriented mixed use

configuration; however, such building configuration

is not perceived highly in the suburban market area

represented in the project area. These categories

are location specific and based on uncertainties

surrounding property access , market conditions,

and development timing.


27/45

2 5

MA S T E R P L A

N


» Mixed Use (HDR/Retail) – this category is

applied near Marystown Road (CSAH 15) and

Highway 169/17th Avenue (CR 16) extension.

Uses may include all high density residential

or all retail services. Alternatively, a multi-story

building with commercial uses on ground

floor and housing or office uses above could

be a supported development configuration in

this category.

» Mixed Use (Retail/Business Park) – this

category is applied to the southeast quadrant

of Old Brickyard Road (CR 69) and Highway

169. This land area is well suited to retail

because of it’s visibility and proximity to

the interchange at Highway 169 and Old

Brickyard Road (CR 69). However, access is

somewhat challenging and may lend more to

a destination oriented use such as a business

park. The area of approximately 50 acres could

support a small business park, a retail, auto

oriented power center, or a mix of both uses.

This category also applies to the southwest

quadrant of Vierling Drive.

Both mixed use areas could include institutionssuch as post secondary/tech colleges, post offices,

museums, or other similar uses.

Character precedent of low density neighborhood with a public street fronting on open space.

Bioretention integrated with park and trail system


28/45

26

M

A S T E R P L A N


PARK AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK

The ridge line is a high valued amenity. The concept

for parks and open space focuses on the ridge line,

but also provides for a hybrid park that will serve

much of the new residential growth in the district

with Neighborhood Park like facilities and an open

play field area. To best serve the neighborhoodsunder this concept, the residential lot pattern

needs to encourage highly connected streets and

walkable blocks. Sidewalk connectivity and trail

connectivity is important so that homes are within

a comfortable and safe walking distance to the

park. Park dedication from the entire project area

should be pooled and used to secure the ridgeline

as public park/open space through a combination

of acquisition and dedication. Small neighborhood

scale pocket parks could also be located along

the ridge line open space to provide great park

connectivity and provide efficient maintenance of

the park system.

As a high value amenity, the ridge line as an

open space will add value across all residential

neighborhoods that are within close proximity (1/4

mile). Maintaining a portion of the public frontageon the open space is a critical design policy. Studies

have shown that such public frontage spreads the

value of lot premiums across a broader area, rather

than limiting that value to the lots backing on the

open space. The tendency from the market place

is to have individual residential lots back up to the

open space. This pattern would then support a

premium value limited to that first row of residential

lots adjacent the open space.

Figure 13: Proposed Parks & Open Space

Existing Parks/Open Space

Proposed Open Space

0 500 1,000 2,000FEET


29/45

2 7

MA S T E R P L A

N


The desire expressed in

the master plan is to find a balance

between “prime” home sites that abut the

open space amenity provided by the ridge line

and public frontage provided through a right-

of-way or accessible park feature. The illustration

provided shows potential opportunities to offer public

access along the bluff either by small neighborhood pocketparks with street frontage on the south and the open space

access (or views) on the north. Alternatively, a local street could

be designed to offer both conditions as it meanders along the south

side of the ridge. Future developers are encouraged to incorporate this

concept into subdivision design.

This illustration shows a street adjacent to the bluff and is a

demonstration of how the bluff features adds value to the

“neighborhood” but extending a greater degree of public

access.

Mississippi River Boulevard, St. Paul, MN / Source: Google Maps

This illustration shows a houses that back up to the bluff

area and is a demonstration of how the value of the

amenity is limited to the adjacent tier of homes.

South of Riley Lake, Chanhassen, MN / Source: Google Maps

Using park dedication from development parcels

that currently contain part of the ridge line

coupled with cash park dedication secured from

development projects with no park land needed

will account for the majority of the resources

needed to secure the ridge. However, more detailed

study is needed to understand market values and

acquisition needs for the full ridge line. Other

strategies might include conservation easements,

grant resources, philanthropic resources, or

bonding.

The unique topography of the area and the

ridgeline feature offers opportunities for alternative

recreation such as mountain biking trails, hiking

trails, nature learning center programs, or other

passive open space programs.

Co-locating some of the storm water management

needs or potable water facilities with the linear

components of the open space network can also

serve to help with funding of some of the open

space areas.

Multi-purpose off street trail corridors should be

planned within these open space corridors to

allow for recreational use as well as to connectresidential neighborhoods with key destinations.

An important trail connection to incorporate into

future improvements along Marystown Road is to

provide a safe pedestrian crossing over Highway

169 linking the project area to Tahpah Park and the

rest of Shakopee.

Figure 14: Ridge Feature & Land Use Interaction

Pocket Park

& Open Space

Access

Pocket Park

& Open SpaceAccess

Pocket Park

& Open Space

Access


30/45

28

M

A S T E R P L A N


UTILITIES

Storm Water Approaches

Various Best Management Practices (BMPs) can

be used to meet the stormwater requirements for

future development controlling for volume control,

flood management, and water quality. Two types

of BMPs are recommended for the project area:

bioretention basins and wet ponds.

The isolated development areas in the northwest

and northeast corners of the project area (those

north of Highway 169) will require their own

treatment system, and cannot be combined with

the lower portion of the project, whereas the lower

portion may be able to have a regional treatment

system.

A strategy for the drainage area above the ridgeline

is to design a regional stormwater treatment system

of rain gardens and wet ponds along the open

space network. The linear park and trail system

follow existing drainage paths and will naturally

receive a significant portion of water.

At the bottom of the ridge, where more significant

commercial development is proposed, a regionalponding strategy could meet the stormwater

requirements. As discussed with MnDOT staff,

a portion of excess MnDOT right-of-way along

Highway 169 at the Old Brickyard Road (CR 69)

interchange could be purchased and used as a

proposed ponding area. Additional coordination

between the City and MnDOT will need to

occur to determine the feasibility of this site to

accommodate stormwater requirements from a

development perspective. This coordination will

also need to identify the responsible party (city or

developer) for the future maintenance of the site.

If it is not possible to use the MnDOT right-of-way

or other existing easements, other stormwater

management options are available that consume

less area. Examples of these practices include

permeable pavement, tree trenches, and bioswales.

Sanitary Sewer

Sanitary Sewer serving the site will connect to

existing trunk mains located in Marystown Road

(CSAH 15). The lower portion of the ridge line

(Breeggemann Parcel) would connect to sanitary

sewer through a gravity line running easterly and

connecting in at Marystown Road. As an alternative

approach, the City and developer could inquire and

pursue with Metropolitan Council Environmental

Services (MCES) a direct connection to the

interceptor. However, this is not a preferred option

and may not be permitted by the MCES. The MCES

interceptor in this location is a pressurized system

and establishing a new connection could be a

costly project.

Services to the area further south on the top of the

ridge also connects near Marystown Road (CSAH

15) and 17th Avenue (CR 16). A trunk sanitary sewer

system would run generally south through the

project area and would be sized to accommodate

longer term potential development south of CSAH

78.

Services to areas north of Highway 169 are simple

connections to adjacent service.


31/45

2 9

MA S T E R P L A

N


NE QUADRANT

Area of Biofiltration/Rain Gardens: 0.3 acres

Area of Wet Ponds (at HWL): 0.8 acres

1.1 acres

NW QUADRANT



1.4 acres

SOUTH QUADRANT AREA SOUTH OF HI GHWAY 169



10.1 acres

Total Stormwater BMP Footprint 12.6 acres

Table 4: Stormwater BMP Footprint Based on

Development Program There is sufficient capacity within the regional

system and within the existing collection system to

handle the projected demand from future growth.

Infrastructure would be located within street

right-of-way or within public greenway corridors or

existing utility corridors.

Potable Water

Services to the two areas with development

potential north of Highway 169 can be served

through connections to existing 12 inch mains

along Vierling Drive.

Services to the area south of Highway 169

become more challenging due to topographic

challenges and the Highway 169 barrier. The Water

Distribution Plan and Future Facilities Plan preparedin 2004 by Shakopee Public Utilities (SPU) shows

future water main extensions along the north side

of the ridgeline extending from a connection point

at Marystown Road and CR 16 westerly to CR 69.

This extension would serve the land areas between

the ridge and Highway 169. This area currently

consists of three parcels owned by three separate

entities (see Figure 2). Phasing of the improvements

and associated development would occur in an

east to west direction from Marystown Road. The

same system would need to be sized to be able

to provide future services to areas west of CR 69

and to the south beyond the project area. Some

discussion was had (prompted by developer/land

owners) regarding the ability to connect to existing

water distribution systems north of Highway 169 by

boring under the highway.

The SPU plan is a preferred plan representing an

economical and sustainable solution to providing

water service to the area at the bottom of the

ridge line and areas beyond the project boundary.

The alternative to connect to existing water

infrastructure north of Highway 169 may be a

plausible alternative. However, this alternative

has not been studied in detail. At a concept level,

it would require additional capital investments

in boosters and pressure reducing stations and

would still require the recommended infrastructure

services to ensure adequate service. Alternative

approaches may prove less sustainable over time

(more facilities that require maintenance); however,

such an approach could be studied in greater detail

if development pressures warranted an alternativeapproach.

This alternative approach would enable the

property owners to develop independently of other

developer/landowner decisions. This option is not

a preferred option as it would carry significant

infrastructure costs and implications for future

service areas beyond the project area to the south

and west. Additional system wide study as well as

detailed analysis of this option would need to be

done before pursuing it further. This study should

be coordinated with SPU.

South of the ridge, water service would be provided

from the connection point at Marystown Road

(CSAH 15) and 17th Avenue (CR 16). Future water

services could be phased in the following manner:


32/45

30

M

A S T E R P L A N


Figure 15: Phasing of Infrastructure

0 500 1,000 2,000FEET

Existing Sanitary Sewer

Existing Watermain

Phase One

Phase Two/Three

C o n t o u

r 8 2 5

( F i r s

t H i g h

S e r v i c e

Z o n e )

C o n t o

u r 9 1

5 ( S e

c o n d H

i g h S e r v i

c e Z o

n e )

Phase 1

Initially, water service can be provided by

connecting to the 12” watermain at Marystown

Road and extending the watermain through ROW

of the ultimate development plan. As development

occurs this system can be looped to the east side of

Marystown Road with a second connection to the12” watermain. However, this infrastructure will only

serve development that occurs up to an elevation

of 915 (per Future Facilities Plan from SPU).

Phase 2

Any development that occurs over an elevation

of 915 will require a booster station to meet water

service needs. It is assumed that the station will be

located on the eastern portion of the site near theboundary between the two high elevation service

districts..

Phase 3

Ultimately a water tower/tank will be required

to serve the south quadrant as a whole. It is

anticipated that it will be installed at or near the

highest point in the development. Integration

of the site into a park or open space could be aconsideration. The installation of the tank/tower

and supporting facilities will be integrated with

development of the site.


33/45


34/45

32

M

A S T E R P L A N


system. In this case, State and County Access

Management Guidelines will apply.

The proposed 17th Avenue (CR 16) Extension

will serve a higher function. At this point in time,

the 17th Avenue (CR 16) Extension should be

considered as a future Collector. This east-west

extension provides regional significance byconnecting to Minor Arterial streets (CSAH 15 and

CR 69). This extension will serve as a thoroughfare

for local traffic accessing the north-south routes to

Highway 169 (Principal Arterial). Furthermore, the

existing 17th Avenue (CR 16) east of Marystown

Road (CSAH 15) is an “A” Minor Arterial, which

stretches throughout the County. In that respect,

the 17th Avenue (CR 16) Extension may be more

appropriately designated as an “A” Minor Arterialin the long-term if future traffic volumes and

development warrant the change. CR 16 serves as a

reliever to Highway 169 during extreme congestion

times or in rare event-based road closings.

Finally, it is important to recognize Scott County’s

Future Functional Classification Plan. CSAH 78 south

of the project area is planned to be a Principal

Arterial. This designation will be held to differentaccess management requirements. In that respect,

future access along CSAH 78 should be planned

accordingly to align with a Principal Arterial

designation.

Table 5: MnDOT Access Management Guidelines


35/45

3 3

MA S T E R P L A

N


Table 6: Scott County Access Management Guidelines

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MOBILITY ACCESS

Principal Arterial Highest Mobility No Direct Land Access

Minor Arterials High Mobility Limited Land Access

Collector Streets Moderate Mobility Moderate Land Access

Local Streets Low Mobility Unrestricted Land Access

Table 7: Four Levels of Functional Classification

Access Management

Access management is a strategic,

multidimensional set of policies, methods

and tools to manage connectivity to public

roadways from various types of land uses. Access

management seeks to provide an appropriate

balance between mobility needs and connectionsto property. Good access management supports

a wide array of transportation system goals. These

goals include creating a safe travel environment

for all modes and users of the transportation

system, encourages a balance between roadway

capacity and accessibility, and encourages an

active transportation system (e.g., integration of

multimodal facilities and context sensitive design

principles).

Access management also plays an important role

in maintaining roadway capacity and maximizing

mobility, while supporting the jurisdictions

functional classification system plans. Scott

County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan recognizes

the relationship between a roadway’s functional

classification, mobility and access. The Plan states

“most roadways serve both access and mobilityfunctions to varying degrees, and this planned

degree of access and mobility determines the

roadways functional classifications (table).”

A roadway’s functional classification is also the

determining factor in understanding the State

and County’s Access Management Guidelines (see

Table 5 and Table 6). Access spacing guidelines

are important because they define a starting


36/45

34

M

A S T E R P L A N


Frontage Roadconsideration dependent

on ultimate land use

configurations andintensity. See discussionon key roadway issues.

1 5 0 ’ R O W -

4 l a n e s e c t i o n

1 2 0 ’ R O W -

3 l a n e s e c t i o n

7 0 ’ R O W

6 6 ’ R O W

COMPLETE STREETS

Future streets will both consider the context of the community and create

a comprehensive and connected network within the project site. They will

serve as a mode for vehicular traffic, while supporting pedestrians, bicyclists,

and potential future transit users of all ages and abilities. The integration of

streetscape features and landscaping will increase the aesthetic qualities of

the corridors, while also providing opportunities to mitigate stormwater.

Figure 17: Right-of-Way Sections

The above illustrations are examples. Ultimate street design will be determined by more detailed traffic studiesand consistent with applicable city or county standards.


37/45

3 5

MA S T E R P L A

N


point for balancing property access, safety, and

mobility concerns. For example, providing access

management in some form (whether it is through

grade-separated crossings, frontage roads or right-

in/right-out access) reduces the number of conflict

points, which results in improved safety.

Findings The proposed roadway network aligns with the

State and County Access Management Guidelines,

with the exception of the proposed future access to

CSAH 15 at the on/off ramps south of the Highway

169. Continued discussions with MnDOT will need

to occur to determine the appropriate access

control.

Traffic Volume Estimates

A high-level traffic assessment was conducted

based on the preferred concept’s land uses and

proposed roadway network. Year 2030 daily traffic

volumes were developed based on a review of the

current daily traffic volumes (provided by MnDOT)

and development trips generated by the preferred

land use plan. The Institute of Transportation

Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition

was used to develop trip generation estimatesusing the preferred land use types and sizes

(square feet or number of units). The projected

trips were distributed throughout the study area

based on current travel patterns, future access, and

engineering judgment. For comparison purposes,

results of this assessment were compared to the

2030 traffic volumes developed for the Shakopee

Transportation Plan. A technical memorandum

documenting methodologies and findings based

on current and best available data was prepared

and is available in city files.

Findings

In general, the projected 2030 traffic volumes from

the Shakopee Transportation Plan will increase as a

result of the new land uses being proposed. In that

respect, an additional analysis was completed to

determine the potential roadway facilities needed

to accommodate projected trips. This assessment

included a planning level evaluation of the existing

roadway network by facility type, projected

traffic volumes (2030), and the facility type’s daily

capacity ranges. The capacity ranges were based

on guidance from the Highway Capacity Manual

(HCM).

Results of this review indicated that the projected2030 traffic volumes will exceed the current

roadway capacity along Marystown Road

(CSAH 15) near the Highway 169 South Ramps.

To accommodate year 2030 traffic volumes,

Marystown Road (CSAH 15) should be expanded to

a four-lane roadway from Highway 169 through the

17th Avenue (CR 16) intersection. Furthermore, this

evaluation determined the appropriate facility type

to accommodate the 17th Avenue (CR16) Extension.

In essence, the 17th Avenue (CR 16) Extension

should be a four-lane facility west of Marystown

Road (CSAH 15) to accommodate the existing four-

lane facility to the east. The 17th Avenue (CR 16)

Extension should be tapered to a three-lane facility

with turn lanes west of the proposed commercial

development.

The ultimate design of the 17th Avenue (CR 16)

extension should be pedestrian friendly whilepreserving the functionality of the road. Designs

should support lower speeds of 35-40 miles per

hour.


38/45

36

M

A S T E R P L A N


KEY ROADWAY ISSUES ANDDISCUSSIONS

Much discussion and discourse has been had

over the years regarding the idea of connecting a

frontage road from Old Brickyard Road (CR 69) to

Marystown Road (CSAH 15) and accessing directly

opposite the on/off ramp to Highway 169. MnDOTmaintains permitting authority for access at this

location with input from the City and Scott County.

In order to consider an access point here, more

detailed land use, development analyses, and traffic

analyses will be required by MnDOT. Specific traffic

controls would be a key outcome of this discussion

in the event access is provided in this location.

The master plan shows access at Marystown Road

(CSAH 15) at the on-ramp location via a local

street that connects south to the extension of

17th Avenue (CR 16). Further analysis and review is

required to confirm the feasibility of this alignment.

The idea of a frontage road connecting the two

county roads had been widely discussed over the

years as well. While the frontage road may provide

a valuable connection for development on the

lower portion of the ridge (Breeggemann, NORCOR,

and DR Horton parcels - see Figure 2), there are

significant design challenges and constraints

with constructing a frontage road through this

area. These challenges include topography, utility

easements and narrow areas for development

parcels, particularly on the NORCOR parcel. No

existing property owners are advocating for the

frontage road at this time.

Access at Marystown Road near TH 169, the

possibility of a frontage road, internal circulation,

connection/access to the extension of CSAH 16,

and development viability are all interdependent

factors for this node. All factors are impacted by

unique topography and natural features. The

illustration provides an alternative that attempts

to minimize impacts on the natural features andallow for a mix of land uses that would contribute

to a sustainable neighborhood node. These

alternatives do not meet access guidelines and

would require variances from County and MNDOT

policies. This alternative should be considered

when development is proposed. Additional study

and analysis will be necessary, once an ultimate

land use is determined.

Development alternative requiring further study

0 500 1,000

FEET

Additional study needs to be done to determine

the feasibility of a frontage road. However, the

proposed land use plan does not warrant the need

for a future frontage road at this time.

17th Avenue (CR 16) Extension

17th Avenue (CR 16) currently stops at Marystown

Road (CSAH 15). Numerous past studies have

illustrated a future road connection extending

westerly through the site to Old Brickyard Road (CR

69). The master plan carries this concept forward

with the extension functioning as a collector street

with Scott County jurisdiction and ending at Old

Brickyard Road (CR 69).


39/45


40/45

38

M

A S T E R P L A N


THIS PAGE IS INTE NTIONA LLY LEFT B LANK


41/45

3 9

I MP L E ME N T A T I O N


05 | IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

While the master plan describes a vision for transition of the study area from

rural to developed, this section discusses where the community goes from

here in implementing the vision. Questions about procedures and actions

toward implementation are addressed in this section with discussion about

land use guidance, annexation, infrastructure needs, open space and parkland

establishment, and developer performance incentives.

LAND USE GUIDANCE

The following actions are recommended to establish the plan as official land

use guidance for the study area:

» Adopt the master plan as an official land use guide for future

development within the study area.

» Incorporate the land use plan of this study into the future Comprehensive

Plan update expected to take place in 2016/2017.

» Conduct an Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) environmental

review of the entire study area building.

Approval of this Master Plan represents the first step in a methodical transition

of the study area from a rural to a developed landscape that will likely take over

a decade or more to realize. The study area is within the City of Shakopee and

partially outside. The City of Shakopee is preparing this plan to guide future useof lands adjacent to its corporate limits as well as within.

In the Twin Cities metro area, land use guidance is proposed and administered

by local jurisdictions but must be reviewed by affected agencies and

jurisdictions and accepted by the Metropolitan Council. This review is typically

done through community comprehensive plans that are completed by the

local community and submitted to the Metropolitan Council for acceptance.

In cases where proposed development does not conform to current land use

guidance, a formal comprehensive plan amendment must be submitted to the

Met Council for review and approval before a project can proceed.

The issue of formal land use guidance is closely linked to annexation issues.

Just like this plan, communities often plan for lands outside of their corporate

limits. The Metropolitan Council’s approach to this situation is to provide

formal comprehensive plan review and acceptance of land use plans within

corporate limits and within areas subject to orderly annexation agreements.

For the project area, the City of Shakopee and Jackson Township should seek

an amendment to the Thrive MSP designation for the lands within Jackson

Township to an urban designation (Suburban Edge or Emerging Suburban

Edge.)

Alternative Urban Area-wide Reviews (AUAR) have become a common

environmental review technique for large land areas like the study area. AnAUAR offers the ability to conduct environmental review in advance and in lieu

of individual project reviews. This will streamline future project approvals and

identify environmental mitigation measures that can be accomplished with

subsequent development projects. Because future developments within the

project area are intricately connected, collaborating on an AUAR may prove

beneficial. A significant body of work already exists towards this effort through

this master plan and the Bluffs of Marystown EAW completed in 2005/6.

ZONING/SUBDIVISION

Traditional zoning districts may apply within the project area. However, a

number of recommend actions may better support an approach to zoning that

would achieve the key principles identified in the plan. These actions include:

» Increased density: the current residential districts limit residential

densities to 12 units per acre. In the market place, this density is extremely

prohibitive of achieving a diversity of housing types to serve changing

housing demands and to maintain a degree of affordability. Densities of


42/45

40

I M P L

E M E N T A T I O N

W E S T E R N S H A K O P E E J A C K S O N

shakopee west end study

Documents