HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Met Council / County Road 18 Issue
I I
./
"
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
612291-6359
DATE:
September 10, 1991
TO:
Dennis Kraft, Shakopee
Brad Larson, Scott County ~
Dave U nmacht, Prior Lake
Bob Mazanec, Metropolitan Counc' aff (291-6330)
FROM:
SUBJECf:
CSAH 18
Metropolitan Council members Bonnie Featherstone and Mary Anderson recently asked Council
staff to explore options for resolving the issues raised by the Council's review of the CSAH 18-
Shakopee Bypass interchange proposal. The attached memorandum was drafted in response to
their request. Staff believes that it contains a foundation for reaching a solution to the
interchange issue.
Pursuant to our phone conversations, there will be a meeting of Council staff and staff [rom the
three affected local units of government to discuss the memorandum on September 11 at 3 p.m.
in Room 4B at the Council offices. Breaking the deadlock over this issue will require local
comprehensive plan amendments that meet the objectives laid out in the memorandum in a way
consistent with Council policy. Council staff is prepared to follow-up this initial meeting with
technical assistance to each of the parties in preparing appropriate plan amendments.
The timetable for resolving the issue depends upon the amount of time needed by the three local
governments to prepare and submit their respective plan amendments. Upon receipt of plan
amendments adequately addressing the land use and transportation issues surrounding the CSAH
18 proposal, Council staff will complete a review for Council consideration within 90 days. It is
important that the three local plans be very well coordinated with respect to their treatment of
CSAH 18 and related land use matters. Submitting working drafts of the plan amendments for
informal Council staff review and comment will help ensure a more expeditious and successful
conclusion of the issues in the Council's official plan review.
..q,:l;f ,S .!'t"-
~
,,"If'
!m~..:fIIIiI 1,-[.;:
:F: :il.",
ill,...
_.-;...i1".iIII....,,,..~.iiii;;".
...-
;.:;1,........-_.
ill, Ill:
- ,. .. .. *,"
..
..
ME1ROPOLIT AN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612291-6359 TDD 612 291-0904
DATE:
August 28, 1991
TO:
Mary Anderson, Bonnie Featherstone, Dirk DeVries
FROM:
Transportation & Long Range Planning Staffs
cc: Ann Braden, Bob Davis, Nacho Diaz, Anne Hurlburt, Marcel Jouseau, Roger
Israel, Bob Mazanec
SUBJECT:
CSAH 18 Issue
BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) last revised in September,
1986 sets a general direction for future development patterns and establishes guidelines for
making decisions about major regional facilities. Metropolitan highways and interchanges, such as
the proposed CSAH 18 interchange with the Shakopee Bypass are considered a "metropolitan
System" and receive the largest percentage of total regional dollars expended in anyone year.
A major strategy emphasized in the MDIF is to manage regional resources in a way that most
efficiently serves a steadily growing and aging population. Meeting the service and facility needs
of already developed areas is the MDIF's top investment priority. A second investment priority is
given to facilities that are sized in accord with Council forecasts and programmed to support
staged and contiguous urban development.
The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) has been established by the Metropolitan Council
to efficiently distribute public resources. It has been found that facilities and services needed to
support urban development can be provided at less public cost if the land available for urban
development at anyone time is defined and reasonably limited in area. As a result, the
Metropolitan Council plans for urban development and commits to providing sufficient
metropolitan systems within the urban service area. Metropolitan systems will generally not be
provided to support urban density development in the rural service area.
MDIF geographic policy areas have also been used for ranking investment decisions. Facilities
and services needed to support urban development are located within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA). Metropolitan urban systems, such as freeways and sewers, will generally
not be provided in the rural service area.
The Metropolitan Council's Transportation Development GuidelPolicy Plan, last revised in 1988,
is based upon the MDIE The Transportation Plan describes the direction the Metropolitan
Council believes metropolitan transportation investments should take between 1988 and the year
2010. It contains transportation policies and plans that support the MDIF's priorities for
optimizing the use of existing regional facilities and services, and guidelines for evaluating
potential funding sources for the region's transportation system. Construction of the Shakopee
Bypass and the new CSAH 18 bridge to replace the old Bloomington Ferry Bridge are
recommended actions of the Transportation Plan. However, the interchange on CSAH 18
providing direct access to the rural service area south of the Shakopee Bypass is not consistent
with the Council's plans.
ANALYSIS
The Highway Proposal
The proposed CSAH 18 bridge and connection to the Shakopee Bypass will be located at the
edge of the urban service area in the Freestanding growth center of Shakopee. Scott County has
proposed an intersection relocation and design change for the CSAH 18 connection to the
Shakopee Bypass which would provide direct non-stop access to the rural service area south of
the Bypass. The proposal was made in the Study Report and Request for Controlled Access
Approval, Referral #15301-1, submitted to the Council for review on December 14, 1990.
Neither the approved Scott County plan nor the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan on record with
the Council show the interchange or reconstruction of CSAH 18 south of the Shakopee Bypass
(see attached maps).
This interchange would replace a proposed diamond interchange connecting CSAH 18 (old
County road 89) to the Shakopee Bypass south of the current intersection of highways T.H. 101
and CSAH 18. The diamond intersection is still recognized by MnDOT and is also shown in the
recently received Shakopee Comprehensive Plan amendment. CSAH 18 south of the Shakopee
Bypass traverses rural and agriculture land in both Shakopee and in northern Prior Lake for two
and one-half miles to its intersection with CSAH 42. The two lane road winds a bit, with several
hills, forty (40) direct property access curb-cuts, plus existing intersections from north to south at
13th Avenue, Boiling Springs Lane, County Road 16, McColl Drive and Muhlenhardt Road
before joining CSAH 42. Once the direct access to the new CSAH 18 bridge is provided,
increased traffic volume, access and egress plus cross-traffic turning movements will conflict with
what currently serves as a local access road. These conditions will put heavy pressure on the
County to upgrade CSAH 18 south of the Shakopee Bypass both to keep the highway traffic
moving and for safety reasons. Scott County believes that the interchange and new connection to
CSAH 18 is necessary to eliminate existing congestion on highway 13 caused by the developing
areas of Savage and Prior Lake.
Metropolitan Council policy requires those parts of the roadway located outside the MUSA to be
designed and constructed to conform with the policies for the rural service area. In this part of
the region the Council makes no commitment to providing regional services and facilities to serve
-rural residential development. In the rural service area, major arterial freeways should be
designed to serve rural transportation needs such as farm to market trips and connections to
outstate cities. Access in the rural service area should be controlled by limiting the number and
type of interchanges.
Current Land Use and Plans
Both Shakopee and Prior Lake are classified by the MDIF as Freestanding Growth Centers. The
Council considers the freestanding growth centers as detached portions of the metropolitan urban
service area. It wants the centers to prosper and grow, and to serve as alternatives to living and
working in the large central urban area. Freestanding growth centers also have an employment
base within the community that is large enough to provide work for the local population. The
Council supports regional investments in these communities; however, where additional land is
needed to accommodate growth, the communities should extend municipal services in a staged,
contiguous manner, consistent with their ability to provide such services.
Substantial rural and agricultural land lies south of the Shakopee Bypass in the vicinity of the
proposed interchange and along CSAH 18. Both city plans show agriculture as a long term land
... -~ .--...~-;:_-;,~,...
~"'jj,"~n:"~.i>:l.J~~;,,...~.. ,,101;. ......, .J......;
toO
use. In Prior Lake 320 acres of agriculture land covenanted indefinitely under the Agricultural
Preserves Act border CSAH 18 immediately on the west. Under the Agricultural Preserves Act,
housing density is limited to one unit per 40 acres and tbe landowner is protected from urban
assessments, property taxes at development value and conflicting urban land uses in exchange for
a legal commitment to continue farming for at least eight years.
Metropolitan Council policy recognizes two levels of protection in the commercial agricultural
area. Primary protection is land covenanted in agricultural preserves. Urban facilities are to be
prohibited in this area unless there is documentation that no other location in the Metropolitan
Area can adequately meet the siting criteria. Secondary protection is land certified but not in
agricultural preserves. This area receives a level of protection secondary to agricultural preserves.
Urban facilities are not to be located in this area unless there is strong evidence that a proposed
urban use cannot be located in the general rural use area. All other things being equal, urban
facilities, including roadways, are not to infringe on land protected by the agricultural preserves
program.
Current land use along CSAH 18 (old highway 89) in Shakopee includes a small area of industry
(in the extreme northeast) along with pockets of rural residential (served by on-site septic
systems), vacant rural and agriculture land. No lands are covenanted under the agriculture
preservation legislation in the city of Shakopee. The Shakopee Comprehensive Plan (received
July 23, 1991) shows the area south of the Shakopee Bypass to remain in agriculture and rural
residential uses at least to the year 2000. However, Shakopee allows two and one-half acre lots
(16 lots per 40 acres) in its rural area which is inconsistent with Council policy. The 1990 Census
shows the population of Shakopee as 11,739 which is lower than the Council's forecast of 12,500.
Council staff believes that the forecasts contained in the recently submitted plan are very
optimistic. Neither Shakopee nor the Council has plans to provide metropolitan sewer service
south of the Shakopee Bypass (see Shakopee maps).
Existing land use in Prior Lake along CSAH 18 (north of CSAH 42) includes agriculture and
rural residential served by on-site septic systems. Agriculture lands border the entire western
edge of CSAH 18 in Prior Lake north of CSAH 42. These lands (320 acres) are covenanted
indefinitely under the Agriculture Preservation Act. The Prior Lake Plan on record with the
Metropolitan Council (received August 5, 1991) shows the area as agricultural. Prior Lake
allowed development at less than a one lot per ten acre density in the rural area east of CSAH 18
which was inconsistent with Council policy. However, current Prior Lake zoning now restricts
development in the agricultural area to four units per forty acres. Prior Lake exceeded the
Council's 1990 forecasts (Census 11,482; Council forecast 11,(00). Council staff believes that
while the City's future forecasts are possible they appear optimistic. Metropolitan sewer service is
provided to Prior Lake via the Prior Lake interceptor sewer. Prior Lake has extensive land area
within its MUSA and has not proposed to provide sewer service to the area north of CSAH 42
(see Prior Lake maps).
Transportation Plans
As previously mentioned the Transportation PolicY Plan was updated in 1988 and subsequently a
system statement was mailed out to each county to encourage that all local plans be updated to
reOect the latest proposals and policy changes. However, the Council has not received a
transportation plan from Scott County for official review. A draft plan was submitted on Monday
August 19, 1991 for informal review by Metropolitan Council staff. Preliminary discussions with
County staff and with county engineering consultants have indicated existing congestion on
highway 13 from its entry point in eastern Scott County to the intersection with east-west CSAH
21 in Prior Lake. The existing, at grade intersection between T.H. 101 and CSAH 18, leading to
the old Ferry Bridge is also reported by Scott County to be congested. Consultant projections to
the year 2010 show the entire length of CSAH 18 south of T.H. 101 to CSAH 42 to be congested
in Shakopee and Prior Lake. Thesc projections are based on Council forecasts.
The existing intersection of statc highways 13 and T.H. 101 is located only one and one-half miles
east of where the proposed CSAH 18 bridge will join T.H. 101. Highway 13 currently serves as
the north-south minor arterial to the expanding urban service area of Savage and to the
developed area of the Freestanding growth center of Prior Lake. A basic Council policy calls for
maximum utilization and improvement of existing metropolitan systems, including highways, before
constructing new service facilities. Improvements to highway 13 in Savage and Prior Lake would
be consistent with Council MDIF policy since it lies totally within the MUSA Howevcr, Highway
13 is classified as a minor arterial, and council transportation policy encourages MnDOT to spend
its limited roadway improvement funds on the Metropolitan Highway System. Perhaps Scott
County should explore improvements to highway 13 using local money.
Draft long-range plan maps of Scott County show eventual relocation of the proposed CSAH 18
route south of the Shakopee Bypass as a principal artcrial along a new westerly right-of-way
connecting to CSAH 21 in north-central Prior Lake. The Shakopee plan also sketches the
general location of this new route in its comprehensive plan amendment noting that plans for the
area will need to be addressed in the future. Thus, not one but two new major north south
highways are being suggested in draft plan materials of Scott County. The proposed new principal
arterial (along 18/21) is located entirely in the rural service area and is inconsistent with both the
Council's MDIF and Transportation policy. Any approval of the CSAH 18 interchange should
include guarantees from the County and Cities that the new alignment to the west (relocated
county road 21) would not be constructed until the adjacent land becomes part of the MUSA
The Metropolitan Council advocates providing increased highway capacity in a way that helps to
manage the system and that helps to manage demand on the system within the urban service area.
Incorporating techniques that manage the highway system and demand for the highway are
particularly important in the planning and design phases of a new roadway facility. These
techniques may include metering freeway entrance ramps to regulate highway access and
constructing freeway entrance ramps for exclusive use by high-occupancy vehicles. Construction
of these facilities may not be necessary at the moment. Such needs should be incorporated into
the facility design.
Sewer Treatment Plans
Any urban development generated by this project would need to be provided with sewer service
at either the Blue Lake or Seneca waste water treatment plants. These plants are currently being
expanded and upgraded at a cost of $184 million. Assumptions for these expansions are based
upon MDIF policies and development focuses in each of these treatment plant tributary areas.
No sewer service was assumed for the Shakopee rural service area south of the Bypass. If these
development assumptions are changed because of this project an analysis of its impact on the
treatment plants must be made.
_..k< ,::..... i;a.ij~..~~...,~
.....- ..~. ..'""-., -
-
...'^ .!'.:~<.~-...,
'!.j:.,,__..~,~,';',~..ot.
FINDINGS
1. Both the MDIF and the Transportation Plan emphasize the need to manage regional
resources in a way that most efficiently serves a steadily growing and aging population.
System and demand management are critical elements to ensure the efficient use of
transportation facilities. Techniques that manage the highway system and demand for the
highway should be incorporated into the planning and design phases. These techniques
include among others the metering of freeway entrance ramps.
2. The proposed Shakopee Bypass and CSAH 18 Bridge replacement are located in the
developing area of the MUSA and are a necessary part of the Council's plans for the
region. Those parts of the roadway located in the MUSA may be designed and
constructed to serve planned urban activities. That part of the roadway in the rural
service area, including the provision of interchanges, should be designed and constructed
to serve rural transportation needs.
3. The proposed CSAH 18 interchange would provide direct access to and from the
proposed new CSAH 18 bridge into the rural service area which would have a direct
impact upon rural and agriculture lands in Shakopee and Prior Lake. The Shakopee and
Prior Lake plans currently approved by the Council show the area south of the Shakopee
Bypass to CSAH 42 to remain in agriculture and rural residential use. Lands perpetually
covenanted under the Agricultural Preserves Act border CSAH 18 on the west in the city
of Prior Lake. Plans and local measures to mitigate these land use impacts have not been
submitted to the Council. Rural land use density standards in Shakopee are inconsistent
with Council policy.
4. The CSAH 18 interchange providing direct access to the rural area south of the Shakopee
Bypass is not recommended in the Council's plans nor is it included in the locally adopted
plans, as approved by the Council; it was proposed by Scott County (In the Study Report
and Request for Controlled Access Approval, Referral #15301-1) based primarily upon
existing congestion on highway 13 and at the current intersection of T.H. 101 and CSAH
18.
5. Highway 13 currently serves as the north-south minor arterial to the expanding urban
service area of Savage and the freestanding growth center of Prior Lake. A basic Council
policy calls for maximum utilization and improvement of existing metropolitan systems,
including highways, before constructing new service facilities. Improvements to highway
13 in Savage and Prior Lake would be consistent with Council MDIF policy since it lies
totally within the MUSA
6. Other major north-south roadway proposals are contained in the draft plan proposals of
Scott County which are inconsistent with Council policy. Specifically the proposal to
relocate CSAH 18 as a principal north-south arterial along a new westerly right-of-way
connecting to CSAH 21 in north-central Prior Lake.
7. No Metropolitan wastewater treatment plant sewer capacity is being planned for the rural
Shakopee areas south of the Bypass.
8. Construction of the Shakopee Bypass, CSAH 18 and the proposed interchange will
require coordinating the land use and transportation activities of several local
governments. Scott County will need to submit an adopted Transportation Plan for
Council review reflecting the proposed transportation changes; Shakopee and Prior Lake
will need to update their comprehensive plans to address the interchange proposal and its
impact on land use and other services.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Council's policy objective is to encourage local comprehensive plans that are consistent
with adopted rural area policies.
2. The Council could find that the proposed connection with CSAH 18 (old County Road 89)
south of the Shakopee Bypass consistent with Council policy if the following conditions are met:
a.) Shakopee and Prior Lake submit amendments to their Comprehensive Plans, which
address the following:
. Prohibit additional direct property access to CSAH 18 be until the area becomes
part of MUSA expansions approved by the Council.
. Prohibit additional roadway intersections to CSAH 18 unless they are a result of
staged development tied to an urban service area (MUSA) expansion approved by
the Council.
. Revise rural development densities to be consistent with the Metropolitan Council
rural standards of:
- One unit per 40 acres in areas planned for agriculture
- One unit per 10 acres (computed on the basis of 40-acre parcels) for
rural residential development.
b.) Scott County submits a revised Transportation Plan which addresses the following:
. Comprehensive Plans of Shakopee and Prior Lake,
. If CSAH 18 is to be upgraded or expanded in the future, indicate the measures
that will be taken to avoid the need to acquire protected agricultural lands in Prior
Lake including location alternatives that will have the least impact on these land,
and
. Techniques to manage the proposed access to the freeway system including, but
not limited to, metering the entrance ramp to CSAH 18 at the Shako pee Bypass.
c.) Scott County, Shakopee and Prior Lake mutually agree in their respective plan
revisions to propose no further future direct access highway routes to CSAH 18 and
CSAH 42 unless such proposals are a part of planned expansions to the MUSA, as agreed
to by the Metropolitan Council.
3. If Scott County, Shako pee and Prior Lake cannot mutually agree to these conditions,
exploration of improvements to highway 13, or another option accomplishing the same regional
policy objectives, should be considered.
"7 ~';..
......., .,... a,,"I;1"l'! ",. " ~'..: "'" _ _ ""~":,-,,,,~,,""',",,,I,ll'i'" i 1lIIN> " _, W:. nit 'i
-i:c,ilfJi'1'lll!Plllll
_ ;t,~ .
I
_. ._ _."-\11'._ _.1
I I
_____~___~~r~~---
)(\.......\,1..
r
!_~Ol. ':"..... I
I
-..Jii-----
I
~
.",OK... 0 1 co...-......
I @j..... I
~ I..OOV
.' ,t..c;u "
~.J...4
AA~
METROPOLITAN
COUNCIL
.0"..'.0':-1.1
-~ I
,:L..,l.'II"o.
I:
...~l ..".... I
I~n
l1.'.o:"'.~t, .
--.
'l'Ou.... ....4,..(1
(0..0".....
,
'!I(""'C'.
....
.....w.,
l__l'U
I;
..Im",..,
.,.."1 ..\,....(
... .....'f
C--..
, ...
......,
DC''''':'",''
I.
"
,.
,.
,,;..tt........
CSAH 18 PROJECT LOCATION
Figure 1
------ ..-- ,..----
~ . "SiO~' ,,,
b Res_Nation
'I
SCOTT
~~'~.i
. l":. ~. ii'
" "'.~ <>
.112""Sj."""...1.,~
.;,..
! ~~ ,~,
~
"'"
"'''' ttl7W
/
i
!
i
+
i
!
~
PRIOR
1900 por'.
,~
.:'" _ ~'II_~~:a.;l,J.t{.1
;li . jI .}UI.,>,.",~41<.~" d.."."...I~Yf ,;
1..J............'\j~Jib....ii
APPENDIX
/")/2;:' L 1"1' ,l// /9/lyJ.
- ~.~.~.~.~
J""f~ -~' .... ./"
.. r . I ~. " I ,~.^-'*r*
f l K90N <~ Shakopee ~... I (,~ I..t
~. . y < ~ I ~ {JI',-
r. ~. ~~ "-~ ~ - III 91 --rll: 0/
..~ < t>4~' <Il>~~ f-]"- ~Ji~ tjl . ag8~ I ty LJ
L --IU\. W' Pi'" I ,i' ..~..":;;d @-k--
.!.!. _ 'J..!;J "-
* oS "I<fi> ^ ~ ......: . ( L>. ( --,
-\.----]2-,..., --- ^ IB'--. - '<T ~~ I / V' ·
:) <t!> v ('~. ~~.Il~ '" ~~ 1------ --,}~~--
* ^ (J ~~.... " I ^ \ !J _1&\ j
/'V[~# L ,,~ /~;;'S /~ ;,~ f@ ev
^ ~!4-VY r ' SP 'NQU~E 7 ! -
I < /JClrdar I SANDe EEt-' 1- I ~
5 J'* ( ~ ^ II . j( b 49.. 11- - ~ l .) j'
r~ . < ~ ~ foOD II ~ '" I ..
IS. ~ IV' ~ rV,9-f- \9> t <
d ,0 1\ N" <? I
_____, f.' JiOW I 1'AI~ UWRE CE > ~ I . _ \ .-aTi, ----6i\-
/' '-f""" -- I -- ~ .___. ___ I .. I ::::: ~ """' -- r .. 'J.
~ I 1 ~e1l8 ';'1 ~ J . A - ^ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~~ -:- 1.t9 I--~t -@-.
! alll~ ~l "V' ) ~ 1J ~ [I~ ~ <I~ I iiif
~ ( ;,...::z:,;. - <b (II) ~ ~~ .~...p A ~b (~! ~ II ~
.-.J/ I I <~ I ~l> " I~ (ft. ~ /" ..oJ 1\ i q
~-WMA KEl AT ^
; VPr1~ I~I'\ -.. %-0 ItElE A::r "" I ^ i I ~ I v iJ
BLAKELEY. I D @ ~ . 0 -- - L V' I II) 1--1 \@
r5r7(~ ~ j I '- wI) r ~').~,J N.:,~~ (").! ~ I J_ ,,"-I ~ ':WI"'\-:l~\;D ~~
~ v I , 'f
.---
LEGEND
Existing Congestion
.A.
Mil..
1.-_-
t 0
1991
SCOTT COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
EXISTING CONGESTION
2.2
SRF
~
~
p~! 1. (>>t / I1l /J/fP/
~.~_r~.~_~.~
"--^.AA -~.. ~. .'"
.J <:I/... II .r ~ _ 1------__=_ ~ ...,,-.....f'.....-,-.
I '-- - - -- ~---><.::.:. - :
f.- · A KSOH < ~ Shako pee ~~ I 1 .l:, 1 ;;: """"- -- -
n <I> \ I 1'!J I ~ ,....
.. ',-~~ -~~ ~ _Ill ,~ -'rfi~ (1)/-
)-) <~ ~. <~-n~ f- ....-I~ :~~ ~,-4l s veg:r. ~ I Q~ ~
. LOUlsvIL.-:e ~ ~ ~ l l ~ Prior .k~ -~.~). : 9 ( b....
L -",,} w ;r I tf I~ .L..:= " 1 .. . .- '1-
. '" ~ ""\foh ^ .. ll~ - - "
_~____~ ~~_ v~~~ :__'V, '\
) JL ~ ~ (Ii) $.. ".. ~.- 1~7:I&L-@-' I' ---
~. I \ I I ~ C! '~ II 6f ^ f;('" / ~\
j.Vf '9- . @~~'srR ~" ".~II;.~.~J
. 'r"i.. - , r m / >--' ~ " f
/ ^ ~I ~ 9P IHQU Ke I " I
I <"..// "'(Y I '( - ~ CReOIT ~ ven ~ "-
is l73 al SAHDCE~. ~ ,~
.~ {'" .<~...-~ \ 11 II :(~ _ l-@-ell)II'
.15 n"/./ ~ ~f- ~ 1~ ~ -
/r-"' .))! __ ~.. <AWo<ce 1\ > - l!f ~ :~ , ~ A' \ _----<i>"j -" "I
.S . T ..11. .~, ~ -, ~. - \. '" ~ r::.;: ,..:p,- W'F'~ ~--
l. p~,~. '" 'I f'---- . 1 ~ I I "", @t9 ,;t., ~
.J:, ij ~-:.~-R,. ~ ( .; 7 II; ~~ j> .~' I---;t-~,,~ ! ~.J-,c, Ij. ,~
'7'T
(r OlAl<UE' ' () \ -0-~ ,,"'i. 'fir II n' ^ i 1 ~~
C. A'" I ~ .) r---o 5'-' I >-- -- ·
,s'" '--::::::, IF u-!'...... I ~ --<J>.- (.- 0- \I , : .'W .~~..'; .; ·
l--J ,m I I I'- {t--r1 (I ~ \ New Prague (II I r- I l - ~ Il. '-
~" (I 11 I '<<. -..: rr- I I ('~ : -, n J1J
tiI I Dr.:.! I ----, ~" L - :r- i'
i ...rn~~ I I ~'-(
" I ~ I ^ I
. I "-" ~ '
_ v I , ,- I
...-
LEGEND
I Unprogrammed System
Needs (for connectivity)
Programmed System
Needs
A
Mil.'
~-
1 0
;'
1991
SCOIT COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
SYSTEM NEEDS
3.4
SRF
)
.J
"
r
.'
'-'-
i.
f
r:
I
'-
,
I" ~.,
1-
.1 ,.
.1'
! .
;0
I
,~
I:
, ' \\
i'
I
sm-E=J
I
...
/"o~. \_./ \
.,\. r"" ,'.. ~:' ... !"
~.., ~ _ .. . .:.'. . .!.; t
.. '. \", ! 'II .' ~';. t .,
t ;.,"; ll,i\4'V,'l,i\""j~1\\\ \! ' 1 ';1,...
. ';'.' ' 1\ \' Ii' 0; I .
, 0 , 0 I I ,I II' \ I ., I ' . . L' ,. ..,~'
.... .\ 'I!,"i\i\\\~" It. ! \ , ,"j ! I)' 0:._:II r: ' ~'
, '. bt1.'oI",\"',\!\I'!i-"'II, "', ,,' :rl Il:':r"',",-""l':~ !,.c lr~~ f'::" ,I'-.'('/.\
Lj"! H I, ~ 'l'j.\\',\ L' I " . t'> II L_ I.. L l_J j" ,. I I "..:..:.,,~ ..
111 <'! "IjI)(,!t..'111111!1\\l.ll(,i 1,1 c JL l ,~1 I I "I \......~~" ,.
I::tl _~''''I'''' il" )\ :<.."'0 ~L__:_~J; '-~:;;"7 -'~,-i"'.
, I r. t. \'J:I':'~" ~ ~':--L-----';'::':::':::'-"" .. L~=-l-... .. f.=:nl
.......... ._..~...~ 1-': .....:..1 ' I._..~:..,;-;~~:~ .... ':Fl
~. ~.:I --, dH\__~~~~~' :]
. ~c. .
r, . , .....,'-......'
\' rm_~~ .I'P fs~l j --I-~L :'~--\ I
i . ":~ll" . :1. <, - ., c~ 1 r - lJt~i~LJ..i
! ~ ;;~ j'~~L _ S-~.:. 'L~I/
I a: ,. UcJ, 'l l~~J ,.J
I ) , "I~'> J-\ c. -.,' '(, i. I'
r '/1 .};-'., ~.".:' 0 '; c::";~)1 ' I I .' ;~ -,' \ "\1)/ @~ srnu
'0".', (/~ . I /'
r~~), ' t.~ ~~S!~:t J ,', Sfn-1. .Lltii--t~.,~
,1,.-; , ' ~ IL_-U, I \ r lJ )
I. ,> \"\ _ '. I ~
I ,'; " .. .. i .-' ~:~"f . 'j \' /1(irD' ,1 0'(-- r]!
I ,~.~,\, I I' ~U~-. "',' ""l'j l\ (~, ).'~~)'
n~; L ~~~_I ',':-.., I sm\lf';sntJ/~'11'~~C'~ ')
61n . , . " . a ,'.. r
- " I .... II - I' . " . ~ 'N r~~j ~~'f /~ ,.'tH_
Figure 1b
Land Development, 1908
(61n) Slnglo -. family nnldenllal
(~) Commerclel
CI) Induslrlol
r,' Pork
'-_J
"
Shakopee
ComfJel-cnsive Aan
(D
( "') Public
- MUSA 8oundory
Oyol ShakOlJrt!. Minnesota 1909
H)lmw
!:l..L-J..
4.5
~.u ~
....,
~
.....
.....
.....
.....
~
....
.....
.....
..... ~ ...... ......
~~~- '
--;; 12J~ '\.t\G:"~' "':';J--:-:-",
\" ,.... ___--- ..r;:-'tI.!~ r \ : r :L"-......" ;
'. I, . ' :-_ 05 -"--l~1-r~ MrJ.{ " " "
. .. ~ """-- ..Jl 1(',-,- ~ '" \ '
.. '. __ - e ,.....: I ~-=7=""-jg""'~ "'"' "
.' ,.: ( I -..., _ ". L---~=,r--: .t,"I~ '\ "' II'
t "".,.,,1'\1 \' ..===~Jr-" , -......-.J =--= 01 lI'i' "Le.':- ))"
'........,.. . I, I 'JI' r-:-,,-~ .,C...sJL_--1~_:..JL;.,,--..:;::~ I, II
, I~ I 1'1" '-. I -..... -.....',,'\. /.'1'
. ".:,' I' ~~.;;:= I'. , . 1i':'-'=::::_-'lCJf~~~" ,"'''('"// "
I"" I 1 1. I I;' ..... -..; -'r~ ., ~ '
. ' . '. ' . \'1 . I" ,! . I()r~' ,I .......,J.;...- '.
" . '; " ' I:. AT I, '. 'I!.J,:' :1' l~lC'\ .;~
'.'J";':>ll,"I'iil' ',III.'il <~"'.: IL[:Ir--=-'-;/=J.J\~l' 1:'1 \::Ji~~, \:.:~' \
, .l j.' ) ~JL_____ Iii ~~f---. ,'>\ c.r~ c
'I ' . \ .....--- (-~--7::r-A'-''\r-r--;;;-;.......;;;-~~\-y.) 5fR
, !i I . _.-,~~(clJ\ BP ~~JIJ(~ \~, : '~\ ~~''''l
r I I , ____\ J'8I JV"""'" '\...,'-'- A I 0/1
.1. , :1. rU(l~rH'lC-~.Jj".,,-- l!JI'~_J niS" ~f\..~ 1....UO.."...(...l'--=.
I ,'L;nl, ~ Ie eJ!~!rL--;;- /.(1r-~"'::::.~:""\\ liP ~r~~ ~'\.::,... . . -' -' (, - :
: . r I _.JUlJW \..J ---::::,r.. AW....' ..... JI "'.........~""'------- C~-:--~ \ I
~I . r--;;-.;n "7.:-1~":1'- \\JL"''F r'::::::J -......;:::::::-.:::::::: ......-~--;;s""::::::....-=--=""'''' \\
31 ~ I II . ~ '\ -.J. II ~- nn r~____H..J\ nn
,fA 1 ~ -......- I ----,
I I' Il-. Sf A "~:" II -~--~-_ I ~ \ I
,L----..-Jr_-- I II If "- -- \
..---1 --::::;:"...... J A .. I I -;;;--\\ .
.\ ...... II '~===:_L~-=11 . JL--l~ )~
I An 'I' II f"~ ' II . II ~'/ I
& I nn L! . , I ,/ An
L f2~ lL fil '\' ~...);L__ ---!_-. .j L..._-!(---l
"~I:P:~ ) \~ 4~ I
'. r tf. .J lk~;, I
, 1/ C,') r-~'F 05 J
(-. c nn ,I r~
'.";. \~ ;pP~\::..
\ . . (r-~~~." e:~ "\\?J~lr)
f~~ \ ~~ ~~
.:f '1\ II 'I'
'!/ ~,nn II
.IL ,~'.. I!~ - -J\'
I ______ I
...
.....
.....
I
I
. ,
i
,
I I ,~
,f
L. "
:1
~
~
I
L ..
II: .
It',
! ,
)'1
/ :,~:
J'
J':. \ I
11..:\'
,j.' 'lL:... I
I
\ I'
I ." \~ ,~.
. ' ;1' \ "
'iJ ,I fl'~'
,() II
l \,\1 ,,-,J'
I',., . JJ (I"
X I{ I ~./c:
Figure 8b
Land Use Plan For '(ear 2010
G:~ High-Density Resldenllel
QJ Commerclal
(!!c] ,Iellvy Commercial
GD Business Park
c.J Indllslrlal
(!!J Roee Trock-Relaled
Cr3 Pal k
GiD Open Spoce
Shakopee '
CanlJel'Cnsive Plan
cD
[AJ Agricultural
C!~ Rurel Rlllldllnllal
(!r!) Slngle-Femlly Rlllldenlllll
~~ Mld-Denlllty nesldenllal
(IIvo( Sl\il~'~''C' Minl1l";l~d l'XI'1
I j 1m\\'
I U'l
. ... ",. M..
w....Il4.,...........
,n 1 r;
LU
LU
Public
The one location designated public is the Shakopee Public Works and Police Departments
site.
U.rk
This category includes municipal, county, and regional public parks and recreation areas.
Open Space
The open space land use plan category covers the major wetlands and floodplains protected
by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and/or the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Some public recreational activities may be planned for these lands, such as a regional
trail along the Minnesota River, but for the most part the'Open Space areas are not set
aside for the purpose of active public recreation. certain park lands may also include
protected wetlands.
Commercial
Includes retail and service businesses which sell primarily to individual customers but
not to other businesses (wholesale trade). Does not include. manufacturing, warehousing,
trucking, or businesses which utilize extensive outdoor ~or~g~otgOods or materials.
...... :to '., \..;~.
Ileavv Commercial ~... .,
This land use category would encompass activiti~S s~c~ as '~uto:o~iie body shops, truck
repair, building contractors yards, mobile horne, camper, ~us, truck, and automobile sales,
lumber yards, warehousing, light industry, and salvage yards. Special zoning controls
should be enacted to protect" nearby properties from the effects of these activities.
v
18.13
"
iLU
LU
Business Park
The business park land use plan category is intended to provide locations for offices,
office-showroom buildings, and certain light industrial activities which are aesthetically
compatible with office development.
Industrial
The industrial land use classification should allow a variety of light- and heavy-
industrial activities such as assembly, warehousing, wholesale distribution and sales,
manufacturing, research and development, and office activities. Commercial activities
would not be allowed unless specifically mentioned in the zoning districts which implement
this land use plan category. lIousing is not allowed.,
Race-Track Related
"-
This category conforms with the Race Track District zoning classification which was
created specifically for land within and adjacent to the Canterbury Downs Race Track, and
it is the intent of the district to create a high-quality environment with a high degree
of land use compatibility and public street efficiency, protect existing landscape
features, preserve open space, and require the planning of entire land ownerships as a
unit rather than permit piecemeal or scattered development on a lot-by-Iot basis.
Aqricultural
Farming practices, including the raising of livestock. Gravel mining is currently allowed
by Conditional Use Permit only.
Rural Residential
--c~.
_._~
Detached housing without City sewer and water services on parcels at least 2.5 acres in
size. New plats must show evidence of how they could possibly be resubdivided in tile
future if city sewer and water services become available. strict regulations ont he
siting, design, and maintenance of septic tanks are included in the Plan. (See Sanitary
Sewer section.)
10.12
~~ '-,
~...
.. ,
~-
-...
.....
.....
:....
,...
. ......
, ,....
,.........
-
-
--
....-
--
,--...
LU
LU
Central Business District
~
Allows a variety of retail and service businesses and offices set in a highly compact
arrangement and not necessarily having on-site parking.
Institutional-Office-Housinq
This category is located immediately south of the Central Business District and is
intended to be a compact arrangement of public buildings such as the Scott County
administrative offices and courts, county Library, Shakopee Public Schools Administration,
and, possibly, the future Shakopee city lIall; st. Francis Regional Medical Center and its
related parking and private medical office building; professional office buildings
including the conversion of single-family housing to offices; and single-family and
multiple-family housing. There is no master plan for the arrangement of these uses, so
all new construction should be controlled through the Urban Development zoning district.
niqh-Densitv Residential
Would allow any attached housing but not single-family detached housing. This land use
plan category could be implemented by the R-4 zoning district.
.
Mid-Densitv Residential
This category would allow detached housing as well as duplexes, townhouses, four-, six-,
and eight-family housing at densities not exceeding eight dwelling units per gross acre.
The intention of this category is to provide locations for attached housing at moderate
densities and to provide a transitional area between non-residential development or major
roads and low-density housing. When used in a transitional location, extra building
setback or lower density housing such as singles or duplexes should be locations adjacent
to the low-density neighborhood. The zoning translation would be the present R-3
District.
sinqle-Familv Residential
Detached housing on parcels approximately 9,000 to 12,000 square feet in size. Includes
locations already developed as well as locations of new plats. A new zoning district
should be created which allows only detached housing as a principal use. In the older
sections of the city, the present R-2 zoning district may suffice.
10.11
..-., -_. . ......-
I "
U
'-
'-.
\-
L
I
IL..l
u
.\
u
,I
.
: I ~
I I
LJJ U
I i
L.j
I I
~
~ :U
I
L....J
Iu...u
~
La _~I L..u l~.u 1_ ';,.T~ '.
I
/
',.:'
.;....--
I \
, ' \
, . ," .\.. -' /
'. 'I..' ", .....-' ,.(':!~ . \ .
I ~ .~ 01 ... ,. .;, . . ~:.. I
~. . \'". I;',' i' I;:' J....
J ." ., .:. . I ~ ~ . ; . '. " \ .
, . : '.. , ,'[. '..'.... I I. \ \ \ t.
I / ~." '. ~;'I'.o ~ ~ :.~l... ",,,' ~ I I
' i...', . .:: r. \ : l\ '1'- \\ I ~.
I 1-'.. \ I t. . . .: ~ ~. 'wl\."',l II I' I
r. ., \..." I I' I I I \ J 't-..", I
,. .' ~.;-'.:' : . \' I 'I ""11, \ \ '(: . I '\' '. . .... :
..-: . i' . .1-il:'\ '~i"l i/" ~ 1)\11, r. \ Il)"~>', '. .
... ~ 1,".J\11!li':~ .'I.I!.I.~_ \l\II.II~'PI~Il,,\.'''.,...
. :' "',. . . (~ '.. . .. -. fl . .:. : .1 . i .
. ,I ..\ \. I :. '" . .",,~... .:. '"
-:: .;, :. .. ::\ I I ' ~ : i:'::'
) , I. I ,
. ! . . - . I r - 1- I' '.
~.' \, . '. Uj .....
I' -.' r--
\ ,- -,--{
\ I I
.l.l: _L_ I
\ i.:' -.1..... I
c.e_'1 '-....1-___
.;
.f
.\
\
.1
I
\
\
\
\
\
1\
\
. .,.. ~.
.'\.
t
a
.
..
~ '
,
" '
'.
f. ~
> \.: .\
.',
'.
.
a
. .J".n
.\
CIA"UI
I I
,
", : CIA" J
,\
I
1
i
t
. , \
I
I,.
I ' .- .
", (", I
t._. I
\'
=(
~Ii
I'
l--"""'.llLL.......&OooO.
.1
. ,
, 1
\ .I . '. 1,
,. ,'1 _ "'. ( '\' . )
. I ( l' (' .. ,-,' '.
l'I'i:!~ l\ r~ V.' ,
\ ,/ {.,. / I. I 1',. \
,l I\~:,J' . J '~)';; ,,'
. h' ft 1./ .1 ~ I
-,I. ~ \\ I ~Oi'r.'.:"- , IU,---:-
Figure 9b
Roadway Functional Classification
Plan
_P,lnclpal Arlerlal
_ Minor Arterial
- - Collector
Shakopee
COOl~el~nsive P\an
(lIyol 51~'~~, Min~~ 1'lO'J
U)
li,m~w
!'l J .. 1
. .... .,.. ....
EXHIBIT 4
"
t,);JH /8
./
.
1-i4-::--
. 1-
'.
r-;)f~- ::
~: ~.;' ~;-~:.::
- J '. II II IJ--:.....
~ ~ _ :~ ~-v~,..
I I I ..J iI~
.-=-~:.~ - - -- ---== T~ ~ ~
': :'\.'
"'-::'.' '--r-
. <::: '
\"'\
-.--- .--.\ '..-
---,
\ ~
~
./
;
- -
-'_:"- -
~.._.
- .. .........:
.. : ..."
....... ~.:-
.......:
Cily of
PRIOR LAKE
EXISTtfG LAND USI:
,-
. ..
,>'
~
-..-.-
_ SlClUI ~
-.or:
IlESCOITIAL 2 ...... lNT'I
_ -..c:
SM:lU ,.....,
AG__
~ . -
- I<~~~ I .
......'" :. -. I ~-
, , ~" . I~. ~'_
.,;"" - "IJ-_' dMf/'> "--=a-:-:
...... ._. .-:::.- .....Ji6 _
.. .
4'" .~
'-:,."-
.J. ,'.......-- '.. ~ ~-
!",-,":',:.--- , . ~~. ~ . ~'L, - ,-
i:'-;'~--'~" -'.~: j ,:-
. _.~_ ' 1 I I ..,'
. .. '- -- ,(
'J,.. _"_ _ J." r .-' -- _ .:t-
.' :.' . I ' . '.
c;
.- 1~
.. I .
..1..-.... ·
- ..
.... .
,
4- G Ii J (, t..J { ~ lJ ~ /:.. f't::.. .:.s ;:/~ !./ A '7',. tr/tl
S" ~ y<.../ (J,p. ~ ,C. e::.'T' ~
.sW /~ 4 -f G= ~ ..-e~::/
J 2 a ./.fI ~ "-r...f
.;<3 <I
27
{tJ ..y/~
(JUJ 4/.:/<' )
~,1' ~ .'.
IlJJ?~g~ }
~' 'l..1I!.,"'. ~_,:wall:,!!!,,:!,.~ltl~_ 1!If~;
. '_~'-:~_:I:tJ_
'. ~ "m!-'
'J!!
~
z
<
....J
C.
w
en
::>
o
z
<(
....J
..J
..
..J ~ .j
~ z ..
z ~ ~
..~"'~::l~
\) ..It..
f w > ~
:~:;:.J
~ t'~~z.......
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2
... ... ~ .. :!:: a ... :5
! ~ i i a ~ ~ ~
u ~ e:: z ! ~ 9 li
I ~ t ~. [~~ ~
(
[
I
::,J
I.. f i I
'~t :r
c, I
w ; ~ I
~ .... .
'0 <( ~ ~ I .
...J U 5 I 1
~ ~
u a:
0
a:
c..
[
L j~ 7'-7..__ \~.
I"-~ . ~
I~~,': ;.',:.
~~:..'~'~ ~~ ;_.
l~:.-J;--=-" -
_ I '..i..-'~ ~
f5:;;j i _ Ij;,3~c'H .=\
" ':'i;~- -:.---;~: ~~:i~;cE'
,.1,....... '// ,I ''T~.'\ 'C"""i/;\.c.:::.,.... ,.. ~'.........
." I.. ~ ~ ~ .1-".~<<l1"'. ",-- .~("T"::
.: ,I 'I. (' ~-=-':f) , ' .
; ,i~....;J--.
;----t-.I~lt . .
I I: i'
I; '.
I
I
I
t
I
!
,~
,.
}I
/i
I
\
>-
/) c
1'" i ~
is
q
i
.~
!~
,...
i.
, I
: I
'/r~/
i
<>
f~
['j.
..""..... \
._....~-
:.i
i
!!
.
I
"
;'-:. .-.~-~~
iJ TJ
1Ir-
--
Prior Lake
Official Controls
The existing zoning ordinance has held up remarkably well considering the size
of the area that was re~ommended to become urban in the earl ier Comprehensive
Plan. The ordinance contains 10 districts which will remain following its
proposed update. The revisions conter.Jplated wi 11 focus on uses wi thin dis-
trict and specific requirements that were overlooked in the original draft.
The emphasis on util'ities in urban development areas will be considerably
stronger. However, the City already has in force a policy which allows urban
development only when municipal sewer ~nd water are available. The R-2 Urban
Residential District will change the most in that rather then merely accommo-
.dating older small lot subdivisions, it will be expanded to encourage new
areas of small lots as an inducement to reduce housing construction costs. It
is expected that considerable attention will be focused upon the problems of
solar access protection. A comprehensive amendment to the zoning ordinance is
being discussed to more accurately reflect the pol icies described in this plan.
Publ ic hearings are targeted for January 1981 with final adoption anticipated
in March 1981. The following describes the purpose of each zoning district
in the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance:
~
A-I Agricultural - Established as a holding area for agricultural use, until
developed, to foster an orderly development pattern and to 1 imit leap frog
construction. Under the present growth rate, agricultural uses are expected
to dominate these land areas for the next 30 years. They wil I be rezoned only
after City services become feasible. Until such time, urban development will
be restricted to four units per forty acres.
R-l Residential Urban - Establ ished for single family dwell ings in areas pro-
vided with publ ic water and sewer systems. Although lot sizes may vary depend-
ing upon the use of a planned unit development approach, the average gross
density is expected to approximate 2 units per acre.
R-2 Residential Urban - Established for small lot single family dli'Jellings and
town houses at an average density of 6 units per acre.
R-3 Residential Multiple - Established to accommodate multiple family dwell-
ings at an average of 12 units per acre.
B-1 Retail Business - Designed to provide land for convenience shopping cen-
ters adjoining neighborhoods which are not al ready served.
B-2 Communi ty Business - Establ ished to recognize the tradi tional downtO\oJn of
Prior lake. It will contain mixed residential and commercial developments and
emphasize pedestrian access.
B-3 General Business - Designed to provide space for automobile oriented mul-
tiple service centers along Highway 13. The uses will focus on commerical ac-
tivity government services, private office space and 1 imited wholesal ing ac-
t i v i ty .
1-1 Special Industrial - Recommended to encourage a high amenity land reserve
for testing and research laboratories. offices and light manufacturing.
1-2 Industrial - Established to provide space for manufacturing. warehousing
and supply yards at locations which do not conflict with adjacent land use.
(-1 Conservation - Developed to protect. preserve and enhance the
plant and land resources as a component of the human environment.
other intensive developments may not be accommodated.
air, wa te r .
Housing and
" .. iii.
,.. --'''--'''l'i;t":..:~;.
,~Ji!. . .. ~-.bI,tn.,~'(~I.Iiii.I-~ ..,...;.:ar.... ft. ';~
M
.,>1. .l.f ~,Il~""l,." Jii: ~;'!;~ .i.i..
II