CCP 02-22-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I .. I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I .. I I Omce/Industrial: This plan contains a fair amount of primary roadway for which the City would have lead responsibility. However, most of this roadway distance is "double-loaded" (provides access on both sides), which means that private dcvelopment could share part of the cost, and the City's "return" on its investment would be fairly high. Road development could occur as development occurs, and the City could use it as a development incentive. Overall rating: Good Town Center: This plan has slightly less primary roadway than OfficelIndustrial, and again much of it is double- loaded. Early development could take place using access from existing roadways. However, in order for the town- center concept to work, the City would have to front the costs of much of the infrastructure, particularly the lIidentity" roadways that border the to\vn center. This could require a significant investment that mayor may not be recuped. Overall rating: Fair Open Spaee: This plan contains the rewest miles of additional roadways and utilities. Nearly all development sites, including recreational areas, could be accessed from existing roadways, and the primary collector would not need major "identity" treatment due to the quality of the open space on both sides. However: (I) The major collector roadway is largely single-loaded, diminishing cost-shariog opportunities; and (2) Other public investruents -- primarily to purchase, operate and maintain recreational areas -- must be factored into this scenario. Although it probably provides the greatest number of opportunities for different types of cost-shariog relationships, it also will require a large initial public investment. Overall rating: Fair Residential: This plan contains significant additional roadways, including a primary collector that is essentially single-loaded (providing service to the non-residential properties on one side but not the residential properties on the other). In addition, there are more miles of "identity" roadway than in the other plans. Also, if residential properties were to develop early on, the City would have to front the cost of a north-south connector leading from CSAH 96. Overall rating: Fair FC4 Does the plan provide space for revenue-generating recreational uses? Indicators . Amount of land set aside in the plan for recreational pursuits likely to generate fees for use -- e.g., golf courses, special gardens, health and fitness centers, training centers, arenas, etc. . Extent to which the plan contains open space or recreational lands that may be jointly funded and/or operated by the City and other public entities or private sponsors. All Plans: The open-space framework and interpretive center shown in all four plans could readily involve joint purchase and/or operations. Omce/Industrial: This plan does not include recreational or open-space areas likely to generate fees. A community park might involve cooperation between School District 621 and the City. Overall rating: Fair Town Center: This scenario does not include fee-for-use recreational areas, either, although it could (e.g., a health and fitness center or high-maintenance garden). Overall rating: Fair Open Space: This plan includes several recreational areas that might generate fees: 36 holes of golf, a regional park and a 213-acre sports complex. These areas might also involve public-private partnerships that could expand the opportunities for joint rmancing. Overall rating: Excellent Residential: This plan also includes an area that could generate fees, an executive golf course. Overall rating: Good Camiros, Lrd.lSEH. Inc./LHDL, Ltd. TeMP Framework Plan Page 23 Chapter IV