The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMarch 19, 2002 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 19, 2002 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor William P. Mars presiding 1] Roll Call at 6:00 p.m. 2] Approval Agenda 3] Police Building Design Review 4] Recess 5] Re- convene at 7:00 p.m. 6] Pledge of Allegiance 7] Mayor's Report: 8] Approval of Consent Business — (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove - items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) _ w 9] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS — (Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) * 10] Approval of Minutes: February 19, February 26, and March 6, 2002 Adj. Reg. Session *11] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $655,279.32 plus $96,585.10 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $751,864.42 12] Public Hearings: None 13] Communications: None 14] Liaison Reports from Council Members 15] Recess for Economic Development Authority, Meeting: None 16] Re- convene TENTATIVE AGENDA March 19, 2002 Page —2- 17] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: *A] Final Plat of Dublin Square 4 Addition, located N. of 17' Avenue and E. of Dublin Lane — Res. No. 5670 *B] Final Plat of River Bend Townhomes, located W of Adams Street and between 4 and 5 Avenues — Res. No. 5671 C] Rezoning Request of Town & Country Homes from AG to PRD for property located N. of Providence Pointe, S. of TH 169, and between CR 17 and CR 79 — Ord. No. 622 *D] Text Amendment to Allow Communication Towers with a CUP in the AG zone 18] General Business A] Community Development * 1. Setting Public Hearing for Vacation of Easement in Shakopee Valley Marketplace West — Res. No. 5672 2. Amendment to Final Plat of Shakopee Valley Market Place West — Res. No. 5677 3. Request on behalf of Ryan Companies for a Revision to the AUAR for the Valley Green Corporate Center Site 4. Request on behalf of Ryan Companies for Simultaneous Review of Land Use Approvals B] Public Works and Engineering 1. Pheasant Run Street Sidewalk from Valley View Road to Quail Drive — tabled 3/6 2. Assessment Agreements for Valley View Road, Project No. 2001 -5 — tabled 3/6 3. Overhead Power Lane Relocation on Valley View Road, Project 2001 -5 — tabled 3/6 4. Easement Acquisition for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road, Project No. 2001 -5, Res. 5674 5. Accept Feasibility Report for Vierling Drive Trail from CR 79 to Sage Lane, Project 2002 -2 — Res.5675 C] Police and Fire D] Parks and Recreation * 1. Approve Plans and Authorize Advertising for Bids for Tahpah Park Parking Lot, Res. No. 5678 TENTATIVE AGENDA March 19, 2002 Page -3- 18] General Business continued E] Personnel * 1. Amending the Personnel Policy Regarding Paydays — Res. No. 5669 *2. Authorize Advertisement to Fill Firefighter Vacancies F] General Administration * 1. Renewal of Consumption and Display Permit (Set -up License) — Great Lakes, Inc. *2. Premises Permit Renewal (Pull -tabs) — Prior Lake Lions Club - Res. No. 5673 *3. Interfund Transfers *4. Vehicle Transfer *5. Recycling Program Agreement with Scott County 6. Update on Prevailing Wage Issue for the New Library 7. Appointments to the Telecommunications Advisory Commission — Res. No. 5676 8. Authorize Advertisement to Fill Vacancies on Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 9. Goal Setting Follow -up — Meeting Change 10. Vision Shakopee Downtown Partnership Request Regarding Downtown Hanging Flower Baskets 19] Council Concerns 20] Other Business 21] Recess for executive session to discuss labor negotiations for the Police Patrol 22] Re- convene 23] Adjourn s CITY OF SAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Police Building Design Review DATE: March 14, 2002 The Council is asked to review and comment on design development for the proposed Shakopee Police Station. This will be at a special meeting to be held beginning at 6:00 p.m. on March 19 BKV Architects has completed design development for the new police station. Time is needed to review the designs with the City Council. An estimate will also be presented to the Council at that meeting, along with possibilities for reductions, should the amount be in excess of budgetary allowances. The Council will be asked to approve the design development plans, so that working drawings may proceed. The tentative schedule for the building start is as follows: Working drawings preparation — March 20 — June 5th City Council adoption of plans - June 4' and specifications, and authorization for bid. Bids advertised - Bids received - Contract awarded - Construction start - June 14 July 11 July 16' July 22nd The last time that the budget was discussed with the City Council, there was a shortfall of approximately $1.5 million to do both the Library and Police budget. Council direction was to have an interfund loan be prepared when needed. Since that time, however, the Finance Director has indicated that there maybe an ability to transfer additional monies into the building fund as a result of year end balances from 2001. This information will be presented at one of the April City Council meetings. In the meanwhile, assuming the project budget is close to the most recent projection, both buildings may continue to proceed. l ' @ 1 The Council should review and comment on the plans and budget. If it is comfortable with the information presented, it should direct that the working drawings be prepared. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th Shakopee Po /ice Station Q: PROJ\ 1536.02\BUS \SDCOST- C- 012402.XLS SCHfN7ATlC DESIGN:CQS EST(MATE (as:of 1 /28142 ;: ;:::: » .. J ............................................... >:< :::::.............. >:::: >:::: »>: >: >::::: ? ?:::: » » ............................... >:::::::: >:« :.:.:oa:2a:ai: . ............................... PROPERTY COST Soils Correction allowance $100,000 Survey allowance $5,000 Preliminary Soils Testing $1,500 Financing costs verify $30,000 Appraisal fee verify $3,000 Legal fees verify $10,000 Other fees verify $5,000 SUBTOTAL $154,500 CONSTRUCTION COST Building Cost Budget @ $160 per s.f., including site costs Size 26,000 S.F. $4,282,130 SUBTOTAL $4,282,130 OTHER PROJECT EXPENSES $342,570 Professional Fees (Building and Site) Furniture and Equipment Design Fees (8 %) - Estimated Per* Allowances Below $29,000 Needs Assessment Fee Furniture & Equipment Allowance *Furniture $324,000 *Signage $10,000 *Audio Visual $30,000 Telephones $15,000 Equipment $ Water Availability Charge allowance $4,000 MCES Sewer Charges allowance $6,000 Soils Testing- detailed allowance $4,000 City Sewer Charge allowance $3,000 Reimbursables, printing, travel etc. allowance $18,000 Special Testing costs allowance $10,000 $795,570 Subtotal Subtotal Project Costs $5,077,700 Contingency 10.00% $507,770 I COST ESTIMATE $5,585,470 Project Budget Page 1 Dot v" Shakopee Police Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.02 �R Architect, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical Engineer and Interior Design: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Civil Engineer: Schoell & Madsen 10580 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Landscape Architect Damon Farber Associates 253 Third Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Cost Estimator: Constructive Ideas, Inc. Suite 300, 901 Jefferson Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Shakopee Police Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.02 I_ OR Owner Review /Approval Signature Sheet 1 pg Visioning / Design Concept Statement 1 pg Code Review 1 pg Design Development Project Cost Estimate / Schedule 1 pg Drawings 8 pg • Site Plan • Floor Plan • Exterior Elevations Appendix Separate Document • Space Program • Outline specifications Design Development Presentation Book Shakopee Police Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.02 TO: Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: William M. Baxley, AIA CLIENT: City of Shakopee PROJECT: Shakopee Police COMM. O.: 1536.02 DATE: March 19, 2002 RE: Approval of Design Development Documents Please sign below indicating your review and acceptance of the Design Development documents, as included in this report. The signature below indicates authorization for BKV Group to proceed to the next phase. Please sign and return one copy of this report to BKV Group. BKV Group cannot proceed further without this written authorization. Name Signed _ Company Title Date Shakopee Police Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.02 BKV Group was commissioned to design a new Police Facility for the City of Shakopee. The functional and space program was refined by BKV Group with City Staff and police Personnel. Refer to the Appendix for complete details. The site is located along Gorman Street across from the current City Public Works facility. A small parcel of land adjacent to the site to the East is also available for future parking requirements should the new City Hall building be located on the site as well. The building is planned to include approximately 26,000 square feet, with the possibility of expansion for future use to the north. Secured parking is accommodated for 87 stalls at this time with expansion capabilities to 128. 47 staff and public parking spaces are provided with 86 additional spaces available on the adjacent lot. The new building will house increased areas for patrol, investigations administration, and property and evidence. A small detention area with two cells, a juvenile holding room, a booking area, and a drive through sally port will provide four hour holding capabilities. An expanded property and evidence room will utilize a two -story storage area for efficient cataloging of large quantities of material. A training room will be located off of the main lobby for approximately 76 officers and or staff. Additional spaces include locker rooms, roll call, Break room, exercise room and a computer room. The new building will utilize similar materials as the new library to begin to extend a palette that responds to the definition of civic building in the city of Shakopee. The police facility will respect the specific requirements of this building type yet present a face to the community that is approachable. Shakopee Police Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.02 A preliminary code review was performed by BKV Group. The building design conforms to the current Minnesota Building Code and related life safety codes for mixed Occupancy Groups B (Civic Administration, S -3 (Squad Garage), 1 -3 (Detention), and A -3 (Training) using Type V -one hour. The detention component will be constructed utilizing type two -F.R construction. The detention component will also be separated from the rest of the construction utilizing a two -hour area separation wall. The other occupancies will be separated via one -hour occupancy separations as required. . The building will include an automatic sprinkler fire protection system and visual /audible fire alarm system. The entire facility including site access and parking will meet accessibility requirements. Shakopee Police Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.02 The attached budget update and cost estimate is based on the Design Development documents included in this report, with estimates prepared by Constructive Ideas, Inc. The estimate represents full project costs, including construction as well as "soft" costs as identified by the owner. The estimated site and building construction cost is $4,318,865. This is for a building of approximately 27,100 square feet including the mechanical mezzanine. This is $36,735 over the Schematic Design construction budget of $4,282,130, but very manageable for planning purposes to date. We have reviewed the furniture budget and have reduced the Furniture and Equipment allowance by $29,000 for an overall project budget overage of $11,408 from Schematic Design. We will continue to seek out cost efficiencies as we begin construction documents. We will have one final cost estimate prior to bidding. A detailed breakdown of estimated costs is available. Upon approval of the Design Development phase, we anticipate the following schedule for design completion: • Construction Documents • Bidding • C • Award • Construction March 19, 2002 — June 5, 2002 June 12, 2002 —July 11,2002 July 16, 2002 July 22, 2002 — July 18, 2003 Shakopee Police Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.02 =10 I loll' � 1711 loll ,I 1 111301N= The attached drawings document the design as reviewed with the City staff, and Police personnel. These form the basis of the Design Development Cost Estimate, - supplemented by additional schematic details and specifications (Refer to Appendix). Design Development drawings are not complete for construction, but illustrate how the design conforms in detail to programmatic and site requirements. This design development will be fully detailed and completed during the Construction Document phase to follow. Shakopee Police Shakopee, Minnesota 1536.02 The appendix information is available in a separate document. Shakopee Police Station Q:PROJ \1536.02 \BUS \DDCOST- 031902.XLS Difference *Additional S.F. required due to increase in mechanical mezzanine to accommodate mech. Unit Project Budget Page 1 DESIGN DEV>«kOPtiIENT:GOS� ;> :.:.:: :.:.:.: ?. :.:.....:.:...:.::: >: =: ............................ Prelim Budget -5.11.01 SD Estimate- 1.24.02 DD Estimate - 3.19.02 ............... ................. PROPERTY COST Soils Correction allowance $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Survey allowance $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Preliminary Soils Testing $1,500 $1,500 $3,490 Financing costs verify $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Appraisal fee verify $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Legal fees verify $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Other fees verify $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $154,500 $154,500 $156,490 CONSTRUCTION COST Building Cost Budget @ $160 per s.f., including site costs 25,978 S.F. *27,100 S.F. $4,318,865 26,000 S-F. $4,282,130 $4,282,130 2 Scenarios were presented for facilities ranging from 24,000 to 28,000 - final program should come as close to median as possible SUBTOTAL $4,282,130 $4,282,130 - $4,318,865 Difference $36,735 OTHER PROJECT EXPENSES $342,570 $342,570 $342,570 Professional Fees (Building and Site) Furniture and Equipment Design Fees (8 %) - Per * Allowai $29,000 $29,000 $24,000 Needs Assessment Fee Furniture & Equipment Allowance *Furniture $324,000 $324,000 $300,000 *Signage $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 *Audio Visua $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Telephones $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Equipment $0 $0 $0 Water Availability Charge allowance MCES Sewer Charges allowance Soils Testing- detailed allowance City Sewer Charge allowance Reimbursables, printing, travel etc. allowance Special Testing costs allowancel Subtotal $4,000 $6,000 $4,000 $3,000 $18,000 $10,000 $4,000 $6,000 $4,000 $3,000 $18,000 $10,0001 $4,000 $6,000 $4,000 $3,000 $18,000 $10,000 $795,570 1 $795,5701 $766,570 Subtotal Project Costs Contingency 10.00% $5,077,700 $507,770 $5,077,700 $507,770 $5,085,435 $511,443 COST ESTIMATE $5,585,470 $5,585,470 $5,596,878 Difference *Additional S.F. required due to increase in mechanical mezzanine to accommodate mech. Unit Project Budget Page 1 ;O ®MU G§§ § ) // z2 \ w 2 ° }� e� % o r� , ; _ ~ \ ° ,z / /o =CD ,± *w I ; k °!® �� » m m> 2E \/ @ 2 � f > \ 0 eR@ / > [! }}7 z < t \ 9 sag=o- - < R /� \\ -4 \\ OF - 2 3 § Q x ]a /S% ee �a3Rof e Qu 9 £';¥;7 /% m S �(D GJa _ � � MLS� b n W cj f r I I f 7z �� I I b I 0 P i i I A F ° u B. e I 0 0 9 Y < : D n o ate_ �RSO O m° g �` o Q� O 36a5Q� (�� m R9� 0 o zi Z£ Y o �� T® �.� (0 C �` �` -" n N n 3 R m r [ss V w W Z Q o a ' °, 0 c 'o : o n E2 c o N O(D m R T 3 D v 3 NN° w0 m 9 mn ml0 "7UNi2 TJ ° g" m =H x 'O $ o 3i �om�N �G)o 3 7D ,n N N N O o O n (0 (D n Z_ r, �� r 's n a3� r > 0 0 _cn U -2z Z �m A m A �� 7 � � 5R" _ = o� O .< O to 7 W C _ Z ?oaa 3 >0 moo ° _ �° ( m c n > -' 3 O z O N N 00) 7 -9 —) /^JSR3oa z CA m — Q wwZO y > 3 NNOCD FL <3> I i _ D T -_ — I I ° & _ II �_ III u $ DNO rn m> or m II rm3 m te a$ i'o o m II °r <' I hz $ > Ili p E A o n ;�° A- ° � it > II my - > I I m> o iI- FL — O U II a II >— gx m II RIM o II m � r II G T ZZ 00 SEO II II n m pTG II gl II n mg II > II 6 O II A II p3 Ijr II II m> ° � II II II II gK o > II il- -0 II II m II n Eg II UNIT � II II i � II II m �❑ II � II II I I �, E _G Aim` I I u �p Am I I ' II 3 nv El, _ � Na � II II II > O N I I I I o D I I -O 11mD II # �s� m ti s > II II —O = 411 p- III' a II I r < L f' II m m� II rn 3g II I I o I II � II II � II vz�n _ N go �ma " -_i a 1 z L pD _ > II�� J$ Z _ m II II II L w> m ? II III o ;�gll M O m w0 m 9 mn ml0 "7UNi2 TJ ° g" m =H x 'O $ o 3i �om�N �G)o 3 7D ,n N N N O o O n (0 (D n Z_ r, �� r 's n a3� r > 0 0 _cn (a 0, - 0 Z c 0 3 ID. 3 no-(D O -0 m y 0 0 -2z Z �m < �� 7 � � 5R" _ = o� O .< O to 7 W C _ Z ?oaa 3 >0 moo ° _ �° ( m c n > -' 3 O z O N N 00) 7 -9 —) /^JSR3oa z CA m — Q wwZO > 3 NNOCD \ ! \ O B &% / o « 7 m s 0 \ / / e »- e©o \Ea ®o,£ (f "2 m ;l2«e / \\ m e> «A o . �§ . _ \ = = =� m ±& n 9 £ -]0;? M ¢ / »§O \ § CD O a3� . \z� ® ) ° 7 ® § qm / \ \i\ . \ 3 g � n wLn 2 ° It 7f : / /\ƒ\ \\ e\ e / Fn 0 �I�� ® f ® �k ` 0 \ I k�gz (J ;J |� § 0� G �i§ \ E\ 7w 7 |! -z « § m a 7� K0 / 2! |} k >0 fseE( \ \ 2 z gm e@Rzo 2�>za / ®` =i7 gn § a 3 m # / !\| ) /i\ \900 o�#mo e\0 0ou C #ka§oR o ( a 0� ' ƒ ƒ% :3 c �� OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF TIEIE CITY COUNCIL j, REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, M1NNES OTA FEBRUARY 19, 2002 Mayor Mars called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Lehman, Sweeney and Link present. Absent: Cncl. Joos. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, Tim Thomson, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director, Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director; Dan Hughes, Chief of Police; Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was deleted from the Agenda. 15. D. 3 Declaring Adequacy of Petitions for Improvements to 17' Avenue from CR. 79 to Colonial Street. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Motion carried 4-0. Mayor Mars stated that he spoke at the Rotary Club; he also noted that he went to the St. Francis Regional Hospital and spoke to St. Francis Regional Hospital Board members in general terms of their five -year developmental plan. St. Francis Hospital stated they were doing a survey now and these results would be ready in about a month. St. Francis Hospital may come back at a future Council meeting with a presentation. Link/Sweeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried 4 -0. Mayor Mars asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Link/Sweeney moved to approve the meeting minutes for January 2, 8 and 29, 2002. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Sweeney moved to approve the bills in the amount of $392,879.45 plus $118,149.37 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $511,028.82. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for one month following approval]. Cncl. Lehman reported that he attended the League of Minnesota Cities Conference for newly elected officials. Cncl. Link reported on the Murphy's Landing Board of Directors meeting. Cncl. Link stated that the entire Murphy's Landing Board reviewed the new agreement with Hennepin Park's and approved the new agreement unanimously with all of Murphy's Landing Board of Directors signing the new agreement with Hennepin Park's. Cncl. Link was of the understanding that Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council February 19, 2002 Page —2- Hennepin Park's would approve this new agreement also. Mayor Mars complimented Cncl. Link on getting this agreement between Murphy's Landing and Hennepin Park's nearly completed. Mark McNeill, City Administrator, followed -up on Cncl. Link's report regarding the new agreement between Murphy's Landing andh am of the agreement i t The Council necessary for the City Council to app rove Will see this amended agreement at the workshop meeting, February 26, 2002. Link/Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 619, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located South of 17' Avenue, North of Valley View Road and East of Sunpath Elementary from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Sweeney offered Ordinance No 620 Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending Chapter 11.70 Signs, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Sweeney moved to direct staff to raaffirmdt�ated by Scott County. (Motion carried under progra for rural residential addresses, s the Consent Agenda). Mr. McQuillan, Natural Resources Director, reported on the Tahpah Park Parking Lot improvements. Mr. McQuillan stated that about six months ago the City Council rejected the bids for Tahpah Park Parking Lot improvements feeling the bids were too high. The bids did exceed the limit of $408,000 that the City Council identified. Mr. McQuillan stated that two new concept plans had been created by Bolten and Menk, Inc. downsizing the number of parking spaces, for Council's consideration. These plans had been discussed with the user groups at a Park and Recreation Advisory Board meeting. The user groups preferred option A that was included in the Council members packets. Option A shows an access off of Vierling Drive with no interconnection (there is a walkway) between the two parking lots. There would be no loss of ball fields with this option and the users groups did not want to lose any ball fields. The approximate cost of these improvements is $391,630.38 with the cost for rough grading the future youth softball fields and the plans and specification being included. Mr. McQuillan asked the City Council if bids should be received for this option of the Tahpah Park parking lot improvements. Mr. McQuillan estimated a time would take a decision should be reached e on whether or not bid process to reach culmination and by t to acquire property on Lake O'Dowd. Cncl. Link spoke to the O'Dowd Lake property. Official Proceedings of the February 19, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —3- Link/Lehman moved to authorize a contract extension with Bolten and Menk, Inc. to develop plans and specifications for Plan A for the Tahpah Park Parking Lot Improvements. Motion carried 4 -0. (Plan A = 200 -Car parking lot on the undeveloped 10 acres west of the existing ball fields.) Cncl. Link stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on the Patrick Link Construction appeal of rear yard setbacks variance denied by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and he moved to the audience. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, gave a report on the Patrick Link Construction appeal of rear yard setback variance denial by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BOAR). Mr. Leek oriented the audience via an overhead on the location of the subject plat area where eight rear yard variances in the South Parkview 4 Addition were requested. These are single - family lots adjacent to Jefferson Street and near Quincy Circle, the area of townhomes along CR. 15. The applicant requested up to a nine -foot variance thus reducing the rear yard to 21 feet so there could be construction of large homes. Mr. Leek gave the approximate dimensions of the eight lots in question. On February 7, 2002 the BOAA denied the requested variance after discussion on a vote of 5 -1. The applicant has submitted a letter to staff with their reasons as to why the City Council should overturn the BOAA decision regarding this specific variance. Mr. Leek stated there is a petition by adjoining property owners that is a matter of public record, asking that this variance be allowed. There is also a letter, admitted into public record, from a resident in the townhomes stating their concern regarding two story homes. It was noted that when South Parkview 3r Addition was approved for Final Plat many variances were granted for that addition because a hardship on lot size was recognized on the lots on Quincy Circle. Patrick Link, co -owner of Patrick Link Construction, approached the podium to speak on his request for rear yard setback variances that was denied by the BOAR_ He submitted to Judith Cox, City Clerk, the petition of the adjacent residents stating their support for the approval of these variances. Mr. Patrick Link stated a variance was needed because Jefferson Street was put in first because the City needed to construct a watermain for Tahpah Park. After Jefferson Street was constructed, MnDOT took away another 30 feet of their property; this 30 feet included the taking of 10 feet along the rear side of the eight lots in question. If the original construction plans were followed, this land taking by MnDOT made each of their lots ten feet short of meeting City Code requirements for the houses they wanted to construct. Patrick Link felt this was a hardship and thus they were applying for this variance. Mr. Link stated he was constructing average size homes. All of the nine feet of variance requested may not be used; he would like room to shift the house if necessary, that is why he is requesting nine feet. Patrick Link stated that in the area of the variances there would be a deck or a sunporch. The original construction plans and home designs were designed for lots that had depth. Patrick Link Construction was willing to negotiate the variances on the middle lots. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council February 19, 2002 Page —4- Cncl. Sweeney stated that the taking of right -of -way by MnDOT for highways did create a hardship to builders because these lots were no longer the size lots the builder originally had to build on. Cncl. Sweeney stated that if these lots were used for affordable housing, which the proposed house clearly is not, the City would need to give reasons why the variances were not allowed. Cncl. Sweeny felt the key issue was MnDOT taking the right -of -way. Cncl. Sweeney felt it was the duty of the Council to weigh the impacts of not granting the variances. Cncl. Lehman felt it was important to keep the homes consistent to the surrounding developments in the area. Mayor Mars would like to see diversity but yet consistency within the area. Mayor Mars noted that there had been opportunities to fix this situation and there had been compensation for this right -of -way taking. Sweeney/Lehman moved to grant the request of the applicant (Pat Link Construction) of the requested (rear yard setback) variance and to direct staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's Consent Agenda that is consistent with the applicant's appeal. Mr. Thomson explained that for purposes of this vote there are really only considered four members of the Council because Council member Link is abstaining because of a conflict. But it does require a majority of the members of the Council. There are four members of the Council even though one is absent so this does require three affirmative votes to pass. Mayor Mars asked whether a majority of a quorum was sufficient for the motion to pass. Mr. Thomson stated that a majority of the quorum was not sufficient for the motion to pass because the statutory voting requirement for variances was a majority of all members of the council. Mr. Thomson stated that the matter could be tabled until there was a full compliment of the Council. Sweeney/Lehman moved to table until March 6, 2002. Motion carried 3 -0 with Cncl. Link abstaining. Mr. Thomson stated that he would double check the state law with respect to the voting requirement for variances. Cncl. Sweeney discussed the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission request not to bury the overhead electric lines under Valley View Drive. The undergrounding of this electric line was tabled at the last meeting of the City Council. Sweeney/Link moved to remove the undergrounding of the Valley View Drive overhead lines from the table. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney/Link moved to table the undergrounding of overhead power lines on Valley View Drive until the March 6, 2002 City Council meeting. Motion carried 4 -0. Official Proceedings of the February 19, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —5- Mr. Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer, gave the staff report on the Blue Lake Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Mr., Loney stated the Council was asked to review the findings and the comment letters for the EAW that was prepared for the Blue Lake Watershed drainage improvement and direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the findings with a negative declaration on the EAW or the need for an Environment Impact Statement (EIS). Mr. Loney gave a short history on this Blue Lake Watershed Outlet. Mr. Loney stated that several comments were received back from different reviewing agencies. An EAW was recommended and performed. WSB & Associates performed the EAW on behalf of the City of Shakopee; this EAW was approved for distribution on December 4, 2001 with the comment period ending on January 9, 2002. The comment period was extended for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community to February 12, 2002 as per their request, so their comments could be received. Several comments have been received from various reviewing agencies. Alternative number three was preferred and this alternative is in the existing Storm Water Management Plan. Mr. Loney stated that he placed on the table the e -mails that were not included in the letter from the Environmental Advisory Committee, but a summary letter of the findings from Mr. McQuillan noted that alternative No. 3 was the most environmentally friendly approach and that there was no need for an EIS. Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates, author of the Blue Lake Watershed EAW, approached the podium and gave a presentation of the findings of the EAW. The purpose of the meeting tonight is to look at the EAW, comments received on the EAW and to see if an EIS needs to be ordered based on the comments received. There are four criteria for an EAW. Mr. Hubmer stated that the area of study is providing an outlet located east of Valley View Road and CR 83. Mr. Hubmer stated three alternatives were available. Mr. Hubmer stated that because some studies were done a few items have changed in some City policies. The City changed the Blue Lake Watershed policy further limiting the water discharge rates; infiltration and development of storm water ponding in this area has also been enhanced. The main concerns in the comments received back were associated with the purpose for the watershed study (to determine what the impacts would be for developing an outlet for this area), what impacts development according the City's current Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be and water quality in Dean's Lake, Blue Lake and impacts to the Blue Lake /Spring Lake Outlet Channel. Mr. Hubmer went thru the findings of fact. Mr. Hubmer noted the EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate mitigative measures have or will be incorporated into the project design and permits to reasonably mitigate' these impacts. The Blue Lake Drainage Improvement project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts, therefore, and EIS is not required. The Metropolitan Council, MnDOT and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources agree that an EIS is not required. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to prepare a Resolution making a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for the Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvement. Official Proceedings of the February 19, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —6- Cncl. Sweeney noted that alternative no. 3 preserved the current drainage pattern. Cncl. Sweeney also noted the PL /SLWD believes the bulk of the cost of this drainage improvement to the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet belongs to the City of Shakopee. At this point, the City is not committed to spending a great deal of money. The Blue Lake drainage improvement m the City of Shakopee doesn't need to be started until development occurs in this area. Mr. Loney noted that the EAW provided a forum to gather project comments and look at environmental concerns from many agencies. Many permits still need to be acquired. Mayor Mars called for public testimony. There was no response. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Loney noted he placed an item on the table that had been omitted from the Councilors packet. Mr. Loney gave the staff report on approving plans and ordering advertisement of bids for CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 realignment. Mr. Loney was asking the Council to adopt five resolutions tonight. Resolution No. 5657 would approve the plans and specs that is the standard resolution needed for the City to be able to do assessing of improvements to benefitin g property owners. The other four resolutions are resolutions that Scott County has asked to be adopted. The resolutions make CR 83 /CR 16 State Aid projects and also restrict parking on these highways, which is required by the State Aid office on road improvements of this nature. Also a cooperative agreement with Scott County has been included for the Council to see and consider on this project. This project was ordered last May. WSB & Associates are doing the plans and specifications on this project in cooperation with Scott County. Mr. Loney noted there have been numerous meetings throughout the design period to coordinate the substantial project. Mr. Loney stated that because the project is anticipated to take the entire construction season, the Engineering Department would like to get approval to go out for bids now in hopes that this project can get started at the beginning of the construction period this year. There are many elements such as, trunk sanitary sewer, trunk storm sewer improvements, and roadway improvements with signals involved in this project. The transportation in this area will be greatly improved with this project and Valley Green Corporate Center would be allowed a site to design. Valley Green dad originate this project as plans ty of this project and did approve the cooperative agreement between Scott County and the C Shakopee at their February 12, 2002 meeting along with their cost share of this project. Plan B was looked at and used because the City failed to get the easement from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) required for the preferred design. Scott County did have in their motion that if the preferred plan was not to happen because an easement could not been gotten from the SMSC then Plan B was to be used. Originally it was indicated that this easement would be provided but in the end it was not received from the SMSC. Plan B was included with the preferred plan just in case the easement with the SMSC was not negotiated. The difference in the design would be a difference in the improvements for the first quarter mile so an easement would not be needed from the SMSC. The County has ordered eminent domain proceedings on the rest of the parcels in this area and will be obtaining the rights -of -way Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council February 19, 2002 Page —7- necessary to build this project. The County would like to see this project move forward. A very detailed traffic- phasing plan will be required for this project. Mr. Donald Sterna, WSB & Associates, approached the podium and discussed the cost participation layout, the cost summary and the traffic phasing. Mr. Sterna pointed out the entire project area via overhead. Mr. Stem stated the project is consistent with what was in the feasibility report. There have been some additions to the project that the County wanted to initiate on 12� Avenue. MnDOT noted they would like to see these improvements on lf Avenue. Mr. Sterna noted the other traffic improvements that were going to be done with this project. Scott County did note some concerns on the drainage in this CR. 83 /CR. 16 corridor. Options were looked at to address this concern and the option chosen by the County was the option to increase the trunk line that is going from Hwy 169 heading south up to the east leg of CR. 16. In the future no easements will be required for ponding in this area with this improvement. The County is participating in this cost. Mr. Loney noted that this project is under an AUAR and the mitigating factor regarding the intersections into Valley Green Corporate Center was taken into consideration. Scott County has been worked with extensively regarding this intersection in its final design. This intersection will continue to be monitored to see that its level of service as required in the AUAR is maintained. Mr. Sterna addressed the CR. 83 road closing. CR. 83 will be closed from Memorial Day to Labor Day. WSB felt it was important to limit the time of the CR. 83 road closing. There will be a time when certain legs of the roads will need to be closed for short periods of time and eventually the full roads will be closed. The contractor will be allowed to begin work where traffic will not be involved. An east/west connection to CR. 16 will be maintained as much as possible while this project is underway. There will be substantial completion of the project by October 25, 2002. The final wear course and striping will occur in 2003. Mayor Mars stated that he would like to see liquidated damages put on the contractors to motivate the contractor to get the project completed on time. Mr. Sterna addressed how the project was being funded. The project was petitioned by Valley Green Corporate Center and the majority of the project will be assessed. Mr. Sterna showed a pie chart on how the costs were divided between Scott County, Valley Green Corporate Center and the City of Shakopee. A cost participation layout was also presented via overhead reflecting what construction would be paid by each entity. The cost of construction for the Trunk Storm Sewer was significantly lower than in the feasibility report, however, the cost of the Sanitary Sewer construction was significantly higher than in the feasibility study. The cost participation level for Shakopee Public Utilities and the City went down and Scott County's cost participation went up. Mr. Loney noted that the County's cost participation increased significantly and the County is picking up all rights -of -way costs associated with this project except for the right -of -way Valley Green Corporate Center is going to dedicate. Mr. Loney stated the City costs were pretty much Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council February 19, 2002 Page —8- in line with the feasibility study. There will be some redistribution but the bottom line stayed fairly close to the study. Mr. Loney stated now is probably an ideal time to go out for bids. Mayor Mars asked for audience participation. There was no response. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5657, A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For County State Aid Highway 83, From 12�' Avenue to 1870 Feet South Of The Existin Inter of County State Aid Highway 16 And For C State Aid Highway 16, From 850 Feet West Of County St to Aid ghway 83 To 1500 Feet Of County State Aid Highway 83, Project No. 2001 -4, and moved its adoption. Mayor Mars reported that he went and talked with the officials of the Shakopee Mdewakanton in the Sioux Community (SMSC) earli and C s 6e The SMSC stated that heroad in cl u d e d opportunity to expand CR at this time and the conveyance of land would not be in their current best interest and in the future when they develop they will request the access. They would pay for these improvements as adjoining land owners. Cncl. Sweeney noted that Scott County has take the position that CR. 83 and CR. 42 will not be upgraded until the SMSC conveys property for those improvements and the expansion of CR. 16 ause the SMSC was so reluctant to convey any land for to the east. This option developed bec public improvements. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney/Lehman offered Resolution No. 565 ee 900 Feet Of CSAH 83 And 2,244 o improve County State Aid Highway 16 Betw East Of CSAH 83, SAP 70- 616 -023, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney/Lehman offered Resolution No. 5659, A Resolution Approving Scott County 804 Feet To Improve County State Aid Highway 83 Between 3,997 Feet South Of TH 169 North Of TH 169, SAP 7- 683 -006, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney/Lehman offered Resolution TH olution Restricting Parking On County 169 And 804 Feet North Of TH 169, State Aid Highway 83 Between 3,99 Feet South Of SAP 70- 683 -006, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney/Lehman offered Resolution No. 5 f C A�i Resolution ea 2244 Feet East Of ®AH 83, SAP to Aid Highway 16 Between 900 Feet West Of 70 -616 -023, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4 -0. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council February 19, 2002 Page —9- Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to execute the Cooperative Agreement with Scott County for the CSAH 16 /CSAH 83, 2001 -4 Project. Motion carried 4 -0. A recess was taken at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Mars reconvened the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, reported that after the vote on the Patrick Link Construction variance he realized that the action and motion taken was not a motion to approve or deny the variances but was a motion to direct staff to come back with a resolution. That motion does only require a majority of the members present and voting. If the vote on that had been 2 -1 it would have passed. Mr. Thomson stated that he wanted to bring this to the Council's attention to give them the opportunity to re- consider the motion to table if they wanted to. Cncl. Link stated he would abstain from voting on any motions regarding the Patrick Link Construction Appeal of Rear yard Setback Variance Denial. Sweeney/Lehman moved to reconsider the tabled action on the Patrick Link Construction Appeal of Rear Yard Setback Variance Denial. Motion carried 3 -0 with Cncl. Link abstaining. Sweeney/Lehman move to direct staff to find findings and prepare a resolution granting the rear yard setback variance that was applied for by Patrick Link Construction. Motion carried 2 -1 with Cncl. Link abstaining and Mayor Mars dissenting. Mr. Thomson noted that when the resolution comes back there needs to be a vote on whether or not to grant the variance. This is just a motion to direct staff. The motion to grant a variance will need three out of four votes. Link/Sweeney moved to authorize the purchase utilizing State Bid Pricing of one new Case 621D Loader from St. Joseph Equipment, Inc. for carried ha price C Consent 39.50, to be expended from the Capital Equipment Fund. (Motion Link/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement with Scott County for cost participation, installation and operation of a street light for the intersection of CSAH 18 and CSAH 16 (Eagle Creek Boulevard) within the City of Shakopee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement with Scott County for cost participation in the installation and operation of a streetlight at the intersection of CSAH 18 and CSAH 16 (134 Street) within the City of Shakopee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the February 19, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page —10- Mr. Loney gave the staff report on the right -of -way needed from U.S. Homes for the proposed Valley View Road Improvements. Mr. Loney stated this item was to consider directing the City Attorney to prepare an agreement on right -of -way purchase for the proposed Valley View Road. Mr. Loney showed a graphic via overhead that showed a considerable amount of right -of -way that is still needed along with storm sewer and sanitary sewer easements for this project from U.S. Homes. U.S. Homes/Orrin Thompson has preliminary plat approval including the land in question, but they do not have a final plat where the right -of -way would be dedicated. U.S. Homes /Orrin Thompson states that they will not be final platting this area until much later this year if at all. Mr. Loney stated in order for the City to move forward on this project, he has asked U.S. Homes /Orrin Thompson to come forward with an agreement that would present a win -win situation for the City and U.S. Homes/Orrin Thompson on the right -of -way and easements that are needed for the Valley View Road project. Mr. Loney proposed offering the developer $40,000 for all easements needed from this parcel and the other parcel that U.S. Homes/Orrin Thompson owns and the developer would sign a waiver of assessment appeal for these improvements and they would assist the City by constructing the sanitary and storm sewer lines through the parcel. Mr. Loney noted that this property cost had been included in the feasibility study. Ina letter from U.S. Homes /Orrin Thompson to the City it was stated that if U.S. Homes /Orrin Thompson did not extend the sanitary and storm sewer lines through their parcel the City could extend the sewer lines and assess U.S. Homes /Orrin Thompson the cost of that extension. Mr. Loney stated if this project is to continue to move forward this year, the City would need to acquire this right -of -way. Most of the cost of this project will be assessed back to the residents with the City picking up the cost of the oversizing of the collector street. Sweeney/Mars moved to authorize the City Attorney to prepare an agreement for right -of -way acquisition between the City of Shakopee and U.S. Homes Corporation for right -of -way acquisition associated with the Valley View Road and Sarazin Street improvement, Project No. 2001 -5, with conditions as outlined in the February 19, 2002, memo from Bruce Loney.(CC Document No. 315). Mr. Loney pointed out that in the letter from U.S. Homes /Orrin Thompson it was noted that the final plat would be accelerated if there was an agreement for the purpose of extending the sewer lines. Cory Lepper, Orrin Thompson Homes, approached the podium and stated the only reason the final plat would come forward from U.S. Homes /Orrin Thompson would be so they could assist the City with extending the sewer lines. Motion carried 4 -0. Official Proceeding of the February 19, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Link/Sweeney moved to approve the satisfactory completion of probation and authorize the retention of Jon Kegley, Fred Radde and Sean Zauhar as Police Officers effective February 20, 2002. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Sweeney moved to approve the applications and grant temporary on -sale liquor licenses to the Church of St. Mary, 535 South Lewis Street, for March 10, 2002 and June 23, 2002. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Tracy Connen, Assistant to the City Administrator, reported on the establishment of a Telecommunications Committee for the City of Shakopee. The Shakopee Community Access Corporation, the Cable Communications Advisory Commission, as well as, City staff are recommending the adoption of Resolution No. 5655 to form the new Telecommunications Committee because of all the new and continuing growth in the City of Shakopee, as well as, all of the new technologies. The Telecommunications Committee would have a larger scope available to look at versus the Access Corporation and the Cable Commission. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5655, a Resolution Establishing the Shakopee Telecommunications Advisory Commission, and moved its adoption. Mayor Mars complimented Ms. Coenen on facilitating the formation of this Telecommunications Advisory Commission. Motion carried 4 -0. Ms. Judith Cox, City Clerk, gave a report on the findings of presumptive penalties for alcohol violations that other Cities imposed on its violators for said violations. She noted that 10 municipalities were surveyed and the presumptive penalties are all over the board. Attached to the councilors report on this issue was a summary of the different penalties other municipalities imposed. Compliance checks by the Shakopee Police Department of area businesses were initiated by the City in 1999, the penalties the City of Shakopee imposed on those violators were also attached to the report. If the City Council decided they wanted to create presumptive penalties, City staff has some suggestions. Other information was noted regarding the ordinances of surveyed communities. City staff recommended that Council take a look at the presumptive penalties that other municipalities imposed and see if the Council wants presumptive penalties and if so direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution to be brought back before Council at the next meeting and also to direct staff if the Council would like to implement any of the other information identified that surveyed municipalities imposed. Cncl. Link wanted to leave the penalties as is. Cncl. Sweeney thought there should be a mandatory revocation of the license upon the e. violation within three years of selling liquor to minors. Cncl. Lehman would like staff eto�ee administer City of Shakopee penalties along very trict�with a set policy. suggestions. Mayor Mars would like Official Proceeding of the Shakopee City Council February 19, 2002 Page -12- Mayor Mars would like the City to have a zero tolerance policy. Cncl. Sweeney would like violators to appear before the council as opposed to the staff. There was consensus by the City Council that the first offense would have a three -year probation period, $1,000 fine and one day suspension with a right to a hearing if the violator challenged the violation with the penalty to be administered administratively by City staff and for the City Council to see this violation on the Consent Agenda. There was consensus by the City Council that the second offense, within the three -year probation period, there would be a $1,500 fine and a five day suspension with a right to a hearing if the violator challenged the violation with the penalty to be administered administratively by City staff and for the City Council to see this violation on the Consent Agenda. There was consensus by the City Council that the third offense, within the three -year probation period, there would be a $2000 fine and a ten day suspension with a right to a hearing on the suspension if the violator challenged the violation with the violator coming before the City Council to admit or deny the violation with the City.Council imposing the penalty. There was discussion by the City Council of the proposed penalty that was suggested for the fourth offense within the three -year probation period, of a $2000 fine and automatic license revocation with the violator coming before the City Council to admit or deny the violation with the City Council imposing the penalty. Mayor Mars asked staff to come back with a couple of options for the fourth violation. There was discussion on what the Council would do if a violator did not show up before the City Council. Sweeney/Lehman moved to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance and bring this ordinance back before the City Council reflecting the presumptive penalties for liquor violations City Council discussed and agreed to including a couple of options for the fourth violation. Motion carried 4 -0. Mayor Mars would like to see this type ordinance for tobacco violations. Mayor Mars directed staff to come up with a document on tobacco violations of other cities for the City Council to look at, at a future meeting. The City Attorney noted that the City does have mandatory penalties for tobacco violations. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council February 19, 2002 Page -13- Link/Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 618, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Pertaining To Collection Of Delinquent Charges For User Fees And Amending Section 4.41, Subd. 3D Of The City Code, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). In response to a question from Cncl. Link, Mr. McNeill noted that City's do have the right to be reimbursed for staff time to look up information for individuals. There was discussion on this issue. Cncl. Link discussed the opportunity to acquire a helicopter to be displayed. Sweeney/Lehman moved to authorize Cncl. Link to proceed with the applications to acquire the helicopter for public display purposes in Memorial Park. Motion carried 4 -0. Sweeney/Lehman moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday February 26, 2002 at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried 4 -0. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. dith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE Crry COUNCIL J, REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 26, 2002 Mayor Mars called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with Council Members Link, Lehman, Sweeney, Joos present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator, Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator; Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director and Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director. Link/Lehman moved to approve the Agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, reported on the transfer of Murphy's Landings operation to Three Rivers Park District. Last week Murphy's Landing and Three Rivers Park District agreed to a transfer of artifacts and operations from Murphy's Landing to Three Rivers Park District. When the transfer of artifacts and operations was complete the City agreed to sell the land to Three Rivers Park District. Because the lease between the City and Murphy's land is up soon, the City Attorney is recommending that the Council authorize the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. dba Murphy's Landing to continue as a tenant until the closing of the sale of the project between the City and Three Rivers Parks District and authorizing the appropriate City officials to execute a limited warranty deed and conservation and preservation easement with Three Rivers Park District for Murphy's Landing. There was discussion on the Minnesota River Trail that is located within Murphy's Landing property and extends into Memorial Park. Mr. Sweeney thought this trail has been dedicated to the State of Minnesota. Mr. McNeill noted that the state trail would be relocated outside of the Murphy's Landing property. Mr. McNeill stated that it appeared that Murphy's Landing and the DNR are okay with relocating the trail_ Mr. McNeill deferred to Mr. McQuillan, Natural Resource Director, regarding the relocating of the trail and the recently found Native American burial mounds. Mr. McQuillan explained where the trail would be relocated. Cncl. Lehman would like to get the closing of the land sale to Three Rivers Park District contingent on the trail connection in the west end. It wasn't anticipated that this would be a problem. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. dba Murphy's Landing to continue as a tenant until the closing of the sale of the project between the City and Three Rivers Parks. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council was not completely comfortable with transfer of the land at this time with the trail connections not specified/completed. The Council wanted to know more about the connection at the west of the trail. Ms. Cox, City Clerk, announced that the results of the ballots of City Council Members for appointments to Board and Commissions are consistent with the recommendations of the interview panel. Official Proceeding of the Shakopee City Council Police Civil Service Commission: February 26, 2002 Page -2- John Mauritz: None Kimberly Weckman: Joos, Lehman, Link, Sweeney and Mayor Mars Economic Development Advisory Committee (two openings): Tim Dorenkamp: Sweeney Brian Langdon: Joos, Lehman, Link, Sweeney and Mayor Mars John Mauritz: Joos, Lehman and Link Environmental Advisory Committee: Tim Dorenkamp: None Charley Kubler: Joos, Lehman, Link, Sweeney and Mayor Mars Colin Wilkinson: None The only remaining question was the one -year left remaining on the term open by the resignation of John Collins on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Mr. McNeill reported that Steve Czech applied for a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board position; however, Mr. Czech lives in Prior Lake but is involved in Shakopee Park activities and lives within the Shakopee School district boundaries. His residency does not fall within the ordinance requirements for an appointment to one of the Boards or Commissions. There were also other candidates for this position. Based on the results of the ballots and the recommendations of the interview panel, the appointments to Boards and Commissions are as follows; Mark Miller to the Shakopee Public Utilities commission; Kim Weckman to the Police Civil Service Commission; Brian Langdon and John Mauritz to the Economic Development Advisory Committee; Charley Kubler to the Environmental Advisory Committee; Kristi Kruger, Bradley Gripentrog and Kathy Gerlach to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board; Colin Wilkson to the Transit Commission; Joe Studnicka to the Building Code/Housing Advisory and Appeals. There were no candidates for the Board of Review. Joos /Sweeney moved to nominate Brian Langdon to the Economic Development Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Joos /Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5664, A Resolution Appointing Individuals to Various Boards and Commissions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. It was recommended by the advisory panel to appoint Jim Dorhman to the one -year term on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board created by the resignation of John Collins. Joos /Sweeney moved to appoint Mr. Tim Dorhman to the one -year remaining of a term on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board created by the resignation of John Collins. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceeding of the page February ry 26, 2002 Shakopee City Council Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to look at qualifications that have been placed on applicants for all Boards and Commission, in particular the residence requirement. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Lehman dissenting. Mr. McNeill introduced Mr. Pat Ciliberto, from Scott Joint Prosecution Association (SJPA). Mr. Ciliberto stated that the SJPA prosecutes petty misdemeanors, misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors for the City of Shakopee as part of the Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Ciliberto gave some historical background and the goals of the SJPA. The goals are to perform the best level of service and prosecution to the City as well a�lae numbs tof goal in prosecuted d most y be mostly of the of Shakopee has seen a dramatic increase n State Highway Patrol heavily patrolling Hwy. 169. Mr. Ciliberto reported that in 2001 the City of Shakopee and SJPA will reach a breakeven point. Mr. McNeill reported that it was much cheaper to have SJPA prosecute the cases versus the City having their own prosecution staff or piecemeal the prosecution out. Judith Cox, City Clerk, approached the podium and gave an overview of the duties and goals handled by the City Clerks office. The staff consists of the City Clerk, Deputy City Clerk, 2 part -time receptionists and 1 part-time records clerk. The duties performed are; record keeping, publishing legal notices, recording documents, licensing, oversees elections, development duties and customer service work. The goals are to: participate with Scott County in the acquisition of precinct counters, the creation of two or three new additional precincts for the City, and the acquisition of electronic imaging equipment for document storage. Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinor mvolvem t ent for d the City of ShakopeeMr� an organizational chart of the Economic Development Snook works with the Economic Development Authority (EDA), Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC), and Vision Shakopee along with tax increments and tax abatements for new businesses along with other financing tools. Mr. Snook noted the EDAC is responsible to implement the approved strategic plan. The goal of the revitalization, housing opportunities and re- development for the City is: to bring forth a plan for the older commercial areas within the City, the continued use of the Small Cities Development program and work with the Vision Shakopee Committee to continue to bring in new business for the older commercial areas and the retention of existing businesses along with possible expansion opportunities for the commerciaUbusiness area, and entrepreneurial activities. Mr. McQuillan, Natural Resources Director, approached the podium and gave a brief overview of the Natural Resource activities. Along with the Natural' Resources Director is the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) for the City. Some of the duties are: protect the environment. Oversees park dedication/park fees and the Capital Improvement Program for Natural Resources along with miscellaneous administration activities. Some construction goals for the Natural Resources Director are; Tahpah Park parking lot improvements, upgrade of the Hiawatha Park playground equipment, Huber Park performance area and boat landing, continuing the Tree Trust Program, Sunpath School Official Proceeding of the February 26, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -4- soccer fields to be constructed jointly with the school district, small trail connections over water, short trail connections and playground equipment on the MnDOT 75 parcel probably in the year 2003. Some of the goals of the EAC are: to bring back the Tree Preservation Ordinance this year and to identify the greenway corridors and create public awareness of these corridors. Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant, approached the podium and gave an overview of the Telecommunications Commission. Telecommunications consist of five main areas. They are: print area, media print and television, web site, cable and general telecommunications. Staff would like to get information as fast as possible out to the residents of the City. Ms. Coenen noted that the website has been worked on adding much more information to the site. Ms. Coenen added that the I -Net would allow for even more information. This is a goal of staff and the Telecommunications Commission along with broadcasting City meetings of Boards and Commissions in an attempt to access as many people as possible. It is also the goal of the Telecommunications Commission to re- evaluate the contract with PFR Productions. Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, approached the podium and gave an overview of the Finance Department. Gregg Voxland noted the Council gets two main documents from the Finance Department each year. These two documents are: the annual finance report and the budget. Mr. Voxland stated that the Finance Department takes care of all the City's different funds and financial reporting requirements. The Finance Department consists of the Finance Director, Assistant Finance Director, Senior Accounting Clerk and Accounting Clerk. Accounting is the mainstay of the operation with their duties consisting of accounts receivable and accounts payable. Other functions of the Finance Department is the annual audit and all of those reports that need to be filed, tracking of special assessments, budgeting, tracking assets within the City, investment of monies, some insurance coverage and some centralized purchasing. Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director, approached the podium and gave a short overview of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Themig noted that the Parks and Recreation Department consisted of five separate divisions. These divisions are; administration, recreation programs, aquatics, ice area, community center and parks and park facilities. There are eight staff members in this department with this number increasing tremendously in the summer months. Mr. Themig reported what each staff employee was responsible for and identified the key issues /projects for 2002. Some of the goals are: work with City staff to update the web site, review the current background check procedure for staff responsible for working with children, an agreement between the sports associations and the City, review residents /township fees, continuing work on developing teen programs, addressing diversity and cultural issues, continuing to develop the Learn -To -Swim program, selling ice time, and the coordination of the installation of a water treatment system and analyzing the revenues and expenditures. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, approached the podium and stated the library architects have asked for another session of approximately one -half hour before the City Council. Official Proceeding of the Shakopee City Council February 26, 2002 Page -5- Mr. McNeill wanted to know if this time should be scheduled within the City Council meeting or if the Council would like to meet at another time. There was . consensus to meet on March 6, 2002, at 6:00p.m. Mr. McNeill presented a proposal for reorganizing the administration duties he incurred. Mr. McNeill presented an organizational chart. This reorganization was an attempt to lower the number of people reporting to him by creating an Administrative Services Division. No job titles will change and some job descriptions may need to be looked at. There was much discussion on this proposal. Mr. McNeill felt this proposal would provide a better operation for the City. Cncl. Link stated he could not support this proposal. Sweeney /Joos moved to approve the Shakopee 2002 organizational chart as submitted by Mr. McNeill, City Administrator. (CC Document No. 316) Motion carried 3 -2 with Cncl. Link and Lehman dissenting. Sweeney/Lehman moved to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, March 6, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 7 dith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 6, 2002 Mayor Mars called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council members Link, Lehman, Sweeney, Joos present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator. Link/Sweeney moved to approve the Agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, noted that the City was nearing a decision point on proceeding with the bid on the new library in the downtown. Mr. Sponsel, Architect with the BKV Group, approached the podium and gave the Council an update on the design and schedule for the new library along with some budgetary scenarios. Mr. Sponsel felt this should be a final review prior to the bidding for the new library. The construction documents have been completed within the last few months and they are being prepared to go out for bid later this month. A schedule update for the construction and a final cost estimate for the new library have been included in the Council members packet for tonight. The construction document booklet included many drawings for architecture, landscape, and structural mechanical and electrical, along with specifications for architecture, landscape and mechanical and electrical. A separate detailed book of the parts and pieces of the new library will also be issued and referenced in the drawing set. Mr. Sponsel reviewed the anticipated schedule, the scope of the project, cost and bidding alternatives for the new library. Mr. Sponsel noted if there were any comments from the Council, these comments would be incorporated within the document within the next two weeks. The March 19`'' City Council meeting has been held in reserve for any final approvals for the new library project; March 20' this new library proposal will be ready for print and will then be issued simultaneously to bidders and City staff. Mr. Sponsel reported that currently BKV is proposing to take bids on April 16 and report their recommendation to Council on that date. Mr. Sponsel stated that the moving of the old library site and the timing of hazardous soil preparation being done by the City, so a clean site can be delivered to the contractor, would really determine when the actual construction process began. Overall, Mr. Sponsel stated that a construction period of 13 -14 months was anticipated. Mr. McNeill noted that there was a memo on table indicating that there were some uncertainties on the environmental testing. The City has been unable to get the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) approval of the site clean-up plan. This may cause a delay. Once the plan is approved then the cleanup can begin. If there is no groundwater contamination, then clean up should be minimal and the contractor can proceed in a timely fashion. Mr. McNeill stated that the City has $50,000 budgeted for clean up; if groundwater contamination is found the clean up will surpass the $50,000. If the $50,000 is surpassed the City might qualify for some State clean-up money. Mr. Sponsel noted that everything relating to the hazardous material and everything being done environmentally is being done separately with a consultant through the City and separately bid. The bids for the environmental work should be coming in approximately at the same time as construction Official Proceeding of the March 6, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page --- bids are coming in. Cncl. Link wanted to make sure that the clean soil is compacted and tested before construction begins. Cncl. Link wanted someone responsible for this action. Mr. Sponsel stated that unit costs have been included in the bid construction document to bring in fill and pack and place this fill properly. The general contractor could be used to provide all necessary fill; the other option could be to have the contamination contractor refill the site and compact the soil to the specifications outlined by the BKV Group. Mr. Sponsel stated the mechanism is in the construction bidding contract to do this refill and compacting. Mr. Sponsel noted that there is a start and stop date listed in the contract for the building contractor to come on site. Mayor Mars had a question on the overall costs including the soil corrections. Mr. Sponsel addressed the front -end costs and possible cost savings. Cncl. Sweeney asked if wells located down from the site could be checked for groundwater contamination in an attempt to speed the process along. Mr. McNeill did not think the testing of the wells for groundwater contamination would satisfy the MPCA; he thought the testing needed to done on site, but Mr. McNeill would follow -up. Mr. Sponsel reviewed the budget for the new library. Mr. Sponsel stated that most of the numbers not related to construction have remained the same. The building costs that have been updated for tonight and the building cost and site development costs are now over budget. The target number is $4,385,000 for site development and building construction. To rectify this problem some value engineering reductions were looked at. These items would be permanently removed from the project to adjust the number to be more in line with the budgeted amount. Mr. Sponsel identified $113,000 of value engineering costs that are now being taken out of the new library construction to get the project costs more in line with the budgeted amount. Bidding alternates were looked at to further bring the new library in line with the budgeted figure for its construction. Mr. Sponsel noted a list of the deduct items that are being proposed to be bid. These deduct alternatives total $245,000. With the listed deduct alternatives and the value engineering costs that are removed from the project, the costs are now slightly under budget. Mr. Sponsel noted there is still a construction contingency in the building numbers to help protect the City. Mr. Sponsel recommended that the content of the documents is acceptable to go out to bid. Mayor Mars discussed the deduct alternatives with Mr. Sponsel. Cncl. Lehman addressed the value engineering reductions. Mr. McNeill requested that direction be given on whether prevailing wages (union scale wages) be paid on the project or not. Prevailing wages need to be paid when federal or state money is included in the project. The City Attorney has determined that right now there is no requirement locally that prevailing wages are required to be paid. However, if state clean-up money is used then the area becomes questionable. The clean up of the soil is under separate contract. It was noted that City Engineering projects and Park Improvement projects, a number of years ago, did adopt standard language pertaining to prevailing wages. Mr. McNeill reported that if prevailing wages are required, this might add $100,000 to the cost of the project. The $100,000 has been included in the figures from the BKV Group. Mr. McNeill noted that at least one of the buildings trade unions called and Official Proceeding of the March 6, 2002 Shakopee City Council Page -3- asked if prevailing wages were going to be specified in this project. Mayor Mars stated he would like to see the bidding open to all. Cncl. Lehman wanted to know if grant money used for clean up would have a dramatic financial impact. Mr. McNeill felt perhaps the Council wanted to defer their decision regarding the prevailing wage until the next meeting. He would follow -up on the state clean-up money issue if the clean up is under separate contract. Cncl. Sweeney wanted to direct BKV Architects to proceed with the bidding process without having an answer to the prevailing wages question. Mr. Sponsel stated that condition of prevailing wages could be removed from the construction documents until direction was given on the prevailing wage and an addendum be added at a later date. There was discussion on using the prevailing wage in the City of Shakopee. David Kroos, Principal with BKV Group, approached the podium and stated that BKV Groups has historically bid projects with and without the prevailing wage. Historically there have been no problems in areas where the prevailing wage was not used. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff and the architect to go ahead on the schedule that has been proposed by the BKV Group for the new library. The Library Board was present at meeting and they were asked to come forward if they had questions on the new library. There was no response. The motion pertained to just the schedule not wages. Mr. Sponsel agreed with Cncl. Sweeney that the schedule can move forward before prevailing wages needed to be agreed on. Motion carried unanimously. The schedule was approved. Mr. Sponsel stated the Council's decision on prevailing wages needed to be made one week prior to the bid opening date. Lehman/Sweeney offered Resolution 5667, A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For The Construction Of A Public Library In Shakopee, Minnesota, and moved its adoption and with a follow -up as soon as possible on whether or not the City of Shakopee will use prevailing wages. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Sweeney gave a phase three- center site analysis for Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC). This site analysis was for all three sites for the center site for SPUC. Cncl. Sweeney noted that all three sites had pluses and minuses and SPUC was not leaning in any specific direction at this time. This is the final document from Mr. Sponsel, with BKV Group. Cncl. Sweeney went over some of the sites pluses and minuses of each site. Official Proceeding of the Shakopee City Council March 6, 2002 Page -4- Cncl. Joos asked about the schedule of the new Police Building. Mr. Kroos addressed this question. Joos/Link moved to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, March 6, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary CITY OF S AIDE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: March 14, 2002 f Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2002 based on data entered as of 03/14/2002. Attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval. Also included in the checklist are various refunds, returns, pass through, etc. totaling $96,585.10. The actual net expense amount is $655,279.32. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $751,864.42. Cl) r 0 N N � O N C m [a m a r� : r,� : D co Q ca M M x W m m of m oc cc U Lo � C co Lo Co m U } co m Flq O ' C i (D Im O CD cq cq L_ L Lo co N 0 g m C U d Q U o O 0 0 0 0 m Ic O O m co C •O Q m I F Z W o d °-' o �I W W O i U Z U) z z o U o v v N I O O m La co co cc Q N N ci � 2 c2 x o W N N m U CD co C N N N A m m m U � � } co m C O C U d Q U c 0 . V co M a m M o 0 0 0 0 o 0 m � m V V to O ;� O LL O L O a O z 0 Iw Q � ' w z L L O r O N to O M N O t 7 1 O r 1` LU N LO m O c0 T o O m w - W w co O O M m O O O w O w w O O cc o Q m O n O N ti O O O m M O M M N m (o o o o n o c2 � r o 0 X c W m o o n M m r M O N M N C co o Lq n o m ry v c N m Lo o co r m m c6 N m C m m o M Lo C o LO Ln O V cr V h M r- M m M O M O cc � M m r N O m o O Nt m T U Ln Co O i- O N m M co N o N m G 1� m ti N R N Co m o m M m M CD M Ln m Ln Ln 1� Lo Ln N O b r O M m M O N m ca m M o o co r- v co M m rn o to r- m m Lo M m o n Ln r Imo. O Lo m r M O O � co c0 M co m O O N V (o V Lo m T C O m co O L M n N O M m V• V V LO N I,- m M Lo I� N b; M d' L- m N cc fi a) ` co M zr m W r n Ln O m W G r Lo U7 Co e0 N (o O co O Cl) n co CL o m o U Y co Q N _ O o m O Q M LL (1) M Y m m h co r m O O 1.- CO) Co m I' N m (o r oo m o? r N O N Lo O Lo m (� co Lo M O to O N N o co Lo N r co L Lq m m o O LL'J cc Ln c0 Cl) m co N M M N Ln N O v cc M O m O m O O> a CO CO 11 C Ch co r- m (o Ln O LO r v Ln M Cc N LI O N N r W ca a) U C Q U 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o o 0 0 o c o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Ln O r- co O C' O O O_ co Ln m N V M Cl) N I-I d' �] O co m (` Lc O V V o co LL9 Lo C co Lo ^r Co m Co co m CO f� m In N r- N Ln v� co N co Lo co A m Co Co cc cc N 3 m G � m co O d ' � M m O N r Lo Co m r [D M O C 3 Q m u) Z F j S c w m o N W >_ O z g U o. m 1 W F J Z W Q J OF W Z W (J Z Z W o n z U J 1 W Q W Q Z W W J F w m> Q m 0 z_ w i C� U J O Y j ]• d O z Z Q �"' F Q Q T Q U Z W . F W O CC z Q o w U W z z 0 J w 0 0 O} > Y Q< n z D o Q 3 w W d (7 � 0 o U d w� U U ai d o 0 o aa) j o E � C Z Ln O tp N M r N V CD O W. W ` r M M M V R V V m p r� : r,� : D co Q ca M M x W m m of m oc cc U Lo � C co Lo Co m U } co m Flq O ' C i (D Im O CD cq cq L_ L Lo co N 0 g m C U d Q U o O 0 0 0 0 m Ic O O m co C •O Q m I F Z W o d °-' o �I W W O i U Z U) z z o U o v v N I O O m La co co cc Q N N ci � 2 c2 x o W N N m U CD co C N N N A m m m U � � } co m C O C U d Q U c 0 . V co M a m M o 0 0 0 0 o 0 m � m V V to O ;� O LL O L O a O z 0 Iw Q � ' w z L L O r O m r O 00 N v m m Cl) d W a5 w N IL . Y ' V U m LL U } O — C U O U O O N N f' D _1 w Y U m N c 0 ig M w w w w w Z W w w w w w 13 U U U U U U U U U U U z K K LL K � w Of w K p 0 0 0 0 O} O O O O O O LL LL LL LL LL LL F LL LL LL LL LL U- ri) m to m F F m F, U m W U m a) w F H f F Z Z F p I ❑ 1 N F N F ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 U Ur U U 2 2 U 2' U Z U U U U (� Z z z z z Z W D ❑ ❑ ❑ W w ❑ w ❑ ❑ LL ❑ ❑ > > ❑ ❑ p ❑ LL LL L=L ❑ L=L ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ w ❑ ❑ LL ❑ Q ❑ ❑ .. ❑ ❑ ❑❑ O O o W j ❑ Z❑ ❑ ❑❑ O 0 Z Z Z w. D Z n n 0 D D= D D Z 0 D (n Z d>> O O O O m O m LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL LL O LL O O O w LL O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O LL LL J LL LL LL N W W W W w Q W W w w W w Lz W �-' W W W W LL W O Lc W z U= Q 2 c m F W '� LL' w W 2 W W W LL W of w W W W W W W w W w w w w co co N } i M M 3 i Q w 3r w� 3: w w� w w w w Q w w w w w w w w w w w w w j w Q w w m I m m U m r r m m 0 m LL' m U m m 0 U' N 0 2' 2' R' LL 0 w 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC O O m 0 U U' 0 w Lu w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F U U U co U m m m m U m m m m m m U m U) Cl) m U m m U U m m U m m U m m m m U m N } } } } } } } } } r r } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } U U cn cn cn cn cn (n cn cn cn cn cn m cn cn cn v) co cn cn U U U U U U U U U U U U U co U co U U w W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J m m m m m CO CO m m m m m m CO CO m CO CO m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o Q Q ¢ Q Q Q¢¢ Q Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q¢ ¢ Q Q Q¢¢ Q Q Q¢¢ Q¢ Q Q Q¢¢ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Q Q Q¢¢¢¢ Q Q Q¢¢ Q Q Q¢¢ Q¢ Q Q Q¢ Q¢ Q Q Q¢¢ Q Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q U d a LL IL a LL LL CL a LL a a LL a CL a a a LL a n. LL n. CL m EL LL LL a CL CL LL a CL CL 6. CL LL a N m U m m U U U rn U U U U U m U U a) U U U U fn U U U U U fn m U cn U co m U 0 cn m m F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F ❑ z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U U w U o U U U U U U v U U o U U U U U U U w o 0 o U U o 0 o U U U o U U U U U U c U U U o U U U U U o U U U U U U U U U o U o o U U U o U U U U U U U U U U o U ¢ Q ¢ � Q Q ¢ ¢ Q Q Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ � 3E O � ¢ Q Q ¢ Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ F C) 0 U w W (n LL z W U U J LLJ F- U U w < Q w Co D z co p L U LLJ ¢ d p w w U — w w LLJ U a U LL U p 2= O ? m U LL U F F- w �s = CO m w j w F w O m w Q w Q Z w Q¢ j O O? 0 U O F LL w W cr d x LL O U m z F F � U D __ 5 UU w O in vi O w LL U w CL Q� u) 0 Z U - z w❑ Z U a V O O U z w o r w p z z U 2 Q Q a❑ W J F 2' = J j a a LL W O cn W w Y 2 6' ¢ Z O_ > z< w w W W O O U W Q Z 0 LL m Q Q W D 0= U U z z U❑ z F LL Z = p O W W F LL W W U M 0' > Z fl O w w > LL Z 0❑ W U z W F O F elf U z U O U w z m LL p p w 0 O U L r o w w rn U U = z O z w O � U W w¢ W O Z `f' at d 0 F z U z z w 1-- o U U a o U p >¢ F H O K z U 2 z Q¢= LL r i U o w U z r `o W W j K LL' U Of F Z Q F F Y WW Z U N W Q¢ Q O W K O W Y U � 0 0 u ' Y Y O W Q - o J LL . ❑ U W W O F m Z LL O O Q W Q� K o w >> U F W U O O Q LL� cn z U Ur O Q J W } > m U W OLL Z Z w g g 2 2 w w w y U) U)> N Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m m m m m m m m m O Lo n O V O O O N O N M O O O m m n m n m O O O O N O m O O O O V O (O O C O M c"1 t0 n O O M R m O O u( O V Cn v m n N c0 W O m O O M M N O O r O O r N Lq r N CD M V m M o co O n m o N O O O n w C N M M m V O m w O d' M O m O N M O V n N CD n M N M N O 7 < M CO ' N O M O n O N O CO n N n M r M (O d' r N V O E N r r N N m N CO r cl co r r N O r r O N co r Q N r tc (O LQ 1D �- ¢ m Ld CYJ n -t V R r r r I� r Cl) tt { r N Y n = m O N M d' to CO n m m O N M R L[) CO n CO m O CO n of m O N M 7 LL7 O n (� L N N N M M M M M M M M M M Q O o Lo Lo Lo l[1 u� w O O O co w CD m L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0) M O co N CA C LL - w w LL rn � m m Y L D U L LL O U U F 0 U 0 O > O J U W LL Y U LD N V ❑ ❑ Z z Z) Z) LL LL z z Z z w W W W ❑ ❑ L=L ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ W ❑ ❑ ❑ > O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ z ❑ O ❑ ❑ z p ❑ ❑ LL ❑ W ❑ ❑ O ❑ Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z> Z Z Z CC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z of z Z Z> Z Z Z Z -- ❑ ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ W ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ LL ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ z 7 V) ❑ ❑ :) ❑ z D- :) :D z ❑ Q_' Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E LL LL O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL x LL W LL LL LL LL O LL LL LL O LL— LL LL LL LL O � LL LL O LL w O LL LL LL LL J J F- J J J J J J J O J J J J — J ~ J Q J J }-- (D C7 J J J J f — JJ J F QQ- 2 K K 2 CL' Q K J � 7 Q - J Q J Q J Q J Q N = W w x 2 x x W= Ir Q w W 2 K W R Z 2 g I g W ¢ K 2 it W W CC W W W W w W W LL W y w W W t W 2' w w W x w 0 W w W W F- W W x W Z Z U Z Z Z z z z Z w Z Z Z Z m z U Z Z Z U Z J Z Z Z Z U �_ Z Z U z U Z Z Z Z W w w w w w w w w w p w Q w w w Q w w w w w w w w w w w w¢ w w w w Q w w w w w m 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LL O a O O 0 U 0 x O O O Of O m 0 0 0 O w U O 0 m 0 LL of O O O 0 w w w w w w w w w w W W L F- F- F- F- F- F- }- F U U 0 U U U N r r r r r r r r r r r r o cn m m rn cn cn cn cn cn m m m i N W W w W W w w w W W W W L M J J J J J J J J J J J J m m m m m m m m m m m m C O ¢ Q Q ¢ Q Q ¢ ¢ Q Q Q ¢ < a s M a m m m m Q a m m d d c 0 N m m m 0 w m 0 w m U m m c F- F_ F_ F- F_ F_ F _ F - F - F - F ❑_ z z z z z z z z z z z z< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �- O O c U U U U U U U U U U w U U v U U U U U U U U U U U U U Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q_ W 2 ' U m J U c w 2? U Z S U C j > Z O j F QQ LL F- ¢ F- < w U) = W z 2 Q m W F- x Q U w Q a[ Y Z U F cd i 1 W F - LL' U = w O` ? m O w r Z O Q w ( Z w 2 F m (y W Q J w w L a (D g J J W w OU U) ❑ Q J R 2 2 o f W Y LJJ J F- ¢ O w ¢ Z Z O Z Z LL U> F- 3 LL' t > 2 2 2�� Z> 2 2 2 z z z< 1 W L cn c i ai i J W L l J 3 Q C Q LL c i m c F_ F i z F W O C G U) Q } z [ j c ¢ c c 2 < J ( U) O C c W U ) w U _ = w ¢ F O O c Lu w ui� w w w F- } } } } } } } ) m m m m m m J w w W W W w W ) J J J J J J J COMM )MMMM Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q _ LL LL LL a a LL a Q F(n - U) F F X F FU- Cl) D > > 0 Q > > > F � 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Q w Q Q Q C O C F- O Q Q Z p Z } j o a Q o w w w ❑ cl U 3 w Z Z Z - 2 Q Y y E m z w ? U 0 w a J J w a a a a Z C W W W w w w w w w U U U U U U (1) Cl) w 0 0 0 J J J J J J a s D_ a n a F F F F F H D D Q n D= D Q F 0 0 0 0 F Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 N O n U U)) of CC ❑ O W J F W Z j z U O a z-j CO w z V IL co Z Z C . LL' F- W w Z Z p J ( U a d O D U U 0 0 0 w Of U U U U U U w w w w w H F- F- F- F- U !n !!) U U r r r r r w w w w w J J J J J Q ¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a LL LL a a H F F F F z z z z z O O O O O ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q U Z Cl) OU U Z 2 U Q Z W O J W U F z U w w 3 m w m D- z v Q Q w CC W U U U U Cl) ID 0) O N cD O O cD 'r O O O n O cD cO O O M N W m O m O D) O O M O N m 4 O O (O O M O cO G m V O tO cO O O O n Lq O � O O 0) n O (O CD c0 N N O W O n O N O n LQ V O O n O u) CO Lq tD cC) 0) n M m o O co N o N N M n c0 O 0) O n d' O co O co V N co O m LLj m M O to n D cD O c0 CO n R LL N M N (D '7 M M N C O M V N O M LO O co cD V cD M O O N n O O) c0 n O N F- r U r O n t0 O r O O — N u7 V N cD c0 r r LL) N n LO c0 r 0) r r Q c0 c<i N r O M O r r O N N Y O N M V LL7 (0 n c0 41 O u1 N M V cO O n m O O N M 7 LD (0 n m m O cn cD n w O O N M m lO u7 u7 U r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M m Lo C V 7 LL) 7 7 cO En LL) LL) N tO N N N N 04 m N N tD N " N Cq N " N N N LO N N N N "" N N LL) N LL) N c 7 N N L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n r r N C p zz N m d W cc O_ O E v v m Q CO = Y , U) m LL t O U C O GJ o c! U cm co tD O) n O tD O n I'll 0 O W n W O m O N C co N O c0 W n O O M O O lD M LL) to ^M O �{ 0 M z V' N Co M u) O to co cD N cD O O) v) v E R M N O) O LO N M O CD M r O c0 lD O N (D r V m cc 7 N o W r O D) r M � O (D r M N O N Lo O O Co n O c0 o I 7 N VV N C N M Lo n N m 0 � W U � D 0 d LL LL H Y z z co W CO z W w Z W U =) ~ Z LL Z (� CD z >> a> O 0 ti vi �� z cli o n v LL K = 12- W 2 LL z z Q z O L, O J F 1 _ O N LL LL W 0 X co — C7 x Q 0 Z W O W L Z 2 Q Q y F- N W � w LL Z 2' Q m M O LL O O U U v) W O 0 m rn o Q Q o W F W O U) Y U` LL F- W r .- N LL U N U) (n R' W m [n W U O O O O Ln O O M O O O o o Lo O E O E o N V W N 0 N 0 M 0 N 0 N 0 m 0 O O O M u) O co co 0 0 O 0 O N O N N O 0 M O M O M 2 C 0 7 O V 0 n 0 n n 0 0 n 0 n 8 co 0 c0 0 O-Ap CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE LOG NO.: 02 -021 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Dublin Square Fourth Addition MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 REVIEW PERIOD: January 25, 2002 — May 25, 2002 Site Information: C 0 NZ31 N T Applicant. Dublin Square LLC Property Owners: Dublin Square LLC Location: North of 17' Avenue, south of Hwy. 169, and east of Dublin Lane Current Zoning. Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone South: Agricultural Preservation (AG) (Sunpath Elementary) East: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone West: Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone Acres: 4.2 Acres No. of Dwelling Units: 44 dwelling units Wetlands: Not Applicable Park Dedication Acreage: Not Applicable R- O- WAdjustment. Not Applicable Net Density: 10.5 units per acre MUSA: Yes DISCUSSION: Dublin Square LLC has made application for final plat approval of Dublin Square Addition. The proposed development is located south of Highway 169, north of 17'' Avenue and east of Dublin Lane, and proposes the creation of 12 lots for medium density residential development. The Preliminary Plat for this development was approved by the City Council in 1999. The Final Plat is in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5670, approving the Final Plat of Dublin Square Fourth Addition subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. 2. Approve the Final Plat of Dublin Square Fourth Addition subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the proposed Final Plat of Dublin Square Fourth Addition. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer approving Resolution No. 5670, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee approving the Final Plat of Dublin Square Fourth Addition, subject to conditions, and move its approval. , Julie Klima Planner II g:\cc\2002\03-19\fpdublinsq4.doc WHEREAS, Dublin Square LLC, applicant and property owner, has made application for final plat approval of Dublin Square Fourth Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: Outlot B, Dublin Square Third Addition, County of Scott, State of Minnesota WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the final plat request at its meeting of March 21, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCM OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MESNESOTA, as follows: That the final plat of Dublin Square Fourth Addition is approved subject to the following conditions: 1) The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: i) Approval of title by the City Attorney. ii) Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for the future improvements within the final plat, as well as payment of engineering review fees. (i) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. (ii) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. (iii)Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (iv) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. (v) Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $270.00 per sign pole. (vi)The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's Fee Schedule. (vii) Park dedication payments shall be deferred until the time of building permit issuance and shall be required in the amount consistent with the adopted fee schedule in place at the time of permit issuance. iii) Prior to construction of the public improvements, The City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. iv) Easements must be shown on the Final Plat and as approved by the City Engineer. 2) The following conditions shall apply after the recording of the Final Plat: i) Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit applications(s). ii) The developer will provide temporary and well - secured street signs as approved by the Building Official and Fire Inspector. iii) Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. THEREFORE, E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the final plat of Dublin Square Fourth Addition does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of . 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee VNIM F Square 4th Addition Zoning Boundary Parcel Boundary lj�;- a , ^ �)�j TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Final Plat of RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 REVIEW PERIOD: January 31, 2002 — April 2, 2002 Site Information: Applicant: River Bend Townhomes Limited Partnership Property Owners: River Bend Townhomes Limited Partnership Scott County BRA Location: South of Fourth Avenue' West; West of Adams Street Current Zoning. Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Old Shakopee Residential (R 1C) Zone South: Old Shakopee Residential (R 1C) Zone East: Multiple - Family Residential (R-3) Zone West: Multiple - Family Residential (R -3) Zone Acres: ui?"I DISCUSSION: 2.06 acres Yes RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and the Scott County BRA have made application for final plat approval for a 2 -lot subdivision for an affordable, rental townhouse project. The preliminary plat for this development was approved by the City Council in April of 2001. The Final Plat is in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat. Engineering and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission have made specific comments, copies of which are attached for the Council's information. The conditions recommended by Engineering have been incorporated in the attached, draft resolution of approval. 1. Approve Resolution No. 5 67 1, approving the Final Plat of RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. 2. Approve the Final Plat of RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the proposed Final Plat of RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Offer approving Resolution No. 5671, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee approving the Final Plat of RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES, subject to conditions, and move its approval. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g:\cc\2002\03-19\FPRIVERBEND-doc T FINAL PLAT OF RIVER : OMM WHEREAS, RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, applicant and owner, and the Scott County HRA, owner, have make application for final plat approval of RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as follows; All of Block 8, Koeper's Addition to Shakopee, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council reviewed the proposed final plat on March 19, 2002, and found it to be consistent with the, preliminary plat approved on April 17, 2001; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing on the preliminary plat were duly posted and sent; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the final plat of RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES is approved subject to the following conditions; 1) The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: a) Submission of additional utility information regarding easements, location, connections, profiles, and calculations. b) Approval of title by the City Attorney., c) Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the final plat, as well as payment of engineering review fees. (1) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. (2) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (the Commission). (3) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and trunk water main charges shall be paid as required by the Commission. (4) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. (5) Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee with the cost to be assessed against the developer. (6) The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's Fee Schedule. (7) Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat as set forth in the 2001 City Fee Schedule, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat. d) Prior to construction of the public improvements, The City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission:must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. 2) The following conditions shall apply after the recording of the Final Plat: i) Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit applications(s). THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the final plat of RIVER BEND TOWNHOMES does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of .2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: I. ♦ • r Final Plat of 1 n • • Bound . Parcel B• •, City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Michael Leek, Community Development Director FROM: Scott A. Smith, Assistant city Engineer SUBJECT: Final Plat — RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES PID No.: 27- 003012 -0 DATE: February 26, 2002 The application indicates a final plat is proposed for the RIVERBEND TOWNHOMES. After reviewing the referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: Site Grading Revisions need to be made to the grading plan to reflect city standards. Benchmark information will need a registered land surveyor's verification. The benchmarks need to be established and verification notes will have to be submitted that show they have been tied to known City of Shakopee benchmarks. Street The typical street section shows a negative 2% slope from the top of curb to the ROW on the right side. The city will require a positive 2% slope from the top of curb for a minim of 3 foot and then no more than 1V:4H to the ROW. The city prefers 2% from the top of curb to the ROW, but special consideration was given to this property due to existing circumstances. The typical street section also shows the street width to the back of curb. The street width should be to the face of curb. Also, the plans show a bituminous path within the property. This path is shown in the ROW and abuts Adams Street in two places. The city has no current plans to put a path along this side of Adams Street, so no path will be allowed in the ROW. The plans also show a pedestrian ramp approximately 75 feet west of the 4 th Street and Adams Street intersection on the north side of 4 th Street. This pedestrian ramp location will not be allowed. The path longitudinal slope of 5% is fine, but in several areas the cross slope is greater than 2% and some appears to be approaching 33 %. The maximum cross slope is to be 2% and the maximum longitudinal slope is 5 %. Cul -de -Sacs The street layout proposes one (1) public street cul -de -sac. The length of this cul -de -sac is within the 750' maximum allowed per the City's Design Criteria. The cul -de -sac radius was agreed upon as acceptable except the 40 foot radius to the curb should be to the face of curb and not to the back of curb as shown. (The radius to the curb line is 5 feet less in length then current city standards and the radius to the ROW is 10 feet less in length then current city standards.) Water /Sanitary Sewer The Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the water system necessary to serve the proposed development. Any Trunk Watermain Charges shall be paid, as required by the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. No Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges will apply to this plat. Storm Sewer/Pondina The applicant's engineer will need to work with City staff and the City's engineering consultant on the storm sewer plan for this area of the City. No grading or construction shall begin on the project until the final construction plans have been reviewed and approved by the City's consulting engineer. The proposed plans indicate that the storm system is planning to connect into the City of Shakopee's storm system. I do not have any information with the application that shows me the proposed flows into the existing storm pipe system. The city needs to see adequate documentation that would indicate the proposed flows through the storm pipe network, into the pond and out of the pond into the existing storm pipe system are satisfactory. Also, detail plates need to be incorporated into the plans that show the City of Shakopee's standards and special structures, such as the pond outlet control structure. Storm Water Trunk Charges will not apply to this plat. Recommendation Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording of the Final Plat, the following actions must be completed: a) Execution of the Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for public improvements within the Final Plat and the engineering review fees. b) Payment of Trunk Watermain Charges shall be made, as required by the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. c) Submit additional utility information regarding easements, location, connections, profiles and calculations. d) No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. • Is • M 1 TO: Shakopee Community Development Department FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering Manager SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD COMMENTS for: Final Plat River Bend Townhomes CASE NO: 02022 DATE: 31 -A97, COMMENTS: Municipal water service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These include, but are not limited to: installing a lateral water main distribution system in accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspections costs, paying the Trunk Water Charge, and paying the Water Connection Charge. Underground electric service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These include, but are not limited to: entering into an Underground Distribution Agreement, granting any necessary easements, and paying the associated fees. Street Lighting installation is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These are contained in the current City of Shakopee Street Lighting Policy. Applicant must pay the associated fees. Applicant should contact Shakopee Public Utilities directly for specific requirements relating to their project. c y U _ a C, v o Q _ Q IOU � o 3 o ° m o m N m o Q, o S n o ° m 0 0 CO w L O o W t 3 0 c W = I U p C pN o C) j m O lb z � � L co Q b ° •� a -Z of j v o ji � I Io v-c a .�v I (1 q) o SN o 0 0 a l ,O J W p�cl) m� O-., 3 �U - N cc o _2 o N o Uol O` U c o 3 s o� �� i° 05o Z° c o p i �oo� U ^ o m c to c o x > o 0 Q ^ c o o� n c mZ -6 c Z m a c c o n o o p a o c CL W o 0 0 U c a 3 a a n c s ° J ro._.0 ° c l �.o c c c l o �� O o I o s Z° W o °° U n cZE u c c m o v L c U CQ0 ° c o f a Z� NW cobra on ° c o m o O 4 �s ° w o of o n o W3o cq of a c o oc� tz ° J J 5 4 �� 2 a c o m-ZD S o o ty n U o n n U S I I I co I I I I I J �I I I LL LQ c c LQ f � I L 1 J L1- I i I L 1 J I I I / I I I I I II I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J 09 1 � 1 L1J -�s I � I LJ.J - o tl r F Q C V n i Y � d + 0 0 q 09 (NOl1IOOV SY3d30N 00'00£) I f - I i i � r � f - . (NOl1IOOV SY3d30N 00'00£) 09 I I ■ I _J I � _J I ,I, I I I I I I I -T -_ I _1 I I I I I SC U w a V � a O � � m y W C Q � m 3 1 3 � W c 0 F A Q w z W� N pz � Z � N W �Q � �ZZ Z m O Q O � New OL O m w �G 2 �� n0 - Z � D _w Qroz x U w SJ V1U 20 � _ � p N FE FzW 0 o Q a� z zo oz W W Z Z y O ® O O Z N m 0 ^e i Lil vQ L�a Q -- � L1J W 7 � o Z` q) vl N Q) N �l _ 1\ 1\ c. , 1\ (NOI1100V ',,,V3d3OV 00 "00£) f - . 09 I I ■ I _J I � _J I ,I, I I I I I I I -T -_ I _1 I I I I I SC U w a V � a O � � m y W C Q � m 3 1 3 � W c 0 F A Q w z W� N pz � Z � N W �Q � �ZZ Z m O Q O � New OL O m w �G 2 �� n0 - Z � D _w Qroz x U w SJ V1U 20 � _ � p N FE FzW 0 o Q a� z zo oz W W Z Z y O ® O O Z N m 0 ^e i Lil vQ L�a Q -- � L1J W 7 � o Z` q) vl N Q) N �l _ 1\ 1\ c. , 1\ (NOI1100V ',,,V3d3OV 00 "00£) J J 0 Q LOtLZ'ON asuaDL :a4op uo h L D 1 p 'W P 21 :pau6�s 11Ul WI ; 1D sMo1 n y� japun �ohaA nS puol paia}si6ad hlnp 0 wD 1 ;Cqj puD UOISINadns loaxp Aw japun ao aw Aq pajodaid son) uOld slgl }oy} 41giao /gaiay vgosa n ',gal lu u - ?, .�g ptav ag7rynsv_en.g •.canyX �!'t.4 :u; saag,Cr0 Q O W o° 51 m Z ° cO O) �.c ti ti ti li ti ti _rn W U)In.. �� . N- o�vh Oo OON ^Ob oQ NOO ^oo m a LJ) )n p„ " 0. � ti Q K 0 0 ry N iV Q 0) 4 [i•4 (P h h h 0 = W 0) yLi .01 %00n �OhNh 2 R O �a O n —O c 4�:i ~W U C7 h2 �O Nz m0 W � C � W j e ZQ3 0� Lu OO �titi.. -.VO �tititiN�ti Q 0000 00 7 � � I 2 U0 I O O M O O J' O � N I ti m U N Q Q t b N 0 V z W J I O _j °I 00 N Q } I I I I I 'd2JOQ 1N3W30`dNbW VIVO =d03 NW '33dO>iVHS S3WOHNM01 GNMIIIAI�l ONIMV JG iV V3�JV I I I I o —o-eo X06 —Lz L -------- SNOLL03232i00 d0 1N3Wlab'd34 b'lOS3NNIW o� �Q W' o Y tl O O p o q v I I (NOU.IQOV s,N>'d30N 00'00F) W W O 0- 0 �LO W O o� N U oa OR �o N° O O � o DR O \ z W W v. 0 W z O W J 6 U O N I I Fl o mo I zo O O D � 4 o I O N H IW Y I z O 1= z O N >- O <O Q ad J N I z z W I IJ I� I � Q O I z W LO VIo I 6N I� I W z I I I ° m I 0 0 C5 1 W O ZO 0 I O I� I 0 _0- OL'SLbL :'ON ]lid X :3"113 1X31 L3LH SLtL :3�IA ON VV W,y•l8 03Na3H ya8 •.�8 Nh1Vap x .A8 N0IS3p c ' 31N0 c0 /L_ L LOtLZ'ON asuaDL :a4op uo h L D 1 p 'W P 21 :pau6�s 11Ul WI ; 1D sMo1 n y� japun �ohaA nS puol paia}si6ad hlnp 0 wD 1 ;Cqj puD UOISINadns loaxp Aw japun ao aw Aq pajodaid son) uOld slgl }oy} 41giao /gaiay vgosa n ',gal lu u - ?, .�g ptav ag7rynsv_en.g •.canyX �!'t.4 :u; saag,Cr0 Q O N —ff LEESS NlP altzsucng ooz -;Ins `jin.it s -ratan 1 •,u LOZ _ 6--?d P-7 •fi- 3f-uns Pun? '6u7- raaut6u3 11M0 'Ou isol y 7 elaoss JeAl � uqo V d ® 7 2N 31ti0 ON n3d Z O ti Q K 0 0 yh F� U p 4 O ^ QWh 2 O z�i'n o ZWb 4�:i ~W Ry W h2 �O Nz m0 wyz �S y m0 2:z no> .a iaQ QOM Q Z, >rym goo QN4 0h4 )ii �� w 2 0 o 4 W a_ z O O W vOj o�z v 'd2JOQ 1N3W30`dNbW VIVO =d03 NW '33dO>iVHS S3WOHNM01 GNMIIIAI�l ONIMV JG iV V3�JV I I I I o —o-eo X06 —Lz L -------- SNOLL03232i00 d0 1N3Wlab'd34 b'lOS3NNIW o� �Q W' o Y tl O O p o q v I I (NOU.IQOV s,N>'d30N 00'00F) W W O 0- 0 �LO W O o� N U oa OR �o N° O O � o DR O \ z W W v. 0 W z O W J 6 U O N I I Fl o mo I zo O O D � 4 o I O N H IW Y I z O 1= z O N >- O <O Q ad J N I z z W I IJ I� I � Q O I z W LO VIo I 6N I� I W z I I I ° m I 0 0 C5 1 W O ZO 0 I O I� I OHS � O D LC LZ N O h ®® jam O a � O 0 0 o j W U 2 JO NQ� m0 4 U ti ti 000 09 W Q V ms 133 &1S SNV(7V (NO /1 /QOV S,r3d30N 00'OOf) _0- OL'SLbL :'ON ]lid X :3"113 1X31 L3LH SLtL :3�IA ON VV W,y•l8 03Na3H ya8 •.�8 Nh1Vap x .A8 N0IS3p c ' 31N0 c0 /L_ L LOtLZ'ON asuaDL :a4op uo h L D 1 p 'W P 21 :pau6�s 11Ul WI ; 1D sMo1 n y� japun �ohaA nS puol paia}si6ad hlnp 0 wD 1 ;Cqj puD UOISINadns loaxp Aw japun ao aw Aq pajodaid son) uOld slgl }oy} 41giao /gaiay vgosa n ',gal lu u - ?, .�g ptav ag7rynsv_en.g •.canyX �!'t.4 :u; saag,Cr0 —ff LEESS NlP altzsucng ooz -;Ins `jin.it s -ratan 1 •,u LOZ _ 6--?d P-7 •fi- 3f-uns Pun? '6u7- raaut6u3 11M0 'Ou isol y 7 elaoss JeAl � uqo V d ® 7 31ti0 ON n3d OHS � O D LC LZ N O h ®® jam O a � O 0 0 o j W U 2 JO NQ� m0 4 U ti ti 000 09 W Q V ms 133 &1S SNV(7V (NO /1 /QOV S,r3d30N 00'OOf) CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map — Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 CASELOG NO.: 02020 REVIEW PERIOD: January 23, 2002 — March 24, 2002 h '� City staff has been working with Town & Country Homes and MNDOT to effect the transfer of this remnant piece. Because of access issues, it has seemed that Town & Country is the logical, potential developer of the site. Town & Country Homes has requested that the City amend its zoning map to rezone property currently zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. The Council has previously approved PRD zoning for the adjacent Providence Pointe. The subject property is excess MNDOT right -of -way. The proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the adopted (i.e. 1996) land use plan, which shows a mix of high density and single - family residential as the guided use for the property. The land use plan update (1998) guides the parcel for Planned Residential. 1. Approve Ordinance No. 622, granting the request to rezone the subject property, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. 2. Offer and pass a motion denying the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. 3. Table the matter for additional information. 1 The Planning Commission reviewed the request at its meeting of March 7, 2002, and recommended approving the requested rezoning to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. 1 Offer and approve Ordinance No. 622, an ordinance approving the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential (PRD) District. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2002 \03 - 19\rztowncountry- mndot. doc 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEC. 11.03 BY LxEZONING LAND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF 17 AND SOUTIV OF ■ ,�, F RO M ■ ■ PR ESE R VATI O N TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PRD) ZONE ■ 1' WHEREAS, Town and Country Homes, applicant, has requested the rezoning of land from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (NU is the property owner, and WHEREAS, officials of NINDOT have assented to the rezoning request proceeding, and have been working with City staff on the transfer of title for the subject property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: The North 10 codes of the North One -half of the Northwest Quarter of Seciton 18, Township IIS, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, EXCEPTING THEREFROM, that part platted as MINNESOTA DEPART1IENT OF TRANSPORTATIONRIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 70 -4, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Scott County. That part of the South One -half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying southeasterly of the southeasterly line of MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONRIGHT OF WAYPLAT N0. 70- 4 according to the recorded plat thereof, said Scott County. WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on March 7, 2002, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of March 19, 2002, and found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with�the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the City within which it is located. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning the property referenced herein, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of - 2002. 4 ass Memorandum T: Shakopee Planning Commission OM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map — Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone MEETING ATE: March 7, 2002 CASELOG N.: 02020 REVIEW PERIOD: January 23, 2002 — March 24, 2002 Site Information: Applicant: Town & Country Homes Property Owner: Minnesota Department of Transportation Location: South of STH 169, north of Providence Pointe, and east of CSAH 79 Guiding: 1996 Comprehensive Plan - Single - family Residential, Multiple - Family Residential 1998 Plan Update - Planned Residential Adjacent Zoning: North: STH 169 South: Planned Residential (PRD) East: Highway Business (B -1) West: Within Jackson Township MUSA: The site is within the current MUSA boundary. Town & Country Homes has requested that the City amend its zoning map to rezone property currently zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. The Council has previously approved PRD zoning for the adjacent Providence Pointe. The subject property is excess MNDOT right -of -way. The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from 1 being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoning is to conform with a city's comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted land use plan. Exhibits B and C provide a listing of the uses, both permitted and conditional, that are allowed in the Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Planned Residential (PRD) Zones. Copies of the land use plans are available for viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the March 7, 2002 meeting. The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding #1 fine original zoning ordinance is not in error. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place relative to the subject property. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Development of the subject property for residential use will be consistent with desired development patterns for this area of the City. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The requested zoning is consistent with the adopted and proposed Comprehensive Plan land use map. — ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. 2. Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff. 4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information. 2 ! I 1 1 • � Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential (PRD) Zone. Offer and approve a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Planned Residential (PRD) District. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \boaa -pc\ 2002 \03- 07\rztowncountry mndot 3 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Section 11.22 MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 INTRODUCTION: American Tower Corp (ATC) has made application to amend City Code text relating to communication towers. Specifically, ATC is requesting that the text be amended to allow the construction of communication towers and antennas with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Agricultural Preservation (AG) zone. For the Council's reference, a copy of the March 7, 2002 report to the Planning Commission has been attached. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the text amendment as presented. 2. Approve the text amendment with revisions. 3. Do not approve the proposed amendment. 4. Table the matter for additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed this request at its March 7, 2002, meeting. A motion to approve the proposed text amendment, as presented, failed by a vote of 0 -6. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion consistent with the Council's,'. ' hes. lie Klima lanner H g:\cc\2002\03-19\tacelltowers.doc �7 IT • Memorandum CASE LOG NO.:02 -019 T• Shakopee Planning Commission FR OM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code Sec. 11.22 ME ETING DATE: March 7, 2002 DISCUSSION: American Tower Corp. (ATC) has made application to amend City Code text relative to communication towers. The Zoning Ordinance currently contains language regulating communication towers and antennas. However, the regulations do not include provisions for locating communication towers within the Agricultural Preservation (AG) zone. Communication towers are allowable with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) within the Light Industrial (Il) and Heavy Industrial (12) zones. It is the desire of ATC to construct a communication tower in southwestern Shakopee to serve that area. However, the properly located south of Valley View Road is either zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) or Rural Residential (RR). Thereby, prompting the request for the text amendment to allow communication towers within the AG zone with a CUP. ATC has provided a narrative explaining its request. Also, included with the narrative is a map depicting areas surrounding southwestern Shakopee where towers have already been constructed. Also, included is a letter from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community expressing its disinterest in having communication towers located on tribal lands. ATC specific request is to amend the zoning ordinance to allow communication towers to be constructed as a Conditional Use within the AG zone subject to the same criteria required in the Industrial zones. Please see attached Exhibit A for specific criteria. Exhibit B is a copy of the current regulations for the AG zoning district. City Code states that the City Council may grant a zoning ordinance amendment when it finds that one or more of the following criteria exists. The applicant has provided its reasoning relative to the criteria for the Board's reference: Criteria #1 That the original zoning ordinance is in error; Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Criteria #4 That the Comprehensive Plan requires a different provision. 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text as presented. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment with revisions. 3. Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the proposed amendment. 4. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from staff. 5. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information. g:\ boaa- pc\2002 \03- 07 \txtcelltowers.doc 2 January 15"', 2002 Julie Klima City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Str. South Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Dear Mrs. Klima, Outlined below is American Tower Corporation's request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Ordinance No. 479 (Amending Chapter 11, Zoning) pertaining to the regulation of communication towers and apparatus /devices. Specifically, American Tower Corporation (ATC) respectfully requests that the City of Shakopee adopt the Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that ATC has submitted along with this cover letter, to allow for communication towers sited on parcels zoned Agricultural with issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. 11►i1 ' � 1 � American Tower Corporation, publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (AMT), is the leading independent owner and operator of wireless communication towers in the United States. ATC's primary business is the leasing of antenna sites on multi- tenant towers to a diverse range of wireless communications industries, including personal communication services (PCS), paging, cellular, as well as radio and television broadcasters. We operate approximately 13,000 towers nationwide. We also provide a M line of services to the wireless communications industry. Here, we are working with multiple PCS carriers to provide for wireless communication services for the citizens of Shakopee in the South region of the city. ati-I is ATC primary objective is to design a wireless communication site that meets the coverage needs of multiple FCC licensed wireless carriers through the use of one monopole tower sited on an agriculturally zoned parcel of land in the City of Shakopee. After examining the current City of Shakopee Ordinance No. 479, monopole towers are only allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION ® 11600 96TH AVENUE NORTH, MAPLE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55369 ® 763/493 -0027 A FAX 7631493 -0036 districts. The only procedural mechanism to propose our primary objective is to request a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. After ex aminin g the current City of Shakopee Ordinance No. 479, there are currently no regulations pertaining to the zoning of communication towers or antennas in the Agricultural districts. ATC believes it would be in the best interests of the City of Shakopee to establish regulations that facilitate provision of wireless communications services to the residents and businesses of the City while being sensitive to the placement of towers near densely settled residential areas. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT NT CRITERIA Per the City of Shakopee "Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance" Pink Handout, in granting a zoning text amendment, the Planning Commission and/or City Council must find that one or more of the following criteria exist: 1. that the original Zoning Ordinance is in error, 2. that significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; 3. that significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or 4. that the comprehensive plan requires a different position. American Tower Corp. respectfully submits the following criteria for the City of Shakopee to amend Ordinance No_ 479. 1 that the original Zoning Ordinance is in error. ATC does not find any errors in the express language of Ordinance No. 479 as it is currently drafted. However, it appears there is an error in omission. As previously mentioned above (Secondary Objective), currently there are no regulations pertaining to the zoning of communication towers or antennas in Agricultural districts in the City of Shakopee. There are regulations in place pertaining to communication towers /antennas for every Zoning District except.the Agricultural District (See Section 2 of Ordinance No. 479). It could be argued that an absence of any zoning regulations pertaining to a land use item could make the land use permitted. Currently, the only item limiting communication structures in Agricultural Zoning Districts is the District height maximum. ATC respectfully requests that the City of Shakopee find that there is an error in omission in the current Ordinance No. 479 pertaining to the placement of communication towers in Agricultural districts. 2 that s ignificant changes in community goals and poli have ta ken place. At year end 2001, 10 million land access lines were displaced by wireless mobile phones. That figure is expected to double by the year 2005. This is occurring primarily by consumers choosing a wireless service over using a monopoly land line company. The reason for the switch is wireless phone prices continue to decline, the number of minutes for service plans continues to increase, and more service plans are including free long distance. However, to meet the demand of consumers, wireless communication networks need to improve their geographic coverage in urban and suburban areas to cover more residences and small home businesses where the mobile phones are utilized. In addition to providing the citizens of Shakopee with high quality, low -priced wireless communications, the City should understand the increased level of public safety that wireless communications provides. A very important benefit of a wireless communications tower is that each tower is assigned an E -911 address. Whenever someone makes an emergency phone call with their mobile phone, the emergency dispatcher uses the E -911 address of the communications tower to help quickly locate the distressed caller and send emergency services. Currently, the South region of the City of Shakopee is without this benefit. ATC respectfully requests that the City of Shakopee finds that increasing public safety and increasing low -priced wireless communications for its citizens is a significant community goal. 3 that s ignificant changes in City wide or neighborhoo devel opment patterns have occurred. Tower development and antenna placement in surrounding communities has taken place since the adoption of Ordinance No. 479 that has created a coverage gap over the South region of Shakopee. Enclosed with this cover letter is a Street Atlas Map showing the location of all the communication towers in the vicinity of the South region of Shakopee. To the West of Shakopee there are two 220' Self- support towers and an 85' Qwest monopole. To the South of Shakopee there is a 150' Qwest monopole and a 170' monopole with 3 sets of wireless antennas. To the East of Shakopee there is a 120' Sprint monopole. There are multiple communication towers/antennas along the Highway 169 corridor in the North part of the City of Shakopee. The entire South region of the City of Shakopee is zoned Rural Residential and Agricultural. Between the two districts, it is presumed the City would rather use agricultural land for communication towers as this would have less overall impact. It is very likely that one 175' monopole would be able to provide coverage for all the South region of Shakopee. In addition, a monopole of that height would be able to hold 5 sets of wireless communication antennas. ATC respectfully requests that the City of Shakopee find that area development patterns, specifically, the location of neighboring communication towers, has occurred. 4 th at the comprehensive plan requires a different position. The current layout of the comprehensive plan is one of the issues that frustrates the provision of wireless communications in the South region of the City of Shakopee. The North part of the City has multiple areas along the Highway 169 corridor that are zoned Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial that allow for communication towers. . However, there are no Industrial districts in the South part of the City that would allow for the siting of a communication tower. In addition, there are no existing tall buildings, high power electric structures, or water tanks in the Rural Residential districts that might be utilized for locating antennas. Without getting into a lengthy discussion on the technology behind wireless communications, the low power level of the antennas only allows the coverage signal to propagate a limited distance. There needs to be a set of antennas every few miles to provide blanket, uninterrupted coverage to an area. Another important factor whenever a City promulgates rules and regulations pertaining to the placement of wireless communication facilities is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I have included a copy for the City's use. Essentially, the federal government has made the provision of wireless communications a priority. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the federal government chose to overhaul federal regulation of communications companies with the intent to, "provide for a pro - competitive, de- regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services...by opening all telecommunications markets to competition_" (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104 -458, at 113). All of the surrounding communities allow for communication towers in Agricultural districts. Jackson Township, Louisville Township, Sand Creek Township, Spring Lake Township, and the City of Prior Lake allow for communication towers sited on agricultural land with a Conditional Use Permit. ATC respectfully requests that the City of Shakopee find that the comprehensive plan requires a different position and mirrors the surrounding communities that allow for communication towers in Agricultural districts with a Conditional Use Permit. CONCLUSION For the reasons listed above, American Tower Corporation believes it has submitted sufficient criteria for the City of Shakopee to examine Ordinance No. 479 and allow for a Zoning Text Amendment. I would look forward to the opportunity to work with the Planning Commission and City Staff to find a way to provide for wireless communication services in the South part of the Shakopee. Thank you for your time spent reviewing the information I have submitted. Sincerely, Mark Holm American Tower Corp. Office: 763 - 493 -0027 Ext. 235 Mobile: 612- 325 -3120 Fax: 763- 493 -0036 .�.� I 1 • 12 1 f 1 •' 91 ` ORDINANCE NO. 479, FOURTH SERIES NOTE: This language mirrors the language in Section 3 pertaining to communication service towers in Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial zoned parcels. American Tower Corporation respectfully requests that the following sections of City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, are hereby amended to add communication service towers as conditional uses, subject to the listed conditions: Section [ ] (Agricultural), Subd. [ ] (renumber subsequent entries) subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be a monopole structure; 2. the location of the tower shall comply with the minim setback requirements of the zone in which it is to be located. Towers located closer to a property line than a distance equal to the height of the tower shall be designed and engineered to collapse within the distance between the tower and the property line and supporting documentation shall be provided to prove this by a professional engineer. 3. shall not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any antenna); 4. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 5. shall be protected with corrosive resistant material; 6. signage shall not be allowed on the tower other than danger or warning type signs; 7. must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment is not able to be co- located on any existing or approved towers and prove that the planned tower will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; 8. must be built to accommodate antennas being placed at varying heights on the tower; 9. existing vegetation on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible; 10. shall be surrounded by a security fence 6 feet in height with a lockable gate; 11. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimis visibility off -site to the greatest extent possible; 12. applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; 13. equipment and buildings shall be screened from view by suitable landscaping, except where a design of non - vegetative screening better reflects and compliments the architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood; 14. no tower shall be permitted unless the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within one- half (1/2) mile search radius of the proposed tower for any of the following reasons: ® The necessary equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified, licensed professional engineer. • The necessary equipment would cause interference as to significantly impact the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the tower, structure or building and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost, as certified by a qualified, licensed structural engineer. • Existing or approved towers and buildings within the %2 mile search radius cannot or will not accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably, as certified by a qualified, licensed professional engineer. - • The applicant, after a good faith effort, is unable to lease space on an existing or approved tower or building. 15. all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site. 16. The applicant shall submit a plan illustrating anticipated sites for future location for communication towers and/or communication devices) /apparatus. 17. When towers are to be located in city parks, no towers should be located in designated conservation areas such as forest areas, marsh lands, wildlife preserves, nature center parks, picnic area, near historical structures, scenic open space areas, and areas of intense recreational play for children (playfields, swimming pool, playground equipment). 18. Wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for city parks when the following conditions exist and if those areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: • City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; • Commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults. 19. All revenue generated through the lease of a city park for erred to the Park Reserve wireless Fund. telecommunication towers and antennas should be trap Additional language that may be considered : 20. Any monopole /tower taller than 120ft. shall be designed structurally to hold a minimum of 3 sets of antenna arrays. A 00 va 7 co L Q rA O CD U 1:10 I' M CD CrA C CR 17 ^ .. 4RI7 0 O -9� ED bi CD x ZE tv o z , -J-L - 0 CD ;a 00 to to 00 CD �tE CR&-K rr CRZ CD EL CD CD :E ID rf) m CD CL CL m 4 -'N /2oe2 17:57 7634930036 _ AMERICAN TOWER onfiml ON RIEV mom 2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW • PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TRIBAL OFFICE: 952.445.8900 • FAX: 952.445 -8906 19 February 2002 NI I. Steve Trueman A ierican Tower 1: 500 961h Avenue north j!. pie Grove, MN 55369 :I Cellular Tower Installations L : ar Mr. Trueman: PAGE 03 OFFICERS Stanley R. Crooks Charmsn Glynn A. Crooks vrce Chairman Lori K. Crowch�7d SecretarY/rre2$L"r T:: e Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is not interested in locating antennas, req These t I zsmission sites or re- transmission sites on tribal lands the Tribal Gov t as e I,.I g -term dedication of land to uses not established y pl : ority. The Community has a very limited land base. It is not in the best interests Of tl: , tribal Members to use this land for other than the planned purposes. regarding this situation, please contact Mr. Stanley Ellison, I:: rou have any questions I ad Manager at 952 -496 -6158. 11-22. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION • §11.22 Subd 1 pumose. The purpose of the agricultural preservation zone is to preserve and promote agriculture in the unsewered areas of the City which are suitable for such use, to prevent scattered and leap -frog non -farm growth, and to prevent premature expenditures for such public services as roads, sewer, water, and police and fire protection. Subd Permitted Use s. Within the agricultural preservation zone, no structure or Land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. agricultural uses; B. single family detached dwellings; C. forestry and nursery uses; D. seasonal produce stands; E. riding academies; F. utility services; G. public recreation; H. public buildings; 1, day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; J. adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care center shall: 1, serve twelve (12) or fewer persons; 2, provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designated to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization lt the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms, and utility and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or pegs revised in 1996 1111 Eud -O C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the muft'rfunctionai organization while participants are using common space; and 5. comply with all other state licensing requirements. (Ord. 482, May 15, 1991) J. group family day care facilities serving fourteen (14) or fewer children; or K. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the agricultural preservation zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. commercial feedlots, which include yards, lots, pens, buildings, or other areas or structures used for the confined feeding of livestock or other animals for food, fur, pleasure, or resale purposes; B. (Deleted, Ord_ 5ol , September 18, 1997) C. retail sales of nursery and garden supplies; D. cemeteries; E. churches and other places of worship; F. agricultural research facilities, which are facilities specifically operated for the purpose of conducting research in the production of agricultural crops, including research aimed at developing plant varieties. This term specifically excludes research regarding the development or research of soil conditioners, fertilizers, or other chemical additives placed in or on the soil or for the experimental raising of animals; G. animal hospitals and veterinary clinics; H, kennels. A kennel is any premise in which more than two (2) domestic animals, over sec (6) months of age, are boarded, bred or offered for sale; 1, public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Department of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof; J. commercial recreation, minor, K. utility service structures; L. day care facilities serving thirteen (13) through sixteen (16) persons; M. adult day care centers as conditional use, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: 1, serve thirteen (13) or more persons; Me revisod in 1997 1112 §11.22 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure!recreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least fourty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms and utility and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the fumiture or equipment used by participants or staff; or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and S. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) N. residential facilities serving from seven (7) through sateen (16) persons; 0. wind energy conversion systems or windmills; P. relocated structures; 0. structures over two and one -half (2 -112) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height; R. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or S. other uses similar to those permitted by the subdivision, upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. (Ord. 528, October 29, 1998) Subd 4 Permitted Uses. Within the agricultural preservation zone the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A, machinery and structures necessary to the conduct of agricultural operations; S. gages; page revised in 1998 1113 1 §11.22 C. fences; D. recreational equipment; E. stables; F. - swimming pools; G. solar equipment; H. tennis courts; 1, receive only satellite dish antennas and other antenna devices; J. home occupations contingent upon approval of a home occupation permit; or (Ord. 501, September 18, 1997) K other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd 5 Design Standards. Within the agricultural preservation zone, no land shall be used, and or used, except in conformance with the following requirements: no structure shall be constructed A, Maximum density: one dwelling per forty (40) acres. B. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width: 1000 feet. Minimum lot depth: 1000 feet. Minimum front yard setback: 100 feet. Minimum side yard setback: 20 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 40 feet C. Maximum height: Thirty -five (35) feet. Grain elevators, barns, silos, and elevator lags may exceed this limitation without a conddional use permit. S ubd 6 Additi®nal AeQUirements. A, All dwellings shall have a depth of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their width. All dwellings shall have a width of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their M depth. B. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with 2he Minnesota State Building Code. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 264, y , 279, December 1,1989; Ord. 304, November 7,1991; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; OrSi. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 1123. Reserved. page ravised in 1947 1114 N IM am i ■err 0 Zoning Bo • - Parce • d. n _ � �. F 1 _moo am i ■err 0 Zoning Bo • - Parce • d. V L�4ul UL la..LO S Lld JJ` JVI VV46 1 tl = k Pcl6- SI B_ l s t � �YAfIla 11$59 �_ � ` � t 1 1 1 1 IS; P1 It pz,lg Sr t B PS� ' il� a e, r U p p< LL FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing for Vacation of a portion of Easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 1 � KTJ Forty, LLC has submitted an application for vacation of easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. The attached Resolution No.5672 sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of said easement. DISCUSSION The attached resolution sets a public hearing for April 16, 2002. On that date, comments from staff members and utilities, as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will be presented to the City Council for consideration. 1 1 ' Offer Resolution No. 5672, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of a portion of Easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace, and move its adoption. jJ Klima Planner II 0: \cc\2002 \03- 21 \vacsetPb1 tj.doc 1 1 � 1 , . 1 1 1 011 VMS 1' WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that a portion of easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, serves no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action to vacate can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. WHEREAS, two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MENNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the I day of April, 2002, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, on the matter of vacating a portion of easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk a M N I'M mm w Ni Zoning Boundary Parcel Boundary W , CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASELOG NO.: 02 -042 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: To Consider an Amendment to the Preliminary and Final Plat of Shakopee Valley Marketplace West MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. has submitted an application requesting an amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. Specifically, they have requested that the City Council waive the berming requirement as addressed under Section 11.60, Subd. 7, H. for the Kindercare Learning Center proposed at 1308 Greenwood Court (Lot 1, Block 2, Shakopee Valley Marketplace West) (Exhibit A). The City is presently reviewing the building permit for this project. One of the requirements of this plat is that a continuous four (4) foot berm be provided along 17' Avenue West. The City Code states that berming at a minimum height of four (4) feet, with overstory deciduous and coniferous landscaping units, shall be provided for commercial developments that abut existing residential development. Weston Ponds is a residential development located directly south of the proposed day care. RL,K- Kuusisto, Ltd. has submitted a request (Exhibit B) that they be allowed to eliminate the berming requirement. They do intend to install a six (6) foot wood fence, as well as landscaping, along the proposed play area and parking lot adjacent to 17 Avenue West. It is Planning stafs belief that the design aesthetics of this development or the roadway would be compromised if the berm were to be eliminated. 17"' Avenue West presently has a moderate level of traffic volume, with a substantial increase expected as Providence Pointe and other surrounding properties are further developed, and once 17 Avenue West is extended to County Road 79. Commercial properties typically generate noise and traffic that accentuates the need for additional screening from residential properties, not unlike the Holiday Station Store located just east of the proposed day care. Additionally, it should be noted that Weston Ponds provided a berm along 17 Avenue as required by this section of the Zoning Code. It would seem to be remiss for the commercial property not to comply with this requirement when the adjacent residential development did. In the original application for the preliminary and final plat, the applicant's narrative noted that they would install a sculptured berm and plantings along 17 Avenue. In the application narrative for the Conditional Use Permit for the day care, they stated that the south end of the site would have three (3) foot high berms and landscaping to provide screening for the residents across 17 Avenue. During the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting concerning the CUP request, it was referenced that there was a berming requirement along 17 Avenue and the Kindercare representative stated that he did not have any problems with these conditions. The property presently is graded with that required berm in place_ The applicant, in their project justification, states that the play areas and building have pushed the buildable envelope to a maximum, that there is a public road on all four sides, and that there is an additional electrical easement on the south side of the lot that restricts grading. It is stafF s belief that the inclusion of the electrical easement does not restrict grading on this site. Additionally, these are all factors that were known before the plans were prepared for this property. It could be argued that the developer should have acknowledged these issues and developed a plan that considered these elements in the design of their project. If this request is denied, the applicant could still proceed with the development and meet all the requirements by installing a retaining wall along the south side of the play area and parking lot. City Engineering has provided a memorandum (Exhibit C), which addresses their recommendation and comments concerning this request. Staff has prepared a draft resolution which includes language that references the elimination of the berm as requested, should the Council approve this request (see the underlined language in Section I. C.). 1. Approve Resolution No. 5677, approval of the amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. 2. Approve Resolution No. 5677, approval of the amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Shakopee Valley Marketplace West, subject to revised conditions. 3. Deny the amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. 4. Table action and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant. Staff recommends alternative no. 3, deny the amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. uffi ► I L� wg Deny the amendment to the preliminary and final plat for Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. Mark Noble Planner I &ACC\2002 \0319\shak Ay p1t amnd..doc (02042) RESOLUTION NO. 5677 . •, 1 1 1 11 1, � 1' II 1 ''',1 1'., 1 1 1 t oil 111 a 4 a DIM 10 11 Ij a 1 2 W41 WE$ 1 I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A_ Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements. 1 _ Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Ponding Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 6. The developer shall be responsible for the construction and any associated costs of a bituminous trail along the north side of 17th Avenue along the southern boundary of the plat. 7. Easements shall be added to the plat, for all public improvements, and as required by City Code and a 10 -foot trail easement on south boundary of the plat. 8. Payment of park dedication fees may be deferred until the time of building permit issuance. The fees paid at time of building permit issuance shall be at the rate contained in the City's Fee Schedule in effect at that time. C. Grading/Erosion Control/Storm Sewer plans and specifications must conform to City requirements and are subject to approval by City Engineer except that a berm is not required along that section of 17` Avenue Vest adjacent to Lot 1, Block 2. D. The developer shall pay existing levied special assessments. E. The City Attorney will draft and the developer will execute an agreement that will be recorded requiring the developers to pay for all costs associated with the installation of the right turn lanes from 17 Avenue when those are deemed to be needed. F. A sidewalk will be installed along the length of Weston Court within the street right -of -way. II. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply: A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). B. No drainage shall enter into Scott County right -of -way. C. No berming, landscaping, signage, or ponding will be allowed within Scott County right -of- way. D. Any grading or utility work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a permit from the County prior to commencement of work. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat Amendment. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of . 2002. William P. Mars, Mayor of the City of Shakopee I Judith S. Cox, City Clerk \ \\ Boundary Parcel BoundarY w E SHAKOPEE s C s � I 55 of 72 I :oa I o h _1 -1_J —c4 IR M I s 'c, s S � ss5c ai i Ce 3�' > I C V iL v _a / = M f% �w.V,�n•f / i. ` •Y i•�i1 — � ly f/1 Iu.vN ei /.�l � —6 — 11 E Bx mo g /I 'O R N QY08 AJAIIOO lom _ . ' wn w —£gg 9861 M ML ON , -- - ,sn r — - - - -- M.9Z.QLOON �:a;..::a -G£ 107 O C) I- - to i a _ O I t � II C� t- 1 8 CJ 1 52 J II 11 1 iM II W 1 C] gI I _ L__ -_xox ; CIS '$ •� g - i ' :1 I 1 R ..o aa°_cBS cna R BB'x {. 51 o°al; cl c p y T i es I S II Ui a l O 1 4 . l O uj x W L) u 2'. �1 3 �� I I zncd nusm • 1 F• C I � I > W ! ° -- �y � T•i '- - - - - -� � I I'• t l.l,. Yw I �O I __. ,� 1 - f �' _81= � °3'L' � •w a.s 1. /i a °wwH .r, ry ./1 c _ ` _ _ _ ® �\ I g U wi' - -- ,..wn`a+_�!L••h.B w!Y•y oc•BC L ... �u-cz ._ - •+_'�" =T � � _ - > �m_oaocs R <rBB.37�2I1� NOtLS•IN R�_ - -- �7- oonr s : 8 ( CL i 3'+"( • c006M. ' ¢X _i- .�:m°06m'S. 9 V ---- ------- --1 5 zs ; CJ C) 1 a � 11 1 0 � :) o i3�t i E= �gg ,,.� iii ��! � t°• �a Ix II 1 - g Ci 1 y �� II i uj JL- _______ -_ Vii"_•__- _ -____ 3.9Z.11.00N _ - - - - - - -- -- - -- — SS'L88 — — -- 8£'659 -- — 3.8£.96GON / Bl WIaK M f Y /. Y••v.>.- le IW w1 Y f/t W�VYK w Y •� ,••� • N• aw Y ....... . ....... N : : N J W W aW rtr O O,OO.00S a o `no0 ?n N3n3SV3 :J' O i .. -- Xj ` 01 o 3 m h •'_ UA W 2 WA n J � p, _ �--� -- �-- -- `XiVfA30S �13a�N � ,. 4 J F i �- O w O'_ CO LL Ul O /vj /, ® O �•• : NW f a� � m V a�� W N LJJ • -4 - — Y N W z 0 0 _ ........ 0. O N N -' "- -..... ti N ri D 7 L - -. _ --' - -- -•- - -- - -.--- - -- --' - __-' __ -- - -- -- � � fry - � - - ��- -- -- — - - _ -- - ................. ....... ............ - - -....._.. , ..- .. -. -_.. -- C �•• - ........ o- l S ... . ...................... .. --- • ............... ... :.......... ................... � £STT££6ZS %�3 SS�9T ZO /LO/ ZO OZSIsim inn a MURM Introduction On behalf of Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc., RLK is requesting City Council to waive e berming requirement under Section 11.60, Subdivision 7 — H of the City's Zoning Code. The proposed Kindercare location is Lot 1, Block 2, of the Shakopee Valley Marketplace on West Development that borders 17th Avenue and Greenwood Court. The Planning approved the site for a Conditional Use Permit on 12 -6 -01 for a daycare in a B -1 (Highway Business) Zone. Prniect Request City Council to waive the berming requirement under Section 11.60, Subdivision 7 ® — Letter H of the City's Zoning Code. Please note Kindercare will provide the "Screening" required screening through the use of a wood fence and landscaping as proposed. Proiect justificatio The required widths of the play areas and building have essentially a � p u pushed e ui all four side se on a n dimension to a maximum. The impact of h g P of this site has increased the set back areas. In addition to the standard 15' setback there is a 7.5' private electrical easement on the no � of o��°n which �rtto hav restricts berm at the and placement of structures. There is g Kindercare will provide screening and height along the entire south side of the property. landscaping to meet the code requiremen waived. o rder to make this site work the provide the necessary screening o f requirement is being requested to be � ressed irking and dense this site from 17' Ave, through the use of a 6 wood fence, supp p landscaping. The parking lot area as designed, is a minimum of T6 below the from ilk Avenues The coniferous shrub hedge is proposed to fully screen the parking lot has been achieved objective of providing a visual screen between a collector road and parking is meta 6' due to the proposed grade separation and dense landscape. To ensure the screening high wood fence is also proposed along the parking lot. The play area on the south side of the buildin t play would be visible to 17 Avenue e grade enue andthe of the sidewalk. The use and function o p y foot wood fence in place. A solid screen residents south of 17` Avenue without a berm or six (6) scre ening the play fence along the Play are ective sen e of neighborhood may r function much better if the berm area from a safety persp and wood fence is eliminated. A visual co ectron The residential quality of the building, people utilizing the trail, would be a positive March, rch, 7 2002 Project Narrative Page 1 of 2 RLK- Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2001 -804 -M 1 play areas and green space is compatible to the residential home south of 17 Avenue. Kindercare wants to build here an d we believe it will be a positive development for all parties involved. We are requesting a waiver to the berm requirement. The design intent of the zoning code is to visually screen incompatible uses. The Kindercare facility has addressed the area of conflict between commercial and residential land uses by adequately screening the parking lot. The intent of the code is still achieved without the use of the berm, due to the residential nature of the Kindercare building, play areas and daytime use. r- • • The project will consist of an approximate 10,000 square foot daycare building with 14,300 square foot outdoor play area and 36 -stall parking lot. The 1.45 -acre lot has been rough graded with a berm on the south end of the lot. The existing elevation on 17'' Avenue is approximately 845 with the bituminous sidewalk at 1ot elevations onghe south endosea�g frfloor 42.4 totion of the building is 844.0 with parkin 841.5. The parking lot and concrete play areas have been place as far north as possible, on the parking setback. The width of the parking lot, building, and concrete play areas do not allow enough ed grading plan reflects a the existing sidewalk at an 846 space to provide a berm. The propos elevation with 3 to 1 slopes coming down to an 843.5 by the play ground and an 8421 in the parking lot. This provides adequate drainage away from the building that has an elevation of 844. In lieu of the berm, a 6 -foot board on board wood fence has been proposed to enclose the play area and extend the width of the parking lot on the south side. The south end of the parking is 3.6 to 4.5 feet below the sidewalk and will be surrounded with landscaping. The combination of the wood fence, landscaping, and elevation change should meet the City's goals for screening in the direction of 17 Avenue. Kindercare escri Lio Maximum Capacity for the proposed daycare facility is 179 children. Normal operating capacity is around 80% or 143 children. The hours of operations are from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM, Monday to Friday. The daycare center will provide approximately 50 jobs with 30 workers during the peak hours. Kindercare- Shakopee March, 7 2002 Project Narrative page 2 of 2 RLK- Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2001 -804 -M SHAK AYE S2XM 1857 City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mark Noble, Planner I FROM: Joe Swentek, Project Engineer SUBJECT: Waiver of Berming Requirement for Kindercare Lot 1, Block 2 — Shakopee Valley Marketplace West PID NO.: 27- 304007 -0 ADDRESS: 1308 Greenwood Court DATE: March 14, 2002 The request by RLK- Kuusisto, Ltd. is for the City Council to waive the berming requirements set forth by Section 11.60, Subdivision 7 of the City of Shakopee's Zoning Code for the above referenced property. Recommendation After reviewing the grading plan for the above referenced project, I have determined waiving the berming requirement will not have an impact on the engineering department. Therefore, I recommend approval of the request. However, I offer the following comments: 1. Waiving the berming requirement for this lot will eliminate an existing berm constructed in accordance with Section 11.60, Subdivision 7. 2. Noise levels may increase at the Kindercare facility due to traffic along 17` Avenue if the existing berm is eliminated. ® It should be noted 17` Avenue is classified as an arterial and will eventually connect Scott County Highway 69 to Scott County Highway 16. It has a projected traffic volume of 11,000 vehicles per day by the year 2020. This can be compared to Marschall Road's projected traffic volume of 8,000 vehicles per day in the year 2020. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO • Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request of RLK- Kuusisto LTD. on behalf of Ryan Companies U. S., Inc. that the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Valley Green Corporate Center site be prepared MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 Introduction: The City has received a request from RLK- Kuusisto Ltd. on behalf of the Ryan Companies that the AUAR for Valley Green Corporate Center be revised. This proposed revision to the AUAR results from Ryan's proposal to re -guide and rezone about 57 acres of the site from business park use to medium - density residential use, and to re -guide property from commercial to business park', Attached for the Council's information is a copy of the March 8th letter from RLK making the request, as well as a copy of the relevant Minnesota Rules governing when a revision to an AUAR is required. Staff believes that the significance of the site, and the proposed use amendments are significant enough that a revision of the AUAR should be undertaken, even though the proposed use changes may result in some reduced impacts (e.g. reduced traffic volumes).. While RLK has submitted a proposed timeline for the revision, staff requests that the Council authorize using the City's consulting engineers (WSB) to prepare /oversee the preparation the the AUAR revision. Alternatives: 1. Offer a motion approving the request of RLK Kuusisto Ltd. on behalf of the Ryan Companies to prepare a revision to the AUAR for the Valley Green Corporate Center, and authorize city staff to work with WSB Engineering in the preparation and processing of the revision. 2. Offer a motion denying the request prepare and process a revision to the Valley Green Corporate Center AUAR. 3. Table the request for additional information. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative no. 1. AUARvgcc/W9U Action Requested: Offer a motion approving the request of RLK Kuusisto Ltd. on behalf of the Ryan Companies to prepare a revision to the AUAR for the Valley Green Corporate Center, and authorize city staff to work with WSB Engineering in the preparation and processing of the revision. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director a AUARvgcc/W9U Engineering Planning Surveying Landscape Architecture - KUU SISTO LTI3 March 8, 2002 r g Mr. Michael Leek y Community Development Director r City of Shakopee -¢ I29 South Holmes Street ako ee MN. 55379 -1328 Sh p , _ Request for Alternative Urban Areawide Review S(dAUAR) Amendment Valley Green Corporate Centre/Dean s Lake Shakopee, Minnesota Dear Mr. Leek: RLK- Kuusisto, Ltd_ is On behalf of Ryan Companies USy ta esolption authorizing the City, through its requesting the Shakopee City Cou ncil adopt - staff, to work with Ryan to amend the existing Alternati anies is Pro tolchange uses (AUAR) for the above referenced site. Ryan p to on the site from Business Park to Medium De us l e } is R a result l o esidental, and of early seven (7) n onths of Business Park. This proposed change in - collaborative planning and design efforts between Ryan and the City of Shakopee. The A UAR Amendment will evaluate what " effects, if any, the proposed land use changes described above may have on the following items: ® Transportation Public utilities o S r management ® `Mater quality he anticipated schedule for accomplishing the AUAR Amendment is as follows: T P March 19 2002 City Council resolution authorizing AUAR amendment process to M , begin; April 5, 2002 AUAR Amendment submitted to City for review; April 15, 2002 AUAR Amendment submitted to Environmental Quality Board and required agencies for 10 -day review; - April 25, 2002 10 -day agency review period ends; May 7, 2002 City Council adopts AUAR amendment. offices. Hibbing • Minnetonka St. Paul Twin Ports (952) 933 -0972 6ilo Blue circle Drive Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (952) 933 -1153 Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Michael Leek March 8, 2002 Page 2 As always, we appreciate your help and timeliness in assisting Ryan Companies in processing the Valley Green Corporate Centre/Dean's Lake Residential project. A draft City Council resolution authorizing Ryan to proceed is attached. Sincerely, K- Kuusisto, Ltd. e e, AICP Principal Planner Attachment cc. Kent Carlson, Ryan Companies US, Inc. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park Paul Kieffer, Ryan Companies US, Inc. Genevieve McJilton, Ryan Companies US, Inc. Marie, McCallum, Ryan Companies US, Inc. Julie Klima, City of Shakopee Bruce Loney, City of Shakopee David Sellerb en, Fredrikson & Byron Greg Munson, Fredrikson & Byron James Thomson, Kennedy & Graven Phil Carlson, DSU Joseph Samuel, RLK- Kuusisto, Ltd. Brian Sullivan, RLK- Kuusisto, Ltd_ umptions of the ;. ation are exempt nd 4410.2100 to ipt of the ng agency about 'ise the EQB At the request and any other as practicable , bjection. . the RGU shall :y and the EQB ssues raised in either revising mitigation, or not relevant to significant s response , ise the EQB hdraws its :ing agency :he matter on the .ng or of a ider item G, d1 analysis ;onditionally iocuments call specify the _ only find the contain ;o the Inif icant for mitigation potentially )nditionally �r item E. If by the EQB, the 3 by the EQB. If has 30 days to Lew in accordance a filed under ronmental ter than at its date on which the RGU ordered review under this part. The time limit may be extended upon the agreement of all proposers whose project schedules are affected by the review. Subp. 7. Updating the review. To remain valid as a substitute form of review, the environmental analysis document and the plan for mitigation must be revised if any of the circumstances in items A to H apply. A. Five years have passed since the RGU adopted the original environmental analysis document and plan for mitigation or the latest revision. This item does not apply if all development within the area has been given final approval by the RGU. B. A comprehensive plan amendment is proposed that would allow an increase in development over the levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. C. Total development within the area would exceed the maximum levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. D. Development within any subarea delineated in the environmental analysis document would exceed the maximum levels assumed for that subarea in the document. E. A substantial change is proposed in public facilities intended to service development in the area that may result in increased adverse impacts on the environment. F. Development or construction of public facilities will occur on a schedule other than that assumed in the environmental analysis document or plan for mitigation so as to substantially increase the likelihood or magnitude of potential adverse environmental impacts or to substantially postpone the implementation of identified mitigation measures. G. New information demonstrates that important assumptions or background conditions used in the analysis presented in the environmental analysis document are substantially in error and that environmental impacts have consequently been substantially underestimated. H. The RGU determines that other substantial changes have occurred that may affect the potential for, or magnitude of, adverse environmental impacts. The environmental analysis document and plan for mitigation must be revised by preparing, distributing, and reviewing revised documents in accordance with subpart 5, items D to H, except that the documents must be distributed to all persons on the EAW distribution list under part 4410.1500. Persons not entitled to object to the documents under subpart 5, item D, may submit comments to the RGU suggesting changes in the documents. Subp. 8. Report to EQB. The EQB chair may ask the RGU to report on the status of actual development within the area, and on the status of implementation of the plan for mitigation. Upon request, the RGU shall report to the EQB chair within 30 days. SA: MS s 116D.04; 116D.045 m CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request of DSU and RLK Kuusisto Ltd. on behalf of the Ryan Companies for simultaneous review of land use approvals. MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 1 '!1 DSU and RLK, on behalf of the Ryan Companies are requesting approval by the Council to conduct the review of the Rezoning, PUD, CUP and Preliminary Platlogether. Accompanying this memo is the applicants' letter with proposed schedule and review comparison. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide staff with direction as to whether to review the applications for rezoning, PUD, CUP and preliminary plat together as requested. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2002 \03- 19\ryaiu'eview.doc CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS March 12, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shakopee c/o Michael Leek, Community Development Director 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: City Review & Approval Process, Valley Green Corporate Center /Ryan Companies Project Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We are writing as representatives of Valley Green Business Park and Ryan Companies to request reasonable accommodation for review of the Valley Green Corporate Center project under the City's review and approval process. If the Council agrees with the process we outline here, we believe the project can be reviewed fully and fairly by the City and other interested parties and still meet a reasonable timeline. If we are required to follow each of the steps in the City's approval process separately, the timeline would be unreasonably long. We believe this would place an undue burden on the developers of this project and would tax the patience of those responsible for reviewing and approving it — the City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Most cities we are familiar with allow this kind of combined review process. The Valley Green Corporate Center project requires seven different approvals from the City of Shakopee, six through the City's planning and zoning process, the seventh required by the State EQB environmental review process: 1) Comprehensive Plan amendment 2) Rezoning 3) Planned Unit Development approval 4) Conditional Use Permit 5) Preliminary Plat 6) Final Plat 7) AUAR amendment If all applications were treated consecutively by the City, each according to a separate schedule, the process would extend well into spring of 2003. We believe four of these applications can be combined into one process completed by October 2002, because the issues discussed in them are very similar to one another. Our proposed schedule is illustrated on the attached chart, Proposed Project Schedule 2002. The Comprehensive Plan amendment is already underway, having been submitted to the City on February 28, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in April and May, with final approval after Metropolitan Council review in June. The AUAR amendment is to be ordered by the City Council at its March 19 meeting and reviewed by the Council in May. 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH EVENTH AVENUE SOUT MINNEAPOLIS, H - SUITE 10 1 ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 PH1320 251. D3 0. 51 M 9090 ST. CLOUD OFFICE: 101 S Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Shakopee March 12, 2002 2 Our request is to submit the Rezoning, Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Preliminary Plat together, starting in late May, with approval in early August. The Final Plat and development agreement would follow in September and October. The Proposed Project Schedule shows (in red and orange dots) the seven public meetings to be held by the Planning Commission and City Council in this process. This should be ample opportunity for complete review and comment by the public, staff, and City decision makers. If there is a real need for more information or review along the way, the schedule can be adjusted. The rationale for combining the four applications is seen on the other attached tables. The first, Shakopee Code Comparison — Key Issues, has a list of basic issues on the left that are reviewed by the City for a Rezoning, PUD, CUP, and Preliminary Plat. The columns on the right are colored to indicate if that issue is required for that application. As can be seen, the PUD submission is required to address all of the key issues that are covered by the Rezoning, CUP and Plat. When a PUD is reviewed completely, a separate review for a Rezoning, CUP, and Preliminary Plat can be superfluous. Furthermore, many of these same issues will have been discussed in the course of the earlier Comp Plan amendment and AUAR amendment, both of which will be scrutinized by the City and others. The Key Issues chart is a simplified, abbreviated version of the entire list of submission requirements illustrated on the larger chart, Shakopee Code Comparison — Full List. This list shows more completely how the reviews for these different applications overlap significantly. The Valley Green Corporate Center project has evolved over the years, most recently through the efforts sponsored by the City, with Jeff Schoenbauer of Brauer & Associates working through some of the complex environmental and open space issues. During that process, many of the same issues that will be reviewed in the formal City process were discussed and resolved. The results of Mr. Schoenbauer's efforts are reflected in the most recent plan from Ryan, illustrating that yet another layer of review has been injected into this process. We are eager to get the Corporate Center project approved and in the ground. We hope the City Council shares this desire, but the Council must also balance that with its responsibilities to the public, the environment, and to ordinance requirements. We believe the review schedule we propose here fulfills these objectives. It offers the opportunity to review and discuss all of the issues, to solicit public comment, and to satisfy all the requirements of the Zoning Code. It builds on the process begun with Brauer's work and echoed in the AUAR amendment. We respectfully ask your approval of the process as presented. Sincerely a Phf(ip Carls , AICP Dahlgren, S ardlow, and Uban, for Valley Green Business Park 11TH Attachments: Proposed Project Schedule 2002 Shakopee Code Comparison — Key Issues Shakopee Code Comparison — Full List cc: Shakopee Planning Commission _ Uf a St 'en Schwanke, Al RLK- Kuusisto for Ryan Companies Valley Green Corporate Center /Ryan Project • Proposed Project Schedule 2002 February March April May June July August September October Comp Plan CC OK Amendment Met Council Review AUAR CC OK Amendment 10-Day - Comment Rezoning, PUD CUP CC OK I Preliminary Plat Final Plat CC °K • Meeting & Submission Dates Submit Comp Plan amendment 2 -28 X City Council — order AUAR 3 -19 Planning Commission — Comp Plan 4 -18 IN. AUAR 10 -day comment period 4 -15 - 4 -25 City Council — approve AUAR, Comp Plan 5 -7 Met Council — review Comp Plan 5 -7 - 5 -30 Submit Rezoning, PUD, CUP, Plat 5 -23 X City Council — approve Met C comments 6 -4 Planning Commission — Rezoning, PUD, etc 7 -11 City Council — approve Rezoning, PUD, etc. 8 -6 Submit Final Plat 9 -3 X City Council — approve Final Plat 10 - 1 Sign Development Agreement 10 -31 ■ Denotes CC and PC public meetings for review and comment DSU /RLK 3 -8 -02 Valley Green Corporate Center /Ryan Project Shakopee Code Comparison — Key Issues Abbreviated list of criteria and submission requirements from Shakopee Zoning Code Issue to be reviewed or submission item Rezoning PUD CUP Plat Location, surrounding properties and owners Narrative description of project Consistency with Comp Plan Current zoning 1 Compatibility with surroundings Preservation & enhancement of unique natural features Variances, variations Meeting with neighboring residents Description of adverse impacts, mitigation Existing improvements, streets, utilities, structures, easements Proposed streets, utilities, easements Location & dimensions of parking, driveways, loading Proposed & existing sidewalks & trails Number and acreage of buildable lots, outlots, setbacks Soil types and locations, fill, contaminated areas Water features and drainage patterns, OHWL, etc. Recreation /open space location, dimension, acreage, etc. Density /building square footage Impervious surface percentage Grading and erosion control plan Stormwater management plan Landscape plan Lighting plan Phasing, staging plan Architectural drawings, building materials Traffic analysis Screening plan for rooftop, trash, parking Signage plan DSU 3 -8-02 Valley Green Corporate Center /Ryan Project Shakopee Code Comparison - Full List List of criteria and submission requirements from Shakopee Zoning Code Issue to be reviewed or submission Item Rezonin • PUD CUP Plat Map or plat plus bordering area Location Map Boundary, property lines and PIDs within 100' List of neighboring property owners Evidence of ownership Legal Description of Property Narrative /cover letter description of project Developer's name, address Names and addresses of Team Is development consistent with comp plan Is development compatible with surrounding Adequate open space, circulation, etc. Preserve and enhance natural features Overall appearance and compatibility Compliance with Design Criteria Variances, variations Deed restrictions, covenants Notice to DNR of CUP in shoreland /floodplain overlay Copy of approved CUP in overlay to DNR Evidence County highway permit will be granted Meeting with neighboring residents Sketch of area, land uses and adjacent uses Existing and proposed ROW Unique features - wetlands or forests Description of adverse impacts, mitigation Survey of site Existing improvements, ownership -200' Location & width of streets & easements (acreage) 1111111 GEM Location /dimension previously platted streets Location & size existing utilities Location & size of structures Current zoning Number and acreage of buildable lots, outlots Location/dimension driveways, curb cuts, parking School district boundary lines Natural conditions — 200' Contour lines — 2' intervals (100' -200') Soil types and locations, fill, contaminated areas Existing water features and drainage patterns, OHWL, etc. Existing Vegetation, tree species Wetland delineation report - Location /dimensions wetlands - Location /perimeter shoreland areas /floodplains Development plan Acreage for proposed uses Recreation /open space location, dimension, acreage, etc. Density /building square footage Impervious surface percentage Proposed lots - location, number, sq ft, dimensions, setbacks Proposed street info, ROW /pavement widths, names Location, dimensions - existing, proposed structures Location & dimensions- parking, driveway, loading Proposed /existing sidewalks & trails Grading and Erosion Control Plan Utility Plan Location, size & gradient of proposed utilities Point of discharge /connection to utilities Proposed easements Stormwater Management Plan Grading at 2' intervals (100') Stormwater management improvements & techniques Preliminary stormwater calculations Landscape Plan Location, size, number of plantings Identify tree removal Planting schedule Berms, entry monuments, & landscape screening Lighting plan Phasing plan Preliminary architectural drawings Traffic analysis Landscaped buffer for residential zones Screen rooftop, trash, parking Gas station- screening /storing /stacking of vehicles Similar building materials all four sides Signage per requirements of City Code Internal pedestrian access system Proper ingress /egress Staging plan Density per underlying zoning DSU 3 -8 -02 CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS March 12, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shakopee c/o Michael Leek, Community Development Director 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: City Review & Approval Process, Valley Green Corporate Center /Ryan Companies Project Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We are writing as representatives of Valley Green Business Park and Ryan Companies to request reasonable accommodation for review of the Valley Green Corporate Center project under the City's review and approval process. If the Council agrees with the process we outline here, we believe the project can be reviewed fully and fairly by the City and other interested parties and still meet a reasonable timeline. If we are required to follow each of the steps in the City's approval process separately, the timeline would be unreasonably long. We believe this would place an undue burden on the developers of this project and would tax the patience of those responsible for reviewing and approving it — the City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Most cities we are familiar with allow this kind of combined review process. The Valley Green Corporate Center project requires seven different approvals from the City of Shakopee, six through the City's planning and zoning process, the seventh required by the State EQB environmental review process: 1) Comprehensive Plan amendment 2) Rezoning 3) Planned Unit Development approval 4) Conditional Use Permit 5) Preliminary Plat 6) Final Plat 7) AUAR amendment If all applications were treated consecutively by the City, each according to a separate schedule, the process would extend well into spring of 2003. We believe four of these applications can be combined into one process completed by October 2002, because the issues discussed in them are very similar to one another. Our proposed schedule is illustrated on the attached chart, Proposed Project Schedule 2002. The Comprehensive Plan amendment is already underway, having been submitted to the City on February 28, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in April and May, with final approval after Metropolitan Council review in June. The AUAR amendment is to be ordered by the City Council at its March 19 meeting and reviewed by the Council in May. MINNEAPOLIS SUITE 210 - 5 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH 1 SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH - SUITE 1 0 ST. C LOUD, MN 56301 H: 320.251 .3150 D3 OP5 90 0 ST, CLOUD OFFICE: 10 Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Shakopee March 12, 2002 2 Our request is to submit the Rezoning, Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Preliminary Plat together, starting in late May, with approval in early August. The Final Plat and development agreement would follow in September and October. The Proposed Project Schedule shows (in red and orange dots) the seven public meetings to be held by the Planning Commission and City Council in this process. This should be ample opportunity for complete review and comment by the public, staff, and City decision makers. If there is a real need for more information or review along the way, the schedule can be adjusted. The rationale for combining the four applications is seen on the other attached tables. The first, Shakopee Code Comparison — Key Issues, has a list of basic issues on the left that are reviewed by the City for a Rezoning, PUD, CUP, and Preliminary Plat. The columns on the right are colored to indicate if that issue is required for that application. As can be seen, the PUD submission is required to address all of the key issues that are covered by the Rezoning, CUP and Plat. When a PUD is reviewed completely, a separate review for a Rezoning, CUP, and Preliminary Plat can be superfluous. Furthermore, many of these same issues will have been discussed in the course of the earlier Comp Plan amendment and AUAR amendment, both of which will be scrutinized by the City and others. The Key Issues chart is a simplified, abbreviated version of the entire list of submission requirements illustrated on the larger chart, Shakopee Code Comparison — Full List. This list shows more completely how the reviews for these different applications overlap significantly. The Valley Green Corporate Center project has evolved over the years, most recently through the efforts sponsored by the City, with Jeff Schoenbauer of Brauer & Associates working through some of the complex environmental and open space issues. During that process, many of the same issues that will be reviewed in the formal City process were discussed and resolved. The results of Mr. Schoenbauer's efforts are reflected in the most recent plan from Ryan, illustrating that yet another layer of review has been injected into this process. We are eager to get the Corporate Center project approved and in the ground. We hope the City Council shares this desire, but the Council must also balance that with its responsibilities to the public, the environment, and to ordinance requirements. We believe the review schedule we propose here fulfills these objectives. It offers the opportunity to review and discuss all of the issues, to solicit public comment, and to satisfy all the requirements of the Zoning Code. It builds on the process begun with Brauer's work and echoed in the AUAR amendment. We respectfully ask your approval of the process as presented. Attachments: Proposed Project Schedule 2002 Shakopee Code Comparison — Key Issues Shakopee Code Comparison — Full List cc: Shakopee Planning Commission Valley Green Corporate Center /Ryan Project Proposed Project Schedule 2002 February March April May June July August September October Comp Plan CC OK Amendment Met Council Review AUAR CC OK Amendment 10 -Day Comment Rezoning, PUD CUP, CC OK Preliminary Plat Final Plat CC °K ■ Meeting & Submission Dates Submit Comp Plan amendment 2 -28 x City Council — order AUAR 3 -19 Planning Commission — Comp Plan 4 -18 U AUAR 10 -day comment period 4 -15 - 4 -25 City Council — approve AUAR, Comp Plan 5 -7 Met Council — review Comp Plan 5 -7 - 5 -30 P Submit Rezoning, PUD, CUP, Plat 5 -23 x City Council — approve Met C comments 6 -4 Planning Commission — Rezoning, PUD, etc 7 -11 U City Council — approve Rezoning, PUD, etc. 8 -6 Submit Final Plat 9 -3 x City Council — approve Final Plat 10 -1 Sign Development Agreement 10 -31 ;- - Denotes CC and PC ublic meetings for review and comment P 9 DSU /RLK 3 -8 -02 -- ail Valley Green Corporate Center /Ryan Project Shakopee Code Comparison - Key Issues Abbreviated list of criteria and submission requirements from Shakopee Zoning Code Issue to be reviewed or submission item Rezoning PUD CUP Plat Location, surrounding properties and owners Narrative description of project Consistency with Comp Plan Current zoning Compatibility with surroundings Preservation & enhancement of unique natural features Variances, variations Meeting with neighboring residents Description of adverse impacts, mitigation Existing improvements, streets, utilities, structures, easements Proposed streets, utilities, easements Location & dimensions of parking, driveways, loading Proposed & existing sidewalks & trails Number and acreage of buildable lots, outlots, setbacks Soil types and locations, fill, contaminated areas Water features and drainage patterns, OHWL, etc. Recreation /open space location, dimension, acreage, etc. Density /building square footage Impervious surface percentage Grading and erosion control plan Stormwater management plan Landscape plan Lighting plan Phasing, staging plan Architectural drawings, building materials Traffic analysis Screening plan for rooftop, trash, parking Signage plan DSU 3 -8-02 Valley Green Corporate Center /Ryan Project Shakopee Code Comparison — Full List List of criteria and submission requirements from Shakopee Zoning Code Issue to be reviewed or submission Item Rezonin • PUD CUP Plat Map or plat plus bordering area Location Map Boundary, property lines and PIDs within 100' List of neighboring property owners Evidence of ownership Legal Description of Property Narrative /cover letter description of project Developer's name, address Names and addresses of Team Is development consistent with comp plan Is development compatible with surrounding Adequate open space, circulation, etc. Preserve and enhance natural features Overall appearance and compatibility Compliance with Design Criteria Variances, variations Deed restrictions, covenants Notice to DNR of CUP in shoreland / floodplain overlay Copy of approved CUP in overlay to DNR Evidence County highway permit will be granted Meeting with neighboring residents Sketch of area, land uses and adjacent uses Existing and proposed ROW Unique features - wetlands or forests Description of adverse impacts, mitigation Survey of site Existing improvements, ownership -200' Location & width of streets & easements (acreage) Location /dimension previously platted streets Location & size existing utilities Location & size of structures Current zoning Number and acreage of buildable lots, outlots =MEI Location /dimension driveways, curb cuts, parking School district boundary lines Natural conditions — 200' Contour lines — 2' intervals (100' -200') Soil types and locations, fill, contaminated areas Existing water features and drainage patterns, OHWL, etc. Existing Vegetation, tree species Wetland delineation report - Location /dimensions wetlands , ._ - Location /perimeter shoreland areas /floodplains Development plan Acreage for proposed uses Recreation /open space location, dimension, acreage, etc. Density /building square footage Impervious surface percentage Proposed lots - location, number, sq ft, dimensions, setbacks Proposed street info, ROW /pavement widths, names Location, dimensions - existing, proposed structures Location & dimensions- parking, driveway, loading Proposed /existing sidewalks & trails Grading and Erosion Control Plan Utility Plan Location, size & gradient of proposed utilities Point of discharge /connection to utilities Proposed easements Stormwater Management Plan Grading at 2' intervals (100') Stormwater management improvements & techniques Preliminary stormwater calculations Landscape Plan ' Location, size, number of plantings Identify tree removal Planting schedule Berms, entry monuments, & landscape screening Lighting plan Phasing plan Preliminary architectural drawings Traffic analysis Landscaped buffer for residential zones Screen rooftop, trash, parking Gas station- screening /storing /stacking of vehicles Similar building materials all four sides Signage per requirements of City Code Internal pedestrian access system Proper ingress /egress Staging plan Density per underlying zoning DSU 3 -8 -02 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Pheasant Run Street Sidewalk, from Valley View Road to Quail Drive DATE: March 19, 2002 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item is for Council to remove from the table consideration of a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street, from Valley View Road to Quail Drive. BACKGROUND: At the March 6, 2002 City Council meeting, City Council did discuss and consider the installation of a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street, from Valley View Road to Quail Drive. This street is within the Pheasant Run Subdivision and homes have been recently constructed the past three years. City Council did designate Pheasant Run Street as a collector, thus allowing the construction of the sidewalk to be the cost of the City as the City does not assess sidewalk along collector streets in existing neighborhoods. The City Council did table this item for more information on three items and those three items would be the cost to install the sidewalk in this area, the funding source for this sidewalk and in what year this is programmed, and the cost to relocate the Shakopee Public Utility Commission's (SPUC) major electric line in this area. Attached is a cost estimate to construct the sidewalk including all restoration costs, engineering and administration costs and this cost would be approximately $182,661.45 for Option No. 1, $137,067.82 for Option No. 2, and $144,443.58 for Option No. 3. Staff has estimated $100,000.00 for this project to be funded out of the Capital Improvement Fund. However, this project was not included in the 2002 Budget or the 2002 -2007 CIP. The rationale to install a sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street is due to the traffic and concern for safety. Pheasant Run Street is a street that would be classified as a local feeder and has approximately 500 to 1,400 vehicles a day depending on location of the street. A local feeder is a street that is connected to several local streets and ultimately connects to collector streets such as Valley View Road and Sarazin Street. City collectors are usually 2,500 vehicles per day or higher. The City has not been requiring sidewalks on local feeders until recently with Pheasant Run 6 th Addition and Greenfield residential plats. The basis of staffs previous recommendation on waiting was to see if the construction of Valley View Road, Independence Drive and 17 Avenue collectors and the reduced construction traffic would have on Pheasant Run Street. Staff will present an overall sidewalk map at the Council meeting to show the system. In review of previous sidewalks in the City, there are areas of uncompleted sidewalk routes and streets with traffic similar to Pheasant Run Street without sidewalks. The City has made an effort to install sidewalks and trails along City collector routes and County roads whenever possible. The installation of sidewalks in existing developed residential neighborhoods over recent years has generally been viewed as a liability and not an asset by the residents affected. In this case, even with the City paying for the sidewalk and maintaining the snow removal, the majority of residential voting did not want a sidewalk. Staff has also contacted SPUC and attached is a memorandum relating to the cost to relocate the underground power line in this area for the various options. Staff has sent letters to the property owners along Pheasant Run Street informing them of Council's action on March 6, 2002 and the pending action on March 19, 2002. After review of the information in the memo, as requested by City Council, staff would recommend that City Council approve a motion directing staff to prepare plans or not to prepare plans for a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street, from Valley View Road to Quail Drive. If a project is ordered, it would be best to design in 2002 and build the sidewalk in the spring of 2002 to require the best bids and the fact this project was not budgeted. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt a motion directing staff to prepare plans for a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street, from Valley View Road to Quail Drive using Option No. 2, as prepared by staff. 2. Adopt a motion directing staff not to prepare plans for a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street, from Valley View Road to Quail Drive using Option No. 2. 3. Adopt a motion directing staff to prepare plans for a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street, from Valley View Road to Quail Drive using Option No. 3, as presented by staff. 4. Table for additional information. Staff previously recommended Alternative No. 2, not to prepare plans for the concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street at this time and to restudy the traffic in this area after Valley View Road is reconstructed and the construction traffic in the area is reduced. If City Council wishes to proceed with the concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street, at this time, either Alternative No. 1 or Alternative No. 3 is recommended for the sidewalk location. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a motion directing staff to prepare or not to prepare plans for a concrete sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street, from Valley View Road to Quail Drive, as determined by City Council. y� Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp PRSIDEWALK a d O kn v) V- (= kn V') r O O O O in O N O O O O (= N kn it V1 l M r 00 N O �-O 'n ol, "D O V l V O �' 00 , t � O �O d r v i oo N lr N - N M 00 w 6z3 69 64 rs 69 69 64 69 6R 69 64 69� ul3 64 69 64 69 (� rt O, O v'� v� �n v� O �n O O O (= O C\ N ti N N N M a a N O H 69 6Fl 64 64 69 bR 64 69 69 64 64 6R 69 O W un � Q a� LZI L QI O a Z � Uww��- U +�wwwwwU 000 C40 CnV) w �o 3 a� W o d W� H W � H � O � n/ N O ? N Q � Q v � �UO�w'QUUUpPU -'�U o 0 O Q p p p 3 � O d pOZ DUUUr a d W 0 W �I Q,' O H a W O Ao �w W� n/ N Fsl O O N W F� d 0 0 0 0 0 F.a a1 kn O O O O O O `O [� r- O kn V O 00 = r \O M Ei O O M kn 64 6H 64 b9 69 64 6 b4 6 69 69 6 EA O kn W o a 69 603 6 64 603 64 64 6 6 64 603 603 .fl U w w w w w w w U W �-1 VD U rr) Ua an vo) CA 1 W yi �n �OOcnO0(nkn E i O N V-) v) to ,n �O v) M N a d N d N O N W H a W W Q H P-i i. ol d O W �• � W W °\nUUd O UPaaQ�� d W W W d� H [ HUH U E-+ �o¢00000 rl- 1 1C v� N � O O 6 1 6 d R 0 0 a �O N M l� d' O N M 64 6R M N 6 O rn U W N W W -o 0 0 0 .I.- za V W O W M H P� W O A 0 � W H H W H W � H � O U N 0 � o N V1 W 0o O v) 0 0 0 0 kn O O (= (= a M V") N V') in O N O Ln v') O N N `o N N N O "o m N I O O - 00 `O N d' kn \O O - H O N O N \O 00 C� O oo N r O v� 00 C� N M oe 11 r i.a 00 00 O O 64 6f3 64 6'3 59 64 69 6'3 6'3 6R 6R 6s 1 b9 = O kn in Ln in O v') 0 0 0 0 [� m In O Z N N kn O ~ � O 64 69 64 64 64 r�S 6q 69 Eoq 64 64 64 H a Oi o H Uww��-+wwwwwU W C'nun V)uo.4 -W yi kn V) O O O O Ln V') V , Lr) H 00 � V) I-- Ln oo N N a v) 00 a i a w i n F"1 H 0 �n f II k z� E �a h i zz ;oQuuuo� � o� C� `O N d 00 O �n 00 kn Ln 00 O �n o0 64 64 6 N 00 00 00 H N 0 69 v. w � a Ln N r � V w o � a 00 Wi M et IT\ VJ d H i-; C� Q 0 0 w ti O O N N O O N N r U N O IL a_ U O 0 ` ` .0 N C? o O N O Q (4 O (D N Z 'a > U U) N O > co U i a w U O O ? -Q a 0 ' o m R � c c n m O ~ Q o O O c t e ca � m T v N E Cq LO c. CD 0- — Y_ (E C a) =3 3 O N -a E O a) a) n cu y � � +� t a o w t CL �, O E U j c O . O O E (ff U 5 a) U in 0 a) 3 r O O a a) O 0 •� o U° U O r= O M O ° N O w O - - - ---- --- -- - - - - --- -- --- --'. - -� N O O O O O ---------- z - O LO LO O O ;Yom; v LL ca E C 9 F7 LL LL LL Lj— LL s. N > + U + Q 3-6 O i N-`U CL U) 2 C w Z a) �Q al CU 0 7 O a) C (/� c a) a) LL fl" E a) Q N N co CO CO a_ a� 06 m N _ o� X00 a [O uJ - i U W u U` C) C7 0 < co Un co co co I O I L Q m MAR -14 -2002 09:36 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES 9524457767 P.02 MEMORANDUM TO: BRUCE: LONE Y, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: MARVIN ATHMANN, ELECTRIC SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT; PHEASANT RUNSIDE WALK DATE: 03/14/2002 CC: JOE ADAMS Please see the estimated costs to relocate SPU electric facilities and the City of Shakopee's streetlights along Pheasant Run St. to accommodate a sidewalk. The estimates list as per option. As the print from the city is not detailed, assumptions were made as to what is to be moved. Consequently, the estimated relocation costs are not precise and subject to change. OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 SPU RELOCATION COST $14,300.00 $7,920.00 $13,822.00 ST. LIGHT RELOCATION COST $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $800.00 TQ TAL EUIMATF,D COST j 4Q. $9,120.00 14 622.00 If I can be of assistance in answering question, please let me know. TOTAL P.02 Wi CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Discussion on Assessment Agreements for Valley View Road, Project No. 2001 -5 DATE: March 19, 2002 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item is to discuss with City Council proposed assessment agreements to certain properties affected by Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6th Addition, Project No. 2001 -5. Currently, the City is preparing plans and specifications for the above reference project by Bolton & Menk, Inc. and is currently underway in acquiring the necessary right -of- way for this project. Staff would like City Council direction and consensus on assessment agreements for this project. Assessment Agreements Patchin- Messner Appraisals, Inc. also performed an appraisal with respect to the potential special benefit for some of the properties within the project area. The appraisal results indicated that for some properties the proposed assessments exceeded the value of the special benefit. The City can only assessed the proposed assessments if they are less than the estimated amount of the special benefit. At its October 2, 2001 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to meet with the affected property owners to address their concerns with respect to the special assessments. The Council authorized the staff to discuss with the property owners the option of paying some portion of the assessments via a "hook -up agreement." Under this option the property owners would not need to pay the sewer and water assessments until they hooked up to public sewer and water. City staff and the City Attorney have conducted meetings with the property owners to discuss the proposed special assessments for the project. From those meetings, staff has been able to identify the following major items to be considered in an assessment agreement with the property owners: 1. The property owners were interested in a reduction in the assessment amount because they felt that the City has not contributed enough to this project. City staff, in review of their request, can support a reduction in the assessment amounts of approximately 10% for those parcels that are less than 10 acres in size and those that may be somewhat difficult to prove benefit based on the appraisals. This reduction would amount to approximately $90,000 less than the original assessments and approximately $40,000 less than the amount that the City could potentially assess based on the appraisals. Attached is a summary of the eight parcels affected by this proposal and the impact to the City. 2. In addition to disputing the amount of the assessments, most property owners did not want to incur the assessments until they hooked up to sanitary sewer and water. 3. The property owners were also interested in an elimination, or at least a reduction, of the interest amount that would typically accrue on the assessments. The City charges interest at 1.5 % over its bond rate for improvement projects to cover administration costs and potential delinquencies that may occur with particular bonds with a particular assessment. Because of the special circumstances surrounding this project, staff can support a 1.5 % reduction in the interest rate that would be charged to the property owners until they hook up to the sewer and water. Attached is a summary of reduction to the City for a 10 -year, 15 -year or 20 -year interval. The City believes some parcels will develop in a couple of years and others longer. The worst case scenario for the City is if the properties never hook up, the City is paying for those assessments and interest. 4. City staff has reviewed the trunk sanitary sewer charges on building permit hook ups. This fee is based on the acreage of the lot multiplied by the trunk sewer charge rate of that year. Some parcels cannot be subdivided and others have a large bluff area which cannot be developed within their parcel. Staff would suggest a reduction in the trunk sanitary sewer acreage due to the fact that certain parcels cannot subdivide into more parcels as compared to a 1 /2 acre lot or use their full property due to unique physical circumstances. This reduction would only apply to parcels south of Valley View Road because of the bluff. Parcels would still be charged a trunk sanitary sewer charge based on the estimated number of units, as determined by a concept plan done by Bolton & Menk, Inc., and at .75 acres per unit to determine the acreage for future hook -up. Staff is also including an analysis of the gravel road maintenance savings to the City if the roadway is paved. This savings amounts to $60,000.00 over a twenty year period and is a partial justification for the City to contribute more to this project. These are the main items of consideration that staff is considering offering the resident in an assessment agreement with the caveat that the property owners would waive their right to appeal that assessment in a hook up agreement scenario. Also, in the hook up agreement, the proposal would be for a certain amount of the assessment would be current, which would be the benefit of the improved street, in which the property owners would receive immediately. The remainder of the assessment for sanitary sewer and water would be deferred to hook up when that benefit is received in the future. Staff is bringing this update to City Council in order to receive consensus on the following guidelines that staff is considering with respect to the special assessments: • For properties less than 10 acres in size, the special assessments would be reduced by approximately 10% • The portion of the reduced assessments attributable to the streets (approximately $10,000 per parcel) would be levied and paid in accordance with the City's normal assessment practices • The amount of the assessments attributable to sewer and water would not be assessed now. Rather, the City and the affected property owners would enter into an agreement obligating the property owner to pay this amount when they hooked up to City services. This agreement would be recorded against the property and be binding on all future owners. • Interest on the deferred amount will accrue at 1.5 % less than the City's estimated/actual bond rate • The amount of the trunk sanitary sewer charge to be paid at the time of hook- up will be based on the number of lots to be developed on each parcel rather than on the total acreage of each parcel ;; t' 1 Staff is asking City Council for direction to proceed further on the settlement concept outlined above. Bruce Lo y Public Works Director BL/pmp ASSESSAGREEMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N i O M (O O O M M C cc OM V'N 0 'IT LO O d O Lo Lo r (O Lo Lo co N w >- Lq O V' V' M O O- I,- O- Or rCO r"T M CD O r a OMM N i LO V' Lq M Lo Ln I` V' C RSo I- OOr I- I'- O V' O O co V' (O N w CO Lo T = > d t 1'- M to I- r- n M Lo Or r V' c0 Cl) T O O LO LO 000! L$O (V L O M O M 00 M a C to o Lo (D r� r to to h N 0 O N O N N O Lb N N CO M N w r Ln Lo N LO Lo Lo M (A O Or MLON MO N 0 1:1(::, 0 0 0 0 0 0 r i ONNMOOI - V'� C Ro O V' 8829 Leo O N O O O r W 0 0 M OO is > Ln Lo OLbto totoLO O CL T r I-- Co L( Lfij. - . O N O� Lo CO 0000Li) r i O Lb V' O O N M O C Loo LnMr V' 0 0) O N N (fl OO N N M M M } l0 r Cfl i� M r _ Lq COr f V'r rCOM 0- 000 LO O0 LO r i O M(O 00MN C cc o 0 1-- M00(ON O N O Lo Lo O N Lo LO M M '_. }Lq I-r LO M i- �rn CL 0 Or CO (D O O M I N O O r Cl) W O V' 'r d N Lo LO O to to to I� r U) 0 �M V'N��h I co Z d 2 r M U) 0 N Q K? 69. fA EA V9 Qf (f3 (A K} O CO O O M M 00 O MMOOr V'r 07r OOM V'OOMM00 N O �t()M M 2 W CD Z d Q Cl) Lq N r N (4 y0 N Q E9 EA Vf3 lu3 K3 fA EA EFT tn} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) =1 000000000 M 0 (D (D n .6 C ff y d N LL) O ) O. Q EFT (A fR EH 6 6-1 6iy EA y} - N co I-r- MM V• O O r M Lo V" Il- V N d MOMV' WMM Lq lE _ _ _ C N NM V'co (O >m N r - L d 0 N N Q (FT 6 EA luT (A Vf l (iT (a K? C d 0. O J 0w=mMLiYJ Valley View Road 2000 Maintenance I Imn 2 -28 3 -3 3 -10 3 -13 3/21 4-4 4-14 4-15 -4-18 4-24 5 -15 5 -16 5 -16 5 -24 5 -31 6-26 7 -14 7 -7 7 -2 8 -7 8 -7 9 -25 10 -3 10 -17 11 -9 Tons of Gravel 80 Tons 222 Tons Haul Gravel -198 Tons 50 Tons Gravel Total tons of Gravel = 564 Total Hours of Grading 101 Dust Coating Trucking Costs Hours Gradin 4 Hours 6 Hours 3 Hours Hours 4 Hours 8 Hours 2 Hours 2 Hours Hours 4 Hours 4 Hours Hours 6 Hours 7 Hours $3,158.40 $11,110.00 $2,300.00 $3,948.00 $20,516.40 Average cost to maintain gravel road is $ 7,158.00 per mile Prepared by Dive Rutt • • Maintenance costs have been determined by the Public Works Supervisor as follows: Tons of Gravel = 564 Total Hours of Grading = 101 Dust Coating Trucking Costs @ $5.60 per ton @ $110 per hour @ $7.00 per ton TOTAL COST = 14 1 Wit $2,300.00 $3, 948 . 00 $20,517.40 per year This total cost reflects the cost to maintain Valley View Road from C.R. 17 to C.R. 83. The cost to maintain the portion of Valley View Road within the proposed project limits is estimated to be $8,000.00 per year. comparison For a cost ._ - - inflation maintence use a 20 Total maintenance cost for Gravel Road for 20 years. $8,000 /yr x 26.87(f/a) _ $214,960 Total maintenance cost for Bituminous Roadway for 20 years. Street Length = 3800 L.F. Street Pavement Width = 41 Ft. Total Square Yards = 17,311 Year 7 - Seal Coat = 17,311 S.Y. @ $.50 /sy x 1.23(f 1p) = $10,646 Year 14 - Seal Coat = 17,311 S.Y. @ $.50 /sy x 1.513(f/p) = $13,096 Year 20 - Bituminous Overlay = 17,311 S.Y. @ 2.50 /sy x 1.806(f /p) _ $78,159 TOTAL = $101,901 Total maintenance cost savings over 20 year life = $214,960 $101,901 113,059 "Represents future dollars Present value of $113,059 = $113,059 x.5537 (p /f) = $62,600.66 DO q- • s • r • C) M v ® p 01 00 l M C� O M N d� 01 O �n M p--I N 000 b4 b4 bF3 b4 6f3 a � Z Q 00 N C� llO O N [� O� O O N O �O Z Q ® A O O kn O kn kf) kr) O W) O U cn kn � Q @ � � M z ut N W � H � Z Q� cr1 oo N O d O N N N 00 O O O O O O O O -- N O •-+ 1 10 O Q\ O 00 O 00 �-- 00 1- F� Z A � N N N N N N N N CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Overhead Power Line Relocation on Valley View Road Project DATE: March 19, 2002 �1 L This agenda item was tabled from the February 5, 2002 City Council meeting after a 2 -2 vote on whether to leave the existing overhead power lines on Valley View Road after relocation, or whether to underground this power installation. This agenda item is being brought to a full Council for a policy determination. BACKGROUND: Attached to this memo is the February 5, 2002 memorandum which discussed this item at length. This memo from staff explained the situation that exists on Valley View Road for the overhead power lines and with the City's new Right -of -Way Management Ordinance relating to relocation of existing overhead power lines. Also attached is a memorandum from Joseph Adams, Plaming and Engineering Manager with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) on the utility concerns of additional cost of these lines, which was recently installed in 1999. City staff did meet with SPUC's staff to review this particular situation and see if an agreement can be reached by staff on how to proceed with this situation. SPUC's staff will provide maps on their collector lines which are generally overhead and located on County roads or City collector streets. Staff would like to point out that any reconstruction project in the future which has existing overhead power lines and needs to be relocated, that a decision would need to be made each time on whether to relocate existing overhead lines or underground the power lines upon reconstruction of the roadway. City staff and SPUC's staff will be available at the Council meeting to answer questions on this issue. Staff is attaching a survey from other growing communities on the question of overhead or undergrounding of the relocation of an existing overhead line. From the survey, some Cities require undergrounding of utility lines when relocated and other Cities did note depending if the undergrounding was a City cost. This issue on whether to underground an existing overhead line exists on the reconstruction of C.R. 83 /C.R. 16. On this particular project, overhead lines will need to be relocated due to the widening of C.R. 83 and the relocation of C.R. 16 on either side of C.R. 83. The question again for City Council is whether to underground lines in an area of new development. The City would have a cost to underground the line to serve the signals at T.H. 169 ramp, as this is a City responsibility. Attached also is a March 13, 2002 memo from Joseph Adams, Shakopee Public Utilities Commission's Planning & Engineering Manager on the most recent cost estimates, options on funding and map showing overhead line locations in the City. This information is being provided for the Valley View Road project and also to other projects such as C.R. 83/16 as well as future projects. ALTERNATIVES: As contained in the February 5, 2002 memorandum and are as follows: 1. Approve a motion determining that the existing overhead power line along Valley View Road can be relocated. 2. Approve a motion determining that the existing overhead power line along Valley View Road should be relocated and placed underground. 3. Table for additional information. Staff believes this is a policy issue for the City Council on whether or not to require existing overhead lines along City streets to remain overhead or be installed underground. Subdivision 24D states the City "may require" this line to be installed underground and is in the discretion of the City Council. Also, staff recommends that a motion be made to remove this item from the table so this item can be discussed at this Council meeting. Approve a motion dete on whether the existing power line along Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the east plat line of Pheasant Run 6 Addition to be relocated, should remain an overhead line or be p aced underground f � { truce Lonev� Public W BLJpmp V VRPOWERLINE TO: Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager at 17 ,- N 11 111 11!111 11 1 1 Mill 1 511 10 1 , 11 , 11 , 11 1,1111111 1 I was directed to bring this item back to the Utilities Commission for their March 18 1h meeting. Also, Bruce Loney informs me that the Council is planning to renew their discussion on this item at their March 19 meeting. I believe the basic issue for this project remains; does the Council want to require the circuit to be placed underground during the Valley View Road project? If so, how ©l khe coftie lmded? I have revised cost estimates for the project. The cost to relocate the lines overhead is estimated to be $15,000 to $20,000. The cost to convert the system to - underground when relocating the lines is estimated to be $120,000 to $125,000. This would include the pad mount switches and lateral lines to serve existing loads, but not the conversion of services. It would cost approximately $1,500 each to convert a typical service to underground. This is normally the property owner's responsibility. F� � 5 15MV-4 P a Ry EVA INW-1 17e¥ I HIM fvq w 7. The cost is to be recovered via a special service fee on electric bins for all customers in a defined area, i.e. a (different) limited number of ratepayers. 'W OlOr rrM -71 Ono- i ITT • feeder circuits. As can be seen, we have several overhead feeders that will ultimately be affected when future road projects are proposed. Most ofthe feeders are along either county roads or city collector streets. 8 I 7 I 6 I 5 4 I 3 I 2 I 1 e I 0 M se CARVER CO. EC- � HENNEPIN \\ I Min nesota a " SCOTT CO. © G �/ j R� m � SCOTT ' /4.;7" ag'- 4- * i '' m Derry � '° w „ � V nA � , ii . c�' �,> , DETAIL A . �_. Aa m7 / / J, �� 0kilt - � � SO 0 � CD'/ I ./.10 0 A 1113 } 0 �� Mn MC r n I „'d, , pm 0 $ c p / `�I ` I 1 SO KYA RR AEA tl ® Q R p3— it 6 it — A KA n ,4), ,m _AA DETAIL D 4M,. ` I aelu �1s 3D KYA / /n+ -11e kit ft �t ® / 2 `' 01E 4 S PO" i 2 #A -, At g .. A 'A pe I —® mE 0 Mk _ M O NG .. J DET C i spa . // ,, — o M — p "� Q l 0 N Q !tan etc DETAIL E MAE A � \ \,�, V I G I I f rl a nr AVE .. ► \ J /lam B LUE LAKE In N 0 mKYA P i IM I d , !fit 05 I W `�M �A1�lE I r'� RO! •• I Iu i�ws �A C iSM 05/ 3S3 KVA , �j/ ins/ POI I t 0( / � / f / 'lf m 1 704- 141 7-114 \ 112 \Fs 17th ME 7 1 0 • —.0 i A --♦ v 0, I . OP ® Q EJ �1 I I ® 7- l NC. N I Ita 6 I ems— 0 0 dI B B Al 9r 1 NA —074 pis — ML, `� Pike i E! n� 0 —® - Laic sou„., 91AICOPEE ® j 1 115 5 T V - 112.47 KV Q 4 / . yI 13E1-1 ..!� 1 IN A Y O ,� iii ''j / N ® 0 �' N o Q AA illil . / % % 0 / A ' - ' 0 POLE / _3r. NORMALLY °P_ WWII FAULT NIERR PIER SCALE, 1 1 INCH . 1600 Fr, :7 .%` i -34— / / _S NOA MUM CLOSED AM NU NIFRAUPIER / '6 NOR I I ■ AYLY OPEN BN per •• � J ijl NMWLY dOSFD SIM Yf /, / o � T _n_ LINEMEN CUM A Il _ I R NA I NON ,m,® � NON , sr A Ea �% ® 'i, — 0S"EADLIE to ' '"°' '"" SYSTEM ONE LINE DIAGRAM MAP Soh nel • % 0 FED OM COM 11 3-RI oI 1rr1 Lak - / PNr Noun soot 12 = / 3 11-1-01 °' 117A " -- SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES tjk WOE MANOR 13 4 SHAKOPEE, MN. a /. O MBE RAE PECUXER us [F0 MBE PH RECI IR II - 7 0 _ l — 22 -01 VI/0 _ rPNO+m er nac 1 7 a MTA 1 -22 -01 :.,; rd is • CHECKED Mr COS 8 I 7 I 6 I 5 T 4 I 3 I 2 I 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Overhead Power Lines Relocation on Valley View Road Project DATE: February 5, 2002 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item is for Council to discuss the overhead power relocation on Valley View Road and whether or not the City wants to require this power line installation to be placed underground. BACKGROUND: The City did adopt a Right -of -Way Management Ordinance in August, 2002 and attached to this memo is a copy of Subdivision 24 which relates to undergrounding of utilities. On Valley View Road, Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) installed a new overhead power line in 1999, prior to the adoption of this new ordinance for power needs relating to the installation of the Seagate facility. The City is currently designing plans for the improvement of Valley View Road and Sarazin Street in this area. These improvements require the relocation of the existing power line to facilitate construction. Per Subd. 24D, the City may require a permanent relocation of a facility and require this facility be maintained underground, if the City finds one or more purposes as set forth in Subd. 24D would be promoted. Attached to this memo is a memo from Joe Adams of SPUC which was reviewed by the SPUC on January 22, 2002. In summary, the Commission reviewed the additional cost that would be needed to place this line underground, versus overhead, and voted unanimously to appeal to the City for economic considerations for leaving this line overhead upon relocation. Valley View Road is in the process of being improved to a paved surface with trail and sidewalk and is located in an area of development. North of Valley View Road are the developments of Prairie Village, Pheasant Run and the recently approved plat of Greenfield. To the south are larger lots, which currently are not in MUSA. However, it is anticipated that these areas would be redeveloped with municipal sewer and water service in the future. The question for City Council is whether or not to establish a policy to underground these facilities within the public right -of -way when relocation of these facilities is necessary for the improvement of the roadway. The particular circumstances with this power line are as follows: 1. The overhead power line was installed in 1999 so the installation is fairly recent. 2. Staff did inform SPUC's staff that Valley View Road would be improved some day and that the City may be interested in undergounding of these lines. 3. Property owners that are utilizing the overhead power line would have to convert their overhead power service to an underground service. 4. Some of the residents along Valley View Road have underground service lines and others overhead. Staff has attached pictures showing the area and the existing overhead line on Valley View Road, from CSAH 17 to CSAH 83. The question for the City Council is whether to require undergrounding of existing power lines that needs to be relocated with this public improvement project. Joe Adams, from the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and Jim Strommen, City Attorney on right -of -way matters will be in attendance to discuss this issue. Staff needs this policy determination in order to complete plans for the improvement of Valley View Road. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a motion determining that the existing overhead power line along Valley View Road can be relocated. 2. Approve a motion determining that the existing overhead power line along Valley View Road should be relocated and placed underground. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes this is a policy issue for the City Council on whether or not to require existing overhead lines along City streets to remain overhead or be installed underground. Subdivision 24D states the City "may require" this line to be installed underground and is in the discretion of the City Council. Approve a motion determining on whether the existing power line along Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the east plat line of Pheasant Run 6 ffi Addition to be relocated, should remain an overhead line or be placed underground. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BUpmp POWERLM ` , •s ' ' Lannim 1 I' DATE: January 18, 2002 INTRODUCTION The planned city project to improve Valley View Road and Sarazin Street in 2002 will impact this circuit, causing us to have to relocate approximately 3 /4 of a mile of the circuit to accommodate the project. BACKGROUND This circuit was upgraded in 1999. This was necessary to serve the large load at the new Seagate Technologies plant while the Dean Lake Substation was being planned and constructed. The project extended from County Road 78 north on County Road 17, east on Valley View Road and north on County Road 83 to County Road 16. A combination of approximately 2 miles of nominal 150 amp single -phase overhead line and 2 miles of nominal 240 amp three -phase line were upgraded to a nominal 350 amp three -phase overhead line. The original facilities were acquired with the service territory acquisition from the Nffi Valley Electric Cooperative in 1991. T'he original location of the single -phase circuit from County Road 17 to 3 /4 mile east was outside the Vallev View Road right -of- way on private property. We did not have any records of a recorded easement for the facilities, but claimed "prosciptive" easement rights to enable us to trim trees for maintenance of the single -phase line. It should be noted that maintenance was difficult due to the terrain and the heavily wooded area the line was constructed through. Staff felt that the best option for the necessary upgrade was to relocate the new three - phase line into the road right-of-way. Doing so would enable us to maintain the line and perform the necessary tree trimming. City staff was informed and then cautioned that improvement plans for Valley View Road were not compete. Because of this they inquired if the project could be delayed to coincide with the future road re- construction. However, there was not a firm timetable for the improvements and the load at Seagate had to be served sooner regardless. Technical considerations do not appear to be a major issue; the circuit can be placed underground. ACTION Staff is asking Commission direction on whether or not to prepare an appeal to the Council of the requirement to relocate this circuit underground. D. Cause for probation. The city may establish a list of conditions of the permit, that if breached will be grounds to place the permittee on probation. The city shall not enforce a probation program unless and until it has established such conditions, which it may amend from time to time. E. Reimbursement of city costs. If a permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including Restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. Subd 23 Mapping Data Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information in a form required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. A. ]Purpose. The purpose of this Subdivision 24 is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and is intended to foster (i) safe travel over the right - of -way, (ii) non -travel related safety around homes and buildings where overhead feeds are connected and (iii) orderly development in the city. Location and relocation, installation and reinstallation of Facilities in the right -of -way must - be made in accordance with this Subdivision. This Subdivision is intended to be enforced consistently with state and federal law regulating right -of -way users, specifically including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 161.45, 237.162, 237.163, 300.03, 222.37, 238.084 and 216B.36 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title 47, U.S.C. section 253. E. Undergrounding of Facilities. Facilities newly installed, constructed or otherwise placed in the public right -of -way or in other public property held in common for public use must be located and maintained underground pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section and in accordance with applicable construction standards, subject to the exceptions below. Above - ground installation, construction, modification, or replacement of meters, gauges, transformers, street lighting, pad mount switches, capacitor banks, re- closers and service connection pedestals shall be allowed. The requirements of this Subdivision shall apply equally outside of the corporate limits of the city coincident with city jurisdiction of platting, subdivision regulation or comprehensive planning as may now or in the future be allowed by law. C. Exceptions to Undergrounding. The following exceptions to the strict application of this Subdivision shall be allowed upon the conditions stated: 1. Transmission Lines. Above- ground installation, construction, or placement of those Facilities commonly referred to as "high voltage transmission lines" upon which a conductor's normal operating voltage equals or exceeds 23,000 volts (phase to phase) shall be allowed only by JMS- 183755v 1 17 SH 155 -87 prior approval of the council; provided, however, that sixty (60) days prior to commencement of construction of such a project, the City shall be furnished notice of the proposed project and, upon request, the right -of- way user involved shall furnish all relevant information regarding such project to the city. This provision shall not be construed as waiving the requirements of any other ordinance or regulation of the city as the same may apply to any such proposed project. 2. Technical and Economic Feasibility. Above - ground installation, construction, or placement of Facilities shall be allowed in residential, commercial and industrial areas where the council, following consideration and recommendation by the planning commission, finds that: a_ Underground placement would place an undue financial burden upon the landowner, ratepayers, or ri f ight -of -way user or would deprive the landowner of the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; or, b. Underground placement is impractical or not technically feasible due to topographical, subsoil or other existing conditions which adversely affect underground Facilities placement. 3. Temporary Service. Above - ground installation, construction, or placement of temporary service lines shall only be allowed: a. During new construction of any project for a period not to exceed twenty -four (24) months; . During an emergency in order to safeguard lives or property within the city; C. For a period of not more than seven (7) months when soil conditions make excavation impractical. D. Undergronnding of Permanent Replacement, Relocated or Reconstructed Facilities. If the City finds that one or more of the purposes set forth in Subd. 24.A. would be promoted, the city may require a permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of a Facility of more than 300 feet to be located, and maintained underground, with due regard for seasonal working conditions. For purposes of this section, reconstruction means any substantial repair of or any improvement to existing Facilities. Undergrounding may be required whether a replacement, relocation or reconstruction is initiated by the right -of -way user owning or operating the Facilities, or by the city in connection with (1) the present or future use by the city or other local government unit of the right -of -way JMS- 183755v1 is SH155 -87 or other public ground for a public project, (2) the public health or safety, or (3) the safety and convenience of travel over the right -of -way. E. Retirement of Overhead )Facilities. The city council may determine whether it is in the public interest that all Facilities within the city, or Facilities within certain districts designated by the city, be permanently placed and maintained underground by a date certain or target date, independently of undergrounding required pursuant to Section 24.B. of this Code (new Facilities) and subdivision 24.D. (replacement Facilities). The decision to underground must be preceded by a public hearing, after published notice and written notice to the utilities affected. (Two weeks published: 30 days written.) At the hearing the council must consider items (1) — (4) in subdivision 24.G. of this Section and make findings. Undergrounding may not take place until city council has, after hearing and notice, adopted a plan containing items (1) — (6) of subdivision 24.H. of this Section. F. Public Hearings. A hearing must be open to the public and may be continued from time to time. At each hearing any person interested must be given an opportunity to be heard. The subject of the public hearings shall be the issue of whether Facilities in the right -of -way in the city, or located within a certain district, shall all be located underground by a date certain. Hearings are not necessary for the undergrounding required under Subdivisions 24.B. and D. of this Section. G. blic Hearing Issues. The issues to be addressed at the public hearings include but are not limited to: I. The costs and benefits to the public of requiring the undergrounding of all Facilities in the right -of -way. 2. The feasibility and cost of undergrounding all Facilities by a date certain as determined by the city and the affected utilities. 3. The tariff requirements, procedure and rate design for recovery or intended recovery of incremental costs for undergrounding by the utilities from ratepayers within the city. 4. Alternative financing options available if the city deems it in the public interest to require undergrounding by a date certain and deems it appropriate to participate in the cost otherwise borne by the ratepayers. Upon completion of the hearing or hearings, the city council must make written findings on whether it is in the public interest to establish a plan under which all Facilities will be underground, either citywide or within districts designated by the city. IMS- 183755v l 19 SH155 -87 IL ndergrounding Plan. If the council finds that it is in the public interest to underground all or substantially all Facilities in the public right of way or in non- right -of -way public ground, the council must establish a plan for such undergrounding. The plan for undergrounding must include at least the following elements: 1. Timetable for the undergrounding. 2. Designation of districts for the undergrounding unless the undergrounding plan is citywide. 3. Exceptions to the undergrounding requirement and procedure for establishing such exceptions. 4. Procedures for the undergrounding process, including but not limited to coordination with city projects and provisions to ensure compliance with non - discrimination requirements under the law. 5. A financing plan for funding of the incremental costs if the city determines that it will finance some of the undergrounding costs, and a determination and verification of the claimed additional costs to underground incurred by the utility. 6. Penalties or other remedies for failure to comply with the undergrounding. 1. Facilities Location. 1. In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. §§ 216D.01- .09 (One Call Excavation Notice System"), before the start date of any right -of -way excavation, each registrant who has Facilities located in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal placement of all said Facilities. To the extent its records contain such information, each registrant shall provide information regarding the approximate vertical location of its Facilities to excavators upon request. Nothing in this subsection is meant to limit the rights, duties, and obligations of facility owners or excavators as set forth in Minn. Stat. §§ 216D.01 -09. Any right -of -way user whose Facility is less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor in an 'effort to establish and mark the exact horizontal and vertical location of its Facility and the best procedure for excavation. 2. All Facilities shall be placed in appropriate portions of right -of -way so as to cause minimum conflict with other underground Facilities. When TMS -1 s3755v 1 20 SH155 -87 technically appropriate, all utilities shall be installed, constructed or placed within the same trench. J. Developer Responsibility. All owners, platters, or developers are responsible for complying with the requirements of this Subdivision, and prior to final approval of any plat or development plan, shall submit to the Director written instruments from the appropriate right -of- -way users showing that all necessary arrangements with said users for installation of such Facilities have been made. Subd. 25. Relocation of Facilities. A right -of -way user shall promptly and at its own expense, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, permanently remove and relocate its facilities in the right -of -way when it is necessary to prevent interference, and not merely for the convenience of the city, in connection with: (1) a present or future city use of the right -of -way for a public project; (2) the public health or safety; or (3) the safety and convenience of travel over the right -of -way. Subd M. Interference By Other Fa cilities . When the city does work in the right -of -way in its governmental right -of -way management function and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a registrant's facilities to carry out the work without damaging registrant's facilities, the city shall notify the local representative as early as is reasonably possible. The city costs associated therewith will be billed to that registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each registrant shall any facilities in the right -of -way which it or its facilities be responsible for the cost of repairing damages. Sub 27 Right of ay Vacation — Res ervation of Right. If the city vacates a right -of -way that contains the facilities of a registrant, the registrant's rights in the vacated right -of -way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. f, By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this Section, a registrant or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. Subd. 29. Abandoned and Unusable Facilities. A. Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant's obligations for its facilities in the right -of -way under this Section have been lawfully assumed by another registrant. JMS- 183755v l 21 SH155 -87 CD cn'- 0 v r CL :3_ CD m n 0 Q 0 �• 0 m < su CD Cl) I c 0 0 1 0. 0 CD ( CD 0 2) 0_ cCD Q :. cD C m v Z (D (D v v cu CD 0 v cD w CL :" w U) n� c� CD" X 0 v CL n(D 0 v (n 0- o� < m CD 0 u U) T 0 CD r 0 < tD (zD (D v � `" o o 2 �) Q O= o C. c �. � �- 03 0 0 0 -0 * CD << C:L 0 C7 w w v c� CD 0 v cD v 0 m v 0 z CD 0 n w w v (D CD r a (D = % M 0 Q. (1) F 0 CO 0 < m rn N v T 0 15 CD CD CD -- 70 0 CL (D 0_ - cn -= m sv cn 0 w L December 29, 1997 RE: Valley View Road - Anticipated Future Improvements 612 445 6718 P l� , UU UUU �� As requested, engineering staff is providing information regarding the future improvements to Valley View Road. Your request was for the purpose of designing for the installation of an overhead (or underground) electrical line along Valley View Road. It is my understanding the construction of this line would begin in late spring of this year. The designation for Valley View Road, per the City's draft transportation plan, is a minor collector. It is anticipated that the traffic volumes (in the year 2020) would be less than 8,000 ADT, which would mean a street section of approximately 36' to 44' (depending on whether parking would be allowcd or not). It is anticipated that this street section would be constructed as an urban section, and it is anticipated that the right-of-way required would be no more than 80'. It may be possible to construct the road within perhaps a 70' right -of -way. Based on scaling off the half - section maps, it appears the existing right-of-way for this road is 66. The current MUSA boundary extends to this roadway, except at the most eastern portion, near County Road 83. Typically the City likes to wait until development requires the collector roads to be built, so that there is a way to fund the improvements, and also so that the right -of -way can be dedicated with the plat. There were discussions with the school district which indicated they may be developing along this roadway, but their plans now appear to be directed more to the north, along 17th Avenue. Because it is difficult to predict hove development will occur, the timing for the construction of this roadway is unknown. COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street Sdpth • Shakopee, Minnesota • 55379 -1351 - 612-44-T-3650 - FAX 612 -445 -6718 DEC -29- 1997 03:21 1229197 612 445 G?1B P.02/02 e2 As this area of the City is developed, it may be desirable to bury the electric Iines. It is unknown, however, how the relocation/burying of the lines would be paid for. I hope this information is what you are looking for at this time. If you have any questions, or would like additional information, please call me and I will be happy to assist. Sincerely, '�,� `e Joel Ru X , lee- Assistannt City Engineer cc: Pete Malamen, PE; HDR Engineering, Inc., Via Fax 9 591 - 5413 z/1 U O a L� w U W Q H U O a W W O H W � z a O� L7 w� °t G i Q{ a 0 H w v O P. Z O H U 0 U 0 U W O H U � � W � z a a O O a Q Z W a H Q a U w w z w � ° Z o 00 o N o CD � IT 00 - �0 a` o N 0? o ° 00 C14 o 00 00 a N N N N M N M N a W z W U w � x H w FEB.20 14:50 7634946 18 CITY OF MAPLE GROVE #6734 P- 002/005 . 305:00 (Rev. 1999) Section 305:00. FIIW se . The Council believes it to be desirable and in the public interest to assure orderly municipal development and to provide for the safety and convenience of its inhabitants. To this end the Council believes that all existing overhead distribution system and transmission lines of electrical and communication utilities, excluding high voltage transmission lines of fifteen thousand (15,000) volts or more, be eliminated as soon as possible, and that distribution lines and systems used in the supplying of electricity as well as communication of similar association services be placed, constructed and installed underground. The cost of underground installation shall be bome by the utility company. The Engineer shall be responsible for annually reviewing with the utility companies the progress made towards accomplishing this goal. (Amended, Ord. No 98 -20, Sec. 1) Section 305:05. UnderQro�d Uxilitxes System eked Underground utilities system shall include, but not be limited to, electric, communications, street lighting and cable television lines. The appurtenances and associated equipment of said system such as, but not limited to, surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts in an underground system shall not be included in said definition and may be properly place upon or above the ground when approved by the ]Engineer. High voltage transmission lines of fifteen thousand (15,000) volts or more shall not be included in this definition and when properly approved the Engineer may be placed above the ground. Section 305:10- Unda gmundy lectric Wine ln�ns In addition to any other requirement of this Code, the following shall be applicable to the installation of electric and communication distribution systems of all utilities, excluding high voltage circuits and transmission lines of fifteen thousand (15,000) volts or more- Subd. 1. Every permanent extension of any distribution lines, circuits, and systems and any service lateral providing permanent electric power service, communication service or other associated utility services shall be installed underground when for. (a) Any new installation of buildings, signs, street lights or other structures where the service lateral is street fed; (b) Any new subdivision; (c) Any new development or industrial part containing new commercial or industrial buildings. The cost of underground installation shall be not be charged to the City. (Amended, Ord. No. 98 -20, Sec- t; Ord. No. 99 -02, Sec. 1) Subd. 2. Any permanent replacement, relocation or reconstruction of more than four hundred (400) yards of any distribution line, circuit or system of any such utility and any service lateral shall be installed underground when for or made in connection with street paving, street widening, public utility installation and other such projects. The cost of underground installation shall not be charged to the City. Such requirements may be waived by the Engineer when it is not technically or economically feasible. (Amended, Ord. No. 98 -20, Sec. 1; Ord. No- 99 -02, Sec. 1) { CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Easement Acquisition for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road, Project No. 2001 -5 DATE: March 19, 2002 INTRODUCTION: On October 16, 2001, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5597, which ordered the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications for the above referenced project. The purpose for this agenda item is to have the Council consider the authorization of eminent domain proceedings in acquiring easements for Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the east line of Pheasant Run 6 th Addition improvement project. During the preparation of the plans and specifications, staff has determined additional easements are required from property owners adjacent to the project. Staff has conducted an informational meeting with property owners notifying them of possible easement acquisition. Staff has been working with Bolton & Menk, Inc. on the plans and right -of -way easement descriptions needed for the project and Messner Patchin Appraisals for the evaluations of property needed for acquisition. Staff has received commitments from Betaseed and U.S. Homes on offers made for right -of -way acquisition. The summary of damages from the appraisals is $116,320.00 and with the previous approved amount of $40,000.00 for U.S. Homes taking, the total right -of -way amount is $156,320.00, as compared to the feasibility report which had estimated $138,000.00 in February, 2001. Staff has or will send out offers to all property owners by March 9, 2002 where right -of -way acquisitions are needed. Staff does believe that some property owners may not be in agreement with the taking or the offer on the project. In order to construct the project this year, authorizing the acquisition of certain property for this project by eminent domain proceedings is necessary. Staff will continue to work with property owners on possible agreements. However, the authorization of eminent domain can establish a date certain in which the City will have the right -of -way for construction. 1. Move to authorize staff to continue easement acquisition negotiations with property owners. 2. Offer Resolution No.5674, a resolution determining the necessity for and authorizing the acquisition of certain property by proceedings in eminent domain. 3. Table this item. I' � 1 1 • � Staff recommends Alternative No's 1 and 2. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to authorize staff to continue easement acquisition negotiations with the affected property owner. 2. Offer Resolution No. 5674, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Determining the Necessity for and Authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Property by Proceedings in Eminent Domain and move its adoption. Bruce Loney � Public Works Irector Bv MEM5674 V rn rn A N O. p CO rn V O O. COD N OZ W d n N N Cl) Cl) O CD CD 3 CO 0 a O C S W 7' S S 7 CC —' O w 'o (D r - CD 7 C C G =r C Cn CD CD VI 3 CD N N C' N S C O 7 n :3 W s w _ ? co N N CT co ' W A O W O N O O O O W O o v N co N O) O w O N co b) O W O A N CD (D O A O w J CO rV 0) O 00 W N A ..a j d CD A O O A W A OD A O V O 'N O O O O O) N x co °)D oD m ND co rn°) p oD °)D Cn A oD CD C() O o Cn o W O Cl) o D Cf) o Cl) o C f) o U) o U) o O O 11 'T7 T T CD o '7l TI - TI T Cl) Cp 77 f7 n O o C O O rn Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 03 rn W O OV O (4 SO x - r D D D D D D D D T> (n> � n � o -mm T C w _ O co N _. N CT O m j IV A O O O N fD 0 O w O Cn V N N O rn O A N - co O A O W O A N CD COO O A O J CD O A co V rn W N N CD A O O O 'A w A CD A Q) o A J O (7) J W CA CO V W ?� X m O 0) D N D co co rn o D o D V D rn D w D m D O (nn ° n Cno fno (n o rnD Cn0 Coo �o Cn Cno O'n co C W - n Cl) m M CO Cn o m m ,� T m Cn m -n 'll 0 1 cn O co O CO O of O ? o w 0 N O N O o p A N W N 0) N fA CD C" Co ° M C � Z Z Z Z N CO) D D D D -ni o �'I o 'fin 0 '-t1 o T n T o T O T O ' o N O �_ O O 'G Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z . O A O V p N N y CD O D D D D D D D D co m °) rn o w m w m C/)D 0) D CO D 0 D -� p T O Ti o 'T) O T O D 9 N N W v) Efl Efl N O A N O O O p C l p o R m CD m cm C.n CO V W O) CD W 6 O G O C O Ch rn O Cr Cn V O °O O °O O O O CD O m O) J O O °O ffl N 69 to ffl EA EA EA Efl .69 EA N 4 A W NO 4 W C ? N 0 0)) O A N co CO N 0) Cn O CT c CD to CD m O W CD N C)) V C C ? O N 69 .69 .07 60 69 69 S9 b9 W t!) (f) (fl 'co O) V O Oa N CD Cl) N 03 AO V [J1 W A Cn N O 7 0 V N A C I N W co CT co O) 0) (D ' CA m W b9 4i) to N y N -co .60 .60 69 !A b9 to .60 A CD A CD co O O O O O O O O J VA 0 O O CD 69 69 69 -09 89 fA 169 00 to CJ CT PI) A A O 00 00 0) V O N O _ J CD 0) A co A p� N O ° O to CD O O O O O CD A O co O O O Cn A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Determining The Necessity For And Authorizing The Acquisition Of Certain Property By Proceedings In Eminent Domain WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is a municipal corporation organized and operating under Minnesota law, and is authorized by Minnesota Statutes Sections 412.211 and 465.01 to acquire private property for an authorized public purpose, using the procedure prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the City should construct Sarazin Street from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road and Valley View Road from Sarazin Street to the east plat of Pheasant Run 6 Addition ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, the City has identified the need to acquire permanent and temporary easements over certain real property described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property") for purposes of construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City has been unable to successfully negotiate the acquisition of the necessary easements for the Project. THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, 1. Acquisition by the City of the Property described on Exhibit A is necessary, convenient and reasonable for the purpose of constructing the Project. 2. The City Council deems it necessary in order to meet the anticipated construction schedule for the Project to acquire title to and possession of the Property prior to the filing of a final report of commissioners, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.042. 3. The City Attorney is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to acquire permanent and temporary easements for street, highway, sidewalk, utility and drainage purposes over the Property described on Exhibit A by the exercise of the power of eminent domain pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 117, and is specifically authorized to notify the owners of intent to take possession pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 117.042. 4. The City Attorney further is authorized to take all actions necessary and desirable to carry out the purposes of this resolution. Adopted in Minnesota, held this City Clerk session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, day of 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee I:\ CLERK\Lori\publicworks\RESOLUTION NO.doc ); � § � � e \ a■ , ! ■2 $if ■ 2 ) L2@2 ! ; §i mB k ��§ 2 . g § § § E § �2E on on i f r� N "s• f tsz ®see _ 68b_a fn also Z -- - - -�-8 __.- ,o dpj'b96 ALMEtam �csz°mre p olG® r o e ►� I g 3 o , C. N V � � � // � / �g � i 9 I --• I I O n = p O m oF =o= �o� o 9 I APHIS RO V w . 9 g;� a v / N i - - - - -- i I / V I + N 4 I I /A: I I I I AR 41�1 %'� '�• I I I I ° • ,r s / I I I ----- 7- -7 - - -- L � yi M L=1 bC x H H H 'E' q 4A 4 r4o sqw �A R �I il l - 2 fF qs l is Z a o ; A` • -- -- - ^ J/l TOW '611 illl 61 7J5 JO I/1 ®5 7N1 10 1 / Jl 7111 JO JNR 1569 / / ;♦ Aft LU co I y p7 Al N. — / / / I $ ® ♦> \\ g �l \ I \ i� i� �y h c 0 b 0 t� x H H H E Iveq 1'^ 1' 1- 1 A 11 =a bo � � V.a1 QQ • Ti$ gg $ P 1 � Y 0 B , o I 0 0 v ° I I - - - - -- 1 I ' I p II IF - - - - -- � I N C 1 I "I � L-- - - - - -J L-------------- - - - - -- 1 IIj SEE SHEET 3 / \ •• `\ / - / • ,eiP ii® z a •, // I / I � Lij co asr Um! 01 P!! M! 111 OF 20 N! �lS 111�t�0! 8Mt D 1 Ol - m / L- t--------- I- �- - - -- -- L - - - - -- LI II �._'_- _'------------ ��'I IIQ ► �� - - - - -- � r z 1° I I I�1 I I I I I I Iveq 1'^ 1' 1- 1 A 11 =a bo � � V.a1 QQ • Ti$ gg $ P 1 � Y 0 B , o I 0 0 v ° I I - - - - -- 1 I ' I p II IF - - - - -- � I N C 1 I "I � L-- - - - - -J L-------------- - - - - -- 1 IIj X11 MLLIAMS SMEEr 1� LI II �._'_- _'------------ - - - - -- I�1 I I I I I I I I I m v w P n ICI I 1 y I I I ° A r$r o I I I I A 0 rn� I e I I I � I 1 I I I I I I U iG 9 S im Z I I I I I I I I I I I I F e h c 0 b x H r� H H i t i CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Scott Smith, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: 2002 Vierling Drive Trail Improvements, from County Road 79 to Sage Lane, Project No. 2002 -2 DATE: March 19, 2002 Attached is Resolution No. 5675, a resolution receiving a report and ordering an improvement and the preparation of plans and specifications on improvements to the 2002 Vierling Drive Trail Improvements along Vierling Drive, from County Road (C.R.) 79 to Sage Lane. BACKGROUND: On November 20, 2001, the City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for trail improvements to Vierling Drive, from C.R. 79 to Sage Lane. The feasibility report has been completed and the report is attached for Council review. Attached is Resolution No. 5675, which receives the feasibility report and orders the preparation of plans and specifications for an improvement project. Funding of this project will be 100% funded by City funds. Since no assessments are involved, a public hearing is not necessary. Staff believes this project is needed to improve safety for both pedestrian and bicyclists. As of 2001, Vierling Drive has 8,400 vehicles per day. The projected 2020 daily traffic volumes are expected to double. This path also serves as a natural connection between the existing trail system at C.R. 79 and also at Sage Lane. On March 12, 2002, staff held an informational meeting regarding the proposed trail. Letters were sent to the property owners that abut the proposed trail, one week prior to the meeting. During the week before the meeting, staff did receive phone calls from property owners. Two property owners opposed the trail due to the proposed plan that removes some landscaping in the right -of -way and they didn't like the trail along their property. Two property owners wanted to know when the project would start and if they would have enough time to move their fence. Staff advised the residents that the project could begin in May or early summer, if Council directs staff to proceed with the plans and specifications. The residents were told they would have to remove items in the right -of- way that they want to salvage, otherwise the City would have the items removed but would not replace them. One property owner attended the informational meeting. She was in favor of the path and welcomed the ability to walk or bike to the shopping area on the south side of Vierling Drive and not have to cross from the north, especially during busy times of the day when traffic was heavy. Her only concern was being able to salvage some landscaping before the City would remove it. City staff has responded to all resident's concerns regarding the ability to salvage fences or landscaping. Staff advised the residents they will keep them informed of any projected construction dates so they could plan to have these items salvaged rather than having the City remove them during construction. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5675. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5675. 3. Table for additional information. s Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 5675, receiving the feasibility report and orders the preparation of plans and specifications. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5675, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the 2002 Vierling Drive Trail Improvements, from County Road 79 to Sage Lane, Project No. 2002 -2 and move its adoption. Scott Smith Assistant City Engineer SAS /pmp MEM5675 1 1' wHEREAS, pursuant to a motion of the City Council adopted November 20, 2001, a report has been prepared by Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, with reference to the improvement of the 2002 Vierling Drive trail improvements, from County Road 79 to Sage Lane, along with any appurtenant work. This report was received by the Council on March 19, 2002. WHEREAS, the Council has considered the improvements of said Vierling Drive trail, from County Road 79 to Sage Lane, in accordance with the report, with an estimated total cost for improvements of $65,075.56. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described: 2002 Vierling Drive Trail Improvements, from County Road 79 to Sage Lane 2. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 2002 -2 Public Improvement Program. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee 1y li M IA City Clerk Feasibility Report For An -OC 1ISO March 2® ®2 Engineering Department City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (952) 233 -3800 D ate �/ O Z- O' 11 fi 1. FROM COUNTY ROAD 79 TO SAGE LANE SHAKO' SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA Description Introduction Scope Background Proposed Improvements Cost Estimate Special Assessments Conclusion Funding Sources Page No. 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Appendix The City Council of Shakopee, Minnesota ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for street/trail improvements to Vierling Drive, from County Road (C.R.) 79 to Sage Lane by Resolution No. 5616. 0 This report evaluates the feasibility of constructing a bituminous trail along Vierling Drive, between C.R. 79 to Sage Lane. All existing infrastructure elements (street, utilities, etc.) were evaluated, improvements recommended, cost estimates of the proposed improvements prepared and funding strategies developed by this report. Veiling Drive serves Shakopee as an important collector street that provides a transportational link between residential, institutional, and commercial properties. Vierling Drive has high traffic volume and lacks suitable shoulders, making pedestrian and bicycling conditions unsafe. 2001 traffic counts show 8,400 vehicles per day (See Appendix) traveling along the eastern intersection of Vierling Drive and C.R. 79. Traffic along Vierling Drive is expected to double from current 2001 as indicated in the Transportation Plan's 2020 Daily Traffic Volumes Map (See Appendix). Recent development has provided a thorough trail system around this section of Vierling Drive, but a left a link missing between C.R. 79 to Sage Lane. This trail connection would serve as a logical completion to the area's existing trail system. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 1� There is no existing bituminous trail on Vierling Drive between C.R. 79 and Sage Lane. This report proposed a new 8' bituminous trail to extend the Vierling Drive trail to complete the trail connection from C.R. 79 to C.R. 17, as per the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Trail Plan. The trail is planned to be along the south side of Vierling 1 I COST S A detailed cost estimate can be found in the Appendix. The following costs were prepared based upon an Engineer's estimate and are subject to change, depending on the final design of the project, bids received and actual work performed. A summary of the estimated costs are as follows: Bituminous Trail $65,075.56 i No special assessment is necessary. The bituminous trail is to be paid 100% from City funds. I CONCLUSIONS I Vierling Drive is an important collector street that is missing a transportational link for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A bituminous trail should be placed from C.R. 79 to Sage Lane for safety and to meet the comprehensive trail plan needs. Property owners adjacent to the project would not be assessed, however, will lose landscaping that was unlawfully placed in the City's right -of -way. Capital improvement funds will cover 100% of the construction costs to build the new trail. This report concludes the project is feasible, necessary and cost effective and recommends the improvements as stated in this report. FUNDING SOURCES I It is proposed that the City of Shakopee pay 100% cost of improvements out of the Capital Improvement Fund. F -- FUND SOURCE T S 1 Capital Improvement Fund $65,075.56 2 :Iav "r Description Page No. Project Location and Trail System Map Al Feasibility Cost Estimate A2 Existing Conditions Map A3 Proposed Bituminous Trail A4 2001 Traffic Counts A5 Projected 2020 Traffic Counts A6 > —j 'Ai Z . . . . . . . . . . N U -, n/ < LEGEND Scole 1"=700' M ; D R, N Existing Sidewalk Z C� 4r SEEMIM Existing Bituminous Trail :n Proposed Bituminous Trail ..................... ---------- > —j 'Ai Z . . . . . . . . . . 7 CT; 7 T� j U'� 1 T PER N U -, --j LEGEND Scole 1"=700' M ; D R, N 7 CT; 7 T� j U'� 1 T PER N U -, --j LEGEND Scole 1"=700' D R, N Existing Sidewalk 4r SEEMIM Existing Bituminous Trail :n Proposed Bituminous Trail -,Zj ---------- L . ..... ._... - D' 7 ME W L SHEET NO. REMSIONS ce"co DAW-- MARCH 2= Al SE�jAMpEE SHAKOPEE TRAIL SYSTEM ft. RN PRojECT � 2002-2 CzAAAwF=SHx=v 8wcE 17590 D. t. - ;�� . - -- SaT i or I FILENAME: G:\2002 PROJECTSWieriing Drive Trail -Sage Lane to CR 79\ExcelgFeasibility Estimate.XLSj8heetl FEASIBILITY REPORT ESTIMATE PROJECT. VIERLING DRIVE TRAIL PROJ. NO. *. 2002 -2 BID DATE': CITY OF SHAKOPEE SUBTOTAL $ 51,545.00 10% CONTINGENCY $ 515.45 SUBTOTAL $ 52,060.45 25% INDIRECT COSTS c Sheet No. A2 BID ITEM LISTING UNIT EXTENDED ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE TOTAL 1 L.S. $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing (Includes Trees, Shrubs and Brush) 1 L.S. $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 3 Furnish and Plant Marscall Ash, 2 1/2" Cal B & B Tree 22 EA. $ 325.00 $ 7,150.00 4 Sawcut Bituminous Surface 230 L.F. $ 3.50 $ 805.00 5 Remove Bituminous Surface 35 S.Y. $ 4.00 $ 140.00 6 Patch Bituminous Surface (2" Type 31 Base Course, 2" Type 41 Wear Course) 35 S.Y. $ 30.00 $ 1,050.00 7 Sawcut Concrete Curb & Gutter 20 EA. $ 30.00 $ 600.00 8 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 200 L.F. $ 6.00 $ 1,200.00 9 B618 Concrete Curb and Gutter 200 L.F. $ 15.00 $ 3,000.00 10 8' Bituminous Path (Includes 2" Type 41 Bituminous Wear 2100 S.Y. $ 12.50 $ 26,250.00 Course & 4" Class 5 Agg, 100% Crushed Limestone & Common Excavation) 11 Sodding Lawn Type, Includes 4" Topsoil 1900 S.Y. $ 2.50 $ 4,750.00 12 Remove and Replace Sign 6 E.A- $ 100.00 $ 600.00 SUBTOTAL $ 51,545.00 10% CONTINGENCY $ 515.45 SUBTOTAL $ 52,060.45 25% INDIRECT COSTS c Sheet No. A2 COUNTY ROAD 79 ------ - - - - 4- 0 M ® - 10 0 ro LD V, I. mo r l z 0 4-v xo MINNESOTA STREET -- - - - - -- — - my o >zo NN 1 THISTLE LANE 1 PONDVIEW COURT z, > 1 0 > pi 1 t7 O > c -l z. 1 2 KO In t3 z > o >.o co zo 0 - g_ cf) K rs' .. ,: 00 ze 0 zo 00 0 z > > >;D z mR 'n r I ;D! Fn o. O al 1 . SAGE LANE 0 0 REVISIONS I hth�.y o Lily that this plan pnapol.d by - —.d� my di-t 2002 VIERLING DR TRAIL tf) and that I am a R egistered DESIGNED BY� RTH DATE: MARCH 2002 M r- X P ratrsionol Engines nda th of the Stoke of MinmnIota. -i Pwtd DRAWN BY-, RTH PRCjECT Na. 2002-2 z EXISTING CONDITIONS p SHAKO =1 I SCOTT A. SMITH gay Date — Reg, No. --j CHECKED By', SAS SHEET I OF I \ °o COUNTY ROAD 79 D \ mo 0 1 b D - - - - -- r ---- � m � \ s g m N �m m t < N f =o- MINNESOTA STREET \ \ > 5 _ y \ z s Z 4 >O 2 A 1 n g N THISTLE N g LANE Ot . r s go — g Z C O { )t A A� y PONDVIEW COURT _. ° - - - - -- m $' N > SN � > - r o 8 R'N ' (� O m � >7 b >I 2 \ N \ \ > \ r s / Z. ,..... Ft mo -, Tr ?� 00 e may > =� r a m ° c p t ` `, , R. O x7 � 00 _ N° p >M N A Z ! O1 0 .TJ C p I ? � 4 � N Q O opm� O m / SAGE LANE f o \o 0 1 R EVISIO NS ' hereb —t ' t y that Un= �a. 4,y 2002 VI E R L I N G DR TRAIL prepared Dy me pr under my Q eet per Wa and thW I em o duly Registered under the k— pt the St [e oa' DESIGNED BY; RTH GATE: MARCH 2002 D m nE.9i p o PROPOSED 8' BITU MINOUS TRAIL DRAM BY: RTH PRO NP. 2002 -2 SCOTT A. SMITH Dote Reg. No. x09 15 CHECKED BY; SAS SHEET I OF t J . • M, mud - so r- • 11 Time Vierling Dr. Daily Vehicle�� 15:00 598 16:00 646 17:00 700 18 :00 616 19:00 498 20:00 515 21:00 332 22:00 157 23:00 83 0:00 39 1:00 26 2:00 16 3:00 15 4 :00 22 5:00 114 6:00 263 7 :00 552 8:00 325 9:00 3 10:00 312 11:00 390 12:00 463 13:00 429 14 :00 544 ir Daily Vehicle y 8003 +F � y kW� Count .;� V = k ;�E City of ••- June 6 2001 00 11 Time Vierling Dr. Daily Vehicle�� 15:00 584 16:00 719 17:00 760 18:00 672 19:00 524 20:00 444 21:00 427 22:00 233 23:00 139 0:00 62 1:00 44 2:00 13 3:00 11 4:00 22 5:00 92 6:00 236 7:00 391 8:00 330 9:00 353 10:00 367 11:00 495 12:00 52 13:00 502 14:00 453 M Daily Vehicle�� Count .�8400 k �......� k M I " 1 850 O O 3 ; ^f= a I �I�I� le �� qi �T �' 9 1500 00 � 1- - ul 250 1500 2200 2500 490U t4' 220 k *QV CD Er � � i '' � � 340 { i S5 ( �� 1� � � e`9r� a '� rj r � g , x r r a oil C' I IAr 2000 165 I ro� a 6l O R C.) C=) 8000 g, I /� .v,� 1 � �� \� /O U I ��`" I41 f_II' �! w:4 II'� _ 1. ,.,�� "�, - 6- 7000 A (211 4000 7, O Rl PRIOR LAKE :1= t -ft C> 29000 24000 18000 20000 ' J - ��- _f 4 C> 250 �500 dZ v- A" LA C) C> 380 IP w i �� a 3 ....... .. .. > �v: )I if I �� ., �� l i: l �� i �' I{ l�� y��t�rali f� I i P �� „" � r; � it 4 LDEN PRAIRIE B1,00MINGTON m rn m ril rL 'U td S 0 > - z Z rn v. l3S �u 4— Cl) C7, CL co CD 00 C=) 8000 g, I /� .v,� 1 � �� \� /O U I ��`" I41 f_II' �! w:4 II'� _ 1. ,.,�� "�, - 6- 7000 A (211 4000 7, O Rl PRIOR LAKE :1= t -ft C> 29000 24000 18000 20000 ' J - ��- _f 4 C> 250 �500 dZ v- A" LA C) C> 380 IP w i �� a 3 ....... .. .. > �v: )I if I �� ., �� l i: l �� i �' I{ l�� y��t�rali f� I i P �� „" � r; � it 4 LDEN PRAIRIE B1,00MINGTON m rn m ril rL 'U td S 0 > - z Z rn v. l3S �u 4— Cl) C7, CL co CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM CONSENT To: From: Subject Date: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Resolution No. 5678 Approving the Plans and Specifications for Tahpah Park Parking Lot Project and to Advertise for Bids March 13, 2002 V4'TROD ITC TTON Attached is Resolution No. 5678, which approves the plans and specifications and authorizes staff to advertise for bids for the Tahpah Park Parking Lot Project No. 2002-3. Bid opening is slated for April 25, 2002. The City Council will review the bids at its May 7, 2002 Regular Session- The funding source for this project is the Park Reserve Fund. RECOMMENDATION Alternative #1 Offer Resolution No. 5678, a Resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering an advertisement for bids for the Tahpah Park Parking Lot Project No. 2002-3 and move for its adoption. L McQ u il lan M �k J� Natural Resource Director A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications And Ordering Advertisement for Bids For The Tahpah Park Parking Project No. 1h Whereas, pursuant to the City Council's action on February 19, 2002, Bolten and Menk, Inc. was contracted to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of a parking lot in Tahpah Park consisting of 200 parking spaces, four handicap spaces, curb and gutter and access from Vierling Drive; Whereas, a bid alternate to rough grade two youth ball fields for future development has been included into the plans and specifications, and Whereas, has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. THEREFORE, H1 E CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MENNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specification, a copy of which is on file and of record in the Office of the City Engineer, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin and advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids shall be published as required by law. ,— session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of -2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk "I I I i . 117 -- — — ofroopi lq \ 0� q� 1Z RIO ZT—L—M PA P, V 'x- S r#"o f W- C JIT Ae Q Ile @ �_ . � \ 5 � - 6 � 1 t P C kA COUNTY ROAD 15 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Personnel Handbook Amendment — Paydays DATE: March 13, 2002 ` 71 7 The Council is asked to adopt a resolution that would amend the City's personnel policy, to change paydays from "alternate Thursdays" to "bi- weekly". Recently, all City employees were advised that certain changes have made more difficult the ability of the City to produce paychecks on Thursdays, as has been the practice over the past several years. Currently, timesheets are submitted on Monday, and paychecks have been issued three days later. However, the number of paychecks that need to be produced have significantly increased over the years — there are now as many as 250 checks which maybe issued during peak seasonal times. Departments are experiencing more difficulty getting timesheets reviewed in time for the checks to be issued. Therefore, approximately a month ago, employees were advised that an additional day was needed, and that beginning with the paycheck of March 8 checks would be issued on Fridays, rather than Thursdays. (Incidentally, Shakopee was the only one of the twenty -six LOGIS cities that did not issue paychecks on Friday.) By changing language in the Personnel Handbook to "bi- weekly", this change will be consistent with the new practice. I recommend that the following language be adopted: �. 0 e _ D. Paydays. Employees normally shall be paid bi- weekly. on- l+ ate Tb,,,,-s. ays When a payday falls on a holiday, employees shall receive their pay the preceding workday. ► 1 1i If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following: RESOLUTION NO. 5669 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4213, ADOPTING A PERSONNEL HANDBOOK Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th RESOLUTION NO. 5669 RES OLUTION OF I, CITY OF •' MINNESOTA AMENDI RESOLUTION NO. 4213, ADOPTING A PERSONNEL HANDBOOK WHEREAS, on May 2, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4213, adopting a new Personnel Handbook for the Employees of the City; and WHEREAS, the city has experienced substantial growth, both in employee population and employee benefits; and advanced payroll technology; it is necessary to amend section III COMPENSATION of the Personnel Handbook N OW I •. BE E CITY COUNCIL OF '! CITY OF SHAKOPEE That Resolution No. 4213, adopting a Personnel Handbook, is hereby amended as follows: III. COMPENSATION D. Paydays. Employees normally shall be paid bi- weekly. eR -�� Th sdays. When a payday falls on a holiday, employees shall receive their pay the preceding work day. Note: The str-ial language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk IT. . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Firefighter Replacements DATE: March 14, 2002 vISENT The City Council is asked to authorize advertisements to establish an eligibility list, ultimately to fill two Firefighter vacancies. At the City Council meeting of March 6 the Council accepted the resignation of one Firefighter. There has been an existing Firefighter vacancy that existed prior to that. Chief Terry Stang has asked that staff be given the opportunity to advertise and test for a new eligibility list, from which candidates can be drawn to fill those two vacancies. Note that these are replacements of previously filled positions, and are not hires for newly created positions. Therefore, this would be consistent with the Council's directive on hiring freezes. As has been done in the past, the advertisement and preliminary screening will be done through Scott County Human Resources. I recommend that staff be given authority to advertise for candidates to create an eligibility list, and from that, two candidates be selected for membership on the Shakopee Fire Department. The actual approval to hire will come back to the City Council. If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the advertisement for Firefighters, so as to establish an eligibility list. L Mark McNeill City Administrator CITE' OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Renewal of Consumption and Display Permit DATE: March 14, 2002 INTRODU AND BACKGROUND 19. F. 1, 7,� U Great Lakes, Inc. dba Shakopee Ballroom and Banquet Hall has applied for renewal of their Consumption and Display Permit (Set -up License). The application is in order. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the application and grant a Consumption and Display Permit to Great Lakes, Inc. dba Shakopee Ballroom and Banquet Hall, 2400 East 4 Avenue. City Cflerk ( ,/ JCS /js [liquor \CCmemo] CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Premises Permit Renewal — Prior Lake Lions Club DATE: March 13, 2002 The Prior Lake Lions Club is making application to renew their premises permit for their gambling activities at Park Inn Suites, 1244 Canterbury Road. The permit will ultimately be issued by the State Gambling Control Board. When application is made, the Board requires that the local unit of government pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the application. The Prior Lake Lions Club is in compliance with the Shakopee City Code. Offer Resolution No. 5673, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Premises Permit for the Prior Lake Lions Club, and move its adoption. Judith S. Cox, City Cleric JSCljs RESOLUTION NO. 5673 WHEREAS, the 1990 legislature adopted a law which requires municipal approval in order for the Gambling Control Board to issue or renew premises permits; and WHEREAS, the Prior Lake Lions Club is seeking renewal of their premises permit through April 30, 2004, at Park Inn Suites, 1244 Canterbury Road, Shakopee, Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the premises permit for the Prior Lake Lions at Park Inn Suites, 1244 Canterbury Road, Shakopee, Minnesota, is hereby approved. Adopted in adj. regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 19th day of March, 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk i�E t CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Interfund Transfers DATE: March 13, 2002 Introduction Council is requested to approve of various interfund transfers for 2001. Background The transfers are: 1. Close Refuse Fund to General Fund due to decreased activity for refuse $84,323. 2. From General fund to 99/2000 GO Improvement Debt Service Fund to correct prior year error $6,000. 3. From General Fund to LLF Block Grant Fund for prior year correction $1,178.00. 4. Close 1996 Construction Fund to 1996 Debt Service Fund $531.79 5. Close 1995 Construction Fund from 1995 Debt Service Fund $42,197.95 6. Close 88D GO TIF Debt Service to 93A GO TIF Debt Service $1,915.86. 7. Close 92B GO TIF Debt Service To 93A GO TIF Debt Service $1,551.44. 8. Transfer from TIF #1 Capital Project Fund to 93A GO TIF Debt Service Fund for debt service payments $420,000.00. 9. From Capital Improvement Fund to 99 Improvement Capital Projects Fund for financing for South Bridge Water Main project $334,091.89 (assessed). 10. From Capital Improvement Fund to 99 Improvement Capital Projects Fund for city share of Vierling /CR17 /Miller project $282,708.34. 11. From Capital Improvement Fund to 96 Improvement Capital Projects Fund for signal box at 178 and Sarazin $3,406.25. Action Move to approve interfund transfers as follows; 1. Close Refuse Fund to General Fund due to decreased activity for refuse $84,323. 2. From General fund to 99/2000 GO Improvement Debt Service Fund to correct prior year error $6,000. 3. From General Fund to LLF Block Grant Fund for prior year correction $1,178.00. 4. Close 1996 Construction Fund to 1996 Debt Service Fund $531.79 5. Close 1995 Construction Fund from 1995 Debt Service Fund $42,197.95 6. Close 88B GO TIF Debt Service to 93A GO TIF Debt Service $1,915.86. 7. Close 92B GO TIF Debt Service To 93A GO TIF Debt Service $1,551.44. 8. Transfer from TIF #1 Capital Project Fund to 93A GO TIF Debt Service Fund for debt service payments $420,000.00. 9. From Capital Improvement Fund to 99 Improvement Capital Projects Fund for financing for South Bridge Water Main project $334,091.89 (assessed). 10. From Capital Improvement Fund to 99 Improvement Capital Projects Fund for city share of Vierling /CR17 /Miller project $282,708.34. 11. From Capital Improvement Fund to 96 Improvement Capital Projects Fund for signal box at 178 and Sarazin $3,406.25. Ghegg Finance Director C: \gregg \memo\ ) e. F. �, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Un Memorandum 1i I TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Vehicle Transfer DATE: March 13, 2002 Introduction and Background In December, the city purchased a vehicle with unused police department grant funds. The city did not directly have a need for the vehicle but the county sheriff's office did. In a cooperative effort, the city purchased the vehicle and the county will use it county wide in a special program. Council is requested to approve selling the vehicle to Scott County for $1.00. Action Move to approve selling a surplus police department vehicle purchased with grant funds to Scott County for $1.00. Gregg Voxland Finance Director c:\gregg\memo\ 16 r-. r, City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Recycling Program Agreement with Scott County MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 7 1! C � ` i G, a , Ln T Introduction City Council is asked to authorize an agreement between Scott County and the City for reimbursement of recycling expenses for the annual Clean -Up Day. Background This year, as in previous years, Scott County has provided reimbursement to participating cities for recycling efforts. Monies are provided to Scott County from the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. The grant funds will help pay for some of the recycling expenses incurred on Clean -Up Day, which will occur on April 27. Shakopee is eligible for up to $6,917.00. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City enter into the recycling program agreement. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the appropriate officials to sign the "Recycling Program Agreement" for 2002 by and between Scott County and the City of Shakopee. K' THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into between the COUNTY OF SCOTT, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY by and through the Scott County Board of Commissioners, and THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, Scott County Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the CITY, by and through the City Council. NMI ► WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. Sect. 473.8441, establishes the Local Recycling Development Program providing grants to counties to be distributed by the Office of Environmental Assistance; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. Sect. 115A.557, establishes the COUNTY Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding program to be distributed by the Office of Environmental Assistance; and WHEREAS, Scott County has received funding from the Office of Environmental Assistance identified as Local Recycling Grant; and WHEREAS, These funds are to be used for the activities specified in the Office of Environmental Assistance Grant Agreement and approved by the Scott County Board on May 2, 2000; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: a 0 This Agreement shall establish a mechanism for distribution of funds obtained from the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance in accordance with respective agreements related thereto for implementation and/or enhancement of recycling programs in Cities and Townships within Scott County consistent with the COUNTY Solid Waste Master Plan. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the maximum amount of grant payment available to the CITY under this agreement is $6,917.00. Any funding availability for future years or for other recycling projects shall be at the complete discretion of the COUNTY. I Any grant payments provided to the CITY under this Agreement shall be returned to the COUNTY in the event the grant payment is not used according to the requirements of this Agreement or has not been used within twelve (12) months of receipt by the CITY, whichever occurs first. Scott County shall appoint an authorized agent for the purpose of administration of this Agreement. The CITY is notified of the authorized agent of Scott County as follows: Steve L. Steuber Environmental Health Department 200 Fourth Avenue West, A -104 Shakopee, MN 55379 -1393 Complete and accurate records of the activities performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be kept by the CITY for a minimum of three (3) years following termination of this Agreement. The retention period shall be automatically extended during the course of any administrative or judicial action involving the COUNTY of Scott regarding matters to which the records are relevant. The retention period shall be automatically extended until the administrative or judicial action is finally completed or until the authorized agent of the COUNTY notifies the CITY in writing that the records need no longer be kept. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 16B.06, Subd. 4, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the CITY relative to this Agreement shall be subject to examination by the COUNTY and the State Auditor. It is agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or should be construed as creating the relationship of co- partner, joint venturers, or an association with the COUNTY and the CITY. The CITY is an independent contractor and neither it, its employees, agents, subcontractors nor representatives shall be considered employees, agents or representatives of the COUNTY. Except as otherwise provided herein, the CITY shall maintain, in all respects, its present control over the means and personnel by which this Agreement is performed. From any amounts granted to the CITY, there shall be no deduction for federal income tax or FICA payments nor for any state income tax, nor for any other purposes which are associated with an employer /employee relationship. Payment of federal income tax, FICA payments, state income tax, unemployment compensation taxes, and other payroll deductions and taxes are the sole responsibility of the CITY. Any notices to be given under this Agreement shall be given by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal Service, addressed to the CITY at its address stated herein, and to the authorized agent of the COUNTY at the address stated herein. This Agreement is to be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The Parties agree that no amendments, alterations, variations, or modifications to this Agreement, or any attachments hereto, shall have any force or effect unless the change is reduced to writing and duly signed by the parties. The execution of the change shall be authorized and signed in the same manner as for this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the parties and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the COUNTY and the CITY relating to the subject matter hereof. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. By: Title: Date: By: Title: Date: In Michael Sobota Community Development Director SCOTT COUNTY Community Development Division Date: in Allen J. Frechette, Environmental Health Manager SCOTT COUNTY Community Development Division Date: in Thomas J. Harbinson, County Attorney Date: 7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Prevailing Wages — Library DATE: March 15, 2002 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to consider information regarding the requirement for prevailing wages to be paid on labor relating to the construction of the Shakopee Public Library. BACKGROUND: At the March 6"' City Council meeting, Council was presented with information stating that it appeared to be optional as to whether the City should require "prevailing wages" (in effect, union- scale wages) to be paid on labor for the new library construction. There was uncertainty as to whether the possible acceptance of State funds to be used for either contaminated soil or asbestos clean up would require the need for prevailing wages, under State law. I am attaching a memorandum from the City Attorney stating that if the State funds become available during the construction of the project, the "prevailing wages" requirement would be triggered. The existing specifications contain the prevailing wages requirement. BUDGET IMPACT: While it can be only an estimate, information from the project estimator anticipates that a requirement for prevailing wages could add $100,000 to the cost of the project. Advocates, however, state that this provision helps ensure a quality product. (Since the last meeting, the Council has been provided with information from one of the building trade unions.) There is no requirement that the City accept the grant monies. The amount of grant monies for which the City could be eligible is dependant upon the scope of contamination. That won't be lmown until after the Phase 2 contamination investigation is completed. Under a reasonable scenario, it is likely that the amount of the grant monies for which the City will qualify will be less than the $100,000 estimate in question. OPTIONS: If Council doesn't wish to make prevailing wages a requirement, specific action to delete that as a requirement will be needed. If the prevailing wages requirement is deleted, staff will not proceed with the State grant application. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council wishes to delete the requirement for prevailing wages to be paid on the library project, it should, by motion, so indicate. Mark McNeill, City Administrator MMJ s TO: Marls McNeill FROM: Jim Thomson DATE: March 15, 2002 RE: Library Construction Project / Prevailing Wage Statute You have asked for an opinion with respect to whether the City is required to comply with the prevailing wage statute for the library project. That project consists of demolition of the existing library and construction of a new library. The Prevailing Wage Act is contained in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 177.41 — 177.44. It requires that prevailing wages be paid on "projects financed in whole or in part by state funds." Minn Stat § 177.41. It is my understanding that the City is intending to apply for a grant from the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DIED) with respect to this project. The DIED grant program is available to cities and other local governmental entities for clean up of contamination on sites that are planned for redevelopment. A grant application must be submitted and approved by DTED. The DTED grant would be used to pay for a portion of remediating a soil contamination problem and possible removal of asbestos in the existing building. The amount of the grant is not known at the present time. The question is whether the DTED funds, if received, would be sufficient to trigger the prevailing wage statute. There are no appellate court decisions directly addressing the issue of whether a grant program such as the one involved in this case constitutes state financing for purposes of the Prevailing Wage Act. In NewMech Companies, Inc. v. Independent School District No. 206 540 N.W.2d 801 (1995), the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that the term "financed" as used in the Prevailing Wage Act contemplates a direct relationship between the funding and the project. This direct relationship exists if the state funds are available at the time of construction to directly pay a portion of the cost of the project. Id . at 804. State highway funds are an example of state funding that triggers the Prevailing Wage Act requirement. Faribault County v. MnDOT 472 NW2d 166 (Minn. App. 1991). In my opinion, the DTED grant is state financing within the meaning of the Prevailing Wage Act because the proceeds from the grant would be used to fund a portion of the project costs. If those funds are going to be available at any time during the construction of the project, the Prevailing Wage Act requirements must be met. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. JJT- 211693v1 SH155 -117 . (7 F-6 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Prevailing Wage — Item 18.F.6. DATE: March 19, 2002 In view of the opinion by the City Attorney regarding State funding and the need to specify prevailing wages in the Library contract, our recommendation is that the prevailing wage language remain in the contract specifications. This will also give us the most flexibility in dealing with potential State assistance on contamination cleanup. Therefore, if something that the Council would wish to consider adding to the "Consent" agenda, it could do so at the appropriate time. Mark McNeill City Administrator MMAh CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Appointments to Telecommunications Advisory Commission DATE: March 15, 2002 INTRODUCTION: Attached for Council consideration is Resolution No. 5676, appointing members to the new Telecommunications Advisory Commission. After Council has determined the successful candidates by voting, this resolution should be adopted. r BACKGROUND: The City has advertised for and received applications from six eligible candidates for the newly formed Telecommunications Advisory Commission. Applications have been received from: Benjamine Adams, Bill Anderson, Michael Guncheon, Stephen Guzzetta, Ken Jaus, and Dan Vroman. It has been the practice of the City Council to nominate all candidates to the positions that they have applied for. City Council will need to nominate candidates. The interview panel (consisting of Councilors Joos and Lehman and the City Administrator) will be interviewing the candidates on Monday, March 18 Their recommendations will be on the Council table Tuesday night. Because there are more candidates than there are positions, it will be necessary for City Council to vote on the candidates prior to adopting the resolution making appointments, pursuant to the "Guidelines for Appointments and Operations ". After it has been determined who the candidates are that have received the majority votes, their names should be inserted into Resolution No. 5676. DETERMINING SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES: According to Resolution No. 2206, if there is more than one person nominated for an opening, the City Clerk shall distribute paper upon which each Council member shall write his preference for the appointment to the opening and sign their name. Then the Mayor shall open the paper ballots and announce how the votes were cast. If the person receiving the most votes does not have a majority vote of the Council members present, then there shall be a second paper vote between the top two candidates. If the vote is a tie between the top two candidates, there shall then be an additional paper vote between the top two candidates. After a candidate has received a majority vote on a paper ballot, the Mayor shall announce his or her name and the fact that he or she has a majority vote. All ballots shall be turned over to the City Clerk for proper filing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Nominate candidates to the Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2. Complete 1 st ballot and give to City Clerk at the meeting prior to roll call 3. Conduct additional ballots as needed. 4. Insert the names of the top vote getters into Resolution No. 5676 5. Offer Resolution No. 5676 and move its adoption WHEREAS, on February 19, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5655, A Resolution Establishing the Shakopee Telecommunications Advisory Commission; and WHEREAS, the Commission will have five members whose terms of office shall be three years. The initial terms of office shall be established to provide for staggered terms, one term ending 2003, two terms ending 2004 and two terms ending in 2005, or until the successors are appointed and qualified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the following persons are hereby appointed to the Shakopee Telecommunications Advisory Commission for terms of office as follows: 1 _ for a one -year term expiring on February 28, 2003. 2 and for a two -year term expiring February 28, 2004. 3 and for a three -year term expiring February 28, 2005. Adopted in adj. regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 19 day of March, 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk M 05 -12002 16:1 :••1 r 1 1 • Name g-" Address.. 952 445 6718 P.10 Phone:(H) _ _ _ _ - How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? S I ' r' e - , 1 Occupation: a Place of Employment: (tS lcc ' { lk s i cyn , Does your work require you to travel? (Check one) A great deal Periodically Very Kittle None Do you have any special interests or training, WME you Teet a parETUTT-WITTIM or 775-1-MITS710 c ould use? ( Use a separate sheet n ecessary) A ll Board or Commission in which you are interested? (if more than one, please indicate order of preference) t e- c2> rY r-s H Y\ \ c '�-1 =x, Coed M\ L Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are su bmitt i ng a ppli c a t i on : l I' M Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive persona.1 g 44 whether it be direct or indirect. MAR -05 -2002 16:34 952 445 6718 P.10 CITY OF • " AppLICXTION FOR COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COMMISSIONS Name: 1 ` (� A t j Q e/ S 0 J � ) Address: Phone:(H) How long have you been a Shakopee Resident ?, Occupation: Place of Employment: Does your work require you to travel? (Check one) A great deal Periodically Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training, which you feel a particular board or commission could use? (Use a separate sheet if necessary) Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) 1�aCa kvi� Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: Conflict of interest is defined as the participation have the Potential ' to personal gain, decision from which the individual has or cool whether it be direct or indirect. CITY OF S HAKOP EE APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL A DVISOR Y BOAR AND/OR CONBU Name: Address: Phone: (H) — How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? +- o�+sJ "-�L °"'"'� -� QL�•oaa Z Yas. Occupation: J`vea Place of Employment: Does your work require you to travel? (Check one) A great deal Periodically 1 / / Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training, which you feel a particular board or commission could use? (Use a separate sheet if necessary) Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) ' YELEC-r; MVN rcq.'rc o1J �-`! CID M-^ti ° SS�o f') Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: 6p . sEF'a -2A-r d� ' Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or indirect. CITY OF SHAK �• 1 1 �' Name: heel Address: — Phone:(H) - - How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? i v►cnS Occupation: � Place of Employment: Does your work require you to travel? (Check one) A great deal )� Periodically Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training, which you feel a particular board or commission could use? (Use a separ sheet if necessary) %c..f 1Z ✓�) � Board or Commission in which you are interested? (if more than one, please indicate order of preference) Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: 'n✓t t-- vW� ��i !iy 5 G--�� Ccvtu. , wt C ��j�ctic.�/ � e``" � action, or Conflict of interest is deed as the particip have the potential to c rec 1 eve personal gain, decision from which the individual has whether it be direct or indirect. 1 CITY OF S APPLICATION FOR COUNCIIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COMMISSIONS Name: ,�� S Address: - - •,,- . How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? Occupation Place of Employment: X9% 3 Does your work require you to travel? (Check one) A great deal Periodically Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training, which you feel a particular board or commission could use? (Use a separate sheet if necessary) Board or Commission in which you are interested? (if more than one, please indicate order of preference) Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or indirect. crry OF • i' ADVISO i 1 1 i' i 1 1 i, Name: � "!�G V �dl� Address: _ -- Phone:(M_..,._ � ® f l• S How long have you been a Shakopee Resident. � 2 s/� Place of Employment: r _ Tnc- Does your work require you to travel? (Check one) A great deal Periodically Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training, which you feel a particular board or commission could use? (Use a separate sheet if ne Ce"rr C� CG 4lc d r -�- �orxf� /IYfrl•cs� r/ti ldG� - ��Q��'`�"�c+r+rc•�dn -T �SSGe.,s'. M r tStun . Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) ---- - - r pD�h C� •F Rtc D cj& si Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: fi e �� C1� GP �G�S COrtMiS'S!a/i. Cc�cc3<— VA CtY> C� �2 Cry S a � �+aCco�+ or Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, n, decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or indirect. PLEASE VOTE PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND GIVE TO CITY CLERK BEFORE ON March 19,2002 BALLOT FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMISSION Vote for five (5) Benjamin Adams Bill Anderson* Michael Guncheon Stephen Guzzetta ; Ken Jaus* Dan Vroman* *Most recently served on the Cable Communications Advisory Commission and/or the Community Access Corporation Council member s ! RESOLUTION NO. 5663 APPROVING 2002 MINNESOTA LAWS, CH. 226, RELATING TO THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCREASING ITS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FROM THREE TO FIVE MEMBERS BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota (the "City ") as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that: (a) 2002 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 226 (the "Special Law ") authorized increasing the public utilities commission of the City of Shakopee from three to five members, subject to certain conditions; (b) the Special Law is effective the day after approval by a majority vote of the City Council and filing a certificate with the Secretary of State, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 645.021, subdivisions 2 and 3; and (c) the City Council has determined that is in the best interest of the City and its residents to approve the Special Law. 2. The Special Law is hereby approved in all respects. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file with the Secretary of State a certified copy of this resolution and the appropriate certificate in the form prescribed by the state attorney general. 4. City staff are authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement the Special Law. Adopted in adjourned regular session held this 19th day of March, 2002. William P. Mars, Mayor ATTEST: City Cleric CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: SPUC Commission Size - Advertisement DATE: March 13, 2002 The Council is asked to authorize staff to advertise for candidates to serve on the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, as the size of the Commission has been authorized to be increased from three, to five members. A On September 7 Governor Ventura signed into law legislation that increases the size of the Public Utilities Commission of the City of Shakopee from three, to five members. A copy of HF -2624 is attached, which details the specifics. As shown, the first appointee of the fourth seat has an initial term expiring April 1, 2004; the appointee for the fifth seat will have a two -year term, expiring April 1, 2005. Mark Miller was just reappointed to a seat which will expire April 1, 2005. He was the only applicant for the SPUC vacancy; our recommendation would be that notice be advertised of the two vacancies, and candidates sought. Interviews can be conducted, with appointments then to be made by the Council in April. We recommend that advertisements be made for the vacancies, and that Council appoint an interview panel to conduct those interviews. Previously, Councilors Joos and Lehman were appointed to an interview panel, along with the City Administrator. Due to illness, the Assistant to the City Administrator needed to substitute for Councilor Joos. 1 ' 1 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct that advertisements be made of the current two vacancies on the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and that an interview panel be appointed. L, 'C'a Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th H.F No. 2624, as introduced Page 1 of 1 Legislature Home I Search I Help f Links to the World Minnesota Ouse of Representatives KEY: = old language to be removed underscored = new language to be added NOTE: If you cannot see any difference in the key above, you need to change the display of stricken and/or underscored language. Authors and Status E List versions X No. 2624, as introduced: 82nd Legislative Session (2001 -2002) Posted on Jan 29, 2002 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to the city of Shakopee; increasing its 1.3 public utilities commission from three to five members. 1.4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.5 Section 1. [SHAKOPEE UTILITIES COMMISSION INCREASED TO 1.6 FIVE MEMBERS.] 1.7 (a) Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, sectio 412.331 1.8 and 412.341, subdivision 1: 1.9 (1) the public utilities commission of the city o Shakopee 1.10 is increased from three to five members; 1.11 (2) the additional members have three -year terms except 1.12 that the first appointee to the fourth seat has an initial term 1.13 expiring April 1, 2004 and the first appointee to th fifth 1.14 seat has an initial term expiring April 1, 20 05; and 1.15 (3) no more than one city council member may s erve on the 1.16 commission at any time. 1.17 (b) The provisions of sections 412.331 to 412. that do 1.18 not conflict with paragraph (a) apply to the addit members 1.19 to the same extent that they apply to the other memb of the 1.20 commission. 1.21 Sec. 2. [EFFECTIVE DATE; LOCAL APPROVAL.] 1.22 Section 1 is effective the day after the governing body of 1.23 the city of Shakopee and its chief clerical office timely 1.24 complete their compliance with Minnesota Statu sect 2.1 645.021, subdivisions 2 and 3. http: / /www. revisor. leg. state.mn.uslcgi- binlgetbill.pl? session =1s82 &version = latest &number =F... 3/13/02 A I CITY OF SAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Goal Setting Follow -up — Meeting Change DATE: March 14, 2002 The Council is asked to reschedule its second goal setting meeting, originally set for April 23 rd BACKGROUND: On March 12 the City Council met in a special meeting to discuss and establish goals for the City of Shakopee. Because additional discussion is needed, a follow -up date to discuss medium and long -term goals was set for 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 23' . Unfortunately, that date conflicts with the Shakopee Showcase, which is scheduled to take place from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. that same day. Council has two options: 1. Keep the existing date, but adjourn by 5:30 p.m. so as to give sufficient time to travel to the showcase. 2. Find a different date for the goal setting session. Because the first alternative will not provide adequate time, the Council should establish an alternate meeting date. Because of the conflict with Council Sweeney's work schedule, it was desired that a meeting date be set after April 15 Calendars for April and May are attached. The Council should, by motion, establish an alternate date in which to hold a goal setting session. Mark McNeill City Administrator OHM _ r f e aR* ® § � F- ^ -.. ° .. R Ln _w o F- < e ., =n = _ \ - =e E E E E » 3 3 12 C 7 k } } E E / ƒ a & m S % \ . Ln 0 \ 2 ƒ / )@ Ln 2 \ 2E ƒ 2E \E a // =3 / ( a « ^ f ®f o ru cn \ s — G ƒ \ 0 k § 3 / e 2 » ` f @ O 6 E C / C g ] / $ rl _ ® @ k / . < n _ = E s \/ ® /2 ƒ u� k } »\ } E 2 E .. » I g cw / §a \ _ . 2 r r-4 a a \ . _ C H r ,-•{ r ' - -q +-.-i fN N. C d n {n .- �OInNO Ln ~ N O O � � C N {n NO�tD'+10 O T ra < LL m U � E F- NOf t .�iN O M : u N ° O O 00 f ~ ^. NN N O 0 y V1 to �.OiiN i cc > fu C U E 00 r-i CO. U5. N ry. f9 � CO O v 4b a rU c (9 O d Ln • C N N '� E ru E C o E ¢ m o E O E j U — C C O U W U a o 0 M O O �p 00 I, NN � CN N N C — O co is — 13) Z' Cn U cu c N = 'a C ol N U U U Y N U u u W u U d � fl- E E p O O cn t0 r4 N d +--( C N 3 0 c cm c' n a N N E c6 _O ra ru Q c O U > Y -27 C a can C3 a E E E CL • CD p O O LA �j CO I, C H . F. Iw CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinato Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Vision Shakopee Downtown Partnership request regarding downtown hanging flower baskets MEETING DATE: March 19, 2002 Introduction & Background: The Vision Shakopee Downtown Partnership (VSDP), through its Design Committee / Flower Basket Task Force has been working for the last month in planning a program for hanging flower baskets from downtown lampposts during the growing season (spring, summer, early fall). The task force is comprised of nine volunteers, and has researched other downtown hanging flower basket programs in Red Wing, Osseo, Maple Grove, Excelsior, and Burnsville, including: • Funding (flowers, baskets, brackets, equipment, labor) • Placement of baskets and brackets • Type of baskets and brackets (size, material, etc.) • Maintenance/Watering (who does it, method, frequency, etc.) Duane Wermerskirchen, board member of VSDP will be at the meeting to provide information and answer questions. Discussion In recent years, the City has improved the downtown streetscape and the design of downtown in general through various initiatives. As you recall, the River City Centre redevelopment project (a.k.a. Blocks 3 &4), in which the City partnered with the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, had its own design committee. The City, HRA and downtown businesses recognized the importance for the design of River City Centre to reflect and compliment the late 1800s architecture of downtown. Also, before the River City Centre redevelopment, the City implemented a major streetscape improvement program including pedestrian -scale street lighting, benches (that are currently being refurbished), trash receptacles, planters, brick sidewalk enhancements, etc. The Vision Shakopee Downtown Partnership proposes to partner with the City in a downtown hanging flower basket program as done in other cities as cited above. VSDP proposes the following: VSDP will provide: • 100 brackets for the baskets • 75 — 80 flower baskets • 16" high - quality floral arrangements • Watering tank and pump to be used by the City • Total cost of brackets, baskets, floral arrangements and equipment $6,000 The City would provide: • Labor for watering the baskets (the City already waters the planters located on the sidewalks throughout downtown): $5,500 annually • Small utility vehicle; 6x4 Cushman or John Deere six -wheel gator. Initial cost: $8,167. Through a re- purchase agreement: $1,500. • Annual total labor and equipment cost is approximately $7,000 using the re- purchase agreement for the utility vehicle. Budget Impact The initial cost of the watering program using Public Works labor and equipment is estimated at $14,000. Using the re- purchase agreement for the utility vehicle would bring the labor and equipment cost to approximately $7,000 annually. See the attached memo from Public Works Supervisor Mike Hullander. Options Participate in the proposed downtown hanging flower basket program by agreeing to supply the labor and equipment (utility vehicle) for watering the flower baskets at a cost not to exceed $14,000, with the understanding that the Vision Shakopee Downtown Partnership will fund and supply the brackets, baskets, floral arrangements, water tank, and pump. 2. Do not participate in the proposed downtown hanging flower basket program. 3. Table this item for additional information. Action Requested Offer and pass a motion consistent with the Council's preferred direction. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director Paul Snook, Economic Development Director FROM: Michael Hullander, Public Works Supervisor SUBJECT: Budget Impact for Downtown Hanging Flower Baskets DATE: March 19, 2002 Budget Im p act Labor and Equi pment: Labor: Due to the difficulty in obtaining seasonal employees early in the season and retaining them for September and October, Public Works full -time employees will be needed to water the baskets for approximately 40 days with seasonal employees maintaining the baskets for 75 days. The cost of watering the hanging baskets 5 days a week from mid -May to mid - October would be approximately $5,500.00 annually. Equipment: The Public Works Department has not budgeted for the watering equipment to make the process efficient. In order to use one employee for watering, staff would need to purchase a small 6x4 utility vehicle such as a Cushman or John Deere gator. Staff would also need to purchase a 100 gallon watering tank with pump. The Downtown Committee is willing to purchase the tank and pump which should cost $500.00 or less. The Public Works Department would need to purchase the utility vehicle. This vehicle can be purchased using State contract bid pricing for $8,167.22. Siemon Implement, Inc. is willing to enter into a re- purchase agreement with the City for $1,500.00 up to 350 hours, and $5.00 per hour over 350 hours. The initial cost of setting up this watering program for one year using Public Works labor and equipment would be approximately $14,000.00. Using the re- purchase agreement for the utility vehicle would bring the labor and equipment cost for watering the hanging baskets to approximately $7,000.00 annually. These costs will change with additional baskets in the future and annual labor rate increases. �' � ems .�^��r,. -✓ �� Michael Hullander Public Works Supervisor MH/pmp FLOWERBASKETS 6X4 Gazot UV.ay WhTGl9 F. and 3,!�a at'�Irte Total Delivered PrIce: " bjee- ta P"ce> r-, us $8,167.22 exmndaej ',Mr 1 4. 2a72 10:4 Am CST ,sigh: cN� Ott ate 6"M C041figured lFeatums - Required P age I of BASE MACHINE PRONG SUMMAR"V 1931w 6"44 Gawr UtHty Vehiols $10,n45k.0 'TIRES AND WiEELS $0,00 Fee t 1002 HeWjYOutY All - Purpose ; DAP} Tires nett p Derive y configured Featum - Opbanal Solo Power Lift Kit (Cargo Box Trade S020 Front Bumper 8 Ey.-enc6d WattarNl SOX U98 47 9030 Eedffcer for Steel Sox - Total OeJNered Price' 9040 PeaT Hitch PRICING SUMMAFVY 9060 L�ght and Horn 2110 Front 5P. Guard cusTOMER INFORMAT6Qk F"St Name NOTE: Requires BN117S49 Front BuMPA-T. Last Nsfre Phcne Nn configured Features - Emv', Qty Code Description Eyp"istor i SW 8988 Rubber Fioorrrizt ❑shvev to Addr°Fs v5-A� 7 DE ALE' , I i r % , F 0 FZMA7)O N Safes Person: phc,rie oq:) 9528732224 E rna " Addra3;' SSENION WRLEMENT, iW� 10935 OL.!: �HVV`l 16 SLVO BE-LE RL4NE h9h1, b601 US ov"r z cur 74 e ) e- - der- 3114'2f'302 -0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Closed Meeting — Labor Negotiations DATE: March 13, 2002 Following the regular portion of the City Council meeting on March 19 the Council will be asked to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiation strategy. The staff will present information and initial proposals by the Police Patrol bargaining unit. A motion to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiation strategy is recommended. IWO V� Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Hall Roof Added Repairs DATE: March 19, 2002 Work began on the replacement of the City Hall roof last week. On Monday (March 18), I was shown metal decking after the build up roof had been removed over the east (parking lot) entrance. This is an area that has been the scene of much leakage. Similar to a portion of the Public Works garage, the metal decking has rusted; unfortunately, it is even more severe than the area Public Works that needed to be replaced — in several locations, it has rusted completely through. The roofer has been instructed to temporarily cover that portion of the deck, and provide an estimate for removing and replacing the deteriorated deck material. My guess is, based upon the amount of material that had to be replaced at Public Works, is that this will be in the $5,000 to $6,000 range. The repair methods will also need to be reviewed and approved by a structural engineer. In answer to a question that I have already been asked, it would be impractical to have requested a lump sum bid to completely replace the roof, with no "add -ons ". Without removing the existing built up material, and knowing what is underneath, it is only a guess as to what the condition of the substructure might be. If asked for a "lump sum, not to exceed" amount, bidders would bid high to cover themselves against the unforeseen, or would not bid at all. Only two bids were received on this project. Obviously, change orders for unforeseen things on new construction are much more unlikely. I will have the proposal that will be incorporated into a change order within the next few days, but in order for the project to proceed, I will need to give the "go ahead" soon if the proposal is a reasonable amount. Please contact me if you have any questions. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th MAR-IS-02 14=48 FROM : SCHW I CKERT INC ID:SO73974688 PAGE sales ® design ® installation ® service Mark H. McNeill R City Administrator Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN- 55379 * i temporary roof and insulation over e)dsting steel deck * R ernove temporary roof and insulation * Remove and replace 512SF of e)&dn,,- deteriorated steel decking with 2-0 gauge dec-ldng * R emove d an d t to a certified landfiU The net payable suM for the above -rcic�rence scope 0111 7-7 "Ll M- T 7 "Fi Th ousan d Three Hundred and no/I 00 Dollars ($5,300.00) F-MPTOYER 0 AA V, I ! CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Planning Commission/City Council Tour — Monday, March 26 DATE: March 19, 2002 The Planning staff has put together a tour of residential developments in both Shakopee and Chaska next Monday afternoon. Depending on the number of interested parties from the Planning Commission and City Council, a bus will leave at 4:30 from City Hall. Given the amount of daylight this time of year, we expect the tour to be completed by 6:15. This is being posted as a public meeting, in case there is a quorum present. Please advise either Michael Leek or I if you are planning to attend. Mark McNeill City Administrator MMAh 1/1 10 The tour of residential developments with the Planning Commission and City Council, as discussed, is planned for Monday, March 25 at 4:30pm. Developments to be toured: * Stratford Village ® Classics at Southbridge * Brittany Village * Dublin Square ® The Ridge Townhomes (off Hwy. 41 in Chaska) * Clover Field (off Hundertmark Road and Victoria Drive in Chaska)