No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 16, 2002 TENTATIVE AGENDA April 16, 2002 page —2- 151 General Business: A] Police and Fire *1 Authorization for Repairs —Station 50 (Downtown Fire Station) B] Parks and Recreation C] C ommunity Development 1. Approve the 1999 Comprehensive Plan n ISTS Plan es. No. 5692 2. Westridge Lake Estates Thir d *3. Deny Text Amendment to Allow Communi Towers with 5680 Conditional Use Permit in the Agricultural Preservation Zone D] Pu blic Works and Engineering * 1. Traffic Control Signal Agreement with MnDOT l Reimbursement Agreement with Southb &Scott County g R Crosongs 96 Z. Traffic Control Signa *3. Request Waiver of Hourly Construction RorspublicnWorks SAH 83 /CR 16 Project *4. Purchase of Self - Propelled Paint Striper f *5. Right -of -Way Agreement with U.S. Homes on the Valley View Road Project *6. Accepting Work on 2000 Reconstruction Project 2000 -4 — Res. No. 5695 E] Personnel F] General Administration 1. Establishing New Precinct Boundaries *2. Establishing Fees by Ordinance - Ordinance No. 627 *3. Amending City Code to Increase Membership on Shakopee Public Utilities Commission — Ord. 628 *4. Setting Date for Liquor Violation Hearings *5. Billing Basis for Residential Sewer Bills *6. Amending Small Cities Development Program Policies and Procedures Res. No. 5693 7. Pass Through Purchase /Sale of MnD® 8. Boards and Commissions Candidate Interview Process — Res. No. 5697 16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 18] Adjourn to Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. ADJ. SHAKOPEE, 11 00 Mayor Mars called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with Council Members Link, Lehman, Sweeney, and Joos present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director and Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator. Sweeney/Lehman moved to approve the Agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, addressed the goal setting session for this "new" City Council. Mr. McNeill stated that the last goal setting session was done in 1998; with three new members on the Council now he felt it appropriate to discuss goals and objectives again. At the last goals setting session 4 years ago twenty -five brainstorming ideas came forward; from that list of twenty -five ideas 5 -6 ideas were chosen to work on for goals. In order to stimulate discussion on goals, Mr. McNeill revisited some of those twenty -five brainstorming ideas. There were ideas for short term, medium term and long -term goals (beyond five years). Mayor Mars felt it was a good idea to have goals for the City Council. Some short term goal ideas of each Council member were: put into affect a financial plan to offset any state aid cuts, increase citizen involvement, enforcement of City cleanup, orderly annexation plan, overall MUSA plan, build Library and Police Station and make a good effort to redo Public Works building, work on Huber Park to get it above flood stage and put in a band shell, maintain financial integrity of the City, affordable housing variances built into zoning code, extension of state trail along Mill Pond Road with connection to state trail in that area, annexation agreement, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community negotiations, Public Works infrastructure and infrastructure on Valley View Road and Vierling Drive, build community play ground, finish pedestrian bridges. These goals were discussed and consolidated down to: maintain fiscal integrity incorporating a plan for dealing with state aid cuts, necessary infrastructure for City services (Police Station, Library and Public Works), continue to promote citizen involvement, enforcement of City Code, promote affordable housing and park trails, negotiate with Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC), build Vierling Drive and a community play ground, an updated extended MUSA plan, fill in Huber Park if permitted and continue working on the pedestrian bridges. There was a consensus by the City Council on these short to mid term goals. These are broad based goals now but the Council will come back at a future time and define within a goal specifically what the goal was proposed to do. There was discussion on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as to how and when these goals would be funded. There was also discussion on Code enforcement and an extended MUSA sewer plan. The Council decided that code enforcement was crucial and that there should be a plan for a MUSA/Sewer Developmental Plan. The filling in of Huber Park was felt to be an inexpensive item for the City. Cncl. Joos wanted the City to decide how affordable housing should be incorporated Official Proceeding of the Shakopee City Council March 12, 2002 Page -2- into the City. Cncl. Joos proposed that a group be formed to study the affordable housing and barriers to this problem and to try and come up with a solution for affordable housing. It was noted that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) directed further negotiations between the City and the SMSC. Cncl. Sweeney would like to see a plan of what is needed to be negotiated with the SMSC and have a copy of that plan sent to the BIA. Mr. Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director, approached the podium and stated that he thought the City was restricted from adding more fill into Huber Park. Mayor Mars requested that this meeting be continued to April 23, 2002 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to continue to set longer range goals for the City of Shakopee. Sweeney/Lehman moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Judith S. Cox t City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary CITE' OF S OE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List " COVSEOT DATE: April 11, 2002 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2002 based on data entered as of 4/11/2002. 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 $170,382.27. The actual net expense amount is $470,129.32. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $640.511.59. y 0 0 N � O m m C LL O N m M m R O w N m w O_ O w n N w N C n w M N M M n w N n m O m e tO N r O tO tO m o m O v M N w O w N w O tO m M n V O to to to N w to n Q) O cc n `7 N N c� n m a M - w M an- tom-- O tO r n N N O 1- w r O w m M O N M O w 'cf' N m m n O m tO to N m N w C N n w C1 m m m C O w� N m C M tO M M N C N m m w N r m m m n m M m N m ID M ID n N w tO w O 0 N M w tO N r w N O N N M N m m Lu O E U p LLO U } T M L = C O O m a 0J O LL (D O � v O U C m L C W C O � m co n C U m Q 0 O m co 7 U O N m M m R O w N m w O_ O w n N w N C n w M N M M n w N n m O m e tO N r O tO tO m o m O v M N w O w N w O tO m M n V O to to to N w to n Q) O cc n `7 N N c� n m a M - w M an- tom-- O tO r n N N O 1- w r O w m M O N M O w 'cf' N m m n O m tO to N m N w C N n w C1 m m m C O w� N m C M tO M M N C N m m w N r m m m n m M m N m ID M ID n N w tO w O 0 N M w tO N r w N O N N M N m m n m n n O 0 M tO O M O O m O w 0 0 n n t� n co n «) m 0 O m co t) w m r-_ N w m n CD n W n O n m O o w n O tO m O N O w V Cl) Cl) Cl m V' m m P. O Cl) t0 w - O CO to O w Q r to O CO M CO r M W m O C w C Lo n M m O "t V M r M M m n lO O n tO O N O N_ N N c7 _ m K V M M m O Z w N N N M N N N N N N W W p a 0 CL O L Z O m u) n w O N w C O O <t Z m q M 07 I� lO N N w m n m m n N � tO ~ c� z n N O m n w C o w N co M O m O n o m V m m O M C n m m w m M V O w m n ID C In co to m c m o tO O r U O N m O N m V CC v N CO CO m M m C n M V co m Q O C v O O tO m to O O C N to N to M N w R LO n ID M : m 00 U U LL J O N W fq m LL ID 00 CL W co ID r a � � r � M c cM+7 N C 7 V V w C O m O O N m M m R O w N m w O_ O w n N w N C n w M N M M n w N n m O m e tO N r O tO tO m o m O v M N w O w N w O tO m M n V O to to to N w to n Q) O cc n `7 N N c� n m a M - w M an- tom-- O tO r n N N O 1- w r O w m M O N M O w 'cf' N m m n O m tO to N m N w C N n w C1 m m m C O w� N m C M tO M M N C N m m w N r m m m n m M m N m ID M ID n N w tO w O 0 N M w tO N r w N O N N M N O O co M m ca Q O O n n' X c W n n �f R co w N N U O LO LD m m ID st r O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 O O o O o o o 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N w �0-- O O n C O tO m O N O w V Cl) Cl) Cl m V' m m P. O Cl) t0 w - O CO to O w LO r to O CO M CO r M W m O C w C Lo n M m O t w m m r w M 3 m N r C c _ o Z w ID C7 O O O co M m ca Q O O n n' X c W n n �f R co w N N U O LO LD m m ID st r M t0 n M w n M m N p G tO O tf) O N } m co ID n n n CD ° o 0 0 O C O . U O t n n o w N co z Z W EL 0 w W p H Z to Z O F- U o v N 0 O w CD n ca Q C � Cl) Cl) [1 N N W N N CD O O U C M M m A co n n M M CO w U O w C co M (C ID Cl! N m � L t7 C? C C p g m C C> t U L M M O � m 3 C U C Q 7 U 0 0 0 0 0 n n w cc C) Cl) N N C 'O C � Q ID 0 0 0 w CO O m V 0 0 0 w w CD m Cn p qLL n CD L O LL o LL o z O LLI LLJ LLI Q U W ID CD o n o co O z p U` J � _ o Z w ID C7 O Z W p a 0 CL O L Z a z w n - w p W Z W Q U p w O p L � F ID p � ID ID ~ c� z z p LL O T C o y Z O Q d Z Z Q w F- w F J J y otf _Z `L W W 0 Z J p W Q U ID O LL, z O Q U U z J Q W U U W W W z 0 z p LL W (.7 } >- > Q Q O W z w CL- L11 of a O Y J W Q CD O LO a 00 U U LL J O LL LL W fq m LL ID 00 CL W o r r a � � r � M c cM+7 N C 7 V V w C O m O 0 C O . U O t n n o w N co z Z W EL 0 w W p H Z to Z O F- U o v N 0 O w CD n ca Q C � Cl) Cl) [1 N N W N N CD O O U C M M m A co n n M M CO w U O w C co M (C ID Cl! N m � L t7 C? C C p g m C C> t U L M M O � m 3 C U C Q 7 U 0 0 0 0 0 n n w cc C) Cl) N N C 'O C � Q ID 0 0 0 w CO O m V 0 0 0 w w CD m Cn p qLL n CD L O LL o LL o z O LLI LLJ LLI Q U W ID CD o n o 0 r CD 0 0 N � O N c c d W ro W w IL - 5 O Q r = U U L LL O O - U c 3 U L j 0 0 0 O N N U O J N O v ❑ z w w w w D x m m m z O F O O O O LL Y ,_L Y Y 1' 1c F" r w F F F F r ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ 0 w CJ U O O Z z z z Z w Z z ❑ O w ❑ ❑ p ❑ ❑ 7 ❑ O ❑ L LL LL ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ O O ❑ p ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LL Z Z Z z Z z Z z z Z Z z z Z ❑ 5 w W W n❑ O❑ O 7 Z Z z>> z 7� n pj d z z c O LL m m m LL O W O O O LL LL LL O 0 0 LL LL O LL LL LL LL _ LL g 0 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O �wX ¢WWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwzw�www1ww wwwwwww g W LL LL w m w g g w w w Of of a w w m w w w w w m w w w w w w w w w w w z Z of w Z z z z z U U O z z U z z z z z a U z z z z z Q z z z z z z O W W W w w W w W W w w W W w W W }- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } O U fn fn U N m (n !A fn fA (A [A (n m cA (n J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 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 } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } a as aa a a a a n a as U N m ca co (A F- fn (4 co U) U U co O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r co z r ❑ z Z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 2 W r m } Cl) W m CO } a r z D O U L) U W Li J J fr z w ¢ w m m (1) J z a W Q LL V O F g p = d U of LL C cn cn Z g Z Q F}- a O m❑ z a O a W a O~ O U) w U. 00 Z F F -j - t O O �p w O w W C7 w O r a o o O z W o¢ ¢ LL r z Q ¢❑ O> Q m z U cf- F ` ' �' D x o¢ w ER o m x Q> w m Q W w J J Z O W U= a w o °a m❑❑� > U ❑ Z 0 w U) > N Q Q ¢ Q ¢ W w w W W W w W W W W W W w W W w W W W r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r F- m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } 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 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } a m m m a a a a a a a a a a ¢ a a a a a m r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r F- r r F- r z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W U U U U U o U o 0 o v U v U o o 0 0 0 U m o U U o Q ¢ Q Q Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a Q ¢ ¢ z a Z lW LL C) U Z a w m F U U °a =❑ UOZ °❑Z Uw °w = Z U Q cn U Z m W Y a U O m Q O U w ❑ 0= U❑ z Y Y O a 0 a ❑ n z x W U ¢ Q W Y U U M Y m = J J W J LU Q U O Q Q a co Z F F w w? O m n CZ Z O p W 3-� 2 O z p LUl Df o w z o w O r U W z w U a= Y¢ U LU J >->- r F Q Q z z 2 z a m �? o 0 o o o O z¢¢¢_= z o ¢ Q¢¢ m m m m m m m m m U o U U U U U U CO O O O O n N M M o 0 R LO M m Ln R 0 O M n R Ln M N N Ln O M 0 O V 0 O 0 n O M O W C N M Ln O O O V (0 O O O n Ln M M Cl! O N Q Ln O O LO Cq C) r ' Ln O er n O n W V O Ln ' M Ln LO M n 01 O 4 N o Ln m r� N O m R LC) ' � to = O m n N Cn w n N m O M m N N N t-- o Ln m O V = W O N m O O V M CO to w O V M O m lm V M m O m V O n r O N T LO O N O N Ln to O E l o 3n m w m o M M Ln o v M N w .- N m e .- M N n ro m <! W V M M [t — et N CO C7 06 M t0 N N N N U W Y tC) Y N M C Ln O n CO O O N CD O N M R M m n W m O N M V 10 O n O Q) O N to N N N N N N N N N N N M n r n n n t� r 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 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 O O O O N � O m O r � v IL w � W y a rn C) Y � Q U x m L O v U T C O O O N N O J w ❑ Y U, Y M V tCJ (O r CD 01 O iD O r O O O N M a O O r CO O O N M y W a O CD 01 Q1 N M d r r r r r n r m m m o 0 n r- u- r n �n �n w co m m m co co co cc m m r r= r d r r r r r r r r n r n r r r r r r r n r n n r r n r r r r n r r r r r n r r n r n L N N N N N N N N Cl 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 r r r n r r 1,_ r r r r r r n r r r r r r r r r r r r r r n n r r r n n r n r n n n ❑ ❑ z z LL LL LL LL Z z Z W ❑ O ❑ ❑❑ ❑ W ❑ ❑ Z z Z Z D ❑ ❑ O ❑ LL ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LL ❑ O ❑ O O ❑ ❑ O ❑ O ❑ =) LL LL LL ❑ ❑ LL O ❑ Z z D D D D 7 Z LL U_ LL 7 LL . 'C Z Z O O LL LL LL LL LL Z Z Z Z Z 7 D Z d M m>> O O O O O LL LL O LL LL LL LL > N� LL 1L u. O LL O t LL tx t O Q LL L L LL LL LL _ ❑ F= F= J J J J F- H F F- F- J Q J Q Q Q Q Q LL Q LL Q Z� � I � W R 2 2 R R 2� Q: m W w J w F W , J� w K w w }_ w W W w Q: In w � Z Z U z z Z z Z U Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0.. Z w w <..� U U U U z Z U m Z z Z z w❑ Q Z Z Z Z U w 5 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w C7 N U U w w w w w w w w W a W w w w w w w w w a w w w C7 C7 C7 C7 w C7 m O O O x F- C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C� m C7 t7 C7 O m m w U m m w m O O U W C 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 N Cl) c o w N VJ � W � W � U) U) U) W (n O O N fo V7 Co (o fo fA CO Cl fo d7 fo (D fo fn !A W W W fo . � N O . . . i . . . . . . I W i . . 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 a W w W W w w m m W W m m W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a a a a a a a a a¢¢ a¢ a a¢ m W m¢ ¢ 4 U } }} o m m Q¢¢ a a a a a¢ a a a a¢ a a¢ a¢¢ Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 4 Q Q Q Q w¢ a a a¢ Q Q Q ¢ Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a LL a LL CL LL a a LL a LL a a LL a a m a d a CL LL LL a a a LL a a a a LL a a a a a a LL LL F W W N t H F r r r r t F t i z t r i z z z z z m t m- F F t r- t 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 0 ❑ z z z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U w U U w U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U a a¢ U U a a a a¢ a a a a ¢ a¢¢ ¢¢¢ a a a ci ¢ U a a a¢¢ a a a a a a a a¢ a¢¢ z U Z U Z U U 0 ❑ Z z U w ?? U d K d Z Q W x > OU W < J U w w z W Z w N Z w ❑ W o ❑ Z W > O Lij W O W= w w w O Y -� C7 W W J O Z O > z R of a W Z U W Z �- z J W U F- W¢ W Z w U LL z O w CO m(r W Q O U U w J W w U LL ' Q 2 Q K?❑ O W ,,0 CO =❑ p J C �, a LL V m = w W J w 0 U V U a w z_ QQ O m x F W O U❑> J c7 q d W m Z w❑ co U O Q n O U 0 m y m LL O w O a' } Z Z J m w Z~ U w ai LL m x a m F- Of W w W W J z J U m a QQ z F- U g 0 O Y Y LL W 0 Q Z m U p J w w LL U y z J Z !o > ❑ LL W U` F- W W LL w w -' m} u z� 0 0 T L O O d l -� m¢ X¢ W w w 0 ug. w 0 >> z Z x x Z Y Y Y Y .J J J J J J J > U ❑ ❑ w w w LL LL LL 0 0 0 (� x x x - -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 co n o 0 0 in v r� m o u7 O O N r M N r N O M M � M o co 0 0 o rn M to in co 0 0 o n O v q W O ? N M O O N M O O O t0 N M O (D CO O M C M O O �p .� n LL7 O tT N M CO O er O O O O O tD r It n w m w O W O M O M CO N r In [G N C0 W N O Cl) O E N CO V 07 N CO M W CO � M W M n tMCJ m O m M W CO r N N N I co r �- �' ai ri N a N N Y M V tCJ (O r CD 01 O iD O r O O O N M a O O r CO O O N M y W a O CD 01 Q1 N M d r r r r r n r m m m o 0 n r- u- r n �n �n w co m m m co co co cc m m r r= r d r r r r r r r r n r n r r r r r r r n r n n r r n r r r r n r r r r r n r r n r n L N N N N N N N N Cl 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 r r r n r r 1,_ r r r r r r n r r r r r r r r r r r r r r n n r r r n n r n r n n n ct M 0 0 0 0 N O � m 'v a W m w y O of = U U L O U U G U C j 0 O O N N U O J w Y U O O N C z LL W F- w z O z z z z w z Q z z z z z z ❑ O LL LL ❑ O O LL ❑ U ❑ p ❑ LL ❑ U ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LL ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ z Z Z Z Z Z Z m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z Z Z z z Z z Z Z z Z -- D D cn > n> z W m z 0 d 0 Z� Z m n z D z D>> D D>> Z) z>>> z�� c LL LL __ w w W O tL O w g LL O LL g w W O IL w O LL O w w w_ w w w w LL O LL w W O LL LL y J Q Q J Q (� J J QJQ Q H J Q , J QJ Q J 2 _ I Q Q a J J a a J a J J J U+ J J J J J Q r Q J J J F-- J J y 2' K g g K W 5 9 W R a= w m O m d' W 9 1 W K w 9 1 9 Z§ 1 9 1 9 W R 1 9 W 9 m W w ❑ ❑ W w W m LL W x W r W � W U W w x w w z W K w W W ❑ W W W W W w W W W d' w w y Z Z Z 2 2 U ¢' Z U Z d Z U z-i Z Z O Z Z U Z U Z Z Z Z z z z z U z z z O z z 3 W W W W W W O W W W Q 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 X w 0 X 0 o O W O r c7 c7 X O 0 O W 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 w O 0 0 X 0 0 2 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 r r r r r r r r r r r F- r r r r r r U r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r W W W W W W W w W W w W W W W W W W Q 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 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m in o a a a a a a¢ a a a a a a a¢¢ a a w a a a a a¢ a a¢ a a a a a a a a¢ a a r r r r r} r r r r U r r }< r r> r <} r r r U a s ¢ a a a a a a d a a a a a a a a a z a a a a a a a a a s m ¢ a m a. n m n d a n y U U U U U U Un co Un co co Un U) m U) Cn (n CO m Un Cn Un Un CO Cn Cl) Un fn Cn cn Cn Un co U CO Un Un U F- r F- r r r r r r !- F- }- F- F- r r r F- F- r F- r r r r r r r r r r r r r F- ° z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z x z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z o r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F O 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 w U U U U U U U U U U w U U U U U U U U U U U U w U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U $ O D U U U U U U U U U cn U U U U U U U U U U U U cn o o U U U o U U U U U U U U U a a a a a a a a a s a= a ¢ a¢ a a a a a a a a a¢ a a¢ a a¢¢ a a¢ U O U L- z z O J Q U Q Q O U z0 W U J J U Q r Z W O CL U U U U Cf w W 0 0 0 } O w v5 � _ = W a = � J D a J J � z p - 0 o a a P- z > � z z O U U z tp Q z = ¢ °- U Q W J Q w U) I-- F- z z z U Z z O J O U H U W U J U) m U a Zo o } �-Zw�-wi U) w F- z z w of -j CL U Q z z Q O w z o p w Of w w 2 0= 0 0 LL Z O w r 0= Z Z w' LPL U m z z a z w w 0 ¢ Q w = 0 6 O > o a a a a Of x= w °= w t w < Z K z z U O O O u Y 0 0 0 0 U U U U U r r U O O 0 O CD 0 N n c U Z O U LLI J« O Z j U U Z W CL v w w W W W W w IL z Z w w w W w O Y 0 0 IL 0 0 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a W w 0 0 0 o v v o 0 0 N o m N o o m o ci N m o n_ v v o M m n N us o 0 0 o v M D o v m C , G O O O O n m O O O N R V' O M N O M n m n N <t m n �fJ O O O m N M N tD N m ch O O O CD M N N (D CO CA n m N cD O m O n O N m m 7 m O m O O u) M m n (D N O m N U n cD t0 M r N CO M Q m M m R n m � r N V N r M m N o M r N M M n n O r Lo n m r E N m N tC7 V M O N m N m r N lD N N O N m r cD tD h m ED M n N ¢ r [{ O M N r V N N r r n N M '7 Lo co n N M 'R lD CD n U m m m m m m O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M 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 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 V 0 s 0 a N , O � CD r � a LLJ W w a 'rn m = Y U � t LL U 'V 7 N O n O +- to O O O z O O O O O O O tl'1 O O V O O O L LL O O O O O m m n O m O O O m m O �- � r O lD O O <t N m co V O O = z z z z z ,p z z z M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p p ❑ w ❑ z N N N C t z z z z M z z g Z � O QQ QQ N - Q z z LL LL W �m M r O D 7 m 7 2 7 0 = Z M J J J M �y J J J Z Z .. z Z Z Z n n S Z S z 7 7 O Z o U. LL LL LL LL 2 O LL LL LL U LL LL J U LL U U U U U U U �+ LL O O c O o U O LL LL LL O LL O LL LL x a F- J J J J Q J a F- J J J r J 4 a J J J J J J J J J J J J J F F � w w W W m W W W W Z W W X W LU F W w W x x x x W W x x x x w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ¢ w r ¢ ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ ¢ w w w w N w w w w w w w w CD C7 F C7 0 x 0 C9 CD CO 0 0 a o a a a 0 a a a C7 0 x x ° m x 0 0 o x o x 0 0 x 0 Z m W m m N N N W W a 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 y F }- 0 W W W W W W F F F F F F F F Z F F F F F F m F U F U F F U rn Cn F- F U m F m m m m 0 m m m }} m m m m w U m U w m r r r rn r U ai ai w } r Cq r r r r } r w w CD m t'n (A m (A w ai ai v c U)i F Q ccn m m N O N vri Cn J J m m W W W W W W J m Q , , , , , , W W W W W W , W W J �' m Z W J W W W W w W W W W Q W W W W Q Q m m m m 7 - m m ? m m m m m m m m w ¢ d ZO m ¢ m m m m m ¢ m ¢ m ¢ m m ¢ ¢ W m m Q ¢ m m ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q Q W W ¢ ¢ w ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Q ¢ M ¢ a r w U Q < r a ¢ < ¢ Q < < ¢ < o } } r r r w < < < < < < < < w w < < w < < < < < < < < o a Z W W a a C ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a a a a a a x x a a x a a a a a a a Q a U W a 0 a M J J a U a a a a a x a a O N U m U m In m to fn ql m m Cn N m m m} a) p W a' W FZ- S Q Q F F F F N m F ❑ m F F 0 F m O F F U F W y F F z F F F F F F F F F F z z z z z z z z z z F X z F F F F F F z z z z z z F z Q a F 7 ❑ W Z x ❑ ? O < < ? j ? j z z z z z z z o 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a a w 0 0 w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O m o m U U W o U U U U 0 o U- U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U (A U U U U U U U LL U W Z m F U Z J J U Q Q ¢ Q U U U U U U U U U Q U U U U U U U U Q Q Q Q Q ¢ ¢ Q Q Q Q Q ¢ ¢ Q Q Q Q Q ❑ = Q Q O Q Q Q Q ¢ Q Q Q O O N U V w CO n n n CO n N M W U Z U F U M V LO O LD n t0 m O (A u) t0 m CD CO > - S U ? lD O U n j Z'n x z n J n m n w n m > W 'co m Z LO Y O U m M Q) m M Z U L Z U U LL z V V CO F y m Z w U m co CO O tf) m m J U0 CD co w to w co w N m co m m© w Q j x < w m N ? co N m N m N N m N ¢ N (L W Q C/) C z 0 U cD N Q m t g x 0 x Z t _i z m N N m N N N N U N N w Z w w o U 0 o O U U x N n N n U F z z O w 2 . Q a a U n w J n n n n n n a U n °� O n n F Uj a w w p❑>} n J w_ ¢ O N Q Q n n w Y Q❑ w w Y O z F z x J } (7 U g U x w F x N ❑ Z x F x F U' ¢ O F¢¢ Q Z a F x r ¢ J > w x co m w z x U OU E' OLL O w CO _ ` Q U w Z z F Z Z ❑ Z m S Z 3 F.. z 0 x o Cl ) O S m � Z to x m p w C7 Q Q O❑� Z m x Q tD m ? 7 W rn co O m V W C,) x W S z Q z 111 O z W U J x V U w F- Q 0 m Z w w w 0 F J~ N Ul m x Z O 0 a W ¢ �_ U¢ aa Q W ❑ m G V Q U W Z Z a C!) to w > d z O 0 a F❑❑ S x x 2 0 F F S S 7 > >> ' S 3: X r N N N< > CA W cn to U (p y F F F N O n O +- to O O O O O O O O O O O tl'1 O O V O O O O O O O O m m n O m O O O m m O �- � r O lD O O <t N m co V O O p O ,p N M N O 6 O O> N N N C t t tl1 C71 M M O p O CV O N T M 0 0 Lo O W �m M r O N O E T N N N N n M v e- y0 M O r co l o ¢ i 0 CD N N N (7 0 J O W Y O N M V O O n O O N Cl) V CO n n n CO n N M V O M V LO O LD n t0 m O (A u) t0 m CD CO CD O tD lD O 0 t0 n t� n m n w n m n w 'co m co LO Y O U m M Q) m M O V Q V V V R V co CO O tf) m m U co U0 CD co w to w co w co m co m m© w w N co N m N co N co N m N m N N N N N N N N x L co cD N m N w N m N m N m N m N N m 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 0 LO 0 0 s N � O � O) a Mn 0) CD Y U U L U �V C C) O U `o c m � 0 c m rn c �n 0 0 E to C v co m v LL w cc° o w E n- o = U � m LL = O U � a U o U <* o cn m o r m o 0 o c r m C N r r N N O m O co V r 7 t tf1 O cf 6 to m Co o m O O O O m O m E m v � N c w r L q r cli m co N m O Ln Q ca w Q M f'7 N r N c cn c" m N m N O m Lr p r M m m N N M I� v O N l9 O w ~ r z Z M LL 0 }" Y OF UJ C2 w W U = Z 0 F- o Q U w LL Z C7 °No O u- c6 L Z w D O a K Z Z z F 0 LL w a O O Q I f_ W o LL LL Q W C7 of LL W !n O U w Q o N a Z W z Z m Y E- W or J w q _j Q� a Q o W O O W O 5 3. fn Y O LL K F W F O W m — Q d U p fn F- fn LL' W m 0 O O O O m O c'7 O o O o O m lic000=Q O O o M r r � Or o N N N N V t O V O o O O o o O 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 02 -025 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Adminsitrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Vacation of Easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West MEETING DATE: April 16, 2002 INTRODUCTION KTJ Forty, LLC has submitted an application for vacation of easement located within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West (southwest corner of Highway 169 and CSAH 17). DISCUSSION The Planning Commission has reviewed this request and has recommended approval of the vacation request. Attached for your information is a copy of the Planning Commission report from the April 4, 2002 meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Resolution No. 5691, a resolution of the City of Shakopee approving the vacation of easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. 2. Deny the proposed vacation. 3. Continue the public hearing. 4. Close the public hearing and table the request to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 5691, and move its adoption. iulie Klima P lanner II 0Acc\2002 \04- 16 \vacsvm w.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5691 WrrHjN SHAKOPEE / : 1' SCOTT 1 MINNESOTA WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that an 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 to consider the action to vacate was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Shakopee at 7:00 P.M. on the 16th day of April, 2002; and WHEREAS, two weeks published notice was given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice was 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; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City of Shakopee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SOTA: 1. That it finds and determines that the vacation hereinafter described as a part of the attached Partial Release of Easement (Exhibit A) is in the public interest; 2. That the easement described above serves no further public purpose; 3. That the easement described above is hereby vacated. After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall file certified copies hereof with the County Auditor and County Recorder of Scott County. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Mnmesota, held the day of 7 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk 0 , 4 I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 5 69 1, presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of 1 2002. Judith S. Cox, City Clerk O 'l l PARTL4,L RELEASE OF EASEMENT FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the real property in Scott County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 4, Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace West, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota is hereby released from the following Easement: 1. A perpetual sanitary sewer easement and a temporary construction easement over, under and across the following described property the center line of said easement being described as follows: Easement dated August 12, 1998, filed as Document No. 424343 in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota. Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, WESTON PONDS SECOND ADDITION; thence South 87 degrees 49 minutes 59 seconds West assumed bearing along the westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 1 a distance of 76.81 feet to the point of beginning: thence North 10 degrees 20 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 348.79 feet to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, point being 340.52 feet North of the Southwest Comer of said Lot 1: thence North 02 degrees 23 minutes 17 seconds West along the west line of said Lot 1 a distance of 109.58 feet to a point hereinafter known as point "A ": thence continuing North 02 degrees 23 minutes 17 seconds West along the west line and its northerly extension of said Lot 1 a distance of 290.42 feet: thence North 13 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 316 feet to a point hereinafter known as point `B ": thence continuing North 13 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West a distance of 100.00 feet and there terminating. The perpetual sanitary sewer easement being 40.00 feet wide and the temporary construction eastment being 80.00 feet wide between the point of beginning and point "A ". The perpetual sanitary sewer easement being 20.00 feet wide and the temporary construction easement being 50.00 feet wide between point "A" and point `B ". The perpetual sanitary sewer easement is 40.00 feet wide and the temporary construction easement being 80.00 feet wide between point "B" and the point of termination. Sidelines of described easements are prolonged or shortened to intersect the westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 1. S STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on and and City Minnesota. City City 2002, by the City respectively, of the City of Shakopee, Notary Public This instrument was drafted by_ Morrison Fenske & Sund, P.A. (JFM) 5125 County Road 101 Suite 102 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 --8 cc) nse'M CITY OF SHAKOPE Memorandum CASE LOG N.: 02 -025 T: Shakopee Planning Commission a FROM Julie Klima, Planner 11 SUBJECT: Vacation of Easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West 1 1 •. �� Site Information Applicant: Site Location: KTJ Forty, LLC Shakopee Valley Marketplace West (northwest comer of 17' Avenue and CSAH 17) Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway Business (B 1) Zone South: Multiple Family Residential (R3) Zone West: Highway Business (B1) Zone East: Idighway Business (B1) Zone Discussion The City Council has received a request from KTJ Forty, LLC to consider the vacation of easement within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West (see Exhibit The City Council will hold a public hearing on April 16; 2002, to consider this vacation request. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is needed for the vacation process. The vacation is requested due to the relocation of a sanitary sewer line to Weston Court thereby negating the need for this easement. Vacation of the easement would eliminate any design modifications when developing the properties affected. Other agencies, city departments and utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and have not objected to the action to vacate. Alternatives l . Recommend to the City Council approval of floe. easement vacation. 2. Recommend to the City Council denial of the easement vacation. 3. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, recommending approval of the easement vacation to the City Council. Action Requested Offer and pass a motion recommending to the City Council approval of the easement vacation. T _M 0 E Q-RWI� ■r �� r /fir ■r � M ,1 J - � Z on i n g B oun d ar y - P Boun ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID R. FENSKE JAMES F. MORRISON BRIAN M. SUND a GREGORY P. BRENNY ROBERT Y. KEHOE" DAVID A. SCOTT PE.GGY A. BONTHIUS SUITE 102 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 Writer's Direct -- 952.2 7Z 0112 imorrison(&,morrison fenske. com TEL: (952) 975 -0050 FAX: (952) 975 -0058 www.morrisonfenske.com OF COUNSEL SHOLLY A. BLUSTIN Via Hand Delivery Ms. Julie Klima Planner II City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 February 11, 2002 Re: Vacation of Sanitary Sewer Easement Shakopee Valley Marketplace West, Shakopee, Minnesota Dear Ms. Klima: `ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN The purpose of this letter is to request that the City of Shakopee vacate a portion of a sanitary sewer easement located within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. The sanitary sewer utility line that was located within the easement to be vacated has been relocated under Weston Court in accordance with plans approved by the City of Shakopee. The relocated sanitary sewer utility taps into the existing line at the east side of the Weston Court cul -de -sac. As a result, the portion of the sanitary sewer easement from 17' Avenue to the Weston Court cul -de -sac is no longer needed and has the potential to interfere with the development of Shakopee Valley Marketplace West. To help in your review of this request, please find the following: 1. A depiction showing the location of the easement area between I r Avenue and the Weston Court cul -de -sac proposed to be vacated; 2. An executed Application for Vacation of Easements, together with a check payable to the amount of $100.00; 3. A proposed Partial Release of Easement to be executed by the City of Shakopee regarding the Sanitary Sewer Easement to be vacated; and A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DEDICATED TO CLIENT SERVICE MORRISON FENSKE & iOND Julie Klima February 11, 2002 Page 2 4. A copy of the recorded Easement (Doc. No. 424343). X ■ • Ei 5 -8 d`^ -9z -1; �i� — LL LLL s a f � g L1 0,t 0Y0?! .L 7+ : A,. Y .9LO L N lT° m I K � 3 • f" i �r� 5 i c rre•c r +n r�r+s/ � I yaLs �� Ec 4$ E Sa `� � zW 1 - efi ow o ? ce _ � I yaLs �� t t 5fr � zW 1 - efi ow I ce _ < W I sS so a a F i T� ," < A y 1 � J \\ J x x C ".r _WQX 'rjyH�TIYX i -- ---�-- �' - --- -- -,t om - - -- - �-- -- -- --1. R Ioa j o,• �n_o,x _ BS 9I.00N_ � i — LON - -- �l ) 1 le Kars 1 IF In 16 I I 1 11 e, ISI II , I I al i I� ifl •�1 ,u -��_ L - - TZtia-r _ m s ° 1 sl zl I �- R .mnno� ssncz A o W W to N W TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Currency Exchange License — GameCash, Inc. DATE: April 10, 2002 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The City Council is asked to consider the application for a currency exchange license for GameCash, Inc., located at Canterbury Park. GameCash, Inc. will be replacing the current licensee, Chex Services, Inc. The license is ultimately issued by the State of Minnesota. Current law requires that the local municipality approve or deny the issuance of a license, after published notice and a public hearing. The applicants have provided the State with the required $10,000 Currency Exchange Surety Bond. The Chief of Police has advised me that he is unaware of any reason for the City of Shakopee to object to the granting of the currency exchange license. RECOMMENDED ACTION Offer Resolution No. 5694, A Resolution Approving the Application of GameCash, Inc. for a Currency Exchange License at 1100 Canterbury Road, and move its adoption.. r i JSCJs RESOLUTION NO. 5694 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF GAMECASH, INC. FOR A CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE AT 1100 CANTERBURY ROAD WHEREAS, in 1992, Minnesota Statute Section 53A.04 was amended to require a City to approve or disapprove a proposed currency exchange license; and WHEREAS, GameCash, Inc. has applied for a currency exchange license for a location at 1100 Canterbury Road; and WHEREAS, the City has given published notice of its intention to consider this issue, has solicited testimony from interested persons, and finds that the application should be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the City approves the granting of a currency exchange license to GameCash, Inc. at its location at 1100 Canterbury Road. Adopted in Adj. Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 16th day of April, 2002. . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Garbage and Recycling Pickup — Alley and Street DATE: April 16, 2002 Introduction City staff would like City Council approval of a change in refuse collection as designated on the attached alley map, to incorporate curbside pickup in certain locations. Discussion After speaking with residents about their concerns from the March 6 City Council meeting, staff reevaluated the alley garbage removal issue. Many Shakopee alley residents expressed problems with difficult curbside access for garbage removal if their property has a steep hill, retaining wall, or their only garage is located in the alley. With that in mind, city staff developed criteria to determine which residents would receive garbage collection curbside or continue in the alley. 1. If the street has a steep hill or retaining wall, staff recommends the garbage collection will remain in the alley. 2. If the street has less than two homes where the resident's only garage is in the alley, staff recommends the pickup will be curbside. Numerous residents in Shakopee have built additional garages in the alley; however, the majority still have an operational garage that is curbside that could be used to store the refuse containers and allow for easy transporting of their refuse containers to the curbside. The curbsides vs. alley pickup areas are shown on the attached map. These are under this scenario, 60% of the garbage collection will be curbside and 40% will continue in the alley. This is consistent with the numbers that city staff and Dick's Sanitation have scene over the past year from requests to place garbage either alley or curbside. For the most part, curbside collection will occur in the areas south of 10 Street and alley collection will continue near the downtown. Since Dick's Sanitation would gain operational efficiencies from automated pickup on the curbside routes, Dick's Sanitation would rebate to the City of Shakopee a $3,380 yearly savings for the remainder of the contract ($1,690 — 2002) and install a free cardboard drop off center at the Public Works Facility. If the City Council concurs with the recommended alley pickup proposal, the rebate from Dick's could be used to help fund Clean Up Day. It does not appear that State funding will be available next year for grants for Clean Up Day, so the money would go to benefit all Shakopee residents. Some residents have asked that the money be rebated to the individual participants, but that is not practical to do, due to the administrative costs with returning the money. If City Council concurs with the staff recommendation, city staff also recommends that the changes take place once road restrictions are removed by MnDOT (approximately May). Dick's Sanitation and city staff will coordinate efforts to properly inform residents as to not disrupt residential refuse service. Budget Impact Public Works Department estimates alleys are graded at least 5 times /year. Without the garbage trucks collecting refuse in reduced number of alleys, grading would only need to be done 3 times /year in the designated "curbside" collection areas (spring, mid - summer, fall) and routine maintenance would also be in the new "curbside areas." Estimated Grading Costs ❖ $6,500 /grading - (1 grading @ $6,500 /grading = $6,500 /year) - labor and equipment costs ($65/hour @ 100 hours) Total Grading Savings - $6,500 1year - Estimated Routine Maintenance ❖ $6,500 — ($65/hour @ 100 hours) follow up maintenance after resident calls from individual alley problems. Total Maintenance Savings - $6,500 1year Total Estimated Public Works Alley Maintenance Savings - $13,000 /year Staff Recommendation City staff recommends that Council approve the curbside refuse collection as designated on the attached alley map. Action Required 1) Council approval of curbside refuse collection as designated on the attached alley map. 2) Continue garbage collection in the City's alleys. 2 SDh� ST. � `y'�Zj \` \ �`'y�� SP _RSDN = v� ��_ \ ST ADAM 5 < C - 2 0 ST. MARK D. c DAKOTA F m fl 70 C" 0 SHAW ST. I q I hE 3� El o "I r Pic r rTl 7 GO Cil 'D 1 3 r F— m —0 3 KA CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE LOG NO.: 02 -011 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code Section 11.50, Planned Unit Development District, Subd. 5, Design Standards, and Subd. 6, Special Provisions for Planned Unit Developments MEETING DATE: April 16, 2002 During the development moratorium that was imposed in, ,1999, and in response to the types and rate of development that were occurring, the City's PUD, ordinance was revised. The revisions made at that time significantly limit the types of variations that can be allowed' by the City Council in a PUD in the City of Shakopee. A copy of current City Code Sec. 11.50, Subd. 5 is attached for the to the February 7, 2002 report to the Planning Commission for the Council's information. Of most significance is the following provision; 'No other variations to the design standards of the underlying zone shall be allowed in the PUD approval process." (City Code Sec. 11.50, Subd. 5, E., last paragraph) . This approach, which severely limits the Council's flexibility in approving variations as a part of a PUD approval is inconsistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the PUD as a planning and zoning tool, and is also inconsistent with the stated purpose of Shakopee's PUD ordinance, which is as follows; Subd. 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of the planned unit development overlay district (PUD) to encourage innovation, variety, and creativity in, site planning and architectural design; to promote flexibility in land development and redk to maximize development compatibility, to encourage the planning of large parcels of land as a unit, to preserve and protect environmentally sensitive site features and historically significant features; to preserve open space; to provide quality living, working, shopping and recreating environments for residents and visitors. (italics added) As the Commission and Council have seen with the concept plan for Ryan's development of the Valley Green Corporate Center site, the previously cited provision (Subd. 5, E) would require that each variation from the underlying districts' design standards would require an analysis based on the variance provisions of the City Code before a PUD approval could be reached. While the Ryan project poses the most immediate challenge, it is expected that PUD review of future projects that may be proposed in the in the bluff/wooded areas of the City could be adversely affected by the current limitations in flexibility in PUD ordinance. For the reasons stated above, staff developed the following amendments for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Subd. 5. Design Standards A. th of ,..,i,..,l g density. I Except as otherwise provided in this pufpeses subdivision applicable undeElyi� zoning district requirements other than use restrictions described in Subd 3 above are superseded by the approval of a PUD development plan by the City Council The PUD development plan establishes the requirements for a planned unit development and shall govern and take precedence over underlying zoning; district's provisions except where the PUD development plan is silent as to a specific provision. In reviewing requests for increases in density or variations from other requirements beyond that allowed in the underlying district the Council may take into account the following factors 0 Of 1. That the open space proposed in the PUD exceeds the minimum required by this subdivision. 2. Geologic and/or topographic features unduly restrict development opportunities on 30% or more of the gross project area.) 3. Environmental features exist on the site and the variations are necessary to preserve natural features Environmental features may include but are not limited to the following defined features. A. Slopes in excess of 4:1: B. Tree cover measuring six (6) inches in diameter and /or six (6) feet in he ight covering 20% or more of the -gross project site: C. The existence of wetlands lakes marches streams springs or other natural water bodies. B . Open space: a planned unit development, which includes dwellings, shall provide at least 15% of the project area as open space. If the planned unit development is to be 2 developed in phases, the applicant must include the entire site in the plat of the first phase of development and designate public open space. Open space is a landscaped area or areas available for the common use of and is accessible by all residents or occupants of the buildings within the planned unit development. Open space shall be calculated on a net basis which excludes private yards, private streets from back of curb to back of curb, public rights -of -way, any areas within an easement or any other non- recreational impervious surface area. Dedicated parkland shall not be usedui calculating open space for a development. The applicant shall be required to submit, along with the PUD site plan, an open space plan illustrating the use and/or function of the open space area or areas. The open space plan shall include any proposed improvements and/or design of the open space area. Private yards shall be defined as that portion of a lot not occupied by a structure and under the ownership and/or control of the individual property owner or those areas adjacent to the residential units which are typically viewed and/or utilized by the occupants of the residential units as an extension of their dwelling unit. There shall not be any credit given to the open space requirements. ( De s i gn D. - inelud & but not limited to, let size and setba&s, shn be a4lowed with a r u d or eommereial anWer iridustf geals for development as outlined in the Cemprehensive Pl an. • •• These areas vAthin a P 1• wheA are designated for residential devellepment shaH be underlying zone. Variations shall opJy be aflowed when the fellevAfig ei.i.a are ml i. efwirem�aenta4 features exist on the site and the variatiens are neeessary ' te preserve �4� ffern the lot size standard ef the­u�� development shall be allewed te natural features; of/and No- MINS Mm­ to ,,.,,.e afehiteetur-al design(s) shaH b.e defined as these designs an&ef pr-eduets w1i - desig v 1' D ^ Wit M WOMEN The proposed planned unit development shall be comprised of at least ten (10) acres of contiguous land. PUD's of five (5) „to ten (10) acres in size shall be allowed if the following criteria are met: 1. Regional easements cover- 30 %,!of more of the project area; or /and 2. Environmental features exist on the site which will be preserved through the PUD development process; or /and 3. The subject site is adjacent to an existing PUD and the PUD process will provide additional compatibility between the PUD's. E. The parcels of land, which are the subject of the PUD application, shall be under the applicant's control at the time of application. The development plan shall provide for the development of all of the parcel(s) included in the application. In addition, the development plan must include provisions for the preservation of natural amenities. F. The total coverage of residential buildings shall not exceed 20% of the total residential area in the PUD. ;4 G. All PUD's shall have municipal sewer and water service available. H. No design standards shall be modified in any way, which violates or compromises the fire and safety codes of the City. I. More than one (1) building may be placed on one (1) platted lot in a PUD district. J. Any PUD plan proposed to be constructed in stages shall include full details relating to staging and the City Council may approve or modify, where necessary, any such proposals. K. The staging shall include estimates of the time for beginning and completion of each stage. Such timing may be subsequently modified by the City Council on the showing of good cause by the developer. Subd 6 Special Provisions for Planned Unit Developments. A. Criteria for Granting a Planned Unit Development Application. The City Council shall base its decision to grant or deny an application for a planned unit development upon the following factors: 1. Whether the proposed development is consistent in all respects with the comprehensive plan and with this Section; 2. Whether the proposed development, including deviations from design standards of the underlying zones, is compatible with surrounding land uses; 3. Whether the proposed development, including deviations from development standards of the underlying zone, provides adequate open space, circulation, parking, recreation, screening, and landscaping; 4. Whether the primary function of the PUD is to encourage development that will preserve and enhance the worthwhile, natural terrain characteristics and not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed. In evaluating each individual proposal, the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in granting approval or denial; 5. Whether there exists an overall, compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development'. However, the architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. City Code states that the City Council may grant a zoning ordinance amendment when it finds that one or more of the following criteria exist. Staff has prepared draft findings for the Council's consideration: Criteria #1 That the original zoning ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is in 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 taken place. Specifically, the City of Shakopee desires to promote development that does a better job of preserving open space, ecological systems and values, and providing life -cycle housing opportunities within the City. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred Because of demographic and market trends, the City of Shakopee has been presented with an increasing number of proposals for mixed use developments. This type of development can require more flexibility than is afforded by traditional zoning districts if community values of open space, environmental preservation and enhancement, and life cycle development are to be preserved Criteria #4 That the Comprehensive Plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan does not require a difterent provision. 1. Approve Ordinance No. as presented, and direct the appropriate City officials to publish the summary of the ordinance in the City's official newspaper. 2. Approve Ordinance No. with revisions, and direct the appropriate City officials to publish the summary of the ordinance in the City's official newspaper. 3. Deny the proposed amendments, and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings relative to the denial for action at the next, regularly scheduled City Council meeting. 4. Table the matter, and request additional information. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment on February 7, 2002, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed changes. Should the Council do so, the Planning Commission would like to schedule a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss, and reach consensus on, what the City is seeking from PUDs. 6 Y ► 1 1' "-3 Offer and pass Ordinance No. , an ordinance of the City of Shakopee amending City Code Sec. 11.50. Planned Unit Developments, Subd. 5. Design Standards, and Subd. 6, Special Provisions for Planned Unit Developments. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g:\cc\2002\04-16\txtpud.doc 7 @7 'R i ri 11 Eric Section 1 - That City Code Sec. 11.50, Planned Unit Developments, Subd. 5. Design Standards, is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 5. Design Standards A. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, applicable underlying zoning district requirements other than use restrictions described in Subd 3 above are superseded by the approval of a PUD development plan by the City Council The PUD development plan establis the silent as to a specific provision. I n reviewing requests for increases in dens W or variations from other requirements beyond that allowed in the underlying district .the' Council may take into account the following factors 0 of the pfejeet area; e 1. That the open space proposed in the PUD exceeds the minimum required by this subdivision; 2. Geologic and/or topographic features unduly restrict development opportunities on 30% or more of the gross project area. } 3. E nvironmental features exist on the site and the variations are necessary t preserve natural features Environmental features may include but are not limited to the following defined features; a Slopes in excess of 4:1; c. The existence of wetlands lakes marches streams springs or oth nat ural water bodies. B. Open space: a planned unit development, which includes dwellings, shall provide at least 15% of the project area as open space. If the planned unit development is to be developed in phases, the applicant must include the entire site in the plat of the first phase of development and designate public open space. Open space is a landscaped area or areag'javailable for the common use of and is accessible by all residents or occupant's of the buildings within the planned unit development. Open space shall be calculated on a net basis which excludes private yards, private streets from back of curb to back of curb, public rights -of -way, any areas within an easement or any other non - recreational impervious surface area. Dedicated parkland shall not be used in calculating open space for a development. The applicant shall be required to submit, along with the PUD site plan, an open space plan illustrating the use and/or function of the open space area or areas. The open space plan shall include any proposed improvements and/or design of the open space area. Private yards shall be defined as that portion of a lot not occupied by a structure and under the ownership and/or control of the individual property owner or those areas adjacent to the residential units which are typically viewed and/or utilized by the occupants of the residential units as an extension of their dwelling unit. There shall not be any credit given to the open space requirements. C. (Deleted, Ord. 544, April 15, 1999) I i .. MIR i ..6 = rM FD. _ The proposed planned unit development shall be comprised of at least ten (10) acres of contiguous land. PUD's of five (5) to ten (10) acres in size shall be allowed if the following criteria are met: 1. Regional easements cover 30% of more of the project area; or /and 2. Environmental features exist on the site which will be preserved through the PUD development process; or /and 3. The subject site is adjacent to an existing PUD and the PUD process will provide additional compatibility between the PUD's. GE. The parcels of land, which are the subject of the PUD application, shall be under the applicant's control at the time of application. The development plan shall provide for the development of all of the parcel(s) included in the application. In addition, the development plan must include provisions for the preservation of natural amenities. HF. _ The total coverage of residential buildings shall not exceed 20% of the total residential area in the PUD. IG. All PUD's shall have municipal sewer, and water service available. ROM WHI FD. _ The proposed planned unit development shall be comprised of at least ten (10) acres of contiguous land. PUD's of five (5) to ten (10) acres in size shall be allowed if the following criteria are met: 1. Regional easements cover 30% of more of the project area; or /and 2. Environmental features exist on the site which will be preserved through the PUD development process; or /and 3. The subject site is adjacent to an existing PUD and the PUD process will provide additional compatibility between the PUD's. GE. The parcels of land, which are the subject of the PUD application, shall be under the applicant's control at the time of application. The development plan shall provide for the development of all of the parcel(s) included in the application. In addition, the development plan must include provisions for the preservation of natural amenities. HF. _ The total coverage of residential buildings shall not exceed 20% of the total residential area in the PUD. IG. All PUD's shall have municipal sewer, and water service available. JH. No design standards shall be modified in any way, which violates or compromises the fire and safety codes of the City. KI. More than one (1) building may be placed on one (1) platted lot in a PUD district. 16J. Any PUD plan proposed to be constructed in stages shall include full details relating to staging and the City Council may approve or modify, where necessary, any such proposals. AHC The staging shall include estimates of the time for beginning and completion of each stage. Such timing may be subsequently modified by the City Council on the showing of good cause by the developer. Section 2. - That City Code Sec. 11.50, Planned Unit Developments, Subd. 6. is amended to read as follows: Subd. 6. Special Provisions for Planned Unit Developments. A. Criteria for Granting a Planned Unit Development Application. The City Council shall base its decision to grant or deny an application for a planned unit development upon the following factors: 1. Whether the proposed development is consistent in all respects with the comprehensive plan and with this Section; 2. Whether the proposed development, including deviations from design standards of the underlying zones, is compatible with surrounding land uses; 3. Whether the proposed development, including deviations from development standards of the underlying zone, provides adequate open space, circulation, parking, recreation, screening, and landscaping; 4. Whether the primary function of the PUD is to encourage development that will preserve and enhance the worthwhile, natural terrain characteristics and not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed. In evaluating each individual proposal, the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in granting approval or denial; 5. Whether there exists an overall compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of ndividual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development. However, the architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. Section 3 — Ordinance Summary. The following summary is adopted for purposes of publication. Subd.5. Design Standards.A. This provision is amended to allow the City Council to exercise greater flexibility in approving alternate, design standards as a part of a PUD development plan. Subd.5. Design Standards.E. This provision is deleted because it simply re- states the City Council's authority to approve alternate design standards. Subd.5. Design Standards.F. This provision is deleted, and significant portions re- located to Item A. Subd. 6. Special Provision A.5 This provision is amended to state that compatibility of land uses is one of the criteria for granting or denying a PUD application. Section 4. - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. 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 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2002. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE LOG NO.: 02 -029 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Section 12.05 MEETING DATE: April 16, 2002 INTRODUCTION: The minor subdivision process currently allows for the combination of lots, splitting of lots, and relocation of lot lines. Staff has prepared a draft text amendment which proposes revisions to the minor subdivision process. The specific revision contemplated is to allow the combination of lots and relocation of lot lines on any property meeting the requirements for minor subdivision. However, the splitting of lots would be allowed on residential properties only. ALTERNATIVES: Approve Ordinance No. 625, approving the text amendment as presented. Approve Ordinance No. 625, approving the text amendment with revisions. Do not approve the proposed amendment. Table the matter for additional information. 2. 3. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment at its March 21 and April 4, 2002, meetings. The Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment as presented at its April 4, 2002 meeting. Copies of the staff reports from the March 21 and April 4 meetings are attached for the Council's reference. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion to approve Ordinance Number 625, amending City Code Sec. 12.05, as presented. Julie Klima Tanner II a:\cc\2002\04-16\taminorsubd.doc 1'1I 1 F1 1 L 1 I 1 I1 1 wmiu Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, Section 12.05, is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined and deleting the language which is stic-1 f#reugh. Subd. 2. When Prohibited. The Planner may not approve a minor subdivision in the following situations: A. When the minor subdivision proposes the division of property zoned for commercial, industrial business park or major recreation use. (Renumber following entries accordingly). Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. 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 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 1 2002. 2 1 Mem CASE LOG NO.: 02 -029 TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code Section 12.05 MEETING DATE: March 21, 2002 DISCUSSION: Section 12.05 of the City Code sets forth provisions for allowing minor subdivisions. A minor subdivision is one which may be approved administratively. Currently, a minor subdivision can be used to do one of two things. First of all, it may be used to divide one parcel into a maximum of five lots. Secondly, it may be used to combine a maximum of five lots into four" or fewer It is staff s belief that the original intent of these provisions was to allow flexibility for the residential property owner. However, over time and as the city has developed, the minor subdivision process has become a tool commonly used by commercial and industrial land owners. It has become common practice for a commercial or industrial property owner to plat a large lot and then subdivide it through the minor subdivision process once users have been identified for the smaller lots. It is staff s belief that this practice does not allow for maximum review and planning relative to the development process (e.g. The access issues recently dealt with by the Board/Commission on 12� Avenue). In past practice, it has also led to difficulties with the Scott County Recorders office relative to lengthy legal descriptions. As a result, staff is proposing the inclusion of language which would limit administrative minor subdivisions to residentially zoned property. Specifically, staff is recommending the proposed language changes below. Language which is underlined is proposed and language which is �, Et " gh is proposed for deletion. Subd. 2. When Prohibited. The Planner may not approve a minor subdivision in the following situations: A. Whe the property is zoned for any use other than resident purposes. (Renumber following entries accordingly). 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. Staff has prepared draft findings for the Board's reference: Criteria #1 That the original zoning ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding #2 Si changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred in that the rate and type of commercial and industrial development has intensified, therefore requiring the optimum amount of information and review time prior to development. This is not afforded by the administrative minor subdivision. Criteria #4 That the Comprehensive PIan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan requires that development occur in an efficient, balanced' unified, and attractive fashion. The text amendment as proposed would provide a mechanism for ensuring information and review occur at a level necessary to meet these stated goals ALTERNATIVES: 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. STAFF RECOALWENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment as presented or with revisions. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment as presented or with revisions. 4 7 ' fKlima P an g: \boaa- pc\2002 \03 -21 \taminorsubs.doc 2 CU n sen.� Memora CASE LOG NO.: 02 -029 DISCUSSION: At the March 21, 2002, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a text amendment relative to the minor subdivision process. A copy of that report has been attached for your reference. The Planning Commission ultimately recommended approval of the text amendment, as presented, to the City Council. 1 Prior to staff carrying the Commission's' recommendation forward to the City Council, staff is seeking clarification from the Commission. As 'stated in the March 21, 2002 report, the minor subdivision process allowing the splitting of lots and the combination of lots. However, the City Code also allows the relocation of lot lines (a movement in lot lines while not altering the number of lots). The proposed amendment, as proposed by staff and recommended by the Planning Comm mi Commission, would prohibit any and all nor 'subdivisions on property zoned commercial, industrial, business park or major recreation. It would only allow the minor subdivision process to be used on residentially zoned property. The intent of the amendment was to eliminate the splitting of large commercial, industrial and business park lots into innumerable smaller parcels. After further consideration, staff is proposing that the proposed language be drafted to allow the relocation of lot lines and combination of lots in all zoning districts but limit the splitting of lots to property zoned for residential purposes. Specifically, staff is recommending the proposed language changes below. Language which is underlined is proposed and language which is stFdek&eu is proposed for deletion. Subd. 2. When Prohibited. The Planner may not approve a minor subdivision in the following situations: A. When th minor subdivision proposes the division of property zo ned for commercial, industrial, business park or major recreation use. (Renumber following entries accordingly). The public hearing on this item was opened and closed on March 21, 2002. There were not any interested parties commenting on the proposed change. 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. Staff has prepared draft findings for the Board's reference: Criteria #1 That the original zoning ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The 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. Criteria 93 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred in that the rate and type of commercial and industrial development has intensified, therefore requiring the optimum amount of information and review time prior to development. This is not afforded by the administrative minor suhdivision. Criteria #4 That the Comprehensive Plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan requires that development occur in an efficient, halanced, unified, and attractive fashion. The text amendment as proposed would provide a mechanism for ensuring information and review occur at a level necessary to meet these stated goals. ALTERNATIVES: 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. STAFF RECD A ON: Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment as presented (Alternative No. 1). ACTION QUESTED: Offer and pass a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment as presented. He Klima II g:\ boaa- pc\2002 \04- 04 \taminorsubd.doc >., 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Terry Stang, Fire Chief CONSENT Authorization for Repairs — Station 50 (Downtown Fire Station) April 12, 2002 The Council is asked to authorize the process to begin for the repair of portions of the Downtown Fire Station. • 1 The Downtown Fire Station is in neod of roof repairs, door replacement, stucco repair, painting, and some minor interior repairs. The Shakopee Fire Department has formed a committee to get these repairs completed in this fiscal year, and is ready to put together plans, and get quotes or bids as appropriate for the completion of these repairs. Councilor Link has agreed to be involved with the efforts to get this work done. At future meeting, the City Council will be asked to approve awarding of contracts for the various components of the work. BUDGET IMPACT: The 2002 Capital Improvement Fund has provided $100,000 for these repairs. While the CIP identifies Station 1.1 as being constructed in 2004 (depending upon the status of a referendum question before the voters in 2003), it is prudent to make these expenditures on this building. The investment will be recovered in any future sale of the building for another use, or, if it is determined that it is to be retained by the City for other uses, it should be viewed as routine maintenance. 1 1. We recommend that the City Council authorize the Fire Department committee to prepare plans and obtain bids /quotes as appropriate, for the improvements to Station 50, and to bring the subject back to the City Council for approval. 1 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the Shakopee Fire Department to prepare plans and solicit bids /competitive quotations for repairs at Station 50. r �L u kij- u Mark McNeill Terry Stang City Administrator Fire Chief 01 f IS to CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum �M TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Comprehensive Plan MEETING DATE: April 16, 2002 Introduction: The City's current Comprehensive Plan (including the Land Use Plan) was adopted by the Shakopee City Council on October 15, 1996. During the 1996 legislative session, the Minnesota State Legislature passed legislation requiring that Metropolitan area municipalities submit new, revised, or updated comprehensive plans by December 31, 1998. That deadline was later extended to December 31, 1999. The City of Shakopee's updated comprehensive plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council on December 31, 1999 without approval of the City Council. On February 13, 2002 the Metropolitan Council accepted a staff report (a copy of which is attached) allowing the City of Shakopee to implement its Comprehensive Plan update. Discussion: Staff is requesting that the Council takes action or provides direction on the following three items, and this report and the alternatives will address them in the listed order, 1. Adoption of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, as reviewed and approved for implementation by the Metropolitan Council; 2. Re- guiding of land uses and/or extension of MUSA allocation to properties that are the subject of specific requests received by the City in the process of developing and bringing forward the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update; 3. Establishing an area of the City (referred to as a "primary MUSA expansion area") that would have first priority for future allocation of the City's ten -year MUSA acreage allocation. To assist the Council as it addresses the items listed above, staff has attached a copy of the memorandum prepared for the March 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. This report contains the following exhibits; • Proposed Land Use Plan Map • Copies of requests for re- guiding property and/or extending MUSA 1999compplan • Map depicting properties that are the subject of specific requests and possible constraints to extension of MUSA • Metropolitan Council staff report on Comprehensive Plan Update Adoption of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, as reviewed and approved for implementation by the Metropolitan Council: The Metropolitan Council' s approval allows the City to implement the plan as submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Chief among the elements is, of course, the MUSA allocation. There is a range of options available to the City regarding MUSA allocation, from allocating only the average annual acreage to allocating all of the acreage at this time. In the event the latter course of action were followed, the City would need to report that to the Metropolitan Council as well, and should the MUSA allocation be used earlier than 10 years, justify additional allocation based on need, as well as demonstrating that the City has encouraged development to occur along "smart growth" principles. Re guiding of land uses and/or extension of MUSA allocation to properties that are the subject of speck requests received by the City in the process of developing and bringing forward the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update; The following persons have made requests to either 1) have MUSA extended to property, and/or 2) have property reguided: Applicant Property /Size 1. Abraham 2. CB Development 17 acres SW Quadrant of CSAH 83/16 3. Cal Haasken 24.3 acres NE Quadrant of CSAH 15 /STH 169 4. Jim/Mike Monnens 2240 Marschall Rd Elmer Marschall 5. Noecker & Associates, Inc. 80 acres 6. Northwest Asphalt 3.5 acres 7. Shakopee Crossings 8. Ziegler Inc. 18.3 acres 7950, 8000, 8050 STH 101 Proposed Guiding Requested Medium Density MUSA Residential Commercial Commercial with MUSA Neighborhood Commercial Single - Family Single Family Light Industrial Commercial Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Single - Family with MUSA PRD With MUSA Light Industrial with MUSA Residential Commercial with MUSA In addition, after the Planning Commission review, staff received a request from Robb and Deb Larson, 2424 East Valley View Road regarding extension of MUSA to their property. A copy of this letter is 2, attached for the Council's information. Establishing an area of the City (referred to as a )?rimary MUSA expansion area') that would have first priority for future allocation of the City's ten-year MUSA acreage allocation. Previous Councils have directed staff to consider the following for early MUSA extension; • Properties currently split by the MUSA line; • Properties on the south side of Valley View Road; and • Properties adjacent to lands owned by the SMSC. The following table contains an estimate of the acreage represented by: 1) the requests identified above, 2) 2) The acreage that would be added by including in MUSA the entirety of properties currently split by the MUSA line, 3) Properties on the south side of Valley View Road from CSAH 83 to CSAH 17 (Marschall Road), 4) Properties adjacent to SMSC lands. In reviewing this table, the Council is asked to keep in mind that the 10 -year MUSA allocation is 2,186 acres, which translates to an average of about 175 acres/year. Estimated Acreage Requests for MIISA 230 acres Properties Currently `Split" 120 acres By MUSA Line Properties South of Valley 355 acres View Road Properties Adjacent to 814 acres SMSC 1,519acres Should the Council agree with staff's suggestion regarding establishing a `primary MUSA expansion area including the three areas listed above, as well as allocating MUSA to properties for which it is requested, about 667 acres of the City's 10 -year MUSA allocation would be unallocated. This should provide sufficient room to deal with MUSA allocation issues that may arise because of annexation agreements or requests. 3 Alternatives: Adoption of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, as reviewed and approved for implementation by the Metropolitan Council 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5692, a resolution of the City of Shakopee adopting the 199 Comprehensive Plan Update. 2. No not adopt Resolution No. 5692 adopting the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update. 3. Table the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update for additional information. Re- guiding of land uses and/or extension of MUSA allocation to properties that are the subject of specific requests received by the City in the process of developing and bringing forward the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, 1. Offer a motion directing City staff to amend the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update to include re- guiding or extending of MUSA to one or more of the following properties that have been the subject of specific requests during the comprehensive planning process; Applicant A Abraham B. CB Development Property /Size., i m 17 acres SW Quadrant of CSAH 83/16 Proposed Guiding Requested Medium Density MUSA Residential Commercial Commercial with MUSA C. Cal Haasken 24.3 acres Neighborhood Neighborhood NE Quadrant of Commercial Commercial CSAH 15 /STH.169 D. YmvW ke Monnens 2240 Marschall Rd Single- Family Single - Family E. Elmer Marschall with MUSA F. Noecker & Associates, Inc. 80 acres Single Family PRD With MUSA G. Northwest Asphalt 3.5 acres Light Industrial Light Industrial with MUSA H. Shakopee Crossings Commercial Residential I. Ziegler Inc. 18.3 acres Commercial Commercial 7950,8000,8050 p with MUSA' STH 101 2. Table the specific requests, with direction to City staff to schedule a discussion on them at a future City Council meeting. 3. Table the specific requests, with direction to City staff toevaluate them as a part of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update. M Establishing an area of the City (referred to as a `primary MUSA expansion area') that would have first priority for future allocation of the City's ten-year MUSA acreage allocation. Staff proposes that the Council take action separately on the three items outlined at the beginning of this report. The Planning Commission reviewed this item at its March 22, 2002 meeting. After closing the public hearing, the Commission passed a motion recommending to City Council that it adopts the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update as presented. The Commission did not make any recommendation regarding either; 1. Re- guiding of land uses and/or extension of MUSA allocation to properties that are the subject of specific requests received by the City in the process of developing and bringing forward the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update; 2. Establishing an area of the City (referred to as a "primary MUSA expansion area") that would have first priority for future allocation of the City's ten -year MUSA acreage allocation. Action Requested: Council is asked to take the following actions; 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5692, a resolution of the City of Shakopee adopting the 199 Comprehensive Plan Update. 2. Offer a motion providing staff direction regarding the specific requests for land use re- guiding or MUSA extension. Offer a motion directing staff whether or not to establish a primary MUSA expansion area. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director 5 RESOLUTION NO. 5659 S, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did hold several public hearings, which hearings were duly noticed, and at which all persons appearing were given the opportunity to be heard regarding the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update (the 1999 Plan); and WHEREAS, the Plan has been reviewed by the Metropolitan Council on February 13, 2002, and found to be consistent with the regional systems plans and not in need of amendment; and WHEREAS, implementation of the Plan is essential to the orderly development of the City of Shakopee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That the Plan is hereby adopted. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, innesota, held the day of . 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee I�x.�11A City Clerk r n EASE BRING YOUR COPY OF THE ,�. Memorandum .. The City's current Comprehensive Plan (including the Land Use Plan) was adopted by the Shakopee City Council on October 15, 1996. ', During the 1996 legislative session, the Minnesota State Legislature passed legislation requiring,that Metropolitan area municipalities submit new, revised, or updated comprehensive plans by December 31, 1998. 'That deadline was later extended to December 31, 1999. The City of Shakopee's updated comprehensive' plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council on December 31, 1999 without approval of the City Council. On February 13, 2002 the Metropolitan Council accepted a staff report (a copy of which is attached) allowing the City of Shakopee to implement its Comprehensive Plan update. Discussion: • Proposed Land Use Plan Map • Copies of requests for re- guiding property and/or extending MUSA • Map depicting properties that are the subject of specific requests and possible constraints to extension of MUSA • Metropolitan Council staff report on Comprehensive Plan Update Effect of Metropolitan Council Acceptance of Co ° reensive Plan Update.- The Metropolitan Council' s approval allows the City to implement the plan as submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Chief among the elements is, of course, the MUSA allocation. There is a range of options available to the City regarding MUSA allocation, from allocating only the average annual acreage to allocating all of the acreage at this time. In the event the latter course of action were followed, the City would need to report that to the Metropolitan Council as well, and should the MUSA allocation be used earlier than 10 years, justify additional allocation based on need, as well as demonstrating that the City has encouraged development to occur along "smart growth" principles. compplanadopt Previous Council's have directed staff to consider the following for early MUSA extension; • Properties currently split by the MUSA line; • Properties on the south side of Valley View Road; and • Properties adjacent to lands owned by the SSC. For the meeting, staffis preparing material that will hopefully better clarify 1) how many properties fall into those categories, 2) what the total acreage would be, and 3) whether those properties can readily be served by city sewer and water. The following persons have made requests to either 1) have MUSA extended to property, and/or 2) have property reguided_ Applicant Property /Size Proposed Guiding Requested 1. Abraham Medium Density MUSA Residential 2. CB Development 17 acres Commercial Commercial SW Quadrant of with MUSA CSAH 83/16 3. Cal Haasken 24.3 acres Neighborhood Neighborhood NE Quadrant of Commercial Commercial CSAH 15/STH 169 4. Tim&&e Monnens 2240 Marschall Rd Single - Family Single- Family Elmer Marschall with MUSA 5. Noecker & Associates, Inc. 80 acres Single Family PRD With MUSA 6. Northwest Asphalt 3.5 acres Light Industrial Light Industrial with MUSA 7. Shakopee Crossings Commercial Residential 8. Ziegler Inc. 18.3 acres Commercial Commercial 7950, 8000, 8050 with MUSA STH 101 Alternatives: - 1. Offer and approve a motion recommending to the City Council the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update as presented. 2. Offer and approve a motion recommending to the City Council the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update as presented, and with recommendations regarding land use guiding and MUSA consistent with the attached individual requests for reguiding and/or the allocation of MUSA acreage. 3. Offer and approve a motion recommending to the City Council the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan update as presented, and with other recommendations as to land use 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan update (either alternatives 1, 2, or 3). Offer and approve a motion recommending adoption of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update, with recommendations as to what areas /properties to allocate MUSA to, and the staging of MUSA. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director R REAL December 9, 1998 To: Mr. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee Dear M. Leek: We at CB Development Corp., have a vested interest in a piece of property in the City of Shakopee. The property was formerly owned by Mr. Myron Webster. The parcel of property is approximately seventeen acres. It is located in the Southwest quadrant of the intersection of County Road 83 and County Road 16. In your comprehensive plan, - -the property is scheduled for MUSA line expansion in the year'2000. We however, have proposed businesses that would like to build in the year 1999. The two businesses that would like to build in 1999 are: Kwik Trip Convenience Stores of LaCrosse, WI and Days Inn Motel, which would be owned by the Rivett Group of Aberdeen, South Dakota. I have included a memo from the Kwik Trip people and will in the next week, have a letter from the motel group also expressing their interest in the property. We are requesting you to include our property in the proposed expansion of the MUSIC line for 1998. We understand that this approval could happen in or about May of 1999. The adjacent property in the Northeast quadrant, which is just across the street from our property, is scheduled for 1998. We look forward to working with you in the near future on this pro,j.ect. If you have any questions, you can call me at the following number: (507) 263 -4400. Since / rely, 1 Kur Mills Purchasing — Development Consultant Enc. CB DEVELOPMENT CORP. - 31846 65TH AVENUE, P.O. BOX 338, CANNON FALLS, MN 55009 - 507 - 263 -4400 - FAX 507 - 263 -8884 FI Mr. Curtis Luebke C. B. Development, Inc. 31846 65th Avenue P. 0. Box 338 Cannon Falls, MN 55009 FAX: 507 - 263 -8884 Phone: 507 -263 -4 December 4, 1998 Highways 16 & 83 - Shakopee, Minneso Dear Mr. Luebke: We are interested in acquiring property in your proposed development at the southwest quadrant of Highways 16 and 83 in Shakopee, Minnesota. We would anticipate 1.5 to 2.0 acres to acconmodate C- Store, 8 MPD's plus in -line diesel, canopy, car wash, vacuums and landscaping area. We look forward to working with you on this project. c i SCOTT TEIGEN 700 Wolske Bay Road- Suite 280 - Menomonie, WI - 54751 Office: (715) 235 -6626 - Fax: (715) 235 -7808 LARmiq, HOFFMAN, DALY & LiNDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER ; n E E� ,W 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH Et LU) BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1194 PETER J. COYLE TELEPHONE (612) 835 -3800 i 199 DIR. DIAL (612) 896 -3214 FAX (612) 896 -3333 February 15, 1999 Mr. Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Re: CB Development Corp. Comp Guide Plan Request Dear Mr. Leek: Our firm represents CB Development Corp. (CB Development) in connection with certain property in the southwest quadrant of CSAH 83 (CR 83) and CSAH 16 (CR 16), in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. CB Development owns outright the .6 acre parcel (the Otting parcel) situated directly at the southwest corner of CR 83 and CR 16. CB Development has the right to acquire an additional 17.5 acre parcel (the Webster parcel) around the Otting parcel, fronting on CR 16 and CR. 83. This letter confirms CB Development's desire to pursue a Commercial development on the combined Otting/Webster parcels. As we understand it, the City's Planning Commission currently is reviewing the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, as required by state law. In this regard, the City also is considering possible amendments to its Land Use Map. The current version of the City's amended Land Use Map guides the combined Otting/Webster parcels for development as Business Park. CB Development does not support the proposed Business Park designation for its property and requests, instead, that the City guide the Otting/Webster parcels for Commercial development. In reviewing the current version of the City's Land Use Map, it appears that property directly south of the Otting/Webster parcels, along both sides of CR 83, will be guided for Commercial development. We further note that a substantial strip of property on the east side of CR 83, north of CR 16, already is guided for Commercial development. Moreover, we understand that the property owned by the Native American community, south and east of the Otting/Webster parcels will, most likely, be developed for Commercial purposes. Given these facts, it appears that establishing land use guiding that is consistent with surrounding land uses is in the best interest both of the City and of CB Development. On the other hand, requiring development of Business Park uses on the Otting/Webster parcels would be inconsistent with surrounding land uses, and potentially wasteful, given the abundant Business Park land available directly to the east within Valley Green Industrial Park. LARKiN, HOFFmAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Michael Leek February 15, 1999 Page 2 CR 83 forms an important linkage to the Shakopee bypass (TH 169). The most appropriate use of land adjacent to the bypass would appear to be Commercial, given proximity to the entertainment uses at Canterbury Race Track and hotel. Moreover, this interchange (at least on the east side) and the next interchange to the west, reflects Commercial land use guiding. It makes sense to classify the Otting/Webster parcels as Commercial given the treatment of related interchange properties. CB Development supports the City's proposal to realign CR 16, by moving it closer to the bypass, at least for the length fronting on the Otting/Webster parcels. We also support the City's proposal to develop a new 17th Avenue linkage to CR 83 along the southern boundary of the Otting/Webster parcels. In this regard, CB Development urges that consideration be given to the most appropriate access off of CR 83 to the Otting/Webster parcels, at the same time as planning for access to property east of CR 83 is under consideration. CB Development will cooperate with the City to ensure that this planning is done efficiently and cost - effectively. Finally, CB Development requests that the Otting/Webster parcels be included in the City's pending 1998 MUSA expansion request. We understand that the City has formally submitted its MUSA request to the Metropolitan Council. Given the proximity of the Otting/Webster parcels to the land areas affected by the pending request, however, we believe that our request is not unreasonable. CB Development would assume whatever planning cost were necessary to incorporate the Otting/Webster parcels into the City's pending request before the Met Council. Thank you very much for your consideration of this request by CB Development Corp. We plan to attend the work session on Thursday, February 18, 1999, at City Hall. Please forward any agenda or staff report relating to this work session. cc: Curt Luebke Kurt Mills 0467566.01 ERA ChesJut Realty 413 Chestnut Street Chaska, MN 55318 (612) 448 -3344 March 3, 1998 o Dear Mr. Leek, My children and I are the owners of 24.3 acres at the North east intersection of 169 and Co. Rd. 15 (Tax Parcel #279120500) I purchased this property in January 1993_ Prior to my purchase I met with the planner for the City of Shakopee to review the proposed use of this property. I met again on June 2, 1994 with the following representatives of the City of Shakopee; Lindberg Ekola, David Hutton, and V. Paul Bilatta. At all of these meetings I was shown city zoning maps and comprehensive plans (or at least they were represented to me to be comprehensive plans) that showed a large portion of my property to be targeted for commercial use. In 1996 the City of Shakopee apparently filed a new comprehensive plan. This plan eliminated all of the commercial use from my property. I was never asked about or informed of this change. I only learned of the change because of meetings I had with the City Attorney regarding an assessment on my property. I understand that the City of Shakopee is once again revising its comprehensive plan. I would like to take this opportunity to ask that the use of my property be targeted toward commercial along Co. Rd. 15 and high density residential for the balance. This property is bounded by Hwy. 169 to the South, the exit ramp of Co. Rd. 15 to the West, Vierling Rd. (to be built in 1998 or 1999) to the North and Orchard Park West development to the East. I am having engineers draw sketch plans of this property now to show how it could be developed. However, I have no immediate development plans in mind. Please advise me of any -public hearings scheduled for the new comprehensive plan. My phone numbers are: 443 -2710 home, 448 -2417 office, 448 -5310 fax. Thank you for you cooperation. Sincerely, Cal Haasken 0 Each ERA Office is Independently Owned and Operated L0 .. 1' °'$ FEB 2 5 1999 FE CC IiL� I 0�#I' a Ho ?- 5 19�Q, OFT'' 1 Noecker r Pleasant Drive Mounds ii December 3, 1998 Michael Leek Community Development Director Bruce Loney Public Works Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minn. 55379 RE: Terry Hanson / Eagle Creek Stables Property Gentlemen: Several weeks ago we had the opportunity to meet and discuss related issues for the development of the Hanson property. In this meeting I informed you that I had acquired the Hanson property and planned to propose a residential townhouse and single family development similar in nature to Southbridge. The MUSA extension is obviously required along with the construction of Pike Lake Road and Highway 921 and also required is the need to resolve related surface water issues with many agencies. This letter is a follow up, just to share with you some of my activity to date. I met with Joe Adams at the Shakopee Public Utilities building, shortly after our meeting. We discussed possible options, access and basic looping requirements expected, and I have a meeting with Larry Samstad next week at the Lower Minnesota Watershed District to continue discussions for related surface water issues. With multiple entities wanting or needing water easement rights in this area, I would suggest plans be made to meet again soon with the LGU and other related parties. If I correctly understand the surface water issues and the complexity of the proposed easements needed for water rights from multiple watershed districts and the apparent easement need of the City of Prior Lake, it will require a fair amount of coordinated planning. Also, other property owners will need to be involved to determine pond locations and other related issues for the area. I have contacted Scott Merkley at the Scott County Highway Department and hope to share some of the ideas with him that we discussed at our meeting, especially issues relating to Pike Lake Road and the new highway #21. Respectfully, I would request that this area be added into the MUSA district at the next available opportunity. It would also seem prudent that planning activity begin, due to the number of governmental agencies involved. Please keep me posted. Sincerely, Randall R. Noecker, president Noecker & Associates, Inc. 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn- 55112 Home Office 786 -6387 Cell Phone 741 -2662 Mr. Mark McNeal City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minn. 55379 Dear Mr. McNeal, Last fall, I signed an agreement to sell my farm at 7301 Eagle Creek in Shakopee. My agreement with Ran N o_ ecker is subject to City approvals. Therefore, I am making a request that my property be submitted in the next proposal to the Metropolitan Council for sewer and water extension. It is my desire to allow Randy Noecker to develop my property immediately. Respectfully, Terry Hanson 7301 Eagle Creek Shakopee, Minn. 55379 Noecker & Associates, Inc. 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minn. 55379 Dear Michael, July 6, Last year we had a brief meeting about the development of the Eagle Creek Stables property, south of Southbridge. As developer, it is my desire to develop this property in 2001. Therefore, I am making a formal request to enter the MUSA district. In speaking with Dan Jobe at the County Highway department today, I discovered that the County will be doing an EAW not an EIS on Highway #21, and he told me this report will be completed at the end of the year. Dan indicated that the County would like the developers to pay for part of the road. I told him that would be unlikely because the cost of permiter roads along with interior roads is usually to much to bear_ It is my understanding that Southbridge will not pay anything toward the cost of #21 _ It is my desire to have another meeting to discuss issues about fature zoning and other related issues in the development. Please give me a call. Sincerely, /0 / � � " / JUL 1 0 2000 IU Randall R Noecker, president Noecker & Associates, Inc. 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 Office 763- 786 -6387 Cell 612 -741 -2662 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, Minn. 55112 August 7, 2000 Mr. Michael Leek � r Community Development Director City of Shakopee I 129 Holmes Street South ALG 0 9 2 000 L Shakopee, Minn. 55379 RE: Eagle Creek Stables Property 7301 Eagle Creek Blvd. Dear Michael, It is my desire to develop the 80 acre parcel of land adjacent to and south of SouthBridge. This property is currently know as the Eagle Creek Stables. The new County highway # 21 will go between SouthBridge and Eagle Creek Stables ( east and west ) on the SouthBridge property and because of the proximity to the (soon to be) new shopping center located at highway's # 18 and # 21, it will likely be my desire to create a plat in a PRD, under a conditional use permit with a 5 acre neighborhood commercial site and about 30 acres in medium to high townhouse zoning, and develop the remaining land into upper bracket single family homes. Housing demands are ever changing and more and more people want town homes_ The two watershed districts desire to increase their flow easement from Prior Lake and surrounding areas as it goes through this 80 acre property, which will give us the opportunity to creatively develop a meandering creek system in this property. In a few months I should be able to submit a concept plan under this basic format. In the near firture I would like to meet and listen to any suggestions you might have and discuss project issues prior to this plat submittal. Please advise me, when you would like to see this plan. It is my desire to build my streets in the development, while Scott County builds highway # 21. I am told this can be done in the summer of 2001.1 look forward to developing this land in the City of Shakopee. Sincerely, Randall R. Noecker, president 8315 Pleasant View Drive Mounds View, _ 55112 Cell 612 - 741 -2662 Office 763 - 786 -6387 � vwsi vvg I I i v T � ASP"ALT INC . 1 U 1 The 0 17 1Y way to pave" 1451 STAGECOACH ROAD SHAKOPE . MN sS379-2797 P ON e ) 4 - ,Ja )uls 14 2000 City Couac7 City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee -\2 55379 Dear City Co unal W =e waging you in response ro , 7our sot ce of a e==g = err= V the Prcp °sed public improsemear projecr no. 2000 -5, anal as ow•ne_-s of :he and °-=d bll�- 2. : 145 1 Sragecoach Road, (Northwest Asphalr a=d Pfeiffer Prop�es), which is lomred Tc r �pesed Arta W v,= iate:esred in the prospect of sc',vcr a :d wz= co.._3 =o our location and would welcome it Howes er; upon fnrthcr invesagauonwe lamed t= " "0' =,a not become mailable ro us. Rather, it Was to be installed zo the property lite= across ^die roaC A proposed sire for eommcrcial use) We w are also told our propery could aot be betmuse it did not fall under- t h e Metropolitan plat= for the sewer treatment plaats- 'Ibis all seeass to rbly unfair. Our business has been at *hs s..^ -e location for over 20 years, yet someone "aca'' comes m the area and requests sewer and ants.., a t has it gr3nred_ How could the metropolitan plan be so short sighred to notindvde 0 of 1= c S12SCPee arca A number of businesses along with ousselses base occipied � c old 'Hw7 18 2- fc= Tang sue, y� we are nor in consideration for dry amenities, now or in the fsturc. How car- :hs e : ° -:? We iarize your response to this- Pe=baps these are plats is -d:e warks we have no knowledge of- Your phone can or lerrer Would be O rl y appreciated- s incerely, Mike Pfeiffc r Deb He= on Don Pfeiffer AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER "' C_T' 901 WEST 94TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55420 -4299 612/888 -4121 November 16, 1998 City of Shakopee Attn: Bruce Loney Public Works Director 129 Holmes St. So. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Loney: Ziegler Inc. owns and occupies the three Shakopee properties located at 7950, 8000 and 8050 State Hwy. 101. After researching the possibility of bringing city sewer lines to these properties, we find the MUSA Line to be within one - quarter of a mile to the west of our property. We wish to petition the City of Shakopee to begin the process of getting the MUSA Line extended past our property, possibly as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. We are currently planning to undertake a major expansion to the 8050 building and would be adding several people to the Shakopee area work force. We currently have city water runnin to this site. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, S. K. Erickson Executive Vice President Secretary/Treasurer SKE:hnb From: Stevm D. Solt= To: Mchad Ledo Date: 3/13 12002 Time: 7:10:44 AM August 30, 2001 Michael Leek City of Shakopee _ 129 S. Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Zoning request by Ryland Homes East portion of SCLP property east of Highway 18 Dear Michael: Page 3 of 3 Pursuant to our discussions please accept this correspondence as a request by Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership for consideration of re- guiding the land use for the area included in the submission by Ryland Homes as multi - family residential. The Zoning request by Ryland Homes is scheduled for September 6, 2001 _ The northern area of the entire site being considered by Ryland is the specific subject area of the zoning request_ This area is in MUSA but is currently guided Commercial. In the Land Use Map of the proposed, but not yet approved and adopted, Comprehensive Plan this area is guided Commercial. it is my understanding that because the area is currently guided Commercial, no action will be taken on the rezoning, but it will be suggested that is appropriate to consider the first step in amending the Land Use Map. I will be attending the meeting of the 6 and took forward to participation in the discussion regarding the revision of the proposed land use. Tf you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership Steven D_ Soltau Project Manager/Partner sukopea GrMings Uaud parmorstup 3601 Mlnnm to Brie¢, Sune 880 Edina, MN 55435 (612) 921-58M FAX (612) 832 -05M rw .. 2 Executive Summary tIMN OTHER BUSINESS Agenda Item: 2002 -26 eetinq date: February 13 , 2002 Date: February 5, 2002 Subject: Comprehensive Plan, City of Shakopee, Referral No. 18162 -1 District(s), ember(s): Phil Riveness, Metropolitan Council District 5, 952- 841 -9827 Policy /Legal Reference: MN Statutes 473.864, Subd. 2 and 473.175, Subd. 1, Staff Prepared /Presented: Tom Caswell, Principal Reviewer, Ping & Technical Assistance 602 -1319 Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Planning and Technical Assistance 602 -1566 Eli Cooper, Director, Planning & Growth Management 602 -1521 Division /Department: Policy Alig nment & Development/Planning and Growth Management The city of Shakopee's comprehensive plan is in conformity with the regional system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, and Wastewater Services. The plan contains a minor departure from the Transportation Policy Plan because it does not recognize the potential realignment of Trunk Highway 41. The plan is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The city's plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent communities and school districts. Although the forecasts in the Shakopee plan are significantly higher than Metropolitan Council's, the city has grown at a much faster rate than previously forecast, and may well continue to grow at a significantly higher rate. A higher growth rate in Shakopee, located along a major transportation corridor, is preferred to growth in the adjacent rural townships. The city's plan to 2020, for lands within the city's present boundaries, is acceptable. The city's plan proposes to guide land use for lands in adjacent areas of Jackson Township. Those areas are outside of the city's present jurisdiction, and are excluded from this review. When the city annexes adjacent lands, it will need to submit comprehensive plan amendments to the Council for review. PROPOSED ACTION/ MOTION That the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Review Record and the following recommendations: 1. The city of Shakopee may put those portions of its comprehensive plan into effect for the area within the city's existing jurisdictional boundaries and no plan modifications are required. Those parts of the city's plan for areas outside its jurisdiction are considered advisory only, and the city must submit comprehensive plan amendments to the Council for review at such times as the areas are annexed by the city. 2. The city must prepare and provide the Council with an inflow /infiltration study of the flood prone areas. This study along with an implementation plan should be submitted as an appendix to the city's Tier R comprehensive sewer plan. 3. If the city alters, expands, or improves its sewage disposal systean, it must first submit the Tier H comprehensive sewer plan to the Council for its approval before the sewer additions or alterations can be initiated (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.513). Upon adoption of the comprehensive plan by the city, the sewer element of the plan should be resubmitted to the Council to fulfill this requirement. 4. The city of Shakopee is reminded that the 2001 Legislature adopted a law requiring cities to address planning for aggregate resources. Subsequent to that, the Council directed staff to include linking access to aggregate resources with the Transportation Policy Plan as it revises the Regional Blueprint for planning through the year 2030. Shakopee is ranked fifth in anticipated growth to 2020. According to the 2000 Census, Shakopee had 20,568 people in 7,540 households, and an estimated 12,478 jobs. Shakopee is a Livable Communities Act participant. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies the city of Shakopee as a MUSA area community with some Illustrative Urban Reserve shown in the southern portion of the city. According to Council forecasts, Shakopee should plan to accommodate 38,900 people in 15,500 households and 15,800 jobs by 2020. The city's plan indicates that the city will meet or exceed Council forecasts for households by 2020. The city has experienced significantly higher growth rates in the past few years, and has virtually doubled the number of households in the past ten years. According to the 2000 census, the city had approximately 2,100 more households in the year 2000 than were forecast. The city is proposing an undesignated MUSA, with an annual expansion rate of approximately 220 acres per year. Given the recent growth rate, this amount appears reasonable, if not conservative. Due to the rapid growth rate in the city, coupled with this draft plan being nearly four years old, this plan does not fully meet the city's long -term needs. As a result, the city has hired a planning consultant to assist in preparing the next plan update. The city anticipates that the new update will be submitted for Council review by the end of 2002. Through conversations with the city, Council staff has learned that the city is proposing a very public process; much like Scott County used in the preparation of its plan. In addition, the city has indicated that it would like the Council's involvement in developing the new plan. H Infrastructure: The plan is consistent with Council policies for MUSA area communities. H Quality of life: The plan supports employment opportunities for residents, and encourages development of commercial and industrial activities that support the surrounding area. ll Communication /constituency building: The city exercised an extensive comprehensive plan public hearing process. B Alignment: The comprehensive plan meets all of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for 1998 plan updates and is consiste with Council policies. ATTACHMENTS Policy Matrix Review Record Figure 1 -- Location Map, City of Shakopee Figure 2 -- Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas, City of Shakopee Figure 3 -- Regional Systems, City of Shakopee Figure 4 -- 2020 Land Use Plan, City of Shakopee, 1999 01 t • i ■ ■ ■ ■ • cs o y c O O j,,,, CC •� Cl 01 r/] V7 � CJ �i dew ea U U U 4 Z z �� •ado 10 cv R" a o o a� � o o o ,•n o �• . o s, ., �., w e c � ��,`� •��a� °c a. ���a� 00 ° �_ > L. a a c V 0 0 0 U M QV �O M M U O 'C C U �..i C v U Uv�awCi, 0 • e • e • ti O '�-� a� a� a� C O •.+ � � °' o o Cd ►� x 4 o a� v c n F cu o a UD O O U tea° o U d O Cd N N A ..� `x �4 • • • y � v c a. a� z Z a� Q � CIO Un � z v o Z •> c p a\ aN v - a 011 � � v eC y • a C rv'., a� o L2 o ... rA .o a rei a, y ° eOC O .., GM v II •> ^ I� �.I r p„ i, Q+ ►�rTd "Cl ar,;= w o r.. ��,, O •C G W O ©� O v Q. - 6Z 'C1 O y •� .0 .., Gn cn aQ ^ .Vi 11,y •r1 , N � Vq „irn 'ad m a� � - y v a. a� z Z a� Q CIO Un z v Z ON REVIEW RECO CITY OF SHAKOPEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IJPDAT The city of Shakopee is located in northern Scott County. It is surrounded on the north by the Minnesota River and the cities of Chanhassen in Carver County, and Eden Prairie in Hennepin County. In Scott County, the cities of Savage and Prior Lake are on the east and south, respectively, while Jackson and Louisville Townships are to the west of Shakopee. The city is 18,143 acres in area. Of that, approximately one third of the city is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The city has experienced substantial growth in the recent past, particularly during the 1990's. The city has grown from about 4,163 households in 1990 to 7,540 in the 2000 census. Also, according to the 2000 census, Scott County was the fastest growing county in the state during the 1990's. Of all the Scott County communities, Shakopee was second in growth only to the city of Savage. Reconstruction of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge, coupled with the Highway 169 bypass has contributed to this rapid growth. • • SA8114 The Metropolitan Land Planning Act, as amended, requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and plan amendments to the Council for review (MN. Stat. 473.864, Subd. 2). The Act requires Council review of the plans to determine their conformity with metropolitan system plans, consistency with other adopted plans of the Council, and compatibility with the plans of other local jurisdictions in the Metropolitan Area (MN. Stat 473.175, Subd.1). .. • . •, The Council has reviewed and acted on a variety of plan amendments and environmental reviews in the past several years. In 1996, the Council approved a plan amendment adding nearly 1,600 acres of land to the city's MUSA. The city is a Livable Communities Act (LCA) participant. The city has received two separate LCA grants totaling $220,000 for the construction of affordable, rental townhomes. The city received a $12,350 planning assistance grant. Staff reviewed the plan update for conformity with regional system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, Transportation and Wastewater Services, for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent governmental units and school districts. Materials received for review included: ® 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, Shakopee, Minnesota, December 1999 ® Supplemental Information related to MUSA expansion, Aviation, Housing, Wastewater Services, Water Supply, ISTS, Land Use, and Transportation, November 7, 2000 (Submitted November 17 2000) ® Supplemental information related to Land Use Map and Table, Wastewater Services base on revised forecasts, Revised Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and a Report to City Council regarding interceptor seer flooding, November 7 2001 (submitted November 14, 200 1) The city's comprehensive plan update was initially submitted on December 30, 1999, and was found incomplete for review. The review suspended pending receipt of missing materials. In November 2000, the city submitted substantial additional materials, which were found to address most but not all of the missing materials. Additional supplemental materials received in November 2001 addressed the remainder of the incompleteness issues and the plan was found complete for review on November 30, 2001. 5 REGIONAL BLUEPRINT (Tom Caswell, 651- 602 -1319) The Regional Growth Strategy identifies the city of Shakopee as a MUSA area community. This is a change from previous Council policy plans, which designated Shakopee as a Freestanding Growth Center. The Metropolitan Area has grown and expanded enough so that what was once a separate smaller city, is now a part of the urban area. The city is proposing an undesignatect or "floating" MUSA. This approach has been successful in other communities, and endorsed by the Council for such cities as Victoria, Hugo, Farmington, and Belle Plaine. As can be seen in the land use table below, the city anticipates the need to add approximately 2,200 acres to it's MUSA between 2000 and 2010. The average annual addition, therefore, would be about 220 acres. Of this acreage, approximately 175 acres per year would be for residential uses. The City will be required to submit annual reports to the Council indicating the acreage, Iocation, land use type and density of areas added to its urban service area the previous year. Based on the amount of land the city anticipates adding to the MUSA, together with the forecasted growth, the residential development proposed in the plan will exceed three units per net acre, after wetlands and other land restricted by ordinance are removed from the calculation. Cam arison of. -i and Council Forecasts Po ` ulation 2000 y 2010'- 202Q Shakopee 23,056 38,547 40,653 Council 17,500 28,100 38,900 Households _ Shakopee 8,539 13,767 16,786 Council 6,400 11,000 15,500 Em to went Shakopee 10,900 12,099 13,430 Council 10,900 14,200 1 15,800 The Shakopee plan and land use table includes 1,794 acres of land in Jackson Township that may be annexed to Shakopee prior to 2020. However, because areas of future annexation are not within the city's present jurisdictional boundaries, the Council cannot officially review and approve those portions of the plan. Shakopee will need to submit plan amendments to address land use and infrastructure as annexations occur. Subregional Analysis Shakopee is part of a subregion that includes northern Scott County, eastern Carver County and southern Hennepin County. It includes the cities of Chaska and Chanhassen in Carver County, and Eden Prairie in Hennepin County. In Scott County, the cities of Savage and Prior Lake are on the east and south, respectively, while Jackson and Louisville Townships are to the west of Shakopee. With the exception of Eden Prairie, the Council has completed its review of the comprehensive plans for all of the communities. In both a regional and subregional context, Shakopee is a very high growth community. In the Metropolitan Area, the city is ranked fifth in anticipated household growth for the period 2000 to 2020, and first in Scott County. 2 LANDUSE Existing MUSA Existing Non-MUSA Existing TOTAL .2010 ': MUSA _- TOTAL 2010 . Non- MUSA 2010 TOTAL MUSA 2020 2020 Non- MUSA 2020 TOTAL Rural Residential (RR) 0 1,000 1,000 0 1000 1000 0 1000 1000 Urban Reserve incl. RR Low Density Residential 2210 0 2,210 3670 0 3670 5020 0 5020 Low Medium Density Res. — -- — -- -- -- -- -- -- Attached (Multiple- Family) Residential 158 -- 0 158 458 0 458 408 0 408 Subtotal - Residential 2368 1000 3368 4128 1000 5128 1 5428 1000 6428 Commercial 621 17 638 738 0 738 838 0 838 Industrial 1,928 910 2,838 2938 0 2938 2938 0 2938 Public /Semi- Public 350 20 370 460 0 460 460 0 460 Natural Open Space 0 0 0 -- -- — — -- — Environmentally Sensitive 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- Restricted Development 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- City Parks and Open Space 507 1,054 1,561 1195 1054 2249 2796 0 2796 Rights -of -Way (Roads/Highways) 292 299 591 563 99 662 662 0 662 Subtotal — Other Developed 3,698 2,300 5,998 5894 1153 7047 7694 0 7694 TOTAL - DEVELOPED 6,066 3,300 9,366 10,022 2153 12,175 13,122 1000 14,122 Agriculture 650 5145 5795 0 4144 4144 2443 960 3403 Subtotal - Agriculture 650 5145 5795 0 4144 4144 2443 960 3403 Subtotal - Vacant Residential 1,450 0 1,450 812 0 812 1400 0 1400 Vacant Commercial 320 0 320 100 0 100 0 0 0 Vacant Industrial 300 0 300 0 0 0 100 0 100 Subtotal - Vacant 2070 0 2070 912 0 912 1500 0 1500 TOTAL — AG & VACANT 2720 5145 7865 912 0 912 1500 0 1500 TOTAL LAND 8786 8445 17231 10,934 6297 17231 17,065 1960 19,025* Water 110 802 912 110 802 912 912 0 912 TOTAL AREA 8896 9247 18,143 11,044 7099 18,143 17,977 1960 19,937* Revised 12/27/2001; by R. Michael Leek * The city anticipates annexing 1794 acres from Jackson Township between 2010 and 2020. Sand, Gravel and Dolostone Deposits Shakopee has a very large area of mined and/or urbanized sand and gravel deposits identified in the Council's study of aggregates in the Region. Most of the deposits are located in the northern part of the city generally north of the Shakopee Bypass between Co. Rd. 83 on the east and old Hwy 169 on the west. The city also has some of the largest unencumbered sand and gravel deposits in the region located south of the Shakopee Bypass between Co. Rd. 16 on the east and Co. Rd. 15 on the west. These are areas outside the present MUSA and still in use for farming. Also, there are dolostone bed deposits located along the north face of the older sand and gravel deposits as well as south of Hwy 101 in the Valley Industrial Park. The city's plan should consider how to best protect these natural resources from urbanization in the near term, so that they can be mined and the land reclaimed for urbanization and reuse. 7 It should be noted that the 2001 legislative session passed a bill requiring communities to address and plan for aggregate resources. Additionally, in recognition of the importance of aggregate resources to the region, the Council directed staff working on the revision of the Regional Blueprint to include a linkage between access to aggregate resources and the Transportation Policy Plan. Historic Preservation; Solar Access Protection The plan includes goals and objectives for the city to use to identify and preserve historic resources and structures. These objectives include the development of historic preservation commission as well as preservation ordinances. The plan addresses solar access protection, with specific actions to be taken, as required by state law. Plan Implementation The city will evaluate and update its zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to eliminate inconsistencies and to implement the comprehensive plan. The plan includes a capital improvement program (CIP). REGIONAL SYSTEMS Aviation (Chauncey Case 652- 602 -1724) The city of Shakopee is within the influence area of the Flying Cloud reliever airport; however, there are no development or operational concerns since the majority of the influence area overlies the city limits located within the Minnesota River Valley. The city is not impacted by existing or planned airport operations or development as described in the current Final Environmental Impact Statement on the airport 2015 Long Term Comprehensive Plan. The city is not affected by any heliport or seaplane planning considerations. The city is within the Flying Cloud airport airspace and the region's general airspace that should be protected from potential obstructions to air navigation. The final version of the Shakopee Comprehensive plan includes an aviation element. It addresses protection of the region's general airspace, recognizes potential operational and noise effects of Flying Cloud airport, height zoning and acknowledges heliport and seaplane planning considerations. It is expected that the city will participated on a joint airport zoning board with the Metropolitan Airports Commission and city of Eden Prairie in updating the airport zoning ordinance to reflect the new airport layout plan. The plan is in conformance with the Aviation Policy Plan. Recreation Open Space (Phyllis Hanson, 651- 602 -1566) The Shakopee Comprehensive plan is in conformance with the Regional Recreation Open Space System Policy Plan. One regional facility, the Scott County West (Minnesota Valley - County Road 82) Regional Trail is partially located in the city of Shakopee. Hennepin Parks, under a joint powers agreement with Scott- Hennepin Parks Board, is the Implementing Agency responsible for the planning, acquisition, development, operations and maintenance of this trail. The plan identifies this trail and refers to the coordination by the city and Hennepin Parks in the development of the master plan. The Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan chapter includes an illustration, which designates the James W. Wilke Regional Park. The city should note that this facility was a regional park under the operations of Hennepin Parks until the late 1970's. It is now part of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and should be indicated as such when mapped in the future. Transportation (Mark Filipi, 651- 602 -1725) The transportation element of the Shakopee Comprehensive plan predominantly conforms to the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) and addresses all the applicable transportation and transit requirements of a comprehensive plan, with the exception of one minor departure noted below. Shakopee is served by several elements of the metropolitan highway system: TH 169 (Shakopee Bypass); and CSAH 18. Other major roadways in the city serve as "A" Minor Arterials. These roads are as follows: North -South Oriented Minor Arterials CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) East -West Oriented Minor Arterials TH 101 Shakopee is not served by Metropolitan Transit service. Instead, the city provides service through Shakopee Area Transit (SAT). Services currently provided are: Dial -a -Ride service within the Shakopee City limits. Express bus service to Eden Prairie Center during peak hours. Commuter vanpools. The Shakopee comprehensive plan contains one minor departure from the Regional Transportation Policy Plan. The plan evaluates existing traffic problems, as well as anticipated problems in future years. It also provides information on road improvements needed to address these problems. However, the plan fails to address one future element of the future regional highway system. A potential realignment of TH 41 has been included in the Regional Transportation Policy Plan. Shakopee should include this potential realignment in its future transportation plan and participate in any corridor study conducted to evaluate this realignment. While this is a departure from the Transportation Policy Plan, it is not a substantial departure. Wastewater Services (Donald Bluhm, 651- 602 -1116) The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides sanitary sewer services to the city of Shakopee via interceptors MCES 7023 and MCES 9206. The wastewater is treated at the Blue Lake Waste Water Treatment Plant in Shakopee. The city has projected a 2020 flow of 7.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The metropolitan disposal system (MDS) has adequate capacity during non -flood conditions to provide for the needs of the city, as shown in its comprehensive plan. The wastewater flows from the city during the April 2001 flood reached a flow level of 3 times the normal flows. These high flows are a major concern for the MCES. These high flows demand substantial capacity be reserved in the MDS to continue to accept these wet weather peaks without sewage either backing up into homes or by- passing flows to the Minnesota River. The Council is concerned that the MDS, and ultimately the treatment plant, will not have adequate capacity. Given the city's projected growth, as shown in the comprehensive plan, there may not be adequate capacity unless the city can eliminate the high peak flow during flood conditions. Although the plan is in conformance with the Water Resources Policy Plan, staff recommends that the city be allowed to implement the comprehensive plan with the understanding that the city needs to also reduce its peak flows during flood conditions on the Minnesota River. To ensure this reduction, the city will need to prepare and provide the Council with an UI study of the flood prone areas. This study, along with an implementation plan, should be submitted as an appendix to the city's Tier H comprehensive sewer plan. If the city plans to alter, expand or improve its sewage disposal system, it must first submit the Tier H comprehensive sewer plan to the Council for its approval before any sewer additions or alterations can be initiated (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.513). Upon adoption of the comprehensive plan by the city, the Sewer Element of the plan should be resubmitted to the Council to fulfill this requirement. 9 OTHER METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE CHAPTERS Housing (Guy Peterson, 651- 602 -1418) The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) requires communities to prepare a land use plan that includes "a housing element containing standards, plans, and programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional needs, including but not limited to use of official controls and land use planning to promote the availability of land for development of low- and moderate- income housing." It further requires that the comprehensive plan present an implementation program that describes the "public programs, fiscal devices and other specific actions" to implement the plan "including official controls to implement the housing element, which will provide sufficient existing and new housing to meet the local unit's share of the metropolitan area need for low- and moderate - income housing." In 1996, the Council gave direction to communities that comprehensive plans should include the goals negotiated with the Council for participation in the Livable Communities Act. Shakopee's plan, as amended through correspondence from November 2000, does include these goals. As mentioned above, one housing planning requirement of the MLPA is that the plan must identify the housing programs, fiscal devices and official controls, including the availability of land, necessary to accomplish and accommodate these affordable housing goals. Shakopee's plan update identifies no specific housing assistance, development, rehabilitation or home improvement programs or resources presently available, nor the potential use of any local funding tools. The plan acknowledges only that affordable housing will be aided by the Scott County HRA and MHFA. Perhaps the most important aspect of whether the plan meets MLPA requirements — land availability to meet goals — Shakopee's plan now does so. In light of the January 29, 2002, letter from the city and its attached, revised land use table identifying a significantly greater amount of land to be guided for "attached (multiple family)" housing through 2010, the housing element of Shakopee's comprehensive plan update now can be described as consistent with regional housing policy and fulfilling the housing planning requirements of the Land Planning Act. The letter and table address the intention of the City of Shakopee to "shift" 150 acres of land previously identified for low - density residential to the "attached" housing category which permits the broad range of 5 to 18 units per acre. In doing so, the plan will identify a sufficient amount of land to accommodate the balance of the city's affordable housing goals to 2010 — more than 900 affordable ownership units (townhomes) and over 1600 rental units. Shakopee has been receptive to affordable rental housing proposals, and has, in fact, seen two such developments built since 1996, both with some assistance provided through modest LCA housing grants. However, the plan contains no housing data or housing - related demographics from the 2000 census, or any data source more recent than the 1990 census. To understand its housing situation and needs, and consider them in developing its policies, goals and implementation actions, the plan should, at a minimum, examine current household and income characteristics, housing data regarding prevailing values, rents, vacancy rates, condition and age. The data discussed in the plan does not provide a solid base for decision making in 2002. As the city continues to rewrite its comprehensive plan during 2002, it is strongly encouraged to develop a thorough and current housing data and inventory section to the housing element. It must specifically identify the location of the 300 acres for "attached" housing it intends to have in place before 2010, and should prepare an implementation section of the housing element that contains at least as much specificity as the Housing Action Plan submitted by the city in August 1996 to fulfill Livable Communities Act participation requirements. 10 SHAKOPEE CITY INDEX BEXC III31AR K GOAL Affordability Ownership 90% ° 64-69% 64% Rental 53% 32-35% 32% Life Cycle Type (Non- single family detached) 34% 35-38% 35% Owner /renter mix 68/32% (70 -75) / (25 -30)% 70/30% Density Single- family detached 2.1 / acre 1.9 — 2.3 / acre 1.9 / acre Multifamily 13 / acre 10 — I 1 / acre 10 / acre Water Resources Management (James Larsen, 651 -602 -1159) Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISIS) Only two properties in the city continue to utilize ISIS. The city does not have an ISTS ordinance, and defers to Carver County to monitor the systems within the city. The county's program is consistent with current Council and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. Surface Water Management The city's plan includes policy language, which addresses the requirements of the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies. The city has provided a copy of a resolution to the Council indicating that its land use controls will be amended to incorporate the criteria, within 120 days of Council affirmative action on the overall plan. Water Supply The water supply plan component is adequate to address the city's needs through this document's planning period. 11 Compatibility with Adjacent Jurisdictions and School Districts The plan was forwarded to the adjacent jurisdictions and appropriate school district for review. The city's plan appears to be compatible with the plans of adjacent local governments 1. Shakopee's comprehensive plan meets all Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for 1998 plan updates. 2. The plan is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The plan includes land use proposals for areas outside the city's present jurisdictional boundaries. These parts of the plan cannot be formally reviewed by the Council until those lands come into the city. The city must submit plan amendments to the Council for review for all lands annexed. 3. The plan is in conformance with the metropolitan system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, and Wastewater Services. 4. The plan contains a minor departure from the Transportation Policy Plan. The plan should be amended to recognize the potential realignment of TH 41. However, because the departure is not substantial, a required plan modification is not needed. 5. The plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. LI lra , :- .C_s?tU � RFr:_' 1 ;7_' Rclx rte. ha c�p2e C�z R vic-V; 1 9 16-- _doc 12 Figure 1. Location Map City of Shakopee, Scott County Cha nhas. 4n - - - -__ '= _Eden Prairie _ = - omincn- -- pe Shako Savage Tackso n Twp. _ Twp: Prior. _ Cred - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -� " - -- -Bluer _ Sand Creek Twp. Spring ake Twp. ® __�__ Figure ' Land Use Plan City o Shakopee Scott Co unty LEGEND !r " 1 77 Aed(um ).—tr 2ende¢:ial -.� "� High Jen.+uv �-'�✓� . .'.nidcatii I = Ple¢aad 3— devua1 ' ! :`� —_ �n ;hborhoN :'ommereiel OIDL1r . _ � 3ussaear ?orl• A '.. r Ite aaaatriet ) ?ark T-: y t •� }4C- r �r _ . s,,1 )p<a space t r 1• M �1LCSA 3ouaaur =try �mtta 4 �" •x ' /�fc'' Spy—.. -VSt Ezpaa Ateu .y �Jcerlav Ides gM S(inin, ]rnrlev :aad is T—L Pl ecnA Into "nut � &nsa¢c 3andeactal D ec I.Pm u within 3 C `Oe tea° CITY WIDE ' LAND USE PLAN t 1 Shakopee -1� i • _ / " = =r= Com rehensive Plar_ Cay Shakop +.. >iiaaeso t: 1999 iJ - '�� CDAO42IIS120II$SAR97® Executive Summary U OTHER BUSINESS Agenda Item: 2002 -26 Date: February 5, 2002 Subject: Comprehensive Plan, City of Shakopee, Referral No. 18162 -1 District(s), ember(s): Phil Riveness, Metropolitan Council District 5, 952- 841 -9827 Policy /Legal Reference: MN Statutes 473.864, Subd. 2 and 473.175, Subd. 1, Staff Prepared /Presented: Tom Caswell, Principal Reviewer, Ping & Technical Assistance 602 -1319 Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Planning and Technical Assistance 602 -1566 Eli Cooper, Director, Planning & Growth Management 602 -1521 Division /Department: Policy Alignment & Development/Planning and Growth Managem The city of Shakopee's comprehensive plan is in conformity with the regional system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, and Wastewater Services. The plan contains a minor departure from the Transportation Policy Plan because it does not recognize the potential realignment of Trunk Highway 41. The plan is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The city's plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent communities and school districts. Although the forecasts in the Shakopee plan are significantly higher than Metropolitan Council's, the city has grown at a much faster rate than previously forecast, and may well continue to grow at a significantly higher rate. A higher growth rate in Shakopee, located along a major transportation corridor, is preferred to growth in the adjacent rural townships. The city's plan to 2020, for lands within the city's present boundaries, is acceptable. The city's plan proposes to guide land use for lands in adjacent areas of Jackson Township. Those areas are outside of the city's present jurisdiction, and are excluded from this review. When the city annexes adjacent lands, it will need to submit comprehensive plan amendments to the Council for review. PROPOSED ACTION /MOTION That the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Review Record and the following recommendations: 1. The city of Shakopee may put those portions of its comprehensive plan into effect for the area within the city's existing jurisdictional boundaries and no plan modifications are required. Those parts of the city's plan for areas outside its jurisdiction are considered advisory only, and the city must submit comprehensive plan amendments to the Council for review at such times as the areas are annexed by the city. 2. The city must prepare and provide the Council with an inflow /infiltration study of the flood prone areas. This study along with an implementation plan should be submitted as an appendix to the city's Tier II comprehensive sewer plan. 3. If the city alters, expands, or improves its sewage disposal system, it must first submit the Tier II comprehensive sewer plan to the Council for its approval before the sewer additions or alterations can be initiated (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.513). Upon adoption of the comprehensive plan by the city, the sewer element of the plan should be resubmitted to the Council to fulfill this requirement. 4. The city of Shakopee is reminded that the 2001 Legislature adopted a law requiring cities to address planning for aggregate resources. Subsequent to that, the Council directed staff to include linking access to aggregate resources with the Transportation Policy Plan as it revises the Regional Blueprint for planning through the year 2030. Shakopee is ranked fifth in anticipated growth to 2020. According to the 2000 Census, Shakopee had 20,568 people in 7,540 households, and an estimated 12,478 jobs. Shakopee is a Livable Communities Act participant. The Regional Growth Strategy identifies the city of Shakopee as a MUSA area community with some Illustrative Urban Reserve shown in the southern portion of the city. According to Council forecasts, Shakopee should plan to accommodate 38,900 people in 15,500 households and 15,800 jobs by 2020. The city's plan indicates that the city will meet or exceed Council forecasts for households by 2020. The city has experienced significantly higher growth rates in the past few years, and has virtually doubled the number of households in the past ten years. According to the 2000 census, the city had approximately 2,100 more households in the year 2000 than were forecast. The city is proposing an undesignated MUSA, with an annual expansion rate of approximately 220 acres per year. Given the recent growth rate, this amount appears reasonable, if not conservative. Due to the rapid growth rate in the city, coupled with this draft plan being nearly four years old, this plan does not fully meet the city's long -term needs. As a result, the city has hired a planning consultant to assist in preparing the next plan update. The city anticipates that the new update will be submitted for Council review by the end of 2002. Through conversations with the city, Council staff has learned that the city is proposing a very public process; much like Scott County used in the preparation of its plan. In addition, the city has indicated that it would like the Council's involvement in developing the new plan. H Infrastructure: The plan is consistent with Council policies for MUSA area communities. B Quality Of life: The plan supports employment opportunities for residents, and encourages development of commercial and industrial activities that support the surrounding area. H Communication /constituency building: The city exercised an extensive comprehensive plan public hearing process. Q Alignment: The comprehensive plan meets all of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for 1998 plan updates and is consisten with Council policies. ATTACHMENTS Policy Matrix Review Record Figure 1 -- Location Map, City of Shakopee Figure 2 -- Regional Growth Strategy Policy Areas, City of Shakopee Figure 3 -- Regional Systems, City of Shakopee Figure 4 -- 2020 Land Use Plan, City of Shakopee, 1999 2 t • • i • • - • • • M � r �"' L � v '� F C '' ' t ' • • o �� o f o� U o U o 41 Z o Z ,� O o E- a 1 � •� O � O N p �� .C� O it ri .1_I O v CC •� "� •^ C O C G L O W O eC v' � L. O ^C O O � O • y ++ U O, O � � � � U v� v� i � �p C1 00 M y CZ U 'C U�� w E' 'O M N �G M M U O C CC r ►-a v C C' `CUC p U U eC t A. 4t o • • • o O O GO w •� •cd U C O O O 00 ,� C .Q C� C .x•+ 40 to r M � ® - o s o • o � v I � eC CL i H ¢ o M C.i � o Cr w fy 'C v� •O y , � a� v' i y O U O •O � � �, 'O = �, CA Qn O ^_ � y U O C CG L cu 4n U S■ w � _ •p Q" V1 c� � rA O i. r.+ y O y U •� '�"` � U .� � • blJ C O .0 O � CC U G. CS G) i• � ••• CL O .p p � C4C •� •� .a � �� • y O L •� � y U � o CS a C i. •�" 6� G ::: U U O � ^ y ¢ CQS O � • CC ¢, O" i7. ap CL to r "C a+ U i+ /q A it z Z U CS rse U Z V C.i REVIEW RECORD CITY OF SHAKOPEE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE The city of Shakopee is located in northern Scott County. It is surrounded on the north by the Minnesota River and the cities of Chanhassen in Carver County, and Eden Prairie in Hennepin County. In Scott County, the cities of Savage and Prior Lake are on the east and south, respectively, while Jackson and Louisville Townships are to the west of Shakopee. The city is 18,143 acres in area. Of that, approximately one third of the city is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The city has experienced substantial growth in the recent past, particularly during the 1990's. The city has grown from about 4,163 households in 1990 to 7,540 in the 2000 census. Also, according to the 2000 census, Scott County was the fastest growing county in the state during the 1990's. Of all the Scott County communities, Shakopee was second in growth only to the city of Savage. Reconstruction of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge, coupled with the Highway 169 bypass has contributed to this rapid growth. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act, as amended, requires local units of government to submit comprehensive plans and plan amendments to the Council for review (MN. Stat. 473.864, Subd. 2). The Act requires Council review of the plans to determine their conformity with metropolitan system plans, consistency with other adopted plans of the Council, and compatibility with the plans of other local jurisdictions in the Metropolitan Area (MN. Stat 473.175, Subd.l). Im The Council has reviewed and acted on a variety of plan amendments and environmental reviews in the past several years. In 1996, the Council approved a plan amendment adding nearly 1,600 acres of land to the city's MUSA. The city is a Livable Communities Act (LCA) participant. The city has received two separate LCA grants totaling $220,000 for the construction of affordable, rental townhomes. The city received a 512,350 planning assistance grant. Staff reviewed the plan update for conformity with regional system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, Transportation and Wastewater Services, for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent governmental units and school districts. Materials received for review included: ® 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update, Shakopee, Minnesota, December 1999 ® Supplemental Information related to MUSA expansion, Aviation, Housing, Wastewater Services, Water Supply, ISTS, Land Use, and Transportation, November 7, 2000 (Submitted November 17 2000) ® Supplemental information related to Land Use Map and Table, Wastewater Services base on revised forecasts, Revised Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and a Report to City Council regarding interceptor seer flooding, November 7 2001 (submitted November 14, 2001) The city's comprehensive plan update was initially submitted on December 30, 1999, and was found incomplete for review. The review suspended pending receipt of missing materials. In November 2000, the city submitted substantial additional materials, which were found to address most but not all of the missing materials. Additional supplemental materials received in November 2001 addressed the remainder of the incompleteness issues and the plan was found complete for review on November 30, 2001. 5 R-EGIONAL BLUEPRINT (Tom Caswell, 651 -602 -1319) The Regional Growth Strategy identifies the city of Shakopee as a MUSA area community. This is a change from previous Council policy plans, which designated Shakopee as a Freestanding Growth Center. The Metropolitan Area has grown and expanded enough so that what was once a separate smaller city, is now a part of the urban area. The city is proposing an undesignated or "floating" MUSA. This approach has been successful in other communities, and endorsed by the Council for such cities as Victoria, Hugo, Farmington, and Belle Plaine. As can be seen in the land use table below, the city anticipates the need to add approximately 2,200 acres to it's MUSA between 2000 and 2010. The average annual addition, therefore, would be about 220 acres. Of this acreage, approximately 175 acres per year would be for residential uses. The city will be required to submit annual reports to the Council indicating the acreage, location, land use type and density of areas added to its urban service area the previous year. Based on the amount of land the city anticipates adding to the MUSA, together with the forecasted growth, the residential development proposed in the plan will exceed three units per net acre, after wetlands and other land restricted by ordinance are removed from the calculation. Co arison of City and Council Forecasts, Population 2000 2010 2020 '< Shakopee 23,056 38,547 40,653 Council 17,500 28,100 38,900 Households Shakopee 8,539 13,767 16,786 Council 6,400 11,000 15,500 Employment Shakopee 10,900 12,099 13,430 Council 10,900 1 14,200 1 15,800 The Shakopee plan and land use table includes 1,794 acres of land in Jackson Township that may be annexed to Shakopee prior to 2020. However, because areas of future annexation are not within the city's present jurisdictional boundaries, the Council cannot officially review and approve those portions of the plan. Shakopee will need to submit plan amendments to address land use and infrastructure as annexations occur. Subregional Analysis Shakopee is part of a subregion that includes northern Scott County, eastern Carver County and southern Hennepin County. It includes the cities of Chaska and Chanhassen in Carver County, and Eden Prairie in Hennepin County. In Scott County, the cities of Savage and Prior Lake are on the east and south, respectively, while Jackson and Louisville Townships are to the west of Shakopee. With the exception of Eden Prairie, the Council has completed its review of the comprehensive plans for all of the communities. In both a regional and subregional context, Shakopee is a very high growth community. In the Metropolitan Area, the city is ranked fifth in anticipated household growth for the period 2000 to 2020, and first in Scott County. 0 LAND USE ACREAGE TABLE CITY of SHAKOPEE 1999 Comprehensive Plan Revised 12/27/2001; by R. Michael Leek * The city anticipates annexing 1794 acres from Jackson Township between 2010 and 2020. Sand, Gravel and Dolostone Deposits Shakopee has a very large area of mined and/or urbanized sand and gravel deposits identified in the Council's study of aggregates in the Region. Most of the deposits are located in the northern part of the city generally north of the Shakopee Bypass between Co. Rd. 83 on the east and old Hwy 169 on the west. The city also has some of the largest unencumbered sand and gravel deposits in the region located south of the Shakopee Bypass between Co. Rd. 16 on the east and Co. Rd. 15 on the west. These are areas outside the present MUSA and still in use for farming. Also, there are dolostone bed deposits located along the north face of the older sand and gravel deposits as well as south of Hwy 101 in the Valley Industrial Park. The city's plan should consider how to best protect these natural resources from urbanization in the near term, so that they can be mined and the land reclaimed for urbanization and reuse. 7 Existing 2010 2010 2020 Existing Non-MUSA Existing MUSA Non- 2010 MUSA Non - _ 2020 L USE MUSA TOTAL TOTAL MUSA TOTAL 2020 MUSA TOTAL Rural Residential (RR) 0 1,000 1,000 0 1000 1000 0 1000 1000 Urban Reserve incl. RR -- -- Low Density Residential 2210 0 2,210 3670 0 3670 5020 0 5020 Low Medium Density Res. -- -- -- -- -- -- Attached (Multiple- 158— 0 158 458 0 458 408 0 408 Family) Residential Subtotal - Residential 2368 1000 3368 4128 1000 5128 5428 1000 6428 Commercial 621 17 638 738 0 738 838 0 838 Industrial 1,928 910 2,838 2938 0 2938 2938 0 2938 Public /Semi- Public 350 20 370 460 0 460 460 0 460 Natural Open Space 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -" Environmentally Sensitive 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- "- Restricted Development 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -" City Parks and O en Space 1,054 1,561 1195 1054 2249 2796 0 2796 Rights -of -Way P3,698 299 591 563 99 662 662 0 662 (Roads/Highways) Subtotal — Other 2,300 5,998 5894 1153 7047 7694 0 7694 Develo ed TOTAL - DEVELOPED 6,066 3,300 9,366 10,022 2153 12,175 13,122 1000 14,122 Agriculture 650 5145 5795 0 4144 4144 2443 960 3403 650 5145 5795 0 4144 4144 2443 960 3403 Subtotal - Agriculture Subtotal - Vacant 1,450 0 1,450 812 0 812 1400 0 1400 Residential Vacant Commercial 320 0 320 100 0 100 0 0 0 Vacant Industrial 300 0 300 0 0 0 100 0 100 Subtotal - Vacant 2070 0 2070 912 0 912 1500 0 1500 TOTAL — AG & 2720 5145 7865 912 0 912 1500 0 1500 VACANT TOTAL LAND 8786 8445 17231 10,934 6297 17231 17,065 1960 19,025* Water 110 802 912 110 802 912 912 0 912 TOTAL AREA 8896 9247 18,143 11,044 7099 18,143 17,977 1960 19,937* Revised 12/27/2001; by R. Michael Leek * The city anticipates annexing 1794 acres from Jackson Township between 2010 and 2020. Sand, Gravel and Dolostone Deposits Shakopee has a very large area of mined and/or urbanized sand and gravel deposits identified in the Council's study of aggregates in the Region. Most of the deposits are located in the northern part of the city generally north of the Shakopee Bypass between Co. Rd. 83 on the east and old Hwy 169 on the west. The city also has some of the largest unencumbered sand and gravel deposits in the region located south of the Shakopee Bypass between Co. Rd. 16 on the east and Co. Rd. 15 on the west. These are areas outside the present MUSA and still in use for farming. Also, there are dolostone bed deposits located along the north face of the older sand and gravel deposits as well as south of Hwy 101 in the Valley Industrial Park. The city's plan should consider how to best protect these natural resources from urbanization in the near term, so that they can be mined and the land reclaimed for urbanization and reuse. 7 It should be noted that the 2001 legislative session passed a bill requiring communities to address and plan for aggregate resources. Additionally, in recognition of the importance of aggregate resources to the region, the Council directed staff working on the revision of the Regional Blueprint to include a linkage between access to aggregate resources and the Transportation Policy Plan. Historic Preservation; Solar Access Protection The plan includes goals and objectives for the city to use to identify and preserve historic resources and structures. These objectives include the development of historic preservation commission as well as preservation ordinances. The plan addresses solar access protection, with specific actions to be taken, as required by state law. Plan Implementation The city will evaluate and update its zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to eliminate inconsistencies and to implement the comprehensive plan. The plan includes a capital improvement program (CIP). REGIONAL. SYSTEMS Aviation (Chauncey Case 652 -602 -1724) The city of Shakopee is within the influence area of the Flying Cloud reliever airport; however, there are no development or operational concerns since the majority of the influence area overlies the city limits located within the Minnesota River Valley. The city is not impacted by existing or planned airport operations or development as described in the current Final Environmental Impact Statement on the airport 2015 Long Term Comprehensive Plan. The city is not affected by any heliport or seaplane planning considerations. The city is within the Flying Cloud airport airspace and the region's general airspace that should be protected from potential obstructions to air navigation. The final version of the Shakopee Comprehensive plan includes an aviation element. It addresses protection of the region's general airspace, recognizes potential operational and noise effects of Flying Cloud airport, height zoning and acknowledges heliport and seaplane planning considerations. It is expected that the city will participated on a joint airport zoning board with the Metropolitan Airports Commission and city of Eden Prairie in updating the airport zoning ordinance to reflect the new airport layout plan. The plan is in conformance with the Aviation Policy Plan. Recreation Open Space (Phyllis Hanson, 651- 602 -1566) The Shakopee Comprehensive plan is in conformance with the Regional Recreation Open Space System Policy Plan. One regional facility, the Scott County West (Minnesota Valley - County Road 82) Regional Trail is partially located in the city of Shakopee. Hennepin Parks, under a joint powers agreement with Scott- Hennepin Parks Board, is the Implementing Agency responsible for the planning, acquisition, development, operations and maintenance of this trail. The plan identifies this trail and refers to the coordination by the city and Hennepin Parks in the development of the master plan. The Comprehensive Park and Trail Plan chapter includes an illustration, which designates the James W. Wilke Regional Park. The city should note that this facility was a regional park under the operations of Hennepin Parks until the late 1970's. It is now part of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and should be indicated as such when mapped in the future. Transportation (Mark Filipi, 651- 602 -1725) The transportation element of the Shakopee Comprehensive plan predominantly conforms to the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) and addresses all the applicable transportation and transit requirements of a comprehensive plan, with the exception of one minor departure noted below. Shakopee is served by several elements of the metropolitan highway system: TH 169 (Shakopee Bypass); and CSAH 18. Other major roadways in the city serve as "A" Minor Arterials. These roads are as follows: North -South Oriented Minor Arterials CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) East -West Oriented Minor Arterials TH 101 Shakopee is not served by Metropolitan Transit service. Instead, the city provides service through Shakopee Area Transit (SAT). Services currently provided are: Dial -a -Ride service within the Shakopee City limits. Express bus service to Eden Prairie Center during peak hours. Commuter vanpools. The Shakopee comprehensive plan contains one minor departure from the Regional Transportation Policy Plan. The plan evaluates existing traffic problems, as well as anticipated problems in future years. It also provides information on road improvements needed to address these problems. However, the plan fails to address one future element of the future regional highway system. A potential realignment of TH 41 has been included in the Regional Transportation Policy Plan. Shakopee should include this potential realignment in its future transportation plan and participate in any corridor study conducted to evaluate this realignment. While this is a departure from the Transportation Policy Plan, it is not a substantial departure. Wastewater Services (Donald Bluhm, 651- 602 -1116) The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides sanitary sewer services to the city of Shakopee via interceptors MCES 7023 and MCES 9206. The wastewater is treated at the Blue Lake Waste Water Treatment Plant in Shakopee. The city has projected a 2020 flow of 7.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The metropolitan disposal system (MDS) has adequate capacity during non -flood conditions to provide for the needs of the city, as shown in its comprehensive plan. The wastewater flows from the city during the April 2001 flood reached a flow level of 3 times the normal flows. These high flows are a major concern for the MCES. These high flows demand substantial capacity be reserved in the MDS to continue to accept these wet weather peaks without sewage either backing up into homes or by- passing flows to the Minnesota River. The Council is concerned that the MDS, and ultimately the treatment plant, will not have adequate capacity. Given the city's projected growth, as shown in the comprehensive plan, there may not be adequate capacity unless the city can eliminate the high peak flow during flood conditions. Although the plan is in conformance with the Water Resources Policy Plan, staff recommends that the city be allowed to implement the comprehensive plan with the understanding that the city needs to also reduce its peak flows during flood conditions on the Minnesota River. To ensure this reduction, the city will need to prepare and provide the Council with an 1/1 study of the flood prone areas. This study, along with an implementation plan, should be submitted as an appendix to the city's Tier II comprehensive sewer plan. If the city plans to alter, expand or improve its sewage disposal system, it must first submit the Tier H comprehensive sewer plan to the Council for its approval before any sewer additions or alterations can be initiated (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.513). Upon adoption of the comprehensive plan by the city, the Sewer Element of the plan should be resubmitted to the Council to fulfill this requirement. OTHER METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE CHAPTERS Housing (Guy Peterson, 651- 602 -1418) The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) requires communities to prepare a land use plan that includes "a housing element containing standards, plans, and programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional needs, including but not limited to use of official controls and land use planning to promote the availability of land for development of low- and moderate - income housing." It further requires that the comprehensive plan present an implementation program that describes the "public programs, fiscal devices and other specific actions" to implement the plan "including official controls to implement the housing element, which will provide sufficient existing and new housing to meet the local unit's share of the metropolitan area need for low- and moderate - income housing." In 1996, the Council gave direction to communities that comprehensive plans should include the goals negotiated with the Council for participation in the Livable Communities Act. Shakopee's plan, as amended through correspondence from November 2000, does include these goals. As mentioned above, one housing planning requirement of the MLPA is that the plan must identify the housing programs, fiscal devices and official controls, including the availability of land, necessary to accomplish and accommodate these affordable housing goals. Shakopee's plan update identifies no specific housing assistance, development, rehabilitation or home improvement programs or resources presently available, nor the potential use of any local funding tools. The plan acknowledges only that affordable housing will be aided by the Scott County HRA and MHFA. Perhaps the most important aspect of whether the plan meets MLPA requirements — land availability to meet goals — Shakopee's plan now does so. In light of the January 29, 2002, letter from the city and its attached, revised land use table identifying a significantly greater amount of land to be guided for "attached (multiple family)" housing through 2010, the housing element of Shakopee's comprehensive plan update now can be described as consistent with regional housing policy and fulfilling the housing planning requirements of the Land Planning Act. The letter and table address the intention of the City of Shakopee to "shift" 150 acres of land previously identified for low - density residential to the "attached" housing category which permits the broad range of 5 to 18 units per acre. In doing so, the plan will identify a sufficient amount of land to accommodate the balance of the city's affordable housing goals to 2010 — more than 900 affordable ownership units (townhomes) and over 1600 rental units. Shakopee has been receptive to affordable rental housing proposals, and has, in fact, seen two such developments built since 1996, both with some assistance provided through modest LCA housing grants. However, the plan contains no housing data or housing- related demographics from the 2000 census, or any data source more recent than the 1990 census. To understand its housing situation and needs, and consider them in developing its policies, goals and implementation actions, the plan should, at a minimum, examine current household and income characteristics, housing data regarding prevailing values, rents, vacancy rates, condition and age. The data discussed in the plan does not provide a solid base for decision making in 2002. As the city continues to rewrite its comprehensive plan during 2002, it is strongly encouraged to develop a thorough and current housing data and inventory section to the housing element. It must specitically identify the location of the 300 acres for "attached" housing it intends to have in place before 2010, and should prepare an implementation section of the housing element that contains at least as much specificity ted by the city in August 1996 to fulfill Livable Communi as the Housing Action Plan submit ties Act participation requirements. 10 SHAKOPEE C= INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL Affordability Ownership 90% 64-69% 64% Rental 53% 32-35% 32% Life Cycle Type (Non- single family detached) 34% 35-38% 35% Owner /renter mix 68/32% (70 -75) / (25 -30)% 70/30% Density Single- family detached 2.1 / acre 1.9 — 2.3 / acre 1.9 / acre Multifamily 13 / acre 1 10 — 11 / acre 10 / acre Water Resources Management (James Larsen, 651- 602 -1159) Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) Only two properties in the city continue to utilize ISTS. The city does not have an ISTS ordinance, and defers to Carver County to monitor the systems within the city. The county's program is consistent with current Council and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. Surface Water Management The city's plan includes policy language, which addresses the requirements of the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies. The city has provided a copy of a resolution to the Council indicating that its land use controls will be amended to incorporate the criteria, within 120 days of Council affirmative action on the overall plan. Water Supply The water supply plan component is adequate to address the city's needs through this document's planning period. 11 Compatibility with Adjacent Jurisdictions and School Districts The plan was forwarded to the adjacent jurisdictions and appropriate school district for review. The city's plan appears to be compatible with the plans of adjacent local governments 1. Shakopee's comprehensive plan meets all Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for 1998 plan updates. 2. The plan is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The plan includes land use proposals for areas outside the city's present jurisdictional boundaries. These parts of the plan cannot be formally reviewed by the Council until those lands come into the city. The city must submit plan amendments to the Council for review for all lands annexed. 3. The plan is in conformance with the metropolitan system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, and Wastewater Services. 4. The plan contains a minor departure from the Transportation Policy Plan. The plan should be amended to recognize the potential realignment of TH 41. However, because the departure is not substantial, a required plan modification is not needed. 5. The plan is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Libriir . Cor.; Ge1Rp' tO' Repori�5a� .apeeCi'GReview 18162 -1 -doc 12 Location Figure 1. City of Shakopee, • County Regional Figure 3. City of Shakopee, • County Figure 4. Land Use Plan City of Shakopee, Scott County Tc A\'' LEG S \3 ' z I I Single Family Res. _ ____.2_\ � 1 3'� ` BLUE F. ` ; , LAKE H M I 01 '�—"_ = = . 90 0 = `� C---\ ;� ... ...:; ; �,,� s,�_ f�� _ \\._ B p . =%/0� e — / I I Business Park 8 0 6 100 0© �� �' 1', d / / // 08 � 88 ` t' � I "' ��� �'i� ' ICE Fes • e 0 ©�Qi L.1LJ� �t "�� �. . . . LAKE l'- I Commercia Id' z�� unm � �oo���m .�a000 - , t _�� LE Oml� �� - �a)11l1[1 , `�� R...46., ® Light Indus �� 1 'f _��` _ – =' �I� E " 1.1111 Heavy Industrial C �! + •w� ii —., ��. �81 ' / ; -� Institutional ' f ur DE AN � I= Park ..� ...a,... L AKE ��� j .. 2010 MUSA IR • = Expansion I Open Space JACKSON TWP, �® 6 M„„, � ' why : . Om' r ( ,;g • I Entertainment `` J. J [ I Future Urban Area ..,...1_ 00• 0_,Ir a �� e Musa Boundary City Boundary j` v a• > Overlay ■ t it ,^ v ¢ ) - i ® Mining Overlay 2010 MUSA C TY W 3 F L � P �� PI LAKE Expansion .R f 'nav .... LA \ 3 �. S F / Dn KEG � -C - P LA \ t .._ + ` + Shakopee ilieill'e Com prehensive Plan City of Shakopee, Minnesota �� 1995 3 + + LLI J_ ` 111 '':: 0 ❑ + o J q + 1 SHAX0IFIEE SAND CREEK I TWP, SPRING I LAKE TWP. COMMUNI><Y SINCE 1857 UPDATED November 2000 LEGEND / rr� �C�e :.,, Land Use Designations i \\\ �,r� P ` G Single Family Residential er `` \ - �� 1 ' _. \ �� ! -�. '`�, ® 1, � ® Medium Density Residential r a (l =_ _ -_ I ` ` !�.w.� � NM High Density Residential C a 1 Rural Residential C 1 1 �_� �\ ,r,' tPV4 + .1 Il - - �` LAKE ..... Planned Residential "'S4�S I _ - Neighborhood Commercial . lx . ,. ° 7 ''', ;n∎� _Al • � o � � Cr) � - ,r Nei hb 4 ® 1 r r " u ta• \ 4 • + - - LAKE f _ Office a„ FISHER " "� - Ai ■ ice .. Commercial \�- ,:„x x t :.,' _. "�° - -- -- era o ° , r 101 s a. \�rp . - II� j n u CO ' . 0 , ,, “ „ , , , - i..""qt - 31 .t1 um — ,.,. �` _ sn I � \ \ � '� RICE • Park uhonal e , / •:., ?d ,.4 = - - X p - - I L� II "!: I C III 1111 ' Open Space I( �� LL��jj�� LAKES '� :i� :_I ' .---- ` ,.. 51; e'• ::` ° „�� ,Liam �:b�I -- — _ - - _ �. Entertainment 41•. :1 el I ••• •••..a.:� e ue.:ia P i�. / /' _ - Lake /River r. ':) n� ......,” .. �\ \\o•. -t=El% '��. 1� _ " ei•• " \ tie �•�' ��,� � � ��- ,. � j � i _ r �I l : , aro u . ^^ ,• a' : ... ee- : + t •, 1 . \ I -- '•� - Mining e W I I - 11 •� V @ y ^ �. „ 'NN.. 8181 4 \ . $N • " /� �/ 1$ �nm 6,:. �,� - ,I 1y.� I ,. [V* ��- - � � �1 ��OiGrtii ' eE = :.• � t 'a _ ��. -- .�� _ - _. ,,r' {��luq 1 _ _ 8181. � � � em ,. - ?: 5::i m • 1. ning Ov day ��$� 1_ � � � � = \n <-- �, •� � I' �� 1 �' . i �� "� '1 ' f.. 1 Exi::: evelopm enl wi ` � •Lt• ■ - - _ i �� I �. 'a �� jl ' , ,ey, n �1 . , r , �i fi \ �� �� i % : j _Prod by the Shakopee Mdewankonton Sioux Community 511111111 llax. •q I I � � X1 1 1 ► � �� s 9 ��'.• '� ■ ®!. �� 441- ��� �� N Current MUSA Boundary � � _ x I �4 4iiiipr \ Ol\ \111• �`I ��� � � L� ' (, ' "°•. � ' _ q•; ! " � � ■ ,�� _L ��,•tll llllr?S JiIIIIP - 1 Ilftwz. "� P Mit NM Gm CMIMISTAINA NmrnU�■■■■�■■�' ■ ■�� U) w ..- E =MI ME S ,, -■,F.A.VVC4IMPAIIIIIIII-111A11111111 IO ":4. ► Prior Lake qaqMIMVMIIIIIIIIIII \ iu►� as+ c- im o'D Owo �' i n _� ►����� i i CITY WIDE 0 oo ' !r__I alit LAND USE PLAN 11� I► ..��� * DRAFT * "����'' Shakopee o r_ I ■■■ Comprehensive Plan ■ PA. Al City of Shakopee, Minnesota LJ _IV 64,4,.. 2000 MI II I P Sand Creek Township Spring Lake Township SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 /---------. \ .' ._ ". - 7 / _.] 1 1 _ I / . I \ _ . ' 7 1 ,---- / '-- /- j ' li - - - - - ii—P : ol , ' tillyi 1_, / L - i..._, , ,,.!.., '_ ill. ,__, i _____,____.,..______--- , ._ ‘,.. .., '------- /f IN -_, 9 , .,„. , ! '4'"r;:".,"!,,--i7____, -- 111.'iL%' wilitai i. .. 7_ - 1 ------ ? a t ..,..,. 2" / 1 l'ijollo.,;Iil ii .1: t ,: Lan; ki,'. , .. V 5141 4 1 . 4 li';,_ . ,,, 11 -Mb ..., 1 •111.111■,-,_.. ' AP / I . „•..1..../,„, 01 "" Ze mu , 10 on loV v. ..„.„, .,.... : 1 .v .. j ,.......... p i T i lk . 04 ,;r,... ,, i ' -1PrAwl..;;Ifer ::::1311 N Tal.';:r4;voilAt 4, ,„,nielAtiAlek,..444- 111 .1111131"111 1..m il lita llif 111 ...., , I/ /..1m.....„...... ,.... ...r-',A, ,.........„, I 4 ., ". 59 7 #1111 - i17.:_lilt:',111.1triliallIkillnECMISI 11 --1111 11111 .1.1 s T . I / .3 1 ....... l N : IPEO ' . r i ll MIIIIIIIMIL PIP' V illifff ' ?La. r ' al. "- -.... !"'T : r_rfl i t_1,1 tl rii 1 _,..t: iF• 7 1 2 11. g .1g. P. Ea= _ Ete■ 1 ..,..41,, AIIIIIMIIIII..1 --,r'k, 1 t ----- ■-____.- .7 IfatORt liMpl all. , - . ..• _....- — ,••,, kip. ' k Al E4_1,.. j.... 1.. i r4 SRPOlz" 4 " 4 . ... — , -11- VP.. 44 , 1, M w at , - - t ,----1,:iiiiiill*Am-------■11 / .. \ illpri.... - , -, , , . . ,,,,,, 4 - " nl ill I I I I I I I I 4 c.':,_ , , ' ' ; ,,,,r7.-- ir s „ Ap - . 4 , ..... , uz: Er :I R.:::::: ''' Apr,/ -,:":.. 11 .,,, ,.; 1 ,,, , ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - itna,MM•_,.......=-. - . --1--,----- - - — - - - & - . p - :$ 7 -- --=-- - 7 . - •,-`• - 11 al.107 ■ ,\\,, r 1 ' "=--- --( 1'.-- 7 ' ///' .,„:"; 4 .. 41rill11 10. I II' , V4 I rakirre.r. If . 1 l :. 7 ":"ilL elign7Cg :.14.0104E 11 p „..0.15.0; 0, ...1,11010,, ,, ,,,,,....„„ -- ,...! .......iii ..---r"...leig- I .„}( 4, .. IN f rip ii ..• . . 1 ,„, „,....,.,„,, 1 , ,/..., "tot / # ■gif i Ittialik4 -1'.... _ 10...r r. --Eira..-ost.:1,21ef–kwin.. _ ,___--.-- --_____-- . ., ,,-..„.„-..„, i ,.. ....14., • ' '`1744 - , Iri.k. --' : -AMER/ ' d ' ' STORM ' - \' '''''' -4-'' - "• "' '-''' '''' ^ -7 ; 72-9 ' . ' ''.0 1 1 * SWVIViilial. MI iriAiri.-- ''' 41 -■- 11 - 1 - --- - --- 0- 71. ) --------- .- EL* -,:-.74; ,.. , .,.. -,......,.... ,.... kr ,,,,,./ ..-.-. Nil _.../.. :,...-:,... , - 7,0 - - :. , • w...iL .i.,. tir,--- -:-.7-4air ...■ ' •140- . apmelon \ . r \ • ow ...\• I" .( ,......t. 11.---,-- . • 4, - .. -..... , ---- •• -- -- -.' - 1 . • - • . ,•'• ../ ' • . <// / ,- I 'lime. - 411 vot, I . .., _ mg .. 4 ,..., Am. ::::: - " • ' ' ' .--• 1 ---- ' • • • P.1•.*"4 - :: :,,,...1.4%,. :: 1- 114 *L . 00 0. 1 .!,-. - - • - • — . - , - • 1 , Is, 10,1.7.i.:1 ,V -.0wr,, g 2, ■ . / /41( ' ....._ ittl#4 '',7TX:".1...,' VI ___--_-------------- r -.-,„,. : , ,0 .,• , . „ , , „ . „ , , , , - N. ,..„,... 41*4 itipt, ,.;._.; , te.04,"--,,--i-,, 4ir _ - - -- r,, lir Ase NI __-„,___,___-='--' ---- ------ 1 - - --- - _ ........,_.., : - Iri I caliip, AI a iv e••■•.-..N... '-' 4., . .." +It, ' - , e , q ;I 111,5; 7 ------ • • - a v / ‘ • ' 4 • =4 P 11 ....:.... 7 : ' : ' : - :_ - leillittf i l 1 ( 74 -, -IRYIrrIf.' " 1 1811 , -- / q , . .5 .. / ....1 A 1 i •••••• -* . ' . • .' , r , ' 111 - 7 . 7: 1 " ---- 114, . Fir i •,••• • ,'••• • , , . ..- ',„17QPr.j MI= 1 - a • • k • , t _- ' : ,. _ . ,,..,„ . • • . . , _ „„, ,,. to*T .1;17.:.: ............... NI 1111. • -. illiell.'• ' ' 1% • • • ' ' • // Il 1 / i aiiill: • • • . • • . • • ,,. 40 ■..,. I ' 4.4444‘41941111111111 .11 911■11.- '• :. ,..... - 7,,.. x . . . . . . . . . .. . -, / l' . '4 .- - • ' II 1180111 nowcy,..---ve ,./-0,--j/ /, ALIr Plgi . ' Aill s.■■•• •r/ , i"VM lart-;', IN iiiigr 1 1 . 1111 ---- -411 h•--- -, - , . - . . : • , , ttic,■-. ma , gi , IIIIE, Ii ? Iffpwo * ' " 4 , 1 . -7 9.1%; - In 111' i Wei di 1 . . ` ''''''''. 1•7411 i i •Ntir Ir inV 1:4 Iti 4 1:■ ! ' l l imi Llik- ... : ‘161/4 \ : N 1h . • .. C 1 ' . / 7 ' 1144■,7 .....ram. ',. 1,w, hp.t 1110 ...M `- .116 6 tig 44110/411 lir ' 7 i , • - - • • - : . : )5..... . „ . . ........ jr- 4 :Al...1. -, 0 A -.4 !, _„„...._...„ , .. Ir.. . 11 ' C6111%,77- '1. / r . r*W4 '' ' I Ste/ ' 4. ' I ''\ . - - • k 5 1110" \ Nib" 11.1111 __...da , ----=--=--7- ,--- . ' ..."...... .,' .tzl_..L'i2L-bk gaifi • I-IL' vAr''' * -_._ - '''''/ ri-suAni .0, /.,,4 ...,, Aggregate Resources 1997 1 IIIMII ismig ,.. -.•• Id V ,.,'W g '7% 0 r - .....,... ,.. ,..,, - --; ,_ Projected Aggregate Resources 2020 , 1 I 4 •Ir 1 II or I ., „.... i,....g ........4 6P la ... . . . . "•••••••1 %I , e. ......... I l aw se Fi ii , A ...,.-F. , .„ 1 , _ . —Ago ii _ P ' ,;,„, ' \ , .. (• a Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community 1 . d 6 . , , . , - 1 - „WILM, IF . • e . . , .• Land in Trust / 7 6 7 .e ‘ \'N Land Proposed to be placed into Trust .,, ,,, •• Sewer Plan - V. ? IV/' ....,........ ....-.......--.. Fee L and / Natural Features awn% s ,it. .. 111111,, ./ ,, fyi '' 1.; ■■••■■■■•■ Existing MCES Interceptor e Swamp -, '- 7 1'4-' 1. t a .. /V ____: . / ti - , iw , ?Iv. ' Existing MCES Forcemain .,„...7 . 4 a 0 I JP A/ Existing City Interceptor ( Woods ..;,,, -,..v - .11iillk\' ..,....,_ ..--,. _ ,‘ , MUSA 2000 / \ / / /. A/ Private Trunk Sewer I 7 ----,„_,,l , ... A MO Water ...\- . 1 - .-; .. % 441 •- 1 , , L ', R Existing Rural Developments r Proposed Forcemain Sewer ,./..,.. I Proposed Trunk Sewer .. , I . I . • Alternative Trunk Routing 5 ,_ , : Requests to Expand MUSA: 1998-2001 , • •, Steep Slopes ---- %.-- ,.. to i • , • • ). ' -----, ; c, ' 12 /; A / 7---- . Comp Plan Change Request . . al VIP , 414V.. 9 f , , 7- /; 7 el ' .. --. il • . ( , ,e ,,,,, i , .4.14 . • el --., -2 .; 1 0 -- 4' -..--,* . ,,,,, • /,• ., C " - -- - 1 . _ ______-L-- " . ' • a -4aZi , * rrl 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE LOG NO.: 01 -092 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director AS C. 6 SUBJECT: WESTRIDGE LAKE ESTATES THIRD ADDITION, Request of Darrel Gonyea Regarding ISIS Plan and Approvals MEETING DATE: April 16, 2002 , $ 1 , � On October 16, 2001 the City Council approved the final plat of WESTRIDGE LAKE ESTATES THIRD ADDITION, the third and final phase of the WESTRIDGE ESTATES plat. Because management of "individual septic treatment systems" (ISTS) had been turned over to Scott County in September 2000, a condition of that approval was that the,plat not be released for recording until the applicant had secured approval of the ISTS plan from Scott County Environmental Health. In addition, Council had directed City staff to communicate to Scott County staff the Council's request that the County take into consideration the history of the Westridge Estates approval process, and work with the applicant to resolve the ISTS issues, thus allowing for recording of the final plat. As the attached letters (dated December 19, 2001 and February 7 2002) from Darrel Gonyea indicate, he has been unsuccessful in securing Scott County approval of the ISTS plan that would allow recording of this 13 -lot plat. For that reason, in his December 19, 2001, Mr. Gonyea asks the Council to consider other alternatives. The following is a brief history of the City's ISTS regulations as they apply to this situation: 1. November 4, 1981 City Council adopts Ordinance No. 78, which adopts by reference Scott County Ordinance No. 4,dated August 12, 1981. 2. May 12, 1992 Scott County adopts new ISTS Ordinance and repeals Ordinance No. 4. City Code is not amended to adopt the new County ordinance by reference. Consequently, the 1981 version of the County's ordinance is still in effect in the City. 3. August, 1993 City Council approves Westridge Lake Estates Final PUD Plan and a Preliminary flat for all of the property in the PUD 1 4. November, 1993 City Council approves the Final Plat for Westridge Estates First Addition 5. March, 1996 City Council approves the Final Plat for Westridge Estates, Second Addition 6. 1996 -2001 City Council annually approves extensions of the Westridge Estates Preliminary Plat 7. September 14, 2000 City Council repeals Ordinance 78. The effect of this repeal is to turn over enforcement of ISTS regulations to Scott County. 8. October 16, 2001 City Council approves the Final Plat for Westridge Estates, Third Addition The City's 1993 approvals of the PUD and the Preliminary Plat for Westridge Lakes Estates were based on the 1981 version of Scott County Ordinance No. 4, which was in effect in the City at that time, not the 1992 version. If the City had not repealed its ISTS ordinance in 2000, city staff would probably not have required the Third Addition to meet the 1992 County ordinance. Rather, city staff probably would have treated the Third Addition the same way that it treated the First and Second Additions and required compliance with the 1981 version of the ordinance. The difficulty that Mr. Gonyea is now encountering is.that, while the PUD and preliminary plat for WESTRIDGE LAKE ESTATES was reviewed and approved by the City in August of 1993 under the City ordinance in effect at that time, the City's ISTS ordinance had not been revised to be in conformance with the Scott County ordinance adopted in May of 1992. Now that Scott County has responsibility for ISTS plan and permit approval, it maintains that the ISTS plan for WESTRIDGE LAKE ESTATES THIRD ADDITION should comply with the regulations as they were enacted by the County in 1992. The net result of this position appears to be that approval can only be given for five of the thirteen proposed lots in the plat. Mr. Gonyea seems to propose two alternatives for the Council to consider. First, he suggests that the City ask for or join in a request for variance from Scott County regulations. It does not appear to staff that the City would have standing to actually request a variance. Nor does it seem likely that the City's support of a variance request would have any further salutary effect than did the previous Council's request for consideration by the County in its review of the ISTS plan. The second alternative that Mr. Gonyea proposes :is for the City of Shakopee to take over approval of the ISTS plan for the final plat of WESTRIDGE LAKE ESTATES THIRD ADDITION, as well as review and approval of initial ISTS permits for new houses on the lots that would be created in that plat.. Staff is submitting Mr. Gonyea's request to the City Council for its consideration. In stars initial review of other rural residential plats in the City, it does not appear that they have the same factual context, and thus have not appeared to encounter the same difficulties with approval as Westridge Lakes Estates Third Addition. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do not take any further action relative to the final plat of WESTRIDGE LAKE ESTATES THIRD ADDITION. 2. Direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for consideration by the Council that would provide for the City to approve ISTS plans for preliminary plats (as well as initial building permits for lots within those plats) which were approved by the City under the 1981 ISTS regulations, but after the 1992 change in Scott County ISTS regulations. 3. Table the matter for additional information. Offer and pass a motion consistent with the City Council's wishes. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2002 \04 -16 \wE STRIDGE3RD. doc Westridge Bay Company 211 River Ridge Circle South, # 106 Burnsville, Aff 55337 February 7, 2002 Dear Mr. Leek: Since I sent the enclosed letter of December 19, 2001, to the city council, I have continued to pursue having Scott County "grandfather in" Westridge Lake Estates septic systems under the 1981 ordinance as recommended by the city council. Scott County has refused to do so. After recent individual discussions with some of the council members, it was decided that I should request that the city council address the situation again at a meeting. Hopefully this could occur in late March or April. As we are all aware, the city approved Westridge Lake Estates under the 1981 ordinance and Scott County is trying to enforce the 1992 ordinance. The purpose of the meeting is to address and resolve the situation. I hereby request that the city council hold a meeting to address this issue. As I am the President of Westridge Lake Estates Homeowner's Association, I have had meetings with approximately one -third of the 85 homeowners on the subject. I will continue to inform our homeowners of the progress on this situation. If you have any questions, please call. Yours truly, Enclosure C: Mr. Jim Thomson, City Attorney City Council Westridge Bay Company 211 Rimer Ridge Circle South, # 106 Burnsville, MN 55337 December 19, 2001 Mayor and City Council Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Here is an update on my progress with the county. First, I would like to thank Council Member Link for his phone calls and concern in resolving the situation. I've had difficulty dealing with the county. After the October lb, 2001 city council meeting, I thought a meeting with the city, county, and myself made sense. The city staff had not been given direction by the council to set up such a meeting, and therefore no such meeting took place. Only an E -mail was sent to the county. The crux of my argument to the county was that Westridge Lake Estates Third Addition had been approved by the city under the 1981 ordinance and that the city council had recommended that the county "grandfather in" Westridge Lake Estates Third Addition. That is not what the E -mail said_ See the attached E -mail that was sent to Mike Sobota and Al Frechette. Naturally they dismissed your recommendation early on in the meeting and told me that until they are ordered to process Westridge Lake Estates under the 1981 ordinance (as they do Stonebrooke), Westridge Lake Estates will have to comply with the 1992 ordinance_ i his was after I had to P�y a $1 0000.00 and had refused to sign the county's application for Septic Approval for a Preliminary Plat It has not been easy to lave with the city council's decision. The time and expenses (close to $10,000.00 in attorney's fees since last summer) keep mounting. It seems a bit ironic that we should have to pay the costs to resolve the situation when we complied with the laws, and others made the error. There is a very simple solution to this issue. The City of Shakopee approved the Westridge Lake Estates Plat under the 1981 Septic Ordinance. Had I been asked by the city or the county to comply with the 1992 county amendment when I platted Westridge Lake Estates in 1993, I would have done so. Therefore, I would hope the county board would be supportive of the variance_ The county board could include Westridge Lake Estates with a variance under the Individual Sewage Treatment System Ordinance, No. 4, Section 5.04 paragraph: "On existing lots of record where it is not possible to locate two sites, the site shall meet the requirement of Minn. R. Chapter 7080.0170. The existing lot shall have been recorded with the Scott County Recorder's Office prior to May 12,1992." Then the lots and houses would comply. The homeowners in Westridge Lake Estates would support the variance at the Scott County Board meeting, if requested. I have tried hard to resolve this situation. Can the City of Shakopee and Westridge Bay Company apply for a variance? What do you suggest £ do? Sincerely, Darrel E. Gonyea Its President Enclosure C: Michael Leek, Shakopee Community Development Director - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Michael Leek Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1 :50 PM To: Frechette, Al (Scott Co) Cc: Sobota, Michael (Scott Co); James Thomson (E- mail); Mark McNeill; Julie Klima Subject: Westridge Lake Estates 3rd Addition Al; Attached for your information is the report that went to the Shakopee City Council last night. The Council approved the resolution as set forth in the report. The net effect is that 1) the final plat was approved, and 2) will not be released for recording until Scott County has approved the ISTS plan_ A follow -up motion requests /recommends that, in light of the factual analysis set forth in Attorney Thomson's memorandum, the County exercise great flexibility in arriving at an approved ISTS plan_ You and the County Attorney's office may wish to be in touch with Mr. Thomson if you have questions .bout his memo. I will have Mr. Thomson's memo faxed to you. Please let me know if you think there are other steps that the City can take to assist in bringing this issue to resolution. Michael Leek Shakopee Community Development <<FPwestzi dgel ake3 . doc>> 11/15/2001 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE LOG NO.: O: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Julie Klima, Planner Final Plat of Westridge Lake Estates P Addition October 16, 2001 Westridge Bay Company Same North of CSAH 14 and east of CSAH 79 Rural Residential (RR) Adjacent Zoning. North: Lake O'Dowd South: Lake O'Dowd East: Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone West: Jackson Township SA: The site is not within the MUSA boundary. Introduction: Westridge Bay Company is requesting Final Plat approval of Westridge Lake Estates 3' Addition. The property is located north of Vista Ridge Lane and east of CSAH 79 (E)hibit A). Considerations: 1. The Preliminary Plat for Westridge Lake Estates Crossings was approved by the City Council in 1993. The Final Plat for Westridge Lake Estates Third Addition is in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Plat. 2. This is the final phase of development. 3. Comments from the Fire Inspector have been incorporated into the draft resolution of approval. 4. Scott County Environmental Health (SCEH) is the agency responsible for review and approval of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). SCEH has commented that it is unable to approve the proposed ISTS plan for the development at this time. Staff is recommending that the final plat include a condition which requires that the ISTS plan be approved by SCEH prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 5. Staff recommends that the outlots be the responsibility of the homeowners association. r 6. Staff has also included recommended conditions of approval provided by the Fire Inspector and Shakopee Public Utilities. Alternatives: 1. Approve the Final Plat of Westridge Lake Estates 3 Addition, subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution No. 5570: 2. Approve the Final Plat of Westridge Lake Estates 3' Addition with revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Westridge Lake Estates 3 Addition. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to submit additional information or make any necessary revisions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval of the final plat, subject to the conditions listed within Resolution No. 5570. Action Requested: Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 5570 and move its adoption. Julie Klima Planner gAcc\2001 \cc 1016\fpwestri dge1ake3. doc I 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE FINAL OF 11 :11 ADDITION WHEREAS, Westridge Bay Company, applicant and property owner, has filed an application dated and received May 25, 2001 for final plat approval; and AS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Outlot C, Outlot D, Oudot E, Outlot F, Outlot G, Outlot H, Outlot 1, Outlot J, Outlot K and Outlot P of Westridge Lake Estates First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, on file in the office of the county Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota and Lot 1, Block 4, Westridge Lake Estates Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, on file in the office of the County Recorder, Scott County, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat of Westridge Lake Estates were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the final plat at its meeting of October 16, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF T11 CITY OF •' EE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Final Plat of Westridge Lake Estates Third Addition is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Satisfaction of the conditions placed on the site during the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval process. 2. Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. 3. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. c) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. d) The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. e) No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. fl Cash payment in lieu of park dedication shall be required. (This amount would be $714.36 per lot based on a 40% credit for open space). The park dedication payments may be deferred to the time of the issuance of the Building Permit. 4. The homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance of the common facilities, TO: Michael Leek FR OM: Jim Thomson, City Attorney D ATE: October 10, 2001 Westridge Lake Estates, 3 Addition / ISTS Regulations The City Council is scheduled to consider the final plat application for Westridge Lake Estates, Third Addition at its October 16, 2001 meeting. An issue has arisen with respect to the individual septic treatment system (ISTS) requirements for the subdivision. I thought that it would be helpful to summarize the background with respect to this matter and my analysis of the legal issues. M. : � )►117 On November 4, 1981, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 78, which adopted by reference Scott County's sewage treatment Ordinance No. 4, dated August 12, 1981. Among other things, that ordinance required that preliminary plats be reviewed to determine whether the sewage treatment systems complied with the ordinance and could be installed on each lot in the proposed subdivision. The County's ordinance adopted by reference the ISTS standards set forth in the rules of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Scott County amended Ordinance No. 4 on August 18, 1986. The City Code was not amended, however, to adopt that version of Ordinance No. 4, so the 1981 version of the ordinance remained in effect in the city. On May 12, 1992 Scott County adopted a new ISTS ordinance. That ordinance repealed the previous versions of Ordinance No. 4. The City Code was not amended to adopt the 1992 County Ordinance. In March 1993, the developer of Westridge Lake Estates submitted a PUD application and a preliminary plat for the property. In April 1993, the planning commission recommended approval of the PUD preliminary development plan. One of the conditions of approval was that the developer submit a sewer treatment plan for approval by the planning commission prior to approval of the final development plan. The City Council approved the preliminary development plan on June 1, 1993. Pursuant to the requirements of the approval of the preliminary development plan, the developer submitted a sewage treatment plan, which was reviewed by City staff and found to be adequate. (It is not clear whether this plan in fact fully complied with either the state regulations that were in effect at that time or with all of the provisions in the 1981 version of Ordinance No. 4.) In JJT- 204062v1 SH155 -23 August 1993, the City Council approved the Final Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat for the property. The final plat for the First Addition was approved in November 1993, and for the Second Addition in March 1996. Each year since 1993 the City Council has extended the preliminary plat approval for the portion of the property that is now being platted as the Third Addition. The current extension expires on January 15, 2002. On September 14, 2000 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 579. This ordinance repealed the provision in the city code pertaining to ISTS regulations. The effect of this repeal was to turn over enforcement of the ISTS regulations to Scott County. The developer is now requesting final plat approval for the Third Addition. The City staff sent the application to Scott County for its review of the ISTS plan. By a letter dated July 6, 2001 the County informed the developer that before the County could complete their review and approval of the ISTS plan, the developer must submit a payment of $1,000 and submit a plan depicting, among other things, building pads of at least 2,000 square feet and two 5000 square feet drainfields for each lot, which are requirements in the current County Ordinance. It is my understanding that the developer has not yet submitted that information to Scott County. The County has, however, advised the City staff that individual septic systems could not be constructed on the proposed lots under the current County ordinance or under current state regulations. As I understand it, the main issue is whether the lots can accommodate both a primary and alternate ISTS site meeting the minimum square footage requirement in the ordinance. I have spoken with the developer's attorney and met with them to discuss the ISTS issue. Their contention is that because the ISTS plan was approved in 1993, the City is obligated to approve the final plat and cannot change the ISTS requirements. Their contention is based on Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subd. 3c. This provision states that after a preliminary plat has been approved "no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use of, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application." Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.352 defines the phrase "official controls" to mean "ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of a city, county or town ... [and] ... may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps." The developer's contention is that the ISTS regulations are "sanitary codes" and therefore they cannot be changed after the preliminary plat is approved. The Minnesota appellate courts have never addressed the issue of whether ISTS regulations constitute "official controls" as that term is defined in Section 462.352. In other contexts; however, the appellate courts have implied that the term "official controls" refers to local land use regulations, not state - mandated health and safety codes- (See Altenburg v. Pleasant Mound Township, 615 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. App. 200) and In re Kenney, 374 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. 1985).) The fact that Section 462.352 includes "sanitary codes" as a possible type of "official control" is JJT- 204062v1 SH155 -23 2 not dispositive of the issue. Section 462.352 also includes "building codes" as a possible type of "official control." Yet, no one disputes that builders must comply with the building code as it exists when homes are being built, not the building code that was in effect when the property was originally platted. Whether the County can apply its current ISTS ordinance is a question that is more appropriately addressed by the County Attorney's office rather than by me. Consequently, I recommend that the final plat be approved but that it not be released for recording until the County makes that determination. The City Council has the following options: 1. Approve the final plat, assuming all other applicable requirements are met, but direct staff not to allow the plat to be released for recording until the County verifies compliance with the ISTS regulations. 2. Approve the final plat and allow it to be recorded. The problem with this option is that recording the plat could have the effect of creating unbuildable lots if the County ultimately determines that the lots cannot accommodate individual septic treatment sites. 3. Deny the final plat. The problem with this option is that the plat apparently meets all applicable city codes and regulations and therefore there does not appear to be a sufficient basis for denial. I recommend option #l. JJT- 204062v1 3 SH155 -23 a . LET Y C ® Y Q 3 n Y• ° , S • O O ;.• - b : o > - 01 C> A' " ' C N�� to :: • ^; �� ®i R •-0 M i O CI° y aQ w, Y on ® " a» M • n Doom: "m 1 ^a "v •o�m • Tj� .®'. o . 4m Tj ?7 7w�C0 ^" •C ®G� �cptnni ` o a " - � �_yfn o m =_ F •e o" Qo° g<x ��[j1tZ 111�aa CL CL y - .., �•mnD .�jow 01 3r 3 . 4 =�M o o •lvio "2 1 3' • ° Oo A " r, ' gg =• ....• � ao CAM _ •Y CL 2 5 � n0, 55 ®' CL QIZ , 2 O C a m . 4 to 0 ® ® ® -•C i } n .OY n nX °X (,� OX A•A , ® p ® ad7 cr Ev o° a °p a nti ; A " °a CL n • M y O W Y C , _, Y • • O , Q 9 CL •� CL s _ n �.. " 0 g , n • Y K O� M 6 77 l!11 p K Y [] N p m •t� Y Y S � O 7C ® p ® • I • F • I a ® 1 ff ® ® n ®n =•e•S ? v � a »n row •• ®� � � � .c'. on °°'7D 0 a r o a� •_ ® N Q O • [ M ° Y Y y �o g , y C Q • [ N < ' M a _ X a ^ c 0 •c Y • " a a O • n S W Y 0 Y • Y w • p Y p. C p MR • .n o � p q w • _ • Y • p W Q ' • p = a � G .. � A • S '1 O > X? n? I N i l L a te a . ° o ,;: �� . -a a °S � Q "- y am QQQ tS Y�IR _ ; ly^ •� a -s •6• •[? �-M O •<� Go -•• • M • ,N 9r OC • A 1 o r w o 3n R eq 0 L ( V O j � 'sa�_'a n - a .. •- 0 ° °a on $� •Y Y s O Y N C _ S Y '� r o r M n ' a Y O �i D O ��nn Y •( V a. am Ln 41 0 1 "-• ' � 3 Q v p i8 o 0 A 0 � n a Y 7 a r•>- • w •N r •A •• f f l f w� y � a a •, 'X [ o a nM p C Y G[ q nu. • • ® p O lA• SF ° •t o p W ® ° c AX " < W • n ---111 vi _ r" n w m•. a111•. CL �ILa ,a �c v _ � n K M [ Y Y • a 'O O A • ^ ® p Y O � R o • C n y C� 1 % . 1 t a, N ¢ e - L- c ` J G ~ L- �pn ° o � , � =w e`g S rS;• r L` R + ® ew 4 61 1 f E N + t -- _ ®1130 � M : 5••L� • , a pC , _ r ��v A"" A �` f d , y k .c Al i I � : �' -' ,3' - - .'�S• � .fig• �T {4� ® i C �7 41 G 1 A ; s a O i ® s Tit CAST LIE OF Tt{ SOUTip[Sf 1/1 OF XCTbl1 � •' S W� A . •I g 01 l • 1$ �I ._ cat 1s�1 0� l x R 1 •f+ r m r L` R + ® ew 4 61 1 f E N + t -- _ ®1130 � M : 5••L� • , a pC , _ r ��v A"" A �` f d , y k .c Al i I � : �' -' ,3' - - .'�S• � .fig• �T {4� ® i C �7 41 G 1 A ; s a O i ® s Tit CAST LIE OF Tt{ SOUTip[Sf 1/1 OF XCTbl1 � •' l• V) ® oo• u- r a C, =I r Ti[ tpp119ASI CO"A rr lt[ �— - WuTttwfs1 V1 of SCCTOW 30 Ti l N V � . •I g 01 l • 1$ �I ._ cat 1s�1 0� l x R 1 •f+ r l• V) ® oo• u- r a C, =I r Ti[ tpp119ASI CO"A rr lt[ �— - WuTttwfs1 V1 of SCCTOW 30 Ti l I CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASELOG NO.: 02 -019 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Section 11.22 MEETING DATE: April 16, 2002 D o" V 11'�ft TM mzEi DISCUSSION American Tower Corp. (ATC) has submitted an application requesting the amendment of Section 11.22 (Agricultural Preservation Zone) to allow the construction of communication towers. The City Council reviewed this request at its March 19, 200 meeting and directed the preparation of findings of denial. Please find attached Resolution No. 5680 for the Council's consideration. ACTION REQUESTED Offer Resolution No. 5680, A Resolution Denying a Text Amendment to Section 11.22 of the City Code Regarding Communication Towers, and move its adoption. 1 ma Kli ner H g:\cc\2002\04-16\taceUtowersdenial.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5680 A RESOLUTION DENYING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 11.22 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING COMMUNICATION TOWERS WHEREAS, American Tower Corp. has made application to amend Section 11.22 (Agricultural Preservation Zone) to allow the construction of communication towers; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must held before the Planning Commission on March 7, 2002 and all interested parties were given an opportunity to speak on the matter, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the text amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the request on March 21 and April 2, 2002 and has made the following findings based on the criteria for evaluating petitions for a zoning change: Criteria #1 That the original zoning ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original zoning ordinance is not in error. There is no evidence that a mistake was made in prohibiting wireless cell towers in this Zoning district. City ordinances allow cell towers in the Light Industrial (II) and Heavy Industrial (I2) districts. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding 92 At the time regulations for communication towers were adopted, communication towers were not allowed in the residential and agricultural zones, and significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. Insufficient evidence was provided to show that adequate wireless service is not available to a significant group of users in the City because of the prohibition of cell towers in this Zone. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding 93 Significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have not occurred to warrant a change in the Zoning Ordinance. Criteria #4 That the Comprehensive Plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the majority of agriculturally zoned property will be used in the future for rural residential development. Cell towers are inconsistent with the goals of preserving the beauty of the land in this Zone and of encouraging rural residential development in this Zone. WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following additional findings with respect to the application: A. No evidence was presented by the applicant showing a significant gap in the coverage of wireless services in this Zone, either for a particular wireless provider or for end users of wireless services from any provider in the City. B. No evidence was provided that the applicant could not locate cell towers to serve the desired areas within the desired coverage areas of the Zone. The applicant cited only refusal of property owners to lease the land for the desired area and the difficulty of leasing land in adjoining jurisdictions. C. There was no evidence presented of a public safety hazard created by a lack of a cell tower in the desired area(s). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MjNNESOTA, that the request of American Tower Corp. to amend Section 11.22 (Agricultural Preservation Zone) to allow the construction of communication towers, be denied. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 2002. mayor of the City of Shakopee i Mem CASE LOG NO.:02 -019 T• Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code Sec. 11.22 STING 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 (11) and Heavy Industrial (I2) zones. It is the desire of ATC to construct a communication tower in southwestem Shakopee to serve that area. However, the property 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 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, communication towers sited on parcels zoned Agricultural with issuance o f a Conditional Use 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 full 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. ATC's 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 ® FAX 763/493 -0036 districts. The only procedural mechanism to propose our primary objective is to request a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. •', After examining 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 AMENDMENT 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 significant changes in community goals and polic have taken 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 e m ur u an,and wireless suburban areas to communication over more residen improve their geographic coverage 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 si ficant changes in Ci -wide or nei boyhood develo ment atterns 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 to towers/antennas along the Highway 169 corridor in the North part of the City 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 tha the comprehensive plan requires a di fferent p osition. 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 Aelecommunications 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. 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, r yq�ml N Mark Holm American Tower Corp. Office: 763 - 493 -0027 Ext. 235 Mobile: 612 - 325 -3120 Fax: 763- 493 -0036 pROpOSED AMENDN1ENT TO TBE ZONING OR DINANCM 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 minimum 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 minimizes 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 accommoda of the existing roposedtowere tower or of the following lowinreasons: half (1/2) mile search P o 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. o 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 accessory is original or an improved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying g ry 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 wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund. 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. Soo • Zo CZ Zo N1 O IC- I 'M CR 17 CD 0 - 0 tj 'rz CD m z -9�- z CD -4 z 11 -7 L rn t (o Z A B1 C) 9L bC CD r4 00 co CD Z; C CR 2' 03 CD - fb X CL ------------- ---------- --------- ----- -- - ',/2002 17:57 7634930036 . AMERICAN TOWER PAGE ®3 Shakopee Mdewakanton 0 Sioux C 2330 SIOUX TRAIL NW • PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 T19ISAL OFFICE: 952.445.8900 • FAX: 9520445 -6906 19 February 2002 NI I. Steve True= A ierican Tower 1: 500 96th Avenue north Y. ple Grove, MIDI 55369 F : 1 , , : Cellular Tower Instll �M - OFFICERS Stanley R. Crooks Chum r► Glynn A. Crooks Lori K Crowchild S0crerary/Irre2surer Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is not interested in locating antennas, t- I ISTTi is si on sites or re- transmission sites on Shed b the Trio Governm a�s a e 1r .I g -teen dedication of land to uses not d bye. It is not in the best interests of pl: ®rity. The Community has a ver limited tl: I tribal M to use this land for other than the planned Purposes. I:: Jou have any q uestions regarding this sitaatlon, please contact Mr. Stanley Ellison, I.: ad Manager at 952 -496 -6158. PRESERVATION • SEC. 11.22. AGRICuLTURAL A. agricultural uses; B. single family detached dwellings; C. forestry and nursery uses; D. seasonal produce stands; E- riding academies; §11.22 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: I . 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 leisurelrecreation 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 I 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 m ..a in 1996 1111 §11.22 J. group family day care facilities serving fourteen (14) or fewer children; or K. residential facilities serving sic (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; g. (Deleted, Ord. 501, 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 six (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, IC 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; p"e revi"d 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; . 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; 5. provide proof of state, federal and other govemmental licensing agency approval; and 6. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) N. residential facilities serving from seven (7) through sixteen (16) persons; O, wind energy conversion systems or windmills; P. relocated structures; Q. structures over two and one -half (2 -1/2) 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'Accessory 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; ANNE 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 no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following requirements: A. Maximum density: one dwelling per forty (40) acres. B. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width: 1000 feet. Minimum lot depth: 1000 feet. Minimum frond 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 conditional use permit. .. _ -. - - 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 depth. B. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 279, December 1, 1989; Ord. 304, November 7,1991; Ord. 371, July 7, 1994, Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 1123. Reserved. M* revised in 1997 1114 04/16/2002 11:04 7634930036 AMtK1C�11Y 1 uwtK 1, aril I e, 2002 C:.ty of Shakopee I' inning Dept. 1::9 Holmes Str. South LC - Lakopee, MN 55379 I: Denial of Zoning Text Amendment I! :ar City of Shakopee, [5 C' 3 11 fter receiving a copy of the memorandum for the denial of our proposed text s 1 iendment, I would like to submit this letter /fax with comments on the memorandum. I espectfully disagree with findin B. in the memorandum. At the planning commission I acting I presented a map showing existing communication towers in adjoining j-: asdictions. The map showed towers to the South and West of the City of Shakopee t ,undaries. Siting a tower in these neighboring jurisdictions be redundant and not meet t -. e coverage needs of multiple carriers. Tie desired coverage area is the South portion of the City of Shakopee in the area of CR 1 • • and the Mystic Lake Casino area. A letter was submitted by the Shakopee Sioux C )mmunity that they were unwilling to lease space to the wireless industry for placement t : 'antennas on their property. Thus, the only feasible alternative to provide expanded N. fireless coverage in the area is to construct a wireless communications facility in the Y :ar vicinity. 11 3 for finding A- , the purpose of this application was to amend the zoning code. The use r : 3io frequency propagation maps to show coverage gaps did not seem ripe for this 21 plication. If the text amendment were approved, radio frequency maps would have t , :en used for the conditional use permit application for the tower itself. There are . : altiple FCC licensed carriers that would like to expand their coverage in the area. I' lank you for your time and consideration in hearing our proposal and reading this letter. I 1 :nerican Tower Corporation prides itself on working with jurisdictions to provide multi - t: =1 wireless communication facilities that meet both the needs of the wireless industry aid the jurisdiction. I look forward to worldng with the City in the future as the wireless t: :;bnology industry continues to grow here in Minnesota and across the globe. ncerely, t , .ark Holm 11 merican Tower Corp. 3/G93 -0 a FAX 7631493 003s AMERICAN 7 ! VIER CORPORATION A l l 600 96TH AVENUE NORTH, MAPLE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55369 A. 75 )57 0. )1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approval of M- /DOT Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 83140R, between Mn/DOT, Scott County and the City of Shakopee DATE: April 16, 2002 INTRODUCTION: CONSENT Attached is Resolution No. 5696, a resolution which approves Agreement No. 8314OR which is a Cooperative Agreement between Mn/DOT, Scott County and the City of Shakopee for traffic control signals on CSAH 83 at CSAH 16 South Junction, at CSAH 16 North Junction and at 12 Avenue in Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. BACKGROUND: With the CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 improvement project, a new agreement is needed between Mn/DOT, Scott County and the City of Shakopee for the installation, operation and maintenance of three signals outside of T.H. 169 at 12 Avenue and the two CSAH 16 intersection. The agreement outlines the responsibilities and costs associated with these signals between Mn/DOT, County and the City. The City is responsible for the cost of installing the signals, as the City is the contract authority for the project. The City and County have an agreement for the cost sharing of the signals. The City is also responsible for providing adequate power supply to the signals and the necessary electrical power to operate the signals. Mn/DOT will maintain and operate the signals along CSAH 83. These signals will be interconnected with each other for maximum efficiency. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5696. Z. Deny Resolution No. 5696. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 5696, which authorizes the appropriate City officials to execute Agreement No. 8314OR between Mn/DOT, Scott County and the City of Shakopee. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5696, A Resolution Authorizing the Execution of Agreement No. 8314OR — Traffic Control Signal, between Mn/DOT, Scott County and the City of Shakopee and move its adoption. 4 ce Loney Public Wor irector BL/pmp MEM5696 MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 8314OR BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE COUNTY OF SCOTT AND THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO Install new Traffic Control Signals with Street Lights, Emergency Vehicle Pre- emption - Interconnect and Signing on County State Aid Highway No. 83 (Canterbury Road) at County State Aid Highway No. 16 South Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard), at County State Aid Highway No. 16 North Junction (EagMe Creek Boulevard) , and at 12 Avenue in Shakopee, Scott County, S.A.P. 70- 616 -23, 70- 683 -05, 70- 683 -06 and 166- 020 - 08 City Project 2001 -4 Prepared by Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED None Count of Scott X66 000.00 Otherwise Covered PARTIES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, (State) and the County of Scott, (County) , and the City of Shakopee, (City). RECITALS Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system - The parties desire to install new traffic control signals with street lights, interconnect and signing, (Traffic Control Signal(s)) at the location(s) set out in this Agreement. The City requests and the State agrees to the installation of Emergency Vehicle Pre - emption Systems, (EVP System(s)), as a part of the new Traffic Control Signal installations. It is in the public's best interest for the State to provide three Te.:= cabinets and controllers,. ( State- furnished Materials) for said new Traffic Control Signals. The County, City and the State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the new Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems. 8314OR -1- CONTRACT 1. The City will prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal, (Preliminary Engineering). The City will also perform all necessary inspection, (Engineering and Inspection). 2. The Cost of Construction, (Construction Cost) consists of the contract cost of the work or, if the work is not contracted, the actual cost of all labor, materials, and equipment rental required to complete the work. Construction Cost does not include the cost of providing the power supply to the service poles or pads. 3. The City, with its own resources or by contract, will install new Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems on County State Aid Highway No. 83 (Canterbury Road) at County State Aid Highway No. 16 South Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard) [System "A "], at County State Aid Highway No. 16 North Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard) [System "B "], and at 12" Avenue [System "C "] pursaa_Tt -to the plans and specificat-ons for State Aid Project No.'s 70- 616 -23, 70- 683 -05, 70- 683 -06 and 166- 020 -08 and City Project No. 2001 -4, all at the cost and expense of the City. 83140R -2- 4. The State will furnish materials to be installed with the City work provided in Paragraph 3. Estimated cost for State- furnished Materials is $66,000.00. County's share is 100 percent. 5_ Upon execution of this agreement and receipt of the State's written request, the County will make an advance payment to the State of its share of the estimated costs as specified in Paragraph 4. 6. After the State determines the actual costs for State- furnished Materials, if the amount of the funds advanced by the County exceeds the County's share, the excess will be promptly returned to the County without interest. If the amount of funds advanced by the County is less than the actual costs, the County will promptly pay the balance to the State. 7. The City will be responsible for the cost and application to secure an adequate power supply to the service pads or poles. The City will pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems. - 8. Upon completion of this project, the County will, at its cost and expense: (1) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacing the luminaire when necessary; (2) relamp the new traffic control signals and street lights; and 8314OR -3- (3) clean and paint the new traffic control signals, cabinets and luminaire mast arm extensions. The State will maintain the traffic signal cabinets and control equipment, repair knockdowns of the Traffic Control Signal systems, perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance, and be responsible for the timing and operation of the new Traffic Control Signals, all on a reimbursable basis with the County. 9_ The EVP Systems will be installed, operated, maintained, or removed in accordance with the following conditions and requirements: a) All maintenance of the EVP Systems, including timing will be performed by the State, all on. a reimbursable basis with the County. b) Emitter units may be installed only on authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01, Subdivision 5. Authorized emergency vehicles may use emitter units only when responding to an emergency. The City will provide the State's Assistant Division Engineer or his /her designated representative a list of all vehicles with emitter units. 8314OR . A- c) Malfunction of the EVP Systems must be reported to the State immediately. d) In the event the EVP Systems or its components.are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the conditions set forth in Paragraph b above are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after the City receives written notice from the State, the State may remove the EVP Systems. Upon removal of the EVP Systems pursuant to this Paragraph, all of its parts and components become the property of the City. 10. The State and the County will enter into Traffic Control Signal Maintenance Agreement No. 83144 -R for the intersections of County State Aid Highway No. 83 (Canterbury Road) at County State Aid Highway No. 16 South Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard), at County State Aid Highway No. 16 North Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard), and at 12 Avenue covering malntcn Of the traffic signal cabernets and control eg'a�pment, maintain of the EVP Systems, repair of knockdowns of the Traffic Control Signal systems, performance of all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance not performed by the County, and the responsibility for the timing and operation of the 8314OR -5- Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems by State Forces and the terms and conditions covering payment by the County. The maintenance of the Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems performed by the State, on a reimbursable basis with the County, will be performed for a maximum five year period, starting upon .completion of this construction project. 11. Each party will be solely responsible for its own acts and omissions, and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law. The State's liability is governed by the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736. Each party will be solely responsible for its own employees for any Workers Compensation Claims. 12. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or their successors in office. 13. If the State fails to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce-it. 14. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be *used to bind either party. 8314OR -6- 1 5. Minnesota law governs this Agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or-federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 16. This Agreement is effective on the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes 16C.05, Subdivision 2, and will remain in effect until terminated by written agreement of the parties. 8314OR -7- APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: COUNTY OF SCOTT By: Chairperson of the Board Date: (County Seal) County Highway Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Rv -� Mayor Date: (City Seal) Rtr -1 _County Auditor Date: CITY OF SHAKOPEE - 1 - City Administrator Date: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECONIlvIENDED FOR APPROVAL: Assistant Division Engineer COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Assistant Commissioner Date: ATTORNEY GENERAL As to form and execution By: Date: By: Date: 8314OR -9- RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Scott enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To install new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre - emption, interconnect and signing on County State Aid Highway No. 83 (Canterbury Road) at County State Aid Highway No. 16 South Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard), at County State Aid Highway No. 16 North Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard), and at 12` Avenue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 83140R, a copy of which was before the Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper County officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the County all of the contractual obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Scott City of Shakopee I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Board of the County of Scott at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of f , 2002, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. County Auditor (Seal) RESOLVED that the City of Shakopee enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To install new traffic control signals with street lights, emergency vehicle pre- emption, interconnect and signing on County State Highway No. 83 (Canterbury Road) at County State Aid Highway No. 16 South Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard), at County State Aid Highway No. 16 North Junction (Eagle Creek Boulevard), and at 12 Avenue in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 83140R, a copy of which was before the Council. E IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2002- Mayor of the City of Shakopee EVURN City Clerk LWI State of Minnesota. County of Scott City of Shakopee I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Reimbursement Agreement with Southbridge Crossings for Traffic Control Signal at Southbridge Parkway and Old Carriage Court North DATE: April 16, 2002 INTRODUCTION: With the proposed Southbridge Crossings 2 nd Addition and the proposed Wal -Mart and Sam's Club commercial project, a traffic control signal is needed at the intersection of Southbridge Parkway and Old Carriage Court North. The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss this improvement and consider entering into a reimbursement agreement with the developer for the design of the traffic control signal by a City consultant versus a private developer's engineer. BACKGROUND: A traffic study has been done by Benshoof and and Associates for Southbridge Crossings and has determined that a traffic control signal will be needed upon opening of a Wal- mart and Sam's Club in the Southbridge Crossings 2 nd Addition. Staff had the signal justification report reviewed by Chuck Rickart of WSB & Associates and he is in agreement that a traffic control signal should be installed in this area. The developer will be responsible for the cost of installing this traffic control signal with the City ultimately be responsible for operation and maintenance. Staff believes that this signal should be designed by a City consultant, versus a developer's engineer, due to the high maintenance and operation responsibilities of a traffic control signal for the City. Most Cities and Counties have permanent signals that will be the responsible of the government entity designed by a City consultant or City staff. Staff has written a letter to the developer proposing that the developer enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City, and that the City enter into an agreement with WSB & Associates for the design of this signal. The developer can still install the signal, with the City and its consultant inspecting the signal for proper placement and operation and the developer would be finance this improvement privately. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an extension agreement with WSB & Associates for the design of a traffic control signal system at the intersection of Southbridge Parkway and Old Carriage Court North, and for an agreement to be entered into with the developer for the reimbursement for the design fees associated with this traffic control signal design. 2. Do not enter into any agreements. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, for the signal system to be designed by a City consultant and for the developer to reimburse the City's cost for the design of this signal system. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an extension agreement with WSB & Associates for the design of a traffic control signal system at the intersection of Southbridge Parkway and Old Carriage Court North, and for an agreement to be entered into with the developer for the reimbursement for the design fees associated with this traffic control signal design. J 4 1 &� v 'r -1 fL o n e Public Works Director BI/pxnp TRAFFIC CONTROL ■ Rw(.� AYE. 1 AvE. t��F V F l6 15 T1ISN R22At IGII A' IS 1� TI ISN R22W + W � QVU 18 It i�o 11 II Ur it 0 ]I 00 II � II I► ' riIIm50R� q � ` FIT LFE CSAN 21 i i i K II II II 20th Av� l 16 Rica:' Rest Area J � 13M AVE. ,1 N IC N H4 NSEN Av, v o� W U Q N SIGNAL 801LING SPRINGS L ®C TI LANE 1 iI V 1 R22ta , N � I- Z I 2' a I8 �' z W J A 2 m W N ' o. PRFS i1 FI vE TR. i C ° u N W I 18 O v v J - CGUIRE CAN = 134th ST. z W S � SUNg�, CI , t I _r u 0q �1 Z II I Steve Soltau Southbridge Crossings 3601 Minnesota Drive, Suite 880 Edina, MN 55435 RE: Signal Project at Southbridge Parkway and Old Carriage Court N. Dear Steve: This letter is in regard to the proposed signal project at Southbridge Parkway and Old Carriage Court N. that is proposed with the Southbridge Crossing development in the commercial district. To date, Benshoof and Assoc., Inc. has prepared a signal justification report to indicate that a traffic signal will be needed at this location upon the opening of the proposed Wal -mart and Sam's Club in this area. I have had several conversations with you recently to discuss the merit of the signal project to be designed by a City consultant versus the developer's engineer. After review of the situation, discussion with other engineers in the area and their policies, I have come to the conclusion as follows: 1. This will be a City signal and be maintained by the City versus the County or State on other installations. 2. The cost for the City to review the signal design is almost as expensive as having the signal designed by a City consultant. 3. A better plan and more thorough plan is usually achieved by a City consultant designing the facility versus the City staff or City consultant reviewing a design by the developer's engineer. 4. Permanent signals that are installed in Scott County are designed by County consultants or County staff in order to meet the requirements by the County. Similarly, it is important that a City consultant design a City facility with high maintenance responsibilities to meet City standards. 5. The City consultant designing this facility will ensure that City standards are met for design and construction for perpetual maintenance. As mentioned to you before, the City would allow the developer to finance and construct the signal under a developer's agreement. However, to achieve the best results for the City of Shakopee and future maintenance of a major facility, such as traffic control COMMUNM PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South • Shakopee. Minnesota • 55379 -1351 •952 -233 -3800 • FAX 952- 233 -3801 • www.ci.shakopee.mn.us signal, it is in the best interest of the City to have .this signal designed by a City consultant. In the past, the City and the developer entered into a reimbursement agreement in which the developer will reimburse the City of its costs to have a signal designed by a City consultant. It is my decision, based on my review of the important facts in this regard, to require that this signal be designed by a City consultant and the developer enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for the cost of this design. If you have any questions in regard to this decision, please feel free to contact me at Shakopee City Hall- Sincerely, Bruce Loney Public Works ector BL/pmp SOLTAU Cc: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Tim Thomson, City Attorney Chuck Rickart, WSB & Assoc. a CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request of S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Regarding Hourly Restrictions on Construction Activities On CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 Improvement Project No. 2001 -4 DATE: April 16, 2002 INTRODUCTION: p .t By letter dated April 5, 2002, S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., the contractor for City Project No. 2001 -4 has requested that City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, be suspended for Monday through Saturday work hours. DISCUSSION: The above named section of the City Code restricts the hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays, and from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. is requesting a suspension on the hours as follows: Monday through Friday 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Saturday 6:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The earlier starting time is to expedite work in order to work longer hours to allow contractors to work earlier on Monday through Saturday and to meet the schedule for this project. The contractor is anticipated to work at least six days a week and long hours to complete the project by September. Staff would recommend that if the suspension of hours is granted, that the approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is contingent upon minimizing noise exposure near residential areas. 2. If residential complaints are received by the City, the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the City Engineer. 3. Blasting activities, if any, must be done from 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. If Council approves the suspension, a public notice to meet the City Code requirements and notice such as a news release would be placed in the Shakopee Valley News. Staff believes by allowing this suspension of work hours, the projects can be done sooner than the length of construction description and inconvenience is minimi ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, as requested by S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., as per their letter dated April 5, 2002 and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff. 2. Approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, for some other period of time as determined appropriate by the City Council, and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms. 3. Do not approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion approving suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, as requested by S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., as per their letter dated April 5, 2002 and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff. Bruce Lone Public Works Director April 5, 2002 City of Shakopee Bruce Loney Engineering Department 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: C.S.A.H. 83/16 Reconstruction Shakopee, MN S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Job # 02 -437 Dear Bruce, Because of the tight phasing and the amount of work to be completed by September 1, 2002 on the C.S.A.H. 16/83 project S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. is asking for the following extension of the work hours. Monday thru Friday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.. If you have any question please feel free to give me a call. TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Michael Hullander, Public Works Supervisor SUBJECT: Purchase of a Self - Propelled Paint Striper for The Parks Maintenance Division DATE: April 16, 2002 i V II, Ii IN7SH03 Wa Public Works has identified a need in the 2002 Capital Equipment Budget to purchase an additional paint striper for the Parks Maintenance Division. Staff has estimated the cost to be around $20,000.00. BACKGROUND: In the past Public Works used two paint stripers for park and street maintenance activities. Staff currently uses one Linelazer 5000 that is shared between the two divisions. With the growth of the community and addition and fast growth of youth soccer, Public Works is requesting to purchase a second self - propelled paint striper to add to the productivity and efficiency of both the Street and Park Divisions. Public Works researched other communities to see what they were utilizing for striping athletic fields. To purchase similar equipment staff budgeted $20,000.00, although the paint striper would not be efficient for the street division. Staff has learned that Graco, Inc. and Fine Line Industries sell a motorized driver that connects directly to standard paint stripers at a lower cost than other equipment. By using this method both the Street and Park Divisions will benefit by purchasing an additional striper. Staff has received quotes for the purchase of a new paint striper and motorized driver. Staff is also requesting to purchase a small 6' X 10' trailer to transport the equipment. The quotes are as follows: SHERWIN WILLIAMS GRACO INC. LINELAZER 111 5900 $5,680.01 LINE DRIVER $4,149.78 TOTAL $9,829.79 LAFARGE ROAD MARKING 1►1: _ 1 0 1 ,10 I► b ' i _ LAZY LINER 2000 $6,277.37 DRIVER $4,528.26 TOTAL $10,805.63 GRACO INC. LINELAZER 11115900 $6,048.77 LINE DRIVER $4 TOTAL $10,858.52 IYC � it LANO EQUIPMENT INC. FELLING FT -3 UTILITY TRAILER $1,728.68 SAUK CENTRE WELDING AND MACHINE WORKS FELLING FT -3 UTILITY TRAILER $2,107.53 ALTERNATIVES: Purchase one Linelazer 1115900 and one Line Driver from Sherwin Williams for the price of $9,829.79. Purchase one Felling Trailer from Lano Equipment Inc. for the price of $1,728.68. The total cost of $11,558.47 to be expended from the Capital Equipment Fund. 2. Deny the purchase. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REOUESTED: Move to authorize staff to purchase from Sherwin Williams one Linelazer 1111 5900 and one Line Driver for the price of $9,829.79 and also to purchase from Lano Equipment Inc. one Felling Trailer for the price of $1,728.68. The total cost of $11,558.47 to be expended from the Capital Equipment Fund. A F Michael Public Works Supervisor 0 0' CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum a 1 TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approval of Right -of -Way Agreement with U.S. Homes on the Valley View Road Improvement Project DATE: April 16, 2002 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a right -of -way agreement between the City of Shakopee and U.S. Homes Corporation in regard to the right -of -way acquisition associated with the Valley View Road Improvement, Project No. 2001 -5 for Council consideration and approval. Previously, at its February 19, 2002 Council meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a right -of -way agreement with U.S Homes Corporation on property adjacent to Valley View Road. In this agreement, U.S. Homes will convey necessary easements for the construction of Valley View Road improvements, including sidewalk and trail along with sanitary sewer and storm sewer easements necessary to serve property along Valley View Road. Included in this agreement is a waiver of assessment appeal with the City contributing $40,000.00 for the purchase of these easements. The City Attorney's office has prepared the agreement. This agreement has been reviewed and approved by U.S. Homes and the City Attorney and is being recommended for City Council to approve. It should be noted that U.S. Homes has indicated that they will final plat the property in order to install the utilities to meet the project schedule. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the right -of -way agreement with U.S. Homes Corporation. 2. Do not authorize the appropriate City officials to execute this agreement. 3. Table for additional information. IRxK17 �1► ID ►11 1 Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to obtain this necessary right -of -way to construct Valley View Road improvements this year. Also, it should be noted that the developer intends to plat this property prematurely in order to extend the utilities to facilitate the City's schedule for the sanitary and storm sewer improvements. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the right -of -way agreement with U.S. Homes. race Loney Public Wor irector BI/p-p USHOMES 04/11/2002 14:15 FAX 9524 041909 LUNDGREN BROS. CONST. CT'I -I OF SHAKOPEE SCOTT coUT 'Y, MINNESOTA AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT -OF -WAY AND EASEMENT ACQUISITION Z002 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2002, by and between the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation or under the laws of the State of Minnesota, ( "City ") and U.S. Home Corporation, a Delaware corporation, ("Developer"). A. Developer has made application to the City Council for approval of a subdivision named Prairie Village 7 Addition ("Subdivision"). B. The City Council, by Resolution No. 5552 adopted on August 21, 2001, has granted preliminary plat approval to the Subdivision subject to certain conditions. C. The City is planning to construct improvements to Valley View Road and Sarazin Street in the Spring/Summer of 2002, as part of Project No. 2001 -5 (the "Improvements'D. As part of the preliminary plat approval, Developer is required to dedicate land for the Improvements. D. The City is in need of approximately 32, 553 square feet of new highway right -of- way, 7,851 square feet of permanent utility and drainage easement and 17,425 square feet for sanitary and storm sewer easements within the proposed Subdivision. (the "Easements ') - The legal description for the Easements is set forth on the attached Exhibit A. E. Developer desires to facilitate *die timely construction of the Improvements, but does not intend to proceed with a final plat of the Subdivision at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Developer agree as follows: 1. The above recitals are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement. 2. Developer shall convey the Easements to the City and City shall pay Developer a total of $40,000 for said Easements. 3. Developer shall petition the City for construction of the Improvements and shall enter into an agreement waiving all rights to notice, bearing and appeal, or to otherwise contest, challenge or object to any assessments for the Improvements in a total amount estimated to be S 143,948.29 as stated in the Feasibility Report dated February 20, 2001. 4. Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, at its sole expense, the sanitary and storm sewer extensions (the "Sewer Extensions' through the Subdivision to their PAC- 211641 V2 SH155 -105 04/11/2002 14:15 FAX 95 LINDGREN BROS. CONST. 2003 connection with the Improvements, in lieu of being assessed for the Sewer Extensions. Developer shall coordinate construction of the Sewer Extensions with the City's construction of the improvements and construction shall proceed in accordance with plans and specifications that have been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. If Developer does not construct the Sewer Extensions as provided for in this paragraph, it will be assessed the costs therefor, as indicated in the Feasibility Study- 5. This Agreement supercedes the condition set forth in the preliminary plat approval that requires US Home Corporation, as a condition of the final plat, to dedicate Right -of -Way for Valley View Improvements. 6. This Agreement will not delay final plat approval at such time as US Home Corporation decides to proceed with a final plat. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by proper officer(s) on the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHAKOPEE By Mayor By City Administrator By City Clerk U.S. Home Corporation _n and Project Manager PAC-211641v2 514155 -105 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Project Coordinator SUBJECT: 2000 Reconstruction Project No. 2000 -4 DATE: April 16, 2002 INTRODUCTION: S E 14 T Council action is required for a resolution accepting work and making final payment on 2000 Reconstruction Project - 3 Avenue, from C.R. 69 to Shumway Street; Harrison Street, from 6 d ' Avenue to 3 Avenue; and Shumway Street, from 3 Avenue to 2nd Avenue, Project No. 2000 -4. BACKGROUND: All of the work for this project has been completed in accordance with the contract documents. Attached is a Certificate of Completion showing the original contract amount of $1,063,846.94 and the actual final costs of $1,328,418.86 for this project. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5695, A Resolution Accepting Work on 2000 Reconstruction Project - 3rd Avenue, from County Road 69 to Shumway Street; Harrison Street, from 6 Avenue to 3 Avenue; and Shumway Street, from 3 Avenue to 2nd Avenue, Project No. 2000 -4 and move its adoption. Ray Ruuska Project Coordinator RR/ MEM5695 WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Shakopee on April 12, 2001, Northwest Asphalt, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the 2000 Reconstruction Project in accordance with such contract. NOW, THEREFORE, E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOP ME that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. WIN no" = Shakopee, Minnesota, held this session of the City Council of the City of day of , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee I�1 City Clerk 1 • CONTRACT O.: 2 000 -4 t► April 16, 2002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2000 Reconstruction Project CONTRACTOR Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 1451 Stagecoach Road Shakopee, MN 55379 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 ,063,846.94 QUANTITY CHANGE AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 168 ,689.43 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 THRU NO. 3 AMOUNT- . . . $ 95, 882.49 FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,328,418.86 LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,328 FINAL PAYMENT . . . . . ® ® ® ® ® ® . ® ® ® . ® -$ -� I, hereby certify that the above described work was inspected under my direct supervision and that, to the best of my belief and knowledge, I find that the some has been fully completed in all respects according to the contract, together with any modifications approved by City Council. I, therefore, recommend above specified final payment be made to the above named Contractor. Professional E 'neer /S F. I s CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk = SUBJECT: Establishing New Precinct Boundaries DATE: April 12, 2002 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to give direction to staff on proposed new precinct boundaries for the City of Shakopee. t BACKGROUND: On March 19, 2002, legislative districts were established and all of Shakopee is located within Legislative District 35A. Any new precincts must be established and approved by City Council no later than April 30 The population of Shakopee has increased considerably since the current precinct boundaries were established in 1996. In 1996 Shakopee went from five precincts to the current seven precincts. Staff recommends that Shakopee's precincts be increased from seven to ten. CONSIDERATIONS: While determining boundaries for new precincts within the City of Shakopee, staff took several things into consideration: 1. All precincts must follow clearly recognizable' physical features: streets, railroad tracks, rivers, streams, drainage ditch, etc. 2. Try to create precincts with a population around 2,000. Depending upon the size of the polling place, this number makes the election process the most manageable. 3. Consider expected growth in population within the near future. - 2 - 4. Identify polling places within the precinct or within 3,000 feet. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Retain current precinct boundaries. Staff recommends against keeping the current precinct boundaries. The polling places for precincts 4 and 5 are no longer large enough to accommodate the increased number of voters. Accommodating a population of 4,000 at one site is larger than desirable. Exhibit "A" outlines the current boundaries and identifies the current polling places and populations within each precinct. 2. Divide precinct 5 into two precincts and precinct 4 into three precincts, and make minor changes by decreasing the population in precinct 3 and adding it to precinct 2 and by decreasing the population in precinct 7 and adding it to precinct 6. Exhibit "B" outlines the proposed precinct boundaries and identifies the current and new polling places and populations within each precinct. This alternative creates precincts closer to a desired population of 2,000 and allows for growth in the three precincts that are and will continue to experience growth: precincts 7, 9, and 10. 3. Divide precinct 5 into two precincts (as in alternative two above) and divide precinct 4 into two precincts by dividing the precinct at CR 16. The northerly portion would include a population of 2,787 and the southerly portion would include a population of 1,483. Both areas will be experiencing growth in the near future thereby increasing the northerly precinct population well beyond the recommended 2,000. 4. Divide precinct 4 into two precincts instead of the three identified in alternative two, see Exhibit "B ". 1. Proposed precinct 4 would include a population of 2,007. 2. The remainder of current precinct 4 (combining proposed precincts 9 and 10) would include 2,263 not allowing any room for growth in a very growing area. See Exhibit `B" precincts 9 and 10. 5. There are many ways to create new precincts. Staff has tried to keep the above considerations in mind while trying to disrupt current precincts as little as possible. Staff recommends alternative number 2 as shown on Exhibit `B ". This alternative does not impact voters in precincts 1, 2 and 8 and moves a few voters out of precincts 3 and 7 into smaller precincts. This alternative divides precinct 4 into three new precincts and precinct 5 into two new precincts. The Shakopee School Board has granted permission for the use of the Central Family Center gymnasium as a polling place for precinct 2 while the library is under construction and for the use of the new elementary school in Southbridge for precinct 10 until another site becomes available. - 3 - Staff has been in touch with the pastor at the Cross of Peace Lutheran Church, located at the intersection of Marschall Road and Wood Duck Trail, regarding using their fellowship hall as a polling place for precinct 9. The pastor was very receptive to the fellowship hall being used as a polling place. He felt that the parish council would also be receptive. The parish council will be meeting on April 22 at which time they will consider the request. The polling place for the new precinct 6 would be at the community center. Assuming that the Cross of Peace parish council approves the request to utilize their fellowship hall as a polling place at their meeting on April 22 and if City Council agrees to the new precinct boundaries outlined on Exhibit `B ", an ordinance adopting these new precinct boundaries will be available for City Council to consider at their work session on April 23 If the fellowship hall is not available, it will be necessary to make the proposed precincts 9 and 10 one precinct at this time. It can be divided in the future when another polling place becomes available. (State law requires that voters receive written notice when their polling place is changed prior to the next election. Scott County Elections plans on sending out notices to all voters within Scott County advising them of their new /existing polling place, due to redistricting as a result of population changes after the 2000 census.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for consideration by the Council that would establish precincts within the City of Shakopee as outlined on Exhibit `B ". (If the fellowship hall at Cross of Peace is not available, unlikely, the ordinance will be prepared so that proposed precincts 9 and 10 will be made as one precinct.) 9 = 9 w e 6 0 « & e a � �R :— / n/2 0 4/ -4 G7 g ±e` °/ ©= OD e 2 �� o$ CA a) as 2 \/e & \ 2 ® f ~ �� _ �/ $2 ƒ E %/\ »\ \/ ƒ\ _0 (a /\ 0- @ >� _ @2 \ q �o Z3 \@ y ak o 2 w 0 \ %» e ƒ c I E $ ^ 0 - CD sn 0 $ 2 \ \ 0 \ \ ® CD K 2 ) 2 2 2 ° % t ® t % / 3 3 / / / $ q R e .� . we �K �§ I I 7 � 7 _ & « a e a t s & » 2 I a �e / w« wo- a� a, tam � » o o �� �E e3 w, = � o, ao «� 7 S %) G/ $ƒ X27 Se eJ G{ \/ �� °7= $o «Q « @E ®® �J 2� «/ ,® (D «. /E )o 2 2 2 Q °� & ƒ 4E �»» ± f f °° / » m- 5 g 2« ° M. ;� E a= g - 7 2 \ / # » ± � _ $ 13) e & / � \ \ :3 e ± � . E °� CL 9 ��o 2 z 27 �_ CL > o M k / $ / k 3 ® , / \ 0 \ & °° S J_ m \ 7 $ m \ ; , @ ,m (D \ 7 \ / co G) _ 2 2 U & 2 R R Cl) U e� G 3 S 8 E Q 3 2 $/ �k ?k 1 0 la \�� } 15 F. , CASE NO.: N.A. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Adminsitrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Establishment of Fees by Ordinance MEETING DATE: April 16, 2002 '0 1 nA Recently, in order to protect cities, and under Minnesota Statutes 462.353, Subd. 4, the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has taken the position that a City's fees should be established by ordinance. The City of Shakopee's fees have in the past been established by resolution, rather than by ordinance. In order to insure that the City is in compliance with the above -cited statutory provision, and to avoid the City's fees being challenged because they were not set by ordinance, Council is asked to adopt Ordinance No. 627, Fourth Series. 'A'copy of the ordinance accompanies this report. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Ordinance No. 627, Fourth Series, an ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota establishing fees for city licenses, permits, services, and documents. 2. Do not approve Ordinance No. 627. 3. Table the item to allow additional to provide more information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Y Y ► : § 1- �WI Offer a motion to approve Ordinance No. 627, an, ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota establishing fees for city licenses, permits; services, and documents, and move its adoption. -�� R Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2002 \04- 16\feesord627. doe ORDINANCE O_ 6FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE :1 MINNESOTA, ESTABLISHING 1; SERVICES 1 DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 5636, the City Council established a fee schedule effective January 1, 2002; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 5653, the City Council amended Resolution No. 5636; .e WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised that certain fees need to be established by ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee that the fee schedule established in Resolution No. 5636, as amended by Resolution No. 5653, is hereby ratified and adopted and that the fees set forth in Resolution No. 5636, as amended by Resolution No. 5653, shall be in effect as of January 1, 2002, unless otherwise indicated in Resolution No. 5636. Adopted in adj. regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the 16th day of April, 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST:. City Clerk JJT- 212747v1 SH155 -23 JS. F3. V a+.._ CrrY OF SHAKOPEE k° Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Amending City Code to Increase Membership on Shakopee Public Utilities Commission DATE: April 10, 2002 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to consider adopting the attached ordinance amending the current city code relating to membership on the Shako* ; Public Utilities Commission. BACKGROUND: The 2002 Legislature adopted a Special Law increasing membership on the Public Utilities Commission from three to five members. On March 19, 2002, City Council adopted Resolution No. 5663, approving the Special Law, as required in the Special Law. Because the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission is identified in the City Code with a membership of three, it is appropriate to amend the City Code to be consistent with the Special Law and Resolution No. 5663. The City Attorney has prepared Ordinance No. 628 which amends the City Code, Section 2.54, Subd. 1. which relates to membership on the Public Utilities Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Ordinance No. 628, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Increasing Membership on the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission from Three to Five, and move its adoption. IAc1erk \0rd- N0- 628SPUC fell t' C �1 �' 1! owns •� 1 1 1 1 ' P • 1 1 1 1 J 1 ITY C OUNCIL Section 1. Section 2.54, Subd. 1 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd 1. Membership. In accordance with Chapter 226 of Minnesota Laws, 2002, The the Commission shall consist of three-(3.) five 5 members appointed by the Council, and their compensation shall be set by the Council. No more than one (1) member shall be a member of the Council. Each member shall serve for a term of three (3) years exce t that the first appointee to the fourth seat shall have an initial term exp iring April 1 2004 and the first qppointee the fifth seat shall an initial term expiring on April 1 20 05, and until a successor is appointed and qualified. Commission members must reside within the corporate limits of the City at the time of their appointment to the Commission and if they move outside of the corporate limits during their term of office they shall tender their resignation to the Council who may accept or reject it. If the Council rejects the resignation, said Commissioner may complete the Commissioner's term of office. Section 2 . Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in regular 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 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 2002. JJT- 212803v1 SH155 -23 B F. F CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk ' SUBJECT: Setting Date for Liquor violation Hearings DATE: April 12, 2002 INTRODUCTION L City council is asked to set a date to review the actions of certain liquor licensees. BACKGROUND: The City Code prohibits any person to sell, barter, furnish, or give alcoholic beverages to a minor unless such person is the parent or guardian of the minor, and then only for consumption in the household of such parent or guardian. Licensees are subject to a fine'that may be imposed by the City or by the State of up to $2,000 and revocation or suspension of the license of up to 60 days. Staff is ready to proceed with the setting of a hearing date to consider t alcohol violations that occurred during he alcohol sales compliance check on November 11, 2001. This is the third violation for one licensee, the 2nd violation for one licensee, and the first violation for the other six licensees. Under the new ordinance adopted by City Council on March 6, 2002, the presumptive penalties for a first or second incident shall be imposed and administered by the City Administrator upon an admission by the licensee that the licensee furnished or sold an alcoholic beverage to a minor. Any licensee with a first or second violation within a three -year period who admits to the violation and does not ask for a hearing will need not appear before City Council. ALTER NATIVES• 1. Schedule a hearing for Tuesday, May 7, 2002- (This is a tight time frame for staff to get the 15 day mailed notices out.) 2. Schedule a hearing for Tuesday, May 21, 2002. (This date will give staff sufficient time to get out required,notices.) 3. Other. 4. Do not hold a hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative 2 May 21, 2002. , schedule hearing for Tuesday, Setting Date for Liquor Violation Hearings April 12, 2002 Page -2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Set a hearing for Tuesday, May 21, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or thereafter, to review the actions of alcohol licensees: 1. Sabroso, Inc., 1120 East 1 Avenue (3 violation) 2. Tom Thumb Food Markets, Inc., 590 South Marschall Road (2 violation) 3. Family Dining, Inc. (Budget Liquor), 6268 East Highway 101 (1 violation) 4. Speedway Superamerica LLC, 1298 Vierling Drive East (1 violation) 5. MGM Spirits Express, Inc. (MGM Liquor Warehouse), 471 Marschall Road (1st violation) 6. AFFC, Inc. (Arnies' Friendly Folks Club), 122 East First Avenue (1st violation) 7. Bretbecca, Inc. (Pullman club), 124 West 1 Avenue (1 violation) 8. TL Foods, LLC (Harwell's Steakhouse and Brewery), 1128 Vierling Drive East (1 violation) I /Jeanette /Liquor /Violations s a CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Billing Basis for Residential Sewer Bills DATE: April 1, 2002 Introduction SPUC will be changing to monthly water meter reading and billing. This will provide Council the opportunity to "fine tune" sewer billing also. Background Currently, residential sewer bills are based on quarterly water usage from about 9/15 to 3/15, which is 6 months of water usage. This period avoids most of the lawn sprinkling and outdoor water usage that does not go down the sewer. There are two problems with this approach. 1) There is some lawn watering that still occurs after the middle of September. 2) Residents with low use during that period ( "snow birds ") are under billed for their share of the sewer system cost. To solve the first issue, it is recommended that the base period be changed to be the October meter reading to the April reading instead of the September reading to the March reading. For the second issue, does council want to leave status quo or have staff explore programming changes to adjust for "snow bird" usage periods? Storm drainage and commercial sewer billing will also go to monthly billing instead of quarterly. Alternatives 1. Status Quo. 2. Change only the month basis to October - April. 3. Change only to adjust for "snow birds ". 4. Make both changes. Recommendation Alternative 4. This alternative is fairest to all users and is the closest to being based on actual usage of the sewer system. Action Move to base residential sewer bills on water usage from October to April and to pursue adjusting for no /low usage months during that period. Gf gg� ox and Finance Director c: \memo \sewer02 MEETING DATE: April 16, 2002 Introduction The City Council is asked to adopt Resolution 5693 to have the Small Cities Development Program Single the inclusion son ob nary medical ' al expenses Procedures amended to reflect determining Loan Tier status. Background fy for Applicants whose annual income is below 50% of a s between 50% a d 80 % the 100% financing (Tier 1 Loan). Applicants whose income area median income may be required to provide leverage (match dollars) to their Small Cities loan (Tier 2). However, the leverage portion can be waived in circumstances where the household may not qualify it be able to afford the leverage requirement. To date in the Shakopee Small Cities program we have not h ad any e xpert All of the applicants (who needed to provide leverage) with extraordinary t rovie applicants that needed to provide leverage were able (and fairly willing) o P leverage. However we recently had an elderly couple on a fixed income (Social Security) me (we needed apply for the program. Because their middle-a considerably higher had a ow to also include his income) their in come was debt -to -debt ratio (car payment, credit cards, etc.). Therefore they would b r gmed to provide a 30% match to their Small Cities loan. medical bills. that they could not afford to make any pa due to having so The HRA administers other various home improvement programs where extraordinary inary medical expenses are taken int { { consideration n feels when det �rmi� ng an medical expenses should also be applicant's eligibility for securing leveraged funds for the Shakopee Small Cities program. We have utilized the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) policy on extraordinary medical expenses for their rog Program as a guide fro the amendment to the policies to the Shakopee Small Cities g 705 Walnut Street • Chaska, MN 55318 • Phone: (952) 448 -7715 • Fax: (952) 448 -6506 _Action Requested Offer and pass a motion to adopt Resolution 5693, A Resolution Amending Section XIII of the single - family rehabilitation policies and procedures of the Small Cities Development Program. INCOME CALCULATIONS, ADJUSTMENTS AND VERIFICATIONS Guidelines for determining extraordinary medical expenses were developed using the M innesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA Rehabilitation Loan Program guidelines. A. EXTRAORDINARY MEDICAL EXPENSES Extraordinary medical expenses that are anticipated for a 12 -month period in excess of 3% of the household's gross annual income will be deducted to adjust their gross annual income Extraordinary medical expenses may include the following: a) Anticipated doctor, clinic, hospital, home care services, and pharmacy expenses not covered by insurance. Only pharmacy expenses for clearly identified prescription medications, dressings, etc. are eligible. b) Supplemental Medical insurance premiums (not to be confused with primary medical insurance) paid by the Applicant, verified by a copy of the premium notice or a statement from the insurance company. The Applicant must supply documentation of expenses; including their ineligibility for insurance reimbursement to be retained in the applicant's loan file. Only that amount in excess of 3% of the Household's gross income can be used as a deduction. t s 01 D Z WHEREAS, City Council had previously approved Policies and Procedures for the single - family residential portion of the Shakopee Small Cities Development Program; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to amend Section XIII. LOAN STRUCTURE of the single - family residential rehabilitation policies and procedures, to include extraordinary medical expenses when determining leverage requirements. The amendment is as follows: Where there are no other sources of funding that maybe included in the financing package, and where there is determined to be no repayment ability, based on affordability calculations and program eligibility review, the applicant may qualify for tier 1 status. This will be determined by using the Underwriting Worksheet and the Extraordinary Medical Expenses Worksheet, if applicable. Extraordinary medical expenses may include the following: a) Anticipated doctor, clinic, hospital, home care services, and pharmacy expenses not covered by insurance. Only pharmacy expenses for clearly identified prescription medications, dressings, etc. are eligible. b) Supplemental Medical insurance premiums (not to be confused with primary medical insurance) paid by the Applicant, verified by a copy of the premium notice or a statement from the insurance company. The Applicant must supply documentation r eimbursement to be retained in the including ant's loan ineligibility for insurance file. Only that amount in excess of 3% of the Household's gross income can be used as a deduction. Extraordinary medical expenses that are anticipated for a 12- month period in excess of 3% of the household's gross annual income will be deducted to adjust their gross annual income. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the aforementioned amendment to the single - family residential rehabilitation policies and procedures of the Shakopee Small Cities Development Program is hereby adopted. Adopted in session of the City Council of the city of Shakopee, Y of , 2002. da Minnesota, held this ______ Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk )S1 F, ). CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: MnDOT Purchase — Parcel 55 DATE: April 11, 2002 risy The Council is asked to authorize acquisition of MnDOT Parcel 55, and further to authorize execution of a Purchase Agreement for the concurrent sale of that property to Town and Country Development. BACKGROUND: For several months, the City has been working with MnDOT on the "pass through" transfer of a remnant U.S. 169 parcel totaling 15.62 acres. This is a parcel that is bounded on the west by C.R. 79, on the north by U.S. 169, on the east by commercial development, and on the south by the Town and Country development, known as Providence Pointe 3 Addition. Last Fall, staff received preliminary approval from the then City Council to work with the developers of the Providence Pointe subdivision for the inclusion of this parcel into the Town and Country development. An appraisal was performed, which indicated a value of $345,000. It should be noted, that electric powerline easements reduce the developable portion of this 15 acres, to approximately one -half of that amount. Incorporation of this parcel to the adjacent Town and Country development provides for the continuity of development, and also for access that would be impossible from anywhere else. The intent of including this 15.62 acres is to develop it as a phase of the Providence Pointe 3 Addition subdivision. Town and Country is taking approval of its preliminary plat at the April 18 Planning Commission meeting. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals will consider a CUP application at that same meeting. Staff will also likely recommend to Council at the May 7 meeting that there is no need for an additional EAW to consider this 15.62 acre addition. Assuming that this "pass through" sale is acceptable to the Council, Town and Country development proposes to place $345,000 in escrow, to be released for a deed (to come from MnDOT, through the City) at a closing to be scheduled May 15 This is acceptable to MnDOT. MnDOT has several remnant 169 parcels in Shakopee that have been the subject of negotiation with the City over the past four years. Parcel 55 is one of them. Unfortunately, due to changing MnDOT personnel and the State budget situation, the transfer of those parcels has not taken place as quickly as the City would have liked. The most recent concept being discussed is that a "Master Agreement' ' would transfer all the parcels in exchange for payment or other financial consideration by the City. More information on that will be forthcoming, but it appears, according to MnDOT, that this will be a one to two year process. Without quick decision by MnDOT on Parcel 55, Town and Country would have been forced to finish their development as originally intended. That would leave Parcel 55 landlocked. This would be a weed maintenance problem over the years, and the development potential of the parcel as land guided for attached housing would be not realized. We appreciate MnDOT's cooperation. The appraised amount of the property is $345,000. Town and Country is agreeable to paying that; therefore, there is no "out of pocket" cost to the City. The advantage to the City is the tax revenue from the development of this parcel, in addition to the eliminated maintenance needed for this otherwise vacant land parcel. �. I recommend that the Council authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a Quit Claim Deed with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for MnDOT Parcel 55. It should further authorize the sale d s n and need t hav � Country 11 necessary City approval Development, subject to T in place. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion authorize the following: 1. Execution of Quit Claim Deed for Parcel 55 between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Shakopee. 2. Authorize the purchaenagreeme and t h e transfer of Development Corporation, betw een the City of Shakopee Ltd. ULJ-.i Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th ix SUBJECT PLAT MAP i 03 -21 -2002 14:31 From -MN /DOT OFFICE OF LAND MANAGEMENT 6512GT5399 T -221 P.002/004 F -664 Minnesota Department of Transportation -- Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul. Minnesota 55155 -1899 March 21, 2002 Mr. Marls McNeill Shakopee City Administrator City Hall: 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379-13 In reply refer to: 7300 C.S. 7005 (101 =187) 901 Scott County Parcel 55 Reconveyance (Sale 42) Dear Mr. McNeill: I am pleased to inform you that all approvals have been obtained for the conveyance of the above referenced parcel. The value of said 15.62 acre tract (more or less) is $345,000.00. If this is acceptable, please submit payment of $343,861.50 ($345,000.00 minus 51,138.50 deed tax) in the form of a ayble to cashier's check, certified check or money o tas c ons responsible for co yment of the deed tax at Tran suortation Txunk Niahway Fund 'You will be p the time of recording of the Quitclaim Deed. Upon receipt of payment the State will issue a Quitclaim Deed using the enclosed legal description to the City of Shakopee. The above described conveyance is subject to the rights of existing utilities, if any, as provided in Minnesota Statutes §161.45, Subdivision 3. Please submit payment and any questions you may have regarding this transaction to Neal Bartelt, Transportation Building, 395 John lreland Boulevard, Mailstop 632, St. Paul, MN, 55155 (phone 651- 296 - 8647). Sincerely, R. F. Rasmussen, Assistant Director Office of Land Management Enclosures: Draft Deed An equal opportunity employer 03 -21 -2002 14:31 FYom -MN /DOT OFFICE OF LAND MANAGEMENT 6512975399 T -221 P.003/004 F -664 DRAFT QUITCLAIM DEED STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ C.S. 7005 (101 =187) 901 Parcel 55 County of Scott The State of Minnesota having heretofore acquired in fee the real estate hereinafter described as excess real estate pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.23, and the Commissioner of Transportation of said State having determined that the attendant trunk highway construction has been completed and the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.23, Subdivision 2, have been complied with; Now, therefore, upon said determination, and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.23, the State of Minnesota by Elwyn Tinklenberg, its Commissioner of Transportation, Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Three Hundred Forty -Five Thousand and No /100 Dollars ($345,000.00), paid to the State for deposit into the Trunk Highway Fund, does hereby release, quitclaim and convey to City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation under the law of the. state of Minnesota, Grantee, all its interest in and to the real estate in Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: All of Tract A described below: Tract A. That part of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7 and the North 10 rods of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, all in Township 115 North, Flange 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the south quarter of said Section 7; thence run northerly on an azimuth of 359 degrees 46 minutes 56 seconds along the north and south quarter line of said Section 7 for 287.58 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on an azimuth of 261 degrees 48 minutes 19 seconds, 1788.62 feet; thence on an azimuth of 260 degrees 34 minutes 39 seconds, 236.3 feet; thence on an azimuth of 261 degrees 32 minutes 46 seconds, 437.77 feet; thence on an azimuth of 185 degrees 40 minutes 37 seconds, 180 feet and there terminating; containing 15.62 acres, more or less. Page 1 of 03 -21 -2002 14:31 From —MN /DOT OFFICE Of LAND MANAGEMENT 6512975399 T-221 P.004/004 F-664 THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF EXISTING UTILITIES, IF ANY, AS PROVIDED IN MINNESOTA STATUTES §161.45 SUBDIVISION 3. The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. Dated this STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA By (Commissioner of Transportation) (Director of the Office of Land Management) (Assistant Director of the Office of Land Management) Seal of the Commissioner of Transportation ss. day of , before me, a On this y ersonall appeared to Notary Public within and for said County, Personally PP me personally known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument and who did say that he is the (Commissioner of Transportation) (Director of the Office of Land Management and duly authorized agent of the Commissioner of Transportation) (Assistant Director of the Office of Land Management and duly authorized agent of the Commissioner of Transportation) of the State of Minnesota and acknowledged that he executed the foregoing instrument and caused the seal of the Commissioner of Transportation to be affixed thereto, by authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.23, and as the free act and deed of said State. Approved as to form and execution: As Attorney General This instrument was drafted by the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, Legal and Real Estate Conveyance Unit, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 858589- 03w.wpd day of Rage 2 of 2 5, p CITY OF SAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Boards and Commission Candidate Interview Process DATE: April 12, 2002 � The Council is asked to amend the process for appointments to City boards and commissions, including makeup of the interview panel. The current adopted policy for "Recruitment and Selection" for board and commission candidates is as follows: "Thirty days prior to the expiration of commission terms a committee comprised of three Councilmembers and the City Administrator will meet to review all applications and interview applicants, including incumbent members whose terms are expiring and who wish to seek reappointment. The qualifications of the members of the commissions shall be those that in the judgment of the committee are representatives of the Community and are qualified by training, experience and interest for the fulfillment of the commission's responsibility. The committee shall recommend all qualified candidates per position to the Council for consideration." When interviews were conducted in December for Planning Commission, it became evident at that time that the current practice of having two Councilmembers and the City Administrator does not work well when there was a non - unanimous recommendation from the interview group. Surveys were taken of other jurisdictions as to how those cities screened their candidates for the city boards and commissions; however, no change was made by the City Council at that time. After further review, and in advance of interviews for the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission vacancies, Mayor Mars is recommending that a permanent revision by made to the way that the City conducts those interviews. While the two City Councilmembers would remain on the interview panel, instead of the City Administrator, the Chair of the Commission under consideration would serve as the third member of the committee. There are some advantages and disadvantages to this. The advantages include providing candidates with a participating member of the current commission, who can give a more full description of responsibilities, needs, and qualifications to the candidate. It also removes the City Administrator, who must be apolitical to function effectively, from having to participate in a potentially - political recommendation. The disadvantage of this change is that it will require that the City discontinue the application practice in the past which allowed candidates to apply for more then one board or commission vacancy — candidates have been asked to list their choices in order of preference. However, with the Chairman of a particular board sitting in on the interview, the interview panel won't be as able to consider whether a candidate might be better suited for a vacancy on another board or commission. Separately, the two City Councilmembers on the panel may be able to make that connection, and suggest that the candidate consider another appointment. The candidate would have to make a single choice at the time that applications made as to which board or commission he or she is seeking; the City Clerk will need to advise all candidates at the close of the application period as to how many candidates are being considered for each board or commission. The candidates who have made application should then be given an opportunity to modify their application so as to be considered for a different board, if they felt that there would be a better opportunity for appointment elsewhere. Candidates could also apply, and be interviewed for more then one board. Modification of the appropriate paragraph should also reflect membership by two City Councilmembers, rather than three as listed in the current policy. This is a holdover from when Shakopee had six on the City Council, and three did not constitute a quorum. Finally, the paragraph is being amended to include the current practice of making the interview optional for existing members of the broad/commission seeking reappointment, as compared to mandatory. I recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution which has the following descriptive language: "Thirty days prior to the expiration of commission terms a committee comprised City � gym 'stfatef the Chair of the of tie two Councilmembers and the r't � =u' �u bo ard/commission for which applications be ing made will meet to review all applications and interview applicants. I ne l u ding Incumbent members whose terms are expiring and who wish to seek reappointment may choose to be interviewed if they so desire The qualifications of the members of the commissions shall be those that in the judgment of the committee are representatives of the Community and are qualified by training, experience and interest for the fulfillment of the commission's responsibility. The committee shall recommend all qualified candidates per position to the Council for consideration." If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution: Resolution No. 5697 A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2847 which Established Guidelines for Appointments To and Operations of Boards and Commissions, and move its adoption. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th RESOLUTION NO. 5697 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2847 WHICH ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO AND OPERATIONS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHEREAS, on December 15, 1987, City Council adopted guidelines for appointments to and operations of boards and commissions; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to amend said guidelines relating to the committee that interviews applicants for openings on boards and commissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the guidelines adopted by Resolution No. 2847 are hereby amended as follows: Section A: Appointments: II. Recruitment and Selection: Paragraph three: "Thirty days prior to the expiration of commission terms a committee comprised of twee two Councilmembers and the C ity Adminis4al the Chair of the board/commission for which applications being made will meet to review all applications and interview applicants. Melud Incumbent members whose terms are expiring and who wish to seek reappointment may choose to be interviewed if they so desire The qualifications of the members of the commissions shall be those that in the judgment of the committee are representatives of the Community and are qualified by training, experience and interest for the fulfillment of the commission's responsibility. The committee shall recommend all qualified candidates per position to the Council for consideration." Adopted in Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of session of the City Council of the City of -2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Note: The strikeout language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. � )5. T. F, WHE REAS, on December 15, 1987, City Council adopted guidelines for appointments to and operations of boards and commissions; and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to amend said guidelines relating to the committee that interviews applicants for openings on boards and commissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY adopted C Re COUN O THE e hT CI TY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the guideline amended as follows: Section A: Appointments: II Recruitment and Section: Paragraph three: "Thirty days prior to the expiration of commission terms a committee comprised of two Councilmembers and the r;+t. e a",;..; s eMt9 Chair of the board/commission for which applications being made will meet to review all applications and interview applicants. If there is no Chair of the board/commission or if the Chair is to be - . a M s. If , Pappn;ntment as a boar d/commission member, the Mayor shall mak an _ _ its appointment of an individual who who is not Chair. about the but hag Incumbent members whose terms are expiring and who wish to seek reappointment ma choose to be interviewed if then so de The qualifications of the members of the commissions shall be those that in the jud f en co mmittee interest representatives of the Community and are qualified by training, xp for the fulfillment of the commission's responsibility. The committee shall recommend all qualified candidates per position to the Council for consideration." Adopted in Minnesota, held this _________ day of session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, , 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Note: The strikeout language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. e a e Me morandum TO Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Application to Conduct Annual Off -Site Gambling (Pull -Tabs) Shakopee Lions Club D • TE: April 16, 0 The Shakopee Lions Club is making application to conduct annual off -site gambling in order to sell pull -tabs on April 26 and 27, 2002 at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 1760 East 4' Avenue. 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. s Place. They are in The Shakopee Lions Club has a premises permi that 75% of the proc gamb ng be spent compliance with the City Code, which requires within the City's trade area. RECOMMENDED ACTION Offer Resolution No. 5700, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, .Approving An . Application from the Shakopee Lions Club to Conduct Annual off-Site Gambling, and move its adoption. JSC /j s Licenses /GamblingLions RESOLUTION NO. 5700 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 issue annual off - site gambling permits; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Lions Club is seeking permission to conduct off -site gambling on April 26 and 27, 2002 for a fund raising event at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 1760 East Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: That the application from the Shakopee Lions Club to conduct annual off -site gambling on April 26 and 27, 2002 at 1760 East 4 th Avenue, is hereby approved. Adogted in adj. regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 16 day of April, 2002. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk