Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 18, 2001 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 31 Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report 5] Approval of Consent Business — (All itemsl ngted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS — (Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) - *7] Approval of Minutes: August 7 2001 *8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $422,662.93 plus $74,550.15 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $497,213.08 9] Public Hearings: None 10] Communications: None 11] Liaison Reports from Council Members 12] Recess for Economic Development Authority. Meeting: None 13] Re- convene 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: *A] Rezoning Request of Tollefson Development from AG to RIB for Property located north of 17 Avenue and east of Dublin Square — Ord. No. 611 B] Request from Ryland Homes and Shakopee ;Crossings for an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Property located east of CR -18 and south of Hwy 169 TENTATIVE AGENDA September 18, 2001 Page —2- 15] General Business A] Public Works and Engineering �. 1. Parking Restrictions for Snow Emergency 2. Request from Laurent Builders, Inc. for a Street Cut *3. Buy -Back Agreement for Two John Deere F1145 Mowers 4. Grading Permit for Shakopee Dump 92 Site in Southbridge Crossings 5. Additional Costs for 2000 Street Reconstruction Project No. 2000 -4 6. 2001 Traffic Study — Intersection at Pheasant Run and Ponds Way B] Police and Fire C] Parks and Recreation 1. Proposed Land Purchase by Lake O'Dowd 2. Huber Park Revised Parks Master Plan D] Community Development 1. Request from Ryan Companies fi9r Consolidated Review of Valley Green Corporate Center Site 2. Revised/Final AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park — Res. No. 5580 *3. Set Public Hearing for Vacation of Naumkeag north of Bluff — Res. No. 5582 *4. Set Public Hearing for Partial Vacation of Dublin Lane — Res. No. 5581 5. Dial -A -Ride Daycare Issues E] Personnel F] General Administration * 1. On Sale Intoxicating Liquor= License — Great Lakes, Inc. - tabled 9/4 *2. Massage Center License — Abbey Rademacher *3. Increasing Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to Five Members — Res. 5573 4. 911 Address Signs 16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 181 Adjourn *FFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF 1 COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 7, 2001 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. with Council members Link, Amundson, Sweeney, Morke and Mayor Brekke present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was removed from the Agenda. 15.C.5 Accept Quote for Holmes Street Park Shelter. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. The following item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 15.F.3 Acceptance of Councilor Gary Morke's Resignation. The following item was added to the Consent Agenda. 151.2 Terminating Condemnation Proceedings on Wampach Property. Morke /Amundson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke asked it there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Morke /Amundson moved to approve the meeting minutes for June 19, 2001. (Motion carried under Consent Agenda). Morke /Amundson moved to approve the bills in the amount of $708,650.29 plus $47,280.26 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $755,930.55. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). [NOTE: A list of bills approved by City Council are posted on the bulletin board for one month following approval] Cncl. Sweeney stated that after substantial discussion at the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission meeting a RFP was approved for a general contract for a firm to analyze the needs for a new public utilities service building and a site for this building. The firm the Public Utilities Commission is interested in, is the firm that worked on the need fora new Fire Station and is currently working with the City on the new Library. The Public Utilities Commission would like the City Council to review a few items. One item for discussion is the water - sensing unit in lawn irrigation systems for energy conservation. A recess was taken at 7:10 P.M. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. August 7, 2001 Official Proceedings of the Page 2 Shakopee City Council Mayor Brekke re- convened the meeting at 7:24 p.m. Morke /Amundson moved to approve suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, as requested by Town & Country, from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer, reported on Tahpah Park's and Lion's Park Parking Lots Improvements projects. The plans for Tahpah Park were prepared by Bolton and Menk, Inc. and the Lion's Park plans were prepared by the City's Engineering Department. The low bid for Tahpah Park came from S.M. Hentges &Sons, Inc. for $435,134.45. The RFP was not to exceed $408,000. This bid, however, was higher than the not to exceed amount in the RFD's. City staff wanted to have Tahpah Park redesigned so a bid that was under the "not to exceed" amount could be received. The size of the improvement area would be reduced and therefore the costs would hopefully be reduced. City staff was not convinced that the present design was the best design for the parking lot and the ball fields at Tahpah Park. The Tahpah Park improvements would be funded through the Park Reserve funds. Mr. McQuillan, Natural Resource Director, reported that soil borings had been done just recently and it was found that additional backfill would be needed for the parking lot at Tahpah Park and this additional cost was included in the bid. The Councilors did see the need for the parking lot improvement. The base bid is only for the parking lot improvements and the grading associated with the pond and storm sewer improvements. The alternate bid included the rough grading for future ball fields, extension of other ball fields along with the other improvements. The base bid for doing just the parking lot with no grading, has an approximate cost of $403,000. The low bid for the Lions Park parking lot improvement The funding for the Northwest Asphalt. Inc. for $253,708.05. The RFP was not to exceed $250,0 ment Fund. Actually both base bids came improvements would come from the Capitol Improve in under the not to exceed limit imposed by the City Council but when the alternates were added this put the bids over the amount the City Councidirected the bid closed for access The Li o If th Park improvements have to be done when the swimming p bid is not accepted for Lion's Park at this time, then the improvements will have to wait until the pool is closed next year. The recommendation from staff is to award only the Lions Park contract for improvements to the parking lot including the alternate improvements for the service drive to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. at this time and to redesign the Tahpah Park project. Sweeney/Morke moved to accept the S.M. Hentges bid for $40' 3,640.45 for the bid for the Tahpah Park parking lot improvement only with the funding to come from the Park Reserve Fund. Mr. Dave Greening, 1198 Tyler Street, representing the youth baseball association, approached the Tahpah Park project be re- evaluated. the podium and asked that design ce wasc it is now, is the correct Mayor Brekke was not co orrect. Mayor Brekke felt at least fu design and he was not convinced that the n g sour part of the project for Tahpah Park was a reconstruction project. He would like to see staff come Official Proceedings of the Sh ko ee City Council August 7, 2001 Page 3 a p up with another design for Tahpah Park. He was not comfortable with the amount of money being asked to be spent on this design. Mr. McQuillan, Natural Resources Director, did do an analysis of the parking needs for Tahpah Park. If Tahpah Park was to be redesigned and new bids had to sought, these improvements could be done while Tahpah Park was being used. There was discussion on over flow parking. Mr. Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director, thought the parking problems at Tahpah Park could be addressed in some way and a bett er design could be brought forward without a loss of ball fields. Cncl. Sweeney stated that general levy monies could be used for ball fields and Park Reserve Funds used for the parking lot improvement. Perhaps this suggestion would help with the bids "not to exceed" amount. Motion failed unanimously. Link/Amundson moved to accept the low bid from Northwest Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $253,708.05 for Lion's Park improvements and offer Resolution No. 5567, A Resolution Accepting Bids on Lion's Park Parking Lot Improvements, Project No. 2001 -3, and moved its adoption. Mr. Sweeney asked the base bid. Mr. Loney stated that the base low bid was $246,524.70. The low base bid did not include the service road to the pool chlorine room, driveway and curb cut. There was much discussion on the cost m Drainage Fund. This d that llow the cost of the sewer work would come out of the S g project to be under the "not to exceed" amount directed by the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff to determine what p for the storm bid ewerr o sewer to from he parking lot improvements is storm sewer and f b Storm Sewer Funds. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute cute an extension Shkopee, agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc., to provide consultant Lion's Park parking lot improvements. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson moved to authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity amounts on the Lions Park parking lot improvements. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loney reported on the feasibility report for the 5` Avenue improvements from Adams Street to Vacated Jefferson Street. A petition was received for the extension of 5` Avenue from Adams Street to vacated Jefferson Street and a water main looping from 4` Avenue to accommodate the as improvements needed for River Bend Townhomes to be located in Block 8, previously August 7, 2001 Official Proceedings of the Page 4 Shakopee City Council ed at earlier date with on given the Koeper's Addition. A feasibility study a auth the River Bend Townhomes cess to to staff to look at several alternatives to g possible development to the backyards l l r esidents would provide access to the B �d re were four alternatives looked at. Alternati No Townhomes and four of the six residents on 6` Avenue. The water main would also need to be extended. The cost of this alternative is $23 The assessments were discussed. Jim Thompson, City Attorne stated that he felt it was implied by the residents when they opposed the vacation of Jefferson Street that there was some benefit to having the street. Alternative No. 2 would allow subdivision of all six residents property on 6` Avenue along with River Bend Townhomes construction. The project costs for this alternative 3 are estimate essed alo wi the was assessments for this alternative were discussed. Alternative N o assessments. Alternate 3 would improve 5`'' Avenue to Jefferson and Jefferson to 4` Avenue. Alternative No. 4 was addressed with a note that assessments do decline to the property owners and the developer but the City's assessment portion rises. Alternate 4 would improve 5` Avenue to Harrison Street. Staff is recommending there be a public hearing on alternative No. 1, because City assessments are minimized in this alternative. If Council prefers, direction can be given for staff to modify the feasibility study. There is sufficient access for River Bend Townhomes to develop as is because of access to other public streets. If 5` Avenue is constructed, then the developer can get more units. Cncl Sweeney stated that originally the developer was planning on vacating 5` Avenue and using 4 Avenue and Adams Street for access to the River Bend Townhomes. The residents did not want 5`'' Street vacated. They wanted the opportunity to ant to develop their subdivide their property if they chose to. The residents are not so sure they w property now after they see the assessments. The Council was reaching a consensus that the feasibility study needed some amendments with additional alternatives. Greg McClenahan, Developer of the River Bend Townhomes, approached the podium and stated that if the street had been vacated originally, he would have taken one course of action. Now he has spent much money on this plat which bein const now includes a pub road The M residents on McClenah p the project should move for-ward felt rward with 5 Avenue stated a year ago that they wanted 5` Avenue constructed; Mr. McClenahan wanted the neighbors held accountable for the position that they took a year ago and he wanted to move on. He was willing to pay his fair share of the assessments. He was told by the neighbors on 6` Avenue that they didn't want the project. Mr. Duane Marschall, resident on 6` Avenue, app roached the P odium and stated that a year ago the residents on 6` Avenue didn't want 5` Avenue vacated because they wanted a way to get to their backyards. Since that time Mr. Duane Marschall has done some investigating and has discovered that his large lot is worth much more the s ize d to eao n o w as that a was against . a subdivided 1 /2 acre lot. Mr. Duane Marschall wante g high- density projects because he thought there was weg told that they would be abler o help hakope When this feasibility study was ordered the residents decisions on this with decisions, he and his neighbors have never b een ll cont alll t worked with the neighbors. He project. The developer according to Mr. Marscha , never Y had meetings yes, but he never really worked with the Jefferson with a -de -sac as anotherll roject. Mr. requested that this feasibility study be tabled to look at alternative. Au 7, 2001 Official Proceedings of the Page 5 Shakopee City Council Mr. Dennis Hron, West 6`'' Avenue, approached the podium and stated that the residents on 6' Avenue had a plan in mind to iled and have a chance trt do vn with the developer o operand all the would like to see this matter residents involved and discuss the process and development and come up with a recommendation that satisfied everyone. Link/Morke moved to table the feasibility report on the 5' Avenue improvements for further study with the developer and the homeowners being part of the study and after the study bring the issue back before the Council. Motion failed 2 -3 with Cncis. Amundson, Sweeney and Mayor Brekke dissenting. Mr. Loney stated that he would need direction from Council if he was to do a study on vacated Jefferson Street with a cul -de -sac. Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct Mr. Bruce Loney to come up with a further option for the 5' Avenue Improvements, Project No. 2001 -8, extending Jefferson Street using a cul -de -sac approach with no service to any of the properties that front on 6' Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct staff to drop alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in the feasibility report for the 5`' Avenue Improvements, Project 2001 -8. Motion carried unanimously. Morke /Amundson moved to direct staff to look at alternative assessment methods outside the assessment policy for determining assessments when they come back with the feasibility report on a further option for 5'' Avenue Improvements, alternative No. 1. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Sweeney dissenting. Morke /Amundson moved to authorize the low quote of Cole Cuts Portable Sawmill Inc. for tree trimming of the boulevard trees and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement for the work. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Amundson moved to authorize the hiring of Jim Henderson for the position of Engineering Technician IV starting at Step 4a f the on four ears of service due related August 27, 2001, with the vacation accrual b Y experience, and subject to the successful completion of a pre - employment physical and background check. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Amundson moved to authorize the extension of John Lehner's probationary period for up to 90 days, effective July 30, 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Sweeney stated that a contract was now coming back to City Council for an award for roofing the present City Hall and the Public Services Buildings that was exceeding the level that the bid stipulated "not to exceed ". Mr. McNeill stated that some items were added to the bid after the bid had been approved by the City Council and this was the reason the bid was over the "not to exceed" amount. Official Proceedings of the August 7, 2001 Page 6 Shakopee City Council Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct the appropriate City officials to enter into a contract with Swickter Roofing for the Public Services building reroofing and remodeling contact, and City Hall reroofing contract, for a combined price of $443,790. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson move to authorize staff to enter into a contract addendum which raises the total architectural fees related to the Public Service building to an amount not to exceed $35,000. Motion carried unanimously. Morke /Sweeney moved to authorize staff to process change orders of up to 20% of the City Hall base bid amount, and up to 10% of the Public Services building base amount. Motion carried unanimously. Morke /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5564, A Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 5440, Authorizing Acquisition Of Property By Eminent Domain, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Cncl. Sweeney with a great deal of reluctance accepted the resolution accepting Cncl. Gary Morke's resignation. Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5565, A Resolution Accepting With Regret The Resignation Of Gary Morke From Membership On The Shakopee City Council, Effective December 31, 2001, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously with Cncl. Morke abstaining. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No 5566, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Calling A Special Election To fill A Vacancy In Office, and moved its adoption. Ms. Cox noted that the Council would need to consider when they wanted to canvass the ballots. It was decided to canvass the ballots on Nov. 7, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. This date would also be the regular City Council meeting for that month as well. Motion carried unanimously. This was a friendly amendment to the motion. Morke /Amundson moved to accept the resignation of Patricia Langdon with regrets from the Shakopee Cable Communications Advisory Commission and Shakopee Cable Community Access Corporation. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Amundson offered Resolution Result Of The Platting Re l istered Land Survey No. 176, Among New Parcels Created As and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, reported on proposed City Ordinance Nos. 605, 606, and 607, pertaining to the utility franchises in the City of Shakopee. Mr. McNeill stated the utility franchise fees has been looked at for over a year and Jim Strommen, Attorney with Kennedy and Gravin, had been asked to review the utility franchise issue by the City. Mr. Strommen was directed to prepare a document that would be negotiated and acceptable to the utilities serving gas and electric customers (Xcel, Reliant Energy/Minnegasco, Minnesota Valley Electric Official Proceedings of the August 7, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 7 Cooperative, and Shakopee Public Utilities). The City does have a very comprehensive Right - Of -Way Management Ordinance in place at this time with the intent of treating all utilities equally. An agreement is near on a franchise fee document. The Council Members received in their packet a proposed franchise agreement. Comments were heard from Connie Hargest, Senior Specialist, Local Government Relations, Reliant Energy/Minnegasco; Ron Jabs, Community Relations Specialist, Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative and Pat Cline, Manager, Community & Local Government Relations, Xcel Energy. The right -of -way ordinance has been incorporated into the Utility Franchise. A Utility Franchise usually consists of two major components (franchise fees and right -of -way management). The franchise fees have been of considerable debate with all the utilities. This proposed franchise agreement preserves the right of the City to renegotiate the franchise fee at a later date. Mr. Strommen recommended that the City Council adopt this franchise agreement subject to a couple of suggestions from him. Cncl. Sweeney felt the Utility Franchise Ordinances should be adopted subject to any changes that Mr. Strommen felt were appropriate. Mr. Strommen stated that the rights to the City of Shakopee are preserved by State Law and the City can unilaterally impose a fee. The City does have a right to impose a fee. Connie Hargest, Senior Specialist, Local Government Relations, Reliant Eneray/iminnegasco, approached the podium to discuss some changes in the Franchise Agreement. Ms. Hargest stated that Reliant Energy/Minnegasco is in agreement in essence with the concept of the franchise agreement. Reliant Energy/Minnegasco was invited to participate in the development of the Right -Of -Way Ordinance and the Franchise Agreement. Reliant Energy/Minnegasco was still uncomfortable around the terms of the franchise fees. Reliant Energy/Minnegasco would like to see the language added to the Franchise Agreement that franchise fees would/could be granted in lieu of permit fee. Reliant Energy/Minnegasco wanted the way the granting of the franchise fee was imposed to be negotiable. Mr. Ron Jabs, Community Relations Specialist, Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative, approached the podium and stated he appreciated working with the City on developing the Franchise Agreement terms and conditions. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative was in general agreement with the Franchise Agreement being put forth. There were a few minor issues in the definitions area in the Franchise Agreement. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative would like to see some language in the franchise agreement to waive some permit fees in lieu of administrative expenses. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative would also like to see some language supporting the same uniform conditions for all utilities. Mr. Pat Cline, Manager, Community & Local Government Relations, Xcel Energy, approached the podium and stated he felt great progress had been made with the Franchise Agreement. Mr. Pat Cline, too, would like to see some minor language changes. He would like to see this franchise agreement tabled until the next Council meeting so that the utilities could work on the final draft and then present the final draft to the Council. Mr. Strommen, legal counsel for the City on the Utility Franchise Agreement, approached the podium to respond to the suggestions of change in the franchise agreement suggested by the various utilities. Mr. Strommen did not recommend incorporating language in the franchise agreement pertaining to the franchise fees being in lieu of permits fees. Mr. Strommen also did not recommend incorporating language supporting the same uniform conditions for all utilities. Official Proceedings of the August 7, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 8 The utilities are protected by State Law. Mr. Strommen will make a minor adjustment to the franchise agreement regarding the definition request by Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative. Mr. Strommen recommended incorporating the minor language changes that Excel Energy requested. Mr. Strommen was given authority to make the changes he recommended in the draft ordinances. Sweeney /Amundson offered Ordinance No. 605, An Ordinance Granting the Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative, Its Successors And Assigns, Permission To Construct, Operate, Repair And Maintain Facilities And Equipment In The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, An Electric Distribution System And Transmission Lines For The Furnishing of Electric Energy To The City, Its Inhabitants, And Others, And To Use The Public Ways And Public Grounds Of The City For Such Purposes, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson offered Ordinance No. 606, An Ordinance Granting Reliant Energy/Minnegasco, A Division of Reliant Energy Resources Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Its Successors And Assigns, A Nonexclusive Franchise To Construct, Operate, Repair And Maintain Facilities And Equipment For The Transportation, Distribution, Manufacture, And Sale Of Gas Energy For Public And Private Use And To Use The Public Ways And Ground Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, For Such Purpose; And, Prescribing Certain Terms And Conditions Thereof, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson offered Ordinance No. 607, An Ordinance Granting Northern States Power Company DB /A Xcel Energy, Its Successors and Assigns, Permission to Construct, Operate, Repair and Maintain Facilities and Equipment in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, An Electric Distribution System And Transmission Lines For The Furnishing Of Electric Energy To The City, Its Inhabitants, And Others, And To Use The Public Ways And Public Grounds Of The City For Such Purposes, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Morke again questioned how the phasing of signal lights on 10` Avenue and CR 17 and 4` Avenue and CR 17 was progressing. Mayor Brekke asked that a comparison of salaries be done between comparable size Cities and the City of Shakopee for Council members. Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn to Thursday, August 9, 2001 at 5:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Judith S. Cox `City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary CoNS�tJT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: September 13, 2001 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2001 based on data entered as of 9/13/2001. 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 $74,550.15. The actual net expense amount is $422,662.93. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $497,213.08. Y o m m a) a T C R{ a W E a v O Q 0 2 O W O o O ro m U � n W T C O y m 00 0 r C) (D n O O m o LL 0 0 W' W co N tD M ! (D o M O V O) n z M > c Q p Q) r r M Cl! O O N O Cl! M M (q n O) n n C O to M 'R M (D 7 M O N N M (O Un to U> M M V Uf) (O to O - - (O to N - 0 x c W i R) o N r o V V M R) R) W V CO R) V O Q) r N M to V Q) (fJ M 2 V (l1 41 R) I- O V M O) n O M O M N to O n R (O 7 N N O) co O) O V n R) V V O) N O r R) tD N CO V Q1 r of O O o M N O a' O V C M O O O C O r Un M O M (O Un m ^ •! @ N co co M N co C V (fl i i O1 O1 N O O N m 0 7 W ( r it c O N n n W 7 N r N m co m O r O V c N (p � 0 (O _ O M r O) O m N N N N M co t M V o co V R) O r g U7 n O R) N ` l0 C M m Co M Co Q C N M N N s'- Lc) U i C C � m Q U R C L Q r m o R (n Un Un M O M O) r-: (O (? M r-: N V h W O M co o Ri v r O) O N N W (O O O) to (O O M N R C) n O) C N N (O N V n -Ir "T rn O (q m � ( RI o Q C V Q C V W Lo oo co n n N U C o co R CO O 4 O C O � m F N N } m v v C m m C U N N m C U d Q U oI 0 0 N O ° o LO N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O ° V L N N N O O (O O N O to (D R) (7 (A N c O) C co M M r N co m r N m M N C r M r r w o O) O O (O C' N w M U) N N O) C O C Q co co Z ID W m () co W of n• W F U 2 Z 4 Z W J I W Z W U` Z Z z Z U W W W 1 F Z p IL , ~ . 0 7 m (7 Z W W W Y U` ¢ Z Z Q J O z W O K U C6 W W Z - W W p J U O n w W U W W � 0 Z CD O} r r¢ z � W U) t7 O< z La 0 0 LL-1 o0 a ? w m Cl) a ° o 0 O — - - - M M co 7 V V' 'C O) p O C 0 n U c , O n U O Z L a- J W W 0 F Z Z � Z O U ° v N O r i r Q I O O r co W I I ni r N N R) I N Ni �i Y) V C O M RI Q] I I O V V U m w o } �p CD � � L cc cc G U N N cc C U d Q U C 4 O O o, 0 N Cl 0 0 N p 0 UL O UL 0 O Z Q O Q W W C) (if o (n o '� o N �- W M M O � 0 m a Co z z w 2 w w w LLI w d ¢ z Z F z z w z w 2 2 � z w z z z z¢ z z� O Z O w z z ¢ z z z W O 0 0 z w w w w Q w W F z w z 0 F z W F- Z w w C7 � F- w w w C� (7 Z W} W Z Z w w 2 z w w 2 F- Q w 2 F- Q¢ z z W w w z w z w w w z W U' w w w w z R Q W W W w z w w w w g w z o Q Q W M W W Q 0 U Q Q Q w Q d U Y Z< w U Q z 2 w Q Q z z Z w Q Q (7 z w w 2 a z� (D t7 Y z z¢ 0 F (7 z z g C7 ` I Z Z Z J Z J J J z 0. w z m z z_ z 0 z 0 o Z¢ ¢ z Q 2 0 2 0 ¢ w z 2 2 m of z D < << U w Z O z z 2 w a W N w w W O Z 0 0 0 U w a V U FU V O w 2 p z_ a w a �QQ U W w d a U U a w 2 0 CL p2 CD h I J J J} (7 } J U O W > J > w O Q O J (7 2 W w Y O K p O O d ° O O LL W m F D Q m Z w W a Q¢ LL a. LL w 2 U a a m v U LL LL m W F 4' CJ m LL an d F (n ? (n W LL W LL m U LL O) m a p rn (7 0 ¢ Z z z 2 ) m z Z _Z LL U Q w w z W W W zZ Z W Z H F- W Z ¢ 5 W W ZZ ¢ 5 Q�w z� Z Www WWw0 www U 0 w_Wzz w 0 m Q Co F_ w J J r F J J F Z M F- J J S H CL o U 2 >- w g z r LL a d z z r z M a z w r z a d z z a U) a s CL U) d 2 2 0- Z z ai U) co iii w�� ai � ai °- w w F Q � 2 F ai ai 2 M Q Q) of d 0 j ai co v Z 2 W Z Q D D z J w Z Z Z w z Z Z m z U Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z m U z z z Z °_ w° w WD Z° It m 0 w z 2 a a w W= z= a m w w= w U¢ a LL LL' () W J N a' > W d LL p d LL' m a U z F- a w 2 z w n D W Z w w W ° Z w J of 0 p w J S F Q W w w 0 ¢. p F- w W>> a a a C7 p 0 m m Q LL z O w p W m a F- F Q O W p p o- O t w a M n. (°, O w J Z w O S> w r- O O w w m w O O w O w} m 2 w 0 0 0 U w w O U 0 0 0 ¢ U F U m F w w z z Z C/) F w f z W U U z m p w w p J z ¢ J } z LL LLI z rj) (� Z U z LL Q U LL W U Z Ir O d m m J Q 0 0? p w U J O O O z 2 U Z Q O w IL Z O O O W `t U U` S U Z IL .J z w m m LL z Y LL S Q w d C) 0 0 I- J O m w� F- 0 LL Z� to o w w 2 R W O D z af O z 0 w > Z J - LL ' W � w Q IL af O FQ- m W 2 w> W 0 0 U cl J N �' F D f.. O Z j W W J p U `z U W 1- U m ¢ O U 0 W U) Z m Z F- Q Q Q O O QQ 2 Q W U Z Z W } 0 D w Q W W 0 Z Q (n Q W p N U LL' (n `o FQ- m~ W Z U m 2 z> a 2 w w W O Y w Y Z 2 w F U O O F U Z O w }}} O cn OY Y m -j 2 v 1 : z F r Z Z X �i O W W LL o d� U 0 2� LL m m W K W- O O J O w 2 ¢ J �G O O K LL' 2' 2 S- Q V Q D m E W w W F- W m Q ¢ ¢ Q Q ¢ m m m m m m m U U U U U U U U U U U U O 0 0 W W > g g g 2 2 z m y > ¢ ¢ CD M O V O O h m N N N O CO W O) V m h O 61 O O O O N tO O O O m O M O O m h O O m N h tO m m M O Cl O V tO m m m O O O O O O O) m N 1n O O W w tO tO �' tO N O m m m O N O tO D) m N O h m N O M O O O m O N to m M O O O h N h h tO U ' M tO m O ° O O) N O M m c- h O m m M 1� m (C N h m h N N O m N N V m M N 11) N tO h m O m m r M M C N N (O m m O ¢ O O N m O � N Uf M (O N V O tb N 7 �- R N N N O J w W Uf 'C W 0 m h m m m 41 m O 01 N O Cl O) V O to CO O) O h CO m O N M O) O) O O O O O V O tO O Co O h O m Q1 O O O N M V lO m ( 1 f tO m t() h tO m O O N t() to to N N N t° M N N to CO N N m V O V O V O C O C) O O O O O O O tC) t° w L() O O O O O 0 O t() 0 t() O t t() tO to O 0 0 O 0 O 0 t() O O O O O O O O O S O 0 O O h O h O O h h N N D) M v O ° O 0 m a w w w w w w w < ¢ w z z 2 z z z `c F- W w Q W w F ¢¢ Q w w Q J ¢ w w w W ~ z F- F- w w z W Z 2 Z U F w z w r �-- w Z W tr Z w o {-- w J Z z� W F- Z Z¢ z F- w w w z a Z w z W W < w (D w O w w o z 2 z Z F- W z w w v °) z w w w w Z w p z w z w w z C p O O w w C? g w¢ x w p w� CwJ O o w 0 Z O z O _z O~ W O 2 O o w z F z Z d Q z Z 0 z¢ F - O u r ¢ Q Z� O O w¢ O Q Q ¢ z N z z d Of z J a¢ z z z U O O n Z °- z 2° 0 0 0 w << Q w a Q a< Q< w< y ¢ (n W w w¢ g w ¢ w W o W W w 2 w O ¢ w m o W p W O w 2 w w w _ (D w o ¢ of ` °¢ o o¢ w z ¢ v o o a w Z z ¢ ° = j o o j W W o W o w o W m �, w> rn w x x w m> m o z w w¢ x O O z¢ F - x x W y ° m' W a¢ �? v °' �? v m �? v a° rt a m a? a d F- x¢ v w m z v m u m ti w m m d m M o a z = U z m F q w } W U Z < U 5 Z F- 0 O �. U) W Fn w Z W W W w O_ w U O M m J w W Q. J z m U m U w m w � d U d z d m d 0 W d O Z W o as w F- F- M 0 r F- M W D F7i 2 P: Z Z Z W W U Z Z =L U ¢ W U) W W J U N U to U N o z In U U U J U p z U U U m F d O F F- O w 0 O N Z w w 2 2 p p O w 2 2 O a o w � 3 O (DO FY 0 0 o z z U z z z o z m¢ <n w c9 o (7 z z Z F t7 C7 Z w F o w Q r r F o a U H <¢ 0 ¢ _ _ _ ° z C� z z z =_ a ~ 4 z Z w W a a x < QQ� y ¢ cn U m = Zi O O t d F w w O W O V O o f O ° o o w w W o 0 o w E o w W w F w a F w a ¢ w w 0 C O F F X: w w w w LL F W O O D m W W a o p p d w W w c7 ¢ ° J a m E m m O m m O O w F - w 2 0 0 0 o F - o° o � w U w> 0 0 F - W z U 0 CL W z a rn w r O U rn w z a z o O w j O O co z - m ? U Q O U (nn m O w W W z Z W z o w w 0 z x w_ L J U W a = U cn z z z w U U Z OU O D z J d F1 Q F_- o U U W j W U W z �- _z U¢ W W v U K U U U Q x U W z O O= O V �¢ z y lA Q Z Z Z Z? F- �f O Z Z Q ( n Ur z m J K a cxi� Q W z =< a r N® U U j= U F= O¢ F F- o p m w m 0- g - w d °O to -j0 m Z J zc�z z oaFL¢F tY W WZQo g,?zo o Lli v w wa ° U U, U o) w J z w z w w 0 J O Z W w O m w ° Q w Z = Q¢ C U w W o z_ z Z p LLJ I W W W w LL W W D (7 U` f, x x x 1_- Y Z Z .� Y Y Y J J J J J J r L ` t lD O m V CO (D M O O (D [D '7 M r Cl) O c0 (D M 4] N O m C� CD m O O M O O a O n D7 m O t0 N (D m O O O O n M 41 C M O N N M '7 m o M M M V Lq 1D lf) m r m n O M (D 01 n (O (D l0 O N N V' O� O) 0 (D N n V M {� ( � c6 N W N m O 6) N co M n W m D) M aO r c0 V' m t0 �- M _ O M m N N N (Q Ln (D co v T N N Cl) 17 M (D N LO C l N Cl N O (D r O ¢ N n N 0 O N N L� O J O W O N M V (n O r 00 O O N M C O m n O Y r c0 O) O N M O m r N Q7 O W (� tD lD O O to US Ln O LD (D (D CD CO (D (D (D O 0 N N N Lo M co M M M M M M M t V V V V V R V it t V) Ln m m N lD (O Lo LD LO ID LD Ln (n lD (D O O m M tD LD LL') U) tD tD 1D O (n (O 0 Ln (D m m to m tD m O O O O O O O O 6 6 5 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U n r n n r r n r r n r r r n n r n r r r r n r n r r r r n n r r n r r n r n r n n N M m M M O � N rn a w r W N 2 W z w C7 Q O F- w ¢ z z a (c ¢ J z r S w C.7 J Z Z Z r F. W 2 Z r W Z Z w Z W Z r O r �.- O r Z W W z W Z m w Q w 2 U W J w W m w Q W W r W w U 2 r w 2 W 2 W ¢ w 2 2 w w g Q g 0 (D Z W fn Z W d 0 U` W Z o 0 0 Y W 0 Q W Y (.D W ❑ J W Q W W O CD w W a or or z ¢ Z _ Q U (D 0 ¢ U` O Q Z Z W ¢ Z W O Q Z z LL Q 2 Z Z Z Q Q z Q Q Q Q LL Q ¢ z a O Z Z O r ¢ Z Q Z a Q Q Z Q¢ Z Q W J O O Z (7 Q< d Q Q Q a Q U O z WW w U a 0- z r U J Z U U �O JO a a0 J JO Q U U U a' w O a w w = 0 W o 0 z r Q Z z w O r O J 0 0 O J z = O O o r r u n 1 0 z ° o O O w? O z O❑ 0 0? a¢ n. m J cn U U Q 7 U U W IL Q a m U (L a o a U U- m a a Q N W y a m M O N m i a W N m a a 0 a 0 m of m Z Q Y S U t W Z W ¢ r r LL U w U U z F O p Z W U W W Z w w O U W m Q U U o w a F w z a a w z 0 F z U Z z O a 0 U U o w� U W z a F U r r a a () 2 CL CL � Q z in � Q Q w � m a U z z Z w (L w r (D 2 a' z ❑ C (D a z 0 Z) z z z z w w a w ❑> Z) D m¢ O S Z w (n z 0 0 m C7 w z LL W Z W r y p r H a w w Q Z¢ Om w F W Z z Z S a' ¢ K K �¢ w W W °- F W °- W twi z O S W S 0 O S W W � z 2 E'" ¢ a O Q S W � z 7 2 S� (O S 7 r U r r a O r U Q O w Z � Z D 1 S V LL a LL w¢ r a>> w J r¢ a W ° a r a w a Cl 0 2 i 2 m r O O J O a w O O w O w U J w O w ¢, O o J O>- r 2 0 0 0❑ m LL r W U) U O Z U of J Q >j o? O0 U) z O o U U z - U w z O w¢ W F a m p J Lij o Y F- O W U Q w U a m a' (7 Z (n Y O U z O Z _ _ m O z O Q� S W Z� U Z 2 F- m Z Z W a Q a W. Y U m Z U Y z ¢ o r W Q m Y J W W a' a m U S 0 r J a D r W� U r r U` W Cf S W Z W O 2 z O r r a W W O "' Z r F- J- a F- W§ N w w w 2❑ Z F 2 W J iQy Q 0 J w o o25 Cl) N W J W W Q W W r J U a W W W W W w O O W W W W W W Z W ° W= U Z W (A LL° W m U O a° w Q w z �_ _° Q w W J F z o¢ >' J U U a a a a a a W w� 0 0 g J z S m 0 O z U Cl) O¢ Q Q} a Q z F F 0 0 0 a¢ p r w❑ 0 a S (n ¢ r -j m w �' m Z r J m W J o J r 2 W LL (n W ❑ J J m W w r S O O Q Q Q Q Q W w } a' = S S S Z O r Z W W S S 7 O U Q O S W O ❑ LL Q Q W W W J > O U U U S S S S m > D z z O O a O a O _ O C I N o n to o O O O � M t(J O N cR O n aM- O m O O C O OJ C' O O 6 O M � N M 7 ` ` n O O 0 O m n C O N O ` M O O m O O O O O O m O C,! 0 O N (O O O N N m m O O O m O O O �o (C> m O M n N 'I M m m n N C (D O O (n M (O N (O n M N M ` N O M O m M o O N o O ¢1 N N N 0 O J (7 W U i' tD Co m v O N M C (o 0 n O7 m O N M V N m m m O N M m m m m m m n o m O N M R 10 n N m O n n n n n n n n n o co 0 o o 0 o m m m m m O o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 to to O O O m m O m m co O cD O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o co L t7 m 0 0 n m In to (O ltd m m m 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 0 0 o 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 O M O N i�i D, rn a ca W w w w w w w w w w W Z w W W W W W c 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL z C7 C7 (� z C7 z w O O C7 C7 0 0 p p p p p p _ C I O O O U p U Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Di w R J R J z R R R R R R F. F- !- J 1- 'J Q k- F- F- t" F f N m W W W R R w w m, U w U w LL LL U w U U 0 w O (D rn J Y = ` a t LL U z W o O Z W w w U Q U Q U Z J Z Z o U U co U z Z p W 0 0 W W W g Z W U W W W 2 d LL LL a a LL o W W W W y LL p F- CL Z Z m m w Q o ai w W w p o cn o Q Q Q s R s z w U_ W W W d W W U (D U U U W 0 LL LL LL 5 S J R N LL R R J LL V LL LL LL W C3 H W W LL W O$ O p w g f- LL p O LL LL r F " w F - U F- Z) w w '�, z > RLL 0 Q O m F U ° � H z F Q fn to �wwz� o J J w LL w Q o w- Z a 0 ¢ < a w O 0 W o R o p Y� 3 vs W 0 m � U 0 W W O m J> p, V `o w O R Q S F H J R N to } Q U U x U c> o 2 g Z w U 0 u U w j O W L V --� z Z LL R 0 m > a v c U` v O r o to r O O M r N O M O O n 'Q O O r O CD N O tD M O CJ N) r 0 r O O n co aft N E � r r v co N r o 0 O Q CD N N O J w W R Y # a V N M 7 � CO r (n O N N N N N R O to M O O f0 aD O (O O fp [D O L O O O O O O O O O O O O O M o M v m rn a Z w E w E CL E o Q M Y cn Y rn S v LL � m L Q U } O {- j O (J U co co O M N O CO O N O M M 6 CO M CO O? <f !A N M CV O CO M O E aj Al ' C 's V N C7 N " Z T V M O) (n 1� C37 M O O V N Q CO D n N ` M ! r O M N N V W y (6 O F- t Z LL O LL Q z Z Y p to w U Z = ~ O w 7 W � LL U o W o W Q n� M z z LL p (n p U -i M N w K t U- w Z CD CwJ Y ° a U c ai o w w U t o O o M o N M CO o O 0 0 C O C o OW O o ` N o OM O O o 0 r 0 n O O O O CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Julie Klima, Planner II J Amendment to the Zoning Map — Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone September 18, 2001 01 -113 INTRODUCTION: Tollefson Development has requested that the City-amend its zoning map to rezone property currently zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone;. to Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone. The property is located north of 17` Avenue East extended and east of Dublin Square and Sunpath Elementary. Both the adopted Comprehensive Plan and draft Comprehensive Plan guide this area for Single Family Residential purposes. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: At its September 6, 2001, meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and reviewed this request. After review and discussion, a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request was approved unanimously. Provided for your reference is a copy of the September 6, 2001 memorandum to the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVE 1. Approve the request to rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone. 2. Deny the request to rezone property from Agri cultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone.' 3. Table the decision and request additional iabrmation from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED= app roving the request to rezone Offer and approve a motion to approve Ordinance No. 611, app g q property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone. 4 , b 4, +� Klima er 11 g: \cc\ 2001 \cc0918\reztollefsonr 1b. doc WHEREAS, Tollefson Development, applicant, and Gene Hauer, property owner, have requested the rezoning of land from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R -113) Zone, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: (To be provided on the table September 18, 2001) WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on September 6, 2001, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of September 18, 2001, and found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the City within which it is located. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning the property referenced herein, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R -113) Zone. Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of - 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 2001- •, r rrE Mem T O : Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II S JE Amendment to the Zoning Map rezoning property from Agricultural Preserve (AG) to Urban Residential (R -1B) Property Owner: Gene Hauer Location: North of 17 Avenue extended and east of Dublin Square and Sunpath Elementary Adjacent Zoning: North: Rural Residential (RR) South: Agricultural Preservation (AG) East: Agricultural Preservation (AG) West: Medium Density Residential (R2) MUSA- The site is within the current MUSA boundary. IN OU ON: Tollefson Development has requested that the City amend its zoning map to rezone property currently - zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban are id and (R a� B ) Elementary. Thee l ocated approved 1995 17' Avenue extended and east of Dublin q P Comprehensive Plan guides the property for single family residential development. The draft Comprehensive Plan guides this property for Planned Residential, The MUSA boundary cuts through the northeast comer of the property. Consistent with policy outlined in the City's comprehensive plan, only r phould exclude th property out ide of the rez MUSA urban densities. Therefore, any rezoning a boundary. The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City_ The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses fi om being located in 1 close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoning is to conform with a city's comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted land use plan. Exhibits B and C provide a listing of the uses, both permitted and conditional, that are allowed in the Agricultural Preservation (AG) and Urban Residential (R -1B) zones. Copies of the land use plans are available for viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the September 6, 2001 meeting. FINDINGS: oning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with The criteria required for the granting of a Z proposed findings for the Commission's consideration. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Fllldlllg T J The orlglilal , olllllg ordinance is not ill error. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Fitidlllg 42 Sign f calit changes Ill commlilllty goals and policies have not taken place relative to the subject property. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Fit idillg # 3 Development of the subject property for residential use will he consistent with desired development pattenzs for this area of the City. Criteria 94 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding 14 The requested coning is consistent with the adopted and proposed Comprehensive Phil land use map. ALTERNATIVES: I the aroval of the request to rezone the subject 1_ Recommend to the City the MUSA boPpdary, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) fo Urban only that portion within Residential (R -1 B)_ 2. Re not recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R -1B)_ 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff. 4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information. STAFF RECOMaMNDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject proPertY, only that Portion within the MUSA boundary, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R- I B). 8: \boaa- Pc\2001 \09- 06VAollefsonr - b. doc 3 . . & ;. n■ Bound }�. Zoning Pa Bounda ;,r W � A. agricultural uses; B. singie family detached dwellings; C. forestry and nursery uses; D seasonal produce stands; E riding academies: F. utility services; G public recreation; H. public buildings: 1. day care facTdies serving twelve (12) orfewer persons; J. adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care center shall: 1. serve twelve (12) or fewer persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure(recreation areas located and designated to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; q. 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 boated in a multifunctional organization I the requited 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 p. rwmadin 1"G 1111 §1122 C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participwts are using common space; and S. comply with all other state licensing requirements. (Ord. 482. May 15, 1997) J group family day care facilities serving fourteen (14) or fewer children; or K. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the agricultural preservation zone, no structure or land shag be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A, commercial feedlots, which include yards, lots, pens, buildings, or other areas or strut ures used for the confined feeding of livestock or other animals for food. fur, pleasure, or resale purposes; B (Deleted, Ord. 501, September 18. 1997) C. retail sales of nursery and garden supplies; D. cemetenes; 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 sod 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; L public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Department of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof; J. commercial recreation, minor, K_ utility service structures; L day care facilities serving thirteen (13) through sixteen (16) persons; M. adult day care centers as conditional use, subject to the following condrtions: The adult day care centers shall: 1, serve thirteen (13) or more persons; P"O re.'sed m 1997 1112 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 acfacent arEas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at feast 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 muftifunctional 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, c:osets, offices, restrooms and utility and storage areas: b. more than 25'0 of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff: or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the muftifurctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other govemmental licensing agency approval: and 6, comply with all other state kenning requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) N. residential facilities serving from seven (7) through sixteen (16) persons; ®_ wind energy conversion systems or windmills; P. relocated structures; p. structures over two and one -had (2 -112) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height; R. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or S. other uses similar to those permitted by the subdivision, upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. (Ord 528, October 29,1998) Su 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; Doge rewe® in t 1113 1 §1122 C. fences: ®_ recre ational equipment: E. stables: R. swimming pocls: G. solar equipment; H . tennis courts; L receive only sateifrte 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. o�husede agricultural n o preservation ormanc avith the folbwing shall be requirements: esand no structure shall be constructed A. Maximum density: one dwelling per forty (40) acres. B. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width: 1000 feet. Minimum lot depth: 1000 feet. Minimum front yard setback: 100 feet. Minimum side yard setback: 20 feet. Minimum rear yard setback: 40 feet. C Maximum height: Thirty -five (35) feet. Grain elevators, bams, silos, and elevator lags may exceed this limitation without a conditional use permit. S ubd 6 AddffSenal Requirements. All dwellings shall have a depth of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their width_ AU dwellings shall have a width A. of at l twenty (20) feet for at least 50 of their depth. ®. AU dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 264. MaY 26, 1989; Ord., State Building Code. ( 279, December 1, 1989; Ord. 304, November 7,1991; Ord. 377, J 7,1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.23. Reserved. ,w• ,.w.d n ,90T 1114 §11.28 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- 377. July 7,1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.27. Reserved- SEC. 1128. URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RAB). Subd 1 Puraose, The purpose of the urban residential zone is to provide an area for residential development where public sanitary sewer and water are available. Sub d 2 Permitted U ses. Within the urban residential zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: A. single family detached dwellings; B. existing single family attached dwellings; C. existing two (2) family dwellings; D. public recreation; E. utility services; F. public buildings; G. day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; H. adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: the adult day care center shall: 1. serve twelve (12) or fewer persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designated to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is boated 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; p.g.,VN,.d in 1997 1129 §11.28 b, more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or G. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; and S. comply with all other state licensing requirements. (Ord_ 482, K4ay 15, 1997) !. group family day care facilities serving fourteen (14) or fewer children; J. residential facilities serving sic (6) or fewer persons; or K. single family detached residences previously constructed as accessory uses to a church. where the resulting lot meets the design standards found in Subdivision 5 of this Section. (Ord. 496, August 21, 1997 Subd 3. Conditional Uses. Within the urban residential zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. churches and other places of worship; B. (Deleted. Ord. 501, September 18, 1997) D. cemeteries; D. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Board of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof; E. bed and breakfast inns; F. utility service structures; G. day care facilities serving thirteen (13) through sateen (16) persons; H. adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: the adult day centers shall: 1. serve thirteen (13) or more persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; g have outdoor leis u relrecreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adlacert areas; peg, rowed in 7997 1130 §1128 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 bcated 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 utiUty and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and 8, comply with all other state licensing requirements. (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) I- residential facilities servicing from seven (7) through sateen (16) persons; J. relocated structures; K. structures over two and one -half (2 -1/2) stories or thirty -five (35) feet in height; L. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or M. 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. 501, September 18, 1997; Ord. 528, October 29, 1998) S ubd 4 permitted Accessory Uses. Within the urban residential zone, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. garages; B. fences; C. recreation equipment; ®, gardening and other horticultural uses not involving retail sales; E. communication service apparatus/device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1, shall be co- located on an existing tower or an existing structure; pa" roKSed 1998 1131 §1128 2. must not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any communication service device(s) apparatus); 3. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4. signage shall not be allowed on the communication service device(s)/apparatus other than danger or warning type signs; S. must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; g, shall be k>cated and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off-site to the maximum extent possible; 7. applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; a, all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9. the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices (s) /apparatus; 10, 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; 11. aJl revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund; (Ord. 479, March 13, 1997) F. swimming pools; G. tennis courts; R. home occupations contingent upon approval of a home occupation permit; (Ord. 501, September 18, 19 97) '. solar equipment; or vw• nw.d n 1297 1132 §11.29 J. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd 5 Design Standards. Within the urban residential zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following requirements: A. Maximum density: five (5) dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 50% C. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width (single- family detached): 60 feet; (existing two - family dwelling): 70 feet Minimum lot depth: 100 feet Minimum front yard setback: 30 feet Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet D. Maximum height: No structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height without a conditional use permit. Subd 6 Additional Requirements, 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 pemnanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (Ord. 31, October 25,1979; Ord. 60, May 14,1981; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 1129. Reserved. page rsvned in 1997 1133 /1-8. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO• Mayor and City Council • Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Land Use Plan to re -guide property from commercial to medium - density residential use and to the Zoning Map rezoning property from Light Industrial (I -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2) MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001 CASE LOG NO.: 01 -110 Ryland Homes and Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership have made application to re -guide land from commercial to medium - density residential use, and to rezone property that is currently within MUSA from Light Industrial (I -1) to Medium Density Residential (R-2). DISCUSSION: The subject property is a part of a larger property that Ryland ultimately proposes to develop as a mixed - use PUD containing both single- family detached and townhouse dwellings. The site plan submitted with the application shows the entire larger property, and it should be kept in mind that the request pertains only to the parcel located north of the indicated MUSA line. An important concern in this area is whether the roadway system can accommodate traffic from development of the adjacent lands. The traffic study conducted in connection first with the GUAR for this overall project, and revisited with the plat of Southbridge Crossing (formerly Shakopee Crossings) indicated that approximately 100,000 square feet of additional commercial development on the eat side of CSAH 18 could be accommodated by the road system in this area prior to the completion of CSAH 21. The single family development proposed for the subject site would generate between about 384 and 580 average daily trips (ADT), which would be substantially less than would be anticipated with commercial development. Staff has communicated with Brian Sorenson of the Scott County Highway Department about this issue, and it appears that he is convinced that the traffic impact would be less from the proposed residential use. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at its meeting of September 6, 2001, and recommended to the Council the approval of the proposed land use change`. The Commission did withhold action on the zoning request pending the action of the City Council on'theland use plan request. Should the Council approve the change in land use, the zoning request will be scheduled for further review before the Planning Commission at the appropriate time. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the reguiding of the subject parcel from commercial to medium density residential, and direct staff to include the proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan Update currently under review by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Deny the proposed reguiding. 3. Table the matter for additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended alternative no. 1, approval of the proposed land use change. ACTION QUESTED: Offer a motion approving the re- guiding of the subject parcel from commercial to medium density residential. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director 0 Acc\200 I \0 918\riryland. doc 2 r, . v Mem O• Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map rezoning property from Light Industrial (I -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2) E G A : September 6, 2001 REVEEW PERIOD: July 19, 2001 - September 17, 2001 CASE LOG NO.: 01 -110 Site Information: Applicant: Ryland Homes Property Owner: Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership Location: South of STH 169; East of CSAH 18; North of the Intersection of Stagecoach Road and Boiling Springs Lane; and West of Stagecoach Road Adjacent Zoning: North: Light Industrial (I -1) South: Light Industrial (I -1) East: Light Industrial (I -1) West: Light Industrial (I -1) Land Use Guiding: 1995 Comprehensive Plan - Commercial Draft Plan Update - Commercial MUSA: The site is within the current MUSA boundary. EXIBBITS: A — Location Map B — "Rezoning Map" C — I -1 Regulations D — R -2 Regulations (and recent amendments thereto) Ryland Homes and Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership have made application to rezone property that is currently within MUSA from Light Industrial (I -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2). Because the City's adopted and draft Land Use Plans both guide the subject property for commercial use, the 0 Commission will need to make a recommendation whether to re -guide the property from commercial to medium density residential use first. 1, K M 9 The subject property is a part of a larger property that Ryland ultimately proposes to develop as a mixed - use PUD containing both single - family detached and townhouse dwellings. The site plan submitted with the application shows the entire larger property, and it should be kept in mind that the request pertains only to the parcel located north of the indicated MUSA line. The Commission has previously viewed and reviewed the proposed plan as a concept plan. An important concern in this area is whether the roadway system can accommodate traffic from development of the adjacent lands. The traffic study conducted in connection first with the AUAR for this overall project, and revisited with the plat of Southbridge Crossing (formerly Shakopee Crossings) indicated that approximately 100,000 square feet of additional commercial development on the eat side of CSAH 18 could be accommodated by the road system in this area prior to the completion of CSAH 21 _ The single family development proposed for the subject site would generate between about 384 and 580 average daily trips (ADT), which would be substantially less than would be anticipated with commercial development. Staff has communicated with Brian Sorenson of the Scott County Highway Department about this issue, and it appears that he is convinced that the traffic impact would be less from the proposed residential use. 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval the reguiding of the subject parcel from commercial to medium density residential, and continue the request for rezoning from Light Industrial (I -1) to Medium Density Residential until the Council has acted on the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan change. 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the proposed reguiding and rezoning. 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff 4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. l; i.e., recommend to the City Council the approval the reguiding of the subject parcel from commercial to medium density residential, and continue the request for rezoning from Light Industrial (I -1) to Medium Density Residential until the Council has acted on the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan change. This recommendation is not premised on the specific plan developed and submitted by Ryland, but rather on the possibility that the eventual development of this area for medium density housing will have the following positive effects; • Provide a transitional area from the nearby Rural Residential zone; • Reduce the overall traffic loading from the project area; • Provide additional life -cycle housing opportunities within the City. Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval the reguiding of the subject parcel from commercial to medium density residential, and continue the request for rezoning from Light Industrial (I- 1) to Medium Density Residential until the Council has acted on the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan change. d R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g_\boaa- pc12001 \0906Vzryland.doc Zoning Boundary Parcel Boundary Ex q I f-> IT A §11.44 B. research laboratories conducted entirely within an enclosed building; C. establishments supplying goods or services primarily to industrial uses; D. agricultural uses, but limited to the growing of field crops; E. utility services; F. utility service structures; G. offices within the principal structure and directly associated with another permitted use; H. public buildings; or I. single and mixed use developments which comply with Section 11.50, and have received approval from the City Council. (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the light industry zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. manufacturing, fabrication, processing, and assembly operations conducted entirely within an enclosed building, except those involving a project that fits within one (1) of the Mandatory EIS Categories under Minnesota Rules 4410.4400; B. airports and heliports; C. vehicle repair, D. landscaping services and contractors; E. retail sales of products manufactured, fabricated, assembled, or stored on site; F. commercial vehicle rental facilities; G. self- storage facilities; We reused m 1999 1235 EM H. industrial or technical training schools; M. adult day care center as conditional use subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: 1. serve thirteen (13) or more persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designed 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, 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 furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or C. in a multifunctional organization; any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental Lensing agency approval; and 6. comply with all other state licensing requirements. (Ord. 482, May 15, 199 N. structures over forty-five (45) feet in height; 0. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; page revved in 1989 1236 §11.44 2. the of the tower shag 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; S. 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; g. existing vegetation on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible; 10. shall be surrounded by a security fence sic (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; pogo rwmed n 1999 1237 §11.44 14. no tower shall be permitted unless the equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within one -hatf (112) mile search radius of the proposed tower for any of the following reasons: a. 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, b. 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 C. existing or approved towers and buildings within the 1/2 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; d. 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 twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and the restoration of the site. 16. the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating anticipated sites for future location for communication towers and/or communication device(s)/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 areas, near historical structures, scenic open space areas, and areas of intense recreational play for children (playfields, swimming pools, 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 CO[mcil: a. City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; b. commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults; pe" r in IM 1238 19. a l revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Paris Reserve Fund. (Ord. 479, March 13, 1997) Subd. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the light industry zone - following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: .„._ g. temporary construction buildings; C. decorative landscape features; and D. communication service apparatus/device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be co- located on an existing tower or an existing structure; 2. must not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any communication service device(s) apparatus); 3. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4. signage shall not be allowed on the communication service device(s) /apparatus other than danger or warning type signs; 5. must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; 6. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off -site to the maximum extent possible; 7. applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; S. all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9. the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices(s) /apparatus; 10. 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: pe" r.w.a .n ,999 1239 §11.44 E. other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd S. Design Standards. Within the right industry zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following minimum requirements: A. Density minimum lot area: (with City services): 1 acre (without City services): 20 acres B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 75% C. Lot specifications: minimum lot width: (with City services): 100 feet (without City services): 600 feet minimum front yard setback: 30 feet minimum side yard setback: 15 feet minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zones: 100 feet D. Maximum height: Forty-five (45) feet without a conditional use permit. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 96, November 11, 1982; Ord. 138, November 24, 1983; Ord. 186, January 30, 1986; Ord. 203, July 10, 1986; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 279, December 1, 1989; Ord. 377, July 7,1994; Ord. 429, November 2, 1995) SEC. 11.45. Reserved. p"* r®waed m 19W 1240 §11.32 SEC. 11.32. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R -2). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the medium density residential zone is to provide an area which will allow two and one -half (2.5) to eight (8) residential dwellings per acre and also provide a transitional zone between single family residential areas and other land uses. Subd 2 Permitted Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: A, residential structures containing two (2) to four (4) dwelling units; B. existing single family dwellings; C. public recreation; D. utility services; E. public buildings; F. day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; G. adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care center shall: 1, serve twelve (12) or fewer persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designated to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization 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 furniture 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; and 5, comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 199 pegs revised in 1997 1151 §11.32 H. residential facilities serving sic (6) or fewer persons; or 1. townhouses (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) Subd 3 Conditional Uses, Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses exce tby conditional use permit A- multiple- family dwellings containing up to six (6) units; B. (Deleted, Ord. 501, September 18,1997) C. hospitals and clinics; D. cemeteries; E. churches and other places of worship; F. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Board of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof; G. nursing homes; H. bed and breakfast inns; 1. utility service structures; J. day care facilities serving from thirteen (13) through sixteen (16) persons; K. 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; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisurelrecreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least 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, -the center may share. a common space with the multifunctional organization N the required space available for use by participants irmaintained 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; page revised in 1997 1152 §11.32 b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants `` are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and 6. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) L. residential facilities serving from seven (7) through sixteen (16) persons; M. relocated structures; N. structures over two and one -half (2 -1/2) stories or thirty -five (35) feet in height; O. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or P. 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 medium density residential zone, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. open off - street parking spaces not to exceed three (3) spaces per dwelling unit; B. garages; C. fences; D. gardening and other horticultural uses not involving retail sales; E. communication service apparatus/device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be co- located on an existing tower or an existing structure; 2. must not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any communication service device(s) apparatus); 3. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4. signage shall not be allowed on the communication service device(syapparatus other than danger or warning type signs; page tamed in 1998 1153 §11.32 must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; 6. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off -site to the maximum extent possible; 7. applicable p Svisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; g, all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9, the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices(s) /apparatus; 10. 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; 11. all revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund; (Ord. 479, March 13, 1997) F. swimming pools; G. tennis courts; H. receive only satellite dish antennas and other antennas; 1. home occupations contingent upon approval of a home occupation permit; (Ord. 501, September 18, 1997) J. solar equipment; or K. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd 5 Design Standards. Within the medium density residential zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following requirements: Me rowed in 1997 1154 §11.32 A. Density: a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of elevel (11) dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 60% C. Lot specifications: s Minimum lot width (single- family detached): 60 feet; (two - family dwelling): 70 feet; (multiple- family dwelling): 100 feet Minimum lot depth: 100 feet Minimum front yard setback: 35 feet Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet In the case of townhouse developments which contain both public streets and private streets or driveways, the front yard setback on public streets may be reduced to the average setback from private streets or driveways, so long as the front yard setback from any public street in the development is no less than 20 feet. (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) D. Maximum height: No structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height without a conditional use permit. Subd 6 Additional Requirements. 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. 60, May 14,1981; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.33. Reserved. p*ge revised in 1997 1155 1 1 WK411632 1 11 01M 04 DMO i loci I 1 •'11 1 FOLLOWS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.32. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R -2), is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined and deleting the language which is swlsk th aph- Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the medium density residential zone is to provide an area which will allow five and one -one hundredth t;v^ —And A- e -ha4f 5.01 to eight (8) residential dwellings per acre and also provide a transitional zone between single family residential and other land uses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. A. residential structures containing two (2) to f or more dwelling units. Subd. 5. Design Standards. A. Density: a minimum of five and one -tenth (5.01) and a maximum eight 8 9 dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. Section 2 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.34. MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R -3), is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined and deleting the language which is s t, ^v th, - eag : Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the multiple - family zone is to provide an area which will allow si; (6) eight and one -one hundredth (8.01) to P ig hte e^ ( 19) twelve 12 multiple - family dwelling units per acre, and also provide a transitional zone between single - family residential areas, medium - density residential areas and other land uses. Subd. 5. Design Standards. A. Density: a minimum of sew eight and one -one hundredth (8.01) and a maximum of e 1 g h we ( 84 twelve (12) dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. 1. Density bonuses in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) - In the event that a proposed PUD in the R -3 Zone exceeds the requirements for parking or open space, the City Council may grant a density bonus of up to two (2) dwelling units per acre to allow a density of up to fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre. E. Open Space: A multiple- family dwelling project shall provide at least 15% of the project area as open space, as that termed is defined in Sec. 11.50 Planned Unit Development District. Subd. 5, Design Standards B. Sect_ i� - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.6 1, Parking, Subd. 4. Required Number of Parking Spaces is hereby amended by adding the language that is underlined and deleting the language that is stpasl h: Amend Table 2 as follows; 1. Residential and Lodging a. Single - family, two- family, 2 per dwelling er M_ultiple family d wellings b. Multiple - family dwellings 2.25 per dwelling 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 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee FAWIM" City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 1999. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 (� N go � cn W I O c °FQ•tO W � C c� t $ a �r 0 :C cat 4 V 1� C h � �j aJ bo l 5�°nc�o m 2 v, h�PU�O °jGh L m � ° b� O ry .��•fW� $ O�o a��� 8 N c$ Ohp W k r� U n 2�0� Eo °���nCuu4P° iV, bloc gF�c$$5 N °q4} °cam ^ OV1 uF O N °Z� cu �ia a n�° 2d��a °s0 ip �$ C C O CCP •G A �no 0° a $ ` o $ LUE r[y� ao2o - $$$ $ py,v s �o 5 � g `o Q o,gOti 'o aa a; ¢� � €wig v ycmb ° ,Ngt BE�o 11 c \ \\ N e0 .oil OR via 11�rr r . MR �17LfIff.�1• s xFm �a s�$b$Ft m $ 0 1 , a oy g e ° �'^��::c 5 � . p6o�8m`.°5 "0p O az'rn FY b G 2 g � q CDDu66f yya g:((��Cg O4a Ncs um�C 'f umi ,..� tui W `^ b 5° C, a p o OV10 �1 chE °Ob u�O °$'� _ � s 5 a $ " 4„ C" b �+ ` � P I �3E�$ ^ E o �� $ N N •5 • 4 �. t eS O a p,N a W � - sue$ � -G a� �SW C�ea Oa�tV �ffi a N �N � � Qa�"t a� ®O��,QQ�QO�WmD�E�`�gg,Sc oz�CoO fi .� no� � Ph 4 t°i�.2� p bp� b oA v E . 5 N EoZ V . c O mPm �+ � ° �v v F+9 V a:i —S U �nsN2ooF'on�h zEoo 111N I 11 c \ \\ N e0 .oil OR via 11�rr r . MR �17LfIff.�1• 0 14 t �n r!`■ e , FARS • t.1 • -ill I X 010 v- saro \ 1 a 5 `o m o `0 3 \ a 5 0 \ m C O 5 0 9 44 0 .2 � � o 0 0 n2 N y Q nN � M < 8 c r VV / ) U . 6. h r N � h a omm� N o -a° �a U CC rr^aaa`v J � � ' � 1 V AD :�- } {� _y f L d sJ1+wm3 °J dSN Iri �j ii Lj i8 ,z– ` � I 0 14 t �n r!`■ e , FARS • t.1 • -ill I X 010 v- saro \ 1 a 5 `o m o `0 3 \ a 5 0 \ m C O 5 0 9 44 0 .2 � � o 0 0 n2 N y Q nN � M < 8 c r VV / ) U . 6. h r N � h a omm� N o -a° �a U CC rr^aaa`v J � � ' � 1 V AD :�- } {� _y f L d sJ1+wm3 °J dSN Iri �j ii is.q. 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider Revised Parking Restrictions for Snow Emergency DATE: September 18, 2001 INTRODUCTION: The Public Works Department and the Police Department have reviewed the available alternatives for revising the current ordinance on restrictive parking for snowy parking for the City of Shakopee and will present the alternatives for consideration by the City Council. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee has had an ordinance for calendar parking throughout the City except for the Central Business District and snow emergency routes where no parking on either side of the street is allowed for snow removal. The current ordinance has a parking restriction in the City Code, Section 9.50, Subd. 2 and is as follows: • Between November 15 and April 1 St , inclusive, parking is prohibited on the west and south side of streets or avenues on odd number days for the day beginning at 2:00 A.M. and until 6:00 A.M. and on the east and north side of streets or avenues on even number of days for the day beginning at 2:00 A.M. and until 6:00 A.M. Another provision of the City Code in Section 9.50, Subd. 2, Paragraph C states as follows: • The parking restrictions described in this subdivision will be in effect and enforced when weather conditions warrant plowing and shall continue in effect until the same roadway has been plowed or removed to the full width of the roadway thereon. The difficulty with these ordinance provisions is that the calendar parking provision is somewhat confusing and difficult to understand, and thus getting compliance from the public has been difficult. Also in Paragraph C, staff believes the intent of this ordinance is to restrict parking on at least one side of the street until the street has been plowed. Per Paragraph A, one could argue that the restriction is over at 6:00 A.M. Thus the public could park on both sides of the street and restrict and hamper the snow removal operations even further. The Police Department and the Public Works Department have met to discuss the alternatives and these alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 — A year round parking restriction on City streets and alleys from 2:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. with a snow emergency parking restriction for when a snow event of 2 inches or more or a snow emergency has been declared so that vehicles are not parked on City streets or alleys until such streets or alleys have had the snow removed or plowed from curb to curb. Also, staff would recommend in this alternative, as well as with the other alternatives, that the towing provision be modified so as not to allow a four hour waiting period from the initial tagging of the vehicle in which the vehicle could be subject to a tow at their expense. Likewise the City may wish to consider modifying the hardship provision in the City Code for any parking restrictions that is revised. Alternatives 2 — A parking restriction from November 1 St until April lst on City streets from 2:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. and also have a similar snow emergency parking restriction for when a snow event of 2 inches or more or snow emergency has been declared. Alternative No. 3 — A snow emergency parking restriction for both sides of the street after a 2 -inch snowfall and would allow calendar parking on the street similar to what the current ordinance provides for times that a snow emergency is not in effect. Alternative No. 4 — Change the current calendar parking provision to a odd -even parking with the public able to park on the even numbered street address side of the street on the even day of the month beginning at midnight until 8:00 A.M. Similarly, on an odd day of the month, the public would be able to park adjacent to building bearing odd numbered street addresses beginning at midnight until 8:00 A.M. Alternative No. 5 — This alternative would be a composite utilizing calendar parking with odd number and even number addresses on those odd and even days in a certain area, such as the downtown and old urban Shakopee and utilize Alternative No. 1, which is no parking on City streets from 2:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. year round. This alternative would be more difficult to administer. However it would take into account the different parking situations in the different areas of the City. Alternative No. 6 — Do nothing alternative and leave the current ordinance in its present form. In review of all the alternatives, the conclusion between the Police Department and the Public Works Department is that Alternative No. 1 would address one of the parking problems that City residents have been experiencing, such as those on Sarazin Street and Roundhouse Street north of C.R. 16. This alternative would remove vehicles from City streets on a year round basis. This ordinance is similar to what is in place in the City of Savage. In addition the snow emergency parking restriction would also be recommended in order to keep the vehicles off of the City streets until the street has been plowed. This provision would provide for a safer and more efficient and more easily enforced ordinance throughout the City. Attached to this memo is a memo from the Chief of Police with a recommendation and reasons for their recommendation. With any alternative, staff would recommend that the City Attorney be directed to revise the ordinance and to announce the ordinance change in the Shakopee Valley News and on Cable TV for any comments. Staff would then bring back the ordinance for final adoption and the public would be given an opportunity to comment on this ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Discuss the parking restriction alternatives for snow emergencies and provide staff with direction on whether to revise the current code and to utilize what alternative. 2. Table for additional information. Staff would recommend that the City Council discuss the parking restriction alternatives that have been included in this memo and provide staff with direction on the revisions to the City Code. Staff is recommending Alternative No. 1, which is a year round restriction from 2:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. and to provide a snow emergency parking restriction that prohibits parking on City street or alleys until the snow has been removed or plowed from curb to curb with a revision to the towing provision in the City Code to eliminate a four hour waiting period. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide staff direction for snow emergency parking restrictions and direct the City Attorney to make the appropriate ordinance change to be considered at a future meeting. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pxnp PARKRESTRICT CITY OF SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: September 11, 2001 TO: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director FROM: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Discussion This is a follow -up to our meeting held on September 10 regarding parking restrictions and enforcement. We both agree that our current ordinance is confusing and difficult to enforce. Within the past two weeks Mike Hullander attended a Police Department Supervisor's meeting to talk about this issue. The consensus of the Police Department leadership group was to prohibit parking between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. twelve months a year. This type of parking ordinance would accomplish the following things: • It is clearly understandable. It is very similar to other City Ordinances regarding parking restrictions, including the Cities of Savage, Apple Valley and Burnsville. Prior Lake also has this restriction, but only during the winter season. This restriction is easily posted at entrances to the City of Shakopee, which is the procedure for cities that have similar restrictions. Voluntary compliance. I believe most community members will voluntarily comply with ordinances as they become aware of them. Since most will comply, it would allow city streets to be open for maintenance and snow removal during those hours of parking restrictions. A 12- month restriction may be acceptable to members of the community, addressing Mary Romanskey's issue on Roundhouse and Sarazin. • The City currently has a restriction that a vehicle cannot be on a street more than 24- hours. A judge recently dismissed a citation due to the fact that there was not notice to community members, i.e., signs within the City of Shakopee regarding this ordinance. In addition, we (the Police Department) try to enforce this ordinance but have found that some community members are well aware of the 24 -hour restriction and will move their vehicles (boats, campers, etc., 1 or 2 inches daily so as not to be in violation of the 24 -hour parking restriction. Pg. —2- Memo — Bruce Loney Parking Ordinance Discussion In addition to this recommendation, the City Council may wish to consider the events where plowing of City streets must be done, regardless of any other parking restriction. They should prohibit on- street parking whenever it is necessary that snowplow operations are in progress. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. DH:pm 2 J�EV- CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization of Street Cut for Laurent Builders, Inc. DATE: September 18, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from Laurent Builders, Inc. requesting a curb cut for a sanitary sewer crossing on Vierling Drive, at Fireside Court. This agenda item is for Council authorization for this street cut of Vierling Drive, which is less than five years old. BACKGROUND: In 2000, Vierling Drive was completed within the Orchard Park West development. As part of that project, a sanitary sewer crossing was installed that was to provide sanitary sewer service to the land which is now being developed as Orchard Park West 6th Addition. The downstream stub of this sanitary sewer was to be connected to the sanitary sewer installed with the Orchard Park West PUD 5 Addition, and the upstream end was to be connected with the improvements of Orchard Park West 6 Addition (see attached Drawing). At the time of the sanitary sewer construction under Vierling Drive, the improvements for Orchard Park West PUD 5 and for Orchard Park West 6 Addition were not installed. The designed alignment and grade for this crossing were coordinated with the developer's engineer, for the later connections. During installation of the sanitary sewer for Orchard Park West 5 Addition, it was found that the connection could not be made. According to the surveyor for the developer, the sanitary sewer line installed with the Vierling Drive project was installed lower than the designed elevation, and that the installed grade would not allow for a connection. Therefore, in order to provide service to Orchard Park West 6 t1i Addition, the sanitary sewer line will need to reinstalled under the existing Vierling Drive. The developer's engineer and city staff have reviewed the available options, and have determined that the only feasible way to provide service to Orchard Park West 6t1` Addition is to install a new line under Vierling Drive. Because of the amount of gravel in the vicinity of the roadway, staff believes it would be difficult to jack the pipe under the road, and maintain an acceptable grade for the sanitary sewer. Therefore, staff believes the only feasible option is to open cut Vierling Drive for the installation of the pipe. If an open cut permit is allowed for this project, the developer will be required to maintain access at all times for Vierling Drive. This requirement can be accomplished by installing the pipe under half of the roadway, restoring the side to provide access, then finishing the installation on the other side. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize staff to execute the street cut permit for Laurent Builders, Inc., along Vierling Drive, at Fireside Court. 2. Do not approve the street cut permit at this time 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion authorizing staff to execute a street cut permit for Laurent Builders, Inc., along Vierling Drive, at Fireside Court. oel Rutherford Assistant City Engineer SEP.12.2001 5 :09PM LRURENT BUILDERS INC The Laurent Buildi 100 South Fuller Shakopee, MN 55 200 12, 2001 Joel Rutherford of Shakopee South Holmes Street kon e. MN 55379 NU. 4b5 r. i/l ( 1 I! 1 Corporate Office (952) 445 -6745 Fax: (952) 445 -9727 y � s D ear Mr Rutherford; �i e herc by request permission for a street cut on Vierling Drive near Fireside urt for p ' ose of connecting utility services to Orchard Park West Sixth Addition. '' winter i approaching, we are in hopes that council can deal with this ass on as possil e. arks for your service. ll e Y, r L ent id t gent Builders, Inc. LAURENT BUILDERS BNC. BUILDERS • DEVELOPERS G . L. 90001742 s, PROTECT EX WU — & RCP ST V v - VIERLING REMOVE MH� t w 5 + w SAW —CUT BITUMINOUS do CUR; OvE EX. PVC STUB CORE—DRILL CONNECTION To C&G AND PATCH S7 Qr ACC�RDAN W/ CITY CF REQUIRIEMENT! IT. & CURB F INCIDENTAL m DRIVE — 504.50' --�_ S89 25� nLr LA7 ROX- 25 S7 81 T, TRAI� IN — K:' Lai BLVD. TO MATCH EX = 7Ee 5 5 + w 7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Afamnrn"dhim TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Authorization of Street Cut for Laurent Builders, Inc. DATE: September 18, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from Laurent Builders, Inc. requesting a curb cut for a sanitary sewer crossing on Vierling Drive, at Fireside Court. This agenda item is for Council authorization for this street cut of Vierling Drive, which is less than five years old. In 2000, Vierling Drive was completed within the Orchard Park West development. As part of that project, a sanitary sewer crossing was installed that was to provide sanitary sewer service to the land which is now being developed as Orchard Park West 6th Addition. The downstream stub of this sanitary sewer was to be connected to the sanitary sewer installed with the Orchard Park West PUD 5th Addition, and the upstream end was to be connected with the improvements of Orchard Park West 6 Addition (see attached Drawing). At the time of the sanitary sewer construction under Vierling Drive, the improvements for Orchard Park West PUD 5 th and for Orchard Park West 6 th Addition were not installed. The designed alignment and grade for this crossing were coordinated with the developer's engineer, for the later connections. During installation of the sanitary sewer for Orchard Park West 5 th Addition, it was found that the connection could not be made. According to the surveyor for the developer, the sanitary sewer line installed with the Vierling Drive project was installed lower than the designed elevation, and that the installed grade would not allow for a connection. Therefore, in order to provide service to Orchard Park West 6 Addition, the sanitary sewer line will need to reinstalled under the existing Vierling Drive. The developer's engineer and city staff have reviewed the available options, and have determined that the only feasible way to provide service to Orchard Park West 6th Addition is to install a new line under Vierling Drive. Because of the amount of gravel in the vicinity of the roadway, staff believes it would be difficult to jack the pipe under the road, and maintain an acceptable grade for the sanitary sewer. Therefore, staff believes the only feasible option is to open cut Vierling Drive for the installation of the pipe. If an open cut permit is allowed for this project, the developer will be required to maintain access at all times for Vierling Drive. This requirement can be accomplished by installing the pipe under half of the roadway, restoring the side to provide access, then finishing the installation on the other side. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize staff to execute the street cut permit for Laurent Builder, Inc., along Vierling Drive, at Fireside Court. 2. Do not approve the street cut permit at this time 3. Table for additional information. 7oel Rutherford Assistant City Engineer SEP.12.2001 5 :09PM LRURENT BUILDERS INC The Laurent Buildi g 100 South Fuller reet. uite 200 Shakopee, MN 55 79 12, 2001 r Joel Rutherford ty of Shakopee 9 South Holmes Street lakon e, MN 55379 BUIL ® INC. NO. 465 P. 1/1 Corporate Office (952) 445 -6745 Fax: (952) 445 -9727 . �! 0 ear M ' Rutherford; re her by request permission for a street out on Vierling Drive near Fireside urt for irpose of connecting utility services to Orchard Park West Sixth Addition. 2 1 winter approjaching, we are in hopes that council can deal with this ass on as poss' le% your service. Sincerely, Inc. -Z 7 ��� A BUILDERS ® DEVELOPERS d 51 A0001742 VIERLING REMOVE MH- I s i s L—■ mp-� 8. 95 R - G-803.0 L- J�� mi YIA 4q0wt.a - T - 7965 3 R 8 04.5 riammll.m_m kAA-ill 9:79 F11 ON 10, Typ. - S."00 m M Ott Sm lu�m (0- ti 2 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mike Hullander, Public Works Supervisor SUBJECT: Buy -Back Agreement for Two John Deere Fl 145 Mowers DATE: September 18, 2001 INTRODUCTION: E. N'T The 18 -month buy -back agreement on the John Deere F1145 mower received Feb. 16, 2000 is due to take effect. Due to design changes by John Deere the Public Works Department is requesting to purchase one new cab and broom attachment with this agreement to bring the total cost to $9,300.00. The Public Works Department is also requesting authorization at this time to replace the cab on the other John Deere F1145 mower when its buy -back agreement comes due on August 2, 2002. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Department currently has 18 -month buy -back agreements on the two John Deere F1145 mowers. The agreement cost is $1,500.00 for the first 250 hours and $6.00 for every additional hour thereafter. The average buy -back cost is $2,300.00. These agreements have been utilized by the Public Works Department since 1996. The buy -back agreements have saved taxpayers money by allowing our department to pay rental rates lower than the City's own Internal Service Equipment Fund rates and by always having equipment that is under warranty. The John Deere F1145 mowers have been redesigned and the new models are now called John Deere 1445. The F1145 model has not been re- designed in over 15 years. Under our current buy -back agreement Siemon Implement Inc. only replaces the tractor and mower. The cabs, snow blowers and one broom attachment are retained by the City and re -used on the new units. Because of the design changes, Public Works will have to replace one cab and one broom attachment in this buy -back and one cab for the next buy- back due on August 2, 2002. The City will be receiving a credit for the existing cab and broom attachment. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize staff to continue using the buy -back agreements and to purchase one new cab and broom attachment at this time for the price of $9,300.00 and also authorize staff to purchase one new cab with the buy -back agreement due on August 2, 2002. 2. Deny the request and discontinue using the buy -back agreements. 3. Table for additional information. Fff Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the continued use of the buy -back agreements and to purchase one new cab and broom attachment from Siemon Implement Inc. for the price of $9,300.00, and also authorize staff to purchase one new cab with the buy -back agreement that comes due on August 2, 2002. The cost of these purchases to be funded from the Capital Equipment Fund. M Public Works Supervisor JDMOWERS CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Grading Permit for Shakopee Dump #2 Site in Southbridge Crossings DATE: September 18, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Shakopee Crossing Limited Partnership, the developer of Southbridge Crossings, is proposing to excavate and dispose the material located in two landfills located near their developments. The developer has been working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the approvals required per state laws and guidelines. The project is voluntary, and is not required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The developer has asked city staff for guidance in determining what approvals are needed from the City of Shakopee, in order for them to complete the proposed project. Based on staff s review of the project, the only approval needed for this type of project is a grading permit. Because the proposed project will remove two existing landfills within the city limits of Shakopee, the developer is requesting the City Council to reduce or waive the grading fee for the permit. BACKGROUND: The locations of the two landfills are shown on the attached drawing. The landfills are located on property not currently owned by Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, but by Nevac 11, LLC. According to a report prepared for the developer by Braun Intertec, these landfills were operated for approximately eight (8) years in the 1950's. The waste consists primarily of household waste, consisting of bottles, jars, cans, scrap metal, plastic, clothes, wood, concrete and tires. Shakopee Crossing Limited Partnership is proposing to remove the waste material and replace the excavated areas with imported soils. As part of the project, the developer will have their consultant provide inspection time to the project, primarily to insure no contaminated waste are discovered during the removal of the waste. The waste that is removed will be segregated and brought to approved sites for disposal and/or recycling. When the project is completed, the landfill areas will be incorporated into future developments. Based on staff's review of the grading portion of the project (replacing the excavated material), the grading permit fee, if applied, would be $6,710. DISCUSSION: The City Council is being asked, by request of the developer, to review the grading fee amount and to ask for a reduction, or waiver, of the fee. This request is being made because the developer believes the removal of the two landfills will be a benefit to the City of Shakopee. Staff believes the removal of the waste material in these landfill areas may reduce future liability for the City of Shakopee, in the event there is future contamination. The proposed grading is only for the purpose of cleaning the landfill areas. When development occurs on these sites, an additional grading permit will be required for the sites. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide staff with direction on what fee to charge for the grading permit, if the developer applies for one. Joel Rutherford Assistant City Engineer I ti CIR-, zi �X 5A-;� f CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 2000 Reconstruction Project No. 2000 -4 DATE: September 18, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a breakdown of quantity overruns and additional work performed on the 2000 Street Reconstruction Project. Council awarded the contract to Northwest, Inc. on April 3, 2001 and this agenda item is for the City Council to authorize the additional expenditures that were needed to complete the project. BACKGROUND: At its April 3 2001 Council meeting, the City Council authorized the City Engineer a 5% contingency amount above the original contract amount to cover quantity overruns and change order work. Additionally, the City Council on July 10, 2001 authorized additional work, as requested by Friendship Manor, to relocate their driveway and provide sidewalks to their facilities on 3 rd Avenue. After this authorization, in order to relocate the driveway as approved by City Council, additional work was needed to insulate and repair the sanitary sewer service that serves Friendship Manor and the apartment building across Harrison Street. During the course of the project, additional quantities from the original contract was incurred for rock excavation, subgrade excavation, additional water main work, sanitary sewer and storm sewer to complete the project. Much of this work was unforeseen and was discovered upon excavation of utilities. Staff also needed the contractor to perform change order work as shown on the explanation attachment in order to complete the project to the City of Shakopee and Public Utilities standards. This change order included sanitary sewer repair for Friendship Manor, relocation of manhole structures, additional storm drainage structures, water main work and other miscellaneous work. Staff is requesting Council authorization for a 25% increase from the original contract amount in order to pay the contractor for work performed on this project. It should be pointed out that previously Council authorized a 5% contingency and authorized the extra work for Friendship Manor. Staff has projected the final costs of the project to date and compared the actual costs to the feasibility report costs as follows: CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT COSTS TOTAL FEASIBILITY REPORT $1,111,200.00 $277,800.00 $1,389,000.00 ACTUAL COSTS $1,322,503.08 $210,000.00 $1,532,503.08 When comparing the projected actual costs to the feasibility report, the increase cost is 10.3% higher. It is staff's intent to assess the project yet this fall. The additional costs and their effects can be summarized as follows: DESCRIPTION Schedule A — 3 rd Ave Street Schedule B — 3 rd Ave Storm Schedule C — 3 rd Ave Sanitary Schedule D — 3 rd Water main Schedule E — Harrison St. Street Schedule F — Harrison St. Storm Schedule G — Harrison St. Water Schedule H — Shumway St. Street ORIGINAL CONTRACT ACTUALW /C.O. $497,484.50 $123,843.05 $148,592.91 $ 58,887.80 $139,557.00 $ 10,378.50 $ 45,295.43 $ 39,807.75 $598,084.80 $166,846.20 $184,829.24 $ 96,172.40 $160,332.54 $ 10,576.50 $ 58,319.90 $ 47,341.50 In review of the increased costs, the major costs increases were due to the rock excavation and subgrade excavation along with extra sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer work to properly reconstruct these streets. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to approve a 25% contingency above the original contract amount for the 2000 Street Reconstruction Project No. 2000 -4. 2. Do not increase this contingency amount. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as the work was necessary in order to complete this proj ect. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to approve a 25% contingency amount above the original contract amount for the 2000 Street Reconstruction Project No. 2000 -4. Z B * ruce Lone 7 Public Works Director BL/pmp 2000RECON 2000 Street Reconstruction Project Explanation of estimated cost overrun The estimated cost overrun is 24.31% of the original contract amount of $1,063,846.94 or $258,656.14. The following is an explanation of how most of the cost were incumbered. Schedule Item Amount Item Description Explanation Schedule A Item 10 $18,340.00 Rock Excavation More rock than expected from borings Item 13 $5,844.40 Subgrade Excavation (CV) Black dirt where widening occurred and unstable material in existing roadbed Item 23 $28,480.00 Bituminous Driveway, Includes Type 41A Bit. (2.5" Thick) and Class 5 (4" Thick) Only 150 SY in bid quantity, needed to go back much farther than expected to meet slope requirements Item 24 $8,670.00 Class 5 Aggregate (100% Crushed Limestone, 6" Thick) For Gravel Drives Same as bituminous driveway plus Shakopee Services 400' long parking lot Schedule B Item 4 $3,055.50 Rock Excavation More rock than expected from borings Schedule C Item 4 $8,426.25 Rock Excavation More rock than expected from borings Item 16 $8,194.20 8 X 4 Sheet Insulation 1 -1/2" Thick Additional services plus they were longer than expected Schedule D Item 5 $9,371.25 Rock Excavation Watermain was moved over from where it was proposed which was in the existing watermain trench, by moving it over it increased the rock quantity Schedule E Item 11 $14,636.04 Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crushed Limestone, Thickness Varies) Raised profile of road 2" to aid in construction over rubbilized concrete Schedule G Item 9 1 $6,221.25 lHydrant Added 3 Hydrants to watermain on Harrison Street Estimated Totals Planned Quantities riginal Bid 1,063,846.94 ( Change Order Includes Friendship Manor Amount $25,900.00 Estimated Final Quantities ejected Final Bid Quantities $1,224,312.34 ange Order Total $98,190.74 Total Final Project 1 $1,322,503.081 'Total Over 1 $258,656.14' Percentage Over 1 2 4.31 Approximate Breakdown of Cost 100% Assessed $40,571.70 100% Watermain (SPUC) $50,309.07 25 % -75% Assessed $167,775.37 Total $258,656.14 m .__ x °... m _9I <<< pmlm�,mmawN p m w A �' A! m ". m A A �I A m ma N ppm�mmam _ ... c w �' �' . o -N ''. rn N o A', A A C,I m T m m n m m O -. 2 3', - a 8 .ZI 1 1 n N n m ' , . o D D �.,,� m w w n., a m -I N a z m m m;a z O G C#) F ; �7 vl y C < : �I n 0 0 n n o << << n v d 2" E' m n m O v cs cs 2" 0 0 0 0 n v n n v a v v v m ` `�- <. v ' n m" m °_ a m S b a s s 3 _ V1 C7 n n n n _ v �, !,, �I _ IM h �., o y <<' m 3 3 f c� m a Z l 3 y a m m I f O d l m a• - I r A y y y v m m m N °c s 5 T 5 <I = n m A CD m - m 3 ' _ S6 , Ili a m m o m Z Ill ° 2 A N' TO - ~ T D a c c m I'I - I 11 i m'o o m �O 0 Z A m 0 U! �I� Q -1 m r 7n 7n T .T A ii it S' S'', r T r r r ° < al < <I m T T . K T m n n n m o r. D ml r r r m m r r N C C K C < r r N ml Z C n Z O i r n N m N� N sl 0 0 0 0 o m Io n m m o m m I _ I s � m Im � I I I I I I I I I I 1X Fn' 0 pl j I m om m m a B ° °, NI '�I I y z v o z z 88885 o po p p p I °pl °p �:� mp8'gs e ° ° ° 8- s$ pSBS w -i _ _ -� - _ l ! II I I I I ! I ; I C IN o ° o 0 ° o N ° o °o p ° o ° S ° S S ° o ° o ° o ° $ $ ° o ° 0 $ N a I B SIB ° o ° o pl° o o _ c o o f_ ` 0 $ $ S S $ ca m O z y m � y S _ pmp N pa o m I !. 8' p m N o m 0 m N o 0 m m p p � � p a 0 o 8 S S 0 8 _ N m N'a 5 8 °�s m�N S �I ° o ° ,z v m .�.' m e cn m',r m p m m o 0 0 0 0 0� o o 0 0 0 0 0 o O I I III l I III I ° N I S D S ° .1118 801 L ° __ ; °. S S S s 8 S o° m8,p N ° p m m ° 8 88: p a ° m ° ° 8 p olol m p p p N p p p 8 8 $ °$$ $8 m pp ° p p o a pp - � vs m n ai o - CO 3 ; o o O v v - I L I 8 m 'N °N S x w 0 I S I S s Y I 8 pS ps 8 S 8p S ol8'8 _ s s:S 8° ° s' ° ° ° s ° S ps o s S ° g 8 s I o 0 I I � yX 1 1� -0j 8 p 8 m 8 s ps p p ms�s�� ,I m 1 � m ° S m 88888 m m ° p I °p N $` p p s 8 8 N m g $ o H ° o 8 8 $ $8 S I s s S w m v D mol m I N ° I N m p I p I 81 a I g I L I I I I I I n m I I I I I n N a I II I I I I m a O � 5z - 13 i C n M OI t I I I I I l i I I I 1 I I I I I I I, I rn I I I I I I ° ! I I p p I ! u I I I a I I I I I I r 11 m _ m I I m I,m I m e o,S 81 I I i II I III I II III ;I D III Il II I Ill l I,I Eg II IIII n O NI, > N o�m�m�> �om �aZ x m 3 O M -1 a a d@ a N 8 N N n o af�l� N F N �L; to m v Cl) c m _ o �__ ° _� O 1 ch 0 6 - g of N m 2 Dr F -� D m m m m p 3 2 os ' Z Dr y y a s Z v p m N m N m m O m '�° - n N o o a a 3 3. ,� ° 6 N n ° f 3. a > _ m a N. n y 3 Z �" m a a x 1 s m a x ` g - a ° a d ° o o m F1 n c A Cl) a Ala m 2 y 'I. m a l. c�, � P a m`� ° m m v 3,, y ° z. 3 m 3 N 3 N 3 ° m I m z �. y N � m l -0 — T Z 3 O N 1 D O °o I I 1 I c z �0 zzz to _ s m o SIo 0,,� to o xN °I� N� s. . �I, N °1 Z .� o c c g 0 m ° A a z r 1 1 1 11 N Z P N D T K.. D D P ?I r N N NI T N N -i N n n N m N r r r r D 'a T < D D D D D Wr it m m t' C T<< m N N N I I I I I I I I I I I C n z 0 8 8 n C') X1 1 o N I I �...ow a w' o N e m N S S m 1 Sm oN� o - -- - m 1 X d , n Z O AZ 8 8 S s 2 I p Z D S 8 0... o' S o o o o !.o S $ ''. ai --I p S m ° m mlo o N 0 0 gl o 0 ° ti ° o o N o 0 N 0 0 0 0 0� _ o o 8 0 o m o 0 0 0 � o - -- 0 0 0 0 N o 0 0 o S 8 ° ° `" e o N o 0 0 0 0 0 S 1 ° � 1 I I I I i i wi: 1 I I I I A I c N S;o N 0 8 0 o I 8 - S$ 8 0 818 8 0 8 _ 8 818 S'I a m 00 0 � �� tip e oe °o °00 0 ' I I I I 1 1 1 � I 0 OX �ml, _0 glio I S 8 g S o --Ii cI m m r1 o I o ° o 0 0 N N NI � I III I I ; I I I !1 I I II I I; D I z -- LI I I I I I I I nl' X y o �1 v g y m O m I`d II ` S S $ g g;8 g S 8 C. v v 0 o 0 0 0 0,011 to 0 0 0 Doti o o 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 !. o A D z L N ti o o o 0 0 o i nm O I I m O x 3 1 1 m 0 r, 8 �� 8 C . y v O m m m ti a o ° N e N < Si ° m ° o N a J I N 0 0 0 $ $ 800$ S 88 S $SSS 8 g N o N m o N m N o N o m o I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I II I 1 1 I 1 I 1 III I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I n n 1 n111 m v o y I I I H I I 1 n L I I 1 I !I O I � I l �I� Ill 4 I z m - I m z I I I I I 1 � 1 'I M m - N 111 1 1 I 1 L D N 8I ° H � I a 1 1 o I I � Cl) a n I o CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 2001 Traffic Studies in the City of Shakopee DATE: September 18, 2001 INTRODUCTION: At the September 4, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council acted on the 2001 traffic study report except for the intersection of Ponds Way and Pheasant Run Street. This agenda item is to consider the traffic study at this intersection and to hear from the nearby residents on their concerns. Throughout the year staff receives requests for traffic sign studies from residents, Council and staff. Previously on September 4 a traffic report on various intersections in the City was presented to the City Council for various intersections. Included in this traffic study were a number of intersections studies on Pheasant Run Street. The City of Shakopee has prepared a signing plan to address the signage in the City and has adopted policies for traffic control signage. Per City Code, the installation or removal of any traffic regulatory signs must be authorized by the City Council. In the 2002 traffic study report, one of the intersections studied was Pheasant Run Street and Ponds Way. The traffic study that was done for this intersection indicated that the minor street being Ponds Way should have stop signs to control the right -of -way at this intersection and make Pheasant Run Street the major street. Nearby residents who petitioned the traffic study in this area were not able to attend the September 4 th Council meeting and wish to address the City Council on this matter. The residents wish to address the Council on the following items: A four -way stop condition at Ponds Way and Pheasant Run Street Sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street for their neighborhood A sign to alert motorists of handicapped children in the area ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to install additional stop signs and other signs as recommended by City Council. 2. Direct staff to prepare a petition for property owners to consider the improvement of public sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street. 3. Do not authorize staff to install any additional regulatory signs at this intersection. 4. Do not direct staff to prepare a petition for a sidewalk improvement along Pheasant Run Street. 5. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 3, which is not to install any additional stop signs in this area. However, staff is reviewing the appropriate warning signs for alerting motorists of handicapped children in the area. This sign could be installed without Council approval, as it is a non - regulatory sign. Also, staff could provide the residents with a petition for the installation of public sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Do not direct to install additional stop signs at Ponds Way and Pheasant Run Street intersection, from what was previously authorized on September 4, 2001. 2. Direct staff to prepare a petition for the public sidewalk along Pheasant Run Street. /'/ / irulce Loney Public Work irector BiJpmp REGULATORYSIGNS 0 F 0 N lall L O P QU ® T � W y � � U Z W '1S NIZVNVS Y PHEASANT � RUN L C C C C F c L C C C C N N Ut c U ° Z o C Q Q, a o � i lall L O P QU ® T � W y � � U Z W '1S NIZVNVS Y PHEASANT � RUN L C C C C F c L C C C C i la MATHIAS 4 , 3- 2 ADULT5 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULT5 1 CHILD 1918 2 D0G5 2 ADULT5 2 CHILDREN 1 DOG IBC TRAFFIC CONTKOL 2 ADULT5. 1942 :::: .: 4 ADULT5 2 CHILDREN 3 ADULT5 1. CHILD 1966 (HANDICAPPED) PO N D5 WAY CHE5TER 57 40T A TRAFFIC COU NT ISSUE PHEASANT RUN. 5TREET IS A MAIN THOROUGHFARE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD w NO 5I1)EWALI,5 ON PHEASANT RUN PHEASANT RUN 5T 15 GRADED DOWKH -ILL IN BOTH- DIRECTION5 TOWARDS PONDS WAY 15 OF T5 DRIVEWAYS 5LOPE DOWN - WARD5 TOWARDS PHEASANT RUN 14 SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN WAIT FOR 5U5E5 ON- PHEASANT RU -N- 5T AT POND WAY (1 DAY5 A YEAR) CHILDREN HAVE TO 5TAND IN THE 5TREET ON PHEASANT RUN ST WHEN SKOW 5AKK5 ARE PRE5ENT - DEMOGRAPHIC& SUPPORT A 4 WAY 5TOP ON PHEASANT RUN 5T AT POND5 WAY 1993 2 ADULT5 2 CHILDREN 115 HOME51 2 ADULT5 19 CHILDREN: 0 -5 YEARS 2011 2 CHILDREN 6 CHILDREN: 6 -10 YEARS 1 DOG 1 CHILD: 10+ YEAR5 (HANDICAPPED) 2 ADULT5 201,7 2 CHTLDREN THRU5 H 2 ADULT5 5 CHILDREN L 6 1 DOG 2 ADULT5 2 CHILDREN 2002.::::: 1 DOG P H R E U E 2 AD ULT5 3 CHILDREN 2008z-- N 5 A 5 1 ADULT N T 1 DOG 1 2014 '.°°" ° T CHE5TER 57 40T A TRAFFIC COU NT ISSUE PHEASANT RUN. 5TREET IS A MAIN THOROUGHFARE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD w NO 5I1)EWALI,5 ON PHEASANT RUN PHEASANT RUN 5T 15 GRADED DOWKH -ILL IN BOTH- DIRECTION5 TOWARDS PONDS WAY 15 OF T5 DRIVEWAYS 5LOPE DOWN - WARD5 TOWARDS PHEASANT RUN 14 SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN WAIT FOR 5U5E5 ON- PHEASANT RU -N- 5T AT POND WAY (1 DAY5 A YEAR) CHILDREN HAVE TO 5TAND IN THE 5TREET ON PHEASANT RUN ST WHEN SKOW 5AKK5 ARE PRE5ENT - DEMOGRAPHIC& SUPPORT A 4 WAY 5TOP ON PHEASANT RUN 5T AT POND5 WAY 1993 2 ADULT5 2 CHILDREN 115 HOME51 2 ADULT5 19 CHILDREN: 0 -5 YEARS 2011 2 CHILDREN 6 CHILDREN: 6 -10 YEARS 1 DOG 1 CHILD: 10+ YEAR5 (HANDICAPPED) 2 ADULT5 201,7 2 CHTLDREN THRU5 H 1 i MATHIAS h s fad ..ITV= 2 ADULTS 190G 2 CHILDREN 2 ADULTS 1 CHILD 1918 2 DOGS 2 ADULTS 2-CHILDREN 2 CHJLDREN 1930 I DOG t CHILD 2 ADULTS (HANDICAPPED) F 4 ADULT5 2-CHILDREN 1954 3. ADULTS t CHILD 1966 (HANDICAPPED) PON 05 WAY 2 ADULT5 5 CHILDREN 1996 1 DOG 2 ADULTS 2 CHILDREN 2002 f DOG 2 ADULTS 3 CHILDREN 200 1 ADULT F ni4 I DOG NO Tl - <AF r- C0 NT-li L P H R E U A N 5 A 5 N T T CHESTER ST ff G 4 2011 2017 40T A TRAFFIC COUNT 155UE PHEASANT RUN STREET 15 A MAIN THOROUGHFARE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD NO 5IDEWALK5 ON PHEASANT RUN PHEASANT RUN 5T IS GRADED DOWNHILL IN BOTH DIRECTIONS TOWARDS POND5 WAY 13 OF 15 DRIVEWAYS SLOPE DOWN- WARDS TOWARDS PHEASANT RUN 14 SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN WAIT FOR 13U5E5 ON PHEASANT RUN 5T AT POND5 WAY (171 DAYS A YEAR) CHILDREN HAVE TO STAND IN THE STREET ON PHEASANT RUN 5T WHEN SNOW BANKS ARE F RESENT DEMOGRAPHICS 5UPPORT A 4 WAY STOP ON PHEASANT RUN 5T AT POND5 WAY 2 ADULTS � E 2 CHILDREN 7 DOGS 2 ADULTS TOTAL 2 ADULTS 19 CHILDREN: 0 -5 YEARS 2 CHILDREN 6 CHILDREN: 6 -10 YEARS 1 DOG 1 CHILD: 10+ YEARS (HANDICAPPED) 2 ADULT5 2 CHILDREN THRUSH )5.&1. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Police Department Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Sergeant Craig Robson SUBJECT: Mobile Data Computer Grant DATE: September 17, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Council is asked to authorize the expenditure of the Grant monies secured from the Mobile Data Computer Grant. This is a follow -up to the Police Department's memo to council dated May 1, 2001. The Police Department has secured $12,100 from the State of Minnesota in conjunction with the Mobile Data Computer project. After conducting research on the laptop computers, the Panasonic CF 48 Toughbook emerged as the Police Departments choice for this project. The cost of the laptop is $1,602.00, or 4% less than the state contract. The expenditure of the grant money requires no local matching dollars. 1. f Staff recommends Council authorize the Police Department to spend the Grant monies from the Mobile Data Computer project. 1 1 1 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the expenditure of $12,100 in Grant monies from the State of Minnesota for the Mobile Data Computer project. CR:pm 15 /0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Subject: Proposed Land Purchase By Lake O'Dowd Date: September 11, 2001 INTRODUCTION At a special meeting held Monday, September 10, 2001, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended the City Council acquire 43.33 acres of land owned by Justin Phillips for a future community park. The Board also recommends the City acquire additional land (about 12 acres) adjacent to the property line on the south when the adjacent parcel comes under development. See Exhibit A. The PRAB recommends that Council use other City funds ($1.5 million) to acquire the property and to repay those funds with park dedication fees over six years at $250,000 per year. ALTERNATIVES 1. Offer and pass a motion to direct City staff to begin the process for acquiring of 43 acres of land owned by Justin Phillips. 2. Do not acquire the 43 acres of land owned by Justin Phillips. 3. Offer a motion to direct staff to provide more detail funding options for acquisition of the Phillips property. 4. Table for additional information from staff. ATTACHED EXHIBITS A = LAND PROPOSED FOR IMMEDIATE AND FUTURE ACQUISITION B = FUND ACCOUNTS BY FINANCE DIRECTOR GREG VOXLAND C = SEPT. 5 MEMORANDUM TO PRAB D = 2002 PARKS CIP E = LAND APPRAISAL OF SUBJECT PROPERTY BY PATCHIN, MESSNER & DODD F = SHORELINE ANALYSIS BY ENGINEERING STAFF N LiA I tt ; tLYn CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Funding for Lake Park Purchase DATE: September 13, 2001 For interfund borrowing to purchase the 43 acres at O'Dowd Lake, source funds to borrow from are: Sewer Fund Current Cash balance = $6,367,000 Effect would be negligible if interest is charged on the loan. The need for the cash in the sewer fund is over a longer term than the anticipated repayment. Sewer has the most cash available for the short -term borrowing that is contemplated both for the park land purchase and the police station (if needed). General Fund Current Cash balance = $1,457,000 Effect would be a draw down on the fund balance and /or reduced transfer to the Building Fund. Storm Drainage fund Current Cash balance = $ 5,758,000 Effect is also negligible is interest is charged on the loan. While the cash balance is less than the sewer fund, this also a long -term situation for the storm drainage fund. Storm fund also is spending more on maintenance than the sewer fund so may need a higher balance for cash flow. Capital Equipment fund This fund has less cash available and already has a loan to HRA for blocks 3 &4 for $835,000. Capital Improvement Fund Cash balance about $4,000,000 Council should probably not use this fund for a loan and keep the balance available for projects that are not anticipated now. g: /finance /docs /loan 1 1' I' / To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Subject: Proposed Park Property on Lake O'Dowd Date: September 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the City should acquire or not acquire the 43 -acre parcel owned by Phillip Justice for a community park. BACKGROUND At the request of the City Council, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) reviewed and discussed the possible land purchase by O'Dowd Lake at its July 23 meeting. About twenty -five residents from Weinandt Acres attended the meeting to express their disapproval and concerns for placing a city park at that location. More importantly, they were concerned with the decision making process. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS Area residents were concerned with possible crime in the park, noise, a drop in property values, spending too much for the property, and the lakeshore not suitable for swimming or any other water related activities. The bottom line, they prefer the City look elsewhere. PRAE CONCERNS The Park and Recreation Advisory Board expressed an interest in acquiring the land, but not at the total expense of other park projects. They would like the City Council to consider borrowing from other City funds and repay those sources over a period of years from the Park Reserve Fund. The PRAB went on record stating the proposed land purchase on Lake O'Dowd meets the City's Comprehensive Park Plan objectives in terms of acreage and location, but wish to determine the viability of acquiring the property without jeopardizing current park projects. On August 20, 2001, the PRAB visited the site so they could get a better feel of what the property physically looks like and to see if the property would adequately meet future park needs. Clyy COUNCIL CONCERNS At its July 17, 2001 meeting, the City Council directed staff to do a Limited — Summary Appraisal of the property and to do an analysis of the shoreline for aquatic activities. Council would also like to know what it would cost to develop the land for a park. APPRAISAL The appraisal for the 43.33 acres of land on the east side of Lake O'Dowd is complete and in the mail. Based on the inspection of the property and careful consideration of the many factors influencing market value, it is the opinion of Patchin Messner & Dodd Appraisals, Inc that the subject property has a most probable market value of $1,460,000.00. That equates to about $33,500.00 per acre. The asking price for the land is $1,500,000.00. ACCESS Current access to the propose park is Lil's Way, which is an unimproved road right -a- way in Weinandt Acres. There is potential for a second access from County Road 14 when the property to the south (Richard Logeais, owner) is developed. SHORELINE ANALYSIS The shoreline along the subject parcel is about 1500 linear feet. Starting at the north boundary, about 800 feet is sloped and heavily vegetated with trees. The remaining 700 feet is flat with tall grasses and lily pads in the cove and open water to the south boundary. The bottom is heavily silted and mucky. See Engineering Report. DEVELOPMENT COSTS A community park serves a broader purpose that a neighborhood park. Focus is on meeting community -based recreation needs, as well as preserving unique landscapes and open spaces. Community parks are generally 30 -50 acres. They allow for group activities and offer other recreational opportunities (active and passive) not feasible — nor perhaps desirable — at the neighborhood level. The menu of potential recreation facilities for this particular property may include: • two large picnic shelters w/ horseshoes and volleyball areas ($100,000); • fishing pier ($10,000); • hard and soft trails (1200 ft - $12,000); • nature study area ($0); • 3 -4 youth ball fields or soccer fields ($150,000); • large playground system ($100,000); • parking lot ($300,000); • roadway ($100,000); • restrooms ($70,000); • electrical power ($50,000); • additional grading ($150,000); • additional vegetation such as trees, shrubs and grasses ($25,000), and • engineering and design costs (25% of project estimate $250,000). A swimming beach was not included in our estimates. Staff s best estimate, based on previous projects, is about $1,333,750.00. FUNDING ' O OPTION I Use the current fund balance of the Park Reserve Fund ($874,933.) and borrow the balance from another fund to acquire the property. Funds from park dedication fees will the borrowed amount of $625,067.00. Although, projects funded by Park Reserve Funds would have to wait until year 2003 or 2004. OPTION II Borrow $1 million from other City Funds, matched with $500,000 from Park Reserves, and repay, over four years ($250,000), the borrowed funds with income from park dedication fees. OPTION III Acquire the land with other city funds ($1.5 million) and repay those funds with park dedication fees over six years at $250,000 per year. OPTION IV Acquire the land with other city funds ($1.5 million) and not use any park reserve funds. Projects in Progress (Park Reserves) Holmes park Play Equipment: $ 40,000 Skate Park: $ 50,000 Tree Trust Projects: $ 5,000 Tahpah Park Parking Lot (delayed) $400,000 {2002} AC'T'ION REQUESTED To make a recommendation to the City Council on the possible land purchase for a community park on the east side of O'Dowd Lake. / Mark 3. Mc' uiltdn Natural Resource Director H w 0 0 D m O O N W CL } } m U W O w Q. (L 1a Z E Ll W IL O Y Q 2 U) W O F z a 0 N V O rn 0 0 0 0 0 0. O O O O O 0 0 00 Cl co C5 C:5 r-n c°o N N `- Nr st v 0 0 0 0 O O o N to 0 O C st N O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O La O O 0 tc) 0 t t O O t0 (7 O to O � O N I C t O O O O O c C 0 O O O O to O ch � C O O N M c1 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C M p O O C7 Lo Ce) M an O V• O N O O 0 (D 0 O O m co N t O CC) (A O O O 0 0 0 O O i 0 C ( t� t� m 10 O CT CT co N t0 N I r N � 1 I 7 0 cl) CM (1) zz a) o z o zzzzzzzz a) o a) m (1) a) a) o aaaa o a) 0 m as a) O m c c N c CD m a) m a) m 0 m 0 m a) m a) m a) m 0 U) a) a) N a) 0 m N m N a) a) m a) m T c a) a) p p . — �. — N p N �����a'�� a) a7 N Q) a) a) a) rn Ca'�'�� m 0 N 'J C . C c W` X CC aaolc�lol ma O O a� O olvaalal N ma N (4 a�aaan.malaaalc9n.iat- N M N ma m4 (6 M ma '- m6 I to ma m 0 0 CIO olo o'o o 0 010 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o 01010 0 0 0 0 o olo Io 0 0 0 0 oIo olololo 0 1 0 1 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 oIo o o 0 0 0;0 o 0 0010 0 0 0 0 E�r` o ofoluiio o mitololo riluilto10 0 o 0 Oo c o'o,o oIo Lo :. c) � co�o`cn.Q vi�,Q r o r`� 0 m 0 1��o o m m W N 1` c r m I � 1 a) p 1 L I� d I� i O I Y U ,� : a) � a) I (4 I M (Q a) m m ma Icc i IY J Y J I— t) T 1 i Z� O a '7 10 m O'er I.G 'I� IY m a a) O I O �0 1 0 aIE ml d E1 m'o , IOi'y IE I _IiLI Im 'oL ( E a Y:n w'm O O ,o m V "<I�c iYiYl i IY �I c T��IY nlm.`mI m4 l> Q a) m E 3 cm cn IE O OI coo W X W CD O7 mlcc II a I mIO nlYl� a U) W I= o cc - 0 Ia al m6;m4 mc �13(n m c :ml L' c J m c �'^ U ��F - 1�'o U w' !L L a�m,m,m a la a mill m 1L me m v o oia m molt v r- - IE 7L LL:L LICimL OI. W;m pL— _� Om m jl a):�IU IL �OI� �,Ca.O C SI Oi ma nic OIOl7 =, = I-D —IOC la I� W Iw iC9 _ ;21i-• 0 - O m 10 la lY icn ICU IU Izo IJ IU I 1 0 z 1 1 ~ n.,Y,Y YIY I YIY Y Y YIY Y!Y i Y Y.YIY;Y,Y,YiY U ) U) H im YIV Tla m is a m is I� �a la Iz Ia (a is Iaf I= is a ia Ia is lz la im �a = �a I= Ia is Ia �a �a i la � la m a (0- �a la is is la la la is is a 0 N V O rn s � , � _. �� �rx � :_ 4 Z Y v itt 3K $ Lt 7 fl August29, 2001, . City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street_ Shakopee, MN -55379 - ATTN: Mr. Mark McQuillan Director of Natural Resources - n any information or analysis, presented herein: VUU lUlIIUlCale +lne unamelNaiue oT , me SuDj beliefs, the statements ..contained -in_ this itions .;set forth herein: <If vnil havP'4:anv 1 S 1H 20146 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Owner: John J. and Justine Phillips v NOTE: County records show Richard and Martha Lyman as the fee owners of the eastern .15 acres fronting Marschall Road. This appraisal assumes that the entire 43.45 acres is owned in fee by John and Justine Phillips. Location: Located along the west side of MarschalI Road, South of County Road #42 Shakopee, Minnesota Date of Value: July 26, 2001 Date of Inspection: July 26, 2001 Rights & Interests Appraised: Fee Simple Market Value Zoning: Ag, Agricultural Preservation Zone and RR, Rural Residential Zone. The entire site is guided RR, Rural Residential Zone. Highest & Best Use: Single Family Residential Site Area: 43.45 Acres (Acreage amounts based on Scott County Records.) Site Description: The subject is an irregularly shaped parcel. It has a rolling topography with approximately 1,500 lineal feet of frontage on O'Dowd Lake. A portion of the site has been used for agricultural purposes, with other portions of the site being wooded. Value Conclusions: Cost Approach: N/A Sales Comparison Approach: $1,455,575 Income Approach: N/A Final Estimate of Value: $1,460,000 PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 20146 t Viii PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors Looking East From West Central Portion of Subject Property Looking East From South Central Portion of Subject Property X1 r a . xii 20146 1 The subject of this report is a 43.45 acre tract of land located in Shakopee, Minnesota. A portion of this tract of land has been used for agricultural purposes. The western 43.30 acres of the subject property is owned by John and Justine Phillips. County records show Richard and Martha Lyman as the fee owners of the eastern .15 acres fronting MarschalI Road. This appraisal assumes that the entire 43.45 acres is owned in fee by John and Justine Phillips. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL This document is intended to provide a limited appraisal in a summary report format of the subject property. This appraisal report is intended to comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the Appraisal Institute. The data and analyses contained in this report (and the appraiser's files) provide the basis for our value conclusions. This appraisal includes the valuation of the real property only. In our analysis, we have examined the following data and concepts pertaining to the subject property. 1. Physical characteristics of real property including: Inspection of the subject. Review of available plat maps. Observation of the local market and the subject's place within this market. 2. Non - physical characteristics of real property including: Property rights. Legal descriptions. Assessment data. Zoning and Land Use Data. PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 20146 SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL 3. Observations and data concerning the subject property's market and transactions within this market: Sales of land. Supply and demand dynamics of the market. Financing available within the market. Perception of the market as to the future. From the above data and concepts, we have made the following analysis. Highest and Best Use of the subject property. 2 The sales comparison approach to value for the subject property. (See the Appraisai Procedures and Techniques sections of this report for explanations of the approaches to value.) The effective date of this limited appraisal is July 26, 2001. UNMAN The property wasinspected on July 26, 2001. SALES HISTORY There have been no sales of the property for three years prior to the date of appraisal. The subject property is currently offered for sale at a listing price of $1,500,000. PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 20146 3 The purpose of this limited appraisal is to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest of the subject property. The intended use of this analysis is to provide valuation guidance for possible acquisition. The subject will be appraised by estimating the market value of the fee simple estate of the real property. For use in this appraisal, the market value of the fee simple interest in the real estate is subject to the following definition obtained on Page 140 of The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Third Edition, Appraisal Institute. Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power and escheat. We project a marketing time of three to twelve months in order to achieve the market value stated in this report. ENVI RONMENTAL • •, Based upon inspection of the subject property, we have assumed that no environmental concerns such as PCBs, toxic and hazardous soil or ground water contamination exist upon the subject as of the date of this appraisal report. If any environmental contaminants do exist within the subject property, we reserve the right to adjust the estimated market value contained in this report accordingly. PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 20146 5 Address: Address Unassigned Located along the west side of Marschall Road, South of County Road #42 Shakopee, Minnesota Property Identification Numbers: #27- 930 -004 -5 (43.30 Acres in Section 30) #27- 929 -009 -1 (0.15 Acres in Section 29) Legal Description: Part of Sections 29 and 30, Township 115, Range 22, Shakopee, Minnesota. TAXES AND ASSESSMENT DATA TAX AND ASSESSMENT DATA Property Identification # 27- 930 -004 -5 27- 929 -009 -1 Total 2000 Assessor's Market Value Land $174,200 $400 $174,600 Improvements $0 $0 $0 Total $174,200 $400 $174,600 Real Estate Taxes Payable 2001 General Taxes $1,008.00 $4.00 $1,012.00 Special Assessments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $1,008.00 $4.00 $1,012.00 Effective Tax Rate 0.58% 1.00% 0.58% 2001 Assessor's Market Value Land $189,600 $400 $190,000 Improvements $0 $0 $0 Total $189,600 $400 $190,000 Real Estate Taxes Payable 2002 General Taxes N/A NIA N/A Special Assessments N/A N/A N/A Total N/A N/A N/A PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 20146 0 The majority of the site is zoned Ag, Agricultural Preservation Zone, and the remainder is zoned RR, Rural Residential Zone. In addition, a substantial portion of the site is located within the S, Shoreland District. This Shoreland District acts as an overlay zoning requirement in addition to the underlying Ag and RR classifications. In the Agricultural Preservation Zone, the predominate land use remains agricultural, but many single family homes and hobby farms exist. The entire subject property is guided RR, Rural Residential according to the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan /2000 Land Use Plan (Draft). This guiding recognizes a continued pressure for additional residential development, which may be allowed at a maximum density of one unit per ten acres. As determined in the Highest and Best Use section of this report, the highest and best use of the subject property is for residential development. The purpose of the RR, Rural Residential District is to allow low- density residential development in areas which are not served by municipal urban services. Permitted uses within the Rural Residential Zone include the following: • Single Family Detached Dwellings • Agricultural Uses • Forestry and Nursery Uses • Utility Services • Public Recreation • Public Buildings ® Day Care Facilities Serving 1 -2 or- Fewer.,Persons • Adult Day Care Centers Serving 12 or Fewer Persons • Group Family Day Care Facilities Serving 14 or Fewer Children • Residential Facilities Serving 6 or Fewer Persons Also in the RR Rural Residential Zone are uses that may be permitted by Conditional Use Permit. Examples of uses requiring Conditional Use Permits include the following: • Churches and Other Places of Worship • Cemeteries PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 20146 8 B Size: 43.45 Acres (Acreage amounts based on Scott County Records.) Shape: Irregular Frontage: 79.0 +/- LF along Marschall Road Access: Currently, vehicular access is gained from Marschall Road (County Road #17). Marschall Road is a bituminous surfaced street with one lane of traffic in each direction. If subdivided, Scott County may not allow access from Marschall Road. Lil's Way, accessed off of Marcia Lane in the subdivision of Weinandt Acres, may provide access to the subject property. Lil's Way currently dead -ends at the eastern edge of the subject. NOTE: This appraisal assumes that the entire 43.45 acres is owned in fee by John and Justine Phillips. Terrain: The subject has gently rolling terrain. Much of the subject is open and tillable. Soils: We have assumed that the soils are stable and adequate to support normal building practices. We have not been provided with any soils tests or engineering data. Flood Hazard: Zone C, Area of Minimal Flooding Community Panel #: 270434 0007 C Flood Insurance Rate Map Effective: September 29, 1978 Utilities: Private. Outside of MUSA boundaries. Sewer and water are anticipated to be extended within five to ten years. Easements & Encumbrances: We are not aware of any easements or encumbrances which would have a deleterious impact on the subject property's market value or marketability. We have not conducted a title search in conjunction with this appraisal assignment. PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 13 MINNESOTA VALLEY RESTORATION PROJECT HENNEPIN COUNTY e 36 • LANOIN 31 3 . H, URPHY $ ERIC 33�,� 3 4 •.HENNEPI q i H z5 •2J ✓� COUNTY-' O 97z3 7 CI f" G d (D : y z ' � �S��s j7:.� 1t'f Snake == Pea✓ � _: P FIESERVE DWRICT -t h d3L ,�asepn: q zB 9 mid s si this_- Xvvl 756 83 uq � /6BG A'as,toveciJ `y V Y va 101 "3 17 1JJ .Pvcatiar.C + ` �a i 'A A 7 FZv.0 I 9 : c ' siez J� 5 1rg�� ✓ I. s,, y a m ys �� y 79 tS 1 ,`,yg : z46 �lud • _ _s 7v.92 �_,-_ •_ !" �� � �a� Of G - kj' t //Y7/. �121L/ (o JCO:iL'1/)d ! /J.^,. :/YC. LJG✓. ,y G, .... 2736 SHAKOPEE °. 03.; ,z �uF z „P � a o . �d v `!c'✓ Ja n•., �9L7 y il...r ffnrtel ,? ✓ !/B -16 .n✓S /K�C 3:. ^ ` ee:.e 71. �. � �. nnn � .•rte. prL _ C - nwlh d� Eau.vi zB !r/een- d hagdJ �m6n 3BE�.pn --+^� �"(' ".P` '�, •r-s� v, 79 v9 .. /x './4:vL C �v �a 39 -/a Ji71�h • -16 /GB EnL 3 9� .S [y� ;.,n �oY .2J3. 57 23CJJ 8 �.. >z7 � � 17 v Pa- lop 30 0 1 ' � e z r Jzz •^ d Ja >UBLUSQ/J �.th � =�. ,Jad'tL v L'' J35 Cvo/..� Z' :yI •.,(3�'�vy��.. ,ai �� � h h rr x �.. .. . 78 11 AVL GB • _. L _ _ _ 'e° 3E 5 A • i v 'ti Y zs' „ 75 �I�1G� •' a`*„ O7 r" z � y 4t �qa 46 yon R Z B Lit / ' . / 0 r>�! p CL /P �" I *�� � $ �fy �2y rJm P' '� �� » :' .. v T v H�Cand ,s 73 ✓ +. s's.:sv y ; 39 y -7J 1 - // � ty'M.s�• ... a x ' r o '1'< , A�'' `I'� V :�!% �' /n f - 'Y-y4✓ Ida .87•/ per,, Cnd 9 a.R �S� ac ° `.re3 ry a z, o N7'II/ J:oB A 3 sc/ of C z Pcrrsan p.5 N I sev '? _ �� 9 18 ' � YleJ a 2104 a ,GO l Kd /Ya"' 1G 42 ,vv 7 T7fl77 &�09 <ez °4 c •ii SSGB ti .. XabJC r. � y ' •�y • ^ 0 .� v u � � `"'./ a • � � ✓rJ1er_ T o ��+ "an sr � `- ,.� 1 �� °� Sri R4 s i ° PRIOR '. u d / :v ••, H .d vicer� 70 #. y -! Rio �r✓,..� � ^�" �7/ �. � S g � /!d � 93:8 ,� utr /to hens k c 6 /� e e P � / �� y' r c 214. 1¢ 3 w ill /s7 LAKE 21 z Win s s y - .•'r74r aiYant �inzr �v � I Sls,vy�>: '2c'!•' 192.5 Sior2x' 60 t-F J 't "'�••rarrcc�nsvlx is - �%tqd. u ��SG mrin a �•="' *1 ..JS ma-- . trtc�[- - r � a IJn' € «r_ Runr� � ^ � •� 3 - .- � t°'r 4' r� ,f /s s9 :Sfl i • �'° 2 /.` 5Z &iicn _A&n,: en Y'IriF +n "• w.,_s, a v+c op 4 i 82 9_ V= / "O °� -: ^,• �� `y 13 s ✓ X. ;s Y ✓ Ivy � 11797 7za5 ' fi�/YShufJ p ,. r!/" C � 81 SPRING LAKE � - O _ `�r' '� *e - v�' "J'�- '" GIONAI PARK 'co`R .tc � 1000 2000 S PACE 17 3000 4000 000 '"sLl�. SO COMPARABLE LAND SALE LOCATION MAP 20146 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE 14 PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD valuation Counselors 4 6 CD E2 T ca X 2 ns 0 . ' 0 U 01 0 .2 < �9 0 2 5 co cm i5 C N ca :2 0 E 2 a) a _ ca a, Q) O¢ N co (D Cc 0 w -j IL 2 C, 0 (D 0) v c r- co 0 a) 0 LO cl� c) 0 : - 11 c7 C N CN (D ct c� CL CL cm Im Ri - E c � a. C2 Z� U) O 00 CD 04 ca >� N C.) 0 c) — C Q In Q ci ,r cli LO Gi c� 04 06 2 - ja M 70 > w 0 r- 0 a) LL U) C 0- L a) 0 a m CL U) Z LU as cm cm CD cm 0) m 0 < < < < < N 0- w 73 .2 ca I m :15 8 E 3 m : R ma Lu ZE c a) cu - 2 m (n -0 'D m < 10 a) a) 0 CL a 0 -0 0 w > cr-: M a) 0 cn W Y. 0 0 0) C) CN 0 EN (D cq (D N O U) (D rvl ca ca ca ca 6 a ca - 6 0 '6 scma 0 C', a) Q 0 o w 05 c ca ca (13 a) CIS 3 :,2 a) o U CL 3 a C O L ') m cc C ' , Lu z = U) t� t-- C,j U) CL > (1) U) 14 PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD valuation Counselors 20146 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE 15 PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors i 'O LL r W O N n r O r U a1 co cD c0 O N c0 x C � � V3 a) �F - N = O V7 co cL] O O @ to Z w �- •- > Q Q a1 c0 O LO 0 L_ O W Q C7 - N C C O O O p Q - O O U O U J Q @ MA O O N O O kA ❑ uun U N a7 V a7 N M F m E tD ° Z LLI ~ � F- a`� I L d Q o m U v M cc MM n S, Q Q N co N Cl) N C ir3 N Y LLI D 6-3. vs y ° o o o C ❑ 2 a> N N o m rn M CO > ° 1 3 Q U) 69 W * in �: (1) N N Q O �, N a Q a. Q Q u a v O o o rn ' U o Q O ca O N o N o N W N ❑ n m 0 Q Q (m v 0 m d T ca V A ca . 4x' O .ca ca O O O O `„ C C C to C � 4S a co " W U ° U o o m o aai A U N T a5 cn O_ Y �u0i O W L 2 t4 L N to 0_ 1 U U C O Z ` N M 15 PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 20146 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH TO VALUE Explanation of Adiustments Property Rights: In this case, we are appraising the market value of the fee simple interest in the property. All of the comparable sales involved transfers of the fee simple interest. As such, no adjustment for property rights conveyed has been made. Market Conditions: The time adjustment is based upon a 15% increase per annum. Demand has been strong and the sales suggest a substantial increase in values since the late 1990's. Size: Typically, a smaller site will command a higher unit price than a larger site, all else being equal. Based on our observations of the market, an adjustment for size differences was not necessary. Arraying the land sales by size both before and after the adjustment process indicates no definable trend in value related to size. Therefore, no size adjustment was made. Location: Based upon observations of both the subject and the comparables. Factors such as access, availability of utilities, lake frontage and surrounding land use were considered when making this adjustment. Comparable Sale #1 required an upward adjustment of 20% due to this sale having no lake frontage. Comparable Sale #3 also has no lake frontage, but is located at the southwest corner of Mystic Lake, and was adjusted upward 10 %. Other: Comparable #1 is generally level and easily developable. This sale was adjusted downward 5% to reflect these lower potential development costs. Comparable #3 is approximately 30 %- 40% wetlands. This sale was adjusted upward 15% to reflect this inferior percentage of developable acreage. Comparable #4 was purchased as a single family residential building site. This property has negative access issues as a single building site, with a driveway of approximately 2,000 lineal feet. This sale was adjusted upward 30 %. 16 PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors 20146 . 17 Analysis Before adjustments, the four comparables ranged in unit price from $14,887 to $28,596 per acre, with an average of $23,707 per acre. After the adjustment process, the four comparables range in unit price from $25,159 to $36,417 per acre, with an average of $32,017 per acre. The comparables provide similar results with the exception of Comparable #4. This comparable, although located adjacent to the subject property to the south, was purchased for one single family residential building site. Given the above, little weight is given to Comparable #4. The remaining three sales range in unit price from $33,171 per acre to $36,417 per acre, with an average of $34,303 per acre. Comparable #1 has no lake frontage, but was purchased for residential development. In addition, this sale is most similar in size to the subject property. Comparable #2 is located just north of the subject property along Marschall Road, and has similar frontage on O'Dowd Lake. In addition to these factors, this comparable also received the lowest level of both gross and net adjustments, and indicates a per unit value of $33,171 per acre. Comparable #3 has a higher percentage of wetlands than the subject property, and also has no lake frontage. Although this site was purchased by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Community, this transaction was reportedly: arms- length. Giving the greatest weight to Sale #2, and also considering the adjusted average of all of the comparables, we conclude that the subject's most probable market value is $33,500 per acre. Thus, 43.45 Acres x $33,500 Per Acre = $ 1,455,575 Rounded To $1,460,000 PATCHIN MESSNER & DODD Valuation Counselors MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2001 TO: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, P.E. FROM: Dale Gade, Engineering Intern SUBJECT: O'Dowd Lake Upon investigation of the proposed city park along O'Dowd Lake, I found several characteristics worth noting. The water clarity is no more than 3ft, confirmed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (see attached sheet.) The dominant bottom substrate consists of sand, silt, and clay. Rocks and boulders are also present as the driver of the boat collided with one in approximately 6ft of water. Aquatic plant life is in abundant throughout the lake. Upon departure of the area a Blue Heron was spotted flying out. This visual survey was conducted on July 25', 2001. Minnesota Department of r r' Resources Secti o f Lake Infonnation ' - r I ;I / I' Lake e: ®'DO Alternate name: N/A Date of survey: 08/05/1996 Division of Waters inventory number: 70- 0095-00 Nearest town: Shakopee, MN Primary county: Scott Public Access Ownership Type Location /Comments Minnesota DNR Concrete DNR operated public access on west central shore off of County Road 79. Lake Characteristics Lake area (acres): 258.00 Area less than 15 ft deep (acres): 235.00 Maximum depth (feet): 22.00 Water clarity (secchi depth, feet): 3.00 Dominant bottom substrate (less than 4 feet deep): sand, clay, silt Abundance of aquatic plants: abundant Maximum depth of plant growth (feet): - 6.00 Fish Sampled for the 1996 Survey Year Number of Fish per Net Average Fish Normal Range* Species Gear Used Caught Normal Range* Weight(lbs) (lbs) Black Bullhead Gill net 50.8 9.6 - 91.4 0.48 0.2 - 0.5 Black Bullhead Trap net 17.2 2.2 - 60.5 0.41 0.2 - 0.5 Black Crappie Gilt net 4.7 1.5 - 14.7 0.13 0.1 - 0.3 Black Crappie Trap net 16.9 2.4 - 15.1 0.17 0.2 - 0.4 Rage 2 Lake Information Report for O'DOWD 0811212001 Fish Sampled for the 1996 Survey Year (continued) Number of Fish per Net Average Fish Normal Range* Species Gear Used Caught Normal Range* Weight(lbs) (lbs) Bluegilt Gill net 20.3 N/A - N/A 0.09 N/A - N/A BluegiIL Trap net 115.1 1.9 - 29.5 0.11 0.2 - 0.3 Brown Bullhead Gill net 0.5 1.0 - 6.0 0.83 0.3 - 0.7 Brown BuLLhead Trap net 0.3 1.4 - 6.6 0.71 0.3 - 0.7 Golden Shiner Gill net 0.5 0.4 - 4.3 0.09 0.1 - 0.1 Hybrid Sunfish Gill net 1.8 N/A - N/A 0.07 N/A - N/A Hybrid Sunfish Trap net 11.6 N/A - N/A 0.12 N/A - N/A Largemouth Bass Trap net 1.1 0.3 - 1.2 0.60 0.4 - 1.2 Northern Pike GiLL net 8.8 1.5 - 7.0 2.99 1.5 - 3.4 Northern Pike Trap net 0.9 N/A - N/A 3.16 N/A - N/A Pumpkinseed Sunfish Gill net 0.2 N/A - N/A 0.04 N/A - N/A Pumpkinseed Sunfish Trap net 9.6 0.8 - 8.4 0.07 0.1 - 0.2 Walleye Gill net 1.3 1.0 - 7.3 3.82 1.0 - 2.8 Walleye Trap net 1.2 0.4 - 1.9 2.31 0.6 - 2.6 White Crappie Trap net 0.3 2.5 - 11.6 0.44 0.2 - 0.4 White Sucker Gill net 0.5 0.5 - 7.4 2.68 1.0 - 2.2 White Sucker Trap net 1.3 0.3 - 2.2 3.82 1.1 - 2.5 * Normal ranges represent typical catches for Lakes with similar physical and chemical characteristics. Length of Selected Species Sampled from All Gear for the 1996 Survey Year Number of fish measured in the following length categories (inches): Species 0-5 6-8 9 -11 12 -14 15 -19 20-24 25 -29 >30 Total Black Bullhead - 161 268 1 - - - - 430 Black Crappie 17 157 6 - - - 180 BluegilL 370 211 - - - - - - 581 Brown Butlhead - - 5 1 - - - - 6 Hybrid Sunfish 77 38 - - - - - - 115 Largemouth Bass 4 5 - - 1 - - - 10 Northern Pike - - - - 11 33 14 3 61 Pumpkinseed Sunfish 82 5 - - - 87 Walleye - - 1 4 9 1 4 - 19 White Crappie 1 2 3 Page 3 Lake Information Report for O'DOWD 0811212001 Fish Stocked by Species and Size, 1995 - 2 Year Species Age* Number 1995 Walleye Adult 82 Walleye Fingerling 607 Walleye Yearling 635 1996 Walleye Fingerling 7,134 1997 Walleye Fingerling 1,272 1998 Walleye Yearling 1,627 Walleye Fingerling 374 Walleye Yearling 481 Walleye Adult 148 1999 Walleye Adult 13 Walleye Yearling 364 Walleye Fingerling 736 2000 Walleye Fingerling 1,078 Walleye Adult 194 Walleye Yearling 309 * Fry are recently hatched fish; Fingerlings are 1 summer old fish; Yearlings are fish between 1 and 2 summers old; Adults are fish 2 or more summers old. Status of the Fishery (as of 08/0511996) O'Dowd lake is presently populated with an abundance of below average sized bluegill and black crappies. Bluegill have shown a steady increase in abundance since 1991 and presently average 5.4 inches in length. Approximately 40% of bluegill collected in the 1996 survey were 6.0" or longer, and only 2.4% were found to exceed 7.0 inches. Black crappie, while down in abundance since 1991, have shown little improvement in size. Average length observed for crappies was only 7.0 inches. Growth rate for both species was found to be below average. Northern pike abundance has shown a steady increase since 1991 and over 25% of the netted sample was over 25 inches in length. The largest northern pike captured was 34.6 inches. Walleye abundance remains relatively steady with some quality fish present. The largest walleye handled was 28.2 inches and 9.0 pounds, however, the average was 18.5 inches and 2.9 pounds. Largemouth bass appear to be present in good numbers with some quality fish present. Growth rates for all three main predator species were found to be average or better. No yellow perch were captured during this survey and black bullhead abundance continues to decline in the seasonal sample. Page 4 Lake Information Report for O'DOWD 0811212001 Fish Consumption Advice Angling is great in Minnesota and so are the fish. Fish are low in fat, high in protein, and may have substantial health benefits when eaten in place of high -fat foods. While the quality of sport fish taken in Minnesota is among the highest in the Great Lakes region, chemicals like mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been found in some fish from certain waters. While most people in Minnesota do not eat enough fish to cause harm, some individuals could be at risk. These are: people who eat predator fish more than once a week, pregnant women, women planning to be pregnant, and children under six years of age. The Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory booklet lists all lakes and rivers from which fish have been tested. This booklet is intended to give people advice on how much fish is safe to eat. The advisory gives consumption advice only for the species and length of fish tested and is based on mercury and PCB concentrations measured in uncooked skin -on fillets. If fish from this lake have been tested then a summary of the consumption advice is given below. More detailed advice is given in the fish consumption advisory. If a lake is not listed in the advisory booklet, this does not imply that the fish do not have contaminants. It means, that the fish in this Iake have not been tested for contaminants. If no advice for this lake appears in the table below, or if the species you are interested in is not listed, then following some general guidelines can help reduce your risk when eating fish. • Keep smaller fish for eating. Large predatory fish (walleye, northern pike) contain higher levels of contaminants. • Substitute some meals of panfish (sunfish, crappie) for predator fish. • Eat smaller meals when you eat big fish and eat them less often. • Trim skin and fat. Belly fat especially should be filleted from all fish. Also, cut down on fatty fish such as carp, catfish, and lake trout. PCBs build up in fish fat, which is the dark tissue between the skin and flesh. • Broil or grill your fish. This allows some fat to drip off the fish. In particular, people who eat fish more than once a week, pregnant women, and children under six should follow these guidelines. Summary of Fish Consumption Advice Annual Consumption Advice* Species ** unlimited 1 meal per week 1 meal per week unlimited I meal per week 1 meal per most 1 meal per mont 1 meal per week General Population Sensitive Population * ** Black Crappie Northern Pike Walleye White Sucker * Advice listed in this table is for annual consumption. People who eat fish only during a vacation or season can safely consume more fish. See the consumption advisory for more information. ** Consumption advice varies according to length of fish. The advice listed is the most restrictive for that species. * ** The sensitive population includes women who are pregnant, women who may become pregnant in the next year, nursing mothers, and children under six years of age. For additional information or to obtain a copy of the Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory, contact the Minnesota Department of Health at (651)215 -0950 or toll -free at (800)657 -3908. The advisory booklet is also available at most area DNR offices. Page 5 Lake Information Report for O'DOWD 0811212001 For Additional Information Area fisheries supervisor: Lake maps can be obtained from: Minnesota DNR Area Fisheries Headquarters Minnesota Bookstore 9925 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 117 University Ave. EDEN PRAIRIE, NN 55344 St. Paul, Km 55155 (952) 826 -6756 (651) 297-3000 or (800) 657-3757 To order, use C0797 map -id. General DNR Information: Turn In Poachers (77P): DNR Information Center (800) 652-9093 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4040 General Department of Health Information: (651) 296 -6157 TOO (651) 296 -5484 Minnesota Department of Health (888) 646 -6367 TDD (800) 657 -3929 121 East Seventh Place, Suite 220 P.O. Box 64975 DNR Web Site: St. Paul, MN 55164 -0975 http: / /www.dnr.state.mn.us - (651) 215 -0950 or (800) 657 -3908 Weigh Your Fish With A Ruler Weighing a fish with a scale can harm or even kill it. You can estimate the weight of a fish safely and fairly accurately by measuring its Length and finding the corresponding weight on the charts shown below. Northern Pike Inches 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Pounds 3.9 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.2 7.0 7.7 8.5 9.3 10.2 11.2 12.2 13.3 14.5 15.7 16.9 18.3 19.6 21.2 Walleye Inches 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Pounds 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.5 5.1 5.7 6.5 7.2 8.1 9.0 Largemouth Bass Inches 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Pounds 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.2 5.0 5.7 6.6 7.6 Crappie Inches 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Pounds 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.4 4.1 Note: Weights given are estimations only. Actual weights vary by lake and stream. Copyright 2001. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. Reproduction of this material without express written authorization of the Department of Natural Resources is prohibited. w Z J w O Y 2 Of CO a w a F- LL UO ow wof CO D mU 00- w w 0 p O O 0 z w w z� J D x (1) 00 = H CO Oo rj) LL W O �O Z H W U E O z O w (D z w = J �w w 00 Z S gco Z �F- 00 X � W W W S S� H U d 0 Z Z_ CO W w D H U a To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Subject: Adoption of Huber Park Revised Parks Master Plan Date: September 14, 2001 INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to review and adopt the newly revised master plan for Huber Park. George Watson of Brauer and Associates will present the plan to Council. Members of the Huber Park Design Committee will also be attending the meeting to answer questions. BACKGROUND At its January meeting, the EDA approved funding in the amount of $7,000 to contract with Brauer & Associates, Inc. to update the 1995 Riverfront Master Plan for Huber Park, with emphasis on and outdoor pavilion and related parking facilities. A design team of five people representing Vision Shakopee, Rotary Club and City staff worked with Brauer and Associates, Inc. and neighborhood residents to develop a new park master plan for Huber Park. After numerous meetings and re- drafts, a final draft has been prepared and ready to present to the City Council. See attachment plan. GOALS OF PLAN The goal of the committee was to create a plan that is: 1. simpler with fewer facilities, 2. has a major centerpiece that would attract residents to the riverfront and downtown area, 3. affordable and 4. could be implemented as soon as possible. The new plan offers an outdoor performance area as the park's centerpiece. It will be centrally located and will have terrace seating to provide architectural interest to the site as well as desirable seating for viewing events. It is one of the first elements of the plan constructed. The Shakopee Rotary Club has committed up to $50,000 toward the project. There are other interested donors as well. The City is also pursuing grants to assist in the funding of parking, picnic shelters and trails. A major obstacle to this project is the current location of the power utility poles in the park. In order to proceed with improvements to the park, the utility lines would need to be moved to a different location, buried underground or both. The cost to relocate and bury the utility lines is about $150,000.00. On September 5 2001, staff met with Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to discuss the possible relocation of the utility lines. The Utilities Commission has agreed to relocate and bury the utility lines and to include the project in their 2002 Capital Improvement Program. In return, the Utilities Commission asked that the City take into consideration waiving right -a -way and permit fees ($417.00). BOARDS & COMMSSIONS At its August 27, 2001 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approved the newly revised park master plan for Huber Park. On September 11, 2001, the Economic Development Advisory Committee also recommended approved for the new park master plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Offer a motion to adopt the revised Park Master Plan for Huber Park. 2. Table for additional information from staff. 3. Do nothing. RECOMMENDATION Alternative #1 ACTION REQUESTED Move to adopt the revised Parks Master Plan for Huber Park. 0 Mark J. McQuillan V Natural Resource Director ATTACHED EXHIBITS A = EDAC MEMO B = ENGINEERING ESTIMATE FOR RIGHT -A -WAY FEES C = COST ESTIMATES FOR HUBER PARK IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Economic Development Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Recommendation to the EDA / City Council to approve the Huber Park Master Plan MEETING DATE: September 11, 2001 Introduction: The EDAC is asked to make recommendation to the EDA / City Council to approve the Huber Park Master Plan and the associated phased development plan created Brauer & Associates, Inc. Background: At its meeting last January, the EDA approved funding not to exceed $7,000 to contract with Brauer & Associates to update the 1995 Riverfront Master Plan, with emphasis placed on an outdoor performance area/pavilion in Huber Park and related parking facilities. The purpose of the master plan is to guide future development and redevelopment of the riverfront area, including the proposed outdoor performance venue in Huber Park. At its August 27 meeting the Park and Rec Advisory Board reviewed and approved the Huber Park Master Plan. At its September 5 th meeting, Shakopee Public Utilities Commission agreed to include the cost of eliminating the overhead power lines in Huber Park to their 2002 capital improvements plan (Exhibit A). This utility work is Phase 1 of the Huber Park Master Plan improvements. Since funding for the Master Plan came from the Economic Development Authority budget, it would be appropriate for the EDAC to provide recommendation to the EDA / City Council to approve the final plan. Options: 1. Make recommendation to the EDA / City Council to approve the Huber Park Master Plan and the associated phased development plan created Brauer & Associates, Inc. 2. Table the matter and request additional information. B. Excavation Permit Fee 1. Hole for New Service Connection S - 45.00 2. Hole (S 125.00 Per Hole) E.A. S125.00 f S 3. Emer v le S55 -00 Per Hole) _eac Ho E.A. SS5.00I 4. Trench (S -10.00 per 100 lineal foot plus hole fee) iVlax. Lensth of a S -=0.00 trench pe^nit shall L.F- 't � per 100 reet � Z be - L.F. C. Obstruction Permit S50.00 Plus S.06 per L-F. for each obstruction iVlaxirnum length of obstruction permit shall L 50.06 be 5.000 L.F. -F. D. Delav Penalty L.S. S25.00 525.00 for the delay Plus S25.00 per week WEEK 525.00 or portion thereof E. Permit Extension F. Deoradatiun Fee Fee will be based on all costs to repair the street to the at street restoration detail plates if the permittee elects not to repair the L.�. street G. Unauthorized Work Permit Fee is up to double the ermit fee H. Curb Cut Permit Fee is S 75.00 -' ermit L.S. �t �� TOTAL Huber Park Master Plan City of Shakopee Huber Park Master Plan Project EXHIBIT C Date: August, 2001 Preliminary Master Plan Cost Estimate Phase One Site Improvements - Utility Work Description of Work Cost 1 Bury Existing Power Lines 150,000.00 Development Subtotal: 150,000.00 5% Contingency 7,500.00 15% Fees, soils testing, surveying, etc. 22,500.00 Phase One Total - Utility Work 180,000.00 Phase Two Site Improvements - Site Preparation Description of Work Cost 2a General Sitework (Includes: removals, earthwork, erosion control and related utility work (storm lines) which includes holding pond area) 100,000.00 2b Landscaping (Includes site restoration and natural seeding in pond area) 25,000.00 Development Subtotal: 125,000.00 5% Contingency 6,250.00 15% Fees, soils testing, surveying, etc. 18,750.00 Phase Two Total - Site Preparation 150,000.00 Phase Three Site Improvements - Amphitheater Stage Areas Descriotion of Work Cost 3a Main Amphitheater Stage (Includes stage pad with ramps - building structure not included- and electrical power) 30,000.00 35 Main Amphitheater Seating Area (includes walls, walks around the stage, community gardens, and seating areas) 45,000.00 3c Small Overlook Stage (Includes concrete patio, structural wall, ornamental fencing, step, and benches) 25,000.00 3d Small Amphitheater Seating Area (Includes retaining walls, asphalt paths, and concrete walks and staircase structures to 1 Street/Hwy 101) 58,000.00 3e Landscaping (restoration work and plantings) 20,000.00 Development Subtotal: 178,000.00 5% Contingency 8,900.00 15% Fees, soils testing, surveying, etc. 26,700.00 Phase Three Total - Amphitheater Stage Areas 213,600.00 Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 1 Huber Park Master Plan City of Shakopee Phase Four Site Improvements - Parking & Access Description of Work Cost 4a Parking area and Fillmore Street construction (includes asphalt, retaining wall, curbing, emergency access, storm sewer, and related paths) 150,000.00 4b Create pedestrian park entrance node from parking area (includes conc. surface, ornamental feature, ornamental fencing & signage)- budget 30,000.00 4c Park identification features along street - budget 8,000.00 4d Landscaping (restoration work and plantings) 10,000.00 Development Subtotal: 198,000.00 5% Contingency 9,900.00 15% Fees, soils testing, surveying, etc. 29,700.00 Phase Four Total - Parking & Access 237,600.00 Phase Five Site Improvements - Trail Connections Description of Work Cost 5a Asphalt Regional Trail - within park boundary (Includes asphalt trail and seating areas) 39,000.00 5b Asphalt Park Trails (includes staircases from 1 " Street/Hwy. 101 to amphitheater seating area, asphalt trails, and seating areas) 46,000.00 5c Landscaping (site restoration and plantings) 6,500.00 Development Subtotal: 91,500.00 5% Contingency 4,575.00 15% Fees, soils testing, surveying, etc. 13,725.00 Phase Five Total - Trail Connections 109,800.00 Phase Six Site Improvements - Waterfront Overlook Description of Work Cost 6a Waterfront Overlook Structure (budget amount) 80,000.00 6b Landscaping (restoration and plantings) 2,000.00 Development Subtotal: 82,000.00 5% Contingency 4,100.00 15% Fees, soils testing, surveying, etc. 12,300.00 Phase Six Total - Waterfront Overlook 98,400.00 Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 2 Huber Park Master Plan City of Shakopee Future Site Improvements (In order of priority) Description of Work Cost 1 Amphitheater building structure (budget amount- dependent on architectural style, materials and size. 200,000.00 2 Drinking fountain on pad (includes water hook -up) 10,000.00 3 Restroom enclosure 4,000.00 4 Park shelter structures on pads (3) 120,000.00 5 Streetscaping elements (seating, lighting, trees, fencing, conc. walk, etc.)along 1' Street/Hwy 101 - budget 50,000.00 6 Future Improvements Subtotal: 384,000.00 7 5% Contingency 19,200.00 15% Fees, soils testing, surveying, etc. 57,600.00 Future Improvements Total 460,800.00 Site Improvements - Total Development Costs Description of Work Cost 1 Utility Work 180,000.00 2 Site Preparation 150,000.00 3 Amphitheater Stage Areas 213,600.00 4 Parking & Access 237,600.00 5 Trail Connections 109,800.00 6 Waterfront Overlook 98,400.00 7 Future Site Improvements 460,800.00 Development Total (all phases) 1,450,200.00 Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 3 Huber Park Master Plan City of Shakopee Huber Park Master Plan Projed Date: August, 2001 Preliminary Cost Estimate Site Improvements (Listed in order of priority) Description of Work Cost 1 Bury existing power lines & have power hook -Up for amphitheater area 150,000.00 2a General removals to complete first phases of construction 20,000.00 2b Earthwork & erosion control (includes holding pond area) 55,000.00 2c Utilities - storm work related to site drainage and pond 25,000.00 3a Amphitheater stage pad with ramps (building structure not included) 25,000.00 3b Electrical hook -up for amphitheater area 5,000.00 3c Amphitheater seating area (walls, and walks around the stage and seating area) 27,000.00 3d Amphitheater bench seating areas (6 benches on conc. pads) 12,000.00 3e Amphitheater ornamental community garden (plants to be provided by community groups) - includes edging and soil amendments 6,000.00 3f Small stage overlook structure (structural wall, ornamental fencing, conc. patio, step and benches) - complete 25,000.00 3g Small amphitheater seating area (retaining walls, grading, asphalt and conc. walks, and steps) - complete 8,000.00 3h Concrete staircase structures from small amphitheater area to 1st Street/Hwy 101 50,000.00 4a Parking area and Fillmore Street construction (asphalt, curb, storm sewer, and gated emergency access) 150,000.00 4b Pedestrian park entrance node (conc. surface, ornamental feature, & signage)- budget 10,000.00 4c Ornamental fencing along pedestrian park entrance node 20,000.00 4d Park identification features along street - budget 8,000.00 5a Asphalt regional trail within park 24,000.00 5b Asphalt trail and staircases from 1' Street/Hwy. 101 to amphitheater seating area 14,000.00 5c Asphalt park trails (remainder) 24,000.00 5d Three bench seating areas along park trails (bench on conc. pad) 8,000.00 Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 1 Huber Park Master Plan City of Shakopee 5e Two seating nodes along waterfront/regional trail (conc. pad and stone /conc. benches) 15,000.00 6 Waterfront overlook structure - budget amount 80,000.00 7 Landscaping: • Naturalized areas around water treatment area & steep slopes • Seed & sod disturbed areas • Landscape improvements (plant materials) 63,500.00 Development Subtotal: 824,500.00 5% Contingency 41,225.00 15% Fees soils testing, surveyinty, etc. 123 675.00 Development Total 989,400.00 Future Site Improvements (In order of priority) Description of Work Cost 1 Amphitheater building structure (budget amount - dependent on architectural style, materials and size. 200,000.00 2 Drinking fountain on pad (includes water hook -up) 10,000.00 3 Restroom enclosure 4,000.00 4 Park shelter structures on pads (3) 120,000.00 5 Streetscaping elements (seating, lighting, trees, fencing, conc. walk, etc.)along 1 n Street/Hwy 101 - budget 50,000.00 Future Development Subtotal: 384,000.00 5% Contingency 19,200.00 15% Fees soils testing, surveying, etc. 57 600.00 Future Development Total 460,800.00 Brauer & Associates, Ltd. - Master Plan - ,. , Huber Park - City of Shakopee, Minnesota ,„ .- ,,..,_ „ _._._, ,.,...- __ .,,,,„,,, -,• -- ,....----\ ,, ..;.3. .., 1 -....„:,.. ; ,,,,,„, - - Distance To Amphitheater s • - Area From Parking: Naturalized Area - Park Shelter Buildings - <� /.--" - ` * From Parkin Area 1 400 -5501 *Water Treatment System ' Variety Of Sizes g (400-550 fl Regional Trail { s+°""" *From Parkin Area 2 400 -5001 *Naturalized Landscaping * Various Park Settings .,, ». "' * Bk U Maintained S *From Parking Ar 3 ( 12001f) If) Breaks p paces *Picnic Areas ' • < V Connection To Other _. . _ 7 r — \ -, 4; f , s: - Trail Systems And ! , r- : , , A 1 ' _ , ' `t Places Of Interest Park Access Inset Map Waterfront Overlook Plaza \ �; ` (\ - ;- * Runs Along The River * Seating Areas Along Trail Stage /Performance Area ���;✓ �-` * Patio With Seatin �� �" 1 * g * River Overlook \ / �" � "' ` I � It7 Parkin Areas Strong Architectural Character * • Terminus of Main Walkway g * Park Centerpiece *park Identification Element /, ` Made To Withstand Some Flooding ,/ ; * (4 ) H.C. Spaces O Spaces Total * g �# _ � * (4ff *Public Ornamental Gardens f" • j ` Of Fillmor Street • Shoreline Stabilization =' * en Lawn Area — \ i - *Drop -Off Area Bioengineered Shoreline Op x i . „ • x Buffer From Residential Areas Stabilization Treatments Picnic Space x� `.•. I t 3 * Aesthetically Pleasing * Informal Recreation Area % Via. ''• % r , ,� , "Emerg Access * Utilizes Native Materials • g .. �1 , ; ,�� *G Park Shelter Buildings ; =' 1 sled To Control Access Park Property Boundary ' \ ` , -- _ r` ��` * Various Park Settings - \ � * Variety of Sizes i �s �r ,. �/ �N I ' ` z ' • r . 1 - * Picnic Areas y ° \ � ` `N r, Pedestrian Park + \' ti p ' ti j — .,ut Entrance Node 04,, /` ! ' a` ;' * Park Identification Element :•`,1t ,• t� ' � ` ; • * Park Signage & Information ., a - . ; — Improve/Update 4 ,,:. ,, __ %'���_ �' • �- --`_ - ` ` � �� i�.,�`iT',, • �� � Fillmor Street t x . + :", �`. % _ - Restrict Alley Access x j r 1 ak � _ . ; ` � , r , _ � ` 1 / *Access Only From One Street �/ _ • , . , \ _>� _ _ _ t �r And Dead -End The Y+ { ` t Other Access i ; _ _ — , _ _ - ; ;� L - Future Acquisition Possibility .r.; .; _ ` •- , * Could Provide Large Multi-Purpose '' ` ° • p + - - - 44 , Shelter Building For Park Activities N-- --. --- — 1 ■ , * Out Of Main Park Flooding Areas Terraced Lawn Seating ' -! . - � , j * Varying Levels Of Lawn 4, OP * Provides Sculptural Interest _ ; 1 And Open Park Space * Performance Seating vG ; 4y� It ` - r°- * Extension Of Streetscape Design k Naturalized Areas ° , � 1 ; - _ A „<<, Park Identification On Corners rle Naturalized Landscaping Breaks ° \ *. , n Park Identification Element 0 30 1133 ISO Up Maintained Areas o o ° ` _ _ �' * Information For Vehicular Traffic * Provides "Windows” Into Park ,,\ Small Overlook / Stage Area Downtown Connection Streetscape Design L Open Lawn Area Prepared By: * Stage For Smaller Performances * Existing Crosswalk * Ornamental Fencing * Informal Recreation Brauer & Associates, Ltd. * Seating / Overlook Area at Stoplight * Seating * Park Events (Farmers Market 10417 Excelsior Boulevard Pillatil * Lawn Seating in Hillside * Direct Connection to * Tie Into Downtown Character Derby Days, Etc.) Suite Number Onc ii s� /A� �vjll ��^`��^ Downtown Shakopee "Picnic Space Hopkins, MN 55343 C OPEE iIiA t•roliwt: NO 01 Datu: 7 -13 -U1 1 E PPF7 Qi gtEs RH lig gtEs RH IR yry srl CIO C 04 t> O CIO .1 as CT to 0 tw P EM I ca co �z ao "I 51 iV 72 IR yry srl CIO C 04 t> O CIO .1 as CT to 0 tw P EM I ca co �z ao "I 51 iV CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request of RLK Kuuisto, Ltd. (RLK) And the Ryan Companies (Ryan) for Consolidated Review MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001 Ryan Companies is the contract purchaser and developer of the Valley Green Corporate Center site. Steven Schwanke of RLK has submitted the attached letter dated August 1, 2001, requesting that the City Council allow Ryan and RLK to submit a package of land use applications for consideration simultaneously. This package would likely include, 1) an application for land use amendment to allow reguiding a portion of the site for residential use; 2) a rezoning application to allow use of a portion of the site for residential purposes; 3) a revised preliminary plat; 4) final plat; and 5) conditional use permit(s) application(s). As Council is aware, planning staff has consistently tried to follow a staged approach to these review and approval processes in an attempt to better manage issues of possible concern to the City, especially for larger, more complex projects. RLK/Ryan's concern, as outlined in their letter, is that this staged approach would result in a long (9- month) process. 1. Approve the request of RLK/Ryan to allow simultaneous submission and review of land use applications for the Valley Green Corporate Center site, with the caveat that such approval does not constitute an agreement on behalf of the Planning Commission or by the City Council to act.simultaneously on any applications submitted by RLK/Ryan. 2. Do not approve the request_ 3. Table the matter for additional information. 1 Offer and pass a motion giving staff and RLK/Ryan direction consistent with the Council's wishes. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director Engineering - Planning - Surveying - Landscape Architecture Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street So. Shakopee, MN 55379 -1328 Valley Green Corporate Center Development Application Process and Schedule City of Shakopee, Nlinnesota Dear Mr. Leek: RLK- Kuusisto, Ltd. is Ryan Companies' designer and planner for the Valley Green Corporate Center (VGCC). In recent weeks we have met with you and Julie Klima to discuss issues associated with possible land uses, design standards, site design, and the development application review process. We have learned that the City prefers the development application process to be divided into independent parts. For example, if a proposed development requires a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, conditional use permit, preliminary plat and final plat, the City prefers these applications be acted upon by the City independently. The process might look something like this: 1. comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning (time to submit and for City to review and act approximately 75 days, not including time for Metropolitan Council review); 2. upon completion of step 1, conditional use permit (time to submit and for City to review and act approximately 75 to 90 days); 3. upon completion of step 2, preliminary plat (time to submit and for City to rcvicw and act approximately 90 days); and 4. upon completion of step 3, final plat (time to submit and for City to review and act approximately 90 days). This process could easily take 260 days to complete. We continue to refine the VGCC land use and development proposal and as a result are not certain as to the number and type of applications that will be needed to process this development. However, we believe the development review process outlined above is unnecessary, specifically, with respect to VGCC, because a staged approval process may result in a delay in the project and an inability to approach the development approval process from a truly comprehensive perspective. For these reasons and others described below, we respectfully request an alternative development application process. Offices Hibbing • Minnetonka - St. Paul • Twin Ports (952) 933 -0972 • 6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (952) 933 -ll53 Equal Opportunity Employer We request that any applications required to process the VGCC development proposal be reviewed by staff and acted on by Planning Commission and City Council as a complete package and at one time. We understand that procedurally the Planning Commission and City Council will act on the applications in a certain order, but, we believe that a number of benefits exist for the City by reviewing the VGCC development applications together. 1. Comprehensive vs. piecemeal approach. Experience shows that Planning Commission and City Council members often prefer to make development decisions on a comprehensive versus a piecemeal basis. Even when faced with a policy question such as a comprehensive plan or rezoning application policymakers ask questions regarding site plan issues because they want to know all of the facts associated with a development proposal whether they are related to the application at hand or not. The comprehensive approach we suggest enables fully informed City decisions. 2. inclusive and proactive design process. The City of Shakopee has taken a leadership role in the VGCC design process. The City has retained Jeff Schoenbauer of Brauer and Associates to facilitate a design process involving all of the major stakeholders including Ryan Companies, Valley Green Business Park, City of Shakopee, and adjacent neighborhood groups. It is our understanding that Mr. Schoenbauer will facilitate one or more charettes, the first currently scheduled for August 1 We understand that Mr. Schoenbauer's design framework is based on the concepts of "conservation development ", creating a "sense of place ", "establishing natural environments" that creates a "permanent part" of the City's "character ". We hope an outcome from Mr. Schoenbauer's process will be a consensus on the part of all stakeholders on what the site design standards should be and on the site plan. Because of this collaborative and inclusive design process we see no need for the review process to be segmented and separate. We anticipate that much of the site design work that at times takes place in the public before Planning Commission and City Council, will instead take place in the charettes facilitated by Mr. Schoenbauer. Because of the inclusive and proactive design process we believe it is reasonable for the City to review VGCC's development applications as a complete package. 3. 'Timing of development review. As with any development proposal, timing is of the essence and is one reason for requesting all necessary applications be reviewed concurrently (except final plat). We have completed a timetable for acting on the development application separately and as a complete package. To consider applications separately may take up to 260 days, depending on the type of applications necessary and timing of Planning Commission and City Council meeting dates. If reviewed as a complete package, however, the same number of applications could be completed within 150 days. It is unlikely and unrealistic to expect the seller of the VGCC property to wait 9 to 10 months in order to have a buyer complete the development review process. It is equally unrealistic for a buyer to close on a piece of property before the development review process has concluded. Another time related issue arises out of the City and County plans to upgrade County Roads 83 and 16. VGCC abuts both of these county roads where significant roadway improvements are planned. Estimated assessments to VGCC are approximately $3.4 million and these assessments are expected to commence in 2003. Ryan Companies will need to complete a timely development review schedule in order to generate sufficient building activities to support these significant special assessments. Compelling reasons exist to justify a coordinated and consolidated development review process for VGCC. The City has engaged design consultants to facilitate an inclusive and proactive site design process. The Planning Commission and City Council will be in the best position to review and act on this work if it is presented comprehensively and as one development package. We look forward to discussing this matter with you further. CC. Kent Carlson, Ryan Companies Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park Jeff Schoenbauer, Brauer & Associates Julie Klima, City of Shakopee u 4.•... wr. NM^I E IEE I_ I jOPfSFR STALE OW I lip i E -4N I ..:''' '. .t; , . __ _ -- --=-=_=-= , _ L 3)! R A r ♦ . 11 11111M -- . t • r, .� t 1 i.,-- ,�;)' - c .°:..` . . _ � `- 1 _ - - - , i 1 t X¢ 7 1 k o V ,. - � i s 1 X i iVi• : t - � � i i���'' '',+ ���•"•qFd/ (i -- ��� I • `�-\ �` ' �„ �! - s ,'„, ' I I j _.:T' `-"3 It y I 1 � �' e " e . t ,� . a , —� J � ,,1 ,..., , f Y r / L; �� 5. _. v iiim g C5 1 1 7 i ;i( � I •1 • b 1 1 Y E SITE DATA — HOTEL • WO IIOMS W4400 SF RETAL EES.SAO SF A S OFFICE SAM E / .A / DEAlfR$3 T15,050 tF ) y) �)�)�yyy�,,,�����'� • OffICE- EHOWROOY / WAREHOUSE ;/00.130 SF 56E i ' TOTAL EF SAE SER SF <�$ HET RILOAAIf COWEROYL AREA: A.Mla1-4 es U 28.8% BUILDING COVERAGE 7 L.A. . -,. _,!.,t1 ca .e roo, sea ep.�.o MD 1' I GOPHER STATE ONE CALL fI3 1a 1 ttal CI*. Ana 651-1154-0101 ANL To trot ,,C0-1/4-Init iii t -sz �_ �- ti I i I: ...„..,:........:„.........) 1 N 4 ---.— ----- -----_— — ■ gyp _ ; r - I i 1 .. Eta F}.".'.,"9 t - a .i1..9 SOH g -- _ J _ I ca i lilt .,..„ . ., ! ....._,, 1 . . .,,,, \ � 1 a E . ,..v 411111 :2t-- _ :11 - ' ' ' I .-----' i '�. I.r ri /< / r r ti ° . r i` ,�; =, r _ ' it �1� t f 4f -, , . k,c- f .� ••;•,, r ✓ . , - LEGEND ` VI a �t *• % • . 1 .. ® WATER 8()UY POND T qt. ( II 1 .` 4, _ = 9r w , J. ` WETLAND AREA , - MB UPLAND AREA (PRAIRIE OAK SAVANNA) • III NI - - - in= a>. PUBLIC TRAII �(�"°�� _ $F {- „' •••.• BOARDWALK ` CJ KEY ENTRY ILATURE CM ci H i �b 1 a V f x s-,, E I �� t 'i. . , ',.—.: Brauer & Associates, L c g I d Ltd us .. if ?, _�j '' � s ,M:. ,...a. �..r.ra r.. oC E prif / / �. ! 1 ` e name S12 211 r j� 1__ �xxxx 411 .,�.{' } _ I IARD SURFA(C F 1' I- 1 , wr 4 -� JET fzc 1; l'- t !:I CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Revised/Final Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (GUAR) for Shenandoah Business Park (United Land L.L.C., project proposer) and Minnesota Valley West (Opus Northwest, L.L.C., project proposer) MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001 Introduction: The revised /final GUAR was circulated for the required ten -day review period. The City has not received any objections to the revised/final AUAR from reviewing agencies. The City did receive comment letters from the Minnesota Historical Society /State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Gene and Nancy Goemer, 2525 4 Avenue East. Following are staff responses to these letters for the Council's information. Staff has not proposed any revisions to the revised /final AUAR based on the comments received. SHPO Letter of September 7, 2001: The inventory form and site number have been filed with SHPO. Gene and Nancy Goemer Letter of September 10, 2001: The question on land use is readdressed in the section Supplemental Environmental Analysis and our property has now been included and accurately identified as a legal non - conforming use. The document further states that, " Since the Land Use Plan guides the property for Light Industrial, the residential use may eventually be replaced by a Light Industrial use." Our thought is that too much weight may be given to what MAY be the eventual use and not enough on the current use. We have resided in this home for 25 years and feel only the current residential use of our property should be considered throughout this document. It is, of course, very important that the City's review of specific plans for the proposed Shenandoah Business Park he sensitive to the continued existence of the Goemer's residence, and require adequate protection measures. However, because this property has peen guided and zoned for Light Industrial use for several years, the A UAR should address that potential use as well fmalauarunited- opus/W 9U 2. The final AUAR addresses the impact of noise on the residential development south of 4th Avenue and the residence within 100 ft. of the roadway but still fails to include our residence (Appendix D, page 2). If the traffic noise is expected to exceed daytime residential noise standard for the home within 100 ft. of 4 th Avenue, then it will surely impact our residence that is situated 50 ft. from the roadway. Also, the results of the noise analysis are not accurate as a speed of only 40 mph was used for 4th Avenue. Our residence is within the segment of 4 th Avenue that is 50 mph. Section 5.2 of the Mitigation Plan specifically identifies the types of measures that will need to be taken both during the construction and post - construction phases of the proposed Shenandoah Business Park. 3. The Proposed Mitigation Plan for the improvement of 4th Avenue to a three -lane urban section from Shenandoah Drive to CSAH 83 states that the funding for the improvement will be the responsibility of properties abutting 4th Avenue along this segment. Assuming that an equal measurement of land on both sides of 4th Avenue will be acquired to widen the roadway, our residence will even closer to the traffic noise. Since the roadway improvement will have a negative impact to our residence, we do not believe our property should bear any part of the cost to widen 4 th Avenue. Because the improvements described in the AUAR have not been designed, and no project has yet been ordered, it is premature to determine how costs of roadway improvements will be apportioned and assessed. The City's policies will be followed in determining appropriate levels of assessments for any improvement project that is subsequently ordered 4. The zoning ordinance states that the standard lot size in both a commercial and industrial district is a minimum of 2.5 acres. Since the developers own all the land surrounding our property, our property will never meet this standard. Are variances given for commercial or industrial sites on a one -acre site? And, if so, can there be any guarantee that a variance will be given to this type of development on our property in the future. Staff is unaware of variances for lot size having been granted to allow light industrial development, however, staff believes that as a legal lot of record, the Goemer's property could be developed for light industrial use. It is not possible to guarantee that in the fixture a variance would be granted to the lot size requirement. 5. Figure 1.2 and Figure 2.1 emphasize our property location to the proposed Shenandoah Business Park. We are all but part of this complex and our ability to sell our property will be diminished. If we sell as a residence, we would never find a buyer who would choose to live within an office /warehouse complex of this magnitude. Nor would they want to endure 10 years of continuous construction noise and dust. fmalauarunited- opus/W9U 2 The above is a statement of the Goemer's belief about the marketability of their property. Staff is not in a position to comment on whether this belief has a factual basis. Finally, the Goemers commented as follows; In a meeting we had with George Burkards of United Properties we were told that the land for the proposed Shenandoah Business Park was purchased between $1.50 and 2.00 /sq. ft. Using this price range, our 51,687 sq. ft. of property is worth between $77,520 and $103,374. As much as both the City of Shakopee and the Shenandoah Business Park developers may want our property in conformity with the district zoning, we cannot replace our home at these prices. First, while the Goemer's property is a legal, non - conforming use, the City of Shakopee has never formally or informally stated any desire to require the discontinuance of this residential use. Second, while there has been a representation of the purchase price of the proposed Shenandoah Business Park property, staff has no independent knowledge confirming that purchase price. Third, staff would note the United Properties purchased the property sometime ago, and the earlier purchase price may not represent either the likely current price, or the specific circumstances relevant to a possible sale of the Goemer's home and land. Finally, the AUAR's purpose does not include addressing possible private negotiations regarding the sale of land After its review of the letters received, the Council may wish to consider directing that the revised/final AUAR be adopted with revisions. Alternatives: 1. Offer and approve Resolution No. 5580, a resolution adopting the revised/final AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park (United Land L.L.C., project proposer) and Minnesota Valley West (Opus Northwest, L.L.C., project proposer) as presented. 2. Offer and approve Resolution No. 5580, a resolution adopting the revised /final AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park (United Land L.L.C., project proposer) and Minnesota Valley West (Opus Northwest, L.L.C., project proposer) with specific revisions as directed by the Council. fmalauarunited- opus/W9U Action Requested: Offer and approve Resolution No. 5580, a resolution adopting the revised/final AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park (United Land L.L.C., project proposer) and Minnesota Valley West (Opus Northwest, L.L.C., project proposer) as presented or with revisions. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director fmalauarunited- opus/W9U S c finalauarunited -opus/ W 9LI RESOLUTION O THE 1 ADOPTING REVISED /FINAL p 11 REVIEW C 1 C BUSINESS PARK AND MINNESOTA VALLEY WEST WHEREAS, on January 2, 2001, the City Council authorized the preparation of an GUAR for the proposed Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West projects; and WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the City Council authorized distribution for review and comment of a draft GUAR for the above - named, proposed projects; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2001, the City Council authorized distribution of the revised /final GUAR for the above -named projects; and WHEREAS, the deadline for objections to the revised /final AUAR was September 10, 2001; and WHEREAS, no objections to the revised /final AUAR have been received; and WHEREAS, the revised/final AUAR is an informational document that will assist the City of Shakopee in guiding development of the subject areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby adopts the revised /final AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park (United Land L.L.C., project proposer) and Minnesota Valley West (Opus Northwest, L.L.C., project proposer) Adopted by the Shakopee City Council this day of September 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk fmalauarunited- opus/W9U 1II\ yES0T_1 HI�TORI(:_1L SOCIETl September 7, 2001 Mr. Michael Leek City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 .11 _ STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICIJ I Sip 1 200? RE: AUAR- Shenandoah Business Park Shakopee, Scott County SHPO Number. 2001 -2004 Dear Mr. Leek: Thank you for submitting a copy of the final AUAR for our review. The document reports the findings of the archaeological survey of the area. One site - the Shenandoah Park Site - was identified in the area. This site is potentially significant. The AUAR suggests that the site be avoided. If it cannot, further evaluation should be completed to determine its significance. An inventory form and site # for this site are needed. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by the federal agency. We look forward to working with the city in addressing this site as the project proceeds. Contact us at 651- 296 -5462 with questions or concerns. Sincerely, r ennis A. Gimmestad Govemment Programs and Compliance Officer Cc: Christina Harrison, Archaeological Research Services Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates David Braslau, David Braslau Associates, Inc. .1 h1 {I.L�)Ili, ! "id LF:A \1 {1) \� []. -I X11A'1' I' \1 I.. Nit )T \ or' -1 -1m� , TFLI•:NI( \F:: 4,12f, Gene and Nancy Goemer 2525 4` Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 (952) 445 -7078 September 10, 2001 Michael Leek City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Leek: ` 2 / 1 © C no g After reviewing the Final GUAR and Mitigation Plan for Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West development projects, we remain concerned over the potential impact these projects will have on our residence. Our objections to these projects are as follows: The question on land use is readdressed in the section Supplemental Environmental Analysis and our property has now been included and accurately identified as a legal non - conforming use. The document further states that, "Since the Land Use Plan guides the property for Light Industrial, the residential use may eventually be replaced by a Light Industrial use." Our objection is that too much weight may be given to what MAY be the eventual use and not enough to the current use. We have resided in this home for 25 years and feel only the current residential use of our property should be considered throughout this document. 2. The Final AUAR addresses the impact of noise on the residential development south of 4`' Avenue and the residence within 100 ft of the roadway but still fails to include our residence. (Appendix D, page 2) If the traffic noise is expected to exceed the daytime residential noise standard for the home within 100 ft of 4` Avenue, then it will surely impact our residence that is situated 50 ft from the roadway. Also, the results of the noise analysis are not accurate as a speed of only 40 mph was used for 4 th Avenue. Our residence is within the segment of 4 Avenue that is 50 mph. 3. The Proposed Mitigation Plan for the improvement of 4` Avenue to a three - lane urban section from Shenandoah Drive to CH83 states that the funding for the improvement will be the responsibility of properties abutting 4` Avenue along this segment. Assuming that an equal measurement of land on both sides of 4 t ' Avenue will be acquired to widen the roadway, our residence will be even closer to the traffic noise. Since the roadway improvement will have a negative impact to our residence, we do not believe our property should bear any part of the cost to widen 4` Avenue. 4. The zoning ordinance states that the standard lot size in both a commercial and industrial district is a minimum of 2.5 acres. Since the developers own all the land surrounding our property, our property will never meet this standard. Are variances given for commercial or industrial sites on a one -acre site? And if so, can there be any guarantee that a variance will be given to this type of development on our property in the future? 5. Figure 1.2 and Figure 2.1 emphasize our property location to the proposed Shenandoah Business Park. We are all but part of this complex and our ability to sell our property will be diminished. If we sell as a residence, we would never find a buyer who would choose to live within an officehvarehouse complex of this magnitude. Nor would they want to endure 10 years of continuous construction noise and dust. In a meeting we had with George Burkards of United Properties we were told that the land for the proposed Shenandoah Business Park was purchased between $1.50 and $2.00 /sq ft. Using this price range, our 51,687 sq ft of property is worth between $77,530 and $103,374. As much as both the City of Shakopee and the Shenandoah Business Park developers may want our property in conformity with the district zoning, we cannot replace our home at these prices. We feel the Final AUAR understates the potential impact that these two projects will have on our residence. Thank you for the opportunity to receive and review the Final AUAR and Mitigation PIan. Respectfully, YG �Goemer . Nancy L. Goemer Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review United Land LLC Minnesota Valley T-Test Opus Northwest, Shakopee, Minnesota Responsible Governmental Unit City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 (952) 233 -3800 Project Proposers: United Land LLC 3500 West 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55431 (952) 893 -8836 Opus Northwest, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 (952) 656 -4611 15 August 2001 Abstract: This Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (Final AUAR) studies the expected environmental impacts associated with the development of Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West in Shakopee, Minnesota. Each of the two office /warehouse projects is proposed to include 1.1 million square feet of floor space. Each of the sites will contain access roadways, automobile parking and loading docks for trucks. This Final AUAR supplements the information presented in the Draft AUAR and responds to comments received on the Draft AUAR during the public comment period. Public Comments: The public comment period for the Draft AUAR closed on July 11, 2001. Appendix C includes copies of the comment letters received on the Draft AUAR. Responses to these comments are contained in Appendix D of this Final AUAR. Preparers: The following organizations are responsible foir preparing this Final AUAR: the City of Shakopee; David Braslau Associates, Inc.; Faergre & Benson LLP; Howard R. Green Company; Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., Archeological Research Services, and WSB Associates for the City of Shakopee. Availability of the Final AUAR: Copies of the Final AUAR are available from the City of Shakopee at 129 Holmes Street South, Shakopee, MN 55379. The Final AUAR will also be available in the Shakopee Public Library. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Table of Contents 1.0 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL W '_ 2.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................... ............................... 8 2.1. QUESTION 9: 2.2. QUESTION 10 2.3. QUESTION 11 RESOURCES ............. 2.4. QUESTION 19 2.5. QUESTION 20 2.6. QUESTION 21 2.7. QUESTION 24 2.8. QUESTION 25 2.9. QUESTION 26 2.10. QUESTION 29 LANDUSE .............................................................. ..............................8 COVERTYPES .................................................... .............................12 FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE ................................................................................ .............................12 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS .......................13 SOLID WASTES, HAZARDOUS WASTES, STORAGE TANKS.. 13 TRAFFIC.............................................................. ............................. DUST, ODORS AND NOISE .............................. .............................15 NEARBY RESOURCES ...................................... .............................16 VISUALIMPACTS .............................................. .............................18 CUMULATIVEIMPACT .................................... .............................19 APPENDIX A Section 8.01 of Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance APPENDIX B Report on Archaeological Survey for Proposed Shenandoah Business Park; Archaeological Research Services APPENDIX C Comments Letters Received on the Draft AUAR APPENDIX D Responses to Comments APPENDIX E Mitigation Plan United Properties /Opus AUAR - Shakopee, Minnesota Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review List of Figures Figure 1.1 Project Location in Shakopee ..................................................... ..............................2 Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Plan for Shenandoah Business Park .................. ..............................3 Figure 1.3 Proposed Site Plan for Minnesota Valley West ........................ ..............................4 Figure 2.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses .......................... ..............................9 Figure2.2 Shakopee Land Use Plan ............................................................ .............................10 Figure2.3 Shakopee Urban Zoning ............................................................. .............................11 United Properties /Opus AUAR - Shakopee, Minnesota Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Information in this Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review has been provided by the following organizations: Organization EAW Responsibility/Information Provided United Land LLC Project proposer /project information Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Project proposer /project information City of Shakopee Responsible Governmental Unit/project review David Braslau Associates, Inc. AUAR preparation, air quality and noise Howard R. Green Company Combined traffic analysis; civil engineering for Shenandoah Business Park Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. Natural resources, wetlands, water impacts Faegre & Benson LLP Legal counsel Archaeological Research Services Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Yallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review 31 FV4 1 OTIM Proiect Description This Final AUAR covers two projects (see Figure 1.1): (1) Shenandoah Business Park (United Land LLC) The project site is located within the corporate limits of Shakopee, Minnesota in Scott County. The site is bordered on the north by County Highway (CH 101), on the south by 4th Avenue (Old Highway 82), on the east by Scherer Brothers Lumber and CertainTeed Corporation further east, and on the west by Steel Road and undeveloped land. Shenandoah Drive passes through the westerly portion of the site, connecting TH 101 on the north and 4` Avenue on the south. United Land LLC is proposing construction of a 1,161,000 gross square foot office /warehouse development in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on a 112 -acre site that is currently undeveloped and brush/grassland. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 1.2. With full build -out of the site, it is projected that there will be a maximum of 2,220 passenger vehicle parking spaces on the site. Construction on the project is scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2001. The project will be phased in over a 10 -year period, with occupancy of the initial 10% increment anticipated in 2002. (2) Minnesota Valley West (Opus Northwest, L.L.C.) The project site is located within the corporate limits of Shakopee, Minnesota in Scott County. The site is bordered on the north by 4th Avenue (Old Highway 82) and by Kosovich Valley Park First Addition, on the south by Canterbury Park Racetrack, on the east by Canterbury Road (County Road 83), and on the west by a Canterbury Park access roadway. Opus Northwest, L.L.C. is proposing construction of a 1,160,000 gross square foot office/ warehouse development in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on a 75 -acre site which includes 2.5 acres of undeveloped land that is not currently under the ownership of Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Except for the undeveloped 2.5 acres and 6.5 acres of the existing site, the remainder of the site has been graded and contains two buildings evaluated in a previous Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this project site. Prior to grading and construction, the site formerly included a farmstead with a two -story home and several out buildings, a grass airstrip and taxi area, several rye grass fields, pine plantations, and some small deciduous woodlots. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 1.3. With full build -out of the site, it is projected that there will be maximum of 976 passenger vehicle parking spaces on the site. Construction on the project is scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2001 and be completed in 2002. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 1 3 b 3 t om s.�`� � 1 A t7) \� r, v is „� /'� "j Y —!C _ • RS ri � J'� #� t: ✓ s ir / O W \ ,,, r t• fst o � �' /. /�• J�if� � #�H ��� � w; 7 ej�� •:g' \.., -. "' ar }� (' 1 � �� C/1 1 � / ly ! /: flr ^ "ix < a�T,PC✓ �F'fT75 Kim pp � � y � ♦ z � -"r a c r � 1 ,� .i t t . to MAY CL t ` i n o t . 11 / 1' i 1 / iM IMP 6VCT ;t ff tg i l C 4.. Y fi _ uuu 1 Tom c0 t ^w 3 r. �' Y . � 4 � ( �' � a i � '�'"""�''tew"w]' .:� ' •�,,, �-' s ^t7 .� a ,'�...8i } v S� : {: 2 f 4> F �� t : c3 = � '""�*:w' _ 4.c � •, 3 } x�... y . —. � � �Q � � w ,.;,. fit' 1a �r CQ _ N � a 0 -b EN OM r S S MI MI r r as r NB — — — MN ONO UM INN Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review L..., : . 1____ r[7---- _ _______________,_---- „, ____ _________________________ , ____ c- _____ _ ,, ,_____ YAM 7 ` ` J / LOT 6 1(� 1 . iJ SSA r . J t S'4HNNIi .' J ' .�` 1 SP a f . hlR (. LoS. l LCrC 2 1 III 1 m---= �-� ;8,m S.F. ICO,p168.F IOO4O SF. 'MOOSP �. J �. 11.11.1.1" �` ' �1 H Qdlh -.IV, i.:S N4 IIIIIP J f .,' ,Take' Mia 1 ��'SM1I r` ■ ' _ -. leg, uu r 1111:111 u ' Take : -. - . .. ar 1 — i 1\ United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 1.2 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota Proposed Site Plan for David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park Howard R. Green Company FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. AREAWIDE REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. 3 -o ¢ � w �g 'ON 0`d02l -� a ,11N U � m f100 f cn v �o a. V J ti W Z V O v R: > > Q d- r- Cc C ¢ w oNIo708 3bnlnd 7Wud3JNOo 3 0 X Y-?IN3J 1S10 ,(377VA NN09 9N/1S /X3 j U y 0.9 �D 0 as > 3 w _ ...►_. y o a -o 0 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Potential Environmental Impacts Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources: Shenandoah Business Park The database information provided by the DNR indicate that most of the species with the exception of loggerhead shrike were observed prior to 1951 or were species associated with the Minnesota River and its floodplain. No use of the Shenandoah Business Park site by loggerhead shrikes has been documented to date. A final inspection of the Shenandoah Business Park site has been conducted and no evidence of loggerhead shrikes has been found. Minnesota Valley West The site has been graded for construction following completion of previous EAW and no additional impacts are anticipated. Prior to grading of the site, no evidence of any threatened, endangered, or rare plant or wildlife species was observed on the site during a field review on July 9, 1997. The 1997 search by the Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program also indicated that no known occurrences of rare species or natural features exist within approximately one mile of the project site. Erosion and Sedimentation: Shenandoah Business Park The proposed development will involve grading and additional fill on the site. Ultimately 112 acres of the site will be graded and as much as 332,000 cubic yards of material could be moved. Most of this material will be brought onto the site as fill. Minnesota Valley West The proposed development will involve grading of an additional 9 acres and movement of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of material. Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff: United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 5 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Traff c: The Draft AUAR analyzed six critical intersections through which project traffic is likely to flow. The following conclusions are based upon this traffic analysis and the Mitigation Plan contained in Appendix E of this Final AUAR. • In 2003, the intersection of CH 83/4 Avenue is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) F under the "build" scenario without intersection improvements. • In 2003, the addition of an eastbound right turn lane on 4 th Avenue, a southbound right turn lane on CH 83 and a northbound left turn lane on CH 83, with the addition of signalization, will improve the Level of Service to LOS B. • In 2003, the intersection of 0 Avenue /Shenandoah Drive is expected to operate at LOS A as an All-Way STOP condition, • Prior 2020, traffic on 4 th Avenue is expected to exceed the capacity of this roadway. Improvement to a three -lane urban section with additional lanes at major intersections will provide the needed additional capacity. • In 2020, the intersection of CH 83/0 Avenue, with the improvements noted above, is estimated to operate at LOS C. • In 2020, the intersection of 4 th Avenue /Shenandoah Drive will likely operate at acceptable (i.e. uncongested) levels during the PM peak hour as an All-way STOP condition. Vehicle Related Air Emissions: Increased vehicle emissions will be associated with traffic traveling to and from the combined projects. Vehicle carbon monoxide concentrations, estimated at three intersections indicated levels well below the Minnesota 1 -hour and 8 -hour ambient air quality standards. Based upon the air quality analysis of traffic on roadways providing access to the project, no significant adverse impacts on air quality are expected. Odors, Noise and Dust: Nearby Resources Shenandoah Business Park Murphy's Landing, a living history village of the 1800s with more than forty buildings, is located United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 6 Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review north of TH 101 across from the proposed development. Recreational trail corridors are identified in the Comprehensive Plan along 4th Avenue and CH 83 corridors. Two burial mound groups have been identified in the vicinity of the project. The Pond Mound Group (21 SC 22) is located entirely north of T.H.101, in what is now referred to as Memorial Park, the eastern end of which lies directly north of the project area but is separated from it by the highway and the CSMO railroad grade. The Steele Mound Group (21 SC 24) is partially preserved north of T.H. 101 but also, to a large extent, was damaged or destroyed by the highway and, in the case of one mound, the construction of the CSMO railroad embankment. Evidence of tools and debris that appears to represent the southern edge of a stone tool production area and possibly of a larger habitation site that continued towards the river has been identified along the northern boundary of Shenandoah Business Park approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive. This evidence has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. If this area cannot be avoided and protected as a green space in the final development plan, further study and more intensive testing will be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site. Visual shielding of those portions of Shenandoah Business Park adjacent to Murphy's Landing will be provided in landscape plans for these parcels. Minnesota Valley West A cultural review of this property was requested from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in advance of the EAW publication of the SuperValu proposal for the site in 1997 concluded that the project was unlikely to affect any historic properties and did not request a cultural resources investigation. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services: The maximum wastewater flow of the combined projects (146,586 gallons per day) can be accommodated by with appropriate connections to the public sanitary sewer system. The maximum demand for water by the combined projects (151,245 gallons per day) can be accommodated by the Shakopee Water Utility with appropriate connections to the municipal water supply system. The following roadway improvements will be needed to ensure adequate traffic flow with the combined projects: By 2003, an additional eastbound right turn lane on 4 th Avenue at its intersection with CH 83. Prior to 2020, the intersection of 4 th Avenue and CH 83 will require major reconstruction including the installation of a traffic signal. Prior to 2020, increased traffic demand on 4 th Avenue east of CH 83 will require additional capacity, which could be accommodated by a three -lane section along this roadway segment. Development of Shenandoah Business Park and further development of Minnesota Valley West will require additional police and fire protection for these two sites. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2.1. QUESTION 9: LAND USE Quesiton 9 of the Draft AUAR includes a description of land uses on and around the projects. Two residential areas abutting 4` Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed Shenandoah Business Park were not identified in the Draft AUAR. The Goemer residential property, located on the north side of 4th Avenue, is bounded on the east, north and west by the proposed Shenandoah Business Park and on the south by 4 th Avenue. A residential area is located south of 4th Avenue and west of Shenandoah Drive. These areas are identified in Figure 2.1. Adjoining Land Use Compatibility Goemer Property The Goemer property and residence is located 300 feet east of Shenandoah Drive on the north side of 4 th Avenue. The property will be surrounded on the west, north and east by Shenandoah Business Park, and on the south by 4 th Avenue. The property falls within the area north of 4 th Avenue that is guided Light Industrial in the Shakopee Land Use Plan and zoned Il (Light Industrial). See Figure 2.2 and 2.3 in the Final AUAR. This makes the property a legal non - conforming use. Since the Land Use Plan guides the property for Light Industrial, the residential use may eventually be replaced by a Light Industrial use. Residential Area south of 4 th Avenue The residential area, shown in Figure 9.1 of the Draft AUAR, is approximately 200 feet south of 4th Avenue and buffered by trees. The area is also buffered by land uses based upon zoning developed by the City of Shakopee - from west to east these are an area zoned BI west of the cemetery, the cemetery (zoned AG), the small buffer zoning of outlots north of the residential area, and the Knights of Columbus (zoned Bl). See Figure 2.3. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 8 Shenandoah Busmess Yark/m-mnesota Valley West anal Alternative Urban Areawide Review United Land LLC Shenandoah Business Park Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Minnesota Valley West FIGURE 2.1 Shakopee, Minnesota David Braslau Associates, Inc. FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN Project Location and Howard R. Green Company Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ARR AWIDE REVIEW Surrounding Land Uses Land LLC /Onus Northwest_ L_L_C NM ®— I! M= r M 1— V M O — IMO AI — all Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review LEGEN �� • -.- ! _ \ 11io`� edfum R�en P i xaldeniknl r_ — ,` ® High nensity Residential I ng . _ -.4.- as � `t v _+�i „ ` L, ' 1-1 Rural Residential AO y � y^r° ' s J — ? (.1.717 • ,'t -. �. -4 I= Planned Residential 1 : , i .W'I . . 'I.- [ �— ( --1 Neighborhood Commereid / f 1 VIM ' • t _ . _. �p � , . �L Office - Z :{ 1 B =s ��� �� 1„ r�r 1 .: - _ _ C• • , Cammernial f . (� e, �_ _ � rata - �, ' _ _ E..� stnr_ Perk 1 � d '� ` � r ' 1. d i Light Indaetrial .110k. a/ ry NM Beery industrial I •• ••• „:� .' • (current lend me) a�x e f- - s , -, -,. � i institutional (n S* ` ,,,, k ` ,, y I { • _ ® Park 0,0' r �'I -, - ! = Open Space 1 :•. :: :: Entertainment µ 6 __ _ ..... V .s MUSA Boundary - ':ti:: ,y am t :i s"`,. • f _Cit Liman ?cam ED Lake V .. nu ® Proposed MUSA %%J. Expansion Areas 0ei Overlay Uses al. Lnl !Lining Overlay #s>l - M SMSC Land in "'suet E Existing Residenial 'M ; , M•7 SilSC Land Proposed to be nevelopmente Within Q '.. i� y� , 5 , x ;•.; 5 Placed Into Trust Jackson Township GG - y C. . . "' ; OS SN Pee Lead k ` CITY WIDE ,+, LAND USE PLAN €� s , *DRAFT ONLY* tee °o , Shakopee m ot •� `,.' Comprehensive Plan City of Shakopee, Minnesota! - 1999 e ` SH OPIEE - ,. oaaARndiYPREDE9b1®L9v United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 2.2 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota Shakopee Land Use Plan David Braslau Associates, Inc. Howard R Green Company FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. AREAWIDE REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Yalley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2.2. QUESTION 10: COVER TYPES Quesiton 10 of the Draft AUAR includes tables of site cover types by acres. The table below for Shenandoah Business Park has been revised to show the area of Stormwater detention ponds and road right -of -way. Shenandoah Business Park Before After Type 1- 8 wetlands 0 0 Wooded/Forest 0 0 Brush/Grassland 112.0 0 Cropland 0 1 0 Minnesota Valley West Before After Type 1- 8 wetlands 0 0 Wooded/Forest 0 0 Brush/Grassland 0 0 Cropland 0 0 Before After Lawn/Landscaping Lawn/Landscaping 0 30.1 Impervious surfaces 0 68.5 Road Right-of-Way 0 0.8 Stormwater Ponds 0 12.6 Total area 112.0 112.0 2.3. QUESTION 11: FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES Shenandoah Business Park United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 12 Before After Lawn/Landscaping Lawn/Landscaping 48.0 16.0 Impervious surfaces 18.0 50.0 Road Right-of-Way 1.9 1.9 Stormwater Ponds 7.1 7.1 Total area 75.0 1 75.0 2.3. QUESTION 11: FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES Shenandoah Business Park United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 12 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review loggerhead shrikes with the exception of the eastern half of the site. Several eastern red cedar trees were checked for active nests and special attention was paid to perches on this portion of the site. No loggerhead shrikes or active nests were observed during the survey. Minnesota Vallev West In Question 11 of the Draft AUAR, it was noted that no evidence of any threatened, endangered, or rare plant or wildlife species were identified prior to grading of the site subsequent to the completion of the previous EAW for the site. 2.4. QUESTION 19: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS In Question 19 of the Draft AUAR it was noted that, on the Shenandoah Business Park Site, shallow bedrock coupled with overlying coarse textured sediment suggests the presence of shallow, perched water tables with a high potential for groundwater contamination. Water movement through the overlying coarse - textured sediments would be fast and the now path to the restrictive bedrock layer is short. The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed for prevention of contamination of groundwater: 1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for storm water ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use following construction. 2. For each stage of construction, erection of a silt fence installed at the construction limits prior to the initiation of earthwork and maintained until all exposed soil is stabilized. 3. Periodic cleaning of adjacent city streets. 4. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls. 5. Use of cover crops, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after final grading. 6. Under stormwater ponds and in areas where enhanced infiltration practices are employed, a minimum of 2 feet of soil will be provided as required in the City of Shakopee Stormwater Management Plan, or alternatives including the use of a clay liner will be considered. The same BMPs will be used where appropriate on the Minnesota Valley West site for development of the approximately 32 additional acres of that site. 2.5. QUESTION 20: SOLID WASTES, HAZARDOUS WASTES, STORAGE TANKS Question 20 of the Draft AUAR indicated that the City of Shakopee has no recycling program or applicable recycling ordinance in place for businesses. However, Scott County has pointed out that the Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance (Section 8.01) requires haulers to provide recycling services to their customers. A copy of this section of the ordinance is included in Appendix A of this Final AUAR. Recycling of solid waste will be the responsibility of individual facilities on each of the project sites and will be coordinated through the chosen solid waste contractors. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 13 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review 2.6. QUESTION 21: TRAFFIC Question 21 of the Draft AUAR indicated the potential for capacity constraints at the 4 th Avenue and CH 83 intersection following Phase 1 of the project in 2003 and on 4` Avenue by the year 2020. The conclusions from the traffic study related to these issues are noted below: In 2003, the intersection of CH 83 / 4 th Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F under the Phase 1 "build" scenario. However, the addition of an eastbound right turn lane would improve operations to LOS D. • When Shenandoah Business Park development reaches 20% of the total plan (assuming 100% build -out of Minnesota Valley West), the CH 83 / 4` Avenue intersection is estimated to operate at LOS E, suggesting that a traffic signal would be a reasonable mitigation strategy. However, a traffic signal should not be installed at this intersection unless left turn lanes are added to CH 83. • In 2020 with full build -out of both developments, the intersection of CH 83 / 4` Avenue will likely require significant reconstruction, including the addition of turn lanes on CH 83 and 4` Avenue. • In 2020 with full build -out of both developments, 4` Avenue is not expected to meet transportation needs. Expansion to a three -lane urban section with additional lanes at major intersections appears to be a likely mitigation strategy. In response to these potential capacity problems, the Mitigation Plan (Appendix E of this Final AUAR), includes the following roadway improvements: Improvements required to support development - related impacts in 2003 will be implemented in conjunction with Phase I and be completed prior to occupancy of new buildings in 2003. • Addition of an eastbound ri turn lane on 4th Avenue at the intersection of 4th Avenue with CH 83. • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Avenue with CH 83. • Addition of a northbound left turn lane on CH 83 at the intersection of CH 83 with 4th Avenue. • Addition of a southbound right turn lane on CH 83 at the intersection of CH 83 with 4th Avenue. Improvements required to support development - related impacts in 2020 will be implemented when the demand for these improvements are warranted which will likely occur before 2020. • Improvement of 4` Avenue from CH 17 to CH 83 to a three -lane urban section with center turning lane. Responsibilities for funding these improvements are included in the Mitigation Plan. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 14 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Potential traffic impacts associated with the Goemer property were not included in the Draft AUAR. These are discussed below. The driveway to the Goemer residence is located on 4th Avenue over 400 feet from Shenandoah Drive. As noted on Page 47 and 52 of the Draft AUAR, the intersection of 4` Avenue with Shenandoah Drive is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in 2003 and in 2020. Therefore, the Goemer driveway is not likely to be blocked by westbound vehicles queuing at Shenandoah Drive. Based upon the current site layout as shown in Figure 5.3, there may be a driveway into Shenandoah Business Park immediately east of the Goemer property. However, access driveways to the Shenandoah Business Park may be combined to minimize potential curb cuts along 4` Avenue. As noted in the Draft AUAR, 4` Avenue between Shenandoah Drive and CH 83 is predicted to exceed its current two -lane daily capacity in 2020. It is anticipated that 4` Avenue will have to be upgraded before 2020, possibly to a three -lane urban section. Until design of the roadway is completed, it cannot be determined what if any additional right -of -way will be needed. Moreover, appropriate environmental studies will have to be completed as part of the design process. The potential environmental impacts from the improvement of 4` Avenue are not addressed in this AUAR. 2.7. QUESTION 24: DUST, ODORS AND NOISE Question 24 of the Draft AUAR identifies the potential for dust and noise associated with grading of both project sites and construction of buildings, drives, and parking areas. The potential from vibration from blasting of bedrock will also exist, although this will be limited to areas where blasting is required. The following measures to minimize noise and dust emissions from construction are identified in the Draft AUAR: • All internal combustion motors will be fitted with mufflers and other noise control equipment as specified by the manufacturer. • Minnesota Rules 7005.0050 on the control of fugitive particulate matter from construction and hauling activities will be complied with so as to minimize adverse air quality impacts. Potential impacts from construction dust, noise and vibration and from traffic noise on Goemer property were not included in the Draft AUAR. These are addressed below. Project construction and operation Procedures to be followed to minimize noise and air quality impacts from construction are identified in Question 24 in the Draft AUAR. Individual buildings and associated parking will be constructed based upon market conditions and potential tenants. While construction will be carried out over a 10 -year development period, it will be done in discrete phases. Those construction phases immediately adjacent to the Goemer property will have the greatest potential United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 15 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Project construction and operation Procedures to be followed to minimize noise and air quality impacts from construction are identified in Question 24 in the Draft AUAR. Individual buildings and associated parking will be constructed based upon market conditions and potential tenants. While construction will be carried out over a 10 -year development period, it will be done in discrete phases. Those construction phases immediately adjacent to the Goemer property will have the greatest potential for impact and will require well under 10 years for completion. Appropriate temporary screening will be provided as needed to minimize construction impacts on the Goemer property. Any graded area will be planted to minimize runoff and erosion on the site. Where needed, blasting will be performed so as to comply with Minnesota DNR guidelines on blasting as well as appropriate measures to minimize impacts and prevent any damage at adjacent properties, including the Goemer property. Traffic and truck noise As noted on Page 61 of the Draft AUAR, the Minnesota noise standards do not apply to roadways such as 4 t Avenue. The current layout of Shenandoah Business Park as shown in Figure 5.3 of the Draft AUAR indicates an access roadway to one of the warehouse areas that passes approximately 75 feet north of the Goemer residence. Based upon data from previous studies, it is estimated that the sound level at the Goemer residence for one truck traveling at 10 mph along this roadway will exceed 65 dBA for 20 seconds and 55 dBA for 50 seconds . Thus, more than 18 trucks per hour at 20 seconds above 65 dBA will be needed to exceed the L10 65 dBA daytime limit (65 dBA for 10% of an hour or 360 seconds), and more than 7 trucks per hour at 50 seconds above 55 dBA will be needed to exceed the L10 55 dBA nighttime limit (55 dBA for 10% or an hour or 360 seconds). Until specific tenants in the nearby building are identified, it is not possible to make an accurate estimate of truck traffic along this access roadway. However, if hourly truck traffic causes exceedances of the Minnesota noise standards, then mitigation will be necessary. Potential mitigation measures include limits on the number of trucks per hour, a noise berm, or redesign of the roadway and building layout to move truck traffic away from the Goemer residence. A berm would probably have to extend the length of the Goemer property on the north, although the exact location and height of the berm cannot be determined without an accurate truck traffic estimate. 2.8. QUESTION 25: NEARBY RESOURCES Question 25 of the Draft AUAR identifies Murphy's Landing as a historic resource located north of TH 101 across from the proposed development. "Murphy's Landing is a living history village of the 1800s. More than forty period buildings that were once in danger of being destroyed, have been moved to the Landing's 88 acre site for their preservation and restoration, and the enjoyment and education of more than 40,000 visitor's a year." United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 16 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Palley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review In a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which is included in Appendix B of the Draft AUAR, the following additional information was requested for the Shenandoah Business Park project: (1) A survey of the area be completed that will meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation that should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any identified properties. An archeological survey for the Shenandoah Business Park has been prepared by Archaeological Research Services and is included in Appendix B of this Final AUAR. Findings and conclusions of the survey are summarized below. (2) The design of the project take into account effects of the historic district, both from a visual/ aesthetic standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc.) standpoint. Shenandoah Business Park will be accessed from Shenandoah Drive and from 4` Avenue and will not provide any additional access to CH 101. Therefore, no impacts from traffic or traffic noise are anticipated. Truck activity on the site will occur south of the railroad tracks. Noise from trucks on the site will be well below that from trucks on CH 101, which is north of the Shenandoah Business Park and the intervening railroad tracks. Visual screening of the project will be provided as part of landscaping plans to be prepared for each parcel on the site prior to its development. (3) The requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act be addressed because of the location of burials in the vicinity. These requirements are addressed in the archaeological survey which is included in Appendix B of this Final AUAR Summary of the Archaeological Survey of Shenandoah Business Park The survey identified the following two sites in the vicinity of Shenandoah Business Park: 21 SC 22 (the Pond Mound Group), which is located entirely north of CH 101, in what is now referred to as Memorial Park, the eastern end of which lies directly north of the project area but is separated from it by the highway and the CSO railroad grade. • 21 SC 24 (the Steele Mound Group) which is partially preserved north of CH 101 but also, to a large extent, was damaged or destroyed by the highway and, in the case of one mound, the construction of the CSMO railroad embankment. While the latter mound was recorded well east of the project area and it now seems well documented that the other mounds are /were located well to its north, there is no record of any previous efforts to identify other archaeological evidence south of the burial grounds, in what is now the Shenandoah Business Park project area. One precontact period Native American archaeological site was identified just within the northern edge of the project area, approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive. This evidence United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 17 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review included some cobble tools and a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking debris that appears to represent the southern edge of a Uthic reduction (stone tool production) area and possibly also of a larger habitation site that continued towards the river but now has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. The site has been recorded as Shenandoah Park Similar evidence has been found on a number of archaeological sites that are situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local sources of Prairie du Chien chert. Some appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction sites; others are associated with evidence of seasonal habitation and other activities. None have as yet produced any ceramic evidence - a fact which suggests that they are early and predate the mound groups that also are found along these rivers. Conclusions and Recommendations This cultural resource survey did not identify any archaeological evidence that would appear to be associated with the two mound groups, the Mdewakanton village of Shakopee, the post -1850s community by the same name or activities at the historic Murphy's Landing. Rather, the Shenandoah Park evidence is very similar to the lithics found on a number of other archaeological sites that are situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local sources of Prairie du Chien chert from the Shakopee and Oneota Dolomite Formations. Some appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction sites, while others are associated with evidence of seasonal habitation and other activities. None have as yet produced any ceramic evidence - a fact which suggests that they are early and predate the mound groups that also are found along these rivers. Until archaeological sites of this type have been better documented through formal excavation and intensite comparison, even a fairly small cultural deposit or a sizeable remnant of a larger, partially destroyed site is still likely to yield significant information, especially from a context like the Shenandoah Park site that has not been disturbed by cultivation. As the Shenandoah Business Park portion of this locality appears confined to a small area along the northern edge of the project area, it could probably easily be avoided and protected as a green space in the final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study and more intensive testing would be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site and determine whether or not it meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. 2.9. QUESTION 26: VISUAL IMPACTS The potential for lighting impacts on the Goemer property may occur from dock areas or trucks, depending upon the location and orientation of these activities and whether or not there will be any nighttime activity at these locations. The current site plan shows a dock area approximately 150 feet north of the Goemer residence. Lighting of buildings and dock areas throughout the project will be based upon current design standards and will comply with provisions of the Shakopee zoning ordinance. regarding light levels on adjacent properties. Visual screening and landscaping will be provided, if needed, to minimize impacts on the Goemer property from truck lights as they depart the dock area if nighttime activities are expected at this location. Mitigation of truck lighting can be provided by berms if built to mitigate noise from trucks. Redesign of the roadway United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 18 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review and building layout to move truck traffic away from the Goemer residence can also minimize lighting impacts on the Goemer property. 2.10. QUESTION 29: CUMULATIVE IMPACT The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has noted in their letter commenting on the Draft AUAR that "a full discussion of cumulative impacts of projects, including those in the surrounding area, is important to assure the discussion of significant environmental effects in the Draft AUAR is complete and not limited to those species and habitats that are already seriously and significantly affected. " The Draft AUAR has investigated the impacts of the two projects and their individual and cumulative impacts on the environment in the areas expected to be impacted by these projects. These projects combined with others in the region may have a significant overall impact on habitat. However, this loss of habitat is partially offset by the large areas along the Minnesota River that is permanently retained as wildlife habitat. As defined in the MEQB Environmental Review Rules, "cumulative impact" means the impact on the environment that results from incremental effects of the project in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects regardless of what person undertakes the other projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. The cumulative impact of regional land use conversion from open space /agricultural land to developed space that has taken and is taking place in the metropolitan area is difficult to mitigate. The two proposed office /warehouse projects are consistent with the light industrial classification of the Shakopee land use plan and zoning for the project sites. Individually, the proposed projects will include stormwater ponds, limited open space and landscaping. The City has chosen to mitigate the cumulative impacts of urbanization by placing goals and policies to protect and enhance wildlife habitat are included in several chapters of the City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan (1999 update). Some of these are listed below. Section 1: Land Use and Staging This section includes as its first goal the identification and preservation of the City's natural resources. The objective and policies under this goal are presented below. Objective 1.1 Allow development in a pattern that minimizes the disruption of identified prime agricultural soils, wetlands, forests, groundwater and other natural resources. Policies: a. Development proposals that preserve existing wetland shall be preferred over proposals that create replacement wetlands. b. Protection of farmland will be promoted through the use of the Agricultural Preserves Act, which provides tax benefits and additional protection for areas identified for long -term agricultural use. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 19 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review C. Provisions will be adopted on the siting, design, construction and maintenance of on -site sewage disposal systems that are consistent with the applicable requirements set forth in the Met Council's Water Resource Management, Part 1 Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan. d. The City will develop a forestry plan to identify significant resources for protection and promote practices that enhance the City's forests. e. The City will adopt a stormwater ordinance that addresses City -wide stormwater issues, including assessing the need for regional stormwater facilities and wetland preservation. f. The city will continue development and maintenance of a geographic information system (GIS) to monitor development and identify important natural resources. Section H: Stormwater Management Plan The goals and policies have been developed to preserve and use natural water storage and retention systems in order to: A, Limit public capital expenditures that re necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff B. Improve water quality. C. Prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows. D. Prevent ground water recharge. E. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. F. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface water. Construction of these two projects, along with other development in the City such as street and highway construction, residential development and commercial and industrial development, has already impacted or will impact the wildlife abundance in the City and surrounding areas. While mitigation of these impacts is difficult at a project level, it is anticipated that land use conversion following the goals and policies outlined above will minimize the cumulative impact of development on wildlife resources. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 20 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review 01 The certification below must be SIGNED for Environmental Quality Board acceptance of the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review for publication of notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. This Final AUAR describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. Copies of this Final AUAR are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date Title y:\jobs\200091\FinalAUAR\FinalAUAR-revO8O9.doc United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 21 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Section 5.00 of Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 8.00 RECYCLING. The following provisions are applicable to the collection and transportation of mixed municipal solid waste (msw) generated in Scott County. 8.01 Recyclable Material Collection. The hauler must provide a service (either directly or through written subcontract with a person or company approved by the Department as a condition to the license) to collect four broad categories of recyclable materials and yard wastes from all single - family residential, and all multiple - family residential, commercial and industrial customers in Scott County. Paper and corrugated fiberboard must be collected from commercial, industrial and institutional customers when requested by the customer. Additional recyclable materials may be added to this by Resolution of the County Board after the effective date of this Section. All licensed haulers shall be given 120 days advance notice in writing of the proposed additional recyclable material(s) and shall be notified in writing 15 calendar days in advance of the time and date of the County Board meeting at which time a decision will be rendered. Notice shall be deemed given by mail via general delivery, to the mailing address identified on the most recent license application or renewal form on file in the Department. A. The hauler may specify the type of container their customer must place the recyclables in. The containers must be provided by the hauler or already available to a customer at the time this Ordinance provision becomes effective. B. The hauler must specify the time and day of collection that their customers are to place their recyclables out on their property for pickup. The hauler must collect the recyclables within 12 hours of the designated time. The collection location must be on the customer's property in a location at or near the regular solid waste collection site or such other location mutually agreeable to the hauler and the customer. C. The hauler may specify how a customer is to place their recyclables out for collection and how the recyclables are to be prepared. The County Environmental Health Manager reserves the right to review and modify the amount of preparation required by the hauler in consideration of local recyclable market requirements. D. The hauler must collect recyclables from each customer at least once a month unless normal solid waste collection service is provided less frequently than monthly, in which case the frequency of recyclable collection shall be the same as refuse collection. E. The hauler is assumed to own the recyclables they have collected and may market them as they see fit. However, a hauler may not dispose of any recyclables in or on the land, nor through incineration unless given prior written approval to do so by the Environmental Health Manager. F. The hauler must submit an annual report to the Department, on or before January 31 of each year for the previous calendar year, identifying the weight in tons of all recyclables and all other disposable solid wastes collected from Scott County customers (if tonnage is unavailable for disposable solid waste, cubic yards shall be reported). The annual report must identify the weight of each type of recyclable collected. G. The hauler must demonstrate to the Department at the time of license application and at time of annual license renewal how they will provide both an incentive to their customers to reduce the amount of waste generated and an incentive to recycle the materials designated by the County Board. Examples of compliance with this provision include, but are not limited to, volume based collection fees and/or credit equal to the reduction in tip fee realized through removal of the amount a customer is recycling. H. Municipalities or Townships within Scott County that contract with haulers must contract only with a hauler who is licensed by Scott County. Contracts must also be consistent with the provisions in this Subsection. 8.02 Opportunity to Recycle. A. Single - family residential recycling. For all residential generators where the hauler contracts for services directly with the generator, the hauler shall provide to the generator the opportunity to recycle (as described in section 8.01 of this Ordinance). B. Multi - family residential recycling. The owner /manager of multi - family residential units shall offer recycling services to their tenants including a convenient location to store recycled material. C. Recycling Fee. No mixed municipal solid waste collector shall impose a greater fee on a resident who recycles than on a resident who does not recycle. 8.03 Anti- Scavenging Provision. Ownership of the separated recyclable materials set out by a customer for collection by the hauler shall be vested in the hauler servicing the Person who is recycling. It shall be unlawful and an offense against this Ordinance for any person other than the hauler or the owner, lessee, or occupant of a residential dwelling or commercial/industrial business, to pick up said separated recyclable materials set out for collection. Said person shall obtain written permission from the Department and from the hauler servicing the accounts where the recyclables are set out for collection. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Report on Archaeological Survey for Proposed Shenandoah Business Park Archaeological Research Services United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. 1 1 14 DO Z16) I Prepared for: David Braslau Associates, Inc. 1313 5th Street S.E., Suite 322 Minneapolis, MN 55414 By: Christina Harrison, Principal Investigator Archaeological Research Services 1812 15th Avenue South Minneapolis, IN 55404 (612) 870 -9775 r• 1.0 INTRODUCTION /MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 1.1 Description of Project and ProjectArea .................... 1.2 Archaeological Review -- Summary of Results .............. 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC CONTEXT 2.1 Environmental Setting ........... 2.2 Archaeological Contexts Applicable to Study Area ................... 3.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 3.1 Results of Records and Literature Search: Cultural Resources Near ProjectArea ..................... 3.2 Field Investigation: Methodology andResults ..................... 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5.0 REFERENCES ............................ Appendix A: SHPO Correspondence Appendix B: Test Records lei* 1 1 LJ 11 14 16 18 20 1. General Location Map ................. 2 2. U.S. Geological Survey Quad .... 3 3. Project Location and Surrounding LandUses ............................ 4 4. Plat Map of Shenandoah Business Park ProjectArea ......................... 5 5. Proposed Site Plan for Shenandoah BusinessPark ........................ 6 6. Aerial View of Shenandoah Business Park Project Area ..................... 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION /MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 1.1 Description of Project and Project Area United Land LLC is planning to develop an 112 -acre parcel as the Shenandoah Business Park (SBP) in the City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. Asked to comment, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended an archaeological survey of the area as well as consultation with the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) regarding the close proximity of the project area to two recorded Native American cemetery sites (Appendix A). The setting and character of the SBP project area is shown in Figures 1 to 4. It falls within the northern half of Section 5, T115N, R22W (Eagle Creek Township). The site is bordered on the north by the Chicago -St. Paul- Minneapolis -Omaha (CSMO) Railroad (in NE /4 and NE /4 NW /4 Section 5) and by undeveloped land under different ownership (in SW /4 NW /4 Section 5). The western edge abuts the same undeveloped land as well as a stretch of gravel road, and the southern edge follows Fourth Avenue (old County Road 82). To the immediate east are two parcels that already have been developed for industrial use. The land within the project boundaries is bisected by Shenandoah Drive (a curving, paved two -lane street) but is otherwise undeveloped. Only the southeast and southwest corners of the property have been cultivated. The rest of the land has remained non - agricultural due to shallow bedrock formation and supports a vegetation cover of pasture grasses, various forb species, fairly dense clusters of prickly ash, hawthorn and juniper as well as scattered mature oak and elm trees (Figure 6). The parcel is quite level, with elevations ranging between 752 feet in the southwest to 732 feet in the north. There are no wetlands. Preliminary development plans propose the constructiuon of ten office /warehouse complexes with access roads and parking facilities (Figure 5). The SBP parcel is one of two areas that presently are being studied through the same Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process. The other parcel -- Minnesota Valley West, developed by Opus Northwest L.L.C. -- was reviewed for cultural resources in 1997, with negative results (Appendix A). 1.2 Archaeological Review -- Summary of Results During May of 2001, David Braslau Associates, Inc., as preparer of the GUAR, retained Archaeological Research Services (ARS) to conduct the recommended archaeological survey and the consultation with OSA. -z- v w _ a cc 3 m 3 0 s a 0 0 U W o.� b H a 3 R a �o •� Z a O ti 5 v m V] �oC�U � p: o ev Q W y V 0 � ZZ a � Q W o.� b H a 3 R a �o •� Z a O ti 5 v m V] �oC�U � p: o ev Q W y V -3- Cq � T tie Ea im Shenandoah busmess Yark/Mmnesota Valley west United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.0 David Braslau Associates, Inc. Howard R. Green Company Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. United Land L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW Anemauve uroan areawiae iceview FIGURE 3 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses i.n.° s — _ zB "I 7 '� °i _" �OS'.0(eZON:::.::•�a.uworkasia r.e°�w+a_o_ - . • — — • � _ SLBZE ; tOLZC 'Oq "JOC 3E l+ ✓t A lu aL•+ am 1° l/f iss ---� ' :H3r135v3 :.::un Az S[SZC T• �'� :OLZC 'ON ^OO S350den� roa xiene aOd:r13n3Sr_ i ° %rte ff . Q OD '" ocza G42Zr a wczC 'O r =C - tm-3jolls oar Alr%M oz Z 1 166 �16� M. ON,! • 1 _ _ At.S f.00 y LOd R - �/ , � \ 3 � snaoNise�oavria �`� +019L e Lo h� jb CCi Ul ,�Z;B 1>✓ V �� T •' $ �� °" � - � .. 0= '- $ _ •� 63LQ N11M A Z/snANIJlY� 3. s .4-Y 967042 LZ ;�'o.st S am i .1 + ta.si�o n n` i _ OIS F5 So3 ° E8 l �- z 0980:, °3 1 D cap A 20 "3.— 3.C5.lZe00N or'6f5 .r�wq v�rn ywe Qi U 0 . 0 4 W Qd . N ^ N W N GA 0 t0 Q G1 T ^ 0 W a W a C9 H W -6- 3 I _ IK .arr.•�e On ti T a �J + K y 3 1 !' a a _ ¢ °= - ; ° d o an Ow 3 w a i:1 At OSA, Christina Harrison, as principal investigator, personally reviewed the files for the two Native American cemetery sites 21 SC 22 and 21 SC 24). The results of past studies indicate that: • 21 SC 22 (the Pond Mound Group), is located entirely north of T.H.101, in what is now referred to as Memorial Park, the eastern end of which lies directly north of the project area but is separated from it by the highway and the CSMO railroad grade. • 21 SC 24 (the Steele Mound Group) is partially preserved north of T.H. 101 but also, to a large extent, was damaged or destroyed by the highway and, in the case of one mound, the construction of the CSMO railroad embankment. While the latter mound was recorded well east of the project area and it now seems well documented that the other mounds are /were located well to its north, there is no record of any previous efforts to identify other archaeological evidence south of the burial grounds, in what is now the SBP project area. On May 29, 2001, Harrison also sent information about the project to James Warren, Cultural Resources Director for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Community (SMDC), asking for comments regarding any concerns the SMDC may have about the project area. As of July 23, 2001, ARS had not received a response. Although the SHPO comment letter regarding the SBP parcel does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800 (procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties), the letter states that the recommended archaeological survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation. Following a records and literature search that included a review of SHPO files for the general project area, ARS staff completed the field investigation during the months of June and early July. It involved visual inspection of numerous subsoil exposures that had been caused by bioturbation, deep ruts made by four -wheel drive vehicles and, in the southwest and southeast, by cultivation. The northern portion of the area, considered to have higher archaeological potential due to its proximity to the Minnesota River as well as 21 SC 22 and 24, was also subjected to systematic shovel testing. The results of ARS investigations are discussed below in Section 2.0 Environmental and Cultural Context and in Section 3.0: Survey Methodology and Results. One precontact period Native American archaeological site was identified just within the northern edge of the project area, approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive: some cobble tools and a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking debris that appears to represent the southern edge of a lithic reduction (stone tool production) area and possibly also of a larger habitation site that continued towards the river but now has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. The site has been recorded as Shenandoah Park. Similar evidence has been found on a number of archaeological sites that are situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local sources of Prairie du Chien chert. Some appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction sites, others are associated with evidence of seasonal habitation and other activities. None have as yet produced any ceramic evidence -- a fact which suggests that they are early and predate the mound groups that also are found along these rivers. As the Shenandoah Park evidence appears confined to a small area along the northern edge of the SBP parcel, it could probably easily be avoided and protected as a green space in the final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study and more intensive testing would be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site and determine whether or not it meets National Register criteria of eligibility (Appendix A). Unless the property owner decides to keep the evidence, it will be curated at the Minnesota Historical Society. 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC CONTEXT 2.1 Environmental Setting The SBP project is located within the Minnesota River valley at a point where the latter cuts through the rolling uplands of the Prior Lake Moraine -- distinctly different landscapes who still both owe their character to the advancing and receeding of the Des Moines Lobe during the Late Wisconsin glaciation (approximately 18,000 to 13,000 B.P.). The massive valley -- once carved by Glacial River Warren but now an oversized basin for the Minnesota River -- encompasses the Minnesota valley Outwash Area: frequently flooded bottomlands, marsh, several lakes and the winding river flanked by intermediate terraces. The latter feature fairly shallow deposits of silt loam or sandy loam over sand and gravel deposits or structural benches of bedrock (AES 1973; Wright 1972:564 and 572). The uplands that flank the valley beyond the steep bluffs are characterized by irregular loam mantled moraines and numerous ice disintegration features. Embedded within the glacial till deposits are cobbles of lithic raw materials that are suitable for the manufacturing of stone tools. Good quality materials, primarily -10- cherts from the Prairie du Chien formation, have also been exposed along the major tributary river valleys and ravines that dissect the bluff lands. At the time of the original land survey, i.e. prior to more extensive impact by Euroamerican settlement, most of the uplands supported "Big Woods" hardwood forests (dominated by oak, elm, basswood, ash and maple) and stands of aspen /oak as well as oak barrens (Marschner 1974). In the vicinity of the river, south - facing river bluffs and other exposed uplands were covered by open prairie. Down in the main valley, river bottom forest (primarily elm, ash, cottonwood, boxelder, basswood, maple, willow and hackberry) alternated with wet prairie, marsh and slough grasslands. Easy access to a range of habitats would have provided early inhabitants with a rich variety of plant and animal resources. At the time of Euroamerican settlement, the forest areas supported species such as white- tailed deer, cottontail rabbit, woodchuck, raccoon and bear. The prairie and prairie /woodland border would have sustained large mammals such as bison and elk, as well as numerous small species. The rivers, lakes, sloughs, and marshes contained muskrat and beaver, numerous types of waterfowl, and many species of fish and turtle ( Anfinson 1990). Reaching farther back in time, pollen cores and macrobotanic evidence attest to quite dramatic changes in the regional environment throughout the postglacial period: • A periglacial parkland of spruce and larch followed the retreat of the Wisconsin glaciers and the tundra vegetation associated with their margins. By 11,500 B.P., rapid climatic change had caused the spruce to be succeeded by pine forest (by approximately 10,000 B.P.) and then by a deciduous forest composed primarily of oak and elm. A warming and drying trend, which characterized the early to middle Holocene, peaked at 7000 to 6000 B.P., causing the prairie and its transitional prairie - woodland margin to expand some 75 miles north and east of their normal limits. Linked with these climatic warming trends were an increase in the frequency of prairie fires and a marked decline of the water table which causied many small lakes to dry up completely (Wright 1972b, 1974; Anfinson and Wright 1990). However, pollen cores from across the river, in Hennepin County, suggest that woodlands in this area actually prevailed throughout the Holocene (Grimm 1983). This is perhaps best explained by local infrequency of fire due to a rolling topography with numerous deep lakes which would have retained water even during the middle Holocene and therefore, along with many rivers, would have acted as natural firebreaks. -11- For subsequent periods, pollen data indicate a balanced mixture of woodland and prairie from 6330 to 3810 B.P., followed by oak - dominated woodlands from 3810 to 280 B.P. The onset of cooler and wetter climatic conditions encouraged the development of the Big Woods from 280 B.P to the beginning of Euroamerican settlement. 2.2 Archaeological Contexts Applicable to Study Area The following summary is based on research contexts developed by SHPO as well as on background data compiled for previous cultural resource investigations in Scott, Carver and southwestern Hennepin Counties as recently summarized in a study of the Flying Cloud Airport across the river from the study area (Harrison 1999a) . That information, in turn, was culled from a variety of sources including the Minnesota Historical Society reference library, local historical societies, and the survey and inventory files maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of the State Archaeologist. 2.2.1 Precontact Period The Paleoindian Tradition (ca. 12,000 to 7,000 B.P.) provides the earliest known evidence for human settlement in the Upper Midwest. Following the retreating glaciers into previously inaccessible areas, the Paleoindians were nomadic hunters that preyed on big game such as the now extinct giant bison and mastodon, but also took advantage of available small game and wild plant resources. Like historically known nomads, they are believed to have traveled in small, kinship based groups. Within this longlasting tradition, temporal and geographic variations have been defined largely on the basis of technological criteria, primarily the morphological changes in such diagnostic artifacts as large, well made lanceolate projectile points. Lanceolate points, primarily Late Paleoindian varieties such as Dalton and Agate Basin but also a few earlier fluted points (Clovis and Folsom) have reportedly been found in Hennepin and and Carver Counties. Like the majority of known Paleoindian sites in Minnesota, they were all either isolated surface finds or parts of disturbed lithic scatters. The Archaic Tradition (ca. 7,000 to 3,000 B.P.) represents a continuation of seasonally patterned, seminomadic hunting and gathering but now focussed on a wider range of resources made available by a milder climate and an increasingly rich and varied environment. The archaeological record indicates a marked tendency towards regional variation in tool technology and other aspects of material culture -- changes linked to greater utilization of local, often more marginal resources. Diagnostic artifacts include large stemmed and side - notched projectile points and a variety of ground stone tools. A distinctive aspect of the Eastern Archaic -12- (Lake- Forest) Tradition in the Upper Midwest is the intensive use of native copper. Archaic projectile points are known from various private collections in Hennepin and Carver Counties. Burials associated with such points have been reported in Carver County. Archaic evidence has also been found in excavated and surface collected site contexts along or close to the Minnesota River valley. Copper points have been found north of the valley. In addition to these diagnostic finds, many of the aceramic artifact scatters found throughout the western metro region can be presumed to be preceramic, i.e. Archaic (or possibly even Paleoindian). With the Woodland Tradition (ca 3,000 to 250 B.P.) began the construction of earthen mounds -- usually for burial purposes -- and the use of ceramic vessels. Economic patterns established during the Archaic Tradition are thought to have continued largely unchanged until new subsistence practices emerged with the introduction of horticulture (primarily along the major river valleys in the south) and the increasing reliance of wild rice exploitation in the north. The use of the bow and arrow was another significant technological breakthrough associated with the development of smaller types of corner- and side - notched projectile points. While an Early Woodland stage is evident in many parts of the Upper Midwest, the earliest Woodland sites in Minnesota compare more closely with what elsewhere is known as the Middle Woodland stage. Middle and Late Woodland sites are common throughout central Minnesota. Mounds -- found singly or in groups -- were constructed on heights of land overlooking many of the larger lakes and most of the major rivers, including the lower reaches of their tributaries. A majority of them were mapped in the late 1800s (Winchell 1911). Many are associated with large habitation sites. Smaller camps and special activity sites associated with resource procurement are also common and often found at a considerable distance from the major waterways and habitation centers. Again, however, they are usually found in association with some water feature. Numerous large mound groups have been recorded along the bluffs and intermediate terraces of the Minnesota River as well as the shores of most larger lakes in the metro region. Like a majority of Middle and Late Woodland sites in central Minnesota, those of the metro region feature ceramics that are particularly distinctive for -- and often named after -- major archaeological localities in the Mille Lacs area or along the St. Croix River drainage and nearby segments of the Mississippi River valley. In addition to the mound groups, a number of Woodland period habitation sites have also been identified along the Minnesota River and its tributaries as well as most of the area lakes. -13- The Mississippian Tradition (approximately 650 to 250 B.P.) introduced cultural influences from the central and southern Mississippi region to the Upper Midwest. Local expressions of this tradition are reflected in archaeological evidence from major burial and habitation sites along the Minnesota River and its confluence with the Mississippi. Numerous new traits -- intensification of the agricultural subsistence base, different kinds of ceramics, morphological changes in projectile points and other tool types, new methods of house and mound construction -- all reflect a fundamental shift in resource procurement, in trade and other forms of exchange patterns, as well as in the emergence of an increasingly complex and stratified social structure. In spite of the documented presence of Oneota sites further up the Minnesota River, no Mississippian sites have as yet been identified in the immediate vicinity of the study area. 2.2.2 Contact and Post Contact Periods (1650 - 1837; 1837- 1940s) Following nearly two centuries of fairly frequent contact between Dakota Indian groups and European or Euroamerican traders, explorers and missionaries, interaction intensified, particularly along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, after the establishment of the military post at Fort Snelling during the early 1820s. During the early decades of Native American/Euroamerican contact, Eastern Dakota camps were still common throughout the area, most of them associated with waterways and well established overland trails that still crisscrossed the area (Trygg 1969). Several larger Dakota settlements were located along the Minnesota River, among them the Mdewakanton villages of Shakopee, in the immediate vicinity of the project area, and Eagle Creek somewhat to the east. As a major waterway, the Minnesota River valley with adjacent uplands also attracted some of the earliest Euroamerican settlements in the state and systematic filing of claims began immediately after the Mendota and Traverse des Sioux Treaties of 1851, stimulated, at first, by the availability of good farmland and the economic value of local timber and then by the rapid growth of the metro region with its diverse work opportunities. In 1847, a mission was established at Shakopee by Samuel Pond. Four years later, Thomas Holmes built a trading post nearby and also platted the townsite of Shakopee in Section 6. A short distance to the east, Richard Murphy settled in Section 5 where, within a few years, he had established an inn, a ferry service and a wharf for steamboats (Roberts 1993). While steam boat traffic continued to be commercially important, aided by channel improvements made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the construction of several railroads was a major -14- I impetus to farming in the township of Eagle Creek and surrounding areas. With easier access to new markets, the growing of cash crops began to replace subsistence -level farming -- at first with a focus on wheat, then on a more diverse range of crops as well as dairy farming and the raising of livestock. The Minnesota Valley Railroad was built along the south side of the river, reaching Shakopee in 1865. Later bought out, it continued as the CSMO Railroad along the line that now abuts the northern boundary of the SBP project area. Early applications of historic archaeology in this region tended to focus on United States military history and the study of forts and agencies. In recent years, archaeological studies have contributed significantly to the interpretation and documentation of contact period American Indian habitations, early Euroamerican homesteads and sites of commerce, and, in the metro area, on major sites of 18th century industrial development. Among historic research contexts developed for the general study area, the following are likely to be further clarified by a combination of archaeological and archival research: Eastern Dakota 1650 -1837; French, British and initial United States Presence before 1837; Early Agriculture and River Settlement 1840 -1870; and Railroads and Agricultural Development 1870 -1940. 3.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 3.1 Results of Records and Literature Search: Cultural Resources Near Project Area Field work was preceded by a records and literature search that included a review of the SHPO files for the general project area as well as earlier survey reports for relevant portions of Scott and Hennepin Counties and various literary references to the early history of the Shakopee area. Christina Harrison, as principal investigator, also personally reviewed the OSA files for the two Native American cemetery sites that are located due northwest /north /northeast of the SBP project. Near the City of Shakopee, burial mounds, mostly in larger groups, have been recorded on the bluffs north of the Minnesota River (21 HE 20, 21, 24 and 104) as well as on the intermediate terrace to its immediate south (21 SC 22 and 24). The latter two were mentioned briefly in Section 1.0 and will be discussed again below as both are in close proximity to the SBP project area. While a number of smaller non - burial sites have been identified on lakes and along smaller streams away from the main river, both in Hennepin and Scott Counties (Lyon et al. 2000; Harrison 1994 and 1999), little is known about such precontact period use of the terraces immediately along the main river. -15- There are several historic descriptions of the Mdewakanton village of Shakopee (the Six) but none are detailed enough to identify precisely where it was located. Keatings narrative of the 1823 Stephen Long expedition up the St. Peter (Minnesota) River, as well as Long's own journal, place the village on the northern side of the river (Kane et al. 1978:157; Keating 1824 [1959]:342). The village was later moved to a location within present -day Shakopee (Babcock 1945; Pond 1908 [1986]: 12). If any traces have survived the last 150 years of urban and industrial development, they may cover a fairly large area. Although Long's 1823 description of Shakopee's village refers to the earlier location north of the river, it may well be a fairly accurate description also of the later version: " -- and arrived at the village of the Six, situated on the north side. It was now vacated, its inhabitants having recently gone on a hunting expedition. During this delay, we had an opportunity of visiting the Indn. corn fields, which were extensive, as also several scaffolds erected for the use of the dead.... The village consisted of 14 large wigwams constructed of bark and poles, each large enough to accomodate from 30 to 50 inhabitants (Kane et al. 1978:157). Due north of the SBP project area is Murphy's Landing, a portion of which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Shakopee Historic District. Murphy's Landing also encompasses a portion of 21 SC 24, the Steele Mound Group. According to the OSA files for the two mound groups, results of past studies indicate that: • 21 SC 22 (the Pond Mound Group), is located entirely north of T.H.101, in what is now referred to as Memorial Park, the eastern end of which lies directly north of the project area but is separated from it by the highway and the CSMO railroad grade. • 21 SC 24 (the Steele Mound Group) is partially preserved north of TH 101 but also, to a large extent, has been damaged or destroyed by the highway and, in the case of one mound, the construction of the CSMO railroad embankment. The 21 SC 24 group, originally, as recorded by T.H. Lewis, an elongated cluster of 111 mounds, was remapped in 1984 by Les Peterson, State Highway Archaeologist. Rescaled by Peterson from T.H. Lewis field notes (Lewis 1885), the map was used to identify surviving mounds as well as the locations of partially or completely destroyed ones -- locations then tied in to existing structures north of T.H.101 and to Milepost 26 along the CSMO railroad. Peterson's reconstruction was later verified by Grant Goltz, soils consultant, in connection with a 1993 cultural resource survey for a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources -16- trail development at Murphy's Landing and Memorial Park (Goltz 1993). These reconstructions indicate that all but one of the Steele Mounds are /were located either within or north of the T.H. 101 corridor. Only Mound 35 was far enough to the south to fall within the CSMO corridor where it appears to have partially obliterated by the railroad embankment. According to Peterson's map, Mound 35 is located approximately 700 feet /210 meters east of the railroads 26 -mile post which also places it roughly 250 feet /75 meters east of the northeastern corner of the project area. While it seemed well documented that all the mounds are /were located well to the northwest /north /northeast of the SBP project, the record search did not indicate that any previous efforts had been made to identify other archaeological evidence south of the burial grounds and the highway and railroad corridors. 3.2 Field Investigation: Methodology and Results The field investigation was completed during the months of June and early July. The northern third of the study area was considered to have the highest archaeological potential due to its proximity to the Minnesota River and the two mound groups. Within approximately a hundred meters of the railroad corridor, visual inspection was conducted along transects spaced at five -meter intervals which allowed for very complete coverage of numerous subsoil exposures that had been caused by bioturbation and by deep ruts made by four -wheel drive vehicles and all- terrain motorcycles. Although existing subsoil exposure seemed very adequate and more than equal to what would be provided by standard shovel testing, ARS staff still placed a series of such tests parallel to and 5 to 15 meters south of the southern edge of the railroad corridor, in part to gain a better understanding of soil conditions, depth to bedrock and the degree of disturbance caused by bioturbation and other factors. Tests measured 35 -40 cm in diameter and were taken down, by 10 cm increments, into sterile mineral soil (glacial alluvium) or, most commonly, bedrock. Soil profiles were noted prior to backfilling. Selected test records can be found in Appendix B. One precontact period Native American archaeological site was identified just within the northern edge of the project area, approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive: a hammerstone, a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking debris and a fire - damaged granite cobble. The evidence appears to represent the southern edge of a lithic reduction (stone tool production) area and possibly also of a larger habitation site that continued -17- towards the river but now has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. The site has been recorded as Shenandoah Park. The find area is very limited in size. Shovel Test (ST) 17 in the original series and three out four supplementary tests placed to either side produced the following evidence (cmbs= centimeters below surface): ST 17 (120 m due east of the center of Shenandoah Drive and 15 m south of northern property line) 10 -20 cmbs 6 primary flakes grey, variegated, slightly oolitic Prairie du Chien (PDC) chert -- three primary and three secondary decortication flakes, all but two with distinct striking platforms and bulbs of percussion secondary flake same material; smaller, again with distinct bulb & platform ST 17 W:1 (2.5 m west of ST 17) 5 -15 cmbs graver secondary decortication flake of dark grey oolitic PDC chert -- burinated along lateral edges to form sharp, 8 mm wide chisel -like point that appears slightly damaged from use; 45/30/14 mm in maximum length/ width /thickness core & primary flke split cobble of greyish white orthoquartzite -like PDC chert; fracture features a secondary flake scar; small primary decortication flake of same material ST 17 W:2 (5 m west of ST 17) 5 -15 cmbs primary flake unidentified dull- textured, grey chert hammerstone granitic river cobble with good "grip" and deep percussion scars on base; ca. 80x40 mm at base and 50 mm tall IN= ST 17 E:1 decortic. shatter greyish brown orthoquartzite fire - cracked rock granite cobble remnant with partially friable exterior Along the original test transect, results had been negative west and east of ST 17 W:2 - ST 17 E:1. Shovel tests placed five and ten meters south of this series also proved negative. North of it, a dense- stand of large junipers prevented meaningful testing due to dense roots but a few bioturbated areas west and north of the stand yielded a scatter of cracked, very flawed dolomite fragments, probably discarded during the initial search for useable PDC chert. This would suggest that the lithic reduction area continues towards the north and into the CSMO railroad corridor. Soil profiles in the find area are very typical of the northern portion of the project area, with quite shallow deposits of Copaston series loam over bedrock. The soils are mixed with varying amounts of rounded cobble to pebble size glacial outwash debris and gravel as well as, in the lower levels, numerous fragments of decomposing dolomite (Appendix B). Once results had proven largely negative in the northern portion of the project area and the vicinity of the archaeological and historic sites along the Minnesota River, the central and southern portions were deemed to have even lower cultural potential. The area was still walked at 15 meter intervals but survey coverage was limited to visual inspection. Subsoil disturbances were still more than adequate to indicate whether buried archaeological evidence might be present -- bioturbation, vehicle tracks and, in the southwest, new hay in the southeast. Again, results were negative. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This cultural resource survey did not identify any archaeological evidence that would appear associated either with the two mound groups, the Mdewakanton village of Shakopee, the post -1850s community by the same name or activities at the historic Murphy's Landing. Rather, the Shenandoah Park evidence is very similar to the lithics found on a number of other archaeological sites that are situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local sources of Prairie du Chien chert from the Shakopee and Oneota Dolomite Formations (Bakken 1992; Ojakangas and Matsch 1982:63 ff.) Some appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction sites, while others are associated with evidence of seasonal -19- habitation and other activities (Harrison 1997, 1999b, 1999c and 2000; Roetzel and Strachan 1992;). None have as yet produced any ceramic evidence -- a fact which suggests that they are early and predate the mound groups that also are found along these rivers. Until archaeological sites of this type have been better documented through formal excavation and intersite comparison, even a fairly small cultural deposit or a sizeable remnant of a larger, partially destroyed site is still likely to yield significant information, especially from a context like the Shenandoah Park site that has not been disturbed by cultivation. As the SBP portion of this locality appears confined to a small area along the northern edge of the project area, it could probably easily be avoided and protected as a green space in the final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study and more intensive testing would be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site and determine whether or not it meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. -20- 5.0 REFE Agricultural Experiment Station (AES), University of Minnesota 1973 Minnesota Soil Atlas: St. Paul Sheet. AES Miscellaneous Reports 120. St. Paul, Minnesota. Anfinson, S. F. 1990 Archaeological Regions in Minnesota and the Woodland Period. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers presented to Elden Johnson, edited by G. Gibbon, pp. 135 -166. University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology Number 4, Minneapolis. Anfinson, S. F. and H. E. Wright, Jr. 1990 Climatic Changes and in Prehistoric Minnesota. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes: Papers presented to Elden Johnson, edited by G. Gibbon, pp. 213 -232. University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology Number 4, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Bakken, K. 1992 Lithic Raw Material Resources in Minnesota. Paper presented at a workshop on lithic raw materials, held at the Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Grimm, E. 1983 Chronology and Dynamics of Vegetation Change in the Prairie - Woodland Region of Southern Minnesota, U.S.A. New Phytologist 93:311 -350. Harrison, C. 1997 Report on Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey Within Proposed UN-TM-TN Corporation Mining Site (Hayes Mine), Le Sueur County, Minnesota. Minnesota. Archaeological Research Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1999a Expansion of Flying Cloud Airport: Review of Cultural Resources. Archaeological Research Services and Hess Roise and Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1999b Report on Cultural Resource Reconnaissance /Intensive Survey Conducted for Proposed County Road 45 Bridge Replacement /Roadway Realignment, Goodhue County, Minnesota. Archaeological Research Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1999c Report on Data Recovery at 21 LE 59 -- The Hayes Site, Le Sueur County, Minnesota. Archaeological Research Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota. -21- Harrison, C. (cont'd) 2000 Report on Phase II Archaeological Investigations Conducted at the "Jewel Golf Course Terrace" and "Jewel South" Sites, Lake City, Wabasha County, Minnesota. Archaeological Research Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Lyon, M., N. Donaldson and A. Schmidt 2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota Community, Scott County, Minnesota. The 106 Group Ltd., St. Paul, Minnesota. Kane, L.M., J.D. Holmquist and C. Gilman (editors) 1978 The Northern Expeditions of Stephen H. Long: The Journals of 1817 and 1823 and Related Documents. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul. Keating, W.H. 1824 Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of the St. Peter's River. Reprinted in 1959 by Ross and Haines, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Marschner, F. 1974 The Original Vegetation of Minnesota: Compiled from U.S. General Land Office Survey Notes. North Central Forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, Minnesota. (Map reprinted from original published in 1930.) Ojakangas R.W. and C.L. Matsch 1982 Minnesota's Geology. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press, Pond, S. 1908 The Dakota or Sioux As reissued in 1986 Anderson. Minnesota St. Paul. in Minnesota As They Were in 1834. with an introduction by Gary C. Historical Society Press, Roberts, N. 1993 A Lower Minnesota River Valley Cultural Resource Study and Interpretive Plan for the Minnesota Valley Trail. Historical Research, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota. Roetzel, K.A. and R.A. Strachan 1992 A Phase III Mitigation of an Archaeological Site Within the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility at Le Sueur, Le Sueur County, Minnesota. Impact services, Inc., Mankato, Minnesota. Trygg, J.W. 1969 Composite Map of United States Land Surveyor's Original Plats and Field Notes. Minnesota Series, Sheet 7. J.W. Trygg, Ely, Minnesota. -22- Winchell, N.H. 1911 The Aborigines of Minnesota. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Wright, H.E. Jr. 1972a Physiography of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume, edited by P.K. Sims and G.B. Morey, pp. 559 -580. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1972b Quaternary History of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume, edited by P.K. Sims and G.B. Morey, pp. 515 -547. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1974 The Environment of Early Man in the Great Lakes Region. In Aspects of Upper Great Lakes Anthropology: Papers in Honor of Lloyd A. Wilford, edited by E. Johnson, pp. 8 -14. Minnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series Number 11. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. f Vlll SHPO Correspondence 1 2� III yyEISf1Ta 11ISTOIfI(. AL SOCIET) STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE April 30, 2001 Mr. David Braslau David Braslau Associates, Inc. 1313 5"' Street SE, Suite 322 Minneapolis, MN 55414 RE: AUAR — Shenandoah Business Park T115 R22 S5, Shakopee, Scott County SHPO Number: 2001 -2004 Dear Mr. Braslau: Thank you for consulting with our office during the planning phase for the above referenced project. This property is located across the highway from Murphy's Landing, a portion of which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Shakopee Historic District. The area north of the highway also includes archaeological properties and burial areas. Therefore, we recommend the following: 1.We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties may be present in the Shenandoah project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of the area be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. 2. The design of the project should take into account effects on the historic district, both from a visual /aesthetic standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc.) standpoint. 3. Because of the location of burials in the vicinity, the requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act should be addressed. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency. If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 296 -5462. Sincerely, Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs and Compliance Officer Enclosure: List of Consultants cc: Mark Dudzik, OSA Jim Jones, MIAC Dennis Kelly, Murphy's Landing A I 1� MIN NESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY August 8, 1997 Ms. Kathryn Fernholz Associate Environmental Scientist Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 14180 West Highway 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: SuperValu Distribution Center Development Shakopee, Scott County SHPO Number: 97 -3393 Dear Ms. Fernholz: Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above referenced project. Based on available information, `m conclude that the project is unlikely to affect any historic properties Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal Iicense or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agencv. Please contact our office at 612- 296 -5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs and Compliance Officer APPENDIX B Test Records I to Liao CK lssr uN rr: SOIL PROFILE CUMMAL MATERZAL G 30 `VLG ® W --., 40 Coc�v. ( S 90 to® CM. `!a0 OK. TEST UAi rr; k O — c ` V Cj SOIL MWFiLd CUL - rUXAL MATE;UAL C Project State site LOCdtl011 County Scat- 1 . ® Crew ; Date 5 - 3 O -o T>:ST NNIT: pr.p Coi.�c� TEST VrO PP • • CuLTvpAL MATdRt�L L�J l0 ti l= _� © a + -7 g ' SO CL F90FILE JOH. PROFILt I;IJLrugAL MAmmA6 Sk V gcwds �,1.} loc D � t•iJ° � ro Go�obl c , (V c G i s o bra w•. c„a � �OOwldw• � v: V_ So 64 loCIA ,roLA to Liao CK lssr uN rr: SOIL PROFILE CUMMAL MATERZAL G 30 `VLG ® W --., 40 Coc�v. ( S 90 to® CM. `!a0 OK. TEST UAi rr; k O — c ` V Cj SOIL MWFiLd CUL - rUXAL MATE;UAL W FAIR- Project Sv« �LA �- �.,.�. Pv_ . State site Location- County S' c e{ -,, Crew k4 a v - y Date S -'I 0 - o - mir uwlT: G ��� h...� c t w TEST uNR': �� �_ odd, S41` PAOfJLE CULTURAL ATFRBAL S 1. pAbs;ml C wLrvgAL 1+4AmpuA6 W br oom 30 L o c. �o cd r e —A-r - 3 -msr um rrs G 30 11- PROMLE - rx GiJMICAL 1447ERIAL ?EST UN 1T: C �+ g o • SOM M *F1LC CULTURAL MATEXIAL I go 90 Project e < <. 13K ��� Mate site 100 "4. Imsr um rr: G - Location 1 0 `-� b c v -rest �a - ':7- `Y N - ,� -r-r• e` -� County I: ?=.00A --1 5 — S - Crew i 3 Date 6 —S— o - 6 5 TLST UNIT : 3 "} �• • 6 r cfi.- 4L� ..o..�.... Ir4slr VNIT: OYiR Sb�a t' ct N.- rsvb �aQ,,.a t O �-- t� C-N N. _{r S r yt Sot.IROfILE CULTUFAL MATERIAL SOIL PROFILL OuLTURAL MA=PJA 1 V 30 r ,a vbel•. Y • C�.L �. N t Ww . 'vim lr so • I.J �� b Y &AV / z TO 70 I io vv 30 G ` r n ✓Vt� 80 80 c y 0 o k- GO � S c C4 . f'^•^r • SC, r C, G - ) - -N`G 60 I go 90 I 1400 eat 100 "4. Imsr um rr: G 1 0 — N 1 0 `-� b c v -rest �a - ':7- `Y N - ,� -r-r• e` -� 5 — S - C -• r _ C.,,.. uN Ir: i 3 3011. PROFILE =TURAL MATERML 50 (L MaFlLE GOL ruxAL MATERIAL 1 30 r 3a vbel•. Y • C�.L �. N t Ww so ( TO 70 80 80 1 90 90 104 CM. 100 CAf. w --� a < L, p.-- LC C Project 'S� State site I Location C ours ;7 F Crew Date TEST UNIT: 14 TE I r umrr: 16 4! t= V 1 ° f d • - 7 S N . N'-`Y S -V N $o/L tRCIrILL° CUI.Tum" WTERIAL SOIL PROFILL C,6179RAL MATZMAL. I (o NEC, Gbh \ L> Zo arc L c..,. *o (�( N . G} �� - msSr UNlT SOIL PRORLE CvCTVitAL MAISRIAL - G v V-- ,.c— C co C X ro 1zc d v o �4, ZO 30 40 80 90 c - dad Ud. 30 1- s ; .. �'l a. •Iv so 70 go 90 100 CA-f. CS-1 I .so .co 70 do 70 Liao cat L xo cct. 2. T S i l� •� 90" 2. TtST vIY 1T l� B =1 TEST uN IT: 1 c. 2- �. q o o t SOIL PRORLE Ct MATERIAL SOIL MOFILE CUL - rUXAL MATERJAL w /cKl C , 1 t=crL � cebblt, 30 30 I'� S s T e '1 — �T� , 40 S C- . S C& L,3 IBS srs� s - -- �} . S ,- I- sc so P,� u JZc i 90 1 cx� v o -A— Project o �. (3� ,. �✓_ State site -a-- -- Location County ( ac C: ++-4- Crew H o- r> > a, Date -7 ­3 - C:) m1 270 ° TEST UNCf — u : 2 Z z L-" 06 IC U = I TEfT YNBT 1} u: 1 4 2 7 0• Sall. PROFIL WITO PAL MATERIAL soli. PR ®Fitt Cj;LrvRAL MAmmA6 �_ . �• .r . v Y ys CA Vhl�� 1>.;�,�4> 44 kc -3 c� ...0 C ow W I t > C6. _ Pa c zo l2rA r . vtiL . 70 go 90 100 Clef. ST 20 - 32 Beteen ST 19, at 144 meters east of the center of Shenandoah Drive, and ST 20, at 254 meters east of the same, an open area that had been extensively disturbed through bioturbation was visually inspected at 2 -3 meter intervals but did not require any shovel testing. For the same reasons, visual inspection was considered sufficient between , .the 277 to 295 meter and the 370 to 400 meter marks. The last hundred meter segment before the northeastern corner did also offer ample subsoil disturbance. Otherwise, shovel tests continued be placed approximately 10 -15 meters south of the northern property line and at 10 meter intervals. All were negative. Soil profiles continued to be variable, in most cases with bedrock emerging between 20 and 40 cmbs. To minimize repetion, the records for these tests were not included in this appendix but they are all kept on file by ARS and are available for review. - A - Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review ' J 1 • Comment Letters Received on the Draft AUAR United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. M MI- LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT ,I JUL 0 9 2001 Scott �'ounry Government Center 200 4 "Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Tel: (952) 496 -8842, r8x: (952) 496 -8844 July 5, 2001 Michael Leek City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Leek: Terry L. Schwalbe. Fies;Genr Office. (612) 404 -5312. Fax. (612) 404 -5316 Wallace E. Neal, Vic- pres*nt Office (952) 884 -1632, F= (952) 884 -7726 Gienea Splotta, SsaErary Office. (952) 471 -0590, ex1. 285, Fax- (952) 471 -OS82 EB,rard A. Scnfampp, Trmsuisr OffIx (512) 920 -4398. Fax (512) 920-0086 Ron KrOorner, Asst Treesuter Cell. (651) 335 -6:05. Fax (95Z) 894 -3235 Kevin 0. 111galke, AdmM ;lnla Office (952) 496 -8842. Fax: (952) 496 -8644 The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Board of Managers ( LMRWD) thanks You for giving the LMRWD an opportunity to review the AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West development projects located in Shakopee. The LMRWD would like to commend the City of Shakopee for conducting a thorough AUAR for these two development projects. We offer the following comments for you consideration: 1. Both the Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West propose a significant number of parking spaces. Arc the number of spaces being proposed actually needed? If parking spaces can be reduced, this will result in a reduced amount of impervious surface, thereby reducing the volune of runoff from the development sites. 2. On Page 11, the adjoining land use compatibility is analyzed for the Shenandoah Business Park. The analysis failed to mention the residential area South of 4 °i Avenue between the cemetery and the Canterbury Park Racetrack. Will the proposed Business Park be compatible with the existing residential land use in the area? 3. Both projects result in a significant increase in the amount of impervious cover. The LMRWD recommends and encourages low impact development concepts such as swales, no curb and gutter, rain gardens, etc. be incorporated into the development design. These practices will reduce the amount of impervious cover, also reducing the amount of stonn water runoff. 4. The LMRWD recommends that infiltration be incorporated into the site designs to the extent possible. Again, this will result in a reduced volume of storm water runoff from the project sites. JUL 12 2021 16:14 952 445 6 ?18 PRGE.06 On behalf of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Board of Managcrs, I would like to thank you for giving the LMRWD an opportunity to review and comment on the AUAR. If you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 496 -8842. Very truly yours, � �Z Kevin D. Bigalke District Administrator JUL 12 2021 1G :14 952 445 G ?18 PAGE.0? Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lifayeue Rood Sr. Paul. MInncvota 55155.40_ July 10, 2001 Mr. Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55375 RE: Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (Draft AUAR) Dear Mr. Leek: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Draft AUAR for the proposed Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West developments in the City of Shakopee in Scott County. We offer the following comments for your consideration- The proposals covered by this Draft AUAR are two office and warehouse projects of which each involve 1.1 million square feet of floor space, and each site will contain access roadways, automobile parking and loading docks for trucks. This Draft AUAR is complete and accurate in most respects. Item 11 of the Draft AUAR addresses fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources. There are 19 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the project vicinity. The DNR does not have further comments or concerns regarding the information already presented in the Draft AUAR. Both project sites have been altered over the years. The Draft AUAR correctly notes in Item 12 that there are no DNR protected waters or wetlands, and the property is not within a shoreland or floodplain area. The DNR has some concerns that the document does not as effectively as is desirable, discuss surrounding cumulative impacts of many other activities. For example, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board's Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules states that the AUAR "is an excellent tool for review of cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a given area" For example, the Draft AUAR suggests, in reference to Minnesota Valley West, that while some local decline in wildlife was expected to result from grading and construction, there was not "a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity." Our concern is that too large a scale (such as on a regional level) may be being used to evaluate the DNR Information: 651 -296 -6157 - 1 -888 -646 -6367 • TTY: 651 - 296 -5484 ® 1- 800 -657 -3929 - An Equal Oppommty EnVWM POW on Recyclad Pape( Confalning a Who YAlues Diversity Mlrtimum of 10 6 Post Couvmer 1Nastn _ Z0 *8 U:9I IOOZ OT In[ JUL 12 2001 16 :15 952 445 671e PAGE.09 Mr. M. Leek July 10, 2001 Page 2 significance of impacts. The wildlife abundance in the City of Shakopee (or of the surrounding area) will be greatly and significantly diminished by these two projects in conjunction with other activities affecting the same wildlife resources, such as street and highway construction, residential developments, and ca==cial or industrial developments. At some point along a continuum of development proposals, a significant environmental effect occurs. A full discussion of cumulative impacts of projects, including those in the surrounding area, is important to assure the discussion of significant environmental effects in the Draft AUAR is eomplctc and not limited to those spxics and habitats that are already scriously and significantly affected.- Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the Draft AUAR. The DNR looks forward to receiving and reviewing your Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan at a future date. If you have questions regarding this letter or these comments, please contact Charlotte Cohn of my staff at (651) 296 -4790. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcorn, Supervi o Environmental Review Sxtion Office of Management and Budget Services c: Kathleen Wallace Steve Colvin Wayne Barstad Joe Oschwald Pat Lynch Sarah HofEnan Jon Larsen, EQB George I. Burkards, United Land LLC Craig H. Patterson, Opus Northwest LLC #20010701 -0002 SHENANDOAH BUSINESS PARK AND MINMSOTAvALI-ZY WBSTAUARD.DOC _ £0•d zT_9; TOOZ OT In[ JUL 12 2001 16 =15 952 445 671e PAGE-10 I JUL 1 1 20 01 Gene and Nancy Goemer ! 25254 th Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 (952) 445 -7078 July 9, 2001 Michael Leek City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr_ Leek: As property owners adjoining the proposed development of Shenandoah Business Park, we have concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of information and potential impacts of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review, as presented by United Land.LLC and Opus Northwest LLC, that we feel warrant further investigation. The accuracy and completeness of information contained within this AUAR concerns us because our residence is never mentioned in response to any question. For instance, Question 9 LAND USE asks for descriptions of current land use on adjacent lands. We feel that our residence should also be on a list of adjoining properties that includes Knights of Columbus Hall, a cemetery, Shakopee Ballroom, Canterbury Park Racetrack, Sherer Brothers Lumber, Certain?eed Corporation, and Murphy's Landing Historic Site. Our residence should also be included in the response to Question 24 ODORS, NOISE AND DUST. There is mention of a residence situated 100 feet from 4h Avenue between CH83 and Shenandoah and we assume this is the house located on the east side of CertainTeed. Our house is approximately 50 feet from 4 Avenue and is located within the drawn boundaries of Shenandoah Business Park on FIGURE 9.1. Our proximity to this project is best illustrated in FIGURE 5.3 and identifiable by the indentation on 4` Avenue. We also have concerns for the potential impact this project will have on our lives and property. Specifically, we would appreciate further investigation on the issues of traffic, land use, odors, noise and dust. We have briefly explained our perspective on these issues below. The review states that 4` Avenue will be at 165% capacity at completion of Shenandoah Business Park. Because our residence is located near the All -Way STOP intersection at Shenandoah, the increased amount of traffic may affect entering and exiting our property. Although the review projects that the intersection should remain at acceptable levels (i.e. uncongested), the current operating level of LOS A could fall to LOS D and still be JUL 12 2021 1G:14 952 445 6718 PAGE.04 accurately stated. The offered solution to the overcapacity of 4` Avenue is to expand to a three -lane urban section. If widening the road involves our property it would result in a loss of our land and bring our residence closes to the traffic noise. Our proximity to the Shenandoah Business Park directly impacts our residence and our quality of life. The Proposed Site PIan (FIGURE 5.3) illustrates a number of our concerns regarding our adjoining land. Located on two sides of our property are driveways and parking, and to the front is 4 t ' Avenue, which means vehicle noise and lights will nearly surround our property. The driveway to the truck bay in LOT 8 routes the noise and headlights of diesel engine trucks past our backyard. We anticipate that trucks will be running longer in cold months and the warning beeps of trucks backing into the loading docks will be ongoing. The use of burins and landscaping may alleviate the noise and lights, but it raises concerns as to the grading of the site. Because our residence already sits well below 4` Avenue, the elevation of the adjoining land may create drainage problems on our property and possibly result in water entering our basement. Finally, the construction of Shenandoah Business Park will be phased in over a 10 year period. The air borne dirt and dust generated from grading and construction will limit days that we can open the windows in our home. The review states that the approximate soil depth to bedrock is only an average of 3 feet, with some areas as shallow as I foot, and will require dynamite blasting. We are concerned as to how much and how long the blasting will continue as this poses potential problems of both noise and property damage. The greatest concern we have is that within all of the AUAR our property is never specified and, hence, never given any consideration as to the potential impact that these developments will have on our residence. Both your time and attention given to our comments is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Gene G. Goe er Nancy L. Goemer JUL 12 2021 16:14 952 445 6718 PAGE-05 YIrnNLSOTk Hls"rohic SOCIETI July 11, 2001 City of Shakopee Attn: Michael Leek 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: AUAR — Shenandoah Business Park T115 R22 S5, Shakopee, Scatt_County. SHPO Number: 2001 -2004 Dear Mr. Leek: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced AUAR. We have a number of concerns regarding this project. We have outlined those . concerns in a 30 April 2001 letter to Mr, David Braslau of Braslau Associates; a copy of the letter is enclosed. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by the federal agency. Contact us at 651- 296 -5462 with questions or concerns. Sincerely, tx�d tL mt , � ennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs & Compliance Officer cc: Mark Dudzik, OSA Jim Jones, MIAC Murphy's Landing Jim Warren, Shakopee Scott County Historical Society al � ��I:I Li�l,(: �li�( I.I. \fiU \F I;�f'�l \fN - r �'11�1.. 111\ \1 `tif\ �+In__I'lui• / "j�l-'I ha'lllli \I�: t -!v4 t.l_t. JUL 12 2021 16:15 952 445 6716 PAGE.11 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE April 30, 2001 Mr. David Braslau David Braslau Associates, Inc. 13135 th Street SE, Suite 322 Minneapolis, MN 55414 RE: ALIAR— Shenandoah Business Park T115 R22 S5, Shakopee, Scott County SHPO Number: 2001 -2004 Dear Mr. Braslau: Thank you for consulting with our office during the planning phase for the above referenced project. This property is located across the highway from Murphy's Landing, a portion of which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Shakopee Historic District. The area north of the highway also includes archaeological properties and burial areas. Therefore, we recommend the following: 1.We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties may be present in the Shenandoah project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of the area be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. 2. The design of the project should take into account effects on the historic district, both from a visual /aesthetic standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc.) standpoint. 3. Because of the location of burials in the vicinity. the requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act should be addressed. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency. If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 296 -5462. Sincerely, Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs and Compliance Officer Enclosure: List of Consultants Mark Dudzik, OSA Jim Jones, MIAC Dennis Kelly, Murphy's Landing TOTAL P.12 JUL 12 2001 16 =16 952 445 6718 PAGE.12 SCOTT COUNTY July 12, 2001 City of Shakopee Attn: Michael Leek 129 Holmes Street Shakopee MN 55379 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CENTER A102 200 FOURTH AVENUE WEST SHAKOPEE, MINI 55379 -1220 (952) 496 -8177 Fax: (952) 496 -8489 Re: GUAR for Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West WSB Project No. 1281 -05 Dear Mr. Leek: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GUAR. We would like to provide the following comments for consideration in determining the adequacy of this AUAR and for consideration of appropriate conditions should this proposal move forward. We are listing the applicable AUAR item number with our respective comment: Item #6b & #13: The comments made concerning whether or not dewatering will be required states that it currently "appears" that it will not be necessary to dewater at this time, which implies it may be deemed necessary once construction begins_ It is also mentioned that it "may" be necessary to blast to remove shallow bedrock from the site. It is recommended that the potential need for dewatering and blasting to remove bedrock both be definitively known and specifically addressed as a necessary part of this AUAR. Item #10: No stormwater ponds are proposed for the Shenandoah Business Park? Item #16 implies there is to be stormwater retention within the 112 acres of the Shenandoah Business Park and Item #17 states there is a total of 10 acres of stormwater ponds proposed, whereas only 7.1 acres are indicated within the before and after tables. These apparent inconsistencies should be clarified. An Equal Opportunity /Safety Aware Employer JUL 12 2021 16:13 952 445 6719 PRGE.02 Item #16: • Will excavated soil be reused on site or hauled to another location? If so, where? ® It is stated there will be construction of a temporary sediment basin in the location proposed for storm water, yet no reference is made as to where or how large this /these (pre and post) pond /s will be. A detailed map would be very helpful. Item #17a&b: The exact number, locations, and sizes of all pre and post stormwater retention ponds should be included. The exact drainage route's of runoff within and exiting the site (until reaching a DNR regulated water body) should also be referenced within a detailed map. Item #19: It is noted that the entire project is located within an area identified as highly susceptible to ground water contamination. —Signification risks to contaminating underlying ground water exists, especially when considering over 360,000 yd of soil is to be excavated and the underlying bedrock may likely be blasted. Practices to reduce potential contamination should be identified. Item #20: The AUAR states, "The City of Shakopee has no recycling program or applicable ordinance in place for businesses." Scott County has recycling programs that apply to Shakopee. This should be noted. Item #28: The AUAR states, "Due to the shallow bedrock formation throughout the site, the watermain and sanitary sewer will share a common trench where feasible." Due to the entire project location being within an area highly susceptible to ground water contamination and the likely intent to blast into the shallow bedrock, the specifics of issues such as "Due to grade restraints, lots west of Shenandoah may require individual grinder pumps and a centralized publicly owned lift station or a significant amount of fill to elevate the building pads," should be addressed with a great deal more detail and explanation as part of this AUAR. Item #29: Items #12, 17 & 28 require further detail as referred to above. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed AUAR review comments please give me a call at (952) 496 -8366. Sincerely, Michael Sobota Community Development Director cc: Art Bannerman, Commissioner Dave Unmacht, County Administrator Bradley Larson, Public Works Director AI Frechette, Environmental Health Manager Brian Sorenson, Public Works An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer JUL 12 2021 1G:13 952 445 6718 PAGE.03 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Responses to Comments United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. I� • i 1 1 1111i 111 Do MA 01 1 1 1 ' • • '7 Responses to comments received on the Draft AUAR are presented below. The order in which the comments are addressed is based upon the date of the letter submitted to the City of Shakopee. 1. Both the Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West propose a significant number of parking spaces. Are the number of [parking] spaces being proposed actually needed? If parking spaces can be reduced, this will result in a reduced amount of impervious surface, thereby reducing the volume of runoff from the development sites. The larger number of spaces will only be needed if the maximum amount of office is constructed. The number of parking spaces shown is based upon City of Shakopee zoning requirements. The City of Shakopee requires one space per 250 SF of leasable space for office and one space per 2000 SF of warehouse space. Thus, the following parking will be required by zoning requirements for the range of land uses expected on the two project sites: The City of Shakopee zoning ordinance provides for joint, shared, or cooperative parking plans, which are reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Also, while the zoning ordinance does not, per se, have provisions for "proof of parking" that could reduce parking below code based upon sufficient evidence by the developer, the principle was recently applied in the case of an R -3 plat. Therefore, some approaches are available for reducing parking below the values shown in the table above. 2. On Page 11 [of the AUAR], the adjoining land use compatibility is analyzed for the Shenandoah Business Park. The analysis failed to mention the residential area south of 4 Avenue between the cemetery and the Canterbury Park Racetrack. Will the proposed Business Park be compatible with the existing residential land use in the area? The residential area, shown in Figure 9.1 of the Draft AUAR is clearly designated in Figure 2.1 of the Final AUAR. This residential area was not mentioned since it is Responses to Comments Page 1 Low Office Alternative High Office Alternative Office Warehouse Total Office Warehouse Total Minnesota Valley West Percent 10 90 100 14 86 100 Office space (GSF) 116,000 1,044,000 1,160,000 162,400 997,600 1,160,000 Office space (net) 98,600 887,400 986,000 138,040 847,960 986,000 Parking required 394 444 838 552 424 976 Office Warehouse Total Office Warehouse Total Shenandoah Business Park Percent office 14 86 100 50 50 100 Office space (GSF) 162,540 998,460 1,161,000 580,500 580,500 1,161,000 Office space (net) 138,159 848,691 986,850 493,425 493,425 986,850 Parking required 553 424 977 1,974 247 2,220 The City of Shakopee zoning ordinance provides for joint, shared, or cooperative parking plans, which are reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Also, while the zoning ordinance does not, per se, have provisions for "proof of parking" that could reduce parking below code based upon sufficient evidence by the developer, the principle was recently applied in the case of an R -3 plat. Therefore, some approaches are available for reducing parking below the values shown in the table above. 2. On Page 11 [of the AUAR], the adjoining land use compatibility is analyzed for the Shenandoah Business Park. The analysis failed to mention the residential area south of 4 Avenue between the cemetery and the Canterbury Park Racetrack. Will the proposed Business Park be compatible with the existing residential land use in the area? The residential area, shown in Figure 9.1 of the Draft AUAR is clearly designated in Figure 2.1 of the Final AUAR. This residential area was not mentioned since it is Responses to Comments Page 1 approximately 200 feet south of 4th Avenue and buffered by trees. The area is also buffered by land uses based upon zoning developed by the City of Shakopee - from west to east these are an area zoned Bl west of the cemetery, the cemetery (Zoned AG), the small buffer zoning of outlots north of the residential area, and the Knights of Columbus (zoned B1). The proposed office /warehouse land use may be less intensive or have less impact than other possible industrial uses, including manufacturing, that could occupy this site. No noise or air emissions, except those associated with motor vehicles and trucks on the site and heating/ventilating equipment, are anticipated from the Business Park. The traffic noise analysis in the Draft AUAR indicated that noise levels along 4th Avenue are expected to exceed the daytime residential noise standard for a home within 100 feet of the roadway. Homes in the residential area to the south of 4th Avenue are approximately 200 feet from 4th Avenue, so daytime noise levels are expected to be below the state noise standards. 3. Both projects result in a significant increase in the amount of impervious cover. The LMRWD recommends and encourages low impact development concepts such as swales, no curb and gutter, rain gardens, etc. be incorporated into the development design. These practices will reduce the amount of impervious cover, also reducing the amount of storm water runoff. The low impact concepts recommended will be considered in the development design. The City of Shakopee zoning ordinance does not specifically address the question of low impact development concepts but only includes requirements for surfacing. Design criteria review by the City may be sufficiently flexible to permit this type of low impact design. 4. The LMRWD recommends that infiltration be incorporated into the site designs to the extent possible. Again, this will result in a reduced volume of storm water runoff from the project sites. The City of Shakopee Stormwater Management Plan, Policy IV.A.10 states the following: y "The development of enhanced infiltration practices should be implemented wherever it is practical and reasonable to do so, provided that past and existing land use practices do not have a significant potential to contaminate the stormwater runoff. In addition in areas where enhanced infiltration practices are employed, a minimum of 2 feet of soil must be present between the pond bottom and bedrock to treat infiltrating stormwater." Any potential infiltration areas and stormwater ponds will comply with these requirements or alternatives, such as clay liners will be considered. 11 1 11 The DNR has some concerns that the document does not as effectively as is desirable, discuss surrounding cumulative impacts of many other activities. For example, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Boards' Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules states that the AUAR "is an excellent tool for review of cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a given area ". For example, the Draft AUAR suggests, in reference to Minnesota Valley West, that while some local decline in wildlife was expected to result from grading and construction there was not "a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity." Our concern is that too Responses to Comments Page 2 large a scale (such as on a regional level) may be being used to evaluate the significance of impacts. The wildlife abundance in the City of Shakopee (or of the surrounding area) will be greatly and significantly diminished by these two projects in conjunction with other activities affecting the same wildlife resources, such as street and highway construction, residential development and commercial or industrial developments. At some point along a continuum of development proposals, a significant environmental effect occurs. A full discussion of cumulative impacts of projects, including those in the surrounding area, is important to assure the discussion of significant environmental effects in the Draft GUAR is complete and not limited to those species and habitats that are already seriously and significantly affected. The Draft AUAR has investigated the impacts of the two projects and their individual and cumulative impacts on the environment in the areas expected to be impacted by these projects. These projects combined with others in the region may have a significant overall impact on habitat. However, this loss of habitat is partially offset by the large areas along the Minnesota River that is permanently retained as wildlife habitat. As defined in the MEQB Environmental Review Rules, "cumulative impact" means the impact on the environment that results from incremental effects of the project in addition to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects regardless of what person undertakes the other projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. The cumulative impact of regional land use conversion from open space /agricultural land to developed space that has taken and is taking place in the metropolitan area is difficult to mitigate. The two proposed office /warehouse projects are consistent with the light industrial classification of the Shakopee land use plan and zoning for the project sites. Individually, the proposed projects will include stormwater ponds, limited open space and landscaping. The City has chosen to mitigate the cumulative impacts of urbanization by placing goals and policies to protect and enhance wildlife habitat are included in several chapters of the City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan (1999 update). Some of these are listed below. Section l: Land Use and Staging This section includes as its first goal the identification and preservation of the City's natural resources. The objective and policies under this goal are presented below. Objective 1.1 Allow development in a pattern that minimizes the disruption of identified prime agricultural soils, wetlands, forests, groundwater and other natural resources. Policies: a. Development proposals that preserve existing wetland shall be preferred over proposals that create replacement wetlands. b. Protection of farmland will be promoted through the use of the Agricultural Preserves Act, which provides tax benefits and additional protection for areas identified for long -term agricultural use. C. Provisions will be adopted on the siting, design, construction and maintenance of on -site sewage disposal systems that are consistent with the applicable requirements set forth in the Met Council's Water Resource Management, Part 1, Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan. Responses to Comments Page 3 d. The City will develop a forestry plan to identify significant resources for protection and promote practices that enhance the City's forests. e. The City will adopt a stormwater ordinance that addresses City -wide stormwater issues, including assessing the need for regional stormwater facilities and wetland preservation. f. The city will continue development and maintenance of a geographic information system (GIS) to monitor development and identify important natural resources. Section H: Stormwater Management Plan The goals and policies have been developed to preserve and use natural water storage and retention systems in order to: A, Limit public capital expenditures that re necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff B. Improve water quality. C. Prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows. D. Prevent ground water recharge. E. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. F. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface water. Construction of these two projects, along with other development in the City such as street and highway construction, residential development and commercial and industrial development, has already impacted or will impact the wildlife abundance in the City and surrounding areas. While mitigation of these impacts is difficult at a project level, it is anticipated that land use conversion following the goals and policies outlined above will minimize the cumulative impact of development on wildlife resources. GENE AND NANCY GOER The accuracy and completeness of information contained within this AUAR concerns us because our residence is never mentioned in response to any questions. For instance, Question 9 LAND USE asks for descriptions of current land use on adjacent lands. We feel that our residence should also be on a list of adjoining properties that includes Knights of Columbus Hall, a cemetery, Shakopee Ballroom, Canterbury Park Racetrack, Sherer Brothers Lumber, CertainTeed Corporation, and Murphy's Landing Historic Site. Our residence should also be included in the response to Question 24 ODORS, NOISE, AND DUST. There is mention of a residence situation 100 feet form 4 ffi Avenue between CH 83 and Shenandoah and we assume this is the house located on the east side of CertainTeed. Our house is approximately 50 feet from 4"' Avenue and is located within the drawn boundaries of Shenandoah Business Park on Figure 9.1. Our proximity to this project is best illustrated in Figure 5.3 and identifiable by the indentation on 4` Avenue. This residence was unfortunately omitted from the list of adjacent properties and not analyzed in the Draft AUAR. In the Final AUAR, the property is identified in Section 2.1 (Question 9: Land Use) and potential impacts on the property are discussed in Section 2.6 (Question 21: Traffic), Section 2.7 (Question 24: Dust, Odors, and Noise) and Section 2.9 (Question 26: Visual Impacts). Possible measures to mitigate these impacts are discussed in the Mitigation Plan contained in Appendix E of the Final AUAR. The property also delineated in the figures contained in the Final AUAR. Responses to Comments Page 4 The review states that 4"' Avenue will be at 165% of capacity at completion of Shenandoah Business Park. Because our residence is located near the All -Way STOP intersection at Shenandoah, the increased amount of traffic may affect entering and exiting our property. Although the review projects that the intersection should remain at acceptable levels (i.e. uncongested), the current operating level of LOS A could fall to LOS D and still be accurately stated. The offered solution to the overcapacity of 4` Avenue is to expand to a three -lane urban section. If widening the road involves our property it would result in a loss of our land and bring our residence closer to the traffic noise. Widening of 4 Avenue will likely occur in the future either because of the proposed developments or other developments in the area. Impacts associated with improvements of the roadway will be evaluated as part of the roadway improvement process and are not an appropriate issue to be addressed in this AUAR. Our proximity to the Shenandoah Business Park directly impacts our residence and our quality of life. The Proposed Site Plan (FIGURE 5.3) illustrates a number of our concerns regarding our adjoining land. Located on two sides of our property are driveways and parking, and the front is 4' Avenue, which means vehicle noise and lights will nearly surround our property. The driveway to the truck bay in LOT 8 routes the noise and headlights of diesel engine trucks past our backyard. We anticipate that trucks will be running longer in cold months and the warning beeps of trucks backing into the loading docks will be ongoing. The potential for truck noise impacts on the Goemer residence is discussed in Section 2.7 (Question 24: Dust, Odors and Noise) of the Final AUAR. Potential impacts from lighting are discussed in Section 2.9 (Question 26: Visual Impacts). Construction of a berm and landscaping are effective means of shielding adjacent properties from noise and lights and is identified in the Mitigation Plan. Details on such mitigation measures will depend upon the future location of roadways and parking areas. The use of berms and landscaping may alleviate the noise and lights, but it raises concerns as to the grading of the site. Because our residence already sits well below 4"' Avenue, the elevation of the adjoining land may create drainage problems on our property and possibly result in water entering our basement. Drainage plans for Shenandoah Business Park will require approval from the City of Shakopee. The potential for impacting adjacent land uses will be considered in the development of grading and drainage plans for the site. Finally, the construction of Shenandoah Business Park will be phased in over a 10 -year period. The airborne dirt and dust generated from grading and construction will limit days that we can open the windows in our home. The review states that the approximate soil depth to bedrock is only an average of 3 feet, with some areas as shallow as 1 foot, and will require dynamite blasting. We are concerned as to how much and how long the blasting will continue as this poses potential problems of both noise and property damage. The site plan contained in the Draft AUAR is preliminary, and the exact location of buildings, roadways, and parking areas has not been determined for the site. Any grading and blasting on individual parcels will be reviewed by the City of Shakopee and measures to mitigate dust, noise and vibration will be required. While construction will be carried out over a 10 -year development period, it will be done in discrete phases. Those construction Responses to Comments Page 5 phases immediately adjacent to the Goemer property will have the greatest potential for impact and will require well under 10 years for completion. The greatest concern we have is that within all of the AUAR our property is never specified and, hence, never given any consideration as to the potential impact that these developments will have on our residence. The property is clearly noted and addressed in the Final AUAR. The property is identified in Section 2.1 (Question 9: Land Use) and potential impacts on the property are discussed in Section 2.6 (Question 21: Traffic), Section 2.7 (Question 24: Dust, Odors, and Noise) and Section 2.9 (Question 26: Visual Impacts). Possible measures to mitigate these impacts are discussed in the Mitigation Plan contained in Appendix E of the Final AUAR. 1►L11u • •, 01 • ' • 1 We have a number of concerns regarding this project. We have outlined those concerns in a 30 April 2001 letter to Mr. David Braslau of David Braslau Associates; a copy of the letter is enclosed. [see list of concerns below]. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by the federal agency. [Specific recommendations from the letter dated 30 April 2001 are noted below.] 1. We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties may be present in the Shenandoah project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of the area be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. An Archaeological Survey for the Shenandoah Business Park has been prepared by Archaeological Research Services and is included in the Final AUAR as Appendix B. The survey identified one locality along the northern boundary of the Shenandoah Business Park site where evidence of tools and a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking debris that appears to represent the southern edge of a lithic reduction (stone tool production) area and possibly also of a larger habitation site that continued towards the river. This evidence has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. The site has been recorded as Shenandoah Park As the Shenandoah Business Park portion of this locality appears confined to a small area along the northern edge of the project area, it could probably easily be avoided and protected as_a green space in the final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study and more intensive testing would be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site and determine whether or not it meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Responses to Comments Page 6 2. The design of the project should take into account effects on the historic district, both from a visual/aesthetic standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc), standpoint. Shenandoah Business Park will be accessed from Shenandoah Drive and from 4` Avenue and will not provide any additional access to CH 101. Therefore, no impacts from traffic or traffic noise are anticipated. Truck activity on the site will occur south of the railroad tracks. Noise from trucks on the site will be well below that from trucks on CH 101, which is north of the Shenandoah Business Park and the intervening railroad tracks. Visual screening of the project will be provided as part of landscaping plans to be prepared for each parcel on the site prior to its development. 3. Because of the location of burials in the vicinity, the requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act should be addressed. These requirements are addressed in the Archaeological Survey discussed in Item 1 above. Item #6b & #13: The comments made concerning whether or not dewatering will be required states that it currently "appears" that it will not be necessary to dewater at this time, which implies that it may be deemed necessary once construction begins. It is also mentioned that it "may" be necessary to blast to remove shallow bedrock from the site. It is recommend that the potential need for dewatering and blasting to remove bedrock both be definitively known and specifically addressed as part of this AUAR. The AUAR has examined a maximum probable development scenario on each of the sites. With a 10 -year development scenario for Shenandoah Business Park, it is not possible to provide detailed design and grading plans for the entire site. The final determination on dewatering and on the need for blasting will be made during the site investigation and design process for each of the sub - parcels on the site. This level of detail will be required for City site plan approval, preliminary and final plat approval, and City building permits, as well as the MPCA NTDES General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity for Shenandoah Business Park. Item #10: No stormwater ponds are proposed for the Shenandoah Business Park? Item #16 implies there is to be stormwater retention within the 112 acres of the Shenandoah Business Park and Item #17 states that there is a total of 10 acres of stormwater ponds proposed, whereas only 7.1 acres are indicated within the before and after tables. These apparent inconsistencies should be clarified. Two stormwater basis on shown on the site plan for Shenandoah Business Park (Figure 5.3 of the Draft AUAR). There is a large pond in the easterly portion of the site and a smaller pond just east of Shenandoah Drive. The statement in Item #17 referring to 10 acres of stormwater ponding was based upon the original site plan for Shenandoah Business Park. The table of before and after land uses under Item #10 for Shenandoah Business Park has been revised and is included in this Final AUAR The revised table indicates that stormwater ponding will require 12.6 acres of the 112 acre site. The value of 7.1 acres in the table of land uses in Item #10 refers to Minnesota Valley West, for which the stormwater detention ponds have been completed. Responses to Comments Page 7 Item #16: • Will excavated soil be reused on the site of hauled to another location? If so, where? It is estimated that approximately 332,000 cubic yards of soil will be moved within the site. Of this amount, it is estimated that over 90% will be hauled in from off site and the on -site soils will remain on the site for reuse. Excavation and redistribution of soil and blasting of bedrock will be carried out, where needed, to provide for stormwater ponds and gravity flow of water and sewer on the site. Some blasting debris may have to be removed from the site. This debris will be disposed of in accordance with provisions of Section 8.00 of the Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance. • It is stated there will be construction of temporary sediment basin[s] in the location proposed for stormwater, yet no reference is made as to where or how large this /these (pre and post) pond/s will be. A detailed map would be very helpful. Please see the response to Item #10 Item #17a &b: The exact number, locations, and sizes of all pre and post stormwater retention ponds should be included. The exact drainage routes of runoff within and exiting the site (until reaching a DNR regulated water body) should also be referenced within a detailed map. Please see the response to Item #10. The exact drainage routes from these ponds is unknown at the present time, although this information will be required for City site plan approval, preliminary and final plat approval, City building permits, as well as the MPCA NPDES General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity. Item #19: It is noted that the entire project is located within an area identified as highly susceptible to ground water contamination. Significant risks to contaminating underlying ground water exists, especially when considering over 360,000 yd' of soils is to be excavated and the underlying bedrock may likely be blasted. Practices to reduce potential contamination should be identified. A list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to minimize contamination of groundwater is included in Section 2.4 of the Final AUAR. Item #20: The AUAR states "The City of Shakopee has no recycling program or applicable ordinance in place for businesses: Scott County has recycling programs that apply to Shakopee. This should be noted. The recycling of solid wastes are covered in Section 8.01 of the Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance. That section of the ordinance, included in Appendix A of this Final AUAR, requires haulers to provide recycling services to their customers. Item #28: The AUAR states "due to the shallow bedrock formation throughout the site, the watermam and sanitary sewer will share a common trench where feasible." Due to the entire project location being within an area highly susceptible to groundwater contamination and the likely intent to blast into the shallow bedrock the specifics of issues such as "Due to grade restraints, lots west of Shenandoah may require individual grinder pumps and a centralize publicly owned lift station or a significant amount of fill to elevate the building pads" should be addressed with a great deal more detail and explanation as part of this AUAR. Responses to Comments Page 8 See the response to Item #6b & #13. This information will be based upon designs of individual sub - parcels within Shenandoah Business Park that are not known at this time. This information will be required for permits and approvals needed prior to construction. All sanitary sewer improvements will need approval from the WCA. All water supply improvements will need approval from the Department of Health. Detailed information will also be provided to the City of Shakopee for preliminary and final plat approval. Therefore, it is anticipated that this item could be mitigated through existing regulatory controls. Item #29: Items #17 and #28 require further detail as referred to above. [Reference to Item #12 was omitted per a telephone conversation with Scott County on 2 August 2001.] See responses to Items #17 and #28. comments&responses- FINAL.doc 200091\AuarComments Responses to Comments Page 9 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review _ " ,� X11 ►: Mitigation Plan United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. E t ' Prepared , The City of Shakope(i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... .............................. RESPONSIBLEPARTIES ......................................................................... .............................. IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN ......... ..............................2 1.0 TRAFFIC ........................................................................................ ............................... 2 1.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................. .............................. 1.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................ ............................... 3 1.3 Implementation Information ................................................. .............................. 2.0 SURFACE WATER ....................................................................... ............................... 5 2.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................. ..............................5 2.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................ ............................... 5 2.3 Implementation Information ................................................. ..............................6 3.0 WASTEWATER .............................................................................. .............................. 3.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................ ............................... 7 3.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................ ............................... 8 3.3 Implementation Information ................................................. ..............................9 4.0 soils .................................................................................................. .............................. 4.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................. ..............................9 4.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................ .............................10 4.3 Implementation Information ................................................ .............................10 5.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION ............................................................ .............................11 5.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................ .............................11 5.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................ .............................11 5.3 Implementation Information ................................................ .............................12 6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES ......... .............................12 6.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................ .............................12 6.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................ ............................. 6.3 Implementation Information ................................................ .............................13 7.0 VISUAL IMPACTS ........................................................................ .............................14 7.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................ .............................14 7.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................ .............................14 7.3 Implementation Information ................................................ .............................14 Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 3, 2001 Page i 8.0 FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OR IMPACTS NOT ANTICIPATED IN THE AUAR AND MITIGATION PLAN ................................. .............................15 Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 3, 2001 Page ii ' t l 93 This mitigation plan is a component of the Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review ( " AUAR ") prepared by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The AUAR identifies the impacts anticipated to result from the development planned for the geographic area covered by the AUAR. This mitigation plan identifies the mitigation measures that will be followed by the City of Shakopee and/or other responsible parties to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts resulting from the development. The mitigation plan was prepared in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ( "MEQB ") Environmental Review Program Rules and the MEQB memorandum entitled, "Recommended Content and Format - Alternative Urban Areawide Review Documents," dated June 1995. The AUAR has identified the following development - related impacts which require implementation of mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts: traffic, surface water, wastewater, soils, and noise. Each section below summarizes the potential environmental impacts and describes the mitigation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or compensate for these impacts. Each section also includes information concerning the agency or agencies involved in review, approval or implementation of specific mitigation measures; the time frames for implementing mitigation measures; and the party or parties with financial responsibility for implementing mitigation measures. The City of Shakopee ( "City") is the Responsible Governmental Unit ( "RGU") for preparing and adopting the AUAR and the mitigation plan. The City is also the governmental unit with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving development within the geographic area of the AUAR. The City's review and approval of developer(s)' master plans, site plans, preliminary and final plats, building permits and grading permits are the primary local government mechanism for ensuring compliance with the mitigation measures identified in this mitigation plan. City approval of the individual development plans for Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West also involves reaching agreement with each developer regarding plan elements to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts and financial and regulatory assurances that the mitigation plan will be implemented. In addition, the City will inspect each project as it is constructed, or will, through other means, ascertain that the prescribed mitigation measures are implemented. However, in most cases, the developers are ultimately responsible for implementing mitigation measures in accordance with plan review and permit requirements. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 1 1 1; 1 • •' Am United Land LLC ( "United Land ") will be the developer of Shenandoah Business Park. Opus Northwest, L.L.C. ( "Opus Northwest") has been and will develop Minnesota Valley West. In most cases, responsibility for obtaining required permits and approvals and for implementing mitigation measures specified as conditions to such permits and approvals will lie with United Land for Shenandoah Business Park and with Opus Northwest for Minnesota Valley West. The AUAR also identifies other units of government that are likely to have plan review or permit authority over the development proposed for the study area. These agencies include: Lower Minnesota Watershed District; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council; Scott County, and the State Historic Preservation Office. 111 ploy I I 1 1 ''• 1 ' ' 1 ' Based on applicable MEQB guidelines for preparation of an AUAR mitigation plan, this section provides the following information for each area of potential environmental impact identified in the AUAR: (1) summary of potential impacts; (2) planned mitigation measures; (3) governmental programs that regulate mitigation plan preparation and compliance; (4) time frames for implementing mitigation measures; and (5) identification of party or parties with financial responsibility for implementing mitigation measures. 1.1 Summary of Impacts A traffic study was completed as part of the AUAR to determine the traffic impacts to adjacent roadways in the study area resulting from traffic generated by the proposed combined office /warehouse developments. The study included an analysis of 2003 and 2020 build and no- build conditions. The following conclusions were reached in the traffic study. 1.1.1 Conclusions For 2003 • The proposed developments at the levels of build -out expected in 2003 would generate approximately 6,750 vehicle -trips per day in 2003, with 860 of those trips occurring during the PM peak hour. • Only minimal impact is expected on the surrounding signalized intersections as a result of the combined development, when compared to background (i.e. "no- build" conditions in 2003). Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 2 The intersection of CH 83 / 4 th Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F under the "build" scenario in 2003. However, the addition of an eastbound right turn lane would improve operations to LOS D. When Shenandoah Business Park development reaches 20% of the total plan (assuming 100% build -out of Minnesota Valley West), this intersection is estimated to operate at LOS E, suggesting that a traffic signal would be a reasonable mitigation strategy. However, a traffic signal should not be installed at this intersection unless left turn lanes are added to CH 83. The intersection of 4 th Avenue East / Shenandoah Road is expected to operate at LOS A in 2003 as an All -Way STOP condition, indicating that development generated traffic will have little adverse impact on the operation of this intersection. 1.1.2 Conclusions For 2020 • In 2020 with full build -out of both developments, the intersection of CH 83 / 4th Avenue will likely require significant reconstruction, including the addition of turn lanes on CH 83 and 4 Avenue. • 4 Avenue is not expected to meet transportation needs in 2020. Expansion to a three -lane urban section with additional lanes at major intersections appears to be a likely mitigation strategy. • The intersection of 4 th Avenue / Shenandoah Road would likely operate at acceptable (i.e. uncongested) levels during the PM peak hour in 2020 as an All -way STOP condition. 1.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation of impacts to area roadways resulting from increased trips generated by the proposed development in conjunction with increased background will include changes to roadway geometries and intersections. Modifications are listed below by project phase for the 2003 Build, and 2020 Build alternatives. 1.2.1 Phase 1- 2003 Build • Addition of an eastbound right turn lane on 4th Avenue at the intersection of 4th Avenue with CH 83. • Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Avenue with CH 83. • Addition of a northbound left turn lane on CH 83 at the intersection of CH 83 with 4th Avenue. • Addition of a southbound right turn lane on CH 83 at the intersection of CH 83 with 4th Avenue. • Addition of raised concrete medians on CH 83. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 3 1.2.2 Phase H- 2020 Build Improvement of 4 th Avenue from CH 17 to CH 83 to a three -lane urban section with center turning lane. 1.3 Implementation Information 1.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Plan Compliance Monitoring • City project plan/master plan approvals. • City site plan approvals. • City preliminary and final plat approvals. • City building permits. • Scott County project plan review. 1.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation Improvements required to support development - related impacts in 2003 will be implemented in conjunction with Phase I and be completed prior to occupancy of new buildings in 2003. Improvements required to support development - related impacts in 2020 will be implemented when the demand for these improvements are warranted which will likely occur before 2020. 1.3.3 Financially Responsible Paroy Parties 2003 Improvements Funding for the installation of the traffic signal at 4 th Avenue and CH 83 will be the shared between Scott County and the City of Shakopee in accordance with participation guidelines contained in the Scott County Transportation Plan. Funding of the eastbound right turn lane on 4 th Avenue, the northbound left turn lane on CH 83 and the southbound right turn lane on CH 83, along with other geometric improvements to accommodate signalization at this intersection, including right -of -way costs if required, will be derived from assessments to benefited property owners including United Land LLC and Opus Northwest, L.L.C. distributed over a 10 -year period. 2020 Improvements Funding for the improvement of 4 th Avenue to a three -lane urban section from Shenandoah Drive to CH 83 will be the responsibility of properties abutting 4 th Avenue along this segment, based upon standard City assessment policy. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 4 2.0 SURFACE WATER 2.1 Summary of Impacts The proposed developments will increase storm water runoff due to an increase in the amount of impervious surface. Storm water runoff from the proposed developments will most likely include pollutants typically associated with commercial land use and roadways. These pollutants include suspended solids, nutrients, trace metals, petroleum- derived hydrocarbons, chloride, and litter. Increased runoff resulting from additional impervious surface generally results in increased annual pollutant loadings. 2.2 Mitigation Measures 2.2.1 Shenandoah Business Park United Land will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate water quality impacts, including construction of two storm water basins with permanent pools that will cover 12.6 acres. This proposed project includes provisions for permanent storm water basins that meet the design guidelines identified in the MPCA manual entitled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, Best Management Practices. A list of potential best management practices (Table 2.10 -1 of the MPCA manual) is included on the following page. The proposed storm water basins must also comply with the requirements of the MPCA General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity and the criteria of the Lower Minnesota Watershed District. The basins will be designed consistent with Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) guidelines and will conform to storm drainage design criteria developed by the City. City storm drainage design criteria include pond sizing and design to accommodate both a 10 -year initial storm event and a 100 -year major storm event. Erosion and sediment control will be provided during construction in accordance with MPCA, and City requirements. The runoff from roadways will be accommodated by a storm sewer system to be constructed with the roadways. Construction of sedimentation basins is proposed for primary treatment of runoff prior to discharging into a drainage ditch. Design of these facilities will be in accordance with local City requirements. Specific BMPs to be implemented during construction included the following: 1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for storm water ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use following construction. 2. For each stage of construction, erection of a silt fence installed at the construction limits prior to the initiation of earthwork and maintained until all exposed soil is stabilized. 3. Periodic cleaning of adjacent city streets. 4. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 5 5. Use of cover crops, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after final grading. 6. Under stormwater ponds and in areas where enhanced infiltration practices are employed, a minimum of 2 feet of soil will be provided as required in the City of Shakopee Stormwater Management Plan or alternatives, including the use of a clay liner will be considered. 2.2.2 Minnesota Valley West Two storm water detention basins covering 7.1 acres have been constructed on the project site to accommodate runoff from existing impervious surfaces and those projected in the AUAR for the site. Opus Northwest will implement Best Management Practices as outlined above to mitigate water quality impacts during construction. 2.3 Implementation Information 2.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Plan Compliance Monitoring Shenandoah Business Park • City project master plan approval. • City site plan approval. • City of Shakopee preliminary and final plat approval. • City building permit. • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity (Shenandoah Business Park). • Lower Minnesota Watershed District Grading and Storm Water Review. Minnesota Valley West • All necessary approvals have been obtained. 2.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation Shenandoah Business Park Storm water ponds required to detain and pre -treat storm water runoff from the proposed development will be constructed as needed to accommodate each phase of development. The sizing and location of on -site storm water ponds will be finalized as site plans for each development phase are prepared. Sedimentation basins during construction will be provided for primary treatment of runoff prior to discharging into a drainage ditch. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 6 Minnesota Valley West Storm water ponds for the site have already been constructed. 2.3.3 Financially Responsible Party/Parties Shenandoah Business Park United Land is the responsible party for funding construction of storm water ponds and other related infrastructure required to meet applicable standards for post - development peak discharge rate and water quality treatment. United Land will also be required to execute a storm water pond maintenance agreement. Minnesota Valley West Storm water ponds have been constructed. Opus Northwest is the responsible party for funding construction of other related storm water runoff infrastructure. 3.0 WASTEWATER 3.1 Summary of Impacts 3.1.1 Shenandoah Business Park Wastewater generated by the proposed development will be typical domestic sewage. Based on the anticipated maximum development size and typical values for average wastewater flows expected from the type of development proposed, the average daily flow from the project is estimated to be 88,996 gallons per day. Wastewater will be routed to the trunk sanitary sewer line via connecting sanitary sewer pipes sized and constructed to appropriate specifications. The eastern portion of the subject site lies within the VIP Sanitary Sewer District and the western portion lies within the East District of the City. The City 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update estimates future average sanitary sewer flow rates at 1,500 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) for commercial and 1,300 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) for office uses within both sewer districts. The estimated 88,996 gallons per day for this 112 -acre site is well below the 156,800 gallons per day that would be predicted based on the projected flow rates contained in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Wastewater will eventually flow to the Blue Lake Treatment Facility operated by the Metropolitan Council. The treatment facility has a design capacity of 32 million gallons per day and currently receives about 23 million gallons per day. The estimated 88,996 gallons per day maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume is well within the 11 million gallons per day of excess flow capacity of the Blue Lake Treatment Facility. 3.1.2 Minnesota Valley West Wastewater generated by the proposed development will be typical domestic sewage. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 7 Based on the anticipated maximum development size and typical values for average wastewater flows expected from the type of development proposed, the average daily flow from the project is estimated to be 57,590 gallons per day. Wastewater will be routed as noted above. The estimated 57,590 gallons per day for this 75 -acre site is well below the 112,500 gallons per day that would be predicted based on the projected flow rates contained in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The estimated 57,590 gallons per day maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume is well within the 11 million gallons per day of excess flow capacity of the Blue Lake Treatment Facility. 3.2 Mitigation Measures 3.2.1 Shenandoah Business Park Watermains, sanitary sewers, storm sewers and streets will be constructed as part of this project. The infrastructure shall be designed in accordance with applicable design standards. Upon completion, the ownership of these utilities will be transferred to the City or other public utility agency. Private utilities to be installed will include telephone, electric and gas. Watermains will be sized in accordance with Shakopee Water Utility design standards. Due to the size of the development, 12 -inch watermain will be required. Shakopee Water Utility also requires installation of a minimum of at least one trunk line in the east -west direction and two trunk lines in the north -south direction across the proposed development site. Due to the shallow bedrock formation throughout the site, the watermain and sanitary sewer will share a common trench where feasible. The City requires installation of DR18 (C900 PVC) or CL52 (DIP) for the sanitary sewer pipe in common trench situations. Approximately half of the site's lots will drain via gravity sanitary sewer to an existing sanitary sewer located in 4 th Avenue and along the eastern property line. Due to grade restraints, lots west of Shenandoah may require individual grinder pumps and a centralized publicly owned lift station or will require a significant amount of fill to elevate the building pads. Maintenance of any grinder pumps installed will be the responsibility of the individual property owner(s). 3.2.2 Minnesota Valley West Storm and sanitary sewer and water supply infrastructure is already in place to serve the existing and future buildings on the site. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 8 3.3 Implementation Information 3.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Plan Compliance Monitoring Shenandoah Business Park • City project plan/master plan approval. • City site plan approval. • City preliminary and final plat approval. • City building permit. • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency sanitary sewer extension/change permit. • Metropolitan Council review of sanitary sewer extension/change. Minnesota Valley West • All necessary approvals have been obtained. 3.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation Shenandoah Business Park The sewer extension will be constructed during Phase 1 of project development. Minnesota Valley West The improvements have been completed. 3.3.3 Financially Responsible ParoyTarties Shenandoah Business Park A combination of funding sources will be considered including, but not limited to, state funds, tax increment financing, City capital improvement funds, or developer(s) contribution within the GUAR study area. Minnesota Valle No additional funding is required. 4.0 SOILS 4.1 Summary of Impacts 4.1.1 Shenandoah Business Park The most restrictive geologic characteristic is bedrock appearing at shallow depths coupled with coarse - textured overlying sediments. The presence of shallow bedrock needs to be considered in construction design, site grading, landscaping, and sewer siting and design. Shallow bedrock coupled with overlying coarse textured sediment suggests the presence of shallow perched water tables with a high potential for groundwater Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 9 contamination. Water movement through the overlying coarse - textured sediments would be fast and the flow path to the restrictive bedrock layer is short. 4.1.2 Minnesota Valley West The development of approximately an additional 45 acres of impervious surface on the site and the routing of storm water to detention basins is expected to limit the potential for contaminated surface water infiltration and minimize the potential for groundwater contamination. Because the geologic data for the site shows that the Prairie du Chien dolomite is known to occur within 50 feet of the land surface, the pumping level for any wells must be below the top of this unit within the project site. 4.2 Mitigation Measures 4.2.1 Shenandoah Business Park Under stormwater ponds and in areas where enhanced infiltration practices are employed, a minimum of 2 feet of soil will be provided as required in the City of Shakopee Stormwater Management Plan or alternatives, including the use of a clay liner will be considered. 4.2.2 Minnesota Valley West Storm water ponds have already been constructed on the site. According to the Geologic Atlas, "wells must be drilled deeper to tap a lower aquifer" under the geologic conditions described above. This safeguard, and the observation that most established wells within one mile of the project site record the inclusion of cement grout in their design, limit the potential for project development to affect adversely domestic or municipal wells. 4.3 Implementation Information 4.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Plan Compliance Monitoring Shenandoah Business Park • City project plan/master plan approval. • City site plan approval. • City preliminary and final plat approval. • City building permit. Minnesota Valley West • All necessary approvals have been obtained. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 10 4.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation Shenandoah Business Park Construction of stormwater ponds will be completed during Phase I of project development. Minnesota Valley West Storm water detention basins have already been constructed on the site. 4.3.3 Financially Responsible Party/Parties Shenandoah Business Park United Land is the responsible party for the construction of a stormwater ponds and providing adequate soil cover to minimize infiltration. Minnesota Valley West No additional funding is required. 5.1 Summary of Impacts Noise associated with construction of both projects will occur during development of the project sites. Vibration associated with blasting of bedrock will occur near those areas requiring blasting. Noise from truck operations on the site will occur along drives and truck dock areas. There is a potential for exceeding noise standards at the Goemer residence due to the proximity of truck activity on the site. Noise generated by project site traffic is exempt from state noise standards. However, no exceedances of state noise standards are anticipated along access roadways because of the project. 5.2 Mitigation Measures To control construction noise, construction equipment will be fitted with mufflers and other noise control equipment as specified by the manufacturer. Shakopee City Ordinance (10.60, subd.3 (D) limits construction activity to the hours of 7:00 am to 10 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am to 9:00 pm on weekends and holidays. To control vibrations from blasting in the vicinity of any existing structures, the blasting contractor will be required to perform preliminary tests as necessary and monitor vibrations and air blast overpressure from blasting at the nearest structure to the blast to ensure that Department of Natural Resource guidelines are not exceeded. To control noise from truck activity at the Goemer residence, potential mitigation measures include limits on the number of trucks per hour, a noise berm, or redesign of the roadway and building layout to move truck traffic away from the Goemer residence. A berm would probably Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 11 have to extend the length of the Goemer property on the north, although the exact location and height of the berm cannot be determined without an accurate truck traffic estimate. 5.3 Implementation Information 5.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Compliance Monitoring Shenandoah Business Park • City project plan/master plan approval. • City site plan approval. • City preliminary and final plat approval. • City building permit. • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise standards compliance. • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Blast Vibration Limit compliance Minnesota Valley West • All necessary approvals have been obtained. 5.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation Construction noise mitigation will occur with each phase of project construction. 5.3.3 Financially Responsible Partj/ artier United Land and Opus Northwest are the responsible parties for ensuring that construction procedures will comply with City ordinances. United Land is the responsible party for construction a noise berm or project redesign where needed to ensure compliance of noise standards at the Goemer residence. 6.1 Summary of Impacts Evidence of tools and a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking debris that appears to represent the southern edge of a lithic reduction (stone tool production) area and possibly also of a larger habitation site that continued towards the river has been identified along the northern boundary of Shenandoah Business Park approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive. This evidence has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. The site has been recorded as Shenandoah Park. Similar evidence has been found on a number of archaeological sites that are situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 12 sources of Prairie du Chien chert. Some appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction sites, others are associated with evidence of seasonal habitation and other activities. None have as yet produced any ceramic evidence - a fact which suggests that they are early and predate the mound groups that also are found along these rivers. This evidence could be further destroyed by grading and construction at this location on the site. The potential exists for visual impacts from buildings and lighting on the adjacent Murphy's Landing historic site north of CH 101. 6.2 Mitigation Measures As the Shenandoah Business Park portion of this locality appears confined to a small area along the northern edge of the project site, it could probably easily be avoided and protected as a green space in the final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study and more intensive testing will be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site and determine whether or not it meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. To control visual impacts on Murphy's Landing north of the site, visual screening through appropriate landscaping and appropriate design of lighting on the site will be provided through landscape plans for parcels along the north boundary of the site and site and plan review by the City of Shakopee. 6.3 Implementation Information 6.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Compliance Monitoring Shenandoah Business Park • City project plan/master plan approval. • City site plan approval. • City preliminary and final plat approval. • City building permit. • Site plan review by the State Historic Preservation Office 6.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation Avoidance of the archaeologically sensitive area will be determined as part of the site plan and preliminary and final plat approval. Appropriate landscaping and lighting design will be prepared prior to development of the plats along the north boundary of the Shenandoah Business Park site. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 13 6.3.3 Financially Responsible Paroy artier United Land is the responsible parry for ensuring that the archaeologically sensitive area will be avoided or that further study be made to determine whether or not it meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. 7.0 VISUAL IMPACTS 7.1 Summary of Impacts The potential for lighting impacts on the Goemer property may occur from dock areas or trucks, depending upon the location and orientation of these activities and whether or not there will be any nighttime activity at these locations. The current site plan shows a dock area approximately 150 feet north of the Goemer residence. Lights from trucks departing the dock area could also impact the Goemer property. 7.2 Mitigation Measures Lighting of buildings and dock areas throughout the project will be based upon current design standards and will comply with provisions of the Shakopee zoning ordinance. regarding light levels on adjacent properties. Visual screening and landscaping will be provided, if needed, to minimize impacts on the Goemer property from truck lights as they depart the dock area if nighttime activities are expected at this location. Redesign of the roadway and building layout to move truck traffic away from the Goemer residence can also minimize lighting impacts on the Goemer property. 7.3 Implementation Information 7.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Compliance Monitoring Shenandoah Business Park • City project plan/master plan approval. • City site plan approval. • City preliminary and final plat approval. • City building permit. • City of Shakopee zoning ordinance Minnesota Valley West • All necessary approvals have been obtained. 7.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation Mitigation measures will be incorporated into each phase of construction as appropriate. Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 14 7 3.3 Financially Responsible Par4vParties United Land and Opus Northwest are the responsible parties for ensuring that lighting will comply with City ordinances. Assuming that nighttime truck activity can be expected on the site, United Land is the responsible parry for the provision of screening or landscaping to minimize potential impacts of truck lights on the Goemer property or to design the site so as to avoid such impacts. 8.0 FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OR IMPACTS NOT ANTICIPATEJ, IN THE AUAR D MITIGATION PLAN The AUAR and mitigation plan identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate identified impacts based on the best information currently available concerning planned development in the study area. However, as specific development plans are completed and more information becomes available, or as regulatory requirements change, environmental concerns or issues that differ from those addressed in the AUAR or mitigation plan may be identified. Also, new information concerning feasible and practicable mitigation measures may be developed after adoption of this mitigation plan. In these instances development plans will be reviewed to identify measures to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts consistent with the new information, while maintaining the basic intent and process identified in this mitigation plan. As required by MEQB regulations (Minn. Rules 4410.3610, subp. 7), the AUAR and the mitigation plan will be revised if any of the specific circumstances enumerated in state regulation apply. y: \job\ 200091\ mitigation \MitigationPlan- rev0811.doc Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001 Page 15 /5 CITE' OF SHAKOPEE C " 'I ' S E Memorandum ' ' TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing for Vacation of a portion of Naumkeag Street north of Bluff Avenue MEETING DATE: September 18, 2001 Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has submitted an application for vacation of right -of -way of Naumkeag Street north of Bluff Avenue.; The attached Resolution No.5582 sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of said right, -of✓ ayj' DISCUSSION The attached resolution sets a public hearing for October 16, 2001. On that date, comments from staff members and utilities, as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will be presented to the City Council for consideration. Y Y , a 9 14 KI l M Y�117 Offer Resolution No. 5582, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of a portion of Naumkeag Street north of Bluff Avenue, and move its adoption. jJ ie'Klima Planner II 0 Acc\2001 \cc09 18 \vacsetp1 doc RESOLUTION / . RESOLUTION SETTING 01 HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER THE INEE /' 1 '/ WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that portions of right -of- way ofNaumkeag Street north of Bluff Avenue, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, serves no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action to vacate can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. WHEREAS, two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 16 r '' day of September, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, on the matter of vacating portions of right -of -way of Naumkeag Street north of Bluff Avenue, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk 0, 0 - - - - - - - - - - lil ! ;I '% ,!;— i � ,, !,its ,�� 1 1 I ' ' 1 '' f EX-Hit3rF gr 0 N ffibmW-mm SHAkoPEE w CaVDAUNUYFFMESN=UW Proposed Vacation of a Portion of Naumkeag Street North of Bluff Avenue Zoning Boundary Parcel Boundary 7-B is Q. Y. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 01 -118 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director C I U N S, E. IN T SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing for Vacation of Street Right -of -Way for Dublin Lane ME ETING DATE: September 20, 2001 INTRODUCTION Allen Homes Corporation has submitted an application for vacation of 6.44 feet of Dublin Lane street right -of -way. The attached Resolution No. 5581 sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of this right -of -way. The attached resolution sets a public hearing for October 16, 2001. On that date, comments from staff members and utilities, as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will be presented to the City Council for consideration. The Planning Commission will consider the request at its September 20` meeting. � t � Offer Resolution No. 5581, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of 6.44 feet of Dublin Lane street right -of -way. Michael Leek, Community Development Director C' Acc\200 1 \0918\vacsetphdubhn. doe • I :I .1 . I 1 . �; 11 11 (INKII WE 1 1 1 WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that 6.44 feet of Dublin Lane street right-of-way, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, serves no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action to vacate can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. WHEREAS, two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED BY THE CrrY COUNCIEL OF THE CrrY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 16th day of October, 2001, at 7:00 P-M. or thereafter, on the matter of vacating 6.44 feet of Dublin Lane street right -of -way, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 1 2001. Jon P. Brekke, Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk FOR JIM ALLEN 1 ° ® 8 ,• DATE: 7 -16-01 5 89 38 f�RTii S�OIlARE SECS: 0� fl I DRANAGE & UT81Tv EASEIAENT lo 1 h B � f I 1 Z 1 W N -- - - - - - - - - `' < W Y J 24 C Q 1 1 O N O tr - -1 �� a LLA M n t er � I IrD O 1 C'• r - - - - - - --$..� O I I 1 fn 51 _� t 1 Li' 1 , 1 V g 1 I J , I 1 1 s I ---- - - - - -- - - ,p 1 4 + I ' 1 t I TtC EAST LfE OF MBUN LANE E r4S < 1 PLATTED !{ SauARE SE AD ncN DUBL21 LAP£ TO BE VACATED SLI TECT TO AN 1 EAS"}c EMT FCR ORANAGE at UT$1T PI;RPCSZS W I N I Q � < I N I I S I o s o O ci W I l Q /1 1 O 1 1 ' � 1 Q: t W 1 W 1 U 1 i i I I 1 � I I 1 30 i _ 1 I 1 VO a �lc•�El' Bohlea ` Surveying & Engineerin( 6CC CK P� c 5� 31462 Foi�T Av a 4735 123rd Stre 1 4,,•� Northf ;eidd. I 55057 B - u /� �. Pho w (507) 6AS -7768 Phone: (952) 895 u Far. (507) 645 -77 1 Fax: (952) 895- is-. ° CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum T: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Dial -A -Ride Daycare Issues STING ATE: September 18, 2001 1 11 Q Since the City Council's discussion of this item at its September 10, 2001 workshop, the following additional information has been gathered and/or actions taken; City Administrator McNeill did speak with Mark Russow of the LMCIT, the City's insurer about whether the City would have liabiltiy insurance coverage, now that City is aware that that there are or may be violations of state rules regarding licensed daycares and Federal Transpotation Administration (FTA) rules for public transit providers who receive federal funds. Mr. Russow said that there would certainly be coverage for a defense of a lawsuit, and that there would "likely" be coverage of a judgment against the City. Mr. Russow noted that the longer the City continues to transport unaccompanied "under- aged" children after learning of potential rules violations, the greater the potential exposure for damages. CURRENT STATUS OF THE SERVICE: Based on the information received from Mr. Russow of the LMCIT, the Mayor directed that the City and Laidlaw immediately discontinue transporting unaccompanied "under- aged" children. This direction has been given to the Laidlaw dispatch office. Staff has prepared and sent letters to the FTA and state daycare licensing authorities requesting waiver (either a limited 30 -day or permanent as appropriate). Staff has obtained a list of licensed day care providers within the City, and has requested a list of daycares which have made standing order requests from Laidlaw. Using this information, staff will be attempting to set up a meeting with daycare providers and pre - school representatives prior to the scheduled September 25, 2001 Transit Advisory Committee meeting to discuss possible alternatives. 1 No specific action is requested by the City Council at this time, and further recommendations will be brought to the Council at a future meeting. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director gAcc\200 1\0918\transit.doc CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: On -Sale Liquor License — Great Lakes, Inc. DATE: September 14, 2001 INTRODUCTION R 15- p p CJN1%2 City Council is asked to table the application from Great Lakes, Inc. for an on -sale liquor license. :: • . ' �1i1�1�7 The City has received application from Great Lakes, Inc. for an on -sale liquor license for 2400 East 4th Avenue. Great Lakes, Inc. is acquiring the Shakopee Ballroom and Banquet Center from Shakopee Ballroom and Banquet Center, Inc. The application was advertised for Council consideration on August 21, 2001, at which time it was tabled because it was not in order. The application was again tabled on September 4 The application is not in order at this time. It is recommended that it be removed from the table and then tabled until October 2, 2001. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Remove from the table the application from Great Lakes, Inc. for an on -sale liquor license. 2. Move to table the on -sale intoxicating liquor license application from Great Lakes, Inc. until October 2, 2001. JS C/j s I:Liquor /GreatLakesTable. doc CrrY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: FROM: SUBJECT DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Massage Center License — Abbey Rademacher September 13, 2001 INTRODUCTION: a 1'a _+✓ L — City Council is asked to consider the application from Abbey Rademacher for a massage center license. Abbey Rademacher has made application for a massage center license for Abbey's Angelic Touch at 205 South Lewis Street. The customary background investigation has been conducted by the Police Department and I have been advised that there is nothing in the investigation that would preclude the City Council from granting a license. A building inspector has inspected the premises to insure compliance with the City Code. The applicant is in the process of obtaining the required insurance coverage. No license will be delivered until the applicant is in complete compliance with the requirements of the City Code. Licenses may be granted only for those premises located in the general commercial districts. The site does comply with this requirement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the application and grant a massage center license to Abbey Rademacher dba/Abbey's Angelic Touch at 205 South Lewis Street upon compliance with the requirements of the City Code. JSC /js i:licroses/rad coacher ✓`f 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Public Utilities Commission Membership Size DATE: September 13, 2001 l The Council is asked to take action requesting special legislation to increase the size of the Commission for Shakopee Public Utilities, from the current three members, to five. Attached is a letter dated August 9 th from Joan Lynch, President of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. In that, the letter relays the position of the SPUC Commissioners that it would be beneficial to increase the size of the Commissioners from three, to five. (State Law sets the number at three, unless otherwise provided by special legislation). It is my understanding that the main reason for increasing the size is to allow the Commission to function better when there is an absence of one or more of the Commissioners. The fact that the Commission now meets twice monthly, rather than once a month, compounds this problem. It is the hope of the Commission that by having City Council endorsement, a request could be made to our State legislators early in the process, so that the 2002 State Legislature could consider enabling legislation. I recommend that the Council take action endorsing the increase in membership as requested by the SPUC Commission. 1 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 5573 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING AN INCREASE IN NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS FOR SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES Mark McNeill City Administrator 7�V 11 1 !iil W111141111, 1, 1 I August 9, 2001 Mayor and City Council of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes St. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Increase in Number of Utilities Commissioners In view of the growth in the operations of the Shakopee Public Utilities, the Utilities Commission believes it would be beneficial to increase the number of Utilities Commissioners to five members. State law prescribes that such change be made by legislative action, and the Commission believes the best approach is to place a timely request with our local State Senator and State Representative on behalf of both the Commission and Council. A joint request will indicate broadbased support, and should help in securing passage of the legislation. Making the request at this time should allow it to be introduced early in the 2002 legislative session. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, S4 L Jk p lic Utilities Commission Joan Lynch Commission President 1031 East Fourth Avenue e Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1899 - (952) 445-1988 e FAX (952) 445-7767 RESOLUTION NO. 5573 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING AN INCREASE IN NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS FOR SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES WHEREAS, State Law sets the standard number of Commissioners for a municipally owned utility at three; and WHEREAS, Shakopee Public Utilities has been served by three Commissioners since its inception; and WHEREAS, the growth and the size of Shakopee has necessitated going from one meeting per month, to two or more; and WHEREAS, an absence by any one Commissioner creates a hardship on the remaining two Commissioners to adequately conduct business; and WHEREAS, increasing the number of Commissioners to five will greatly enhance the ability of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to conduct action in a business- like and professional manner; and WHEREAS, an amendment to MSA Chapter 426 is necessary to allow the number of members of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to be increased. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the City hereby endorses the concept of increasing the number of Commissioners for Shakopee Public Utilities from three to five, and further urges the State Legislature to enact legislation enabling same. Adopted in Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: session of the City Council of the City of City Clerk .S F y, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: 911 Address Signs DATE: September 13, 2001 The Council is asked to consider participation in the 911 Address Signage Program that was recently approved by Scott County. The County has asked that each city respond. Attached is information that was presented to the Scott County Board at its meeting on September 4 It describes how the County is entering into a program which will identify more than 7200 rural addresses with uniform reflective address signs, to ease property identification for emergency vehicles. The cost of each sign (anticipated to be approximately $35) will either be borne by townships, or assessed back against the benefiting properties, for the actual cost, plus 15 %. The County has offered to each City in the County an opportunity to participate in the program. The intent would be to help identify rural addresses. While there is no definition of what would qualify as a "rural" address, it is anticipated to be in unsewered areas where mailboxes might not easily identify properties. For example, some rural areas have clusters of mailboxes, wi-dch make it difficult for ambulance or fire crews to specifically identify the property location which requested assistance. They have asked that each City consider the program, and respond by the first week of October. I've talked with both the Police Chief and Fire Chief. It is of more importance to the Fire Department. Chief Mary Athmann said that Fire Chiefs in the County were very supportive; Chief Athmann notes that it will be especially beneficial for the Shakopee Fire Department when it responses to calls in Louisville or Jackson Townships. However, Chief Athmann also said that there are some properties in Shakopee that could benefit from participation in such a program — he noted examples like properties along Eagle Creek Boulevard, on the bluff above Valley View Road, and rural farmsteads along County Road 83. There might be 100 or so properties that could be better identified through this program, even though the City code requires all properties to be easily identifiable by a street number visible from the curb line. 1 '• If the City wants to participate in this, the decision that would have to be made would be funding. The County is following a 429 process for Townships that choose not to fund their participation through taxes. In this case, it would make the most sense for the benefiting property owners to be billed, and, should they choose not to make payment, assess the property following the 429 procedure. The Council should first indicate whether it is interested in participating in such a program. R , , ►� a� l u I t r��a We recommend that the City indicate its interest in participating in the program. 3 1 The Council should indicate whether or not it wants to have participation in the 911 Address Sign Program with Scott County. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th DATE: August 30, 2001 TO: Scott County Township Officials FROM: Michael Sobota, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 911 Address Signs For your information, the Scott County Board will be considering action on the 911 address sign proposal at the Tuesday, September 4 meeting. Enclosed is the staff recommendation to the County Board. We invite and encourage your participation in the meeting. Please review the staff. , recommendation and if you have any questions or comments, contact Dave Unmacht at (952) 496 -8100, or me at (952) 496 -8366. Assuming positive action by the County Board, we will be sending you additional information in the near future (possibly at a Quarterly Township Meeting under consideration). We look forward to your township's decision on this much needed and beneficial project. C: Renee Christianson, 911 Project Coordinator Dave Unmacht, Scott County Administrator jf- h: \pzfuehj \correspondence \townships \911 rba.doc An Equal Opportunity /Safety Aware Employer S eptem ber4 , 2 00 1 CONSENT AGENDA: No AGENDA # ORIGINATING Community Development SIGNATURE: DEPARTMENT: Public Works ACTION REQUESTED: Update and Authorization to Proceed with 9 -1 -1 Residential Address Marker Project BACKGROUND /JUSTIFICATION: The purpose of this agenda item is to provide background information on the 9 -1 -1 Residential Address Markers project and request authorization to proceed from the County Board. Attached for your information is an updated copy of the proposed work plan, with background information on the purpose of the project, funding and timeframe. In addition, included with the RBA is a copy of a memo prepared for the Township Officers Spring 2001 Meeting on the assessment process as well as the estimated project costs for each Township. In summary, as the number of residences in rural Scott County continues to grow, Scott County's responsibility to provide emergency services also grows. The Scott County Sheriffs Office has the responsibility to provide police protection, and also dispatch police, fire and medical personnel to this rapidly growing county, including the unincorporated areas. Often times address numerals installed by homeowners, used to identify properties in the rural areas, are difficult for emergency personnel to read, are only visible from one direction, not reflective, and inconsistent from house to house. During the course of this project and early on in the analysis of whether or not it had support in the emergency community, staff met with representatives from Sheriffs Patrol and Communications, Scott County fire chiefs from Shakopee, Prior Lake, Savage, Jordan, Belle Plaine, New Market, and ambulance services that serve Scott County. All were very supportive of the project. Continued: ATTACHMENTS: ® County Attorney Review ® Yes ❑ Risk Management Review ❑ No FISCAL IMPACT: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SIGNATURE /DATE ❑ None ❑ Amount included in current budget ❑ Budget amendment requested L ® Other 4� Approved: / V Distri ution /Filing Instructions Denied: Tabled: Other: Rec. Sec.: Date: RBA # 2001- RBA- SIGNBACKGROUND The project has been presented to the Townships in at least three distinct settings: 1) August 2000 Quarterly Township meeting; 2) November 2000 Leadership Forum; and 3) March 2001 Spring Township Officers Meeting. Although generally well received and supported by the majority of Townships, after much discussion, no consensus on one funding plan could be achieved. Our original goal was that all Townships would agree to pay the cost of installing the signs within their Township, thus avoiding a more costly and time- consuming assessment process. At this time, an overall consensus by the Townships on how to pay for the sign installation has not been reached. Staff is now requesting that the County Board provide direction to proceed with the project, giving each Township the choice between two funding options: 1) enter into a Joint Powers Agreement between the County and Township, which authorizes the Township to pay for the original sign installation; or 2) have the County administer the Chapter 429 assessment process to pay for the signs. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages from a Township perspective, and all Townships have, at one time or another, indicated a policy preference. However, since the last discussion on this was almost six months ago, staff wants to ask each Township for their preference of funding options which would then be formalized and accepted as the project alternative. Pursuant to the direction of the County Board in an earlier discussion, staff has discussed the project with the City Administrators and included the option to have the signs installed for rural residences within their jurisdictions. No formal commitments have been received to date. If the County Board proceeds with the project, staff will again contact the cities and seek their formal decision on whether or not to participate. �\ /1 1/ � C ► 1= 1►l TO: Michael Sobota David Unmacht County Board of Commissioners FROM: Renee Christianson DATE: August 1, 2001 RE: 911 Residential Address Markers As the number of residences in rural Scott County continues to grow, Scott County's responsibility to provide emergency services also grows. The Scott County Sheriffs Office has the responsibility to provide police protection, and also dispatch police, fire and medical personnel to this rapidly growing county, including the unincorporated areas. Oftentimes address numerals installed by homeowners, used to identify properties in the rural areas, are difficult for emergency personnel to read, are only visible from one direction, not reflective, and inconsistent from house to house. This causes a potential delay for emergency responders. Early in 2000, a Scott County District Court jury ruled that Allina Health Systems ambulance's inability to locate the home of a couple in rural Scott County during a 911 emergency call amounted to negligence on the company's part and that Allina should pay damages totaling $11.1 million. Scott County was also named in the original suit, but was dismissed. Solution More can be done by Scott County to identify rural addresses. One solution to better identify rural addresses is to install Residential Address Markers at the entrance to each property. The signs have been installed in numerous counties throughout the State. These signs are becoming commonplace when driving through rural areas. Staff has been talking with Sibley, LeSueur and Ottertail Counties, which went through the installation of residential address markers during 1999 -2000. The signs of choice have house numbers that are visible from both directions, are 6" x 18" in size, installed on a 7' or 8' post, highly reflective blue background with white lettering. A photograph of the actual signs will be available at the meeting. The Townships understand that the County is considering this project. On several occasions in 2000 and most recently during the 2001 Spring Townships Officers Meeting in March of this year, the project and its related details were discussed with the Township Officials. Extensive discussion has occurred with township comments ranging from a very high level of support to Pale 2 of 4, 911 Residential Address Markers 08/30/01 general reluctance. However, the consensus from the Townships is that the signs are a good idea and could reduce emergency response time which would be of great benefit to our emergency personnel. Staff recommends that should a program be established installation of signs for existing addresses (approximately 7,314) be contracted out to a .,private company. Staff would recommend that sign installation costs for new platted developments be charged to developers up front. These fees would be implemented as part of Community Development's fee schedule. Staff has met with Brad Larson and Joe Kane from the Scott County Highway Department and they have agreed to make and install the signs for new addresses being issued (approximately 200 each year). They would be notified when the Community Development Division issues an address, and would then sign the property. Any money received from developers for E911 sign purposes would be forwarded to the Highway Department for their work. Replacement signs would be the responsibility of the individual homeowner. Neither the Township nor the County will be responsible for replacing or repairing an existing sign. This policy will be clearly spelled out in the hearing process and during the acquisition of the original signs. Signs will be available from the County for an established fee. Staff is developing the replacement policy and is considering it as part of an update to our Addressing Ordinance. Financial Impact After speaking with various sign companies, and being given figures ranging from $31 to $35 per sign, staff is using $35 per sign for discussion purposes. As of August 22, 2001, there were 7,314 addresses in the rural area of Scott County. Staff has escalated the fee by 10% to allow for costs of inspection observation and contract administration. Fees for signs within new developments would be charged to the developer during final plat approval. This is consistent with the philosophy of 'new growth paying for itself. The fees for the existing addresses could be collected through one of two options outlined below. Two primary funding options are as follows: I. Each Township could pay the cost of the signs within their jurisdiction. Scott County would estimate the number of homes and a cost estimate for each Township. The Township and County would enter into a Joint Powers Agreement indicating the County would implement the project, and the Township would agree to reimburse the County for the cost. The Township would submit a payment to the County from the sources it has allocated to pay for this cost. II. The County could assess the cost of the signs. The procedures for assessing the fees to affected property owners would fall under Minnesota Statute 1998, Chapter 429. In this event, the cost of the signs would be increased to cover the administrative cost of overseeing the 429 assessment process. Costs would be escalated by approximately 15 %. This amounts to a total increase of approximately $38,000 if the assessment method were used for all Townships. Page 3 of 4, 911 Residential Address Markers 08/30/01 Another possible option that was dismissed early in consideration was to pay for the signs with a County ad valorem levy, then reimburse the County through a property tax on all parcels in the Township area only. This does not provide equitable cost recovery and staff does not recommend that the costs of the signs be placed on the County's annual property tax levy. Scott County's goal was that all Townships would agree to Option #l. Over the past nine months the Townships were unable to come to a consensus regarding a funding mechanism. Attached is a table that outlines the current cost estimate for each Township, giving both funding options I and II. Detail on each funding option will be presented at the during the County Board discussion. If directed to proceed by the County Board, staff would seek to obtain a policy preference from each Township. Decisions by each Township will need to be made in the very near future. Staff is planning a Quarterly Township Officers Meeting in September and will use that opportunity to secure an option from each jurisdiction. Work Plan /Timing If the Board decides to pursue the installation of E911 Residential Address Markers, a time frame is outlined below: X June /July /August 2000 Meet with police, fire, and ambulance responders, and city officials to obtain support from these agencies. X July 2000 — April 2001 Work with townships to obtain support for project and discuss funding mechanism August 2001 Present to County Board for official action to proceed September 2001 Finalize funding mechanism October 2001 BEGIN 429 PROCESS October 2,001 Hold public hearing on proposed project, following two publications in the newspapers and notices must be sent to every affected property owner at least 10 days prior to the hearing. October 2001 County Board must vote to proceed with a four -fifths vote, by order of resolution, within 6 months of the p ublic hearing on the project. November — Write RFP, advertise for bids, construction bulletin and December 2001 local newspaper December 2001 Award contract Spring 2002 Installation of E911 Residential Address Markers on existing properties Upon completion, hold final assessment hearing. Certify parcel numbers and names to the County Auditor to be collected with taxes. Must be certified to the County Auditor on or before November 30 for payment with the following years taxes. Page 4 of 4, 911 Residential Address Markers 08/30/01 Miscellaneous Scott County Ordinance #13 regulates addressing procedures within Scott County. Staff would also propose that this ordinance be amended to include details on E911 Residential Address Markers. Staff has rewritten the sections that it feels are appropriate and will bring forward for your consideration in the near future. Karen911Paper This was originally presented to the Spring Townships Officer Meeting in March of 2001. March 23, 2001 TO: Township Officials From: David Unmacht, Scott County Administrator RE: 911 Signs In response to your request for information on the County being responsible for assessing the costs of signs in some of the unincorporated areas, the statutes that we will need to follow to complete the project are outlined in summary below. Here are the essential steps that we must follow: • Prior to the work being done, we must hold a public hearing and publish for two weeks in the newspaper (each publication must be a week apart from each other), a notice stating the time and location of the public hearing, what the project is meant to accomplish, the cost, and the locations of the areas to be assessed. • The hearing must be at least 3 days from the last publication date • Not less than 10 days prior to the meeting, a notice must also be mailed to every property owner who will be assessed that states the project improvement and the cost associated with it • Prior to the adoption of the resolution, the County Board must receive a report by either an engineer or "some other competent person" as to the project's necessity, feasibility, and cost effectiveness; as well as the total cost, an estimate of the cost to be assessed /parcel owner and the methodology used to determine the individual assessment. The County can, if they choose, include in the assessment, the cost for preparing this report as long an itemization of labor is kept and the person preparing the report has the experience and knowledge to prepare such a report. • After adoption of the resolution, the work for the project must be done within one year, unless the time constraints make that an impossibility due to the size of the project; in this case that time frame must be specified in the resolution • If the County is receiving bids on this project, we must advertise for bids if the project exceeds $25,000 The number of weeks the publication must run depends upon the cost of the project. • We must keep a detailed report of the labor in regard to the: a) complete cost; b) units of work done; c) materials used & cost; d) cost of labor, equipment and supervisory costs • After the completion of the project, the County Board will determine by resolution the total cost of the project; the amount that we will pay; and the amount to be assessed ® We must publish a notice of a final hearing on the adoption of the assessment roll no longer than 2 weeks prior to the public hearing ® A mailed notice to all property owners must be made no longer than 2 weeks prior to the hearing. The notice will state the appeal rights of the owner; the final amount to be assessed; the right of the owner to prepay the assessment; the time when interest will be added to the assessment if applicable; the rate of the interest; and to inform the owner that the board may adopt this proposed assessment at this hearing ® Following adoption of the resolution, the County Board sends a signed copy of the resolution, along with a list of properties to be assessed and the amounts of the assessment, to me to be placed on the tax rolls. Homeowners must be made aware of any changes to the assessment, decided at the public hearing, by mail. These are the statutory guidelines for placing a special assessment. Let me know how your meeting goes with the townships. As soon as we can determine which areas we will be responsible for, I can get a list & labels ready to start this process. $ $ \ \ \ \ o \ \ 2 \ \ / / \ \ = \ 3 / \ / \ � j / / \ ( \ » ( \ < \ \ ƒ / mf ( 0 /P@ �0 § § ca J ƒ m G = 0 2 0 / w co « Doc �/. /E_ CL a) �E\ \7� - . E 77$ CL � $ /§- a 9 m3A C14 $$o 22 � E_ «2 n n m m= m o# n m c c o«»= o 0 o c# o LO 0 o w w a= o o- «* m a m< a- w 3 a_ e e e a_ a a a c o - - n E o± o = CO 2 \ \ \ � CO ƒ / CO ® 66 G 2 g g 7$\� 2 k e e e_ e e e e co c k "t� k k t / to ®G Q % % 2 co 2 ® ƒ & 6 % e e m+_ e® a \ / CO \ \ \ / \ / Cli| CL e s C a 2- k a\ 3 a\ a- C \\ \ CL \ \ \ / F @ o \ o m = \ _ / o ® ƒ j / \ 7 ®/ _ * ± ± ° E t c /\/ o a 2 2\\ k 3\ a f± g \ / / / } / � / \ 2 / \ & \ Cl) e \ � / w 7 \ CD \ ¥ 6 m G 7 £ - _ / g y a ) \ 2 \ � k k 7 J / C co o $ 2 / / ƒ 0 ©} / \ \ a e