HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 20, 2001 TENTATIVE AGENDA
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 20, 2001
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Jon Brekke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m.
21 Pledge of Allegiance
31 Approval of Agenda
4] Mayor's Report
51 Approval of Consent Business — (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a
discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to
remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be
considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent
agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.)
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: January 16, 2001
*g] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $506,139.42 plus $104,879.48 for refunds, returns and
pass through for a total of $611,018.90
9] Public Hearing on the proposed improvements for CR 83 and CR 16, Project No. 2001 -4;
Resolution No. 5499
10] Communications: None
11] Liaison Reports from Council Members
121 Recess for Economic Development Authority meeting - none
13] Re- convene
TENTATIVE AGENDA
March 20, 2001
Page 2-
14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions:
A] Preliminary Plat of Garden Lane Addition located at Marschall Road and Garden Lane;
Res. No. 5489 — tabled 2/20
*B] Preliminary and Final Plat of Bluff Avenue Urban Village Development, located east of
Naumkeag Street and north of Bluff Avenue — Res. No. 5497
15] General Business
A] Community Development
* 1. Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4 Addition — Res. No. 5498
B] Public Works and Engineering
1. Order Feasibility Report for Adams St. Sidewalk from 3rd to 6 — Res. No. 5500
C] Police and Fire
* 1. Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Request Correction -
D] Parks and Recreation
* 1. Survey for Huber Park Master Plan
*2. Irrigation System for Muenchow Fields
E] Personnel
* 1. Completion of Probationary Period of Ryan Halverson
*2. Completion of Probationary Period of Keith Raines
3. Approve Hiring of Engineering Technician III — memo on table
4. Approve Hiring of Engineering Technician II — memo on table
5. Approve Hiring of Ice Arena Maintenance Operator — memo on table
6. Approve Hiring of Temporary Building Inspector — memo on table
F] General Administration:
* 1. Revocation of Liquor Licenses — Rock Spring Restaurant, Inc.
2. Allen Hastings, regarding refuse collection
16] Council Concerns
17] Other Business
18] Adjourn to Tuesday, March 27, 2001, at 5:00 p.m.
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF TEE CrrY COUNCIL
J. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MMNNESOTA JANUARY 16, 2001
The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 15.E.1. Approve Nuing of Three Police
Officers; 15.E.2. Approve the 11iring of A Recreation Supervisor; 15.F.2. Recycling Containers; 151.3.
Vehicle Purchases.
Link/Amundson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item
not on the agenda. There was no response.
Link/Amundson moved to approve the bills in the amount of $516,442.64 plus $328,274.24 for refunds,
returns, and pass through for a total of $844,716.88. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.)
Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed Vacation of Easements within Valley Park 6 t '
Addition.
Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, gave astaff presentation on the proposed vacation of an
easement within Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Valley Park 6 & Addition. This is a request for a vacation of two
easement sections. The subject property is on Valley Industrial Boulevard North. The vacation is being
requested so American Color Graphics can do an expansion. This request has been circulated for
comment to the utilities and to internal staff and other agencies. No comment was received back that was
adverse to the vacation of the easement within the Valley Park 6 Addition. This vacation was reviewed
as part of the Planning Commission agenda on January 4, 2000 with the Planning Commission
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 2
recommending the vacation of the easement within the Valley Park 6 Addition to the Council by a vote
of 7 -0.
Mayor Brekke declared that this was a public hearing and asked for public testimony. There was no
response.
Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing closed.
orke/Link offered Resolution No. 5473, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee Vacating An Easement
Within Valley Park 6 Addition, City Of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved its adoption.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing to consider a proposal for a vacant dwelling or building
ordinance.
Mr. Leek reported on the proposal for a new section of the City Code regarding buildings, specifically a
vacant building. He highlighted some of the significant differences between the City's current unsafe
building ordinance and the proposed draft ordinance for a section of city code regarding vacant buildings.
In the current ordinance the Building Official makes the determination; in the new ordinance the Building
Official, or Fire Chief or Police Chief can declare a building unsafe and there is an appeal process in place
in the new draft ordinance. The current ordinance does not provide a definition of what constitutes an
unsafe building but the draft ordinance does contain this language. Both ordinances stipulate the levying
of the costs and placing assessments against the property, and the draft ordinance also requires interest to
be paid for any unpaid balances.
Mayor Brekke declared that this was a public hearing and asked for public testimony. There was no
response.
Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing closed.
Morke /Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 590, An Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 4 by Replacing
Sec. 4.09, Unsafe Buildings, and moved its adoption.
Cncl. Sweeney felt this ordinance might need some amendments at a later date.
Cncl. Morke thought this was a good first step.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing for a local Law Enforcement Block Grant.
Dan Hughes, Chief of the Police Department, reported that the Shakopee Police Department is seeking
authorization to accept a $10,604 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. The United States Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), notified the Police Department that our jurisdiction is
eligible to apply for this direct funding in the amount of $10,604. This grant requires a cash match of
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 3
$1,178. This match figure is included in the 2001 Police Department budget. An advisory group met on
February 4, 2000 and made non - binding recommendations for the use of the funds. These
recommendations were to spend $5026 to pay for part of the alarm system at the Community Center and
the balance was to be used to help pay for a the Police Department dictation system. These items are
included in the 2001 City budget. These federal dollars would reduce the cost of these items to the local
taxpayers.
Chief Hughes stated that unlike other grants, this particular grant could be used to reduce the local
expenses. Cncl. Sweeney felt these grant funds should be used for other purposes such as: police over-
time pay and park maintenance.
Cncl. Morke said this was a non - binding recommendation as to how the grant funds should be spent.
Chief Hughes stated that if the Council wanted the grant monies spent to fund over -time related
enforcement issues by the Police Department that was within the parameters of the grant and he would
change the resolution to reflect what the Council wanted the monies spent on.
Mayor Brekke declared that this was a public hearing and asked for public testimony. There was no
response.
Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing closed.
Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5475, A Resolution Of The Shakopee City Council Concerning
The Bureau Of Justice Assistance (BJA) Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, and moved its adoption.
Sweeney/Morke moved to amend Resolution 5475 by striking No. 1. Community Center Alarm System
and No. 2 Police Department Dictation System and replace those numbers with "support for training and
overtime pay for currently employed police officers for the purposes set foa th by the Shakopee City
Council.
The motion carried unanimously.
The main motion as amended carried unanimously.
Mr. Thomson, City Attorney, clarified why some items were public hearing items and why some items
were not public hearings that residents were interested in.
Staff recommended that the February 20, 2001 City Council meeting start at 8:00 p.m. because the
School Board Election polls would be open until 8:00 p.m. There was discussion on the meeting date.
Because there was no real objection to staffs recommendation, it was decided to meet on February 20,
2001 at 8:00 p..
Cncl. Sweeney reported on the Public Utilities Commission meeting. Because Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission is having difficulty determining who has title to the property next to the cemetery on 10
Avenue, Commissioner Sweeney suggested that the title of the land be transferred on a quitclaim deed
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 4
basis. He pointed out the State of Minnesota only issues quit claim deeds. The Shakopee Utilities
Commission thought this was a reasonable action. They directed Mr. Van Lout to get in contact with
Mr. McNeill.
Discussion ensued on whether or not to Torrance the property.
A recess was taken at 7:34 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority
meeting.
The meeting re- convened at 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Leek gave a stag report on the rezoning of property from Highway Business (B 1) to Multiple Family
Residential (R3), located north of C.R. 16 and west of Roundhouse Street and east of Marschall Road.
The parcel is about 2.9 acres in size. Under the adopted 1995 Comprehensive Plan the property is guided
for Multiple Family Residential use; under the updated plan submitted to the Metropolitan Council but
not yet approved, there was a minor adjustment in boundaries that shows this property as commercial.
DC companies have asked that this property be rezoned from Highway Business (BI), which is the
current classification to Multiple Family Residential (R3). If the rezoning request is approved, DMC does
have plans to construct a 52 -unit apartment structure on this site. When this request went to the Planning
Commission, stag recommended approval because it was consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan along with direction to be given to staff to amend the plan update to reflect the revised land use. On
January 4, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed the request and made two motions. The first motion
was to approve the rezoning request and direct stag to amend the Comprehensive Plan update to reflect
the land use. This motion failed 2 -5. The second motion was to recommend denial of the rezoning. This
motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission felt criteria three, having to do with significant
changes in neighborhood or development patterns was not met. Staff is recommending that direction be
given to staff to come back with the appropriate document; be it a resolution of denial or an ordinance of
approval of the requested rezoning. `
Mayor Brekke clarified with Mr. Leek that the City of Shakopee has a 1995 Comprehensive Plan that
was approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted by the City Council that shows the subject area
zoned for Multiple Family Residential. There is a 1998 Comprehensive Plan amendment before the
Metropolitan Council that has not been approved as of this date and shows the subject site as Multiple
Family Residential, and then there is an update to the Comprehensive Plan that has not been submitted to
the Metropolitan Council, showing the subject site revised to Highway Business. Mr. Leek made two
observations to Mayor Brekke's clarification. The update to the Comprehensive Plan has been submitted
to the Metropolitan Council, but they have not acted on it at this time. It was noted that the
comprehensive plan update was not approved or adopted by the City Council of Shakopee either.
According to Mr. Leek this plan update was quite comprehensive therefore, he suggested this update be
sent to the Metropolitan Council before being approved by the City Council in case there were
substantive changes that needed to be made. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek if the changes in the update
were based on discussions that the City Council had. Mr. Leek replied yes, these changes in the update
plan reflect the goals of the City Council. Mr. Leek is of the belief that what was communicated to DMC
Companies was that this request is consistent with the adopted plan but it was not consistent with the
plan update. The circumstances of this plat may need a zoning district that is less that BI zoning.
Official Proceedings
of the City Council
January 16, 2001
Page 5
Cncl. Morke stated the current approved Comprehensive Plan is guiding this site for R3.
Dennis Czech, with DMC Companies, approached the podium and addressed the City Council. His
company looked at this property to develop it into multi - family rental units with private funds and a large
demand for this type unit existed in Shakopee. The Planning Commission denied the rezoning and that is
why DMC is before the Council.
Cncl. Sweeney wanted to know what was to the south of the subject site.
Bill Armbrust, 1275 Quincy, Edina Realty, representing Mr. Czech for the subject site and realtor,
approached the podium and addressed the Council relative to the property. He thought in analyzing this
property there were many more reasons to rezone it than not to rezone it. The market is not that great
for Highway Business in this area.
Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek to shed some more light on the criterion that the Planning Commission
dad not think was met. This criteria being "that significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood
development patterns have occurred " According to Mr. Leek, there was not significant discussion on
criteria No. 3, but Mr. Leek thought the Planning Commission was thinking the development pattern in
this area has been fairly longstanding and hasn't changed in it's development pattern in the last few years.
Mr. Leek stated one can argue with that conclusion with the opening of Hwy 169.
Cncl. Morke believed that R3 was a good usage in this area; this use is consistent with the current
approved Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the City of Shakopee.
orke/Link moved to approve the rezoning request of DMC Companies to rezone the property located
north of CR 16 and west of Roundhouse Street from Highway Business (Bl) to Multiple Family
Residential (R3) and direct staff to revise the boundaries of land uses on the draft land use plan, as well as
prepare an ordinance approving the rezoning request.
Cncl. Amundson agreed the business zoning was an odd zoning for a land locked piece of property. She
also asked about the density maximum.
Cncl. Sweeney wanted to know what was going to happen to the adjacent triangle piece if the subject site
is rezoned to R3.
Mr. Leek addressed some of the density along C.R.16 with similar developments. Mayor Brekke asked
Mr. Thomson if the Council had the ability to add conditions on a rezoning. Mr. Thomson did not think
the City Council had this ability.
• i• r
January 16, 2001
Page 5
Cncl. Morke stated the current approved Comprehensive Plan is guiding this site for R3.
Dennis Czech, with DMC Companies, approached the podium and addressed the City Council. s
company looked at this property to develop it into multi- family rental units with private funds and a large
demand for this type unit existed in Shakopee. The Planning Commission denied the rezoning and that is
why DMC is before the Council.
Cncl. Sweeney wanted to know what was to the south of the subject site.
Bill Armbrust, 1275 Quincy, Edina Realty, representing Mr. Czech for the subject site and realtor,
approached the podium and addressed the Council relative to the property. He thought in analyzing this
property there were many more reasons to rezone it than not to rezone it. The market is not that great
for Highway Business in this area.
Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek to shed some more light on the criterion that the Planning Commission
did not think was met. This criteria being "that sign cant changes in City-wide or neighborhood
development patterns have occurred " According to Mr. Leek, there was not significant discussion on
criteria No. 3, but Mr. Leek thought the Planning Commission was thinking the development pattern in
this area has been fairly longstanding and hasn't changed in it's development pattern in the last few years.
Mr. Leek stated one can argue with that conclusion with the opening of Hwy 169.
Cncl. Morke believed that R3 was a good usage in this area; this use is consistent with the current
approved Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the City of Shakopee.
orkelLink moved to approve the rezoning request of DMC Companies to rezone the property located
north of CR -16 and west of Roundhouse Street from Highway Business (B1) to Multiple Family
Residential (R3) and direct staff to revise the boundaries of land uses on the draft land use plan, as well as
prepare an ordinance approving the rezoning request.
Cncl. Amundson agreed the business zoning was an odd zoning for a land locked piece of property. She
also asked about the density maximum.
Cncl. Sweeney wanted to know what was going to happen to the adjacent triangle piece if the subject site
is rezoned to R3.
Mr. Leek addressed some of the density along CR.16 with similar developments. Mayor Brekke asked
Mr. Thomson if the Council had the ability to add conditions on a rezoning. Mr. Thomson did not think
the City Council had this ability.
Cncl. Sweeney called for a vote on the motion on the table.
Motion passed on a 3 -2 vote. Mayor Brekke and Cncl. Amundson dissenting.
Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff to look and see what opportunities the City of Shakopee has to get
some green space for children to play in, in the R3 zone. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Brekke also wanted staff to see what changes to the criteria for R-3 could be made to come up
with more green space, sidewalks, etc.
Link/Amundson offered Ordinance No. 587, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee,
Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally
Located North of Sixth Avenue and East of CSAH 69, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under
the Consent Agenda.)
Mr. Leek gave a report on the request of Enterprise Properties to amend the final plat approval for Maple
Trail Estates 3r Addition. Enterprise Properties has also acquired nine acres to the north in Chateau
Ridge. The amendment that Enterprise Properties is asking for is to allow them to complete a portion of
the roadway in class five aggregate, with this portion to be final paved within two years, thus allowing
Enterprise Properties to connect Chateau Ridge and Maple Trail Estates 3r Addition. Staff did send this
request for a final plat amendment out for review and asked for comments, especially comments from the
Fire and Police Departments, to see if they had any problems with this request; no continents were
received back. Joel Rutherford, Assistant Engineer for the City of Shakopee, reviewed the request and
felt it was workable as long as there were some specific conditions placed on the amendment. Mr. Leek
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 7
There will be a financial guarantee that this road will be paved in the future plus $5,000 for maintenance.
This is one of the conditions that the engineering department is requiring of the final plat of Maple Trail
Estates P Addition.
The only portion of this roadway that is proposed to be class five aggregate is the section of roadway
adjacent to the nine lots in Chateau Ridge, which Enterprises Properties has also purchased.
David Segal, 11900 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, with Enterprise Properties, approached the podium
and addressed the Council. He stated the property from Chateau Ridge that Enterprise Properties
purchased is nine lots not nine acres. The nine lots are all two and one -half acre lots. The main reason
Enterprise Properties is proposing this class five aggregate roadway is that these are high priced lots and
Enterprise Properties felt all these lots should not be brought on the market at one time. They wanted to
phase the project over two years.
orke/Link moved to approve the requested amendment of the final plat of Maple Trail Estates 3
Addition, and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with that approval and the recommended
conditions of the engineering staff. Motion carried unanimously.
A recess was taken at 8:51 p..
The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
Sweeney/Morke offered Ordinance No. 589, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Amending Sections 8.30 and
8.99 Of The City Code Pertaining to the Operations Of Snowmobiles And All- Terrain Vehicles, and
moved its adoption.
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 8
Cncl. Sweeney questioned a point in the ordinance. In the Ordinance, Subd. 4, the word "shall" has been
changed to "may", he felt the word "may" would make it an administration decision as to which
snowmobile would be impounded.
Sweeney /Amundson moved to amend Subd. 4 in Ordinance 589, Fourth Series, to change the word
"may" back to "shall".
Mayor Brekke argued against the word change. He felt it may not be feasible to enforce the impounding
every time and the word "shall" means impounding is required every time. The decision to impound
should be up to the police officer working this case based on the severity of the offense, on past history,
etc. Cncl. Sweeney argued for the word "shall' so that the police officer does not have to make the
decision on whether or not to impound the snowmobile, the decision has already been made.
Cncl. Morke agreed with Cncl. Sweeney on this amendment.
Dan Hughes, Police Chief, approached the podium and addressed the Council. The word "shall " is very
strong language for a misdemeanor crime. Mr. Thomson stated that the original word change was his
recommendation. He discussed this with the Police Chief and with the prosecutor. He felt the
impounding for 60 days was forfeiture not impoundment. There was such a range of misdemeanors and
he didn't want to take the discretion away from the police officers.
Cncl. Morke now supports the Mayor standing on this issue.
The amended motion failed unanimously.
Cncl. Sweeney moved to amend Subd. 4, Ordinance No. 589 to say, "may be impounded up to 60 days ".
Motion failed for a lack of a second.
The main motion carried unanimously.
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 9
direct staff to bring back the appropriate resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent
with that decision.
Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek if he recalled the size of the sign on the rear of the Target Store. Mr.
Leek's recollection of the size was 400 square feet; he deferred to Mr. Tucci, of Oppidan. Mr. Tucci said
the sign on the rear of the Target Store is approximately 185 square feet.
Mr. Tucci, representing Oppidan, representative of KTJ Partnership, approached the podium to address
the Council. What Oppidan is proposing in reality is a square footage reallocation for signage. One of
the discussions that came up at the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting was that there was no
additional square footage of signage being requested, it was just a reallocation of the placement of the
square footage. Kohl's Department Store is requesting that the signage square footage on the west wall
of the store be reallocated to the 100 square foot signage that is presently allowed on the rear side of the
Kohl's Department Store.
Cncl. Morke questioned Mr. Tucci regarding the reallocation of the signage square footage. Mr. Tucci
noted a pylon sign is already approved; it has not been installed yet because the height of the sign is
limited due to the power lines above the pylon sign placement and because of elevations. Cncl. Morke
stated he did have a problem with the pylon sign; he did not have a problem with the sign square footage
being reallocated until the pylon sign information was brought forth.
Sweeney/Morke moved to uphold the determination of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denial of a
sign variance for Oppidan (Kohl's Department Store), and direct staff to prepare a resolution for the
Council's Consent Agenda that is consistent with that decision.
Cncl. Sweeney wanted the sign ordinance looked at in the immediate future and then to look at the sign
for Kohl's Department Store and see if that would fit into the revised sign ordinance. If this motion
passes Cncl. Sweeney wanted to defer that action pending a discussion with the Community Development
Director as to how the sign ordinance should be changed.
Cncl. Link did not feel Oppidan was asking anything unreasonable. Neither did Cncl. Sweeney but he
noted that the sign ordinance did not state this size of square footage at this time. If we do not want to
uphold the ordinance, then let's change the ordinance.
Cncl. Morke stated that he would support Cncl. Sweeney's motion. This sign ordinance needs to be
reconsidered.
Mr. Tucci, addressed the Council addressing the size proportion of the sign in a revised sign ordinance.
He stated Oppidan was willing to give up the pylon sign in the rear of the Kohl's Department Store if that
was necessary to get this rear wall signage variance.
Cncl. Amundson was comfortable to reallocate the square footage of the west wall signage area to the
rear of the Kohl's Store.
Cncl. Morke felt it was necessary to uphold the determination of the Planning Commission.
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 10
Mr. Tucci stated if the sign variance was not approved this evening, it was very likely that the
representative's of Kohl's Department Store may or may not decide on this building location.
Mayor Brekke felt there were more important items that the planning department needed to address
before the sign ordinance. He felt it was in the overall best interest of the City to deal with this variance
request now.
Mr. Leek stated that shortly after the Cub sign variance was granted, staff polled other communities to
see how restrictive their sign ordinances were. City staff found out that the sign ordinances of other
communities were pretty much the same, but these other communities did grant variances for larger signs
more readily than the City of Shakopee.
Cncl. Sweeney felt these variances, because of the time involved in determining whether the variance
should be granted, were a burden to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the appeal process to the
City Council of the BOAA determination was a burden to the City Council.
Cncl. Sweeney stated his intent was to uphold the BOAA; he was willing to do a series of motions with
the end result being a revised sign ordinance.
Motion failed 3 -2 with Cncls. Link, Amundson and Mayor Brekke dissenting.
• - -• - • • • � s � .�� -.'! • t �.;
Amundson/Link moved to uphold the appeal of Oppidan, thereby granting the requested sign variance for
the Kohl's Department Store, and directed staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda
that is consistent with that decision. Motion carried 3 2 with Cncls. Morke and Sweeney dissenting.
Sweeney/Link moved to direct the planning staff to utilize consultant dollars to revise the sign ordinance
with consultants, so a revised sign ordinance can come before the City Council in the immediate future.
Motion carried unanimously.
Amundson/Sweeney moved to direct the appropriate City staff to enter into a contract with BKV to
provide the design, construction, inspection and other related architectural services for the new Shakopee
public library.
Ms. Coenen gave some summary comments on the Library Committee's recommendation. The Library
Committee selected BKV for their choice for architectural services. The City received eight responses
from various architectural firms and from these eight; three firms were invited for interviews. BKV has
extensive library experience and also experience with the City of Shakopee.
Mr. McNeill stated that this recommendation for BKV is just to do the design for the Library and make a
presentation to the Library Committee and then a recommendation will be made to the Council to seek
bids on the library itself.
Motion carried unanimously.
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 11
economy.
The three architectural firms interviewed could construct the new library to be done in January 2003 but
costs would be high. If this end date could be moved to May of 2003, there would be less cost and a
better product. The Library committee recommended a more realistic time frame with completion to be
in May 2003. This is just information for Council, no action is necessary.
Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending City Code Sec. 4.03
deleting the requirement of a permit for new fence construction.
Mayor Brekke was interested in knowing how a fence that was incorrectly constructed would be dealt
with.
Mr. Leek stated that his intention would be to leave the CUP requirement intact for an overheight fence
and perhaps reduce the rate of the permit. If the material is not appropriate and/or if the fence was
incorrectly placed or constructed, then it would become an enforcement issue.
Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek if some people were building fences now without permits. Mr. Leek
stated yes, there are.
Cncl. Sweeney stated that permits for some fences does not make sense.
Cncl. Morke wanted to require fence permits.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. McNeill reported on setting a workshop meeting date. At the previous workshop meeting held
January 9, 2001 the Council was unable to complete the Prior Lake Outlet Channel discussion and
discussion on other issues. There is a request from Steve Ach and other developers to look at
development standards. If time permits a third item is requested to be discussed by the Shakopee
Official Proceedings
of the City Council
January 16, 2001
Page 12
dewakanton Sioux Community. Mr. McNeill recommended Tuesday, January 30, 2001. The first two
items have been requested in writing.
Mayor Brekke stated that the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community issue was not an urgent matter.
It was important but not imperative that it be discussed immediately.
Mr. McNeill stated the County would also like to make a presentation to the City Council.
Mayor Brekke stated the workshop meeting would be Tuesday, January 30, 2001 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00
p.m. and the items to be discussed would be the Prior Lake Outlet Channel and items in the Community
Development area.
Cncl. Morke stated he would quite late to the January 30, 2001 workshop meeting.
Mayor Brekke reset the date of the workshop meeting to Wednesday, January 31, 2001 from 5:00 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m.
Link/Amundson moved to approve authorizing payment in the amount of $2,866.66 to the Prior Lake -
Spring Lake Watershed District for additional aerial survey services associated with the Prior Lake Outlet
Channel feasibility report. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5476, A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling A Hearing
On An Improvement To Vierling Drive, From County Road 15 to Orchard Park West, Project No. 2000-
2, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the JPA for 2001 Traffic
Markings, Street Sweeping, Crack Sealing and Seal Coating between the Cities of Burnsville, Apple
Valley, Eagan, Lakeville, Rosemount, Savage, Prior Lake and Shakopee. (Motion carried under the
Consent Agenda),
Cncl. Sweeney abstained from the discussion and the voting on the feasibility report for Holmes Street
from P Avenue to 10 Avenue.
Mr. Loney reported on the feasibility report for Holmes Street from 3 rd Avenue to IW Avenue. The City
is looking at a bituminous overlay for this area. $100,000 is budgeted in the 2001 CIP for bituminous
overlays. When Holmes Street was reconstructed in 1980, the Sanitary Sewer was not replaced from 7 th
Avenue to I Avenue. The sewer televising indicates that this sewer needs to be replaced at this time.
The services have been replaced but not the main sewer line. A cost estimate for replacing the sewer is
approximately $147,000. The City's main concern with Holmes Street is getting it repaired or updated
from 3 rd Avenue to 6` Avenue because this is where the collector street route is. Mr. Loney stated what
he would like to do is put together a feasibility study, putting together the costs and recommendations.
Because of the projects that are coming forward this year he would like to take a closer look to see how
much of the City costs are coming forward this year.
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 13
Cncl. Morke asked about assessing the costs of the sanitary sewer costs to the residents along Holmes
Street between 7' Avenue and 10' Avenue. Mr. Loney stated that back in 1980 the sanitary sewer fund
did not pay for replacing the sewer main so the residents in this area requested that the sanitary sewer
main not be replaced at that time. If we do the project today, the project gets paid for out of the sanitary
sewer fund.
orke/Link offered Resolution No. 5472, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On The
2001 Street Overlay Project — Holmes Street, from 3 rd Avenue to 10'' Avenue, and moved its adoption.
Motion carried unanimously with Cncl. Sweeney abstaining.
Mr. Loney discussed the preparation of the Sarazin Street and Valley View Road feasibility report. The
feasibility study is being done to improve Sarazin Street and curve it to the east plat line of Pheasant Run
6` Addition to Valley View Road. This improvement to Sarazin Street is being done so collector routes
can be built and other paved access can be made available for the developments out in that area.
Shakopee Public Utilities is going forward and building a water tower and an extension of a water main is
needed in the water tower area. The extension of the watermain, therefore should be part of this project.
We are also finding on the south side of Valley View Road, which is not in MUSA and zoned rural
residential, the amount that can be assessed is much lower than if there was sewer and water available and
people could subdivide their property. Mr. Loney had a copy of the Comprehensive Plan that was
submitted to the Metropolitan Council. If these improvements to Sarazin Street are assessed based on
our policy, Mr. Loney feels the assessments would be exceeding the benefits the property owner would
receive. If direct access is given to some parts of Valley View Road, there are some buildable lots to
allow expansion in this rural residential area. The assessments the City would most likely need to pay, if
the land isn't reguided along Valley View Road to urban residential is approximately $300,000 plus. The
Council needs to answer the question regarding the south side of Valley View Road. Do you see the land
on the south side of Valley View Road 1) always being rural residential or should the City allow that area
to be reguided to urban residential and 2) should the City of Shakopee allow MUSA and direct lot access
from Valley View Road on future subdivided lots. Valley View Road will be a collector street and the
City's current policy tends not to allow access onto a collector street. Depending on the policy direction
of the two questions that the engineering department has, the feasibility report can then be finished.
Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct the City staff to take appropriate action to have MUSA allocated on
the south side of Valley View Road as far as needed to make improvements to Valley View Road
feasible.
Mr. Loney asked how the Council wanted this area developed.
There was discussion on a future intersection point with Valley View Road and property owners having
the ability to develop their property.
Cncl. Sweeney stated that sewer and water lines may be running past 10 acres parcels and the Council
needs to accept the fact that these people will need to be able to subdivide their property or there will be
assessment appeals.
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 14
Mayor Brekke did not see the south side of Valley View Road as a priority for allocating SA He
liked the idea of preserving this area as rural residential and preserving the bluff line. He would rather see
MUSA extension on the east side of CR. 83 on the abutting parcels to the Mdewakanton Sioux property
and getting developments along C.R 83 as soon as possible.
Cncl. Sweeney said he would oppose vehemently the paving of Valley View Road at the expense of the
general taxpayers.
Motion carried 3 — 2 with Cncl. Morke and Mayor Brekke dissenting.
The discussion on having MUSA on the east side of C.R. 83 adjacent to the Mdewakanton Sioux
property will be scheduled for a future meeting.
Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct staff to allow appropriate direct lot access from the south side of
Valley View Road in the event that Valley View Road is improved. Motion carried 3 2 with Cncl.
Morke and Mayor Brekke dissenting.
Mr. McNeill reported on the Public Works/Police building roof repair. Approximately a year ago the
City hired JEA Architects to perform an analysis on City facilities. In a report dated May 15, 2000 JEA
Architects noted that the Public Works/Police building needed replacement of the existing roof, which is
25 years old. This roof replacement was listed as a high priority in the JEA analysis. JEA has supplied a
cost estimate to be somewhere between $310,000 to $350,000. JEA Architects will prepare the plans
and specifications on a hourly basis at a cost not to exceed $30,500 plus reimbursables.
Cncl. Link thought this figure was extremely high.
According to Mr. McNeill, because of the amount of the estimated cost a formal bid process is needed.
Morke/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an agreement with JEA
Architects for architectural services needed for the reroofing of the Public Services building located at
476 Gorman Street, a total not to exceed $30,500, plus reimbursables. Motion carried unanimously.
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement with WSB
for the installation design of the EVPS System and obtain quotes for the actual installation. Motion
carried under the Consent Agenda).
Official Proceedings
of the City Council
January 16, 2001
Page 15
Link/Amundson moved to amend the 2001 Parks Capital Improvement Program to include new play
equipment at Holmes Park and authorize staff to proceed with plans for installing new play equipment at
Holmes Park. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5477, a Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Authorizing The
Application For A Metro Greenways Planning Grant, and moved its adoption.
According to Mr. McQuillan, this is a one -time base mapping of all the Natural Resources in the City of
Shakopee.
Cncl. Amundson asked if this would include the two townships of Jackson and Louisville? Mr.
McQuillan stated yes the two townships of Jackson and Louisville will be included.
Cncl. Sweeney noted that this comprehensive natural resources inventory would result in proposals for
acquiring property.
Mr. McQuillan stated this would identify areas that the City of Shakopee wants to protect. The
Greenways grant program has an extension to it that can provide financial assistance in acquiring new
parkland, etc. This provides needed information that will be needed by City Staff to apply for additional
funding sources. This Greenways grant is being co- written with the Kestral Group, which is an
environmental design group that understands there is no guarantee that they will be hired to do this study
if the grant is received by the City of Shakopee.
Motion carried unanimously.
Link/Amundson moved to authorize hiring Fred Radde as a probationary police officer with the Shakopee
Police Department at a monthly rate of $3,089 subject to the satisfactory completion of a pre-
employment medical and psychological examination from the eligible candidates, Fred Radde, John
Kegley, and Sean Zauhar. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize hiring John Kegley as a probationary police officer with the
Shakopee Police Department at a monthly rate of $3,089 subject to the satisfactory completion of a pre-
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 16
employment medical and psychological examination from the eligible candidates, John Kegley, Sean
Zauhar and Jennifer Hauer. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize hiring Sean Zauhar as a probationary police officer with the
Shakopee Police Department at a monthly rate of $3,089 subject to the satisfactory completion of a pre-
employment medical and psychological examination from the eligible candidates, Sean Zauhar, Jennifer
Hauer and Chad Turner. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appointment of John Lehner as Recreation Supervisor,
contingent upon successful completion of the pre - employment physical and background check, at a
starting salary of $37,163. (Grade G, Step 1) of the 2001 Pay Plan. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to approve regular full time status for Jason Bullard effective January 31, 2001.
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to terminate Kevin Hennes's probationary status as a Maintenance Worker in the
Public Works Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to accept the resignation of employment from Layne Otteson, with regrets,
effective January 22, 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to utilize Scott County in advertising and
hiring an Engineering Technician III. (Motion carried under the consent Agenda).
Official Proceedings January 16, 2001
of the City Council Page 17
Mayor Brekke brought up one concern. This was that the City of Shakopee needs to make sure that
there is follow -up on the County's meeting with the Jackson and Louisville townships that shows the
Comprehensive Plan map has been amended based on the discussion with the City Council the evening of
the meeting, January 9, 2001.
Cncl. Link was concerned about the residence at 228 Second Ave. East. Mr. Leek said this residence
would be followed up on.
Cncl. Amundson was concerned about the upcoming building projects of the City and their affect on the
capital improvements. Mr. McNeill stated that the building projects would be monitored.
A recess was taken at 10:33 p.. for an executive session to discuss litigation regarding condemnation of
the Gene Hauer property.
Mayor Brekke re- convened the meeting at 10:45 p.. and stated that no action was taken during the
executive session.
Sweeney/Morke moved to adjourn to Wednesday, January 31, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
�u ith !Cox
City Clerk
Carole Hedlund
Recording Secretary
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director
RE: City Bill List
DATE: March 15, 2001
Introduction and Background
There is not an "Expenses By Department" report on the new
system for 2001 business at this time.
Lo '4s
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 $104,879.48. The actual net expense
amount is $506,139.42.
Action Requested
Move to approve the bills in the amount of $611,018.90
0
o m
Cl) n
.
W w
W N O
a m
m
Y
¢ U
2 m
LL
O
U
� j O
U O N
U M
W W W
U U W
0 0 O of O O O
LL LL LL :) LL LL LL
Y Y Y L Y Y Y
F r O O W LL f- FQ- LL z F z W I H O
O 2 U Z O w O w 0 O z
U U Z w w w
W O f- F-
a? w O ¢
W Z F- O ° F- ° C Z°° W
m m O O D U Z m m Z O Z¢ O O U
c > > m 2 W d W
W -1 W W W O
J w J J U m
LL LL
m' ai w w w E 0 w v w 0 m a w 0 a
W w w w w
m U w U U
U U J > LLI
W OLL m l Q U co-j w 2 F Ir
>>
U O m m W Q W m Q LL Z w w
mo w¢ w w w Q CO (i) o z F- C/) w
052
z w U i z w w o w a W J M Z Z Z
0 o Z w z 4 2 O W W m CO J F- J W W W
_< J _r F m m zQ Q m m m Z P m O F _ W w W
U° Q
cr
O w OU ° 000
� � °o( °m mm
U Co Q m x U 0 0 0 w¢ FW—' Q w w
m W Q O 2 m w z W U U o o a > Z W O. W 2 w
> ° Y Y Y 2 z z m V) m U m O >
z
Z
W
2
W
W W
O
O O Q f
LL LL
~ Z
W
Z Z O O O O O O w F Q O O Z O O Z w W w w w
W W z z z Z z g z z ° _Z w:F Z O O 2
W W m U m m m m W 2 2 m m LL m U Z> W W Q¢ W
Q w Q Q Q Q O Q Q m Q w w O O Z Z O
O O J J J J J J Z ° ° J J F- J J Q Z z Z
O W J O Q 2 O O Z
Q Q o 2 o o m m w w w 0 0 0 N w W Z w W
0 ) r LL r r r r } r o° g w o
Q w Q o
m m Q Q Q �� O Q w 2 0 w
a a a a a a m rn w LL m U o m n 0 a
O
m In
U W Z
- Q EL Q z
F
z z Z
w w m w ¢ g v w O 0 5 v
U U F-
2 Z Z Q W O z W Z w Q Z t Q c Q z O m a
D a a Q a p Z) w z m M U m w w Z z O O w w
o w Z O O w U CO w� , W z a } 0 O} Z > d a g° U Z U Ja Z
_n LL ¢ 2 ¢ Q w g ° O m O w a
w W w Z w w O w a C) a W a LL O O U w w _¢
y O F- P P m W m r w w a rn U Cl) w n O O U w 0 U F m rn EL
Cl m W Q Q ~ O O U O W W LL (n w O CO Z W 2 Q W D z z W W W z U (/) Z W m 2 Z Z
= a Z w °� a i w a m O z ¢ a w¢ w w w ° Q 02 = m m o = w °� w
U °° m m W m 0 0 0 F J LL Z LL W W O ° LL ' w z Z CL W U w w m N° U w Z U w LL
o m D m m a m w w
v O Q Q m° z w° z F - O O w O w LL w w Z Z z¢ F- z w w O w 0 w w = U' w¢ w 0 cr U- M
Q a w r r U w r a w Q J a F O °° ° r° n a w F- a °° w> r 2 U F- O O w
2
a
J
m
m
W
w
N
Z
W
J
W
U
w Z
U)
m w z
m
O F- U � Z
U) rj) w ? < W CD
W m W F vz U Q
W m rLL i W W U) w ° m m W Z m O o
U O o° OLL 3: w 0 U) w�°
Q Q Q Z O W O K Q 2 Z J Q
Z m m O m w U U J m- m O X> W 2
Z w w Q� F- g a
a LL w w a) > > > > � ¢ Q ¢ a ¢ a
C
O
C
(D
O
r-
O
tO
O
O
m M
r
O O
W
N
O
tO
<{
O
O
O
O
�
tO m
O
m
O
w o
O
O
M m
m
O
r
N
w
m
a: O
N
O
O
O
O
O O
n
N
V
N
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
0
O
M
OJ
M
d'
V
(O O
M
N
tO
O
O
h
O_
O O
V
O
N
tO t0
O
M
r
�-
n V
tO
�
O
M
CO
m
O
V
CO
IA
>
E
N
N
r
O
M
M
Cl)
<-
O
O
C
!n
M
41
O O
W
N
r
r
M
0)
M
n
00 O
N r-
7
(()
h (O
O7 V
V
M
M
n
(O
M
(n
M
LO
M
R
O M
O
¢
([j
M
N
L
r
O
0)
tO
N
(n
N
to
LO
cti--
N
N
O
O
J
O
W
Y
�
U
Y
co
r'-
N
M
O
N
W
M
V
M
CO
r`
CO
0) O
N
CO
of
to CO
GO
0)
O
N
M V
tO
(O
t`
Co
0) O
0)
O
N M
M
'V
V
C
V
tO
tO
to
t0
tO
t0
t0
(O (O
(O
O
t0
(O (O
O
(O
(O
r :
r
r:
n
ti
r-
f� co
N
M
c7
M M
V
M
m
t
co O
co O
co O
co W
co
O co
W
co
co
co
co
' LO
W
co W
W
co
co
co
W W
co
co
co
W
co O
co co
co
W
W
O
W W
O
tO
m
M LO
to
U
CO
m
(o
m
m
m (o
(o
m
cO
cfl
m
m
(o m
m
m
m
m
m m
m
m
(�
COW
Co
(DD
m
(o
m
CO
m m
co
m
C O D D
m
(
co m
m m
m
m
y
m
V N
O_
V
O �
� m
N
r, a
w
U
z
¢
z
z z
Z
W
Z w Z Z Z
J z
z z
z
z Z Z Z Z ¢
w
Q W W
W
~
z
Z
W W
w W W W W
Z
2
z
W
Z
W Z ¢
z w O Z_
W w
¢ W Q ¢
Q W
W
U ¢
U U' p U` o
Z 0
W
2
U
W
W 2i U ¢ U U` U
w¢¢¢¢
2 p . W
W
Z
p Q Z
Z OC Z¢¢
W¢¢ w
p w
¢
W
W
-- U'
¢
z w¢
U`
C9
W ¢ U` z z z z z
w Q
U' F- U p !-
W z ¢¢
F- ¢ Z Z Z Z
Z C7
LL F-
U`
F-
¢
C ¢
¢ ~
Z
F- Z Z ° L O
Z U O Q W
LL z J LL p
J J w Z Z Z W
W ¢
¢.
`L
U ¢
¢ O F- = Cl) 2
0 U¢ j W W 0 w W
_
LL' U
J ¢
W
U x
o 0 '
y
C
W U
°
W U W W W
U w 4 • J
w ¢ 5 O D
U � w J J U J J Q
z
W Z wLL. W W >
Q w r
Q
w
w
J
Q
O J J J
O O O O
2'
m z F- O z O
m F 0 0 U O O F
U U
>
U LL U
UA
w N o
Q ?
x >
x-
Z
(.) w LL LL LL Ul m
LL D (n fn W
w U U m LL LL w m IL U)
(..) o w LL
d
LL 'm Z25
co LL
LL U
U
m
c�
(�
Z
C7
Z
¢ I
W L
z Z z Z
Z Z Z Z
Q Q¢ Q
W
Z
Z
F-
tl
LL U
°
Z
5
SZ
Z
ri) co
5555
O O O O
Z W Z
-J rj)
w
U N
U M
W
W W
Ox °°
W W
m w z w m Q
J J ¢ x J
O W W p
x F
w J J
F CL
m a
w
n C C¢
U �
m¢ a Z
Z¢>>
4 a
F- w=
z z O U( a
z
z
U U Q
W
U
•c 0
W
v
Q y d U U U U -
co
d
CO U` (W7 Z O
U'
Z Z Q 7
g Z (� (�
(7 U U
()
of z
H~ Z
�_ H
FZ-- F
a
Z a U w W 2' K "'
F- Z �' ¢
= Z Z~ ~= W F- y
2¢
Z J W W� z
z d
x
c
x
x w w w w w
p U U LL LL LL LL U
F' W W
p >
W
U) z ~ Q
J
LL'
0 W
W
wa ? Q
O d i Z Q m W LL W
o o w -J
Z w >>
C a s
w
a
a m
w
w L 0 0 0 0 LL
a R
0 0 0 2 w
U m m 0 F O D U O
m p U W (? g m
m w O O m
¢ o
o o
m m O U o 0 0 0
n.
U
w
w
Z
U U
z O
U W
O Q
Z Z
z
w
d
U
Z
U z= U
F- >-
Z
O U LL
O
O?
¢
> > >>
LL
U z ~ U z
Z W U' ¢ J
z W
2 U 2
U U w od
W U V'
O
U
LL
O
W
Z R Z p p p O
O W >
U W F- LL
Q 0 - O w
0.' y W
U
o
Q a
z
o w
J
I f
U
w o
p
=?¢ (9 C7 C7 C7
Q p Z z Z ZQQ
U J W¢
2 2°; z LL z
o 0 w 0 U o O m U g
Y Z w 2 Q
w 0 p (� (�
z W Z W i
O_ W z U
LL
m
�i a
0 W
O Z �tt a m
Z U Q o J O
U W
0
W Y w m� �. O_ F
U U
W LL W w
W�
w O Z W
F W J
j
z
. O
Q U
W
O-1 2 d w
U'w U` U
�' � p w F
F U H U j g
Z¢ O z_
N.
O W C
O w p o w U
O
J O w m Z
w
U
Z¢
n.
fl
n
W F x
U U F U U U U W
LL Q=¢¢ Q
W S x ¢¢ W
U U p p p p
p p W W LL LL
O
lL
LL LL LL LL LL
(7
to Z
> ¢
Z
¢ ¢
¢_
¢ Q ¢ m m m m m
m m U U U U
U U U U
O O M
m O O a M
O { O V ` w O O m O
a
O � O O 7 %
m
O V m O
UO
V
C V
O m
O M
N
1-
O O O w r O M m
N m N O O O O V N
to m
M
O O N O m m O
O V' V m m «) m f` O
In O 1n m O F- N
N ` M O
M
M
N
O
N
N
n
M m Ln O O O O m
m V m 1A
m 1� O
O ` O
m m O
N
` m O N 1— O m m
C m co O m r --
m O ` m
N O m C') tq
to V m
UO
o
O
O
O
N
co M C l)
N M
Cl) M M
N
N
(9
O
J
O
w
w
Y
U
m m O N M VT Lo m h m m O N M V m 1� m m O N M to m 1� m m O N M v
O Ln w to tf7 m LO m m m m m Lo m m co I.- 1` r Lo
Ln U Lo
U
Y b m h Lo
U M M M M M V V R V V t LO m to
aI U Ln Ln Ln M Ln m Ln Ln Ln MOD U Ln Ln U Lo V) In Lo U Ln U) Ln to U M u) Ln LC) Ln U Lo M Lo Lo U) Ln
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m CO m m m m Co co m m
m m m m m m Co m m m m
c
s m m m m m m m m m m m m m
U m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
m
V M
0
o m
zz
zz cc
to a
w
W y
LL
O cy-
¢ x
= U
� L
LL U
O U
!7- C
U CO
Q
O
O
N
N
O
J
U
W
Y
U
LO
Lo
of
0
O
M
z z
z z
w Lu w
w O U w
C7
a d Q z
Q Z z z Z Z
: ~ w w w Z
Q p F- F Q F- F- F- F- H F- F- F- F- Z F- � J Z F- W
F- (If Z Z W Z p z Z Z Z z Z z z w w Z W a O Z 2
Z W Q W W W W w w W W O C7 z Z w —
w z� 2 2 w 2 2 2 2 2:R Q Q z 2 w w�E J 2 w 2 a z w Q 2 O
W U w w 0 w w W w z W w 0 z z W w U z w Q' W¢
W O W O W
W (7 U C7 Q (7 C7 (7 C7 U C7 C7 z Q ¢ U` W z w C7 � (J ¢ ( a C7 w C7 Z
(D z W a Q z Q a ¢ Q F- Q Q p w 2 w¢ C7 w U` U` Q F- w Q z Q 2 z m m 0 Q¢
z O w¢ Q¢¢ Q¢¢¢ O_ ~ o O_ z¢¢ F J z¢ z z F- z Q z z O a Q z w<
y ¢ Q p w 2 z Q z w Z D F z a O z ¢ Q O O z Q J
m F- W F- F Q W m z¢ U w 2 w F• ~ m Q p Z J
W U W W W W ¢¢1 w W Z W W= U U U U 1< W 2 U= p W - U W U w U W U 2 Q w W_
O w O 0 0 0 0 m O O p O 0 0 m> (n 0' O >> U U O J J Z J w U O w r
z 0 0 O U= O z O O w a= Q F
m m m < m m w m-j m m Q m m)- z v P z U LL a m U> Q w a Q 5) a LL z R d U m U U (�
z z z z
Z Z Z Z
K Z O Z M
J U w U U w W 00 w W m U W U w 0 0 H W w W
a a U Z F d z d U F- Z U F d d m H d F Z U d d d
(n n- a z a z 0 z m a a m
CL W U F- (n (n a (n !n Z 5 W p m w H m w>> 2 L p L Q U w Z
- rn z 0 u7 2 m m m to Q U m O U m� u7 CL CO m rn
N p o w p Z Z >> 2i O F- W U` U F- F- U~ U` C7 U m O m F. U w J w F Q
CD z F- w m W w (n (\ O z w Z Z w (D w O w w w w w w (D Z w w w w O U Z w
000
° z O z> Z >> -p' Q ww j W K w - p ' w d Z Z , a w ¢ w _ z O w W w w w w
W w w 0 0 w w D a U w a O r O a a d O m D O a F O O F w J w P a a a a�
Q 2 w F- U W F F- m o w F O m O W F- U W O O 3 F- m J O F - O W 0 Q F- W F- O W O O O m
w z z w w
J U U J
W W O O Z U U w W Z CL
d
F
y p m } Q Z a � O v p p
Y U m m O F U> w Q J J O z
0O z (� Z .6 0 to z U � w m U F - Cl) w O F - a to U nK W
w ? w w W U W m = Z N a 2 w z 0 z F W' Z
F z O O ~ O O~ J O z 2 F- w Q U z U U Z w O U Q w tr K>-6
J m> z
W d' z O == Z J O O w w F Z W w W w ~ w z U U F- z W w = W 2 2' if wz a z y oC F Z Z O p F- = F- J = Q Z �' O't W m U E w. W F- J J w 0 0 0
w O w W w Q Q U W a H S K z W -O Q W Z W twi 2 Q w N O Q w U Z O a U d a d
U) a w� O z -i-i w ( m w O w Q p p o Y z H QW O m Y 3 m z Q W o �� J z z m o 0 o w
O (� x= O O == O Z Z Z -� Y Y J J J J J J J J O J J �2 r 2 r L r L
1 O O co 7 M l0 N m O O CO O M N O M O m O M N N N I- N M O M M O O R O O O
C m O M O m M M (l M t- O M O 'V; N N M O h O M M M M V M M M M O V R O M O m O O O N
N M O 0 m � lf) to OM �
O 'd' 'V' m m t- M lO M 1� O M m N M M M m V' M O m M r M m
E N V N M r N 'r — co M M N M co M O M N r V r r A m
Q M r co V' N N tO tO
'R N
4t
Y t0 � m m O N M V M M I-- m m O N M C M M n M m O N M V M M t- m m O N M V tf! M
U n n r t` m M co co co co co c co M m m m m m m m m m m O O O O O O O O O O
tU lC) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M LO 0 M M M co M M co co M M M co M M M co co co
t co M co co co M co M co m co M m m M M M co M co co co M co co M co m m co co M M co co m m M co co co
U M co M M M co M M co co t0 co co M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Co Co M CO Co M Co Co M Co
CD
s
M
w (
a rn
O a)
= U
U L
U.
O
U
l c
U 0
0
O
O
N
N
O
O
J
O
W
Y
U
K
O N M O C O (p r O M O N N r 7 01 Q1 O M 0) M O '7 M O O m
_ O M 0 N O (O M O O O
C O O O r*-: (� O co O� 0) O 0) CC) oo
V O 0) ID N N N C ( ( (O r_ N 'q M N � r N? m M M r r (` V O r ( 0) m M M � f07 N C'I 0
Q l r N
cci M M t{ co h r O N r co Cl)
_ N M V' M M h m O) M Lo (M Lo M L
Y 11� M Q1 O N M V (0 M (.- M 01 O N M C M M 1� M O) O
U N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M R 0 0
N m m <D M M M M M M M M M M M M M M - M f0 � M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M � M M M M M M M M
t M M M M M M m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m
U M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co M' M M M M M M
W
}
w
z
z
z
w
z ¢
W
z z
LLI
2
w
m
z
w
W
U
~
W F
W z
w w
U z z
z
F --,
¢
rn
°'
w F
:E z
r
z
z
Z
w
U`
¢
Z
Q
z
z
2
C7 x
¢ W
U( W t-
Q 2 Z
W Z W O W
CD D `2 � U
W
2
Z
w
C4 F- Z
Z Q
F
W W
c7 C7
W
z
Q
z
W
Z
Z
z h
Z W
¢ w U Q
Z
w
2
O W
z
w
Q W Z
W
W
Z
<
W
U
Q W
Q
z D U C7 W
C7
W
O W a
Q Q <
Q
z_
z
W
z OU
L- U
c¢
2
m
Q
Q¢
Z
`
W
O
O J
O Q Q Z
Z¢ W
Q W Q
Z W W
Q
2¢
z
Z a
Q¢ W
J Z
Z w
C� U
z_
<�¢
V)
N W
U
~¢
W
0
U
w
F J Z
U¢
U W Q U
W
w p w U K a
W
(n z=
p U
}
Z W F
U Z
w-
m p
c
Fx-
W
a�
W
2
W
U
w
a
NN
w x Q
J W U U¢
a J w p
a a U Y Q Q
U 0 J W
U
J
a
0
W W O
a . C..�
U >
O
z J J
g f
J r 2
a'
J
O
0
O
m
x
J
O
U
m
o
W
> m W O z>
co Z tL
W U o O w m
U
O
x
a . a. Z
m
U W O U
0
a a
O D
a ¢
F
U
m a
}?
r-
U
a
a
W
o¢
N?
U U
- U ? a u U U
�? w w a W J
a
U
a (L W
M
O
Z
z
Z
w
W
F
z
5
O
Z
J
Z
w 5
O
W
U
W
W
CO
W ED
z
W
(�
M
U W
m
J
J
J Q
U
J
o
o
z
¢
w
w~ 0
a w
Q w
0 =
z�
> IL F z
w
Z)
U
¢
a
a
a¢ z
m a m w
z_ W C t- z U
C7
C7
W Q
C� C7
2
m z
O O
CO
O
o
w
W
O
w
¢
U)
c� w
W m z w Q O
m 0¢ W w Q
z �-
of
i> z
U ~
¢
Z
w
x
w
U)
w? w
z
z� W x
w
z x 2 .M W 2 U
U
W
>
F
00 0
W w w
q a U
w
U
>>
LL
O
n-
w
H
U
Q
U
u
U
( j O
,,�
0> lL t F w
F a w< w
w W z F to to I
o w O o ¢¢¢ w
W
a
w
x a x
W
a Q x
U m
2 ¢
4 a �
O
d
O
¢
o
m
U
w
C=1
w
O
U
O m
¢ F 0 0 2 t-
¢ r- U w a c� c�
E-
O
m 0
O
¢
Z
O
2
ZO
W
U<
�
U
O
w
> U
U
>;
O
0
U
Z
a
p
J
F
2
QQ
?
Z
W} U
na.
F
} p 0
LL
z
O
H
z
0
a
U xs a ¢
D
a ? w
W
O
z
U
w
U
5
F-
a
Q
C
Z z w Z
C7
z
Z;
W
} w
J
Z
4 T q T
w
z
w w
O w
w O O z_ OU }} U
U
r-
p
a
- w >
G
`C CD "
w 2>
CO
y
.6
U
Q
w
U
U(
O
U
a
w
p F U
U z
a' - U' C7
o W C7
a' U
a C7 z� U` W U
F- LL a W
O
p
J
w
U }
a W¢
� O J
2
K M
Y ¢
¢ x
U'
Ur
W
J
U
Z
z
a
O> U
111 W J Q¢
cl §
a Z O W -W W
w a' Q
w W-
O O W
_ - F F-
m U
S
z }
w
J
a
U
O
U
z�
Q
w W
D U
O Y
.w
W t- j W w
O Z¢= a ' a F F .�
CO
N
°_.W
U J
..j -.
Z U` F W
' o z --0
O O W
U U a
W W
m a
w
a
F
J
D
2
J
Q
F
- i
Q
x
x
0
2
z.U-
w U=
U Z
_Z _CW7 - -g
z 2 w > F
U J H w co
F "� e O Z Z O
U U a O a Q Q a
LLI.
Y
O
z
W a
m z= Z
O
O O
O
Z5
C 2
Iz
a
U>
p
F-
F.
J
F
a' li. W F
Y
K U O m 0 W
�0
W W -xQQ } U' S J J F -
W K W
K
}.
K
K w
w -� 0) W
W W w
0 0
w
z
z O O d
.�
a d d d d
>
-
O N M O C O (p r O M O N N r 7 01 Q1 O M 0) M O '7 M O O m
_ O M 0 N O (O M O O O
C O O O r*-: (� O co O� 0) O 0) CC) oo
V O 0) ID N N N C ( ( (O r_ N 'q M N � r N? m M M r r (` V O r ( 0) m M M � f07 N C'I 0
Q l r N
cci M M t{ co h r O N r co Cl)
_ N M V' M M h m O) M Lo (M Lo M L
Y 11� M Q1 O N M V (0 M (.- M 01 O N M C M M 1� M O) O
U N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M R 0 0
N m m <D M M M M M M M M M M M M M M - M f0 � M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M � M M M M M M M M
t M M M M M M m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m
U M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co M' M M M M M M
Q
0
o m
co
c') a
W m
w n
LL o)
O m
Y !r
¢ Y
x U
V) t
U-
0
-
U
C
7
U �j
w w w
w w w F
C7 z
¢ Q w
z
w
2 0
Q
W z z z F- O z z z z �- F- Z w Z w Q U
F
z z 2 2 W w> z 2 D 2 w w 2 w Z 2 w w W Q
w" w w w F w ¢ w w� w 11 w w o w w o g O z O
C7 ui C7 C7 C7 w a C7 C7 C� vi (D W W
¢ C7 ¢ C7 p ¢ w Q W z
CO O O Z Z Z¢ W Q Z Z J Z r W Z O Q Z W Q z Z Q Q Z Z o
y Q W Q ¢ Z O 2 2 J cG W W r 2 cG W w Q W Q m
a w v v a w Z v v 0 v a v v ¢ W o v z w w Z a w w F
U U x
y J J w O tL O O Q O C! O p J O� Z W W Z O O
m K w� a a U 0 d F- a a a m W U a< U m U (i of 0 u, U U 0}
r�
z
Z
O cn J
W W
M J w z Z Z Z Z V) w Z W C)
o p a s w w w F w F w m a w d p LL W a.
Q z °i Z) w D } m - C I-- J a w m w 0
m a . z O U` a 0 (L ¢ M h M W a (1 w D - U Z U)
a 2~ F - z z 2-I W z CO Q CW7 V) F w z W F Z_ CN - w 2 z
o Z 5 C W x z W x w z x J Q>> z > Q U fA li w z z LL= W - U , U
0 K O w a F- W w F- � FY F- W� ('1 K a' � O a m --� Q_ w F- a Z J�
¢ F - w Of 0 0 m m O o m O x F - w a F - a m 0 0 LL m� 0 0 w w m
w
U) O U
U > O >
U ? U F C9 W Q U ¢
p z o? Z O m F_ = U Z
Z z¢ d 1- Q Cl) Q? Z
U z w w O j F = O O? Q U) Z (')Z
Y O
w g z g vi �? z Z o z w w O w F O M t 0 w m J z
w w O t- U m O O g O w p x O j w a c7 w W U O w } o
U J U Z F- W Of F- Z > a Z a' F- } O Z a' W Q U
w a`2_ w a w x o Z z 2 w W Z Q ~ H } 2 O a Q p O
CL z Q O w o n Y m o ¢ m w w 0
a z F w w p m O m W W¢ Q z m 0 Z a g Q Z (n
p 0 o¢= D Ix- O Z ? a Q p U Z Z m w w CO 3 z H J Q a5
c Q 2 2 U } -� Q m w z IW-' Q2 V j F_" ? 0 X U` U J m W a'
m x W o a Z O, F- Z)>> Q F li w K U z z o o Q¢ w W U Q
> !A fn fA (n V) V) U U U U U rn F- F- F- F- > > > �i x
0
t-
a
c
m
C7
C
CO
co
LO
M
m"TMOUDOO
a)
N
N
C
O
O) O
C2 O O _ O (A O O O
e- C r-: O O O
O to
O 7 O V
M O
r (D
!
O O
N O)
3
O o
O
cU
'V'
O
O
O
r--
O
N
V
N O
O
� C 6 (fl O O O 0)
M
CD C
�
f�
'V co
> E
C
M
tD
O
�-
O
CO
O
.-
n
n
O
M
O O
N r
O
O
Lo r- o O O r C
Q O N
O C V O
O
�
(o
V
N
V
Q7 O
O ¢
04
N
�-
M
r--
Q) M
m
r
Cl)
IZ
O
O
N
d'
cp
N
O
O
J
O
w
a
Y �
Y
co
0)
O
N
Cl)
V
(D
CD
A CO
07
O N Cl) V (o <D
O 0> O
N M
V
t0
a' N
O
(A
co
co
co
(D
O
O
O
CD
co
co
O
co
O
co
co
co co
co O
co
O
n n A � ti r- r- n
co O co co co co O co
r- r. co c0
O O co to
co co
Co co
co
co
co
O
t
U
co
co
co
co
Co
CD
O
O
CO
(D
O
O
CO
co
CO
CD
N
co
CO O
co O
CO
co
O N W co co N co O
co (D O O O O O O
co co O N
O (D O co
co co
O O
co
3
O
co
N
M •-
O_
C
O
LO 0)
M a
lD
N
co
w m
U� O
O
N
O
d E
o
O
in
f0
2 0
c0
cn 0
t()
LL L
U
m 0 m V' R O
O
co
U
M
7
O
W
U U
o
V
a
O M w N w O
cl cl n O O O
a
lD
N
co
m
U� O
O
N
O
O cr- O O M
O r V CO 10
m V'
t0 O
O
pi
f0
c0
O
t()
M
m 0 m V' R O
C M
co
E N
M
f0
O
O
W
t0
N
M
N
V
co
n
O M w N w O
cl cl n O O O
1- N
O
O
M
M
N
N
N
v
N
M N N co V
—
G
O
Q
W
ti
l0
O
F
o
Z
K
a
F
LL
O
LL
m
Q
W
Z
Y
W
W
w
2
0 � ~
W
Z
W = LL
c9
C,
O
LL U
a
o o z-
z
o Z
�. LL
of
m-
w
m
o z z o z
o u-
w
¢ W
LL li w
Z Q
Q
Q.
j
y W
2'
rn
rn
O
Y
Q
a�
Q-
? i O U 5
W, W W a
U
d (n
T
U
O.
O
O
O
C
M
N
w
N
O
M
O
N
N
N O O O O O
W O O O O O
w O
N C
E
O
o
N
0
M
0
M
0
M
o
0
C
o M y n co
et n h
0 0
m W
U
O
O
a
O
O
c '
O
O
O O O O O O
o
O O
" C�
F"LEASE BRING YOUR FEASIBILITY REPORT TO THE
MEETING
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Conduct a Public Hearing for the Reconstruction of
CSAH 83 and the Realignment of CSAH 16, Project No. 2001 -4
DATE: March 20, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
As per Resolution No. 5474, a resolution receiving a report and calling a public hearing
on the reconstruction of CSAH 83, from 12 Avenue to %2 mile south of the existing
intersection of CSAH 16; and on the realignment of CSAH 16, from 1400 feet west of
CSAH 83 to 2200 feet east of CSAH 83, a public hearing was scheduled for March 20,
2001. This agenda item is to conduct the public hearing for this proposed county road
improvement project.
BACKGROUND:
On September 19, 2000, City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for
the reconstruction of CSAH 83, and the realignment of CSAH 16 associated with the
proposed Valley Green Corporate Center and the City's Transportation Plan. On
February 20, 2001, Resolution No. 5474 was adopted, accepting the feasibility report that
was prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. on these proposed County road improvements.
The City of Shakopee is taking the lead on these proposed County road improvements,
similar to what the City did on C.R. 17 improvements, so that assessments can be
incorporated to benefiting properties.
The feasibility report is intended to address specific issues as determined by Scott County
Highway and those issues are as follows:
• Specific related transportation issues raised in the AUAR especially by
Mn/DOT
• Ultimate realignment of CSAH 16 /17 Avenue
• Jurisdictional issues relating to CSAH 16 and 17 Avenue
• Cost determination and cost participation agreements
• Timing of infrastructure improvements to CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 /17
Avenue
• Right -of -way acquisition issues
The feasibility report also includes an analysis of the proposed improvements, project
costs and assessments. As mentioned in the feasibility report and the attached February
20, 2001 memo, the main issues associated with this project can be summarized as
follows:
• Realignment of CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue
• Turnback of 17 Avenue to the County after 17 Avenue is fully constructed
• Cost participation level by the City and the County
• Frontage concept east of CSAH 83 along CSAH 16 by existing residents
• Modification of Secretariat Drive intersection with CSAH 83 to a right
in/right out intersection
• Inclusion of a trunk sanitary sewer system with this project
• Inclusion of a trunk storm sewer system with this project
• Right -of -way acquisition
• Watermain along CSAH 83 and CSAH 16
These issues were addressed in the February 20 memo with descriptions and
explanations on where the issue is at this time.
To summarize the proposed improvements associated with this project, this project is
mainly a transportation improvement project, with the proposed widening of CSAH 83 to
include dual left turn lanes at the major intersections and to widen areas that are not
currently four lane. Also, the transportation improvement project is to realign the
existing intersection CSAH 16 to a future Valley Green Corporate Center entrance and to
realign CSAH 16 east of CSAH 83 to a future 17 Avenue realignment. The existing
CSAH 16, east of CSAH 83 a new realigned CSAH 16 would be vacated and the
highway removed as part of this project. This realignment is the preferred alternative as
included in the city's Transportation Plan and per Scott County.
Also included as part of this project would be bituminous trails along CSAH 83 and
along CSAH 16. Traffic control signals would be placed at the new intersection of
CSAH 16 and CSAH 83 as well as at the future Valley Green Corporate Center entrance
and CSAH 83, with modification in the existing signals as necessary.
Since these roadways are proposed as urban roadways with concrete curb & gutter, storm
sewer would be needed to serve the County road system and adjacent property draining to
these highways.
Also included in the feasibility report is an analysis to provide a trunk storm sewer
system to serve an area much larger than the project area as part of the City's Stormwater
Management Plan. The three alternatives included are as follows:
Alternative No. 1 — Constructing a trunk stormwater conveyance system, from a low
point near Valley View Road north of CSAH 83, and outfalling into T.H. 169 which
routes stormwater to the K -Mart linear pond and into the Prior Lake/Dean Lake Outlet
Channel. This system is essentially a closed conduit pipe system running along CSAH
83 into T.H. 169 ponding and stonnwater system.
Alternative No. 2 - Stormwater conveyance system from the low point just north of
Valley View Road, along CSAH 83 and proceeding to the intersection of CSAH 83 and
the realigned CSAH 16 and then outfalling into the west side of Dean Lake.
Alternative No. 3 — Constructing an overland or open channel system, from CSAH 83
east from the low point located just north of Valley View Road, and outfalling into the
Prior Lake Outlet Channel and draining into Dean Lake. This alternative maintains the
drainage patterns as indicated in the City of Shakopee's Stormwater Management Plan
and is the preferred alternative recommended by staff.
Another improvement included in this improvement project is the extension of a trunk
sanitary sewer system. There were four alternatives considered in providing trunk sewer
service in the area.
Alternative No. 1 was constructing the trunk sanitary sewer system as proposed in the
Comprehensive Plan which would be the extension of a sanitary sewer westerly from the
Prior Lake interceptor at Pike Lake Trail. The other three options involved extending a
trunk sewer from the Chaska Interceptor located at T.H. 169 and CSAH 83, along CSAH
83 or other locations to the low point located at Valley View Road and CSAH 83.
Both the trunk stormwater system along CSAH 83 and trunk sanitary system along
CSAH 83 are recommended to be deep enough to provide gravity service to the Shakopee
Gravel Mine area to avoid lift stations in the future when this property is redeveloped.
The extra depth cost for these systems to serve the mine property will be assessed to the
mine property. Also these trunk systems would be able to serve a much larger area and
their costs would be recouped when future development occurs.
Also included in this project is the extension of a trunk watermain along CSAH 83 and
CSAH 16, as requested by Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. The proposed
alignment and costs are shown in the feasibility report. In order to construct this
proposed improvement project, as recommended in the report, right -of -way acquisition
will be needed. A detailed estimate of right -of -way acquisition and costs have been
provided in the report.
As mentioned previously, in staff's perspective, the following items need to be completed
or resolved in order for this project to be ordered:
1. Public hearing on the proposed CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 improvement project.
This will be done on March 20, 2001 with perhaps continuation of the public
hearing as determined by the City Council.
2. County Cooperative Agreement for the cost participation on this project.
Typically the City and the County would enter into a Cooperative Agreement
for cost participation of a County road improvement and this would be done
once the design is completed. With this project it would be staff's
recommendation that a letter from the County indicating their willingness to
enter a Cooperative Agreement and agreeing to the costs participation
procedures that has been included with this feasibility report.
3. A Memo of Understanding between the County and the City on the
jurisdictional transfers of 17 Avenue and CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83. This
Memo of Understanding should be completed as part of this project
consideration and included with the ordering of the project. Meetings
conducted thus far with the County have indicated that the jurisdictional
transfer of 17 Avenue and CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83 would occur once
17 Avenue has been completed from CSAH 83 to C.R. 79. The County
would then take over 17 Avenue and turnback CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83
to CSAH 17 to the city. Direction from the City Council regarding this Memo
of Understanding should be provided to staff for inclusion or discussion in the
preparation of the Memo of Understanding.
4. On March 8, 2001, a public hearing was tentatively scheduled for Valley
Green Corporate Center and was continued to March 22, 2001 so as to allow
the public hearing for the roadway improvement project to be conducted first.
5. Petitions for improvements and waiver of assessment hearing by the developer
of Valley Green Corporate Center. With the large amount of assessment
associated with this project, it is recommended by staff that the developer of
Valley Green Corporate Center provide a petition and waiver of assessment
hearing. This petition and waiver is usually a plat approval condition.
Staff has presented this improvement project and the information contained in this
improvement project at the December and February Council meeting so as to keep the
Council and the public informed of the information being brought forth by this feasibility
report. An informational meeting was held on November 28, 2000 with the property
owners being affected by this improvement project. Staff will make a presentation on the
feasibility report and the main issues. However, the main purpose of the public hearing is
to allow input on the proposed improvement project from the public.
With most public improvement projects, a resolution ordering the improvement project
would be attached with the memo for Council consideration. Due to the unresolved
issues such as the Memo of Understanding between the County and the City, the public
hearing for Valley Green Corporate Center, the petition for improvements and waiver of
assessment hearing from the developer of Valley Green Corporate Center and an
agreement letter from the County for cost participation, staff did not include this
resolution. Depending on the discussion and Council direction, staff can bring these
items forward for future Council meetings and the resolution ordering the improvement
project, if so directed.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Conduct the public hearing and continue the public hearing to a future Council
meeting, depending on the discussion on these items at the hearing.
2. Open the public hearing, close the public hearing and table action on this
improvement project until such time as the City Council deems necessary.
3. Provide staff direction on the memo of understanding for jurisdictional transfer of
17 Avenue and CSAH 16, the cost participation between the city and the county.
RECOMMENDATION:
Depending on the public hearing and the items discussed, Council can choose Alternative
No. 1 or Alternative No. 2, to either continue the public hearing or close the public
hearing and table action until such time as deemed necessary. Council should provide
staff direction on whether to begin preparation of a Memo of Understanding for
consideration and what conditions Council may desire to be incorporated in this
document and any other direction in regards to the proposed project.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Make a motion to either continue the public hearing to a future date or close the public
hearing, table action and provide direction on this proposed improvement project.
fi
ruce Loney
Public Works irector
BL/pmp
CSAH83 /16
CIT'T
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FR Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Consider Accepting Feasibility Report and Calling a Hearing
For the Reconstruction of CSAH 83 and the
Realignment of CSAH 16
ATE: February 20, 2001
.�
Attached is Resolution No. 5474, a resolution receiving a report and calling a hearing on
the reconstruction of CSAH 83, from 12 Avenue to %mile south of the existing
intersection of CSAH 16 and CSAH 16, from 1400 feet west of CSAH 83 to 2200 feet
east of CSAH 83.
On September 19, 2000, the City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report
for the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 associated with the proposed Valley
Green Corporate Center and the City's Transportation Plan.
The purpose of the feasibility report is to evaluate the existing infrastructure (streets,
utilities, drainage) and make recommendations for any improvements that are needed.
The feasibility report also addresses the estimated costs for the improvements and the
proposed assessments, which would result from the project being constructed. Also, this
feasibility report was intended to address specific issues as determined by Scott County
Highway Department.
The issues are as follows:
• Specific transportation related issues raised in the AUAR especially by
Mn/DOT.
• Ultimate realignment of CSAH 16 /17 Avenue.
• Jurisdictional issues related to CSAH 16 and 17 Avenue
• Cost determination and cost participation agreements.
• Timing of infrastructure improvements to CSAH 83, CSAH 16 and 17
Avenue.
• Right -of way acquisition issues.
Included in these specific issues would also be determining the project costs and lane
configurations for both CSAH 83 and 16 improvements. In the issue of ultimate
alignment for CSAH 16/17' Avenue, the alignment for CSAH 16 would be analyzed
from C.R. 83 to McKenna Road. This alignment analysis is being done to determine
what the final alignment would be for C.R. 16 in this area.
The attached resolution sets a date for a public hearing for this project for March 20,
2001. The approval of Resolution No. 5474 does not order the project nor does it commit
the Council to constructing any improvements. The intent of this resolution is to accept
the feasibility report and set the public hearing date. The public hearing will allow the
property owners adjacent to the project area and the general public an opportunity to
address the City Council on this project. It should be noted that accepting the feasibility
report and calling a hearing on this project is the next step in a 429 Special Assessment
Project, as required in the State Statute. Council should review the report for its
acceptability or not and can ask for amendments prior to acceptance of the report.
Staff has prepared a brief presentation for the February 20th Council meeting, which will
provide an overview of the project, the feasibility report and main issues.
With this feasibility report, the main issues associated with this project can be
summarized as follows:
1. The realignment of CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue.
2. The turnback of 17 Avenue to the County after 17 Avenue is fully constructed.
3. Cost participation level by the City and the County.
4. Frontage road concept east of CSAH 83 along CSAH 16 by existing residents.
5. Modification of Secretariat Drive intersection with CSAH 83 to a right in/right
out intersection.
6. Inclusion of trunk sanitary sewer with project.
7. Inclusion of trunk storm sewer with this project.
8. Right -of -way acquisition.
9. Watermain on CSAH 83 & CSAH 16
Issue No. l
The realignment of CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue is the preferred alignment amongst the
five alternatives studies as recommended by WSB & Associates, Inc. and the County.
This alternative provides the east -west arterial route south of T.H. 169 to serve as a
"reliever" and provides two accesses to Valley Green Corporate Center. Other
alternatives do not provide the east -west arterial route or require much more right -of -way
making these alternatives not as cost effective or feasible.
Issue No. 2
Part of the County's requirements for the realignment of CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue has
been the tumback of 17 Avenue to the County once completed. Also, the County would
turnback CSAH 16, from CSAH 17 to CSAH 83 to the City. Consensus previously
voiced by City Council has been a concern about speed limits and access control. If this
project proceeds, a memo of understanding on the tumback would need to be done to
outline the conditions that are acceptable to the City and County.
Issue No. 3
The County Engineer has looked at the project costs and finds the cost participation level
acceptable. The County Board would need to approve such an expenditure and normally
is done through a Cooperative Agreement between the City and County.
Issue No. 4
A frontage road concept was developed in the feasibility report. From this report, a
frontage road system could be done if the existing CSAH 16 becomes the frontage road
and a new roadway was built south of the existing. Both City staff and County staff
agree that the frontage road along CSAH 16 is a good idea to promote safety by removing
a number of driveways directly on a future four lane road. One uncertainty is whether or
not right -of -way can be obtained from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community
(SMSC) needed to build a future highway and leave the existing County road as a
frontage road.
Issue No. 5
It is proposed to place a concrete median along CSAH 83 so that Secretariat Drive would
leave a right- in/right -out. This work was to be completed with the Canterbury Park 5th
Addition and should be included with the overall improvements to CSAH 83. A letter
from Heyde Companies about this access has been sent to staff.
Issue No. 6 & 7
Trunk sanitary sewer and trunk storm drainage has been included with this project. The
City's overall sanitary sewer and storm water management plans show trunk facilities
along CSAH 83. These trunk lines will be deep enough to serve the Shakopee Gravel
property which can redevelop someday with gravity sewers versus lift stations.
The extra depth costs for the trunk sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines along CSAH 83
will be assessed to the Shakopee Gravel property.
Included in this report is trunk storm sewer to divert a portion of Blue Lake Drainage
District area to along CSAH 83 versus going through the SMSC's property. Preliminary
discussion with the SMSC's staff and their own plan indicates a trunk storm drainage
facility through their property. Staff is recommending that the trunk storm drainage
facility for the Blue Lake Drainage District should go as planned through the SMSC's
property as this provides the most infiltration and water quality for managing storm
water. However, a trunk storm sewer cost is shown in this project area if the storm water
is diverted along CSAH 83 instead of towards the Prior Lake Outlet Channel.
Issue No. 8
The right -of -way acquisition will be needed to construct the County road and install trunk
facilities such as sanitary sewer and storm sewer. It is anticipated that eminent domain
will be needed to obtain much of the right -of -way. Right -of -way will be needed from the
SMSC for CSAH 16 realignment and may be an issue due to the "fee to trust" application
by the SMSC.
Issue No. 9
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) has requested that watermain be installed
on this project to complete its trunk watermain system in this area. The cost of
watermain is estimated at a total of $408,705.00 with $336,369.00 assessed and
$72,336.00 to be paid by SPUC as oversizing. The assessments have been distributed to
property on either side of the watermain and to both properties in MUSA and non-
MUSA. Last year the City did a trunk watermain extension from Southbridge Parkway
to Stagecoach Road and is intending on assessing parcels outside of MUSA on that
proj ect.
In summary, this feasibility report was intended to provide information on issues on
realigning CSAH 16, tumback of 17 Avenue to Scott County, project costs and
assessments, level of participation between City, County and property owners.
If the City Council agrees that CSAH 16 be realigned with 17 Avenue, CSAH 83
reconstructed to allow a major access to Valley Green Corporate Center and 17 Avenue
be ultimately turned over to the County, then Council should accept the report and move
for a public hearing on this project.
Scott County is supportive of realigning CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue, north of the
Shakopee Gravel Mine, and is requiring that the City enter into an agreement for future
jurisdictional change. Mn/DOT has commented on the report and generally accepts the
design with some concern of potential failure of intersection with T.H. 169 ramps. The
MnDOT reviewer of the traffic volumes did not realize that the AUAR on Valley Green
Corporate Center has a traffic limitation on CSAH 83 intersection.
From staff s perspective, the following items are needed for a project to be ordered:
• Public hearing on the proposed CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 improvement project.
• County Cooperative Agreement for the cost participation of this project.
• Memo of Understanding between the County and City on the jurisdictional
transfers of 17` Avenue and CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83.
• Public hearing for the plat of Valley Green Corporate Center.
• Petition for improvements and waiver of assessment hearing by the developer of
Valley Green Corporate Center.
The plat of Valley Green Corporate Center has been submitted and a public hearing is
tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission on March 8, 2001.
From the initial public informational meeting and subsequent correspondence from
property owners east of CSAH 83 along CSAH 16, the major issues seems to be whether
the frontage road will be built and the right -of -way obtained from the SMSC. The
County's comment letter does address the issue by stating a further study will be needed
for this segment of roadway when this roadway is reconstructed in the future. The
question of right -of -way acquisition from the SMSC's property is being researched by the
County and the City Attorney at this time.
City staff and County staff are in support of a frontage road concept to remove direct
access of driveways from CSAH 16 for a safer roadway. The feasibility report objective
was to investigate on whether a frontage road system was possible and this system is
possible with additional right -of -way south of existing CSAH 16.
Staff will make a presentation of the report and the main issues and Resolution No. 5474
has been prepared to accept the report and call for a public hearing if Council so desires.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 5474. This action will receive the feasibility report and set the
date for the public hearing for March 20, 2001.
2. Deny Resolution No. 5474. This action will halt the project until such time as the
City Council reconsiders the resolution.
3. Move to receive the feasibility report but do not set a date for the public hearing at
this time. This action will place the project on hold until such time as the City
Council sets a date for the public hearing.
4. Table Resolution No. 5474, to allow time for staff to prepare additional information
and/or revise the feasibility report as directed by the City Council.
I' � 1 1 1 • �
If the City Council wishes to pursue all or a portion of this project, staff recommends
Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 5474.
If the City Council does not wish to pursue this project, then the appropriate action would
be to move the approval of Resolution No. 5474 and vote against the motion. If Council
wants to direct to revise the feasibility report and assessment procedures, then Alternative
No. 4 is recommended.
ACTION OUESTED:
Offer Resolution No. 5474, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on an
Improvement for County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to %2 Mile South of
the Existing Intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid
Highway 16, from 1400 Feet West of County State Aid Highway 83 to 2200 Feet East of
County State Aid Highway 83, Project No. 2001 -4 and move its adoption.
h ru l ce oney
Public Works Director
BL/pmp
MEM5474
CARLSON WAGONLIT TRAVEL/
CHIPPEWA VALLEY TRAVEL
SERVICE, INC.
CWT / Chippewa Valley Travel
31 East Columbia Street
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
CWT / Chippewa Valley Travel
3221 East Hamilton Avenue
Eau Claire, Wl 54701
CWT /Chippewa Valley Travel
1311 North Broadway Street
Menomonie, Wl 54751
Premier Vacations
3221 East Hamilton Avenue
Eau Claire, WI 54701
HEYDE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.
Eagleton Home
14135 150th Avenue
Bloomer, W! 54724
Family Heritage Care Center
1311 Tyler Street
Black River Falls, WI 54615
Mt. Washington Residence
1930 Cleveland Street
Eau Claire, W1 54703
HEYDE COMPANIES, INC.
Greenbriar Rehabilitation
Corporate Office
345 Frenette Drive
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Greenbriar Rehabilitation
Outpatient Clinics
800 Wisconsin Street
Eau Claire, Wl 54703
829 West Clairemont Avenue
Eau Claire, WI 54701
HEYDE HOSPITALITY, INC.
Fanny Hill Inn & Dinner Theatre
3919 Crescent Avenue
Eau Claire, WI 54703
Park Plaza International
One worth Main Street
Oshkosh, WI 54901
Park Inn International
1009 West Park Avenue
Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
Park Inn & Suites
3340 Mondovi Road
Eau Claire, WI 54701
HEYDE COMPANIES
345 Frenette Drive • Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
PH: ( 715) 726 -9094 • FAX: ( 715) 723 -1205
www.heydecompanies.com
e -mail: mail @heydecompanies.com
November 29, 2000
Bruce Loney P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: November 28 Public Informational Meeting
CSAH 83 /CSAH 16
Dear Mr. Loney,
I am writing on behalf of Park Inn & Suites (1244
Canterbury Road), one of the Heyde Companies.
I got caught in traffic on 494 last night and was unable
to make it to Shakopee in time for the above meeting.
Park Inn & Suites has a concern with one portion of
the above proposed improvements. We understand
the a raised median is proposed on CSAH 83 south
of its intersection with Highway 169. This median
would allow only right -in and right -out access to and
from Secretariat onto and off of CSAH 83. As a result,
customers seeking this access to or from our hotel would
have to use 12 Ave. (Canterbury Drive) and then angle
back to our property. For your reference I enclose a
sketch map of the area and streets in question.
Park Inn International
This additional glitch to access to our property would
2001 North Mountain Road
impact our business (especially when there are any
Wausau, WI 54401
buildings on the land to our north). We could alleviate
Park Inn suites
some of the problem with additional signage which would
7770 Johnson Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55435
alert our customers to the need to use 12 Ave.
Park Inn International
502 Chestnut Street
In this regard, could you provide with answers to the
Virginia, MN 55792
following:
Park Inn & Suites
1244 Canterbury Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
1. I assume additional signage at this location would be
governed by the zoning regulations of the City of
Shakopee. Could you send me a copy of your sign code.
I am especially interested in types and sizes of signs
allowed.
2. Is there public right of way along CSAH 83 (between
Secretariat Drive and 12 Ave.) on which signage could
be erected?
3. If not, who is the owner of the parcel marked as "Vacant
Property" on the attached sketch map?
4. At one time I believe either the County or the City had
some interest in closing off Secretariat Drive. Is that still
a position of either City or County?
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Yours truly,
Gerald F. Sazama
Vice President/Legal Services
GFS:gs
encl.
cc: McNeill, City Administrator
Council
Charles Rickart
Received: 12/25/98 12:20; 612 445 5710 -> HEYDE COMPANIES; Page 2
DEC.- 25'98(FRI) 13:16 CANTERBURY INN TEL:612 -445 -5110
� C�1
3
P. 02
i
\ �I
r
70
Q
- !n
V ,
� Cpl
:.y
Q l &L
17 fit v °e.•
IS
Y /i
J
y
cc
--
J
�C-)
c.LG
%,u
V
IS
Y /i
I
Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Staff
We have lived in Shakopee our whole lives, made friends here and grown to love our
area, the lake, the trees, and our homes- Moving is an option none of us want to face, but
the projections for traffic, destruction of the land around our homes has made our
residential land undesirable. The threat of condemnation is making us think that keeping
our land in the family impossible.
We also feel that our future and the future of our town has not been given adequate
planning and consideration- Crowded schools are hindering our education, they are being
built too late. We see this happening with County road 16 as well- The entire Eastern half
of Shakopee will have its Fire Police and ambulance's direct access cut off- All of this is
for the sake of one development and one developer. No current neighborhoods are seeing
any benefit from this road change or any of the other developer driven changes our town
has made; rather, they are seen as inconviences and hazards. Many other options for
county road 16's realignment exist but are being ignored, and because a small section of
the road is being considered, the entire neighborhood (42 Adults and 19 children) are left
in limbo as to whether they will have a place to live when County road 16 inevitably will
be widened.
Abraham Lincoln once wrote that ours is a government "of the people, by the people, for
the people." We see our town a being "by the council, of the developers, and for the
money."
Thank you for your time and consideration
Hotmail Folder: Inbox
Page 1 of 3
M SN Home Hot ail Web Search Shopping M oney People & Chat ! 9I
Videos
s
.
msn.. >:; Wi I
re ess Phones ctronics � >> <
::.>:_<::;:. .,;`:,':`':;:: >:: >:`;,.::>
... r ........... ...:.::::::::::•::::::::::::::.
r.
Ele ... � ....:::.::. .::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.
.......................
Hotmail
Inbox Compose Address Book Folders Options
Folder: Inbox
From: "Kathy Gerlach" <k gerl @hotmail.com>
To: k_gerl @hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:44:45 -0000
Reply Reply A! Forward Delete
MEMORANDUM
MARCH 20,2001
To: Shakopee City Council and City Staff
From: Concerned Citizens
Re: CSAH16 /CSAH83 Realignment
Mmssenger Calendar Help
Previocs ibex! Close
The first ten comments are those of Ms Linda Lehman of T -Reg, Inc. after a review
of the feasibility report. Ms. Lehman is a technical advisor on issues of water
quality and maintenance of Dean Lake for citizens living on and near Dean lake.
The others are questions we want addressed at the public hearing.
1. No comprehensive EAW or AUAR has been done on Dean Lake itself. They have
been done piecemeal for miscellaneous developments surrounding the lake.
2. Water quality assessments must be done with several years worth of data. One
sampling is not a sufficient database on which to make decisions. One sampling was
done after significant degradation due to development and short term weather
related disturbances. All data must be utilized.
There is evidence from previous WSB reports that the surface water drainage
strategy was to divert water around Deans Lake in order to prevent water quality
degradation from storm water runoff. Why has this strategy changed in these
alternatives?
3. The order of decision making is important. By approving a design alternative
for the road project first, the road project then dictates the storm water
management alternatives. In other words, the regonal stormwater options proposed
can't be carefully evaluated or changed. Do some of these proposed alternatives
need an AUAR or EAW in and among themselves?
4. Are the three options listed in the feasibility study also options in the
Scott County storm water management plan?
5. Are the three options listed consistant with the County Storm Water Management
Plan?
6. Are there other options proposed in the County Storm Water Management Plan for
routing this larger development area to other discharge points?
7. What specifically are the Green Areas referred to in the text? Where are they
located? For which alternatives?
... / �etinsg? curmbox= F000000001& a= bba11e66f38ce4e41ef60fl22af46be0 &mss MSG98513548'!20/01
Ilotmail Folder: Inbox
Page 2 of 3
8. Preserving infiltration rates must be part of the strategy. Other nearby
cities, not Shakopee, have mandated infiltration rates. Some alternatives indicate
significant runoff, being diverted into Deans Lake and probably reduced
infiltration upgradient where it becomes important.
9. Previous experience has shown that the placement of pipes and other underground
workings can have significant impact on the water table in and near the area of
study.Has any consideration been given to this potential effect of road
construction, storm water routing, sanitary sewer and water main development?
10) It would seem prudent to slow the development until a study requested by the
Metropolatin Council to be initiated by the Lower Minnesota Watershed District has
a chance to understand the fragile wetland environments and nessesary hydrologic
balances which will be impacted by the realingment and subsequent development.
Other Questions:
1. Regarding the stormwater alternatives: I wonder if by aproving this plan for
realignment we are locking ourselves into ONLY alternative #3 without alternative
#3 or the others undergoing the usual scrutiny given these large plans.
2. Was Valley View ever considered as the East /West arterial. It appears on the
Mdewakanton plans as moving across their property and connecting to 21.
additionally, it travels to the same place shown as 17th avenue. Right by Target,
St. Francis, etc... The extended 17th avenue could then connect with 16 or drop
into the Mdewakanton Community Development.
3. Would 16 (Eagle Creek Blvd.) been built into a four lane west of 83 in 1995 if
you knew this realignment was coming forward?
4. Does the changing of 17th Ave. into a county road necessitate notification of
those along its route including ISD 720 as part of the process?
5. Has the cost participation and assessment ammounts changed since the report
issued for comment?
6. Page 4 of the report mentions a reduction of 20% traffic to acheive an LOS of
"D" or better. There is no mention of how this will be done (in reality, not just
on the computer program). Please explain.
7. Who decides the options for sewer and stormwater? How and when will these
decisions be made?
8. You say this realignment is designed to accommodate area to area travel.
Could you specify from where to where? Do you anticipate huge increases in
traffic from the intersection of 18/16 to the west? Do you project a large number
using the 16 entrance into Valley Green.
9. It is our belief that since the City has initiated the realignment of 16 to be
a minor arterial, that it should include, with equal detail and
attention,feasibility of adding (or the County adding)a frontage road along CSAH
16 where a neighborhood of 40+ homes exists. This should include a definate plan
with a timeline, monies committed, and vigorous pursuit of the necessary ROW.
There is saftey at stake as well as the issue of uncertainty for citizens who have
been part of the community and would like to stay and improve their properties
10. It is very hard to get past the fact that WSB is being asked to discover the
feasibility of a plan that if NOT feasible would be in direct conflict and not
"fit" with the grading and road plan that they designed for Valley Green in the
first place.
./ getmsg? curmbox= F000000001& a= bballe66f38ce4e4lef60fl22af46be0 &msg MSG9851354 3/20/01
CITY OF SAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Declaring Adequacy of Petition for the Reconstruction of
CSAH 83 and the Realignment of CSAH 16
DATE: March 20, 2001
Attached is a petition from Valley Green Business Park, Inc. for a public improvement
project to reconstruct CSAH 83 and reconstruct and realign CSAH 16.
The developers of Valley Green Corporate Center have submitted a petition for the public
improvement project to reconstruct CSAH 83 and reconstruct and realign CSAH 16, as
shown in the feasibility report accepted by City Council on February 20, 2001. The
petition from Valley Green Business Park, Inc. is attached for Council review.
The petition received does represent property owners who are more than the minim
35% of real property to be improved as proposed in the feasibility report. Attached is a
map showing the frontage of the project area and frontage of the petitioner's property.
Valley Green Business Park has 45% of the frontage to be improved and also 92% of the
proposed assessments.
The Council can accept the petition and declare adequacy of the petition by considering
Resolution No. 5499. This resolution can be adopted by a simple majority of the
Council. Adoption of this resolution will allow the ordering of the improvement project
to be approved by simple majority. With no petition the resolution ordering the
improvement project requires an extraordinary maj ority or 4/5.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Move to approve Resolution No. 5499, a resolution declaring the adequacy of
petition for the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and the reconstruction and
realignment of CSAH 16.
2. Do not approve Resolution No. 5499.
3. Table for additional information.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as the petition meets the minimum 35% of property
owners and also the petitioner is waiving notice of assessment hearing and right to appeal
the special assessment to the property, if Council agrees with the feasibility report and
Alignment No. 2.
l
Offer Resolution No. 5499, A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition for
Improvements to County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to Approximately
1870 Feet South of the Existing Intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for
County State Aid Highway 16, from Approximately 850 Feet West of County State Aid
Highway 83 to Approximately 1500 Feet East of County State Aid Highway 83 and
move its adoption.
Bruce Loney
Public Works Director
BL/pmp
MEM5499
BE IT RESOLVED BY TBE CITY COUNCIL OF ;'
fl'
1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of County State Aid Highway 83, from
12 Avenue to approximately 1870 feet south of the existing intersection of County State Aid
Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 feet west of County State Aid
Highway 83 to approximately 1500 feet east of County State Aid Highway 83 by by installation of
sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, turn lanes, concrete median, concrete
curb & gutter, traffic control signals, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and any appurtenant work;
filed with the Council on March 20, 2001, is hereby declared to be signed by the required
percentage of owners of property affected thereby. The declaration is made in conformity to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
F
\\
I .
D
''*,\
\\
r
^
�1p
Z m
D - T�
\���� 275
O C
\`� _........
. to ........
/� Q
10 ,��� .. 21 ' 5
Z I I
00 0
'\ ,11 .., - i t
ffill
Cn r ,
D
z
0-
y r
M m
i
i
I € ,O
I til
i
a
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
WAIVER OF ASSESSMENT RIGHTS
RECITALS
A. The undersigned is the fee owner of certain real Property legally described in
Exhibit A ( "the property "), attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is being platted
as Valley Green Corporate Center Ist Addition.
B. As part of the subdivision and platting process for Valley Green Corporate Center First
Addition, the undersigned will be dedicating right -of -way for County Road 16 and County Road
83.
C. The undersigned developer desires the City of Shakopee to install the public
improvements and assess the costs to the developer and others owning the properties to be
benefited.
D. The undersigned understands that County Roads 16 and 83 are designated as county
arterials.
E. It is understood by the developer that the City will be doing the Chapter 429 Public
Improvements at the developer's request and that the City would not be installing the
improvements described in this petition without this waiver.
F. The undersigned is voluntarily submitting this petition and understands that the
City is relying on it as a condition of subdivision approval and proceeding with the public
improvements.
11
NOW, TBEREFORE, the undersigned agrees as follows:
1. The undersigned petitions the City to install the following improvements and to
assess them against the benefited properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429: Reconstruction of County Roads 16 and 83 including street construction, storm
sewer, watermain, street lighting, sidewalk and appurtenant work as set forth in the
Feasibility Report dated February 20, 2001 ( "Improvement Project "). We understand
trunk sanitary sewer will be constructed in conjunction with the project but will be
paid for under the Trunk Sanitary Sewer Improvement Policy.
2. The undersigned represents and warrants that it is the fee owner of the property described in
Exhibit A and that it has the full legal authority and power to encumber the property.
3. The undersigned requests that the cost of the Improvement Project be assessed against
benefited properties in Exhibit A and against all other benefited property as set out on
Exhibit B. The undersigned understands that the estimated cost of those assessments cannot
be determined at the present time, but understands that the assessments will be determined in
accordance with the City's adopted assessment policy.
4. The undersigned waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 on the Improvement Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special
assessment to be levied to finance the Improvement Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.061 and specifically requests that the Improvement Project be constructed and special
assessments be levied without hearing against the Property.
5. The undersigned waives all right to appeal or otherwise contest or challenge the levy of the
special assessment, including but not limited to the right to challenge whether the increase in
fair market value resulting from the construction of the improvement project is at least equal
to the amount of the project cost that is assessed against the property described in Exhibit A
and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit to such parcel. The
undersigned further agrees that any requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 are
waived to the extent that such requirements are not met.
6. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained herein shall run with the property and shall
bind the heirs, successors and assigns of the undersigned. It is the intent of the City and the
undersigned that this document be recorded as a part of the land records of Scott County,
Minnesota.
7. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall terminate upon the final payment of all special
assessments levied against the Property regarding the Improvement Project, and the City
shall execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish
its rights contained herein upon receipt of such final payment.
2
Dated this day of �� — ,20-Of
Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership
by Valley Green Business Park, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, its general partner
By
Wendell R. 0
Its Vice President
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SS (CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD ) UE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __&- day of� ,
20 0 1 , by Wendell R. Kurtz, the Vice President of Valley Green Business PJrk, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, as general partner of Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, a
Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the corpo and partnership..
Not Public U U
My Commission "Expires ADFI tluE c " GEJA
NOTARYPUBLPC
W COMMISSION EXPIRES 07/31/2005
Drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 S. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
fi: Werk judylpet -imprj
Revised: May, 1997, August, 1999, February, 2001
144241_1
. I 1
� BI IN I
The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota
Lot A, Registered Land Survey No. 6, Scott County, Minnesota, EXCEPT Parcel 74, Minnesota
Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No.70 -11 as the same are on file and of record in the
Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota
The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota; EXCEPT that part shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right
of way Plat No. 70 -12 on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott
County, Minnesota
The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota;
EXCEPT TBE FOLLOWING: Commencing at a point 32 rods north of the Southwest corner of the
Southeast Quarter, thence running East 13 rods, thence North 10 rods, thence in a Northwesterly direction
about 13.700 rods to a point 46 rods north of said Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter, thence
South 14 rods to the place of beginning;
EXCEPT that part shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No.
70 -11 on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota
Government Lots 1 and 2, and the West 601.13 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 10, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, including the accretions and relictions thereto;
EXCEPT that part of Government Lots 1 and 2 shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of
Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 70 -12 and that part of Government Lot 3 shown as Parcel 74 on
Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 70 -13, all in Section 10, Township 115,
Range 22, on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota
ALSO:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at a point 32 Rods north of the Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter, thence running
east 13 Rods, thence North 10 Rods, thence in a Northwesterly direction about 13.7 Rods to a point 46
Rods North of said Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter, thence South 14 Rods to the place of
beginning.
ALSO:
Tract B, Registered Land Survey Number 172, Scott County, Minnesota.
M
W�lv
7. Right -of -Way
Currently, there exists a typical 100 -foot right -of -way along the CSAH 83 and
CSAH 16 corridors. North of the existing CSAH 16 to TH 169, right -of -way varies
from 100 feet to 160 feet.
As part of the proposed project, additional right -of -way will be required along
CSAH 83 and the new realigned CSAH 16. Typical right -of -way will vary from 100
feet to 160 feet along CSAH 83 and from 100 feet to 160 feet on CSAH 16.
Figure A -S in Appendix A shows the right -of -way requirements.
Right - of - way will be provided with the platting process of the commercial property
along the east side of CSAH 83 and north side of the proposed CSAH 16 realignment.
Additional right -of -way will be required in the form of permanent and temporary
construction easements from properties on the south side of the proposed CSAH 16
realignment and east side of CSAH 16. Listed below are the anticipated right -of -way
needs by parcel PID.
Right -of -Way Acquisition
The cost for the right -of -way acquisition was assumed to be $25,000 /acre for
permanent right -of -way and $5,000 /acre for temporary easements over a two -year
period. This equates to approximately $62,550 in right -of -way costs. Based on the
Scott County funding policies, the County will be responsible for the right -of -way
acquisition costs.
The existing CSAH 16 corridor will be potentially turned back to the adjacent land
owner. This area includes approximately 2.28 acres east of CSAH 83 and 1.00 acres
west of CSAH 83.
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83/ CSAH 16 Reconstruction Page 1 of 8
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00 Page 20
Dedicated (D) Permanent R.O.W. Temporary Easement
P.LD.
Owner
or Acquired (A)
(Acres)
(Acres)
27- 042001 -0
Valley Green Industrial Park
D
0.14
018
27- 909011 -0
Valley Green industrial Park
D
1.82
0.84
27- 909010-0
Valley Green Industrial Park
D
0.13
0.10
27- 916002-0
Shakopee Area Catholic School
A
1.39
0.82
27- 916001 -0
Shakopee Mdewaukron Sioux
A
0.33
0.11
27- 264002 -0
Valley Green Industrial Park
D
1.03
1.02
27- 9090060
William B. & Jeanette Otting
A
0.00
0.46
27- 909005 -0
Myron C. Webster
A
0.00
1.52
27- 916010 -0
NBZ Enterprizes
A
0.00
1.00
Total Area
4.84
6.15
Total Area Dedicated
3.12
214
Total Area to be Acquired
1.72
3.91
The cost for the right -of -way acquisition was assumed to be $25,000 /acre for
permanent right -of -way and $5,000 /acre for temporary easements over a two -year
period. This equates to approximately $62,550 in right -of -way costs. Based on the
Scott County funding policies, the County will be responsible for the right -of -way
acquisition costs.
The existing CSAH 16 corridor will be potentially turned back to the adjacent land
owner. This area includes approximately 2.28 acres east of CSAH 83 and 1.00 acres
west of CSAH 83.
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83/ CSAH 16 Reconstruction Page 1 of 8
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00 Page 20
8. Traffic Signal Systems
A new fully- actuated traffic signal system will be provided at the intersection of
CSAH 83 and the new CSAH 16 / 17 Avenue. In addition, the signal system at
CSAH 83 and existing CSAH 16 will be relocated to the proposed new intersection
with the Valley Green Corporate Center site. Also, the signal systems at the TH 169
north and south ramp intersections on CSAH 83 will be revised to accommodate the
proposed improvements. The intersection of CSAH 83 and 12`x' Avenue is proposed
to be signalized as part of a separate County project in 2001.
All new and revised signal systems will include pedestrian accommodations and
Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) capabilities. The signal systems will be
maintained by Mn/DOT, with the power paid by the City of Shakopee. An agreement
will be required between the City, County and Mn/DOT for the signal systems. In
addition, the traffic signal systems will be interconnected with the existing traffic
signals in the corridor.
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstrucdon
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
Page 2of8
Page 21
IV. ASSESSMENTS
The assessable costs associated with the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 -
realignment will be distributed based on the City's assessment policies. The properties that
are proposed to be assessed are shown in Figure H - -1 in Appendix H.
The assessment policv
indicates that the primary assessment for the areas outside the metropolitan urban service area
will be the assessment for curb and gutter along the roadway adjacent
to the subject property.
The remaining assessable cost will be distributed based on the area. Based on these policies,
the following distribution was assumed.
Assessments
Owner P.LD. # Assessment Basis
William B. & Jeanette Otting 27- 909006 -0 Curb & Gutter
200 LF
11640 275" St E Watermain
200 LF
Lakeville MN 55044
Myron C. Webster 27- 90905 -0 Curb & Gutter
700 LF
3950 Eagle Creek Blvd Watermain
700 LF
Shakopee MN 55379
Shakopee Area Catholic Schools 27- 9I6002 -0 Curb & Gutter
1,750 LF
305 Scott St. S Watermain
1,350 LF
Shakopee MN 55379
Shakopee Mdewaukton Sioux 27- 916001 -0 Curb & Gutter
600 LF
Finance Dept Watermain
600 LF
2330 Sioux Trail NW
Prior Lake MN 55372
NBZ Enterprizes 27- 916010 -0 Storm Sewer
Extra Depth
c/o Shakopee Gravel Sanitary Sewer
Extra Depth
1650 CR 83, PO Box 690
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park 27- 264002 -0 Area
9.31 Ac. (2.8 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park 27- 042001 -0 Area
22.48 Ac. (6.8 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park 27- 909011-0 Area
39.08 Ac_ (11.8 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd Storm Sewer
Oversizing
Shakopee MN 55379 Watermain
2,600 LF
Valley Green Industrial Park 27- 909008 -0 Area
31.58 Ac. (9.6 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park 27- 909010 -0 Area
.975 Ac. (.3 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd Watermain
200 LF
Shakopee MN 55379
City ojShakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4 Page 3 of 8
WSB Project No. 1181 -00 9 Page 22
City ofShakopec
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSS Project No. 1281 -00
Page 4of8 Pac23
Y. PROJECT COST
A detailed opinion of probable cost can be found as Table A -1 in Appendix A of this
feasibility report: The opinion of probable cost includes a 10% contingency factor and a 25%
indirect cost factor. The indirect cost factor assumes that the project will be assessed in the
year 2001 and does not account for intended interest holding cost if the project is not assessed
in 2001. The indirect costs includes legal, engineering, administrative and fiscal items.
The following costs were prepared based on the engineer's opinion of probable cost and are
subject to change, depending on the final design of the project, bids received and actual work
performed_ A summary of the estimated costs, assessments, City costs and County costs are
as follows:
P Cost Sumnurry
City Cost SPUC Cost County Cost Assessable Cost Total Cost
Construction Cost $365,435.00 $898,280.00 $2,091.407.60 $3.355.122.60
10% Contingency $36,543.50 $89,828.00 $209,140.80 $335,512.30
Subtotal $401,978.50 5988,108.00 $2,300,548.40 $3,690,634.90
25% indirect Costs l' $100,494.50 a> $9,000.00 (3) $813,164.10 $922,658.60
Total Construction 5502,473.00 $997,108.00 $3,113,712.50 $4,613,293.50
Cost
Trunk Sanitary Sewer $358,763.00 $358,763.00
Trunk Storm Sewer (4) $1,393,000.00 $1,393,000.00
Right -of -Way $62,550.00 $62,550.00
Valley Green Storm (4) $37,739.00 537,739.00
Sewer Oversizing
Mine Storm Sewer 14) $89,259.00 $89,259.00
Extra Depth
Watermain (4) $72,336.00 (4) $336,369.00 $408,705.00
Total Project Cost 52,254,236.00 ,572,336 00 $1,059,658.00 53,577,079.50 $6,963,309.50
(1) 25% Indirect Costs
(2) 8% of Signal Cost for Engineering
(3) 23%d Indtrzct Costs of Assessable Cost plus Kematntng Yortnon of County's indirect Costs
(4) Includes 10 1 /6 Contingencies and 25% Indirect Costs.
City of Sh akopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
Page 5 of 8
Page 24
The "City cost associated with the proposed improvements will include these items as outlined
in the County's cost participation policy. Based on this policy, the City will be responsible
for the following:
50% of the cost for roadway (non- median) curb and gutter;
25% of the traffic signal system at the new realigned CSAH 16 / 17`' Avenue
intersection;
• 100% of the cost of the bituminous trail;
• 100% of the emergency vehicle preemption systems;
• City's portion of the indirect costs.
City Cost Breakdown (including 10% contingencies and 25% indirect costs)
Storm Sewer Cost $292,648.00
Traffic Signal Costs $51,563.00
Trail Costs $117,562.00
Curb & Gutter Costs $40,700.00
Trunk Sanitary Sewer $358,763.00
Trunk S S ewer $1.393.000.00
Total City Cost $2,254,236.00
The Scott County cost associated with the CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 project will be as follows:
• The equivalent cost to provide a four -lane section on CSAH 83 from existing
CSAH 16 to one -half mile south of the existing CSAH 16;
• The equivalent cost of adding one lane in each direction on CSAH 16 from CSAH 83
to the matchpoint of the existing CSAH 16_;
• 75% of the traffic signal system cost at the new CSAH 16 / 17" Avenue intersection;
• The County's portion of the contributing flow to the storm sewer system;
• Design cost for the traffic signal system (8% of the signal cost).
• Right -of -way acquisition costs.
The assessable cost associated with the CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 project will be as follows:
• The assessable portion of the indirect costs;
• Curb & gutter based on City's assessment policy;
° Transportation improvements not included in County and City costs;
• Remaining portion of the storm sewer contributing flow not covered by the County;
• 100% of the signal system at CSAH 16Nalley Green Corporate Center intersection;
100% of the revised traffic signal systems at the TH 169 ramp intersection;
• All watermain extension costs.
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 831 CSAH 16 Re-construction
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281-00 Page 6 of 8 Page 25
Table H -1
-
Proposed Assessments
CSAH 83 / CSAH 1 Improvements
-
Assessment costs
Owner
P.LD. #
Roadway
Storm Sewer
Watermain
Total
William B. &Jeanette Offing
27- 909006-0
$1,992.00
$0.00
$11,907.00
$13,899.00
11640 275 St E
Lakeville MN 55044
Myron C. Webster
27- 90905-0
$6,972.00
$0.00
$41,674.00
S48,646.00
3950 Eagle Creek Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Shakopee Area Catholic Schools
27- 9I6002 -0
$13,446.00
$0.00
$80,371.00
S93,817.00
305 Scott St. S
Shakopee MN 55379
Shakopee Mdewaukton Sioux
27- 916001-0
$5,976.00
$0.00
$35,721.00
$41,697.00
Finance Dept
2330 Sioux Trail NW
Prior Lake MN 55372
N13Z Enterprizes
27- 916010 -0
$0.00
589,259.00
50.00
S89,259.00
c/o Shakopee Gravel
1650 CR 83 PO Box 690
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 264002 -0
$86,389.00
$0.00
$0.00
586,389.00
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27 -042001 -0
$209,802.20
$0.00
$0.00
$209,802.20
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 909011 -0
$364,068.50
$37,739.00
SI54,789.00
$556,596.50
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 909008-0
S296,I91.40
$0.00
$0.00
5296,191.40
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 909010-0
$9,256.00
$0.00
$11,907.00
$21,163.00
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 909009 -0
$376,409.80
$0.00
$0.00
$376.409.80
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
-
Valley Green Industrial Park
7 -9090
$$1,743,209.50
$0.00
$0.00
$1,743,209.50
5240 Industrial: Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Total Costs $3,113,712.40 5126,998.00 3336,369.00 $3,577,079.40
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4 Page 7 Of 8
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
C H
CD y
E _
0
Lu
g
n >
E E
CD
0
v
F -
_ = U
J Q Cn
® V y
C3
® .2G
C7 C
LU
LL Q
U U
m8N �8
Lm� Tc
o A
0
� g
o
e
c
s '
� m
Page 8of8
8
m
�
m
Q
o
"
ca
Q
C
m
d
Z
C
O
<
!_
I^I
m V
Cl)
J
N
v
Q
S
& n
0
0 7
N
W
L
c
S
Q
Q
[a
C H
CD y
E _
0
Lu
g
n >
E E
CD
0
v
F -
_ = U
J Q Cn
® V y
C3
® .2G
C7 C
LU
LL Q
U U
m8N �8
Lm� Tc
o A
0
� g
o
e
c
s '
� m
Page 8of8
I WK11 lg�,
PETITI • r P UBLIC r ■ •
WAWER OF ASSESSMENT RIGHTS
RECITALS
A. The undersigned is the fee owner of certain real Property legally described in
Exhibit A ( "the property"), attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is being platted
as Valley Green Corporate Center 1' Addition.
B. As part of the subdivision and platting process for Valley Green Corporate Center First
Addition, the undersigned will be dedicating right -of -way for County Road 16 and County Road
83.
C. The undersigned developer desires the City of Shakopee to install the public
improvements and assess the costs to the developer and others owning the properties to be
benefited.
D. The undersigned understands that County Roads 16 and 83 are designated as county
arterials.
E. It is understood by the developer that the City will be doing the Chapter 429 Public
Improvements at the developer's request and that the City would not be installing the
improvements described in this petition without this waiver.
F. The undersigned is voluntarily submitting this petition and understands that the
City is relying on it as a condition of subdivision approval and proceeding with the public
improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned agrees as follows:
1. The undersigned petitions the City to install the following improvements and to
assess them against the benefited properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429: Reconstruction of County Roads 16 and 83 including street construction, storm
sewer, watermain, street lighting, sidewalk and appurtenant work ( "Improvement
Project "). We understand trunk sanitary sewer will be constructed in conjunction
with the project but will be paid for under the Trunk Sanitary Sewer Improvement
Policy.
2. The undersigned represents and warrants that it is the fee owner of the property described in
Exhibit A and that it has the full legal authority and power to encumber the property.
3. The undersigned requests that the cost of the Improvement Project be assessed against
benefited properties in Exhibit A and against all other benefited property as set out on
Exhibit B. The undersigned understands that the estimated cost of those assessments cannot
be determined at the present time, but understands that the assessments will be determined in
accordance with the City's adopted assessment policy.
4. The undersigned waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 on the Improvement Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special
assessment to be levied to finance the Improvement Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.061 and specifically requests that the Improvement Project be constructed and special
assessments be levied without hearing against the Property.
The undersigned waives all right to appeal or otherwise contest or challenge the levy of the
special assessment, including but not limited to the right to challenge whether the increase in
fair market value resulting from the construction of the improvement project is at least equal
to the amount of the project cost that is assessed against the property described in Exhibit A
and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit to such parcel. The
undersigned further agrees that any requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 are
waived to the extent that such requirements are not met.
6. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained herein shall run with the property and shall
bind the heirs, successors and assigns of the undersigned. It is the intent of the City and the
undersigned that this document be recorded as a part of the land records of Scott County,
Minnesota.
7. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall terminate upon the final payment of all special
assessments levied against the Property regarding the Improvement Project, and the City
shall execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish
its rights contained herein upon receipt of such final payment.
2
Dated this day of
20
Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership
by Valley Green Business Park, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, its general partner
By
Wendell R. Kurtz
Its Vice President
STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
SS
COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD )
(CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20 by Wendell R. Kurtz, the Vice President of Valley Green Business Park, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, as general partner of Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, a
Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and partnership..
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
Drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 S. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
fl: Werk judylpet -imprj
Revised: May, 1997, August, 1999, February, 2001
144241_1
: 11I
II
The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota
Lot A, Registered Land Survey No. 6, Scott County, Minnesota, EXCEPT Parcel 74, Minnesota
Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No.70 -11 as the same are on file and of record in the
Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota
The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota; EXCEPT that part shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right
of way Plat No. 70 -12 on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott
County, Minnesota
The Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota;
EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: Commencing at a point 32 rods north of the Southwest comer of the
Southeast Quarter, thence runnin East 13 rods, thence North 10 rods, thence in a Northwesterly direction
about 13.700 rods to a point 46 rods north of said Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter, thence
South 14 rods to the place of beginning;
EXCEPT that part shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No.
70 -11 on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota
Government Lots 1 and 2, and the West 601.13 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 10, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, including the accretions and relictions thereto;
EXCEPT that part of Government Lots 1 and 2 shown as Parcel 74 on Minnesota Department of
Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 70 -12 and that part of Government Lot 3 shown as Parcel 74 on
Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 70 -13, all in Section 10, Township 115,
Range 22, on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County, Minnesota
ALSO:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at a point 32 Rods north of the Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter, thence runnin
east 13 Rods, thence North 10 Rods, thence in a Northwesterly direction about 13.7 Rods to a point 46
Rods North of said Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter, thence South 14 Rods to the place of
beginning.
ALSO:
Tract B, Registered Land Survey Number 172, Scott County, Minnesota.
11
Exhibit "B"
7. Right -of -Way
Currently, there exists a typical 100 -foot right -of -way along the CSAH 83 and
CSAH 16 corridors. North of the existing CSAH 16 to TH 169, right -of -way vanes
from 100 feet to 160 feet.
As part of the proposed project, additional right -of -way will be required along
CSAH 83 and the new realigned CSAH 16. Typical right -of -way will vary from 100
feet to 160 feet along CSAH 83 and from 100 feet to 160 feet on CSAH 16.
Figure A -5 in Appendix A shows the right -of -way requirements.
Right -of -way will be provided with the platting process of the commercial property
along the east side of CSAH 83 and north side of the proposed CSAH 16 realignment.
Additional right -of -way will be required in the form of permanent and temporary
construction easements from properties on the south side of the proposed CSAH 16
realignment and east side of CSAH 16. Listed below are the anticipated right -of -way
needs by parcel PID.
Right -of -Way Acquisition
The cost for the right -of -way acquisition was assumed to be $25,000 /acre for
permanent right -of -way and $5,000 /acre for temporary easements over a two -year
period. This equates to approximately $62,550 in right -of -way costs. Based on the
Scott County funding policies, the County will be responsible for the right -of -way
acquisition costs.
The existing CSAH 16 corridor will be potentially turned back to the adjacent land
owner. This area includes approximately 2.28 acres east of CSAH 83 and 1.00 acres
west of CSAH 83.
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction Page 1 of 6
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00 Page 2 0
Dedicated (D) Permanent R.O.W. Temporary Easement
P.LD.
Owner
or Acquired (A)
(Acres)
(Acres)
27- 042001-0
Valley Green Industrial Park
D
0.14
0.28
27- 909011 -0
Valley Green Industrial Park
D
1.82
0.84
27- 909010-0
Valley Green Industrial Park
D
0.13
0.10
27- 916002 -0
Shakopee Area Catholic School
A
1.39
0.82
27- 916001 -0
Shakopee Mdewaukton Sioux
A
0.33
0.11
27- 264002 -0
Valley Green Industrial Park
D
1.03
1.02
27- 9090060
William B. & Jeanette Otting
A
0.00
0.46
27- 909005 -0
Myron C. Webster
A
0.00
1.52
27- 916010 -0
NBZ Enterprizes
A
0.00
1.00
Total Area
4.84
6.15
Total Area Dedicated
3.12
2.24
Total Area to be Acquired
1.72
3.91
The cost for the right -of -way acquisition was assumed to be $25,000 /acre for
permanent right -of -way and $5,000 /acre for temporary easements over a two -year
period. This equates to approximately $62,550 in right -of -way costs. Based on the
Scott County funding policies, the County will be responsible for the right -of -way
acquisition costs.
The existing CSAH 16 corridor will be potentially turned back to the adjacent land
owner. This area includes approximately 2.28 acres east of CSAH 83 and 1.00 acres
west of CSAH 83.
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction Page 1 of 6
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00 Page 2 0
8. Traffic Signal Systems
A new fully- actuated traffic signal system will be provided at the intersection of
CSAH 83 and the new CSAH 16 / 17' Avenue. In addition, the signal system at
CSAH 83 and existing CSAH 16 will be relocated to the proposed new intersection
with the Valley Green Corporate Center site. Also, the signal systems at the TH 169
north and south ramp intersections on CSAH 83 will be revised to accommodate the
proposed improvements. The intersection of CSAH 83 and 12` Avenue is proposed
to be signalized as part of a separate County project in 2001.
All new and revised signal systems will include pedestrian accommodations and
Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) capabilities. The signal systems will be
maintained by Mn/DOT, with the power paid by the City of Shakopee. An agreement
will be required between the City, County and Mn/DOT for the signal systems. In
addition, the traffic signal systems will be interconnected with the existing traffic
signals in the corridor.
•�•
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
Page 21
IV.. ASSESSMENT'S
The assessable costs associated with the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and CSAH 16
realignment will be distributed based on the City's assessment policies. The properties that
are proposed to be assessed are shown in Figure H -1 in Appendix H. The assessment policy
indicates that the primary assessment for the areas outside the metropolitan urban service area
will be the assessment for curb and gutter along the roadway adjacent to the subject property.
The remaining assessable cost will be distributed based on the area. Based on these policies,
the following distribution was assumed.
Assessments
Owner
P.I.D. #
Assessment Basis
William B. & Jeanette Otting
27- 909006 -0
Curb & Gutter
200 LF
t 1640 275 St E
Watermain
200 LF
Lakeville MN 55044
Myron C. Webster
27- 90905 -0
Curb & Gutter
700 LF
3950 Eagle Creek Blvd
Watermain
700 LF
Shakopee MN 55379
Shakopee Area Catholic Schools
27- 916002-0
Curb & Gutter
1,750 LF
305 Scott St. S
Watermain
1,350 LF
Shakopee MN 55379
Shakopee Mdewaukton Sioux
27- 916001 -0
Curb & Gutter
600 LF
Finance Dept
Watermain
600 LF
2330 Sioux Trail NW
Prior Lake MN 55372
NBZ Enterprizes
27- 916010 -0
Storm Sewer
Extra Depth
c/o Shakopee Gravel
Sanitary Sewer
Extra Depth
1650 CR 83, PO Box 690
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 264002 -0
Area
9.31 Ac. (2.8 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27 -042001 -0
Area
22.48 Ac. (6.8 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 909011 -0
Area
39.08 Ac. (11.8 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Storm Sewer
Oversizing
Shakopee MN 55379
Watermain
2,600 LF
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 909008 -0
Area
31.58 Ac. (9.6 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
Valley Green Industrial Park
27- 909010-0
Area
.975 Ac. (.3 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Watermain
200 LF
Shakopee MN 55379
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
Page 3 of 6
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
Page 22
Assessments
Owner P.I.D. # Assessment Basis
Valley Green Industrial Park 27- 909009 -0 Area 40.17 Ac. (12.2 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379 _
Valley Green Industrial Park 27- 909060 -0 Area 186.67 Ac. (56.5 %)
5240 Industrial Blvd
Shakopee MN 55379
TO
c�
City ofSkakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
J'agc 23
V. PROJECT COST
A detailed opinion of probable cost can be found as Table A -1 in Appendix A of this
feasibility report. The opinion of probable cost includes a 10% contingency factor and a 25%
indirect cost factor. The indirect cost factor assumes that the project will be assessed in the
year 2001 and does not account for intended interest holding cost if the project is not assessed
in 2001. The indirect costs includes legal, engineering, administrative and fiscal items.
The following costs were prepared based on the engineer's opinion of probable cost and are
subject to change, depending on the final design of the project, bids received and actual work
performed. A summary of the estimated costs, assessments, City costs and County costs are
as follows:
Project Cost Summary
Total Project Costs 52,254,236.00 572,336.00 $1,059,658.00 $3,577,079.50 $6,963,309.50
(1) 25% Indirect Costs
(2) 8% of Signal Cost for Engineering
(3) 25% Indirect Costs of Assessable Cost plus Remaining Portion of County's indirect Costs
(4) Includes 10% Contingencies and 25% Indirect Costs.
Page 5 of 6
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
Pa Zs
City Cost
SPUC Cost County Cost
Assessable Cost
Tota Cos
Construction Cost
$365,435.00
$898,280.00
$2,091,407.60
$3,355,122.60
10% Contingency
$36,543.50
$89,828.00
$209,140.80
$335,512.30
Subtotal
$401,978.50
$988,108.00
52,300,548.40
$3,690,634.90
25% Indirect Costs
$100,494.50
(21 $9,000.00
(" $813,164.10
$922,658.60
Total Construction
$502,473.00
$997,108.00
$3,113,712.50
$4,613,293.50
Cost
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
$358,763.00
$358,763.00
Trunk Storm Sewer
(4) $1,393,000.00
$1,393,000.00
Right -of -Way
$62,550.00
$62,550.00
Valley Green Storm
(4) $37,739.00
$37,739.00
Sewer Oversizing
Mine Storm Sewer
(4) $89,259.00
$89,259.00
Extra Depth
Watermain
(4) $72,336.00
(4� $336,369.00
$408,705.00
Total Project Costs 52,254,236.00 572,336.00 $1,059,658.00 $3,577,079.50 $6,963,309.50
(1) 25% Indirect Costs
(2) 8% of Signal Cost for Engineering
(3) 25% Indirect Costs of Assessable Cost plus Remaining Portion of County's indirect Costs
(4) Includes 10% Contingencies and 25% Indirect Costs.
Page 5 of 6
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
Pa Zs
The City cost associated with the proposed improvements will include these items as outlined
in the County's cost participation policy. Based on this policy, the City will be responsible
for the following:
50% of the cost for roadway (non - median) curb and gutter;
• 25% of the traffic signal system at the new realigned CSAH 16 / 17 Avenue
intersection;
• 100% of the cost of the bituminous trail;
100% of the emergency vehicle preemption systems;
• City's portion of the indirect costs.
City Cost Breakdown (including 10% contingencies and 25% indirect costs)
Storm Sewer Cost
$292,648.00
Traffic Signal Costs
$51,563.00
Trail Costs
$117,562.00
Curb & Gutter Costs
$40,700.00
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
$358,763.00
Trunk S torm S ewer
$ 1,393,000.00
Total City Cost
,$2,254,236.00
The Scott County cost associated with the CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 project will be as follows:
• The equivalent cost to provide a four -lane section on CSAH 83 from existing
CSAH 16 to one -half mile south of the existing CSAH 16;
• The equivalent cost of adding one lane in each direction on CSAH 16 from CSAH 83
to the matchpoint of the existing CSAH 16.;
• 75% of the traffic signal system cost at the new CSAH 16 / 17 " Avenue intersection;
• The County's portion of the contributing flow to the storm sewer system;
• Design cost for the traffic signal system (8% of the signal cost).
• Right -of -way acquisition costs.
The assessable cost associated with the CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 project will be as follows:
• The assessable portion of the indirect costs;
• Curb & gutter based on City's assessment policy;
• Transportation improvements not included in County and City costs;
• Remaining portion of the storm sewer contributing flow not covered by the County;
• 100% of the signal system at CSAH 16Nalley Green Corporate Center intersection;
• 100% of the revised traffic signal systems at the TH 169 ramp intersection;
• All watermain extension costs.
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 Reconstruction
City Project No. 2001 -4 Page 6 of 6
WSB Project No. 1281 -00 Page 25
M r
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND
WABTER OF ASSESSMENT RIGHTS
R ECITALS
A. The undersigned is the fee owner of certain real Property legally described in
Exhibit A ( "the property"), attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is being platted
as Valley Green Corporate
Center 1' Addition
B. As part of the subdivision and platting process for Valley
Green Corporate Center First Addition the undersigned will be dedicating right -of -way for -
County Road 16 and County Road 83
C. The undersigned developer desires the City of Shakopee to install the public
improvements and assess the costs to the developer and others owning the propertyies to be
benefited.
D. The undersigned understands that County Roads 16 and 83 are .T be
designated as a ^e"eetef s+`•°°¢, ^aunty arterials.
^ uc iJViiiy.
E. It is understood by the developer that the City will be doing the Chapter 429 Public
Improvements selely-at the developer's request and that the
City would not be installing the improvements described in this petition without this waiver.
F. The undersigned is voluntarily submitting this petition and understands that the
City is relying on it as a condition of subdivision approval and proceeding with the public
improvements.
- 2 -
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned agrees as follows:
1. The undersigned petitions the City to install the following improvements and to assess
them against the ben benefited properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429:
Reconstruction of County Roads 16 and 83 including
street construction, storm sewer, saiaitffy — watermain, street lighting, sidewalk
and appurtenant work ( "Improvement Project "). We understand trunk sanitary sewer
will be constructed in coniunction with the proiect but wi be paid for under the Trunk
Sanitary Sewer Improvement Policy.
2. The undersigned represents and warrants that it is the fee owner of the property described in
Exhibit A and that it has the full legal authority and power to encumber the property.
3. The undersigned requests that the cost of the Improvement Project be assessed against
beneg benefited properties in Exhibit A and against all other benefited property as set out
on Exhibit B . The undersigned understands that the estimated cost of those assessments
cannot be determined at the present time, but understands that the assessments will be
determined in accordance with the City's adopted assessment policy.
4. The undersigned waives notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.031 on the Improvement Project and notice of hearing and hearing on the special
assessment to be levied to finance the Improvement Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
429.061 and specifically requests that the Improvement Project be constructed and special
assessments be levied without hearing against the Property.
5. The undersigned waives all right to appeal or otherwise contest or challenge the levy of the
special assessment, including but not limited to the right to challenge whether the increase in
fair market value resulting from the construction of the improvement project is at least equal
to the amount of the project cost that is assessed against the property described in Exhibit A
and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit to such parcel. The undersigned
further agrees that any requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 are waived to the
extent that such requirements are not met.
6. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained herein shall run with the property and shall
bind the heirs, successors and assigns of the undersigned. It is the intent of the City and the
undersigned that this document be recorded as a part of the land records of Scott County,
Minnesota.
7. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall terminate upon the final payment of all special
assessments levied against the Property regarding the Improvement Project, and the City shall
execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish its
rights contained herein upon receipt of such final payment.
Dated this day of
20
- 3 -
a Minnesota corporation
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
(CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
20 by , the of
a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS
COUNTY OF )
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
(INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT)
On this day of .20 , before me, a Notary Public
within and for said County, personally appeared
(a single person) (husband and wife) being sworn, did say that said instrument was executed as
their free act and deed.
Notary Public,
My Commission Expires:
Drafted by:
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 S. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
[i: Werk judylpet -imprj
Revised: May, 1997, August, 1999, February, 2001
144241 1
A tentative project schedule for the improvement is as follows:
0 Development of Concept Layouts .................... September 2000 to January 2001
Meeting with Scott County ..... ............................... November 17, 2000
Public Information Meeting .... ............................... November 28, 2000
Development of Feasibility Report .................. November 2000 to February 2001
Meeting with Mn/ DOT ... ............................... Week of February 5, 2001
Mn/DOT Review of Concept ........................ December 2000 to February 2001
City Council Meeting - Accept Feasibility Report ................... February 20, 2001
County Review of the Feasibility Report ........... February 2, 2001 to February 14, 2001
City Council Meeting - Public Hearing .............................. March 20, 2001
Right -of -Way Acquisition ......................... March 20, 2001 - December 2001
Detail Design ....... ............................... March 2001 -November 2001
County Review of the Detail Design Plans ........................... November 2001
Mn/DOT State Aid Review of the Detail Design Plans ................. November 2001
City Council Meeting - Approval Plans / Order Ad for Bid .............. December 2001
Ad for Bid (After Right -of -Way Acquisition) .......... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . January 2002
Open Bids ....................... ............................... February 2002
City County Meeting - Award Bid ...... ............................... March 2002
Construction ............... ............................... Spring - Summer 2002
Complete Construction ................ ............................... Fall 2002
City of Shakopee
Feasibility Report
CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstructioia
City Project No. 2001 -4
WSB Project No. 1281 -00
Page 26
I L I . P,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Garden Lane Addition
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2001
REVIEW PERIOD: December 8, 2000 —April 6, 2001
Introduction:
Daniel Brewer has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed Garden Lane Addition.
This plat proposal consists of four (4) lots, one encompassing the six (6) existing four -plex structures, one
encompassing the proposed 48 unit apartment structure and two proposed outlots. There will also be the
creation of a public street/ cul -de -sac.
Considerations:
Mr. Brewer is proposing to construct a 48 -unit structure located north and west of the existing four -plex
structures, with access proposed off County Road 17 (Marschall Road). He also is proposing 24 garage
spaces in two structures located north of the proposed apartment. As noted in the applicant's narrative
description (Exhibit B), they are also asking for consideration of a variance of the lot width requirement
for the proposed lot. They are proposing to provide a lot width of 120 feet, where 150 feet is required
(refer to Exhibits B, I & L). As noted, this only occurs in the area of the driveway and detention pond;
the property is 310 feet wide at the proposed building setback line. The applicant also noted in the
narrative description that they plan to make exterior improvements to the existing four -plex structures,
such as new railings for the decks and landscaping between the existing buildings and the new building.
At the January 4, 2001 Planning Commission public hearing, there was considerable discussion regarding
this project, resulting in the tabling of the public hearing to the February 6, 2001 meeting. The
Commission asked that the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting and that staff submit a report to the
City Council (Exhibit H). As a result from the neighborhood meeting, the applicant submitted a letter
(Exhibit 1) and a petition (Exhibit J), both, which addressed a request to eliminate the berm along the
west property line and be replaced with a six (6) foot high continuous fence and additional coniferous
landscaping. Concerning an issue with right -of -way alignment, the applicant offered a sketch and short
report on a possible realignment (Exhibit K).
The preliminary plat was presented before the City Council on February 20, 2001, with the public
hearing continued to March 20, 2001. The applicant has provided a letter that addresses several concerns
that were raised by the Council at the February 20 meeting (see attached February 28, 2001 letter and
revised site plan, preliminary plat, and preliminary site development and landscape plan). The proposed
apartment development (Lot 1) has been modified to reduce the density from 17.9 units per acre to 15.3
units per acre, made possible by the developer purchasing additional land from the existing multi- family
development (Lot 2). This purchase of land has increased the density for Lot 2 from 11.4 units per acre
to 14.5 units per acre. The total density for the two lots combined is approximately 15 units per acre.
The developer has also modified the site plan by including a playground on Lot 1. This is in addition to
the existing playground on Lot 2. Additionally, the developer has stated that he and the owner of the
existing apartment complex will jointly build a volleyball court that will be accessible to both
developments.
Lastly, the developer has increased the parking spaces on Lot 1 from 96 to 108. This will result in 2.25
spaces for each unit, where the requirement is 2.00 spaces per unit.
The effect on the open space percentage of the new development, based on a 1,000 square foot decrease
in the building size, on the additional land and additional parking area, is that the percentage of
impervious surface decreased from approximately 50% to 42 %. The maximum impervious surface
percentage is 60% in the R -3 Zone.
This letter and revised plans were not presented before the Planning Commission, thus were not included
in the attached resolution that they have recommended approval of at their February 8, 2001 meeting.
Alternatives:
1. Approve the attached resolution approving the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION
subject to the proposed conditions.
2. Approve the resolution approving the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION subject to
revised conditions.
3. Do not approve the proposed preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION.
4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional
information, or to allow time for the Planning Commission and City Council to review a possible text
amendment to the R -3 Zone.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on, and considered the request at its meeting of February 6,
2001, and recommended approval, with conditions as noted in the attached resolution.
Action Requested:
g: \Cc\2001 \0320 \ppgarden1n.doc (01010)
• 1 1 1
�. 11 FEMM 1 11
WHEREAS, Daniel S. Brewer, applicant, and James Vandergriend, general partner of
BVC Partnership, L.L.P., property owners, have made application for preliminary plat approval of
Garden Lane Addition; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as shown on Exhibit #1; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary
plat on February 8, 2001; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent;
IMM
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to
the conditions listed below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows:
That the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION is approved subject to the following
conditions;
I. Prior to review of the final plat by the City Council, the following actions shall be
taken:
A. The easement shown around the pond located on Lot 1 shall be removed from the
plat.
B. The applicant shall work with the City's Engineering Department to ensure all
required easements are shown on the Final Plat.
C. The Director of Public Works and the County Engineer must review and approve the
Storm Sewer Plan.
D. An additional dedication of 10 feet of right -of -way from centerline shall be required-
along Outlot A. The additional 10 feet maybe dedicated as an easement to the
County.
E. Resolve the issue concerning that part of Outlot B, which is located within existing
County right -of -way.
II. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the
Final Plat:
A. Approval of title by the City Attorney.
B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for
the public improvements within the final plat, and for the payment of engineering
review fees and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule.
1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
4. Installation of private sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and
construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design
Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee.
5. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $1,500.00 per
unit, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat.
6. The City shall require a landscaping bond at the time of building permit
application in an amount equal to 115% of the value of the landscaping
materials to insure completion of the landscaping.
7. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire
Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC),
and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector.
8. Street signs shall be installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost of $270 per
each sign pole.
9. The two developments are to share the playground and upgrade the
playground equipment as stated by applicant.
10. Provide fencing as proposed, in lieu of berm, along west property line.
11. Provide a security system as proposed.
III. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall
apply:
A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be
reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s).
B. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and
are subject to approval by City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility
Commission.
C. The developer will provide temporary street signs as approved by the Building
Official and Fire Inspector.
D. No signing, berming or landscaping shall be located in the County right -of -way or
County easement.
E. An access permit shall be required for the modification of Garden Lane.
F. A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right -of -way.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat
of GARDEN LANE ADDITION does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of
Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots
within the plat as they are developed.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
held the day of 9 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
W s yoga Q 8101FAU4 �• .
.: ��
�►
9NO • - ■ ice\ ili
FA
02/28/01
14:51 FAX 6127245510
Michel Leek
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes St. S.
Shakopee, MN 55379
February 29, 2001
Re: A pplication /;
Dear Mr. Leek:
After the Council tabled our Application to replat and develop Garden Lane Apartments, the seller and i have
looked at alternatives. We offer the following changes to the plate as suggested solutions to the Councils
reservations raised in its Last meeting. We have attached a copy of the new site plan to illustrate:
1. Density can be reduced from 17.9 units per acre to 15.3 units per acre buy purchasing additional land for
Lot 1. The difference for Lot 2 of the existing apartments is an increase in density from 11.4 units per acre
to 14.5 units per acre. The total density of both combined is still at 15 units per acre.
2. A playground would be developed on the new development. The existing apartment has a playground on
their property.
The Developer and the existing apartment owner would also like to jointly build and have access to a volley
ball court as an added amenity to both apartment developments_ This is shown on the attached drawing and
is proposed to be included on an outlot to permit easement to the existing apartments for access to it.
3. Parking has been increased by 12 more sp adjustments
However54 of these require the ease easement of a few
2.25 spaces per apartment for a total of 1 spaces.
feet from the existing Apartments_
I have a color rendering of the new site plan that I will send to you if you can use it as an aid in presenting these
changes. I hope this will satisfy the Councils reservations with the proposed development. I also hope the
council can at least discuss the merits of each of these changes and that this Application can be considered for
approval rather than included in the moratorium. Thank you for your review and assistance in these matters.
Sincerely;
Daniel S. viewer
Architect
AAG 902
Telephone: (612) 724 -5557 Fax. (612) 72 -
asalt u@slryp®int -co
2727 26' Avenue S., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406
4 5510
Cc Metro Land Surveying and Engineering
Jim Vander Griend
Mark Noble
02/28/01 14:51 FAX 6127245510
a
4
LU
Q
J
z
Q
AAG
— l -/ 4 a ss +.'.. "i
_5p£L
H; A
0
m
0
C
D
a
a=
/
—
,�
IG,r
I
31
a
'P
~
,i
{
Si6
F
'�•
Y aa
�3
3:z
co
6
`n.
!_`
�z
a
�S
a ®:
Cm ,
AAG
— l -/ 4 a ss +.'.. "i
_5p£L
H; A
0
m
0
C
D
a
a=
ti I
,1 / • ' rte ! I i
1 I
b I S 5
I I '
e
bps
p1 tt I I
'11Q
L
U '
O ;
�o
N
z
0
J
0 r o y
o � o I s I I Iw
\ NgWCCV 1SL MSIAJ tSd3 I
/
—
,�
IG,r
I
31
i-
~
Si6
F
ti I
,1 / • ' rte ! I i
1 I
b I S 5
I I '
e
bps
p1 tt I I
'11Q
L
U '
O ;
�o
N
z
0
J
0 r o y
o � o I s I I Iw
\ NgWCCV 1SL MSIAJ tSd3 I
02/28/01 14:51 FAX 6127245510
AAC CSI o3
NV IM =s
I NO
G[ . ` r �� i.... d110H� SJN� 1 Lllfldv 3ddO:Ivms Ali MiN!!'T3lld t 6
1 , C 7H. rS��s' --
�a a
C r 951 gL - 'O.0 - "Q , 1 1
It
II P 0 a C r wl"P1.OD
GVO
IT
< 9 g _
� �� E� _;y
a c:7 cr VV az
cz� I
/
°A va
G 6
H pp ? m° � dam, m Afl•'
a T
v
/ v IvI 1
3N11 ua3doad u ....r....�:•
M
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorwichim
. Shakopee Planning Commission
FR O M : TO
Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION
MEETING DATE: January 4, 2001
REVIEWPERIOD: December S, 2000 —April 6, 2001
IN i I t'
Applicant: Daniel Brewer
Property Owners: Daniel Brewer, BVC Partnership LLP
Location: West of County Road 17 (I farschall Road) and south of Gorman Road
Current Zoning: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone
Adjacent Zoning: North: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone
South: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone
East: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone
West: Old Shakopee Residential (R -1C) Zone
1995 Comp. Plan: High Density Residential
-Area: 230,453 sq. ft. (529 acres)
MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary_
Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location )Vlap
Exhibit B: Narrative Description
Exhibit C: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan
Exhibit D: City Engineering Comments
Exhibit E: Alternative Water Service Plan
Exhibit F: Scott County Environmental Health Dept. Comments
Exhibit G: Scott County Highway Dept. Comments
Daniel Brewer has made application for preliminary plat approval of Garden Lane Addition. The
proposal would consist of four (4) lots, one encompassing the sic (6) e�cisting four -plex structures, one
encompassing the proposed multi - family residential structure, and two proposed outlots. There will
also be a public street/ cul -de -sac.
Considerations:
Mr. Brewer is proposing to construct a 48 -unit structure located north and west of the existing
four -plex structures, with access proposed off County Road 17 (Marschall Road). He also is
proposing 24 garage spaces in two structures located north of the proposed apartment. As noted
in the applicant's narrative description (Exhibit B), they are also asking for consideration of a
variance of the lot width requirement for the proposed lot. They are proposing to provide a lot
width of 120 feet, where 150 feet is required. As noted, this only occurs in the area of the
driveway and detention pond; the property is 310 feet wide at the proposed building setback line.
The applicant also noted in the narrative description that they plan to make exterior improvements
to the existing four -plex structures, such as new railings for the decks and landscaping between
the existing buildings and the new building.
The City has no record of a park dedication fee ever being received for this property_ Therefore,
park dedication fees shall apply to this plat. There are 48 proposed units and 24 existing units as
part of this plat. The current fee is $1500 per unit for a total park dedication payment of
$108,000. City policy states that these fe
consistent with city policy if a deferment is es may be deferred to building permit issuance
requested and approved. The applicant has not
requested such a deferment_ Should a deferment be requested and approved, a minimum of
$36.000 in park dedication fees would be due at the time of recording the final plat (24 existing
units x $1500).
The following written comments have been received:
The City Engineering Department has provided comments, a copy of which is attached for the
Commission's information (Exhibit D).
t comply with
The Fire Inspector has provided the following comments: 1) the project mus
Shakopee Fire Prevention Bureau Policies; 2) permits are required for fire protection/detection
systems; 3) dry sidewall sprinklers are to be placed on all unit patios on the west and south
elevations due to lack of Fire Department access; 4) standpipes are to be provided in all
stairways; and 5) the fire serlce line shall be looped to the northwest per Shakopee Public
Utilities (see Exhibit E).
The City Building Official has commented that a building code analysis's required when
making application for a permit.
Scott County Environmental Health Department has submitted written comments, a copy of
which is attached (Exhibit F).
Scott County Highway Department has submitted written comments, a copy of which is
attached (Exhibit G).
Alternatives:
1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE
ADDITION subject to the following proposed conditions;
j, Prior to review of the final plat by the City Council, the following actions shall
be taken:
A. The easement shown around the pond located on Lot 1 shall be removed from
the plat.
B. The applicant shall work with the City's Engineering Department to ensure all
required easements are shown on the Final Plat.
C. The Director of Public Works and the County Engineer must review and
approve the Storm Sewer Plan.
D. An additional dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way from centerline shall be
required along Outlot A. The additional 10 feet may be dedicated as an
easement to the County.
E. Resolve the issue concerning that part of Outlot B which is located within
existing County right -of -way.
1(I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the
Final Plat:
A. Approval of title by the City Attorney.
B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for
security for the public improvements within the final plat, and for the payment
of engineering review fees and any other fees as required by the City's adopted
fee schedule_
I _ Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. .
4. - Installation of private sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and
construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the
Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee.
5. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of S 1,500.00
per unit, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat.
6_ The City shall require a landscaping bond at the time of building permit
application in an amount equal to 115% of the value of the landscaping
materials to insure completion of the landscaping_
The developer shall be responsible for payment of security for the
7. public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as
required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule.
g. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform
Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
(SPUC), and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector.
9. Street signs shall be installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost of $270
per each sign pole.
C. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform. to City requirements
and are subject to approval by City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility
Commission.
IEL Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall
apply;
A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be
reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s).
B. The developer will provide temporary street signs as approved by the Building
Official and Fire Inspector.
C. No signing, berming or landscaping shall be located in the County right -of -way or
County easement.
D. An access permit shall be required for the modification of Garden Lane.
E. A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right -of -way.
ity Council approval of the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE
2. Recommend to the C
ADDITION subject to revised conditions_
_ Recommend denial of the proposed preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION.
4. Continue the public hearing.
5. Close the public hearing, but table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and /or
staff to provide additional information.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval with conditions as presented_
Action Requested:
M11110511
0 111mi
\v er a
- Li q \
R3
RIC I
7 - 1
F\1 B
-------------
R 3
SHAKOPEE
N
w
Preliminary Plat of Garden Court Apts.
ADVAN
2727 26 Avenue S., Mmeapolis, NEnnesota 55406
Telephone: (612) 724 -5557 Fax: (612) 724 -5510
basalt@,skypointcom
Mario Noble
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes St. S.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Application for Preliminary Plat — Narrative Description
Dear Mr. Noble:
The following is a description of the proposed development:
Narrative Description
C.
December 7, 2000
The proposed development subdivides the existing subject property into two parcels. The existing
apartments in one lot and the furore apartment building in the second lot_ As required by the City's
Engineer the development is also planning to dedicate a new right -of -way for Garden Lane as shown
on the proposed plat.
The new apartment building is proposed to be 48 units within one building and within all Zoning
Requirements. There will also be two ancillary buildings for garai7es.
The developer also plans on some exterior improvements to the existing apartments consisting of new
railings for the decks and landscaping between the elusting and new buildings.
Both the existing and new driveways shall intersect at the new cal -de -sac planned for Garden Lane.
Due to the geometry of the existing property, this subdivision with the new right of way has one
nonconformity with the zoning requirement for lot widths at the setback. In- lieu -of the required as a
minimum of 150 feet at LJ on reaching a lot depth of approximately 11- s
0 feet the lot s270 feet wide_
driveway and pondm p
At the proposed building set back it is 310 feet wide.
Please consider a waiver of this requirement for the front entry of this proposed lot. We believe in all
other respects that this proposed subdivision meets the City's requirements for this subdivision.
Thank you for your consideration.
cerely;
Daniel S. newer
Architect
l
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Mark Noble, Planner I
FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer �.
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat — Garden Court Apartments
DATE: December 22, 2000
After reviewing the referenced application, I have the following comments for the
applicant, and for the planning department:
Streets
The existing site has access off of County Road 17, using a skewed driveway entrance to
the existing apartments located on the parcel south of the proposed plat. The preliminary
plat shows a public road access that would provide access to the existing apartments, as
well as the proposed apartments. The alignment and width for the street and cul -de -sac,
meet the City's requirements.
Easements
An easement is shown around the pond located on Lot 1. Because this pond only, serves
Lot 1, it is considered a private pond per the City's policies and practices. Therefore, the
easement around the pond should be removed from the plat, and all future maintenance of
this pond will be the responsibility of the owner of Lot 1.
Additional easements are required around the perimeter of the lots. Additional easements
may also be needed for the storm sewer within Lotl that serves Lot 2. The applicant shall
work with the City's Engineering Department to insure all required easements are shown
on the Final Plat.
Sanitary Sewer
All sanitary sewer upstream from manhole 2 shall be private. The final construction
plans shall indicate all private sanitary sewer.
Grading Plan/Erosion Control/Storm Sewer
With the final plat application, the applicant shall submit revised storm sewer
calculations. The Director of Public Works, prior to review by the City Council, must
approve this plan. The final construction plans shall indicate all private storm sewer.
Trunk Fees
This plat is outside the Storm Sewer Trunk Charge area and the Sanitary Sewer Trunk
Charge area. Therefore, there will be no Trunk Storm Sewer or Trunk Sanitary Sewer
charges.
Recommendation
Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to review of the Final Plat, by the City Council, the Director of Public
Works approves the Storm Sewer Plan, and the easements dedicated with the
Final Plat.
2. Prior to recording of the Final Plat, the following actions must be completed:
1. Execution of the Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for
security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and for the
engineering review fees.
2. The City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission must
approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications.
I
SCOTT COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT CENTER A104
200 FOURTH AVENUE WEST
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 -1220
(952) 496 -8177 Fax: (952) 496 -8489
( 1 1 I (TSI
Mark Noble, Shakopee Planning Department
Nil: Steve L. Steuber, Environmentalist
ATE December 20, 2000
SUBJECT Preliminary Plat for Garden Court Apartments
The area in which this development is proposed is highly susceptible to ground water
contamination. Therefore, precautions should be taken to minimize the potential for
ground water contamination. Storm water retention ponds should be designed to provide
treatment for storm water. Scott County's Ground Water Protection Plan, suggests that
storm water ponds located in highly susceptible areas which will receive runoff from
residential, commercial and industrial developments (where water carried contaminants are
likely to be present) should be designed in accordance with Federal NURP standards which
suggest use of low permeability soil to treat and retard contaminant infiltration. Until the
State adopts specific storm water design criteria to protect the ground water, ponds should
be designed to meet the standards for treatment specified in viPCA rules for on -site sewage
systems. These rules require a three -foot separation from the water table or bedrock and
constructed in, or lined with, soils that have a petlneability slower than five minutes per
inch.
H: \ENV_HLTH \WordWunidpal Develop o p e e 000 \Ga S den C u r t D Employer oc
Dear Mark:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the
following comments:
♦ An access permit shall be required for the modification of Garden Lane.
♦ A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right -of- -way.
♦ An additional dedication of 10 feet of right -of -way from centerline shall be required along
Outlot A. The additional 10 feet may be dedicated as an easement to the County.
♦ Part of Outlot B is located within existing County right -of -way. This will have to be cleared
up before final plat approval.
♦ Any change in stormwater entering the County right -of -way shall require detailed stormwater
calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval.
♦ No signing, berming, or landscaping shall be located in the County right -of- -way or County
easement.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment.
Since
Craig Jenso
Transport ion Planner
An Equal Oppornuzit}/Safetti bx•are Employer
VA�'
# F
Mem
T Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I •--T--
SUBJECT: Garden Lane Preliminary Plat
D ATE: February 8, 2001
At your January 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled the
public hearing for the Garden Lane Preliminary Plat, requesting two separate matters be
addressed. The first item was a request for staff to submit a report to the City Council,
asking that the Council meet with the owners of the multiple family residential properties
in the vicinity of the proposed Garden Lane development to discuss issues concerning
law enforcement in this neighborhood. The second item was for the applicant to hold a
neighborhood meeting.
f f
At that Commission meeting, several property owners who live near the proposed Garden
Lane development expressed concerns about vandalism and public safety issues that they
have witnessed or were aware of that occur in the neighborhood. The Commission tabled
the public hearing for the preliminary plat application and asked that the developer hold a
neighborhood meeting to discuss issues and concerns of the neighborhood property
owners and that they invite a representative of the Police Department. The Commission
also asked that the Council meet with the Police Department and the multiple family
property owners /managers in this neighborhood to discuss these issues and concerns.
FINDINGS
After the close of the Commission meeting, staff discussed this issue and were informed
that a number of property owners /managers of the multiple family developments in the
area do meet on a regular basis with City Public Safety officials and discuss the number
of police calls and other issues, which benefit both the City Police and the property
owners. These types of meetings will continue until no longer deemed necessary.
Staff did draft a report to the City Council regarding this issue (see attached
memorandum). Additionally, the developer has held a neighborhood meeting and will
report on the discussion of that meeting during their public hearing for the preliminary
plat, which was continued to February 8, 2001. The developer has submitted a letter that
addresses concerns and issues that were discussed at the neighborhood meeting (see
attached letter from Daniel S. Brewer). One issue that will require review by the
Commission pertains to a request for removal of the berm requirement for along the west
property line, and instead, allow for the installation of a new fence with evergreen
plantings along that west property line. A draft of a petition regarding this proposal is
attached, with a signed original expected to be presented the night of the meeting.
Additionally, Mr. Brewer's letter addresses several other issues that were brought up at
the January 4 meeting, and by the City and other agencies during the plat review process.
This memorandum is provided for your information.
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Referral
ATE: February 6, 2001
At the January 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked staff to
forward a recommendation to the City Council that they meet with the single family and
multiple family property owners who own property in the vicinity southwest of Gorman
Street and C.S.A.H_ 17/ Marschall Road. The topic of discussion for that meeting stems
from concerns raised by Eastway Circle property owners at a recent public hearing for a
proposed 48 unit apartment structure off Garden Lane. The property owner's aired their
concerns about the amount of vandalism and public safety violations that occur in this
area.
After the close of that meeting, staff was made aware that a number of property owners/
managers of the multiple family developments in this area do meet on a regular basis
with City Public Safety officials. This information was not available for the Planning
Commission to include in their discussion that evening.
This memorandum is provided for your consideration.
Prepared by: Mark Noble, Planner I
G :\cc�act.rpt
pl T
IT r �• 9•
2727 26 th Avenue S Minneapolis nnesota 55406
Telephone: (612) 724-5557 Fax: (612) 724-5510
Mark Noble
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes St. S.
Shakopee, MN 55379
January 28, 2001
Re: Application for Preliminary Plat — Response to issues & neighborhood items
Dear Mr. Noble:
As recommended by the Commission at the last hearing, the neighbors and I meet to discuss the concerns
they have with the proposed apartment project and the existing conditions_ We met at the home of Ms.
Susan Windschitl on January 17 We discussed the development and its details, the neighborhood history
and current concerns. We had some mutual concerns that we felt could be address in the redesign of
certain elements of the proposed development. They are addressed in a Petition being circulated that is
attached to this letter_ The reasoning for the items in the petition is as follows:
Concerns:
1. What is desired is improved privacy and security.
2. There is concern about the "required berm's" affect on drainage.
3. There's concern about the City's Police ability to respond quickly and the concurrent increase in
activity and security issues arising from this_
4. More than half of the neighbors' fencing is on the apartment property and is in bad condition.
5. Some of the neighbors' fencing is low and chain link.
6. Trespassing by youth and others across neighbors' property.
Suggested Action:
1. Removal of all existing fencing along the abutting property line.
2. Improve privacy and security by the construction of a 6 -foot high privacy fence between their
property and the apartments along the west boundary.
3. The improvement of drainage by the removal of the proposed earth berm.
4. The deletion of the earth berm will save the developer some money, which will help defray the cost of
the new fence.
5. The new fence would be constructed along the entire west boundary of both the new and existing lots
and tied into the proposed garages to better control pedestrian traffic. This will reduce trespassing on
the neighbor's property and the apartments from both existing and new development.
6. In addition to the new fence, the developer would plant evergreen trees along the fence to add
additional screening and reduce sound between properties.
7. Surveillance cameras are now planned for the new apartments to record activity in the parking lot.
This, coupled with added building security, and the new fence are viewed as improvements to the
proposed design and the existing residents.
In regard to other items that were raised by other agencies of the City are addressed as follows:
A. The waiver of the lot width for the proposed subdivision is not a newly created nonconformity but
pre - existing that remains even if there is no subdivision made. The existing lot width is currently 120'
at the current set back of 50'. The proposed subdivision does not change this width. It only brings this
condition further back from Marshall.
B. The issue of density was discussed and may need to be clarified. The total of land in the subdivision is
5.19 acres with an allowable density of 93 units at 18 units per acre. The proposed subdivision is
proposing a total of 72 units at a density of 13.87 units,per acre. This is a diminuation of 4.13 units per
acre on this subdivision as permitted by the Ordinance.
C. The City Department of Public Works feels that a Public Easement over the pond is necessary since
the pond is serving only the Garden Lane Apartments. Therefore this is private. However, the
Applicant would like to still identify this pond as part of the drainage easement in the final plat if the
City does not object.
D. The City Department of Public Works feels that the sanitary sewer from manhole no. 2 should be
identified as private. The Applicant has no objection and shall have the identification revised for the
Final Plat.
E. The City Department of Public Works did not receive the storm sewer and pond calculations from the
original submission in December_ The Applicant's Engineer had included them in the submission but
perhaps they did not get distributed to the right party. In any case, these have been resubmitted on
January 25 and are currently being reviewed by City staff.
F. SPUC has requested a watermain stub to the northwest corner of the subdivision. The Applicant's
Engineer and SPUC staff have discussed the concerns of the Utility and have suggested an internally
looped watermain that would run underneath the parking lot between the pond and the building and
connect to the southwest existing watermain.
G. Spacing between the overhead powerline and the garages needs to be 12' minimum. The current
design is for this to be 16' to 18'.
Thank you for your review and assistance in these matters.
Sincerely;
�c `--
Daniel S. Brewer
Architect
Cc Metro Land Surveying and Engineering
Jim Vander Griend
pica -Ilr�)IT J
To Shakopee Planning Commission
From: Eastview Circle Residents
Re: Garden Villa Estates proposed deve lopment
We, the undersigned residents of Eastview Circle, along with Daniel Brewer, the Director of
Advance Architectural Group met on January 17th, 2001. Among issues discussed, most
concerning were, privacy, trespassing and vandalism.
At the end of a 2 1/2 hour discussion, we agreed that a six foot wooden privacy fence with
tree plantings and landscaping would be a more attractive and effective option than the proposed
four -foot berm.
This fence would replace existing fencing, and be constructed on the developers' property,
between the existing homes and the proposed apartment complex. It is understood that the cost,
construction and maintenance of the fence would be the responsibility of the apartment complex
owner.
One other item under consideration is the possibility of some type of electronic surveillance
installed on the complex site, to discourage crime in general.
In the best interest of all parties, the undersigned residents and Mr. Brewer request that
the Shakopee Planning Commission consider the above.
Name
Address
Vie? �
L -L
Date
AoLd �L7,(� '
Z- 6 -a
To: Shakopee Planning Commis
From: Eastview Circle Residents
Re: Garden Villa Estates proposed devel opment
We, the undersigned residents of Eastview Circle, along with Daniel Brewer, the Director of
Advance Architectural Group met on January 17th, 2001. Among issues discussed, most
concerning were, privacy, trespassing and vandalism.
At the end of a 2 1/2 hour discussion, we agreed that a six foot wooden privacy fence with
tree plantings and landscaping would be a more attractive and effective option than the proposed
four -foot berm.
This fence would replace existing fencing, and be constructed on the developers' property,
between the existing homes and the proposed apartment complex. It is understood that the cost,
construction and maintenance of the fence would be the responsibility of the apartment complex
owner.
One other item under consideration is the possibility of some type of electronic surveillance
installed on the complex site, to discourage crime in general.
In the best interest of all parties, the undersigned residents and Mr. Brewer request that
the Shakopee Planning Commission consider the above .
AAd I, Date {
C(�(,
�cN�r��r IL
To: MARK NOBLE From: JIM BRAULT Date: I /08/01
Company: CITY OF SHAKOPEE Paaes: 3
Phone: 952-233-3800 RE: GARDEN LANT E ADDITI
Fax: 952- 233 -2801 ❑ Originals to Follow
❑ Fax Only
Remarks: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Your Review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please Comment ❑ As Requested
MR. NOBLE, THE ENCLOSED SKETCH ILLUSTRATES WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING
TO DO WITH THE REMANDER OF OUTLOT B. THE TRIANGLE PIECE LABELED
"C" MOULD BE DEDICATED AS GARDEN LANE AND THE TRIANGLE PIECE
LABELED `B" WOULD DE DEDICATED AS HIGHWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY. THE EAST
10 FEET OF OUTLOT A WOULD BE GIVEN AS A HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY
EASEMENT BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT.
PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANKYOU
Pine City Office: Route 4, Box 205 Pine City, MN 55063 Phone: 320 -629 -3267 Fax: 320 -629 -0176
'• I �/
EXISTING BUILDING ' EXISTING BUILDING \ ' I R /
f s
I
0
FOOT U11UTf EASEMENT
1) c
(
C. /
oX
o g'� /
n .D o C • �i
E CD
n
/
�-
�i15�
l
a
MMA
I
i
Q
/
/
e
1 A
10
1
1
1
XO . 17
go-�LD
--
1
1 A
- l p
1
1
1
i
1
.......... � _J
MM MORANDUM FOR THE TAB
• •
Memorandum
TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
FROM Mark Noble, Planner I ( ,�-�,� "
SUBJECT: Garden Lane — Lot Width Variance
D ATE: January 4, 2001
On the Board of Adjustment and Appeals agenda for January 4, 2001 agenda, there is a
public hearing scheduled to consider a Preliminary Plat for Garden Court Apartments.
An element of this plat request that needs additional discussion concerns a variance of the
minimum lot width requirement.
In the R -3 (Multiple Family) Zone, the Design Standards stipulate that the minimum lot
width is 150 feet_ The lot width is defined as "the horizontal distance between the side
lines of a lot measured parallel to the front line and at the building setback line. In the R-
3 Zone, the building setback line is 50 feet.
In the applicant's narrative (Exhibit B), it was noted that Lot 1 of Block 1 of the proposed
Garden Lane Addition is approximately 310 feet wide at the front line of the proposed
building; however, the lot at the setback line is 120 feet wide which does not comply with
the Ordinance regulations and approval of a lot width variance is necessary. I have
included the criteria for granting a variance for your review, which stipulates that a
variance can be approved only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
I.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
I.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
I.D. a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
and
I.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic
considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property
exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit
d intent of this Chapter.
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure
compliance to protect the adjacent properties.
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:......
Please review the above noted criterion and determine whether this application complies
with the criterion for granting a lot width variance.
KS, I.-E or i01 > NE"s eDO. LO I \ / /
S—OM —.Ml. A.. IN[ Ks, N00 *39'31 "E
TN sC I/.
577.72
1, 157.60
420.1
I I N'? h N�� / /
Q)
If
-----------
o —AGE * UWTY LASEUCNT
— — — — — — — — — — -
_.
L J
NA I bi
0
Q) CO
44,
t,; O
mc
1 I � � � � 1 � r-- --- Lam`•• z Tw ^" ��� % /
7
I i � � y° � � I I b� �, / 4 -
NOO*13
90.89
Nip,
`��
CONC. P-o
f bSn,�. ° � c .... - ... �............. i zo.00 � /� - ¢ g am / -
..STI.. eu c
I I 1 I I m I .,` / ,
oo
c d .
— — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
root 0.1,
0 '33 "E
3
It
o I
N h OJ / \// a , J /r of b A O
6! Q)
0 'o
44
6
sa
0
-------
- — 0009 8,39
-5 Cc:
3
12 1
<
&V25 ;.;: ,`L•9.06
xx ' > 0
T
/ .17
rn >
0
. ....
colug Ro -AD
1909.86
t v
1 18.4 1
3
<
o
�6
F,
6
9
9 0 LO- O— S �o
,
Z
6
sa
C�
C�
�v
I L
0
-5 Cc:
1 2 ,
L
12 1
<
F
xx ' > 0
T
A
rn >
0
t v
<
eo�
F,
16
9 z
Z
C�
C�
�v
I L
0
T
3 °Z3
j ,
F
C�
C�
�v
I L
0
T
3 °Z3
T
-
o
.1
-P -
ly
o M
,e .
2.5.
9 . o
.
3 F
43
won
z
p
ZT."
> z o,
.j
o
& o
c
NY m
o oai
.—
se
W
-I
t
yr -,- i.r. m' � F ia, •r i � ��t : _ tc a,:[�,
tf '�
ITT WALL
9
r - - -- --- - - - - --
I
I m
I
I �
I
i �
jM a
M I
I
z
m � �m
sr
1 \,
RET WALL
00 00000 •00®
T 91a
ddddodd ddet
_ T o
N I °
•
d
�} I
\\ W ®®� b• °YaAM1� •d � rn
d t7 Cy b•���
® ®d
0550 I •• •Cq' T d ®. d b
PROPERTY LINE 5'
�
v
m � '
� -+ ` o + • ®
m -> •cam ® ®o
IT
z
f
1, —AQ 4; n
Y
�II
tT, o dnm > � r-
D �p rOp
tr�
y
o C)
y
0
p
H co
A r
n � r
k
ti y
a
1 ' 0 "
f iga
oyo d
Z
ro r N �
G O p e 0
CID
C u
y H
ro
O ? p y vJ
�U roO
�N� O
N �
n
N
� � � � ffHIYld7gN REV6✓016
f y� � DOE �� CMCd.CD OY
1 ', I I I .J ws�e ORANM m' AS
D— 12/00/00
r20RCT u0.
AV. M? ADV A N (M excmTac� 30LB cxo400
am rare a ]dPIS_ UN 66100
,. r6r: -r - 6607 rAL-(Mg)
:11 � - 10
C)
y
0�
ro
b
d
to
08
[
0
o pp W_
p ro
a
ci.
�II
tT, o dnm > � r-
D �p rOp
tr�
y
o C)
y
0
p
H co
A r
n � r
k
ti y
a
1 ' 0 "
f iga
oyo d
Z
ro r N �
G O p e 0
CID
C u
y H
ro
O ? p y vJ
�U roO
�N� O
N �
n
N
� � � � ffHIYld7gN REV6✓016
f y� � DOE �� CMCd.CD OY
1 ', I I I .J ws�e ORANM m' AS
D— 12/00/00
r20RCT u0.
AV. M? ADV A N (M excmTac� 30LB cxo400
am rare a ]dPIS_ UN 66100
,. r6r: -r - 6607 rAL-(Mg)
:11 � - 10
p'll
10 1 11
TOP 767.90 216LF12'RCPO0.25r LD ZE
INV 763.41N /Y <
SET B CK Nv
I
0
---- -------------- -------
6' DIP WATERMAIN VL 6
- b r
FIRE
>
0
io
0
<
lo 2 .08
Ir
it
ff j�17
q \TOP 766.39 • INV 763.39N 4
'2 C vim
F I*-- I
ALI 15,11cp 101,
L
__4LF
N .5
101
A
A
9
24 Oq SF
• c
E STINC OMNHO
<<
yi
m 8 V
F
<
7
— — — — — — — — — — - --- — — — — — —_ — __ —
—
Z
:E
p
71
�F
779
------- Art.",,
99
M.
lI
FIRE SUPPRESSION
'-WTu SER. ---
414
0 ��- 0
If
I
5 0 C
Z
;�
(5
rl
0 .
GUTTERS
1
z
CIO
0
pp
Q
iD
rkrn 17
Va.
0
z
c
C)
C)
It
cf)
<
N U
Q,
/o
Ir
99
:3
O
c
LA
LA
o.
IN
o
M.
Y.
'. Cl � ' �t 1
. :�! , �; cf)
C2
0 ��- 0
If
I
5 0 C
Z
;�
0 .
GUTTERS
1
z
CIO
0
pp
Q
iD
rkrn 17
:3
O
c
LA
LA
o.
IN
o
M.
0Op
:s
z
'. Cl � ' �t 1
. :�! , �; cf)
C2
0 ��- 0
If
I
5 0 C
Z
;�
0 .
z
z
CIO
0
o do
>
Q
Va.
0
c
C)
C)
It
o ,
jo 0
10
6
M 8 2: m h ,
39 4
k F-
(A
Z 1 -
rl
tv
M.
0Op
:s
z
'. Cl � ' �t 1
. :�! , �; cf)
C2
0 ��- 0
If
I
5 0 C
Z
;�
0 .
z
z
o do
>
Q
C)
C)
It
cf)
Z
z
z
CITY OF - /'
Memorandum CONSENT
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeil, City Administrator
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Plat of Bluff Avenue Urban Village Development
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2001
On March 6, 2001, the Council approved a request by the Scott County HRA for concurrent
preliminary and final plat review for Bluff Avenue Urban Village Development. This plat proposes
the creation of one lot and two outlots.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The Scott County HRA proposes to develop a 9 unit, urban village project. The units would
consist of two twin homes, a four plex, and a single family residence. There also is proposed a
tot lot located approximately in the middle of the development.
Park dedication fees apply to this development. The current City Fee Schedule requires payment
of $1500 per unit for a total park dedication payment of $13,500. City policy states that these
fees may be deferred to building permit issuance consistent with city policy if a deferment is
requested and approved. The applicant has not requested such a deferment. The State of
Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources is interested in the Scott County HRA's proposal to
donate Outlot A to the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area, which is adjacent to this outlot
(see attached letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). The Council may
consider this donation of property in lieu of park dedication fees, but the Council is not bound to
exempt the property from the park dedication. The Commission considered this issue, but did
not eliminate the condition requiring park dedication fee payment from the resolution.
The following written comments have been received:
• The Engineering Department has provided comments, a copy of which is attached for the
Council's information. Their recommendation includes that, if approved, individual
services will be required at the time of building permit issuance.
• The City Clerk has commented that the plat appears to include a signature block for the
Planning Commission Chairperson, which should be deleted.
• The Acting Building Official has also commented that separate sewer and water services are
required.
• The Police Department expressed concern that off street parking for the units should be
provided as there are often trucks parked in this vicinity (the provision of off - street parking
spaces is a requirement that will be met).
• Shakopee Public Utilities has submitted comments concerning water and electric service, as
well as street lighting. A copy of those comments has been attached for the Council's
information.
• Planning has noted that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be required for this
development, as the current proposal will contain more than one (1) principal structure per
lot.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution No. 5497, approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of BLUFF
AVENUE URBAN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, subject to the conditions contained in the
attached resolution.
2. Approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of BLUFF AVENUE URBAN VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT subject to revised conditions.
3. Do not approve the Preliminary and Final Plat of BLUFF AVENUE URBAN VILLAGE
DEVELOPMENT.
4. Continue the public hearing.
5. Close the public hearing, but table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or
staff to provide additional information.
1 i 1 • �
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on, and considered the request at its meeting of
March 8, 2001, and voted 6 -0 to recommend approval, as presented. A copy of the report that went
to the Commission is attached for the Council's review.
@ 9 1 )
Offer Resolution No. 5497, a resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of BLUFF
AVENUE URBAN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT subject to conditions, and move its approval.
-7
M atk Noble
Planner I
g: \cc\2001 \0320 \pp -fp hra.doc
PRELIMINARY OF BLUFF AVENUE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), applicant and
property owner, has made application for preliminary and final plat approval of Bluff Avenue
Urban Village Development; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as shown on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on March 6, 2001, and approved the request
for simultaneous review of a preliminary and final plat of Bluff Avenue Urban Village
Development;
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
the preliminary plat on March 8, 2001; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were duly sent and
posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee did review the Preliminary and Final
Plat of BLUFF AVENUE URBAN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT on March 20,2001; and
THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED BY
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows:
That the Preliminary and Final Plat of BLUFF AVENUE URBAN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT is
approved subject to the following conditions:
Ll
The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the
Final Plat:
A. Approval of title by the City Attorney.
B. Delete the signature block for the Planning Commission Chairperson.
C. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for payment
of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted
fee schedule.
1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance
with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard
Specifications of the City of Shakopee.
5. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $13, 500,
and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat.
II. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall
apply:
A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be
reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s).
B. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements
and are subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility
Commission, prior to construction of any public improvements.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the Preliminary and
Final Plat of BLUFF AVENUE URBAN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT does not constitute a
representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of
water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
held the day of , 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
I_Y YM W
NEW ABSTRACTS
CONTINUATIONS
CLOSING SERVICE
REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACTS
TITLE INSURANCE
RECORDING SERVICE
SCOTT • ABSTRACT
223 HOLMES STREET, P.O. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
David Moonen and Dale Kutter
Telephone: (612) 445 -6246
FAX: (612) 445 -0229
December 22, 2000
Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
323 Naumkeag Street
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
To Whom it May Concern:
According to the 2000 tax records in the Scott County Treasurer's Office, the following persons
listed on Exhibit "A" are the owners of the property which lies within 3 50 feet of the following
described property: L-r-,IAl-
That part of Government Lot 4, Section 6, Township 115, Range 22 Scott County, Minnesota,
described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of Block 31 plat of Town of East
Shakopee; thence North 11 degrees 05 mir_utes 42 seconds West along the Westerly line of said,
Block 31 a distance of 222.61 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Lot 10, of said Block 31,
distant 64.40 feet Northerly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 10, said point being the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 11 degrees 05 minutes
42 seconds West along the Easterly line of Naumkeag Street to a point distant 889.00 feet
Northerly of the said Southwest comer of said Block 31; thence North 79 degrees 10 minutes
3 6 seconds East parallel with the North line of First Street plat of Town of East Shakopee a
distance of 601.20 feet; thence South 51 degrees 43 minutes 42 seconds East to its intersection
with a line drawn parallel with and distant 100.00 feet Westerly of the East line of said
Government Lot 4, Section 6, Township 115, Range 22; thence South along said parallel line to
its intersection with the Easterly extension of the Southerly line of Bluff Street according to said
plat of the Town of East Shakopee; thence Westerly along said Easterly extension of said
Southerly line a distance of 401.03 feet, more or less to the Northeasterly comer of Lot 8, Block
31, plat of Town of East Shakopee, thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 8 to a point
distant 64.40 feet Northerly of the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 8; thence Westerly to the
point of beginning. Including that Portion of Bluff Street contained therein. AND all that part of
MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
ry� t
9 . �I
vacated Naumkeag Street as shown on the plat of East Shakopee, lying North of the North line of
the alley extended Easterly, in Block 23, and South of a line drawn parallel with the North line of
First Street, and lying 889.00 feet Northerly, as measured along the Easterly line of Naumkeag
Street, of the Southwest corner of Block 31, all in the plat of the Town of East Shakopee.
EXCEPTING therefrom, that portion platted as Blocks 31 and 32, Town of East Shakopee.
"ZED
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 32, Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota.
P 1�
l
David" . Moonen
President
Scott County Abstract & Title, Inc.
SCOTT COUNTY ABSTP,ACT
AND TITLE, INC.
Lice7sed Ab:,tra� or
S'a O M."nnecota
v • t�..lbv�.nn, ue: l �- aJ;.i.A,'vL1Mfir! �
N
p W E
SHAKOPEE
C0MMUI-=FFIDESINCE1W s
Preliminary and Final Plat for Scott County HRA
-` Zoning B • • .
—Parcel Boundary
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -40
February 2, 2001
Ms. Penny Rolf
Consultant for Scott County HRA
Wilson Development Services
510 Chestnut Street
Suite 200
Chaska, MN 55318
Dear Ms. Rolf:
The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources is interested in Scott County HRA's
proposal to donate approximately 5 acres within Government Lot 4, Section 6, Township 115,
Range 22.
The State currently owns approximately 15 acres adjoining the proposed donation. The State
parcel is managed as part of the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area (SRA) and the proposed
addition would allow for an additional buffer area adjacent to the Minnesota Valley SRA
recreation trail.
Once the plat is finalized, please provide me with a copy, along with any title information you
may have. If there are any utility easements to retain, you may forward the proposed legal
description with the appropriate language.
Thank you for considering the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources as a
recipient of Scott County HRA's gift.
Sincerely,
Teresa Thews
Real Estate Program Coordinator
Division of Parks and Recreation
c: Bill Morrissey
Frank Knoke
John Strohkirch
DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- 888 - 646 -6367 TTY: 651- 296 -5484 • 1- 800 - 657 -3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Who Values Diversity 91 ®0 Minimum of 10% Post - Consumer Waste
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Mark Noble, Planner I
FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer /fZp
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat/Final Plat — Bluff Avenue Urban Village Development
DATE: February 27, 2001
After reviewing the above referenced application, I have the following comments for the
applicant, and for the planning department:
The proposed site is outside the areas charged for trunk storm water and trunk sanitary sewer
fees.
No public improvements are proposed, but individual services will be required for each unit.
Recommendation
Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat/Final Plat, subject to the following condition:
A. Individual Services will be required at the time of building permit issuance.
TO: Shakopee Community Development Department
FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering Manager
SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD COMMENTS for:
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Bluff Avenue Urban Village
Development
CASE NO: 01038
DATE:
Municipal water service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These
include, but are not limited to: installing a lateral water main distribution system in
accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspection costs, paying the Trunk
Water Charge, and paying the Water Connection Charge.
Underground electric service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions.
These include, but are not limited to: entering into an Underground Distribution
Agreement, granting any necessary easements, and paying the associated fees.
Street Lighting installation is available subject to our standard terms and conditions.
These are contained in the current City of Shakopee Street Lighting Policy. Applicant
must pay the associated fees.
Applicant should contact Shakopee Public Utilities directly for specific requirements
relating to their project.
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES
MMMORANDLTM
TO: Shakopee Community Development Department
FROM: Joseph D. Adams P and E Manager
Planning Engineering Manag r _
SUBJECT: WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY
DATE: August 22, 2000
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission is committed to meeting the growth
needs of the community in regards to water supply. The Commission is working
with the Minnesota Departments of Health and Natural Resources to secure the
necessary approvals to construct new wells and to pump them to increase our
water supply capacity to meet projected demand levels.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Plat of Bluff Avenue Urban Village Development
MEETING DATE: March 8, 2001
APPLICATION DATE:
Site Information
Received February 8, 2001
Applicant. Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
Property Owners: Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
Location: North of Bluff Avenue, east of Naumkeag Street
Current Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone
Adjacent Zoning: North: AG, Agriculture; B -1, Highway Business
South: B -1, Highway Business
East: B -1, Highway Business
West: R -2, Medium Density Residential; AG, Agriculture
1995 Comp. Plan: Medium Density Residential, Open Space
Area: 9.97 Acres, ±
MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary.
Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map
Exhibit B: Preliminary & Final Plat and Site Plan
Introduction:
The Scott County HRA has made application for concurrent preliminary and final plat review for
Bluff Avenue Urban Village Development. Under the recently adopted subdivision ordinance, only
the preliminary plat application is reviewed by the Planning Commission. This plat proposes the
creation of one lot and two outlots.
Considerations:
The Scott County HRA proposes to develop a 9 unit, urban village project. The units would
consist of two twin homes, a four plex, and a single family residence. There also is proposed a
tot lot located approximately in the middle of the development.
Park dedication fees apply to this development. The current City Fee Schedule requires payment
of $1500 per unit for a total park dedication payment of $13,500. City policy states that these
fees may be deferred to building permit issuance consistent with city policy if a deferment is
requested and approved. The applicant has not requested such a deferment. The State of
Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources is interested in the Scott County HRA's proposal to
donate Outlot A to the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area, which is adjacent to this outlot
(see attached letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). The Commission
may consider this donation of property in lieu of park dedication fees, but the Commission is not
bound to exempt the property from the park dedication.
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has not submitted review comments. If they have not
been submitted by the time the City Council reviews the final plat, any resolution of approval
shall contain language clarifying that the City of Shakopee does not warrant the availability of
water supplies by approving the plat.
The following written comments have been received:
• The Engineering Department has provided comments, a copy of which is attached for the
Commission's information. Their recommendation includes that, if approved, individual
services will be required at the time of building permit issuance.
• The City Clerk has commented that the plat appears to include a signature block for the
Planning Commission Chairperson, which should be deleted.
• The Acting Building Official has also commented that separate sewer and water services are
required.
• The Police Department expressed concern that off street parking for the units should be
provided as there are often trucks parked in this vicinity (the provision of off - street parking
spaces is a requirement that will be met).
The City Council will have reviewed at their March 6, 2001 meeting a request for simultaneous
review of a preliminary and final plat. If this request is approved, staff will provide a
memorandum on the table to that affect.
Alternatives:
1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary and final plat of Bluff Avenue
Urban Village Development subject to the following proposed conditions:
I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of
the Final Plat:
A. Approval of title by the City Attorney.
B. Delete the signature block for the Planning Commission Chairperson.
C. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for
payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the
City's adopted fee schedule.
1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance
with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard
Specifications of the City of Shakopee.
5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review
fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule.
6. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $13, 500,
and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat.
D. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City
requirements and are subj ect to approval by City Engineer. Such plans as they
relate to water or electricity are subject to the approval of the SPUC Utilities
Manager.
III. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall
apply;
A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be
reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s).
2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary and final plat of Bluff Avenue
Urban Village Development subject to revised conditions.
3. Recommend denial of the proposed preliminary and final plat of Bluff Avenue Urban Village
Development.
4. Continue the public hearing.
5. Close the public hearing, but table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or
staff to provide additional information.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval with conditions.
Action Requested:
Offer a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat of Bluff Avenue Urban
Village Development subject to the conditions outlined in Alternative No. 1.
Mark Noble
Planner I
g: \boaa- pc\2001 \0308 \pp -fp hra.doc
U k
Sn�k
."= -.4-1.8-
O® 1 S I t mvs� a 0 0 14
� ■ 0 a 0 1. a 0 9. a LrI
rl 0 a : 1 1 C 0 11 41 3 1
so •13 4 . g 51$a .
5.
1 .2 5 o s���
10
I.M �4 t 1p t ; � ® n % •1033
93 v s 3
� 00
o- Lj
V" lu ll W1 1 V I -!" 3 3=3 5
�S;.44 4-1.� a 'I - a . 3 . 4 1 ..1 - V � --,- -SN - • 8 --
N -5 5 L. W ta -
d 0 0 0
d 0 1. & a
' P 0 3 " , , , ,
ox� 211-
Ui
0
. v 06 o a
0 a
'
0 o n 0 c • 0 o e 4 ft
•
a s a-
Cl
• � •- m 0 � = '8
v • -4 0. U7
0 94-0 0 a - 0 - M 0
43 a d d m
3 0 � 2 8 0 . 0 Y I �21 • M» A \ \\
0 0
A O• ® y ■ 9 .a a F C ® . .t q O 0 � \ \� \ \\
v 0 0
I.,-a 0 4 0.�O-c .0 cc x
lam` ��� � � � � L F z � ��
. .............. . . .. . .... ... ..... .... . ....... ..........
LJJ
Q
r j
1 8 �� � ,. '��sa
v
a
lz�
4
T-
0
TJ
LL
,� I II �\ � I C1 �
do n om{
CrI-0 SO ' I 1 0 bo-b
L.- .. ^_
gs [ •7 "
"s� � '� .� .r- •fir m a 3 ��3
L • 0 C :� [ 8 .Y°i ✓ < f it N A ^®
V N W y 1M7
... • ^• a �- i o °a n o" p7 na �i as Y �! o
df
v �' E X 7• m~ .. q U m O C r - H■ V < N tl < ■ R 4 T' � N' ®
S Y Y1 Y ., V lE'SS G
Y N .. ...
• ° ■.. �� Av cg.
y IIII• nc 7 ° gy p' / 4 "y H® N• m W G M LIM A
UU N « C
CL ■ .1 C . Y v / M G H✓ [ D M M• S ep y w O
^ S N.1 w O 4 O 4•D S M pY Y•A • M �■ � 4`^ .� l •tl1 4Q T� 0
G 0 O O M y w p U V• M •• f. ■ • O O N M M�1 •' M n • o N
®OU N ASE Or3 ■mM ■ ® °�0•• /nY •07
M�� A.i ■ eo O
9y .� .� ✓ ■ � .•� w ■ : V � +, w ° V U t c e • Y .•/ • a ' 4 .1 w M o ■ ► ■ b .1 WO A
.1 • 4 0 • Y■ v• m U S W■ V W O O• O O: O .� y® O C v O
•' 6 M 4 0 m M ?. c O N S C 4•/ v � • Y w m O •OI y> c� 0■ N 11 '� • 4 a
= p � v■ Y ! V A.Y ° S E .� G A O✓ p p• C � • r�� .� m� s � � E • .� Y tl � S •• E . r
• T � �..1 ■ w • 8E e� � n $ r ■ D O n • ., X �.7 •� $ m 1( r ,Z m ■v tl O• � • A App w
c M c C C1 • r R V 0 0 9 L ti y c M! O Y e° ■ • t !
_ ✓ m. 0« C✓ r .i O✓ t t m M •1 ✓ • O f• n w S Cl' : �b,..•1 N ® " M
J O J h o Y L O r J W O N■ m •• V Y«/ D M r T • Y S L; y Y ✓ T 0
$�$ E� •o ✓a ■vc v■• �s e'J o ■ �YS$� ✓ v $ 6 49 H tl �
_, v c .1 Y _1 •• G • « N O« • 0 Y M •• M «•1 •1 W o V
O / 0 n O y O O w M
V M• m U m N O O m O . a •• 1• ■ Olt ■ 0 0 W p! O M O/ y E■ o ! ✓ O
G c ■ « .i .t .1 rl J( Y 9 N ®1 • 4 .� it 4 / G M a. • ■ 11 i « p) .■i I 4 ® a « '' n ! w � e
S {°. '� E e O tC ., ✓ GG O S • ♦ .+ C Y M W tl .., h O O .i « S �® 4 7 D p 0 G v J
m y ✓ Q w✓ T .�i p V■ .• 9 M w: 4 .�1 ��« m / r « • T V C O M Q E O A V W HH ■■ S V f .°i . -. - V O 0
U s w po ..77 • X W O v 1O1t ° 4 °'� M• O'� - s° J, • o U C••° p O p T � O L O b O
c
t r y W✓ N X � 4 0 4« 0 r J � ■ E • 0 0 ✓✓•• r• O p M� e •- • •-
HH • J � Y M .1 .1 Y C .� r .' N V � G. o .O � �
I t 1 1
M h • W • •!� � q
O r v H Y° e: c. A. ✓. tl tl ffi -✓ A. � H E• Q ■ O Y O V w �< M O r✓
p 4.O cv O.1N✓ ■• N •i M O.YwS 4< S -m ®-9 y o ✓ p ✓■
W y C =, p C O ffi n« d.1 . O r o V O O W L ¢ O S :, v. O > ii (..,'py •p « q�ra . > tl o G y O
u p • O p
•' i+ O .7 E M 0 y o 0 .y�. ^i u • .1 o • � t• p M 0 s^ n .+ ✓® E e c m ' t � i .. i L � A M o 4 e p n H 4• O F y p 4 0! C!
] 1� G n . H O �' J . O C D % O . O . G E ✓✓ �{ y u M _' w Y F Y m l� • M M A O D J•• U 6 t> M 0 • W °■ '• Q
w M C J O Y D E w N X • .1 O ., .1 H S t! c« .. GGG O {� w A ✓ O
O U W �.
G D I. c N C N m w 0 0 •✓ M ). J « O G m Y• a X It .-1 O U c T J O: •y r 4 c i G
G SO.D O «X ✓✓'•• -1 ■ Y•r•I h.'� O O A ^�."tO °f�.. X w t ■• E .f • O O 0 O e
o 0
N O J 0 .1 • v U O ■• .� r 0 4 O W M O m ■ �' •' `• ■ e E • W Y ^� ✓ J tl 9 N Z O V r V a 7
G • O• y / N w Y■ a .. / Y v G •. ti • o v r t • ti w / m a < m g 0 U h J V U ✓.
Y✓ 4✓ > G) t r N r✓ V C Y« 4 ✓✓ W .-I •. W >� f .i J C ✓ O d✓ Y A N« M q = ✓ • t •^ _.._.. O ]. x
J 0 ✓ Vt ✓N ■ O N «.�.1 ■ Ey .Y A W r� a .1 �1 O m ', Y.1'91 < M� � G■ 4 e c ■
O • S S O Yf D e c Y O/ O✓ 4 4 O • M m X 0 N ■ O! « o • O W < ' O
.. -. .. _.. .. < O r p W .•« i 0 y R O tl tO •N G G 4 r « b` c r C 0 A w M V o = b
C� O O N • w R O O �w c ?- ✓�'O ^�•✓ ! •. .1 .+.i �• ., T.• � W ! N S O L M 5
•�• � Q t.Mry wYV GtiW J Y CW mYH� o Sm I $o; OOWw O c O YO AtiM R Y A r OU = 9e MH «y (
^7 Q 'Za C. 4�nti
X . O �• C O U .•• ✓• U tl 0. V O O pp r 0 N ss 4 4 0✓ O X M • O '� ('�' 1� t o N ✓■ tl ► Y
U /r0 OwOt'YCtlY••.p✓ �3.♦ Y.•N S: c,tJ.i .�M. � w 4 ! n V ..> Tvti•YU.°I
4
.7 O
X
^ o
G p O y
M U
/
S �
m O .._..
■
c
rl
N H
4.
a�
i
a
•
M,£0,50.11 N
. b pi
W ( J J
o o g
- \` d 4 - _-
sa'a�'v3�g3g: «ga ° «�E «�.Sma .00
So R
' "
i ✓
T T
O t o .1 c
a
g
i Z < y�
G •1
07 </ / A <W-•o m
m m
mU Hv ffi r
... v✓ v tl O
G
Hjno
•
(N \ I
• N r
09
�\'b��
ttStE �S'60g/ ..�.II.J
L I
o
V/N
I
III
7
. /
W
I h
W
in
�
cn
4.
a�
i
a
•
M,£0,50.11 N
. b pi
W ( J J
o o g
- \` d 4 - _-
W
8
D
N
� a
•
(N \ I
• N r
09
3
m
o
I
III
r I
I h
W
in
�
cn
< y1 �a
N W rh
g
J
I (
m
•E
'
,
y
oR� Ir3 I
Q
.
•/ N'
c
a CAD
I L�1
1
L1�
g
L�
O /��� Z ,��1 I //����
MO
M CC
- _- M ,LO,iVj 1 N OO
:. �
�• y
O
o I SL S
r'
s
o
a
(l_
1
0
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4 th Addition
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2001
Site Information:
Applicant: D.R. Horton
Location: North of Dean Lake and south of Highway 169
Current Zoning: Low Density Residential (R -IA) Zone/PUD
Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway 169
South: Low Density Residential (R -lA) Zone/PUD
East: Low Density Residential (R -1A) Zone/PUD
West: Low Density Residential (R -lA) Zone/PUD
1995 Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential
Area: 12.76 Acres
MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary.
CONSENT
Attachments: Exhibit A: Location/Zoning Map
Exhibit B: Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4th Addition Final Plat
Exhibit C: City Engineering Comments
Exhibit D: Shakopee Public Utilities Comments
D.R. Horton has made application for final plat approval of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4th
Addition. The proposed development is located south of Hwy. 169 and north of Dean Lake (see
attached Location/Zoning map), and consists of 26 lots.
Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4th Addition is part of a development that received Planned Unit
Development (PUD) approval in 1997 and Preliminary Plat approval from the Planning
Commission and City Council in 1998. The submitted final plat is in substantial conformance
with both the PUD and Preliminary Plat (see attached final plat).
The following written comments have been received:
1. The City Clerk has requested that the signature block for the Planning Commission be
removed.
2. City Engineering has recommended approval, subject to the conditions noted in their
attached memorandum.
3. Shakopee Public Utilities has submitted comments concerning water and electric
service, as well as street lighting. A copy of those comments has been attached for
the Council's information.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve Resolution No. 5498, approving the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT
SOUTHBRIDGE 4 ADDITION subject to the conditions contained in the attached
resolution.
2. Approve the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4' ADDITION subject
to revised conditions.
3. Do not approve the proposed final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4TH
ADDITION.
4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional
information.
Action Requested:
Offer the attached resolution approving the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT
SOUTHBRIDGE 4' ADDITION subject to conditions, and move its approval.
M k Noble
Planner I
G:\CC\2001\Cc0320\fpsavoaks4th.doc
' • • • .1 • •' U' • . �. • 1 1';
1 • • � •> :1. '910194 A U 1 •
WHEREAS, D.R. Horton, Inc., applicant and property owner, has made application for
final plat approval of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4th Addition; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows:
Outlot A, Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2" Addition, Scott County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on
March 17,1998; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were duly sent and
posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the final plat request at its meeting of March 20,
2001.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows:
That the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4 ADDITION is approved
subject to the following conditions:
I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the
Final Plat:
A. Approval of title by the City Attorney.
B. Delete the signature block for the Planning Commission Chairperson.
C. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for
the public improvements within the Final Plat and payment of engineering review
fees, trunk storm water charges, trunk sanitary sewer charges, and any other fees as
required by the City's adopted fee schedule.
1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of
streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and
Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee.
5. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire
Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and shall be
approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector.
6. An easement is required for the proposed trail over the north 30 feet of Lot 17,
Block 1.
II. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall
apply:
A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be
reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s).
B. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements
and are subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility
Commission, prior to construction of the public improvements.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the final plat of
SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4' ADDITION does not constitute a representation or
guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water sei vice that will
be available to lots within the plat as they are developed.
THEREFORE, DE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
held the day of , 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ICI ll �F. 1p,
SHAKOPEE
CO u
Final / of Savanna • /
Southbridge
-, Zoning Bound
- Parcel
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Mark Noble, Planner I
FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Final Plat — Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4 th Addition
DATE: March 12, 2001
After reviewing the above referenced application, I have the following comments for the
applicant, and for the planning department:
Recommendation
Recommend approval of the Final Plat, subject to the following conditions:
A. Prior to recording of the Final Plat, the following actions must be completed:
1. Execution of the Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for
security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and engineering review
fees; and
2. Payment of the Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, and
other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule.
3. Easement is required for the proposed trail over the north 30 feet of Lot 17, Block
1.
B. Prior to construction of the public improvements, the City Engineer and the Shakopee
Public Utility Corrunission must approve the Final Construction Plans and
Specifications.
" r-1 05 1310y, i Z'Ale I Di
TO: Shakopee Community Development Department
FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering X1anage.Ara
SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD COMMENTS for:
Final Plat for Savanna Oaks at Southbridge — 4' Addition
CASE NO: 01049
DATE: Y;/-v /
Municipal water service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These
include, but are not limited to: installing a lateral water main distribution system in
accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspection costs, paying the Trunk
Water Charge, and paying the Water Connection Charge.
Underground electric service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions.
These include, but are not limited to: entering into an Underground Distribution
Agreement, granting any necessary easements, and paying the associated fees.
Street Lighting installation is available subject to our standard terms and conditions.
These are contained in the current City of Shakopee Street Lighting Policy. Applicant
must pay the associated fees.
Applicant should contact Shakopee Public Utilities directly for specific requirements
relating to their project.
1' • ' 1
TO: Shakopee Community Development Department
FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering Manager
SUBJECT: WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY
DATE: August 22, 2000
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission is committed to meeting the growth
needs of the community in regards to water supply. The Commission is working
with the Minnesota Departments of Health and Natural Resources to secure the
necessary approvals to construct new wells and to pump them to increase our
water supply capacity to meet projected demand levels.
p ITi W I� : Q
a G � � a �Ir 11 Z
3 x te
O =4OOO� II Il pp
o — — — — — — — — — — — - - -
—� 10' V f!7'3R
-- ------ ----`---'- --^ n of - C � N
Fm s ® s+ z� "C 10 c/vG r nticilr /Vry OW v O_. --- - --
�' o N 89 0 41'44" W 510.93 a ___
- - -- 89.73 - -- 150.77 - = = =cy ; N89 ° 41 46 "W - --
_ _ _ Co
gQ �(1 _ Now I l —. \ y7 0 -- r�- - L
0.4. II I 2'o II IIz I IZ _ ca ti����/ - i �� \ e°
a I{ IIo til Ih s�aV1 / 1
�a ' I o ro I I cn .• °m N m. I I °, m, I I .a •p w \ °
` NO I I I I
1 -- j I li ."O I V � ; G / C
- J � .� \\ �� I � \ .I ` � o J � T — — — — L9 �L '1' N � I i r
�\ 1 1
\ �0 -
,I A) 40° /c: I ro \\ O�v � �i —
\ 1 U - ,
\\ N T v 1 - ` 1 £Z'86Z 3 "66.00o68 N $� N 8, 5
C CO 7387 1V
IIZ9 LZZ6
10
zp
2.51
9 ° I I
� N 8 2 ° 41 . 10 - y/ �+i `• � 4 6 1� 0 + 1 i Ir"
Z I 7 96.93 - ---, 1 } I ) + v N ' I I 'O • cn I I I _`a ° G=' c•: I ; i 2 \\ \ N� = G 7 10 1 \ `)
m `o I
9 - I - -- ( �D I °: a f y I I °o "•' I I II, ° o \\ \ \ \"- // i C \
; v I I i 2
�0
141.25
rn
- - - -
J L -
- -�
6
56.21 89.44
' N 88 W 194.94 -( I > I o o z° 0 0 0 o a y " y o
N 88 59'05' W 237.58 a
M a a a v ^lo
I � w
2
-- ------ - - - - -w
r' j- - - -�
m I : �— 17 79.2 9.2 j — to 0 2° N ) m m a 2 a
U` I rn
I \ -- ------ - - - --I ��
u) C C
o ° " a L -- w I t17 m O 2 m 6 ~
N B8 °59.07" W id .0
179.24 — o rz U ^ 2
11 u u u u u
I I lo
i { e ' 00
RI
L N es °ss a7 ". w f 0 S A y m o -I m m
?> N 88 ° 59'07' W 194.94 , I j L---- -- -- _- - --� �OA y fi y ~�~ y �j
. — — _ - — - - -- I °I I 770.97 C2,
II
O�
lz
5.00
a \
��/
�/
2 . a ,_ � \ s po .8l 4 ;
\ _ ga 70.70 ° oN oc_/1 �e��/ / pl 46' 1 1 - 1
4¢s s
6at B / /
oici
1 3 M
` �C� / ti tl � , �/, g , Di N z °ss'ss w m
G O�yo `�, \'.` - -'� titi� / � ��� ys "•� >� °o �� t •00�C�40� 0 2 0 a
��8.26 f CV . / o z
a �s ° 3 - 7'52 "� \ o / (�/7
���zzz
ri l
�;� i { ---- - - - - -J L— G------- - - - - -- p0
, , I t o 131.11 201.32 0
N 89 0 5950" W 3343 \
\ -south line of Outlot A, SAVANNA
o ; OAKS AT SOU7HORIDGE 2ND ADDIHON 1
n O
0
O
o
0
O
a
',a
O O m
5.00 I (
.II
\ y
\
mb
ao
�>
®
O
n O
0
O
o
0
O
a
',a
O O m
I
p j° p
O
®
O
2 80
e
I
o
m
m a� c
y q°
Oi
°
Non
b,S
F-10
°
zS
qN
�r
°�
o
�-
0
y qy
o
r --- --
3
3°
°°
,Z
a
2
y` S
I
h
0 0 O
iD
2?
N t/7
2
o
S
" m
F- 10
� rt 4
3
Q
0. 2
ti
o qp -
I
!�
y c
a
q
cc
y
J
n
n O
0
O
o
0
O
a
',a
IT. 6.1,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Authorization of Feasibility Report for Sidewalk
On Adams Street, from 6 th Avenue to 3 rd Avenue
DATE: March 20, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is Resolution No. 5500, which orders a feasibility report to be prepared for a
sidewalk extension along Adams Street, from 6 th Avenue to 3 rd Avenue.
On March 3, 2001, City Council directed staff to begin the process for placing a concrete
sidewalk along Adams Street, from 6 th Avenue to 3 rd Avenue. This concrete sidewalk
would provide a connection to Pearson School along Adams Street.
The preparation of a feasibility report is necessary if there are any assessments included
as part of the project costs associated with the sidewalk. Also it is important to review
this project improvement as potentially other project improvements may be needed such
as watermain extension in this area for the River Bend Townhome Project. The
feasibility report will provide cost estimates for the installation of this sidewalk and how
it will be funded. As part of this study is anticipated that additional construction
easements and grading will be needed in order to construct this sidewalk. Staff has
prepared a resolution to begin the preparation of a feasibility report for the sidewalk
extension along Adams Street, from 6 th Avenue to 3 rd Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 5500, a resolution ordering the preparation of a report on
sidewalk extension along Adams Street, from 6 th Avenue to 3 rd Avenue.
2. Deny Resolution No. 5500.
3. Table for additional information.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to begin the process of a public improvement
project by initiating the preparation of a feasibility report, and as per Council directive.
Offer Resolution No. 5500, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on
Sidewalk Extension Along Adams Street, from 6 Avenue to 3 Avenue, and move its
adoption.
4�� �
Bruce Loney
PublicWorks Director
BLpmp
MEM5500
isi
• Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A
Report On Sidewalk Extension
Along Adams Street, From 1 Avenue T1 3
WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Adams Street, from 6 Avenue to 3 Avenue by
Sidewalk Extension, and any other appurtenant work.
NW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY C F THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNES that the proposed improvement be referred to Bruce
Loney, Public Works Director, for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all
convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed
improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with
some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
Adopted in
session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
I�
City Clerk
/ C- B
CITY OF SHAKOPE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Fire Department Equipment Request Correction
DATE: March 15, 2001
MM 1T1110iIl[I?O�
7
�i
The Council is asked to approve an additional $2475 for the purchase of five self -
contained breathing apparatus packs from Ed M. Feld Co.
13 : • M 1"1
Attached is a memorandum from Fire Chief Mary Athmann. In it, he indicates that the
two companies which submitted quotes for air packs had included prices for 30- minute
air cylinders, instead of the desired 60- minute cylinders.
When both were asked to resubmit, the Feld Co. again had the lowest price, but it was an
increase of $2475 from the previous quote (total cost $18,850).
11 I self A
The Fire Department budget contains $20,000 for this line item.
We recommend that the Council authorize the purchase of the SCBA units with the 60-
minute air packs and alert system from Ed M. Feld Equipment Company.
1 I 1
If it concurs, the Council should, by motion, authorize the purchase of the above -
described equipment with the 60- minute air cylinders, from Ed M. Feld Equipment
Company, for a cost of $18,850.
A
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:th
Memo to
From:
Date:
Re:
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Marvin Athmann, Fire Chief
03/06/01
Incorrect Equipment quoted for Self Contained Breathing Apparatus
Purchase.
Introduction
At the February 6th, 2001 Council Meeting the City council approved the purchase of
5 -Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) air packs from Ed M. Feld Co. for the
cost of $16,375.00. The 2001 Fire Dept. budget contains a line item of $20,000 for the
purchase of Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA). The wrong equipment was
quoted for the Air Pack Specifications.
Background
When writing the order for the SCBA packs, it was discovered that both companies,
Clarey's Safety and Ed M. Feld Co., submitted quotes for incorrect equipment. They
included prices for 30 minute air cylinders instead of 60 minute air cylinders. The
standard air packs that the Fire Department uses now, have 60 minute air cylinders. Both
companies were asked again to submit quotes for the 60 minute SCBA air packs with
spare air cylinder and Alert System. The quotes are:
Clarey's Safety Equip., Inc. $3,813.75 ea..
Ed M. Feld Equip. Co., Inc. $3,770.00 ea.
Discussion
Again, Ed M. Feld Equipment Co., Inc. has the lowest quoted price for the SCBA units.
The cost of the purchase of 5 SCBA packs with spare air cylinder and Alert system is
$18,850.00.This is an $2,475.00 increase in cost for the 60 minute air cylinders from the
previous quote. The Fire Dept. recommends the purchase of Five (5) SCBA from Ed M.
Feld Co., Inc.
Action Requested
Please advise me on what actions need to be completed to proceed with the SCBA
purchases.
is.D.l.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director
SUBJECT: Survey for Huber Park Survey
DATE: March 15, 2001
Introduction & Background
At its January meeting, the EDA approved funding in the amount of $7,000 to contract
with Brauer & Associates to update the 1995 Riverfront Master Plan, with emphasis on
and outdoor pavilion in Huber Park and related parking facilities.
In order to proceed with updating the master plan, it is necessary to first have a
topographic survey done. Brauer & Associates needs a base map (including
elevation/topographic information) of the park area as a foundation for the master plan.
The City has no up -to -date base map showing elevations; therefore, a survey is required.
Staff has searched for survey records of the park including efforts with Scott County
Surveyors Office, Scott County Soil and Water, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and US Fish and Wildlife. None of these agencies had current topography or
useful aerials of the park and downtown area.
Whatever develops in Huber Park, whether it is the proposed pavilion, parking lots or any
other development, a survey is needed. Since the EDA approved the master plan update,
and the survey is necessary to get the master plan update done, staff is requesting the City
Council approve funding from the Park Reserve Fund not to exceed $7,520.00 for a
topography and boundary survey for Huber Park.
Budget Impact
The City typically has its surveys done by Bolton & Menk. B & M estimates the survey
will cost $6,160 for the topography work and $1,360 to locate boundaries. The extra step
of doing the survey will also add a few weeks to the tentative schedule for producing the
master plan, but will not affect the cost of the master plan.
I recommend funding the survey costs from the Park Reserve Fund. As of February 28,
2001, the Park Reserve Fund had a fund balance of $1,812,208.15. The projected
revenue for year 2001 is $600,000. To date, the City has approved $906,691.91 for land
acquisition, which needs to be subtracted from the $1,812,208.15. Other projects
identified for this year include:
$906,691.91— Land Acquisition
$200,000 - Tahpah Park parking lot (Park Reserves),
$ 80,000 - Skate Park by Community Center (Park Reserves),
$ 40,000 — Holmes Park playground (Park Reserves),
$ 22,000 - Southbridge/Dean Lake Master Plan (Park Reserves),
$135,000 - MnDot Parcel 75 assessments (Park Reserves)
$ 25.000 - Muenchow Fields irrigation (Park Reserves).
$1,408,691.91 (Projected expenditures from Park Reserve Fund in 2001)
$250,000 - Lions Park parking lot (CIF),
Alternatives
1. Have Bolten & Menk conduct a topographic and boundary survey of Huber Park
at an amount not to exceed $7,520.00 from the Park Reserve Fund.
2. Table for additional information from staff.
3. Do nothing.
Recommendation
Alternative number 1.
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director
Subject: Irrigation System for Muenchow Fields
Date: March 15, 2000
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is being asked to consider the approval of an irrigation system for Muenchow
Fields and to assign the work to Metro Sprinkler Systems of Shakopee, Minnesota.
BACKGROUND
The 2001 Parks Capital Improvement Program identifies $25,000 for the George F. Muenchow
Fields Irrigation Project. In 1999, Shakopee Senior High School installed two new softball fields
with an irrigation system. The irrigation system for Muenchow Fields will connect to that
system. The connection point is just west of the football stadium. See Attachment A.
A moisture control devise will be installed to prevent the sprinkling system from activating
during rainstorms. See Attachment B.
Price quotes to irrigate four ball fields were obtained from three reputable lawn sprinkler
companies. They are: Metro Sprinkler Systems of Shakopee, MN, Master Sprinkler Systems of
Minnetonka, MN and Greenkeeper, Inc. of Minnetonka, MN. They were also asked to provide a
bid alternate (price quote) to irrigate the Senior High School's baseball field. The School District
would be responsible to pay the irrigation costs should they decide to irrigate that field.
The price quotes received are as follows:
City Fields
HS Field
Metro Sprinkler Systems of Shakopee, MN
$22,611.44
$12,600.00
Master Sprinkler Systems of Minnetonka, MN
$24,780.00
$14,250.00
Greenkeeper, Inc. of Minnetonka, MN
$25,380.00
$14,880.00
ALTERNATIVES
1. Hire Metro Sprinkler Systems of Shakopee, MN
2. Hire Master Sprinkler Systems of Minnetonka, MN
3. Hire Greenkeeper, Inc. of Minnetonka, MN
4. Table for additional information from staff.
5. Do nothing.
RIECONIWNDATION
Alternative # 1
ACTION REQUESTED
If the City Council agrees to proceed with this project, it should, by motion, move to approve the
installation of an irrigation system on Muenchow Fields and award the work of installing the
sprinkling system to Metro Sprinkler Systems of Shakopee, MN at an amount not to exceed
$22,611.44.
Motion to Approve Funding Source
Move to use Park Reserve Funds to install the irrigation system at Muenchow Fields.
an� - V
Mark J.
n04&
Qui Gn
Natural Resource Director
d -
N
Controllers
UNIK® Accessories
Prevents programmed irrigation on sites with UNIK Control
Modules when a significant amount of natural rainfall makes
watering unnecessary.
Features
• Measures the soil moisture content in the area where it is installed
and prevents irrigation as soon as the area has sufficient water
to meet plant needs. Does not interrupt irrigation taking place,
but subsequent program starts are prevented.
• Automatic return to normal watering schedule when the soil
moisture level decreases as a result of natural evaporation.
• Comes with an easy -to- install ON /OFF switch to allow deactivation
of the rain shut -off device during system maintenance.
• ON /OFF switch slides onto the mounting bracket on top of the
UNIK Control Module.
Operating Specifications
• Valve compatibility.• operates with valves equipped with the
UNIK Latching Solenoid.
• Controller compatibility operates with UNIK Control Modules.
• Must be installed outside the irrigated area.
Dimensions
• Width. 3%" (8, 0 cm)
• Height 1 %s" (4,5 cm)
• Depth. 1 4 /5" (4,6 cm)
Model
• UNIKR INSO: Rain Shut -Off Device
UNIK Rain Shut -W Device
Automatic Rain Shutoff
Rain (; rm
MMEMMEMMMM
Monitors rainfall levels and overrides controller to prevent
unnecessary irrigation.
Features
• Adjustable stainless steel sensing probes offer the flexibility
of triggering the rain shut off with as little as %s" (3,2 mm)
of precipitation or when rainfall reaches or exceeds %2// (12,6 mm).
• Hydro - mechanical design allows automatic return -to- normal
watering schedule when water in rain collector pan evaporates.
• Works with all 24VAC controllers for maximum versatility.
• UV resistant plastic construction increases operating life in
harsh environments.
• Solid -state design provides greater reliability by eliminating micro
switches and thermal devices which may rust and /or wear out.
• Rating of up to three Rain Bird solenoid valves per station allows
for diverse applications.
Electrical Specifications
• Input required none, connects to valve common wire.
• Fuse: 3A
• Multi -valve capacity. Up to three Rain Bird 24VAC solenoid
valves per station
• Not recommended for use with direct acting (non -flow switch)
pump start relays
Dimensions
• Length: 8" maximum (20,3 cm)
• Height 4" maximum (10,2 cm)
• Width: 2%2// maximum (6,4 cm)
Model
• Rain Check
Rain Check
1999 -2000 Catalog www.rainbird.com
11 A 41L
Writer: Penny Banks, (409) 862- 3309, -banks &tamu.edu
Contact: David Smith, (979) 845- 7451, - smithoat ig.edu
COLLEGE STATION -- High school sports fans in Central Texas have something new to cheer about --
safer athletic fields. Participants at 23 schools learned how to grow a healthier, and therefore safer,
athletic field as part of a pilot project called S.A.F.E. sponsored by the Texas Agricultural Extension
Service.
The S.A.F.E. (Sports Athletic Field Education) program helps coaches, athletic directors and
maintenance personnel understand how proper water and nutrient management can improve the quality
of their fields. As one part of the program, irrigation audits were performed on each field to identify
sources of inefficiencies in existing sprinkler systems.
Participants were provided an irrigation schedule based on potential evapotranspiration (PET) rates, turf
water requirements, historic rainfall records and measured performance of the existing irrigation system.
PET rates are used to replace only the amount of water lost by evaporation and transpiration. By
watering efficiently, field managers conserve water while the turf develops a stronger root system.
Another component of the program focused on turf maintenance such as proper fertilizing, mowing and
aerification to reduce player injuries on the field. There is a high correlation between injuries and
hardness of a playing field, said Dr. James McAfee, an Extension turfgrass specialist.
"When you don't have a healthy turf, it generally shows in compacted soils that are hard to play on,"
McAfee said. "Or when you have a weak turf, the grass tears apart easily, causing slipping and falling
that can lead to things like knee injuries."
McAfee said that schools were very satisfied with the results of this program. Coach George Hermann
with the Pflugerville ISD agreed.
"This program goes a long way in helping us maintain our athletic field for the season," Hermann said.
w They gave us recommendations on when to water and for how long. Instead of watering every day, as
e had been, we water about three times a week for a longer time," Hermann said. "It's saving water --
so I guess it's also water conservation -- but it's also developing our grass so the roots go deeper and the
grass doesn't tear apart."
Overall the program found that, by following the watering recommendations provided by the Extension
service, school districts could cut back on water use by 60 percent in years with average rainfall, said
David Smith, an Extension agricultural engineer who performed irrigation audits on the fields. In fact,
he added, because fields are so over - watered, water use would decrease almost 25 percent with these
recommendations in growing seasons without any rainfall.
School personnel also welcome the positive public image they receive as a result of the program. Kelly
Reeves, athletic director for Round Rock ISD, said that the county Extension agent helped them get
support from the community.
http:// agnews. tamu .edu/stories /SOIL/May0699a.htm 3/15/01
EXTENSION SERVICE PROMOTES SAFER ATHLETIC FIELDS Page 2 of 2
"The county agent, Ron Leps, called and asked if we wanted to participate. He also talked to civic
organizations in town to explain how important it was to have safe playing fields."
Hermann said, "It's good for our public image for people to know that our field is up to standard and soft
enough to play on."
-30-
- --- ----- - - ------ ---- - ----- ------ ---- ---- ------
http://agnews.tamu.edu/stories/SOIL/May0699a.htm 3/15/01
ice, H.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Termination of Probationary Status for
Ryan Halverson, Engineering Technician Position
DATE: March 20, 2001
Staff is recommending that Mr. Halverson's probationary status be terminated.
The Council authorized the hiring of Ryan Halverson to fill the Engineering Technician II
position that was vacated in 2000. Mr. Halverson has completed his six month
probationary period satisfactorily. Staff is recommending the termination of Mr.
Halverson's probation period.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Move to terminate Ryan Halverson's probationary status.
2. Extend probationary status for another six months.
3. Table action pending further information from staff.
IT I s
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
1
Move to terminate Ryan Halversons' probationary status for the Engineering Technician
II position.
y h ��
Bruce Loney`
Public Works Director
BL /pmp
TECHII
CITY OF SAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Termination of Probationary Status for
Keith Raines, Maintenance Worker
DATE: March 20, 2001
Staff is recommending that Mr. Raines' probationary status be terminated.
C 117 RU 71
The Council authorized the hiring of Keith Raines to fill the Maintenance Worker
position that was vacated in 2000. Mr. Raines has completed his six month probationary
period satisfactorily. Staff is recommending the termination of Mr. Raines' probation
period.
1. Move to terminate Keith Raines' probationary status.
2. Extend probationary status for another six months.
3. Table action pending further information from staff.
1 1 11111 Le
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
Move to terminate Keith Raines' probationary status for the Maintenance Worker
position.
Bruce Loney
Public Works Director
BLpmp
MAINTENANCE
,�T L=_, S_
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director
Subject: Hiring of Ice Arena Maintenance Operator
Date: March 19, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
The interview and selection process has been completed for filling the Ice Arena
Maintenance Operator position. City Council is asked to authorize the appointment of
Joshua Barrick to fill this position.
BACKGROUND:
The Ice Arena Maintenance Operator position, created and filled initially in 2000,
became vacant in January. City Council authorized staff to interview for this position
using the eligibility list that was created in 2000, or advertising for the position if needed.
Four of the five candidates interviewed but not selected for the position in 2000 were
invited to re- interview for the current opening. Of those four, three accepted the
invitation.
At this time, I am recommending that City Council appoint Joshua Barrick to the position.
Mr. Barrick is a former employee of the City who served as a part-time Ice Arena
Supervisor. In addition, he has experience as an arena maintenance staff member for
the City of Litchfield.
If approved, Mr. Barrick's start date would be March 26th, pending successfully
completion of the required pre - employment physical and background check. All new
hires are subject to a 6 -month probationary period.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Starting salary for this position is $30,560 (Grade D, Step 1). Subsequent step increases
would occur at his annual anniversary date. This salary was included in the department's
2001 operating budget. The position is non - exempt.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the hiring of Joshua Barrick for the Ice Arena Maintenance Operator
position.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to authorize the appointment of Joshua Barrick as Ice Arena Maintenance
Operator, contingent upon successful completion of the pre - employment physical and
background check, at a starting salary of $30,560 (Grade D, Step 1 of the 2001 Pay
Plan.
Mark Themig
Facilities and Recreation Director
CITY OF SHAKO
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FR O M : R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Hiring of Temporary Building Inspector
STING DATE: March 20, 2001
1 1CIN I R �1
With the extended absence of the Building Official, applicants were sought for a 6 -month
position as Building Inspector with the City. Staff interviewed four (4) candidates. The
position has been offered to Richard Sames, who has accepted the position. Mr. Sames
has extensive experience in the construction industry, particularly in the Shakopee area.
Council is asked to approve the appointment of Richard Sames to the position of
Temporary Building Inspector at $19.11 per hour (Step 1 of the pay grade) for a six (6)
month period commencing April 2, 2001.
1. Approve the appointment as requested.
2. Do not approve the appointment.
Offer and pass a motion approving the appointment of Richard Sames to the position of
Temporary Building Inspector at $19.11 per hour (Step 1 of the pay grade) for a six (6) month
period commencing April 2, 2001.
CrrY OF ■ ,
■
Memorandum CONSENT
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Revocation of Liquor Licenses - Rock Spring Restaurant
DATE: March 14, 2001
INTRODUCTION•
City Council is asked to take action to revoke the On -sale, Sunday
On -sale and Off -sale intoxicating liquor licenses of Rock Spring
Restaurant, Inc., 1561 East 1 st Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
The City has received notice from the Minnesota Department of
Revenue that the City must revoke the intoxicating liquor licenses
of the Rock Spring Restaurant by April 10, 2001 due to an overdue
(tax) liability. The notice is pursuant to Minnesota State Statute
270.72 that requires the revocation after the licensee has received
due process pursuant to said Statute. The Commissioner of Revenue
has advised me that the licensee has been afforded the due process,
pursuant to said Statute, and that the next action is the City's
revocation of the licenses. Upon receipt of a clearance
certificate from the Commissioner of Revenue, the licenses may be
reinstated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Move to revoke the On -sale, Sunday On -sale and Off -sale
intoxicating liquor licenses of the Rock Spring Restaurant, Inc.,
1561 East 1 st Avenue.
2. Authorize the reinstatement of the intoxicating liquor
licenses of the Rock Spring Restaurant, Inc., upon receipt of a
clearance certificate from the Commissioner of Revenue.
J J '
r
I: \clerk \licenses \RockSpring
s �. ;�
I I
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Garbage Contract Appeal — Allan Hastings
DATE: March 15, 2001
'11 1
Shakopee resident Allan Hastings, has asked to be on the City Council agenda of March
20'', concerning his desire not to be included in the City's solid waste contract.
On Wednesday, March 14 Mr. Hastings appeared at City Hall, stating that he did not
wish to be included in the City's garbage contract. Mr. Hastings said that he has not
previously been on the City contract, and recycles all of his refuse.
It was explained to Mr. Hastings that State law requires curbside recycling of all
residents, and City ordinance requires all single - family residents within the urban service
area to be serviced by the City- designated contract hauler. He stated that he wished to
appeal this to the Council. He was advised that if he wanted to express his concerns in
writing, it would be placed on the Council agenda; otherwise, he was welcome to appear
at the "Concerned Citizens" portion of the agenda. He provided us with the attached
letter.
1 I
The changeover to Dick's Sanitation from Waste Management was a decision made by
the Council in November. Since that time, staff has spent many, many hours facilitating
the changeover. We have encountered a number of people who either did not want the
service (because they have had other options for disposal), or simply want to make their
own garbage hauler decision. However, it has been explained to most of them that the
rationale which the majority of the City Council has adopted is that an organized system
offers more benefits than does an "open" system.
It is up to the City Council as to whether it wishes to change the ordinance. Please be
aware, however, that to grant exceptions for this case would provide a precedent for
others to make the same request; at some point, the advantage of an organized system
would be severely compromised. Also keep in mind that the City had received similar
requests from people not to be included under the old VWMI contract as well; this
particular request does not appear to be a function of the changeover to Dick's, other than
his non - participation in the City contract was brought to light. I do not know why Mr.
Hastings was not included under the City contract, as required by ordinance.
1 ►l d I,; 200M. s�1`� 0] ►A
Mr. Hastings should be heard, but unless the Council's philosophy is changed, I
recommend that no exception be granted.
The Council is asked to hear the appeal by Mr. Hastings, and give direction as to how it
wishes to see his case handled.
tr
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:th
�� LT ;A p