Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2001 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report JUNE 5, 2001 5] 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: April 3, 17, and 23, 2001 *8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $310,106.91 plus $38,456.03 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $348,562.94 9] Public hearing on proposed vacation of a portion of an easement within Lot 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park l'` Addition 10] Communications A] Shakopee Convention & Visitors Bureau Financial Report 11] Liaison Reports from Council Members 12] Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting 13 ] Re- convene 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: A] Preliminary Plat for Valley Green Corporate Center I' Addition, located south of Highway 169 at its intersection with CSAH 83 — Res. No. 5539 B] Proposed Amendment Regarding Home Occupations in the Rural Residential Zone (RR) TENTATIVE AGENDA June 5, 2001 Page —2- 15] General Business A] Community Development * 1. Approve Distribution of Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (GUAR) for OPUS *2. Amend Preliminary Plat Approval of Shakopee Crossings I" Addition - Res. No. 5536 *3. Set Public Hearing to Consider the Vacation of Easement within Lot 4, Block 2, Minnesota Valley 2 nd Addition — Res. No. 5541 B] Public Works and Engineering * 1. Approve Traffic Control Sign for Right Turn Lane on Vierling Drive *2. Authorize Execution of Amendment to Reliant Energy Minnegasco Easement No. 1999 -55 by the Fire Station Site and Evergreen Heights Townhomes 3. Authorize Purchase of Land at the Noutheast Quadrant of Harrison Street and 5 Avenue 1 u9��VCe ®r- N®CSe P E�u1eF_/'!E/JTS - C] Police and Fire 0 CL P T P_ * 1 _ Acceptance of Grant for Updating Mobile Data Computers — Res. No. 553 5 *2. Purchase of Extractor/Washer and Dryer for Fire Department 3. Amending City Code Relating to Open Burning — Ord. No. 599 D] Parks and Recreation 1. New Play Equipment for Holmes and Hiawatha Parks *2. Extension of Community Center Vending Contract E] Personnel F] General Administration *1. Application to Conduct Off -Site Gambling (Pull -Tabs) by the Shakopee Hockey Association —Res. No. 5537 *2. Premises Permit Renewal (Pull -Tabs) — Shakopee Rotary Club *3. Amendment to Liquor Licenses for T.L. Foods, Inc. *4. July City Council Meeting Dates/Workshop Meeting — Res. No. 5542 5. Derby Days Request for Funding 6. Budget Discussion — Police Hiring and Building Fund 7_ FY02 Budget Process Appointment Consideration *8. Acceptance of Metro Greenways Planning Grant and Approve Agreement for Inventory *9. Videotaping of SPUC Meetings /D• SP�CI IJL CoveyC tL A.fF!E7 - 1nr 1 a S 16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 18] Adjourn to Tuesday, June 19, 2001 \ m W. I LVA W.-W Biel 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 5, 2001 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an 4 are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the President, there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA 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.) A.) 4 Approval of Minutes: ✓/J' i ` . j �QQ 4. Financial A.) 4 Approval of Bills 5. 4 Small Cities Development Program A.) 4 Update 6. Other Business: 7. Adj ourn edagenda.doc SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION April 3, 2001 Members Present: President Morke, Sweeney, Link, Brekke, Amundson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant, Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director. I. Roll Call: President Morke called the meeting to order at 11:22 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. II. Approval of Agenda: Sweeney/Link moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. M. Consent Agenda: Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes of January 16, 2001 and February 6, 2001 Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the January 16, 2001 and February 6, 2001 meeting minutes. President Morke abstained from voting on the February 6, 2001 meeting minutes because he did not attend that meeting. (Motion carried unanimously under the Consent Agenda). IV. Financial: A.) Approval of the Bills Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the bills in the amount of S 182.82 for the period 3 /02/2001 to 3/29/2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). V. Small Cities Development A. Update This was deferred to a later meeting. Other Business: There was no other business. VII. Adiournment: SweeneyBrekke moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:27 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. J rth S. Cox, ED Secretary ole Hedlund, Recording Secretary ~ Co USE MT CITY OF SAKOPEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: May 31, 2001 Introduction Below is a listing of bills for the EDA for the period 04/27/01 to 06/01/01. Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $2,954.86 for the EDA General Fund. Check Date Check Number Vendor Description Amount 6101101 69403 Kennedy & Graven Attorney $ 52.00 6/01/01 69340 Quinlivan & Assoc Prof.Sery 2,100.00 6/01/01 69442 Qwest Telephone 19.73 5/09/01 69205 Intertechnologies Telephone 4.00 5/09/01 69277 Total Rental Ctr Equip Rent 28.13 5/09/01 69278 Turtles's Rent 200.00 5/09/01 69221 Main Street Network Membership 195.00 5/09/01 69179 Downtown Idea Excha Subscription 187.00 5/09/01 69180 Downtown Promotion Subscription 169.00 Total- $2,954.86 Annual Current Month YTD Description Budget Actual Balance Balance 02190 EDA- BENEFITS 19 EDA 234,520.00 7,000.18 23,565.11 210,954.89 02190 EDA - BENEFITS 234,520.00 7,000.18 23,565.11 210,954.89 Exp. Avail. 10.0 90.0 10.0 90.0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinato SUBJECT: Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) - update MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 Enclosed is Exhibit A, the April 2001 update on the Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) from the Carver County HRA. In summary, the HRA reports the following SCDP funding activity: Amount % of Funds Amount Committed/ Committed/ Funded Allocated Allocated Single Family Residential (goal: 30 units) $369,000 $231,310 63% Rental Residential (goal: 30 units) $121,500 $82,500 68% Commercial $251,250 $11,215 4.5% (goal: 15 units) TOTAL $741,750 $325,025 44% Note: The numbers in parentheses next to the property types listed above indicate the "rehabbed property unit goals" by property type for Shakopee's SCDP program, set by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. J Small Cities Shakopee Rehab Program The project is more than half -way completed as so a representative from the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED - -the fonder), Leona Humphrey, will be out to monitor the program files June 4 -6 The majority of Leona's time will be spent reviewing applicant files at the HRA. Things she will be monitoring will include: verifying that each application was income eligible at the time of application, review the work specs, and verify that the homeowner was given adequate information about the policies of the program. Furthermore, a few properties will be inspected to monitor that the rehabilitation work was successfully completed according to the work specs. DTED will also monitor the city's files as well as insuring that Fair Housing materials are on display at the city. Leona has given tentative approval to expand the target area to include more properties. City and HRA staff will discuss expanding the target area with Leona during the monitoring visit. On May 5 th marketing flyers were mailed to everyone in the target area. Single - Family Rehabilitation Project Recap on the program To be eligible for the program, the applicant's income must be below 80% of the area median income. The homeowner will be eligible for a 50 to 100% grant depending upon their income. The homeowner would need to provide leverage ranging from 0 to 50 %. The HRA has low- interest loans the homeowner could apply for to use as their leverage requirement. However, if they are not eligible for a leverage source due to poor credit, too many debts, no equity, etc., the leverage requirement will be waived and they will receive a 100% Small Cities grant. The grant is a 0% interest, 10 -year deferred loan. If the homeowner stays in the home for 10 years, they will not have to pay the loan back. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 10% per year. For example, if the homeowner moves out 3 years later they would be responsible for paying back to the City 70% of what they borrowed. After their application has been approved, Dave Schaffer, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the home to determine what improvements can be done. Dave will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the homeowner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the payments to the contractor(s) after Shakopee City Council Update5- 31- 01.doc 06/01/01 1 the work has been inspected by Dave Schaffer. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement. Single-Family Rehab Summary We have not had much activity as far as new applicants and loan closings since the last update. However, all of the 11 closed applicant's work is under way or completed. Furthermore, 3 additional applicants have had troubles securing bids. We have granted these 3 homeowners bid deadline extensions. One of the applicant's home is listed on the Historic Register so she is finding it more difficult to obtain bids from contractors. 6 applicants are no longer eligible for the program due to voluntarily dropping the program, being deemed over - income for the program (we are required to re- verify all income sources every 120 days until closing) or did not submit bids by the extended deadline. Amount Funded $369,000.00 Amount Committed $151,834.60 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 79,475.00 (have been approved) Balance Remaining $137,690.40 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number. Household Composition: Loan Amount: Gross Income: Improvements: Market Value of the NO NEW APPLICANTS TO REPORT Rental Rehabilitation Project Recap on the program Any rental owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. 51 % of their rental units need to be leased by tenants at or below 80% of Metro Area Median Income, and the rents for all of the units would need to be at or below the Fair Market Rents. If the property is in the targeted area, and Shakopee City Council Update5- 31- 01.doc 06/01/012 both the tenant's income and rent are within the allowable limits a property owner would be eligible for a deferred loan up to $10,000 per unit. A maximum loan amount is currently under advisement with city staff. The owner is required to match these dollars with a 50% match. This is a secured loan, which will be forgiven after seven years. Compliance of rent restriction and tenant characteristics is in force for the full seven years. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 14.28% per year. After their application has been approved, Bill Schwanke, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the rental property to determine what improvements should be incorporated into the scope of work. Bill will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the property owner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the necessary payments to the contractor(s), after Bill Schwanke has inspected the work. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement Rental Rehab Summary Seven rental property owners completed their applications. Two of the original seven applicants have dropped from the program. The remaining 5 active applicants represent 11 rental units. The third rental loan closed on April 27th, 2001. One of our rental applicants is in the process of obtaining an additional bid for exterior improvements. The last rental applicant is waiting for historical clearance. Amount Funded $121,500.00 Amount Committed $ 67,500.00 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 15,000.00 (have been pre- approved) Balance Remaining $ 39,000.00 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number.• Loan Amount. Number of Rental Units: Rent: NO NEW APPLICANTS TO REPORT Shakopee City Council Update5-31 -0 1.doc 06101/013 Improvements: Market Value of the Property. Commercial Rehabilitation Project Any commercial property owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. Note: this boundary is the small area located in the core downtown area of the bigger Small Cities targeted area. Priority is given to owner occupied structures or where leases are currently in place. Building improvements must be directed toward correcting defects or deficiencies in the property affecting the aesthetics or the property safety, energy consumption, structural /mechanical systems, habitability or handicapped accessibility of the property. Owners are eligible for 50% of the total commercial repair costs, with a maximum loan up to $25,000. The loan is a deferred loan for seven years; which is pro -rated in case of sale. C ommercial • SununaxjA The HRA has received no new inquiries since the May report; this is in addition to the original 12 from our initial marketing of the program. Out of those inquiries four have completed their applications. Our Second commercial loan closed on April 27 2001. One of the four is currently working with our rehab specialist to obtain bids and close on their loan. We are waiting on Historical Clearance from the State of Minnesota Historical Society on the fourth applicant. Amount Funded $251,250.00 Amount Committed $ 11,215.49 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $0.00 (have been approved) Balance Remaining $24,0034.51 Shakopee City Council Update5- 31- 01.doc 06/01/014 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number. Loan Amount: Gross Income: Improvements: NO NEW APPLICANTS TO REPORT M arket Value of the Property: Shakopee City Council Update5-31 -0 1.doc 06101/015 I RUM • • 1 • - A , V I The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Link, Morke, Amundson, Sweeney and Mayor Brekke present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator, Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant; Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director; and John Delacey, Engineering Technician. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was added to the Agenda_ 1513 Candidate Consideration for Library Committee. 6 Sweeney/Link moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke reported on the meetings he attended recently. Mayor Brekke attended the meeting for the Policy Advisory Committee for the Hwy 169 corridor. Some concerns along this corridor were: pedestrian bridges, noise of Hwy 169, preservation and enactment of future right -of -way for on and off ramps for Hwy 169, and the Hwy 41 intersection and support for improved transportation through Bloomington and Eden Prairie. The plans for CR 16 were shared because CR 16 will be a reliever route for Hwy 169 when CR. 16 is improved. Mayor Brekke also met with officials from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community regarding CR.16 /CR 83 realignment and the public improvements for these roads. _Mayor Brekke and Mr. Bruce Loney tried to clarify what the issues were after hearing the statement from Bill Rudnicki, representative of the Sioux Community, given after the CR 16 /CR 83 feasibility report. Tribal Chairman, Stanley Crooks and "Vice- Chairman Glen Crooks, Stan Elefson, the engineer for the Sioux Community, Mayor Brekke and Mr. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, attended the meeting. Mayor Brekke felt the meeting was productive. Mavor Brekke meet with the Scott County Legislative Committee on the Land Trust issue and the CR 16 /CR 83 feasibility report and the need to get Scott County involved. The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda. Item No. 7 Approval of the Minutes for February 6 and February 21, 2001; and 15.A.2 Awarding the Contract for 2000 Reconstruction Project, 2000 -4. Morke /Sweeney 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. Official Proceedings of the April 3, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —2- Amundson/Link moved to approve the minutes of February 6, 2001. Motion carried 4 -0 with Cncl. Morke abstaining. Amundson/Link moved to approve the minutes for February 20, 2001. Motion carried unanimously_ Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the bills in the amount of $246,691.54 plus $105,907.48 for refunds, returns, and pass through for a total of $352,599.02. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing for proposed improvements for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road, Project No_ 2001 -5_ Mr. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, reported on the feasibility study ordered for the proposed improvements for Sarazin Street from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6`" Addition. The project area is located south of the by -pass and east of CR 17. This feasibility report was ordered on November 6, 2000. At the Council meeting on January 16, 2001, the Council directed staff to prepare the feasibility report with the assumption that the properties lying on the south side of Valley View Road will be brought into MUSA prior to being assessed. On February 20, 2001 Council accepted the feasibility report and ordered the public hearing for April 3, 2001. Prior to the April 3, 2001 public hearing, staff met with the affected property owners for an informational meeting and received questions and comments. Valley View Road is shown on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to be a collector street. Through a transportation study and the City's transportation planning and meetings with the County, it has been determined that Valley View Road would curve to the north, connect up with Sarazin Street and later a street would be.built from Mooers Avenue over to 17 and eventually extending west. The intersection of Valley View Road and 17` Avenue is unacceptable with future growth. This project proposes to build a collector street that is 44 feet wide to a 9 ton standard with an 80 foot right -of -way, along with a storm sewer system, curb and gutter, a sidewalk and trail, and the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain to provide service to the adjacent properties. Mr. Loney explained the proposed improvements and the right -of -way that would be needed. The project cost is approximately $1.8 million. The assessed cost calculated on the City's assessment policy is annrnximately $1 39g million: City Street oversizing?, to he paid out of the Capital Tmnrovement Fund, would be approximately $359,000, oversizing for the Storm Sewer Trunk is approximately $9,000, Shakopee Public Utilities oversizing is $36,000. The cost of the assessments to the property owners of $1,794,000 was a large concern. Mr. Loney reviewed the assessment methodology used to determine the assessments that were calculated and split up between the property owners. Staff believed the issues with this project are: the assessments and the change of lifestyle of the affected property owners and the need to develop to pay assessments_ Staff felt there are some properties that would have the opportunity to subdivide. This area would need to be granted ti1USA and access to Valley Road for some subdividing to occur. Because of the topography, some subdividing may not be feasible. Staff does recommend that a benefit appraisal be done to the properties that are south of Valley View Road and the properties north that do not have sewer and water currently, so staff will Official Proceedings of the April 3, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page —3- know who benefits with these improvements. Staff estimated that the cost of the benefit appraisal would be approximately $10,000- $12,000. The City could pick up the cost of the benefit appraisal or this cost could be added to the project cost. Staff looked at the maintenance savings over a 20 -year period of a paved Valley View Road over a gravel Valley View Road. Staff did look at the deferment of some assessments if some of the land remained vacant. How the assessments should be handled is a Council policy decision. This area is almost fully developed. In Mr. Loney's estimation this project needs to be built but the cost of the project is the issue. Mayor Brekke liked the feel of the rural residential to the bluff line. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Loney if the rural residential feel was left along the bluff line, what would the cost be to the City? Mr. Loney felt the cost of the project of Valley View Road leaving the bluff with a residential feel, would be similar to the Muhlenhardt Road project. If sewer and water are added to the properties, the property value is increased substantially. It was felt that the development to the north of Valley View Road would be where the benefit occurred the most. With the way the assessments were calculated, it appeared that the residents along the bluff line would be paying far more than the residents in the development to the north in proportion to the benefits received. According to Mr. Loney, the two developments to the North would pay $339,000 in assessments based on the front foot method. The City does have a letter of credit from the developer for 75% of the assessment cost for this project. Staff is questioning if the cost of the assessments are exceeding the benefit received by the residents along the bluff line and the residents to the north where there is no sewer and water at this time. Cncl. Sweeney stated that essentially a benefit appraisal was done for 2 n Avenue because of the rock formations. The general taxpayers ended up paying for a large portion of the assessments on 2nd Avenue. That improvement was necessary to complete the water system. The City had two choices at that time, not to do the project then but ultimately do it; or do it and pay for the improvement and then move on. Kris Huth, 1730 Valley View Road, approached the podium and addressed the Council stating that she and here husband disagree with the project. Mr. & Mrs. Huth own the property right on the curve of the proposed Valley View Road. Their property does not actually touch Valley View Road but they are included in the project_ She did send a letter to the City. There would no longer be a country setting if this improvement was done. Joan Schultz, 2104 Valley View Road, approached the podium and addressed the Council. She attended the meeting held by Mr. Loney. Ms. Schultz also wrote a letter to the City. She thought these assessments were much too high. Ms. Schultz did not want to hook up to city water either. John Huth, 1730 Valley View Road, approached the podium and addressed the Council. Mr. Huth was concerned about the traffic. He wanted the road done only once. He felt this was a fairness issue to the residents on the south side of Valley View Road_ Dawn Kahnke, 2224 Valley View Road, approached the podium and addressed the Council. She did Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 3, 2001 Page -4- not want the MUSA line moved to include the south side of Valley View Road. She already has a septic system and well. Ms_ Kahnke wanted to remain rural residential. She has no desire to sub- divide her property now or in the future. She did not feel her property would benefit from this project. Their property was not suitable for development because of the topography in the area. Rob Larsen, 2424 Valley View Road, approached the podium and addressed the Council. Mr. Larsen felt the assessments were the issue. They should not have to pay for a project that will benefit the City of Shakopee and the developer. Terry Hauer, 2512 Valley View Road, approached the podium and wanted to know why MUSA was extended to the south of Valley View Road_ Mayor Brekke addressed the question regarding the MUSA Line. He was not in favor of the MUSA line being extended to the south of Valley View Road. Mayor Brekke said if this MUSA line was extended to the south side of Valley View Road, then the City Council would have to come up with an interpretation of how to assess these properties on the south side of Valley View Road; right now Mr. Loney has taken the literal approach applying the policy as it reads; the Council will need to figure out how to apply this policy for this project. If there is a deviation from that policy then the decision how to apply the policy would be made by the Council, and staff would be asked to do the analysis work. The MUSA line extension is not finalized. Everyone is being surprised by the figures being revealed for the cost of Valley View Road. Gail Berg, 1902 Valley View Road, approached the podium and addressed the Council. She to wrote a letter to the City. She stated that MUSA would not help them. Their property could not be sub- divided. She felt this was a fairness and reasonableness issue. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Thomson, City Attorney, to cover the opportunity for protesting the assessments. Mr. Thomson stated the issue before the Council tonight is whether to move forward with the project. If this project does go forward, ultimately, there will be another hearing on the assessment amounts. It is at that assessment public hearing, if a resident opposes the assessment then they would have to make a formal written objection and object to the assessments. The Public Works Director, Mr. Bruce Lonev, is making a recommendation that a benefit appraisal be done for some of the residents in this case if the project goes forward. It would be very difficult to assess a resident more than what the benefit appraisal shows the benefit to be for the property. Mr. Hauer wanted to know what would happen to the developments to the east regarding MUSA. Mr. Loney addressed this question. Roads are built in phases. When the City receives a petition from the developer to build a road for a development; that road is built at the developer's expense. Roads will continue to be built as the City grows. Mr. Loney stated it may be possible to just put in a sewer stub and jacket under the road for the sanitary sewer. Either the stub and jacket go in now or they will never go in because of the expense Official Proceedings of the April 3, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -5- to reconstruct this new proposed Valley View Road. Doing this, only those properties in MUSA now would be provided sanitary sewer. The MUSA line would not be extended. Mr. Loney pointed out that the cost of the sanitary sewer is not the big portion of these assessments. It is the street itself that costs so much. Eventually the water main will be needed by Shakopee Public Utilities to complete the water system. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, stated that the City builds roads in segments, because the City builds the roads for what is affordable and specifically needed for that time. Approaching the road development in this way, allows for clearer lines for the developer to pay for the construction of the roads when they are desired by the developer_ John O'Loughlin, 2988 Valley View Road, approached the podium. Mr. O'Loughlin owns property on the north side of this project. He addressed the Council on the easement issue. He wanted to know what the size of a lot on the north side of Valley View Road needed to be. Mr. Loney stated he recommended not only do benefit appraisals but also easement appraisals. Dawn Kahnke addressed the sewer and water assessment price in her assessment. Jesse Kahnke, 2224 Valley View Road, approached the Council and asked them to do the right thing. His land at this time is undevelopable. Kitty Hauer, 2512 Valley View Road, approached the podium and stated she wanted a tarred road but she did feel sewer and water were needed on the south side. Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing to be closed. Mayor Brekke wanted to identify and preserve large tracts of rural residential. This issue needs to be grappled with. The first issue the Council needs to decide is where the MUSA lines will be extended dealing with rural residential. Cncl. Sweeney suggested sewer and water only for the north side of Valley View Road. Cncl. Sweenev suggested it could be structured so there would be no stub for sewer and water on the south side and the south side would now be permanently out of the picture as far as developing goes. There would be no purpose to offer these people MUSA. The City Council is looking at the concerns of a portion of the residents being assessed for the Sarazin Street and Valley View Road project_ If the residents south of Valley View Road do not want the benefits from extending MUSA that is fine. The benefits of the benefit appraisal is the approach to take. Cncl. Sweeney was also hearing that the majority of the residents south of Valley View Road do not want the road paved. Cncl. Sweeney suggested the other end of Valley View Road down to the collector street be paved and let this western end of Valley View Road remain unpaved. Doing Valley View Road this way, the improvements would all be assessable. It is all developable. Options need to be set up to address the concerns that out there. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 3, 2001 Page -6- Mayor Brekke still felt the bluff line should be preserved as a rural residential area, the bluff line mixes land uses. The bluff area is mood buffer for the community. Cncl. Link stated if the entire Valley View Road could not be paved then the project should not be done at all. Cncl. Morke wanted the individual looked after as well as the developer. Mayor Brekke still reco that this alignment for Valley View Road needs to be put in. Perhaps now is the right time for this project, while the City still does have the letter of credit from the developer for 75% of the original estimated costs of the Valley View Road project. Mayor Brekke felt the people on the south side of Valley View Road would be pleasantly surprised when/if the benefit appraisals were done. Mayor Brekke felt Cncl. Sweeney was correct in giving people choices. The residents south of Valley View Road need to choose if they want to or if they don't want to develop their property based on the benefit appraisal. The project needs to be done. General levy dollars were discussed for paying for roads within the City. Mr. Loney thought it would be possible to obtain benefit appraisals and appraisals for the right -of- way acquisition and some more -engineering, work on the project without ordering the project; then this information could be brought back before the Council_ Mr. Loney stated that the Council could also order the project, do the Plans and Specifications and cost estimates and the benefit appraisals and right -of -way appraisals at the same time and this information could be brought back to the Council at the same time as designs for the project are being done_ Jim Thomson stated the appraiser doing the benefits appraisal will need to make some assumptions. He was not sure there was consensus among the Council on what those assumptions should be. Cncl. Sweeney stated that the sewer and water could be stubbed in for the people who wanted to develop but if sewer and water is stubbed in, then it is assessed to those property owners_ If the other residents decide in the future they want to develop and they want sewer and water, it can be done but it will be much more expensive to do it at a later date. There was much discussion on the assessments. It was felt Valley View Road should stand on its own merits and Valley View Road needed to get built in the near future. Mayor Brekke suggested that staff be given the direction to perform benefit appraisals. The property owners need to give the City their decisions on how they want their property handled_ Do they want to be in MUSA and have the possibility to subdivide in the future or not? Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct staff to contract for benefit appraisals with a preliminary survey of the property owners on the south side of Valley View Road being done to see if they have any plans of developing ever. Motion carried 3 -2 with Cncls. Morke and Link dissenting. Official Proceedings of the April 3, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Cnci. Sweeney stated this motion was to see a the project should be done now or should the Council wait and do this project in the future. Cncl. Sweeney felt Valley View Road would be paved within a reasonable short period of time. Mr. Loney will contact the property owners to see how they want their property handled. The direction of the motion was to get the intention of the property owners whether or not they would ever develop their property and to get benefit appraisals. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Loney if the appraiser could be worked with to do a second appraisal if the homeowner could not decide if he ever wanted to develop his property. The homeowner would then pay for this second appraisal. Mr. Loney stated he would work with the appraiser and then bring back the cost of the appraisal with the water and sewer and the cost of the appraisal without the water and sewer. Mr. Lonev felt it was valuable to know what both scenarios would cost. A recess was taken at 9:00 p.m The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing opened for the proposed assessments for Gorman Street improvements, Project 2000 -1. Bruce Loney reported on the assessments for Gorman Streets improvements. The only item left on this project is the paving for the final wear course and all project costs have been identified. This project was ordered last year. The total final project costs is approximately $743,800.18. The assessed costs include 25% of the street reconstruction, 100% of the bituminous trail, concrete walk, curb and gutter, new watermain along Gorman Street and sanitary sewer services. The total amount to be assessed is $289,587.27. A portion of the assessed costs to the City is $42,496.26 and the assessed portion to SPUC is $42,496.25. $111,853.93 will come from the sanitary sewer fund and $235,689.28 will come from City funds; $59,881.58 will come from the Storm sewer fund. This project came in lower than the amount stated in the feasibility report. Mavnr 9_ rekke asked for comments from the audience There were none Mayor Brekke declared this public hearing closed. Morke/Link offered Resolution No. 5503, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Gorman Street, From 4` Avenue to County Road 17 Project 2000 -1, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed vacation of easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park Sixth Addition. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 3, 2001 Page -8- Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the proposed vacation of easement. American Color Graphics has submitted an application for a vacation of two (2) easements within Valley Park 6 Addition. This is a companion to a previous request for a vacation on land adjacent to this proposed vacation. The Planning Commission reviewed this vacation request and did recommend approval of the vacation. Mr. Leek noted he did receive a late communication from Excel Energy requesting that their electrical interests be retained over the entire proposed area to be vacated. Mr. Leek has not been able to find what these electrical interest are, so star is recommending that this issue be tabled to allow more time to find out just what these electrical interest are and what needs to be done to protect these interests. Sweeney /Amundson moved to continue the public hearing on the proposed vacation of easements in Valley Park Sixth Addition, to allow staff to check into the Excel Energy electrical interests in this proposed vacation, to the April 17, 2001 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Morke /Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to enter into the 2001 Joint Powers Agreement between Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and the City of Shakopee Police Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the ordering of 11 sets of fire fighting gear from Fire Equipment Specialties for $14,245. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director, gave a staff report in which he presented the proposed concept plan for the Shakopee Skate Park. $80,000 has been included and adopted in the CIP for the year 2001 for a Tier 1 skate park. A Skate Park Committee has met several times to discuss the location, design and operation, etc. of a skate park. Three sites were considered within the City of Shakopee. The Community Center site was chosen. High visibility was of high priority as a condition for the site. There were three meetings held with the residents living near the Community Center. The residents did have come concerns regarding the hours of operation, supervision, nighttime use and lighting to name a few of the concerns. The Police Department was in favor of the skate park. On site supervision of a Tier One skate park is not required by the League of Minnesota Cities, but there are staff in the Community Center that can help supervise the site. The residents along Fuller Street requested a security camera be used on the skate park site. Mr. Themig stated that a security camera would be used on the skate park site. The construction of the skate park site is estimated at $27,500 with much of the work being done by the Public Works Department. The equipment is estimated at $50,000 and $2,500 is estimated for miscellaneous expenses (signage, security camera, etc.). Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Themig if the parking lot at the Community Center had been considered as an alternative site for the skate park. Mr. Themig was concerned about the slope of the Community Center parking lot for adequate drainage and taking too much of the parking lot that would be needed when there are large events that are held at the Community Center. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 3, 2001 Page -9- Jason Bullard, 1 153 Atwood, approached the podium with concerns regarding the location of the skate park, music coming from the skate park and fighting issues at the skate park. He wanted the City Council to take a long look at this skate park and the self - policing of this facility. Sandy Westlund, 1233 Tyler Street and member of the Shakopee Skate Park Committee, approached the podium and addressed the need for high visibility for the skate park. She recommended the location of the proposed skate park. She felt perhaps the fencing, if needed for the skate park, could be paid for by fundraisers held by the Shakopee Skate Park Committee. Mr. Themig stated that he did want to work with the residents and the skate park youth kids and take steps if there are issues that become apparent. Mayor Brekke felt kids from other communities should be charged to use the skate park in Shakopee. Mr. Themig said this was possible if a fee program was used. Samantha Jones - Fisher, 326 Hennes Avenue, approached the podium and asked the City of Shakopee to be proactive on this issue. She did not feel it should fall on the shoulders of the homeowner to call the police. John Hand, 1157 Atwood Street, approached the podium and said he thought the skate park should be moved back closer to the Community Center. Mr. Hand felt $80,000 was a lot of money to spent for a non -money making project. Sweeney /Amundson moved to authorize approval of the Skate Park, Project 2001 -6. Mayor Brekke wanted the Park and Recreation Advisory Board directed to develop a plan on how the out of town element using the skate park should be affected as a follow -up to this motion. Cncl. Sweeney stated that it was important to provide facilities for children whose interests are not in organized sports and he was happy to see the Park and Recreation Department acknowledging this fact. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the Public Works Department to construct the skate park pad and conduct site improvements_ Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved an increase in the per supplier expenditure from $5,000 to $15,000 for the state park project. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to solicit bids for the equipment for the skate park. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 3, 2001 Page -10- Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff/Mr. Themig to develop a plan for supervising the skate park and if appropriate fencing for the skate park. Cncl. Sweeney felt it was important that the skate park be visible from the parking lot and that the security camera should be in the placed in the lobby of the Community Center. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to review the hours of operation after the skate park has been opened and to recommend changes in the hours of operation as appropriate_ Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke commended the Shakopee Skate Park Committee in getting the youth involved in this project. Mr. Leek reported on the Preliminary Plat of ACC Addition located south of 17"' Avenue, west of Betaseed/CR 17, and north of Valley View Road extended. This addition is proposed to contain 26 single - family lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval March 8, 2001 of this preliminary plat with conditions. These conditions are contained in the Resolution 5498. Mr. Leek gave an orientation of the preliminary plat. The other parcels in this area have been ghost platted. Valley View Road, when it is extended, will be a collector street and it is policy in the City of Shakopee to have a sidewalk on one side with a trail on the opposite side of collector streets. There will be a pedestrian connection along Valley View Road to a proposed future park that is proposed in this area. Mayor Brekke and Mr. Leek discussed the sidewalk in Weston Ponds on Weston Lane and a connection to Valley View Road. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any other passive trail easements that were needed in this CR 17 area. Mr. Leek stated he did want to speak with Mr_ Dahkle about potentially putting a trail through this a rca l but "s tr�;l .vn „l not afFo t this plat Almon A 1a�,nr Rra1 l,P �x �, lrl lira to cao araa narlrc identified in new plats coming in for the area along Valley View Road and CR 17. Mr. Dahlke was present at the meeting for questions. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5498, A Resolution of the City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Preliminary Plat of ACC Addition, and moved its adoption along with extending the sidewalk to Valley View Road. Motion carried unanimously Bruce Loney gave a staff report on the CR 83 /CR 16 Feasibility Report Amendment for Project 2001 -4. On March 20, 2001 a public hearing was held on the proposed reconstruction of CR 83 and Official Proceedings of the April 3, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -11- the realignment and reconstruction of CR 16. Two directions were given to staff at this time. These directions were 1) consider two more alternatives for CR 16 and then 2) prepare an amendment to the feasibility report analyzing these two alternatives and bring back to the City Council what the analysis shows to be the best connection to the existing CR 16 to the future new realigned CR 16. Chuck Rickart, WSB & Associates, Inc, gave an analysis of the two alternatives along with the pros and cons of the alternatives and the amount of right -of -way needed for the new CR 16 along with the frontage road and for the CR 16 improvement further to the east. Mr. Rickart did recommend Alternative No. 2, the currently proposed realignment of CR 16. W. Rickart recommended for the currently proposed realignment for CR 16, by Valley Green Business Park, that there be wider connections and perhaps more of an approach at the entrance. . The residents of CR 16 wondered if the public improvement project should be ordered without the drainage system fully identified and approved and should the City order the improvement project with out first having all the right -of -way_ There are memos on the table regarding this project. There are future meetings scheduled with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and with Scott County. Brian Sorenson, of Scott County, told Mr. Loney that an item would be brought before the Scott County Board proposing a corridor study in the CR 83 /CR 16 proposed project area. Mayor Brekke stated what the City of Shakopee needed was Scott County's endorsement of where the City of Shakopee is headed. The City really should not proceed without that endorsement- Amundson/Sweeney moved to accept the amendment to the feasibility report for the CR 83 /CR 16 Improvement Project No. 2001 -4. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Rickart briefly discussed the future right -of -way needed for CR f6. There is an existing 66 feet of right -of -way and Mr. Rickart, along with Brian Sorenson and Brad Larson of the Engineering Department for Scott County are recommending that an additional 150 feet of right -of -way be acquired from the existing right -of -way line. It was determined that 11.8 acres would be needed between the Valley Green Corporate Center Drive to McKenna Road for the right -of -way. Some of this right -of -way would need to be acquired from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. The acquiring of this land from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community will need to be discussed at the April 17, 2001 meeting of the City Council. This right -of -way would be at the County's expense and the City of Shakopee would need Scott County's support on this acquisition. Mr. Loney stated that this 150 feet of additional right -oi way would be the most that would be needed for CR 16. Mr. Loney would like Scott County to look at the corridor study for CR 16 and start identifying the right -of -way needs from Scott County's perspective. There are alternatives to the City's proposal for CR 16 that would not require as much right -of -way. Mr. Loney felt Scott County needed to be worked with to determine the ultimate roadway cross section, Scott County needed to do a corridor study along CR 16 and the City of Shakopee needed to work with the Scott Official Proceedings of the April 3, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -12- County in the long term to develop a schedule and a cost participation agreement and then the City of Shakopee needed to get Scott County to purchase additional right-of-way for the long term. Mr. Loney felt the City of Shakopee could proceed by presenting these ideas to the County and get the County's response. There was discussion as to what the appropriate motion should be to get the County's commitment on this CR 83 /CR 16 project. Sweeney/Morke moved to adopt the City's view of the proposed alignment of CR 16 (Alternative 2 of the original proposal) and the right -of -way as outlined in figure three (from the April 3, 2001 memorandum from Charles Rickart) and directed staff to do a presentation to the County Board asking the County for a commitment to this proposed realignment and to move forward with this realignment and the acquisition of the right -of -way from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community for the portion of the right -of -way that is needed through their land. The City of Shakopee has had meetings with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux regarding the acquisition of the right -of -way needed and at this point the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux are unwilling to sell this property. Perhaps if the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux see some global benefits, they will become willing sellers of that right -of -way stated Mayor Brekke. Motion carried 4- 1 with Cncl. Link dissenting_ Mr. Loney will bring back the resolution ordering the CR 83 /CR 16 Project before the City Council after the meetings with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Scott County have taken place. Cncl. Link, as a property owner involved in the Reconstruction Project of P Avenue, wanted to know if street lights and trees were included in this project. Mr. Loney said the street lighting is usually contracted with Shakopee Public Utilities and that is a separate contract. The City has submitted a street lighting plan to Shakopee Public Utilities for this project_ It is very difficult to plant trees in this area because a lot of rock is prevalent along with power lines. Mr. Link stated that he will be abstaining from voting on this Project. Amundson/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5505, A Resolution Accepting Bids For 2000 Reconstruction Project P Avenue, From County Road 69 To Shumway Street; Harrison Street, From 6` Avenue to 3 Avenue; And Shumway Street, From.) Avenue to 2 ° ' Avenue, Project No. 2000 -4. Motion carried 4 -0 with Cncl. Link abstaining. Amundson/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to provide consultant services for the 2000 -4 Improvement Project. Motion carved 4 -0- with Cncl. Link abstaining. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 3, 2001 Page -13- Amundson/Sweeney moved to authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on the 2000 -4 Improvement Project. Motion carried 4 -0- with Cncl. Link abstaining. Mr. Loney reported on the memo of understanding that Scott County has with the City of Shakopee regarding Valley View Road. The City has been working on the Valley View Road traffic study and implementing its recommendations. This Memo of Understanding between the City of Shakopee and Scott County is a result of proactive City planning. The Valley View Road current connection to CR. 17 is not acceptable to the City /County in the future. The County wants this intersection relocated to a point north of the current intersection. This memo of understanding is an understanding with the City of Shakopee and the County as to what is going to happen with Valley View Road in the area around Sarazin Street and CR IT There could possibly be some improvements to other intersections with future development in this area, also. The County will be the one who determines what happens in this area in the future. The City and County is attempting to layout future changes to CR 17. Don Weaver, CFO Betaseed, approached the podium and stated that Betaseed appreciated the efforts of City staff to keep Betaseed involved in the process of Valley View Road alignment. Mr. Weaver also stated that Betaseed is in support of this proposal and would like to see the proposal moved forward. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with Scott County on connections to County State Aid Highway 17, from St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loney stated that this has been a good process thanks to the cooperation of Betaseed, St. Francis Regional Medical Center and other adjoining property owners. ;✓ti. Leek reported on the appeal of a Sign Variance Denial by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for Robert Olson/Chrysler Realty Corporation. Originally there were four (4) sign variances requested by Mr. Olson /Chrysler Realty Corporation. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals originally heard this sign variance request on February 8, 2001 and denied the request. A reduction in the variance request was brought back before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for reconsideration at their March 8, 2001 meeting. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals decided that they did not want to hear this sign variance request again and therefore, the appeal of the denial of the sign variance request to allow a second free standing sign (adjacent to Weston Court) is before the City Council tonight. Mr. Leek gave a brief background of the plat where the Chrysler/Daimler Dealership is located_ Robert Olson, representing the Chrysler Corporation, approached the podium to discuss the sign variance denial. He stated that the Chrysler Corporation still wanted the monument sign to be considered at the Marschall Road grade for its height. The grade of the property is the issue for the Chrysler/Daimler Dealership. The visibility of the dealership is in question, also. Official Proceedings of the April 3, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -14- Mayor Brekke felt a small directional sign with an arrow would be sufficient. Another option would be the reapportioning of the allowed signage. 6 Frank Simmons, new Shakopee Dodge Dealer approached the podium and stated that the Chrysler Dealership is in a competitive environment and the size of the sign is important. Morke/Sweeney moved to uphold the appeal of Robert Olson/Chrysler Reality Corporation, thereby granting the requested variances and directed staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. Motion carried 3 -2 with Cncl. Amundson and Mayor Brekke dissenting. Morke /Sweeney offered a motion approving the request of Julie Klima to return to work as Planner II on a part-time, non - exempt basis effective April 23, 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to declare that Mark Noble has successfully completed his 6 -month probationary period, and award him regular, full -time employment as Planner I. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to authorize a one - year leave of absence for the employee in question, due to medical disability. Such leave would be effective as of the date of the exhaustion of the employee's available sick leave and vacation leave. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Morke /Sweeney moved to accept the resignation of John DeLacey. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). ivlorke /Sweeney moved to authorize the advertising for an Engineering Technician IL Engineering Technician III and Engineering Technician IV positions in the Engineering Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda)_ Morke /Sweeney moved to authorize staff to utilize consultants as necessary for Engineering Department staffing. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mark McNeill gave a presentation on the proposals received for the Ciassification/Compensation Study to be performed for City employee positions. The consensus of the interview committee is to recommend Riley, Dettmann and Kelsey of Minnetonka to perform the study to the City's existing pay plan for City employees. Riley, Dettmann, and Kelsey is asking for about a one hour workshop meeting with the Council to make certain that the Council will be comfortable with the assumptions that the consulting firm will be making in order to perform the study. Mr_ McNeill suggested Monday, April 23 at 6:15 p.m. for this workshop and perhaps Mr. Rudnicki's, Tribal Administrator, presentation on the economic impact study to tribal lands be given at this workshop also. Official Proceedings of the April 3, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -15- Sweeney /Amundson moved to authorize the award of a consulting services contract to RDK, for the purpose of conducting a job classification and compensation study for the City of Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. Morke/Sweeney moved to approve the renewal of the volunteer firefighters insurance policy with a three -year premium of $2,602. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Tribal Administrator, Bill Rudnicki, will present the results of an economic impact study that was performed for the Tribe of the effects of Little Six and other Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community operations on Scott County. It was suggested that this presentation be at the workshop meeting scheduled for Monday April 23 at 6:15 p-m. Mr. Rudnicki had left the meeting by this time. Mr. McNeill asked that two City Council members be designated to .be on the interview committee to interview the two Library Committee candidates for a current vacancy_ Mayor Brekke suggested that both candidates be appointed to the Library Committee. Sweeney /Amundson moved to appoint Julie McNearney and Allen Bartyzal to the Library Committee. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 11:22 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting reconvened at 11:27 p.m. Sweeney /Amundson moved to adjourn to Tuesday April 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11 :28 p_m. Q dith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary .� 1I U&I e' :1 l i The meeting was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. with Council members Link, Morke, Amundson, Sweeney and Mayor Brekke present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator, Bruce Loney (7 :10), Public Works Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Dan Hughes, Chief of Police. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was added to the Agenda. 151.6 Reappoint Ken Scannell to a three -year term to the Shakopee Cable Access Corporation and The Shakopee Cable Advisory Commission. Amundson/Sweeney moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke thanked Cncl. Amundson for representing the City at the legislative hearing today along with Mark McNeill, City Administrator and Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant on their attempt to get a sales tax exemption for the City of Shakopee for the Library and Police Station Construction projects_ The following items were removed from to the Consent Agenda. 7. Approval of Minutes for March 6, and March 27, 2001; 15. A. 2 Benefit and Right -of -Way Appraisal Proposals and Engineering Services for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road Improvements, Project 2001 -5; and 15_D.1 Approval of the Appeal of Robert Olson/Chrysler Realty and Grant a Variance for Signage. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 14. C. Preliminary Plat for Juergens I' Addition, located southwest of CSAH 16 and east of Sarazin Street. 15.A.4 Authorize Feasibility Report for East Shakopee Industrial Area Sanitary Sewer; and 151.6 Reappoint Ken Scannell to a three term to the Shakopee Cable Access Corporation and The Shakopee Cable Advisory Commission. Sweeney/Morke 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. Allan Hastings, 1295 Miller Street, approached the podium and addressed the Council regarding the garbage hauling in the City of Shakopee. Mr. Hastings would like to see a user - friendly garbage service_ Mayor Brekke stated the publication that Mr. Hastings is referring to is a publication of Scott County. It was noted that the City of Shakopee is in a five -year contract with Dick's Sanitation. Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. McNeill responded to a couple of Mr. Hastings points. He encouraged people to read the entire article Mr. Hastings was referring to because this article also pointed out the long -term liability to the City was reduced significantly by going with this type of garbage service. Also, now 50% of the monies received from the recycling are being returned to the City for recycling education. Previously, the garbage hauler kept all of that money. Before this contract was negotiated, a survey was sent to residents and 70% of the residents responded that they liked the organized system. Fred Kuhlmann, 1006 Atwood Street, approached the podium and stated that his freedom of choice is being infringed upon, when he has to go along with the City's decision as to who will be the garbage collector for the City of Shakopee. It appeared anyone with an address was getting a refuse container and the City felt some of these people complaining now had fallen through the cracks previously_ Staff recommended that there be no exemptions. Amundson/Link moved to approve the meeting minutes for March 6, 2001. Motion carried 4 -0 with Cncl. Morke abstaining from the vote because he was not in attendance at the March 6`" meeting. Morke /Amundson moved to approve the March 27, 2001 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the bills in the amount of $1,003,218.20 plus $238,211.43 for refunds, returns, and pass through for a total of $1,241,429.63. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed vacation of easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park Sixth Addition continued from April 3, 2001. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, gave a staff report on the proposed vacation of easement within Lot 2, Block 1 of the Valley Park Sixth Addition_ This item was continued at the last meeting in order to allow staff time to find out the interest that Excel Energy has in this easement. It appears that Excel Energy has been too busy to determine for the City of Shakopee the interest that they have in this easement. Mr. Leek is recommending that public testimony be taken, the public hearing be closed and the matter be tabled until the meeting on May 1, 2001. Mayor Brekke asked the audience for comment. There was no response. Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing closed. Morke /Sweeney offered Resolution No 5504, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee Vacating Easements Within Valley Park 6` Addition, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -3- There was a concern regarding notification regarding where garbage cans need to be to be picked up for refuse collection. Mr. McNeill reported his understanding of the lack of notification was in isolated areas. Cncl. Link stated residents had notified him., that on Vierling Drive and Marschall Road the right hand turn lane going east is unmarked and traffic is stacking up on Vierling Drive. Mr. Loney and Mr. Rickart want to do more study in this area_ Brian Sorenson, Transportation Engineer with the County, approached the podium and stated that there have been some issues with the operation of the intersection at Vierling Drive and Marschall Road. The County is working on the problems; there was certain work that could not be done during the winter months_ Mr. Leek gave a staff report on the preliminary plat for Shakopee Crossings is` Addition, located west of CR 18 and north and south of Southbridge Parkway. The site consists of approximately 80 acres and is located with Southbridge Parkway running through the property in a northwest direction and southeast direction and Hwy 169 being located to the south. The proposed plat is basically broken into four (4) blocks for development. The public hearing held by the Planning Commission on this issue was actually opened on December 7, 2000. The issue of the preliminary plat had been continued many times because of much traffic at this time with many conditions. Mr. Leek noted a letter dated April 13 from Mr. Brian Sorenson, Transportation Engineer for the County, relating to the transportation issues relating to this plat had been received by City staff. A revised draft of the resolution is on the table, Resolution 5510, with some additional conditions that specifically address Mr. Sorenson's concerns noted in the letter. Mr. Leek pointed out where he suggested changes in Resolution No. 5510 directed to Scott County traffic concerns. The PUD site is under review by the City for PUD approval and conditional use permit approval. The project is a commercial project that uses approximately 500,000 square feet for proposed retail. Mr. Leek noted as this site develops the traffic analysis may need to be revisited and refined before amendments are granted to the PUD. Mr. Leek stated with the approval of a preliminary plat some rights are vested, specifically grading rights and if approval is received, then some utility work can begin on the site as well. However, the site plan is not being approved at the time of preliminary plat approval. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek to explain why a preliminary plat and PUD are not concurrently reviewed. Mr. Leek explained why he felt a preliminary plat and PUD were not heard concurrently. Mr. Rickart, City consultant for traffic engineering, gave a presentation on the roadway issues of CR. 18 and Southbridge Parkway. The developer's consultant, Benshoof and Associates, prepared the traffic study and Mr. Rickart was charged with reviewing the report_ Mr. Rickart submitted a letter to the City dated March 6, 2001 with his comments on the most recent traffic study for the area. Since that time the developer, City, and County have come to some agreement on some of the concerns. Mr. Rickart stated that this initial phase of the development of the site would not cause Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -4- more traffic problems; it is when the entire area is developed that problems arise. It is really in the interim, the year 2006 that problems should begin. It is at this time that CR. 21 is not constructed yet and all the traffic wants to go CR 18. It is the left turning traffic wanting to go to CR. 18 that will create the problem. This is assuming complete development on both sides of CR. 18. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Rickart if the recommendations on this plat could be different than the recommendations on others plats regarding traffic. Mr. Rickart stated when additional plats come in for approval, these plats will need to demonstrate that these intersections will be working satisfactorily at full development of the new plat before they can proceed. Mr. Rickart recommended that all infrastructure improvements be in place in the intersection of CR. 18 and Southbridge Parkway before any retail establishments could be opened on the first plat. Mr. Rickart was concerned about Street A (an internal street) that comes out to Southbridge Parkway and then goes back towards the development. The mid -block access between Street B (an internal street) and Southbridge Parkway had also been a concern regarding left turns lanes and stacking. The developer has adjusted the site plan to accommodate the amount of stacking needed for these left turn lanes. Mr. Rickart felt when a new plat came in exact locations of site driveways should be determined in the preliminary platting process. Because County Roads 18, 16 and 21 are County roads, the County needs to approve whatever is done to the intersections affecting those County roads. Mr. Leek added that the County is in the process of seeking proposals for an Environmental Impact Study for the first phase of CR. 21. The funding for the first phase of the EIS is in the County's 2004 or 2005 CIP. Mr. Leek thought perhaps CR. 21 should be looked at initially as a two -lane County road that will be expanded at a later time. Mr. Rickart stated that he was very comfortable with the traffic study done by Benshoof and Associates. Mr. Rickart had considerable input into the traffic study. There was slight discussion on the traffic input report. Brian Sorenson had no additional comments other than what was in the County's letter. Mr. Sorenson felt confident that the intersection of CR. 18 and Southbridge Parkway and the internal roads would work except for the concerns noted in the letter, which Mr. Rickart concurred with, and the interim problem in the year 2006 when the intersection breaks down. Mr. Loney stated the intersection of CR. 18 and Southbridge Parkway really has the potential to break down when development occurs on the east side of CR. 18. Mr_ Loney stated that money has been set aside for the temporary signal at the intersection of CR. 18 and Southbridge Parkway. If the preliminary plat for Shakopee Crossings moved forward, Mr. Loney felt the County could be convinced that a signal would need to be placed at the intersection of CR. 18 and Southbridge Parkway now. Mr. Loney stated the developer agreed to install all the Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -5- improvements to make the intersection of CR. 18 and Southbridge Parkway work. Steve Soltau, Shakopee Crossings, -approached the podium to clarify some confusion on the intersection of CR. 18 and Southbridge Parkway in the interim time frame. The completion of CR. 21 is the cause of this interim situation. Mr. Soltau pointed out that future plats will need to be brought in for approval and these plats will need to prove that the intersection will still be at an acceptable level of service. If the right out that the developer is proposing near the intersection of CR. 18 and Southbridge is agreeable to the County then the intersection will not fail in the interim. There are different opportunities available to make sure this is a safe intersection for everyone involved. Mr. Soltau stated the acreage in the preliminary plat is 112 acres. Linda Lehman, 13231 Henning Circle NE, Prior Lake, licensed Hydrologist, approached the podium and presented some comments to the City Clerk. Ms_ Lehman gave some general hydrological concerns regarding Dean's Lake, Blue Lake, and the Eagle Creek Watershed Boiling Springs areas_ Ms. Lehman is investigating why there are water level declines in Dean's Lake. Ms. Lehman stated there are several reasons that could cause the water decline. Many of the developments that the Council is looking at tonight are close to these water sources. A number of the cities in the metro area, the Department of Natural Resources and the Metropolitan Council are interested in seeing what is causing this water decline. The Met Council gave the Lower Minnesota Watershed District the charge to complete the monitoring plan to find the cause for the water decline. Ms. Lehman would like the Council to consider some of the effects of how the ground water can affect some of these natural resources before approving some of the final designs of the developments. Cncl_ Link felt the roads should come first and then the developments could go in. Cncl. Sweeney felt the excuse should not be used that residents live in this area and therefore, the development can't go in until the roads are fixed; the residents knew the development was going in some day when they purchased their homes. Morke /Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5510, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Preliminary Plat of Shakopee Crossings I" Addition, subject to the conditions contained and the added condition that signalization and improvements be in place before any work takes place, and moved its adoption. Mr. Loney suggested that no certificate of occupancy should be issued for this development until the signalization and improvements are in place. Mr. Leek felt no building permits can be issued until the signalization and improvements are in. There was discussion on the school going into the Southbridge area. Mayor Brekke stated there needed to be trust in the people hired to do the traffic studies. If these people say this intersection will work with the improvements trust them. Mayor Brekke was Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -6- comfortable with the building permit language being contained in the motion. Cncl. Morke was comfortable withxhe "no building permit can be issued until the signalization and improvements are in" language being substituted in the motion for the language "before any work takes place ". Morke /Sweeney agreed to a change in the language of the motion. That change would be "no building permits would be issued until the signalization and road improvements are in" and the language to be struck is "before any work takes place ". Mr. Soltau, developer of Shakopee Crossings, approached the podium and stressed the point that the functioning of this intersection is keyed to lighting and signalization. Temporary dollars are in place for the lighting and signalization. This is a County Road and the lighting and signalization have not been put in because this intersection has not met the warrants for that improvement_ It is now believed with the pending commercial development, these lights and signalization can be put in because the warrants will be met. Mr. Sorenson approached the podium and stated studies are being done on this intersection at the request of Mr. Loney and just on the traffic of the residents alone the warrant figures are coming close. The County is open to working with the City on a signal for this area. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Sorenson if the language in the motion regarding "no building permits" was sufficient for the County to act on the signalization of the intersection or did the language in the motion need to say "no certificate of occupancy" would be issued until the signalization is complete. Mr. Sorenson bought up the issue of timing_ Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Sorenson to take this question back to the County and for Mr. Sorenson to get back to the City if the County has problems with the building permit language. Mr. Leek suggested that the Council take the action of approving Resolution No 5510 tonight and direct staff to bring back the specific language to be in the resolution for the Council to review regarding the language condition pertaining to `building permit" or "certificate of occupancy ". Mr_ McNeill did bring up the school district property and the need of the school to proceed on a timely basis for the school to be open in the fall of 2002. Mr. Sweeney asked that the motion be passed and if an exception needed to be made at a later date for the school district to make their time line then perhaps an exception could be made later as another issue. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Link dissenting. A recess was taken at 8:50 p.m. The meeting re- convened at 9:00 p.m. Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Mr. Leek gave a staff report on the preliminary plat for River Bend Townhomes, located between 4` and 5` Avenues and west of Adams Street. Mr. leek noted that this was a two -lot plat approval for an approximate 20 -unit affordable rental townhouse project. The affordable rental townhomes will be a mix of two and three bedroom units. The Planning Commission did review this plat and they did recommend approval of this preliminary plat on a vote of 6 -1 with conditions. Mr. Leek thought the dissenting vote on the Planning Commission was in response to the public testimony and the configuration of the townhomes. Scott County HRA will be the owner of one of the units. The unit that the Scott County HRA will own will be a tax credit rental unit. An amended resolution had been placed on the table and Mr. Leek did go through it. At the public hearing, there was public testimony by three residents of the area. It appeared that these residents were not opposing the development per se, but they did have some concerns regarding the configuration of the project that was proposed for the development_ The Planning Commission took the approach that a plat was being approved now and a CUP would be needed for this project. Mr. Leek added a declaration that stated that approval of the preliminary plat does not constitute approval of the site plan submitted by the applicant, which is further subject to review, nor does it constitute a decision by the City of Shakopee to proceed with the adjacent 5` Avenue improvements. The site plan provided to the planning staff by Mr. McClanahan would need access of off 5 Avenue. Two of the residents providing public testimony at the Planning Commission meeting would prefer not to see 5`" Avenue improved and the access to River Bend Townhomes be off of Adams Street and 4th avenue_ Mr_ Leek was of the opinion that there are alternatives for this site plan that would not need 5`" Avenue to be constructed. There is access to the site off of two public streets at this time. Part of the reason this particular layout was developed was, initially, the developer asked for the vacation of 5 Avenue but the residents on 6` Avenue wanted the opportunity to develop their land abutting 5 Avenue if they chose. The Council denied the vacation of 5th Avenue. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek about the grading/drainage out in Evergreen Heights. The Evergreen Heights Development was put in by the same developer proposing the River Bend Townhomes Development. Mayor Brekke was also concerned about the noise wall that was required out in the Evergreen Heights Development. Mr. Leek will follow -up on the sound wall concern. Mr. Leek stated that parking did seem to be a concern out in Evergreen Heights also. The River Bend Townhomes project is different in the respect that there are no private roadways. The proposed driveways in the River Bend Townhomes project would accommodate at least two /three vehicles. More parking is provided for this project than was provided for in the Evergreen Heights project. Mr. Leek stated that as for Mayor Brekke's concerns no comments before today had been received regarding the grading/drainage and the sound wall. Several of the Council members, also, had concerns regarding this developer. Greg McClanahan, Developer, approached the podium and addressed the concerns regarding Evergreen Heights. Mr. McClanahan thought perhaps the Council members saw things in what the council members thought was Evergreen Heights Phase I, when actually Evergreen Heights Phase H was underway and probably what was being noticed was items in the phase II development. The landscaping is complete now. The noise fence was left with area between the ground and the bottom Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -8- of the fence with the thought being that grass would grow up to the fence and block the sound. Mr. McClanahan was not aware of the grading/drainage problem. Mayor Brekke would like the City Engineers to take a look at the grading/drainage out in Evergreen Heights. On the River Bend Townhome site there is a twenty -foot elevation change from 5 Avenue to 4 Avenue. Mr. McClanahan explained the site plan layout. The way the townhomes are laid out is because of this elevation. The site is full of fill and the thought was to disturb the land as little as possible. This layout using the public roads provides much green space. Mayor Brekke asked for public comment. Dennis Hron, 1237 West 6 Avenue, approached the podium to discuss the River Bend Townhomes project on behalf of all of his neighbors. Mr. Hron gave a presentation of the project along with his ideas regarding the project. Mr_ Hron had some pictures for the presentation that he showed the Council members. These pictures reflected what the River Bend Townhomes would look like from the back windows of the homes of the residents on 6` Avenue. Mr_ Hron also had some pictures of the Evergreen Heights project. Mr. Hron offered a counter proposal for the River Bend Townhome project. Duane Marschall, 1271 6` Avenue, approached the podium and asked the Council to make sure everything was done that was suppose to be done for the River Bend Townhouse project. Mayor Brekke and the Council were struggling as to whether 5`'' Avenue served a public purpose. The counter proposal of Mr. Hron's did have some ideas that had merit, Mayor Brekke and the Council thought. If 5`'' Avenue was improved, Mr. Loney stated the City would need to determine how far the road should go. If 5` Avenue improvements were not done this proposed site plan may not work, but Mr. Leek felt strongly there were other alternatives available for this site because access could be taken off of two public roadways. Mr. Sweeney stated the neighbors to this plat need to decide what they want done with 5` Avenue and then the neighbors need to abide their decision. It needs to be decided once and for all if 5` Avenue will be vacated or will it become a public street. Mr. Leek pointed the approval of the site plan is not approved with the approval of the preliminary plat. The Planning Commission will be having extended conversations with the developer on the CUP for the site plan. Mr. Leek said the City Council was asked to approve the creation of two lots and also in a general way approve the grading of the site. It really needed to be decided where the City was going with 5`" Avenue before decisions could be made on the plat. Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Sweeney /Amundson offered the modified version, presented by Mr. Leek of Resolution No. 5513, a Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Preliminary Plat Of River,Bend Townhomes, and moved it s adoption. (The modified version acknowledges that the resolution is not approving the site plan or the construction of 5` Avenue.) There was discussion on whether or not to construct 5 Avenue. Mr. Leek noted there was the opportunity for the developer to amend or revise the preliminary plat if the developer chose that option. Mr. McClanahan approached the podium and stated this site plan was done on the premise that 5 Avenue would be constructed_ He felt this roadway could be constructed easily with retaining walls. Mr. Thomson stated that the preliminary plat is being approved showing 5` Avenue. This will be a platted street when approved. This does not mean that 5 Avenue will be constructed but it is a platted right -of -way. Mr. Leek noted that the plat is not proposing any dedication for this street. Cncl. Sweeney called the question. Motion carried 4 —1 with Cncl_ Link dissenting_ Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5514, A Resolution of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Preliminary Plat of Juergens I' Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda)_ Mr. Leek gave a -report on the rezoning of property located within the westerly portion of the City, south of CSAH 69 and north of 10` Avenue to Medium Density (R -2) for Derrick Investment Company. This property has just been officially annexed into the City of Shakopee. It was determined earlier that when this property was indeed annexed into the City the appropriate zoning would be for multi family housing of medium to high density or for commercial development. The request before the Council tonight is to amend the zoning map and rezone this property to (R -2) medium density residential. Mr. Leek shared with the Council the concept plan of the developer for this area that is proposed to be rezoned. The use of this property would be for senior market rate housing consisting of five 4- plexes. The Planning Commission did recommend to the City Council that this rezoning be approved on a 7 -0 vote. Sweeney/Link offered Ordinance No. 595, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Revising The Boundaries Of The Land Use Map In The Draft And Adopted Comprehensive Plans To Include The Property And Guiding It For Medium Density Residential Uses, and Amending The Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 By Zoning Land Generally Located Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -10- at 2011 10 Avenue West (South of CSAH 69, North of 10 h Avenue) To Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone, and moved it s adoption. There was some discussion on a possible realignment of Hwy 300 some day and how this would affect the property proposed to be rezoned. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson offered Ordinance No. 596, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located South of Highway 169, North of Dublin Lane, And East of Brittany Court From Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone, and moved its adoption. Mr. Leek gave a staff report on the request to rezone property located north of 17`' Avenue and east of Brittany Court from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) for Tollefson Development. Tollefson Development, Inc. is the developer who developed Brittany Village immediately to the west. The housing units are proposed to remain the same. Because of the housing type, the rezoning request is for R -3 zoning_ The density level of the units is R -2 but because the number of units is limited in the R -2 zone this property needs to be rezoned to R -3 to accommodate the number of units. Mr_ Leek shared the location of the proposed property on the adopted and draft land use plan map and how this density related to the other densities in the area. Mr. Leek recommended to Tolleffon Development, Inc. that they pursue a R -3 density rezoning rather than a PRD density. The Planning Commission has recommended this rezoning to the City Council with a 6 —1 vote_ Mr. Leek noted that the discussions relevant to R -3 density zoning is at the Planning Commission level and is in the process of being discussed. Mayor Brekke would like some direction from the Planning Commission on how they are leaning toward the densities in the R -3 zones, thus giving the City Council some inclination where the density levels should be going. Mr. Leek stated the rezoning was recommended to be R -3 as opposed to PRD, because of the Council unease with the PRD in this area and the guiding. The R -3 guiding seemed to make this a cleaner issue. Gary Wallschlager, from Tollefson Development, Inc., approached the podium and stated his concern with rezoning this piece of property to PRD was one of timing. If there were conditions put on the PRD zoning that the use of R -3 zoning would be allowed throughout, Mr. Wallschlager was okay with a PRD zoning so long as he able to do the platting and CUP simultaneously. Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Mayor Brekke felt the City needed to be consistent with the Draft Comprehensive Plan; that instrument guides this property for PRD. The adopted Comprehensive Plan guides this site for Medium Density (R -2). Sweeney /Amundson moved to amend the motion by changing "Multiple Family Residential (R -3)" to "Planned Residential Development (PRD) ". The amendment carried 3 -2 with Cncls. Morke and Link dissenting. There was discussion on the density level to be allowed in the proposed rezoning area. Motion carried on Ord. No. 596, as amended with Councilor Link dissenting. Morke /Sweeney moved to direct staff if the conditional use permit moves forward and is approved with a density not consistent with R -2 then staff is directed to appeal that decision to the Council. Motion carried 4 — I with Cncl. Link dissenting. Sweeney/Morke offered Ordinance No. 597, Forth Series, An Ordinance Of the City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11, Regarding Communication Service Apparatus/Devices, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5506, A Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Street for Valley View Road, from McKenna Road to Pike Trail, and move its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5517, a Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Street for Pike Lake Trail, from County Aid Highway 16 to County State Aid Highway 21, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Amundson moved to authorize Staff to proceed with obtaining a benefit appraisal including costs for the right -of -way utilizing Patchin Messner Appraisals for the Valley View Road and Sarazin Street Project with the cost estimated to be approximately $20,000 for the benefit appraisals and the right -of -way appraisal work. Motion carried 4 —1 with Cncl. Morke dissenting. Sweeney /Amundson moved to authorize staff to have Advanced On -Site, Inc. do a sewage treatment system evaluation for the properties involved in the Valley View Road and Sarazin Street project in order to review the on -site systems on the properties at a cost estimated to be $500.00. Motion carried 4 —1 with Cncl. Morke dissenting. Sweeney /Amundson moved to have Bolton & Menk, Inc. provide the engineering services for determining how much property could be utilized for future benefit if sanitary sewer and water is provided to properties along Valley View Road that are properties contained within the Valley View Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 17, 2001 Page -12- Road and Sarazin Street project. The cost of these engineering services is estimated to be $3,900 with a cost not to exceed $4,500. Motion carried 4 —1 with Cncl. Morke dissenting. Mr. Loney noted that some of the residents along Valley View Road will make their decision after they see the benefit appraisal on whether or not they want sanitary sewer and water available to their property. Pete Willenbring approached the podium to give a review of the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Feasibility Report. This feasibility study was ordered in an effort to address drainage that is being directed, at this time, from development occurring west of CR. 83. Some water comes down from Prior Lake and drains on land owned by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community as well as the City of Shakopee. There is a point where this water turns east and goes into Dean's Lake. Depending on which outlet alternative is selected approximately 1/3 of the acres needed are in the City of Shakopee the rest of the acres are in the City of Prior Lake and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community lands. The feasibility report looked at ways to provide an outlet for water directed from this watershed. Three permanent alternatives for an outlet for the Blue Lake Watershed Channel were identified in the feasibility study. Mr. Willenbring pointed out that if the City of Shakopee does go north along C.R. 8' 3 and eventually into the K -Mart Linear pond a permit would be needed from MnDOT to discharge water from the right -of -way and into to the that drainage system. If the channel did go north it was also possible that the City would need to look at expansion of the capacity of the drainage system downstream in those channels. There were some environmental concerns sending this water from the Blue Lake Watershed District channel into Dean's Lake. The recommended alternative was alternative No. 3, this was an open channel gravity system that would flow east of CR. 83 across the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community property to the Prior Lake - Spring Lake Outlet Channel. This outlet would have a greenway corridor, there would be a high level of water treatment and the cost of the greenway would be very cost effective. This greenway corridor could possibly have a trail on the side, along with providing storage and a maintenance bench would be provided for maintenance needed on the channel. There are a couple of issues associated with this alternative: These issues being a long infiltration area would be needed along a certain area of the channel and the City of Shakopee would need to cross Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community property. Mr. Willenbring discussed a fourth temporary alternative so development could continue in the City of Shakopee in this area. The feasibility report for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet should be accepted and given out for comment to review agencies so the City could see where some problems may arise. Also the fourth alternative, which is temporary, should also be considered to be installed because of the need at this time. Mayor Brekke gave an update on the discussions with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community in regard to the channeling. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community prefers to work with the City and it was also thought that the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community prefers the infiltration system as well as the City Engineer. An agreement for routing the channel would be needed not ownership of the land. This could be an agreement similar to what we have with Prior Lake. This agreement for a channel to run through the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -13- property is contingent upon the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Conununity being able to develop their property. They do think the channel is the way to go. Some positive steps have been gained with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, the problem now is one of tinting. A recess was taken at 10:50 p.m. The meeting re- convened at 10:58 p.m Sweeney/Morke moved to accept the feasibility report for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet and direct staff to distribute this report to various watershed agencies and organizations impacted by this report for their review and comment_ Linda Lehman, 13231 Henning Circle, Prior Lake, approached the podium to emphasis the importance of looking at the whole picture of the drainage aspect and not doing the drainage piecemeal_ She would like to see a complete analysis of the water quality going into Deans Lake. Kathy Gerlach, 4853 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and asked if the reviewing agencies would be able to comment on all alternatives not just the preferred alternative. Mr. Loney stated that once the comments have been received, from all the reviewing agencies, the feasibility study for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet will be brought back to the Council and the Council can direct if any further study (like an EAW) is needed. The preferred alternative is alternative no. 3 and this alternative is dependent on if the City can get easements and cost participation agreement from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. If the easements and the cost participation agreement are not agreeable, then the preferred alternative from Mr. Loney would be alternative no. 1. Cncl. Sweeney called the question. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loney asked the Council if they were comfortable with a temporary storm drainage system so developers can continue in these areas. Mayor Brekke requested an item on the temporary storm drainage system to be on the agenda for the next Council meeting. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5517, A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement To The East Shakopee Industrial Area Sanitary Sewer, From 70` Street To Trunk Highway 169, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to declare all bicycles recovered/stored over the last few months by the Shakopee Police Department to be surplus property and authorized staff to appropriately dispose of these items. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -14- Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the contract extension with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to develop the plans and specifications for the Tahpah Park Parking Lot project and to allocate from the Park Reserve Fund an amount not to exceed $16,500. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to approve expenditures not to exceed $13,500 for Lions Park improvements, planting of trees and installation of a half -court basketball court. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Robert Olson, representing the Chrysler dealership, approached the podium and addressed the issue regarding the one monument sign giving directions to three auto dealerships. He was opposed to this suggestion. Morke /Sweeney moved to approve Resolution No. 5516, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Overturning The Decision Of The Board Of Adjustment And Appeals And Granting A Variance To Allow A Second Free Standing Sign (49.5 Square Foot Monument Sign Adjacent To Weston Court), Where Only One Free Standing Sian Is Allowed, And To Allow The Free Standing Pylon Sign Proposed Adjacent to County Road 17 To Be 27 Feet In Height, Where 20 Feet Is The Maximum Height Allowed. Motion carried 3 -2 with Cncl. Amundson, and Mayor Brekke dissenting. Mr. Leek gave the staff report on a waiver for Minor Subdivision Criteria for property located north of 2 ❑d Avenue and west of Homes Street. This is a request of the Council to waive the criteria required for a minor subdivision. This property is located in the Central Business District and if the minor subdivision criteria are waived, in fact, what the Council would do is to reconfigure the lots so the lot lines are consistent with the building wall lines. There has been an objection to the shared services for 128 and 132 Holmes Street South. Mr. Leek did have the comment for Shakopee Public Utilities that this arrangement of the shared services is acceptable with them. If the Council does approve the waiver for minor subdivision criteria, staffwill perform the review for the minor sub division. If the Council feels the shared service issue needs to be acted on, then Mr. Leek suggested that the action to be taken on the shared services and it be incorporated into the direction given to staff for reviewing the minor subdivision. There were concerns regarding the shared services. It was felt each building should have independent water and sewer supplies. Mr. Jeff Monnens approached the podium and stated that he would do the water line whatever way the purchaser of the building wanted. He would dig up the street if wanted or he would do the curb stop and a separate line into each building_ Joe Adams, Manager of Shakopee Public Utilities, approached the podium and stated that either option for the separate lines is acceptable to the utilities. Mr. Joe Adams did state if the curb stop method was done there should be some agreement that there is sharing of the line coming to the point Official Proceedings of the April 17, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -15- of the curb stop. There will be responsibility for the maintenance of the shared part of the line. Mr. Loney stated that there was also a shared responsibility for the sewer line. Link/Sweeney moved to approve the waiver of the minor subdivision lot size requirement for property known as 128, 132 and 136 Holmes Street South. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link move to direct staff to condition the final approval of the minor subdivision on working out the shared water /sewer lines to the satisfaction of all parties. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke offered resolution No. 5511, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Final Plat Of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5 Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5512, a Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving The Final Plat of Savanna Oaks At Southbridge 4` Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to accept the resignation of Kristin Romeo effective March 30, 2001, and ratify the staff decision to permit her to leave prior to giving a full two -week notice. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize Lori Hensen to fill the part-time receptionist position, vacated by Ms. Romeo, effective April 18, 2001, at Step 2, Grade AA. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the appointment of Jeff Tate and Chris Dellwo to probationary Police Sergeant at Step 4 of the current labor agreement effective April 18, 2001 _ (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda)_ Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5509, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Premises Permits For The VFW Post 4046, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the transfer of $1,600,000 from the General Fund to the Building Fund and $126,877.19 from the 95A Debt Service Fund to the 95/94 Capital Projects Fund for fiscal year 2000. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5508, A Resolution of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Resolution No. 5311, Establishing A Library Study Board For The City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 17, 2001 Page -16- Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize all necessary actions by staff to carry out the administration of this Council action of approving the easement to NSP, located upon a portion of Tract A, Registered Land Survey 172. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to declare the following property as surplus property to be sold at the Hennepin County Auction later in the year 2001. This surplus property includes: 1988 Chev Van No. IGCEG25K5J7162271, 1988 Honda PSI No. JHMBA4239JCO37325, 1987 Plymouth Van No. 1P4FH5134HX122710, 1990 Lincoln Continental No, 1LNC9744LY757077, 1993 Ford Taurus IFACP5247PA226388, 1983 Ford 1 Ton No. 1FDJF37G3DPA41545, 1989 Ford Dump No. 1FDPF82K9KVA49287, 1989 Chev S — 10 No. 1 GCCS 14E9K2201924. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to reappoint Ken Scannell to a three -year term to the Shakopee Cable Access Corporation and The Shakopee Cable Advisory Commission. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Amundson moved to adjourn to Monday April 23 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. udith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary •I •' C OU T 1 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Council members Amundson, Link, orke, and Sweeney present. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Bruce Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer. Mr. Leek stated that there are three basic questions that staff would like to open discussion with City Council to try to get ahead or stay ahead of the curve on Planning. He noted that in his memorandum he asked for comments on going out for proposals to bring a consultant on board to begin the process of comprehensive planning even though we are nearing the end of the last comprehensive planning process. He asked City Council to discuss and give staff some consensus direction on: 1) Does the Council continue to believe that the City should plan to accommodate projected population growth? 2) Does the Council believe that additional population that the City will gain over the next 19 years, should be in the form of single- family detached housing or should we begin to identify additional areas for medium - density and high - density development, including annexation areas? 3) Does the City Council wish to maintain the current ratio between residential development and commercial /industrial development, and where would additional commerciaUindustrial development take place within the next 19 years? This would have an implication on where public investments would be made in sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main and street infrastructure. According to our comp plan being reviewed at the Met. Council we will need an additional 1442 acres in MUSA in the next 10 -year period. Beyond 2010, additional MUSA acreage would be coming from nearby townships. Mr. Leek reiterated the need for some consensus and direction from City Council regarding these questions over the next few, months. Discussion followed. Mr. Morke would like to see more single family and maybe townhouse development; and get away from high impact areas. Mr. Link would like more parking and play areas for developments over 12 units /acre. He suggested a hi -rise in the downtown area as something needed. The area between Valley View Road, CR -83 and CR -42 is wooded and would make an upper bracket area for single - family. Mayor Brekke suggested that the emphasis be on single - family detached residential, not focusing on population but on land use. Keep lot prices low and affordable. He noted that we have a great business park and it will be enhanced by the CR 17/Hwy 169 large planned commercial area. The Shakopee town square area is in need of planning and help and he doesn't see any other areas for commercial. Mr. Sweeney noted that no commercial and industrial would switch the tax burden to single - family. He suggested aiming for high tech industrial development. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 23, 2001 Page -2- Mr. Morke would like to see an inventory of commercial/industrial land that is available for development, including the size and who owns it. Mr. McNeill stated that availability. of land is driving the price. Some developers are going elsewhere because of the cost of land in Shakopee. This is not unique to Shakopee, but is occurring throughout the metropolitan area. Mr. Leek stated that the only areas guided for medium to high density are on either side of Marschall Road and south of Hwy 169 and areas along future CR 21 and CR 18. He identified current develop planned in these areas noting that there isn't much supply of multi - family land left in Shakopee. The multi - family development that has taken place in the last four one -half years has been 7 -11 units per acre which is not high density. Mr. Loney pointed out that single- family lots will not pay for the nee2led infrastructure improvements. He raised a couple of questions: What are we going to do with rural residential when MUSA is available? What are we going to designate for MUSA when we get the allocation? Ms_ Amundson stated that this is a question of balance. If there isn't more land available for commercial and industrial, but only single- family, more schools will be needed. Without additional commercial development, preparing budgets will become tougher. Mayor Brekke suggested matching future jobs with housing to see what we need for employees and what they need; how many acres are needed for each kind of industry. Mr. Sweeney stated that if we want to give small developers an opportunity to develop in Shakopee, we will need to make some changes to our ordinances to only accept small plats. He believes that the City can control the plat size to make development difficult for big developers. Mr. Link noted that as a small developer you live here and your roots are here so you always do a good job with developing. With a big developer the emphasis is on the bottom line_ Mayor Brekke asked if a consultant were hired to work with the comprehensive plan update, could they also assist with some of the issues discussed tonight? Mr. Leek responded that he thought so. He reiterated the need for a consultant to do an in depth analysis, noted the amount of time needed to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans and the need for a different model for public participation. It would be difficult to do with the current staff without some outside assistance. Sweeney / Morke moved to direct staff to go out for RFP's for additional consulting for the planning that we need to do. (And to look at more than one avenue t® achieve the things that each of the members on the Council think is important.) Official Proceedings of the April 23, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -3- In answer to a question from Ms. Amundson, Mr. Leek responded that the City has requested 1,442 acres for MUSA which represents a nine and one -half years of allocation, and it is largely residential. _ Motion carried unanimously. In response to a question from Mayor Brekke, Mr. Leek stated that he would like to do some research and consulting on the concept of limiting the size of plats. Mr. Morke stated that he was in support of making changes to the R -2 district to be 5.01 to 8 dwelling units per acre and R -3 to be 8.01 to 12 dwelling units per acre. He is not in support of the density bonus of two dwelling units per acre if parking and open space requirements are exceeded. Mr. Leek explained that this matter is under review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Link suggested creating another ordinance for higher density, for apartments and hi- rises, with conditions since the proposed R -2 and R -3 districts will eliminate construction of apartments_ He would like to see some redevelopment downtown to provide for a hi -rise. W. Leek stated that he will explore alternatives. Mr. Leek stated that it sounds like the current R -2 and R -3 should be thought of in terms of different densities of townhouse development districts for the newer portion of the City and to work on a different zoning classification that may allow redevelopment to occur. Mr. McNeill introduced Mr_ Rod Kelsey, who will be reviewing and updating the City's compensation and classification study. He said that Mr. Kelsey would to discuss some issues with the Council in order to know if the Council agrees with some of the assumptions that he is making_ Mr_ Kelsey stated that he finds it important to talk with the governing authority early on. He asked Council to think about giving direction on the study throughout the process through the Administrator. In the public sector, he said that it is important to emphasize the balance between the classification side and the compensation side. There is nothing incorrect with our current study, but Council has determined that it is time to look at our study because of some issues that now exist, make some refinements and determine what classifications are needed, how they are staffed, and how they are paid_ Mr. Kelsey stated that there needs to be a focus on the classifications as they relate to Minnesota pay equity law, a decision on what benchmarks will be used (including what communities will be used), and the number of steps that will be part of the pay system. W explained the steps that he will be taking throughout the study. He asked the Council to advise him if they feel it is appropriate for him to provide them with some progress at a work session. Mr. Kelsey asked for input from members of the City Council. v. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council April 23, 2001 Page -4- Mr. Sweeney stated that the study will have serious budget implications. He asked that there be a fairly clear budget impact available on Mr. Kelsey's recommendation. Mayor Brekke stated that the current 8 -step plan does not reflect accurately the amount of time that it takes an employee to become fully competent in their job and should be reflected in the study. Some positions do not depend upon the size of the City i.e.: technical positions. In these cases he hopes the study looks not only at other cities, but also on the competitive market place. In addition to complying with pay equity, he would also like an emphasis on the competitive market place for positions. He would like a procedure to allow for promotions. Mr. Morke stated that he would like to explore the possibility of bonuses and special rewards. Sweeney /Amundson moved to adjourn at 7:38 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. i d. fu ith S. Cox it Clerk Recording Secretary V S �OIU�E�T CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: May 31, 2001 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2001 based on data entered as of 5/31/2001. Attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval. Also included in the checklist are various refunds, returns, pass through, etc. totaling $38,456.03. The actual net expense amount is $310,106.91. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $348,562.94. 0 o m M M m iB d m a) C Q m T C O N m O c c o o n U r O m o � p 0 to C7 n O m Of O m o w Lo a of W 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 o d d d d o o d d o 0 o d o r O M M O r M t0 OD r r CO O r V M O M t0 tO V' to N N N o O co O N a co M N M V' w c) - - - M t` N w M r N M M N I. r r M co M r M O O 7 N to M (O N M r to O M t0 O (O N M U O z O U' Z w m (9 d z U Of O z w p J O W Z w U' Z Z p Z U J > p w Q Z w U p > - .oz w W D Q O z Y D (" U W O Fr 2 Z Q Q Of ca w K w Q U w p o w w a m 0 w w 0 Q 2 Z J W d Z Z C7 m O of Q (5 00 2 U U E O U 0 O a t ? cn w (i w a Z) °o O N M N V tO O � � M M M C � V R M p M M OD oD j o Q r r Q N N W ° co N N d r n U � � m m m p } N m � n N N (O G �2 M O O O O V N N O t0 ' m to j o Q M M C', M W o O O n n r r i M M U M (O C � � m m C13 N N N N M V O O M CO M cD V' cD 7 M M r M ' V n tO M N M M N M O M o M M M r r r m to t0 v r m o m m r m to r M m Q 0 [c m R M N V' M N � M C � C 3 Q m to N r CO O r O OD M O M O o. N M M V tO N M M M M N M V' N M x o w M to O O V O M V' N O M to t0 N M M M M (O r M M W R W O O N M '7 C M O V' n M o sT o N M N M M r to r r N cc Cl) LQ � O M M O U (3) M In CD N co O to M O M M o to O M c ti{ M to M r r M O R r r M <Y M u� N to M V K O co a- tO M M N (c m (o m to o o (o o r m m o M r m t0 o r T CO M V' `V_ N r M M M O t` M M C t0 to o M to o N 0 M m M t� (O r w t0 d W E N M C to to to n to f_ O tT O M 'V' M r C) O tT ti V N t er M M O O (`') CO to M N V' M V' r r N M c'1 CL U Q C N t0 r V' N N r cD co O r tO r O O cD O T N r a0 N N N M o } m N Q "r- m 2 O to O- O m LL M O m � M to M N M V' N M Cl) V' N N to U C to M _ c! r lqt M to M N M M to (O O (D ,c O co N M O N to M M O M O O M " r t0 O r O M to 0 - T N M r x W C O to M M N co 7 M r N o M N to N W M (O It O N M (O co co N co M n m Cl) r M— Ir M M V' r to C � tc` QU 3 U m a) C Q m T C O N m O c c o o n U r O m o � p 0 to C7 n O m Of O m o w Lo a of W 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 o d d d d o o d d o 0 o d o r O M M O r M t0 OD r r CO O r V M O M t0 tO V' to N N N o O co O N a co M N M V' w c) - - - M t` N w M r N M M N I. r r M co M r M O O 7 N to M (O N M r to O M t0 O (O N M U O z O U' Z w m (9 d z U Of O z w p J O W Z w U' Z Z p Z U J > p w Q Z w U p > - .oz w W D Q O z Y D (" U W O Fr 2 Z Q Q Of ca w K w Q U w p o w w a m 0 w w 0 Q 2 Z J W d Z Z C7 m O of Q (5 00 2 U U E O U 0 O a t ? cn w (i w a Z) °o O N M N V tO O � � M M M C � V R M p M M OD oD j o Q r r Q N N W ° co N N d r n U � � m m m p } N m � n N N (O G �2 M O O O O V N N O t0 ' m to j o Q M M C', M W o O O n n r r i M M U M (O C � � m m C13 L N N 0 O O O M Cl) N C w m 7 U 0 0 0 m t0 � M C � C J M Q in c 0 n U z Z c w 0 IL a O W p w H F z z Z C, O N N O O m D O j O d O Z O EE W Q ul � v Of w Cl to CD r o N N N N � p R ar-- C 7 } (p co N M N M L O O O N N r r C m Q 3 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [c m R M N V' M N � M C � C 3 Q m L N N 0 O O O M Cl) N C w m 7 U 0 0 0 m t0 � M C � C J M Q in c 0 n U z Z c w 0 IL a O W p w H F z z Z C, O N N O O m D O j O d O Z O EE W Q ul � v Of w Cl to CD r o W m O O m m m m m O W m m m O m m 01 m m m m m m m m m m O m m m W m m m m m m m m O CD CD CD CD CO CD CO CO CD m m O O CO CO CO CO CO CO O O O O CO CO CD 0 (D CD CO Co W CO W CO W W W W W CD A W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N O t0 O O O O O O O O O O O m m V m m A W N O CO W V m m A W N O CD m V m m A W N O CO m V m m A W N O F m m m O r O O N N N m W N co O D O co D. w N A O O m A O N m V m V CO m m W A A V m m N O m -+ W N m 3 < O O O V V W m O V O W O N m O Cn O O N W O N A p m CO W W m N m O N m V W W W q O O O O m L) CO t0 O O O V O m N O O O O N O m m v N m m N m O W O O O O O O m O m O O .�.. O O CO m W W N W O m O O O m m N O N m m V O CD W O O O O O O N O O N AS=< c c m 0 w A p v. Z K K K r A c n 0 m m 0 0 0 n m m D D< cn cn z g K x 0 co D< Z X O O X - Z G O � m X_ n n 1- T z O D Z O Z r - rr_ z - q K 1 O,. 22 m o m c, 0 0 m -n n < 0 3 �_ N - -�.: Z,'_ r O y Z m o x m Z z O O m w m O -i p` m D D m m O° Z *00 O � z O °° > m 0 fn - -p m D z Z� -4� K m X O X O D� m r-� O o QD z x m m c m r Z C r -T ip G) z m X O O D O z A = m X Z D m 0 X , X m co T> r. m --4 -, O n O D T z ai m r r p < 0 K Cl) r- m m z o CD o O 00 A 2 r m 1 ? to -H 0 0 m m z c 0 �� cn �° V) z �� m Z O Z z - i z z O -- m m x _ D G) W m i n v D O O R 2< Q O w m D � c F { O m m m T � CCo S p c O r m Z to Sp 0 O A O (A Z z o7 D r - n O m --1 < z O Z C° m m c Cl) m - n - n O C O -I Z n x C n T C m n o i m m z G) ZZ m O O m -i O O -+ O m o -i O m B - i - 0 O o m O O 6 0 0 0 0 0 m -< -+ -i -4 -< - n x A M x m-< X D D 4 O m m m m m C D m - c --I m c 0 0 O m m m m m m- 4 m 0 D m m m D m m m o D m - n c) ' m m O m O m O ' m m O -Z i n m m AO v m C C 0 C O c c K 2 2 X S D S D 0 2 D w .x 3 X� m -> q r m 2 S 2 co M (n M n - m° O m O m m Cl) o m m z z -zi ° v O m v -q -q � m m m D o O 0 0 0 Z D O m m 0 0 Co O O o mm x O O r° O m m �n v m m v m y °° o Z o m m _+ m� CO z K m m m D m m z 0 O m O o m O m n O m -4 V V< < O < O n -i 'O V! 17 Z fn � - I c C Z Z Z z OC Z � z z r 0 O Z - O O O z r r m r- _p -u (A Cn Cn m co C/) m m m �n m m m m O O O o z z Z O O m (A fn co Z Z Z c n O O O$ co (n O ' z z m m m D D z n O v � co Z z -D C f D O G) C3 co C3 rn 2 CD 0 m fn Cl) r r Cn m 0 O ?� fn m Cn m m to r to co 'o (n r O Cn cn - n -n m A m A m O o �° m y m< j m_ m{ o v m m o m m o m o m m D m m K m m O O m m m> O m m O m m z z m m K D c m C m c c m c r c c X D - - r r O D --I r 0 -+ -� o r - A m Q r- - z -m i m --4 -1 D m m m m m m m m m O r- y z x X r r 2 Z A Z z Z X r- X O O X r D A Z r x O D A O X A Z n C m T C - n > O n r c G) O O z O o 0 0 D o X c c x c D Q c 0 o m m D D m m m y m z m D D X m m A y m A D m z r w °� m m o Zv m m 0 m m D Z O O Z Z G) z G) z O Z 22 D O O Z m O Z O m G7 O O Z 0- Z co a) O O w 0 K c O m CO K� cn O cn K O co 0 z 0 w z z O O �i - i T T Z - n m -1 - n Z - n T - n - n 0 0 O o O Z O O o T -, � O O O O 0 O 0 O O O 0 n O O O n m m m m m m m m m m m m v Z d m m o N m A O t0 N CO O CO W CO W O O W cD CO c0 CD m c0 0 O N O CO 0 O 0 0 M 0 M O M O 0 t0 m O O 0 O M M�o W W V V V V V V V V .V.i V 01 CA W M M CA W O W CA W W m W M Cn W " a A A A A A A A A A [) O CO W V W W A W N O O N V CA CT A W N O tD W V CA p1 A W N O O W V W C71 A W N It A W W : W - s Cl) cn D V O W W N _ W co O A W j W co C31 co N W V to N O W W N N N N W m V A N M j N m 0 N m t0 O r) WO W O (p W CO V V O CT . N V O W N O O O N N N 9) O V O. O t0 O O O W W P CO ?. O t0 N O) O V in ' in - O O V O W O Cn M O) O W O O O O O Ol O O V N CO N CD CT O O i CT O O N O CO W O O PS V O N 6600 W O O O O O W O Cn O O A O O W O O Cn Cn [T (I� O N O O m v 0° 0 v O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 .O. m 0 -w M ❑M7 -m - > 0 0 Z Z Z m 0� p� M p o z 0 K z. S D z W -1 z a m m m m �S m O m n A Z -I W W o ; -u -I x o -4 z D 3 c z K -I .� m m m r T z O m O x x m o 0 Cl) 3 a' C o �' '� z z W m j D O- -z n z x x� z.D z t ai v m z. M 0 A m D p CD m z o D o n m a' mI n �' z x m c< z m ¢° z m 0 o_ 5 z O 0 o D CO z z ;c Z y 1 �,. O O o � D t � �{ C/) �i m - M. D m m x m 'O m m D O 0 m m c D m m o cn < x o 0 M 0i X z O C U ' O� z 0 m i m m o 0 2 � 2 - � W p D W z o 0 z ° n Z n O o w m --1 o z O -° m Gzi D m A O 5 z o D -o � o D O O o co m m m n O m -zi i- -ri D � z - m i j° _ 3 z -0 p O O ° o x o { -1 o m z m m o o O O Cl) m r 2 O n 00 m O n O � z z O O v W O o 0 0 m® K m D o o K m O a a D O o m m m O o 0 0 0 o w O O O O x n O a m m C = z m m 0 C ' Di C C O O p m c c c m 0 C c G r S I R� z r m T m n z m o r r r r m O v z a m n D m n m O A n m 'D c (7 m o m m v -D O m -o .� 0 0 0 - i --4 - A � x m x z m x x U) X m r z A i -i D M D a D a m 1 D D D D m m ,n D z z m> O z c Z -{ m Z D m n O O 1 D o i< m m 0 K W < << m K m? m U) w m D v z m m o U) co c c D D p m D c -i a o -i v --1 D v v D v m c D Cl U v 0 mm m Z j r C D D Zi ' 0 0 w D 1 z D r- � x D �� � r D m O O m m m z m z m m z m m m in °° m m 0 r m m m 0 Z c r C r m to o O (/) to D D m m D m z -r l m l m -+ `i Z m m m o m� z D z z Z Z L z O O T - W I m O m O O z� 0 --1 55 m m m= z O m m m 0 m 5 55 m O -q m Di O N o m m v o n o W m m m -< n n m O m m m z m m z o m z z - z K z m p K m m p X 0 K n K K O m N x r- m m m D o D 0 0 m tit D '�' y xW D �t m =i a z c z = o a a v m K m Z Z-A `2 D ITI = i 1 z N z m n D O D - n D Z D O Z m D x Q > Z o O D D G) M z Z m z z z 0 ( > z O z m o< N z m ° M D O° z O M a Z v O ° m m D m v z m z °° m D m z z z D z > C z 3 z j m z m Z MM m m m y z i z zi z y z z m m� 1 z < m D - + '_I D ii - z'I O m r m j r- r. m m m z D K K m K K KZi -i Z m z m z z '-I D D D z z m m m m f K m zzz Z --I -i -i sn- 0 I rn 0 CT C7 rn m O r 0 G7 N N O O O O O o c O o T =r co x D m O y m CD m m � d w m o m N CD N A O rn C M N rn O m M rn ca in a. z z z z z z z 2 � 2 2 2 2 2 w F �- w �� z U 2 g z z F F ~ 2 J z W Z W W Z z z J Z w Z � LIJ - w Z w w Z W Z w W W z F- F z - w z Z w F- W W F- w z 0 w W W W w W U` w U w w 0 C7 w W J Z Z W W W �Z W w U' W w w w Z CD 2 w (1 Z W w w W Q Z Q O W W ¢ Q w Q Z w w 2 2 w Z O Z W w W Z W OQ O W Q w W ¢ F Q w U` U Q p N O O Q Q z Q z Q ¢ O Q O G Q ¢ p Q Q¢ U (9 ¢ O w Q Q O O Q z O J z K O O O O Q U Z Z 7 Z� Z Q M ¢ O Q� u. ¢ Q O ¢ N a a W tll a � = U W w U W 0 w w w U S 2 JQ a w w U U W Z W 2 2 0 W 0' w -J w w a) F } x U w Y E- } Q W Z U W W o w F - D - J j W W W W U Z O J y U Q Q Q Z W it W m N S w F _ J U w w w S U W U J Q U U J IL n F U U 0-� J } O W' U J U w W w W U 3 O O w F-- ¢ O w w O O z w w O O O Q w W O¢ O Q fq .O m Z J F w a o m > - U U W W U- m a V �? m¢ a x w w m?} w U z w m?? a a 2 iL a w a w <? Q — U m m O ZZ y to C7 0 0 ¢ v z Z z w Z 2 Z_Z O U w w K } v U F- o U w m m m U m p w 0 (9 w w F z O U U m O m w U U w U w w w w w U O z z W O O M F- 0_ w a d d a w F- v U) U a Of z w w w Cl) ¢ w Q F= a� d D D S F- S S S 7 F- S2 , J J 0 S w ¢ F- F' J W W Z � (n fn G m m m m m m m m u] m m m W g M V5 W m W u7 w m U m > > m o>> z J o >> m m v a z N 0 O F O O O O r z CL a O z¢ m z} z F F- D } > > � z z O m z y z U z z z z U m w F z U w w U U m w m w O m O Z FQ- W FQ- kQ- FQ- m FQ=Q W Q F w W Z Z w Q W Z 2 Z W F FQ- w Z w W W' x W S z K p Q w W > W �K = W W S W j > Z Z Z U W W 7 Z Q S tL > S w LL U Z U _ Cl) W U W W p O- F- W W F- W p w O 2 W d J S O F- O D o W' F- F- LL F- D O - F- W S d W ¢ m O F- 0¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0¢ F - O W W W O W m W Q 0<<I--O Q O F - O o o U m o J o O m U U W ? U F U J W w m � O O } O d J a6 Z U J i S U- O O V U U :. Z w Q Z ? 2 ' w S Q F O " Z Z m w O m Z z F Z 2 F W U U (A w J w } - (A F � O O O w m W N w U 0 O _ Z S 0 W � J U Z w� > w J W' Z U x U) U Z z O J U w d Q O Q z_� h O( .Z W _� K Q Fw- U 0 j Q Z - > F - ` 2- =..K,K Z Q w Q x U Z U ¢ m W Z Q m O OF _E O> W -W ( o }} Q W O,� w O O -w z w w (! ~ 2 m Q W F w_ Z W -z 0 Z-i z w x O U Q " x ¢ w w w o U w z x>> w :2 OU >- ¢Q w m W Q a O 0 o z w -0 z x -z m w O Q .w U m > X o W z z X S m O;C7 C7 z ni 0 Y J D O Q W W ¢ w w J m F- Z- O O W Q 2' Z Z O W w O m x Z Y Z W Q U LL. Z F- m 0 W S Q w J O K w W Q W S D O _O Z F- m W Q W W z d -W W w w w W Z 0 0 0 U W W > w W LL . O (D - G9 U' 0 U' -0 2 S x -x Y Z z z Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J J J J O of rn O O O O M O O w O M O O O O O w M O O O M O O m v m O R O O UU w O O tD -T O rn O t0 R Uf O R N O O' t t0 O c (0 O N O w 7 O tU w "t O U� (D of f O rn O O N O O O CO N G '- O 0 O o w lU N O h N O r.- N !U O rn w 0 ) 0 N 0 N N b CV co w N O w O �J N w w O V E UJ tO w m O - N w rn �- CO O w N N R N co C N n O O n N N N M ili O (D co O -4 O 10 C Q GD O t1J n N ti f0 co co h fr.- t� N t M � I) C �- M r (O V O co O N r N e- O O N N (7 O J (7 w w U 0 Y N M V m co I.- O M O N M V M O ti O M O N M V lA M n O rn O O N w M M M M M m M M M U O M M w O M w O m W rn m m m w m m m O O O O O O O O O O �- N N N � m M V C 'IT V R <f -�r V R C C C V 'r V L rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn U cc rn m (o co rn m co co co m cc co � rn rn m co co � rn rn m co co co co � cc rn m co co co m (o m cc m rn rn m Q N m O � () m a F- z z z I-- z w F- w w w z 2 F- Z Z Z Z w Iz ¢ ¢ Z a r F ¢ w O W - w Z Z z I - ¢ w J J J w J Z H J ~ J F Z H O f., w Q (9 W 00 W W W w z N K W p w Z w W W q z Z z Y Q ¢ w z w � 0 Q w O j WZ w 2 W Q z w 2 W W W O w c W O E W W Q w Z z O W O W Z a U` Q LL O o o w C7 > O Q O 0 O a W p O Z O S p O K p C7 2 C� g Q Q Z m Q z z O Z w¢ z¢ LL p I Q CL Z I ¢ Z LL z 11 0 0 8 W O Z O¢¢ z< w O w g 3¢ o QQ w w co p z p w g w w 3 w 3 U W a z W w to w a V U z U w K Y Y w z U 0wz�oY�0�z� &����Ja.0pz< c w��¢ UO�oRw¢J m r Q w Q ai O° z> w W W > m w g w W Q z F x S 0 W p z> m vJ ¢ w¢ -, z W y o m¢ n. W m d W n. Jn W U W W U W U? w d d U S d S U LL a d LL m U U W w n. 2 d U ti LL p m O O Q Y m O O Z Z_ S Z z Z z m L Z Z U U w U z Q w 5 5 �w w W Z w��w w 5 0 O O T z Q z w i¢ a a m~ a x z J a } J o m v z ¢ F- w¢ w Cl) (L ¢ w w a H N ¢ z z D- m o a tm7i a. z • y F C z ° z Q w (� WO F a tW.7 I.- } z 0 z z z a z_ K m w U w w p w ¢ O w H W U o ¢ F Q a ¢¢ z 0 x H¢ g z z f z w Q ~ ¢ K x m w LL W w of a w U z p z O w w 0 U { O F - w U i w >>> m m 0 2 W? C7 W x O a z z t o C O W F W D p LL Q p t w w r w 0 p o¢¢ S p H a m z 6. F W O 0 ¢ w O U m U p m f O U Q O U¢¢ r® r¢¢ w O o m m O o a w O O o p o¢ g E: O u O z z O> w O O O U z w w w x = 0 z r Z 0) I- W p Q a W O Q O Y Z W Y F 0 a- W K m Z S F- m 0 Y U m a K Q }� Q U S 2 -J O °� m 0 co m~ N 0 Z O W Z _ z 7 0 1_ H Z W Z O o m Z O ( } U z m x U Q O 0 0 O C 00 w CL co LL x °9 Z Q Z p_ U Y f= 0 d w W Q d x w w w 2 0 2 I - W t ? O z z F K w Q W FS OLL at 92Z O Y = - z.w U -w 0 U w� m W-i W w w U Q Ij a Z O w Z C7 Z w p O O w O r m W Z U > x Y p W K ¢ p Q N t> >> U J J`= Y Y .lA.Z = .� I- F- W m Z Z J W p K S LL Y F- U Q W U d m O W J J W J J W „Q z S x F - > o Z m a a > w .w ~;�. -> >'w -� �w � w O w w= � >- ¢ w W rn w w w 0 N w 0 m W LL x 0 0 tr W z z z z n x u� 0 0 0 LL �. ¢ w O � w w w w w w J >> O O> 06 Q U U U U w j w g g g z z z z O o a a a a a O CJ x m x tr x m m m m m m U) CD N O O O O m O W C of O O N N O O O O N O m m O O O O O m O O O O O O N CD ID f7 m O h O O O t CD O O LO D? O C cD O O I� O ('J O C'7 ID V' O 4J f0 CO W A N O O to O O N 7 N h O C19 O 30 C, m � N O O Q W CO m N N N C r co O r N N r N V M � r r m m 1 V m O) N � CO O V E (D 7 N N_ N N N O- N N ch m m N r N C co O Q O O O N N O O J O W U h C O O r- O m O N M sf W CD N O m O N C7 ? O U) O m C V ? V' O en O O O V C V 7 V <T V K 'c1' st V V 7 V V' V C C V w mmmmm � m m m � mmmmmmmmmmmmm m mmmmmm CO m CO m N 61 M m l9 to W m W y W 5 o m Y � Q Y = U � L LL U �U C 7 U 0 0 O O N N O J (7 W W Y U U) W r r r r r W w w w w W W w w w ¢ Q ¢ ¢ Q U U Q Q Q Q Q W W 2 g g 2 M Z z r O O LL LL Z W Z W Z W' w W r W W W r W Z W r Q O W r W F H w W U w Z 2 w Z Q W w W W w w K w W W Z W C W w W of w 0> Q F W o o W o o 0 d (9 w z W F z z 2 O Z w `c C7 LL Q O o z z J Z Z 0 Z Z Z W Z Q r O Z Q w¢ o z 0 Z Q Q w o Z o o¢ W o Q W Z O Q W ¢¢ O O Z m J z U Q¢ 2 z Q 2 Q 2 Q¢ O z Q x¢ U = Z z M w d Y a R¢ w 0 o V Y U w w o w z of 2- w 2 z U g y U K= O U 1 J w W U J w J U U J (r U W O p W D W J W [� M (D Q W X W 0 W W W d d W W M U W U M a N W a a LL W 0 W U O ZZ U) c a U y d Cl W o W ¢ O x U U U O S Q U Q w W W > w (D 0 Z z Z Z Q U r z W W J W 0 w Z J W 0 �, D W W J = J = W J = r z d W d W Z) d W 0 OU W w w ct) (� r U) M r U r W W U` W Cl) W LL O > > z > U W z_ J v O O o o? z rn r 0 a� O_ 0 r z Q w w z Z (A W J U Z U Q r Z U w U W U U > (n (n w Q= Q' K W W' W' r W' Q Z �- X11 W ¢ r W M W Q N W' M M Q U W W LL W W J W r J w w W' J LL M z U = V) W U U r W K> M Z r 2 Z) M W Z Z U M W� Z U Cl) (D W() (� w= W' K U W w o r O Q r o r W o w r W o O J w z J W p W r>> O O 2 0 0 0 2 O Q O O W¢ 0 0¢ U W J w w J (� O W W W w U U U r d W Z O w O Z Q Z U w 0 J W Q U r co z r U J Z = U cf U Z pA Q w M U r LL W w Z U U a (:� Z Z Z O 0 O d J W r o _l U O W QWK Y Q W O g z U} - D Y E Z 2 W 1W- a U Z W' O U o Z 2 w Q m a CO W J O Y Z = 0 U Y [ll (A Z - O D w W )- W Q W Z >� O D U w 2 � a a z O o W= Ou w Q r j- M MW J W 5 Z 1 0 F Q O Z W U W W r W J W J U = O Z 2 111 O W r r r r U Q W 2 2 O W Z Q O U 0 0 0 O U Y Z (n m rn rn m m m m r r r r r r r >> x> J J m U) o w 0 I-- a c 0 U O M tD 1n O O O V O O O M O M N O O O O O O O N M O c0 O O O C c O w O n m O O CO O tD O M LL tD M n O O O O (D N n V O O V O N O Q) M N n N N tD 7 O O r (p m m O O N 0 O n tD n n M O O N tD tD n N V (D O N M M M M Q D) O O (D O O r r N M r N r r cc M O r M M N M r O tD ¢ co cD M M cl M m 0 V tD (D n cD m O N M V tD (D n aD 41 O N M w tD O n m w rn O N rn rn M (� co to m (D co to n n n n n n n n n n m co co co m co co m co rn m .c rn w m w rn rn rn rn w w m o w o o o rn o w rn rn w o o w rn w rn m rn U co O O (D O O O O O O co O O O O O co O tD w O O O c0 (D co tD O co ID N O O � M IT (0 (n a a W m a E o Q U U U N LL O V U 7 U V o O O M O O T Lo O U O I- `7 M m N I- c co 0 0 I- O o n 0 O W ui M e- rn" rn U� 0 Il- V O O O V N O U� N O M I-- V O N O m N O � (O O m M m N U V' m R (O m E O) m I-- W m R m m I t0 � to M V O ID Q N i1- O I.- v m m M d' M m O N V N N r M to O z w ~ 0 0 m LL L I-- Y F H W U W W W ~ Z W Z Z C. WWWO-2 LL LL O Z CD D U >> > LL' 3t w O ZO w 0 Z N CD U w U t 0 W W o W LL O Z Z D U = 0 Z) LL O �_ w U _U m M 2 LL m w E w W- W 0 z w w w a 0 p U- U C) Q rn m (+ m� w w 5� w O o ° w r' °' a � t= .°-' w r- U ( n 0 0 0 0 uo m 0 O N O O O O O �n O (� E O N M OR '0'4 N N O O O N V O O O O O O M t� I- R f` In m n O m O m U O N O N N O O M O M O 7 O C' 0 V O O O O O O 0 O O I CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner H SUBJECT: Vacation of Easement within Canterbury Park 1 st Addition MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION: R.J. Ryan Construction Company has submitted an application for vacation of an easement within Canterbury Park V Addition. The proposed area for vacation is located within Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park I" Addition. Please find attached as Exhibit 1, communication from the applicant requesting that the public hearing be continued to June 19 to allow for additional time to research alternatives. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed vacation at its meeting of May 17, 2001, and recommended denial of the vacation. A copy of the staff memorandum prepared for the Planning Commission has been attached for the Council's information. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue the public hearing to June 19, 2001 to allow the applicant additional time to research alternatives. 2. Approve the proposed vacation. 3. Deny the proposed vacation. 4. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to continue the public hearing to June 19, 2001, and move its adoption, u ie Klima Planner H 0 Acc\2001 \cc0605 \vacqulityfrldiftcont. doc 1100 Mendota Heights Road a Mendota H eights, MN = i zu [� I • (651) 681 -0200 a Fax (651) 681 -0235 May 31, 2001 City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Attn: Julie Klima Re: Vacation of Easement for Quality Forklift 587 Citation Drive Shakopee, MN Dear Julie: Please consider this letter ourformal request to continue the public hearing until June 19 to allow for consideration of the additional information. Please don't hesitate to call with your questions or comments regarding this request. Sincerely, R.. YAN CON CT ION, INC. Jim aValle JL:jk Quality Forklift -ietN- easement An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum 01 -073 Shakopee Planning Commission Julie Klima, Planner Vacation of Easement within Canterbury Park l Addition ETING DATE: May 17, 2001 Site Information Applicant: R. J. Ryan Construction, Inc. Site Location: Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park 1' Addition Adjacent Zoning: North: Heavy Industrial (I2) Zone South: Heavy Industrial (12) Zone West: Heavy Industrial (I2) Zone East: Heaw Industrial (I2) Zone Introduction The City Council has received a request from RJ. Ryan Construction, Inc. to consider the vacation of a portion of drainage and utility easement located within Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park l Addition (see Exhibit A). Discussion The City Council will hold a public hearing on June 5, 2001, to consider this vacation request. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is needed for the vacation process. The applicant is planning to proceed with a construction project should the vacation for this area be acted upon favorably by the City of Shakopee. Other agencies, city departments and utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation. Staff has received comment from the Engineering Department recommending denial of the request. Please refer to the attached memo from the Assistant City Engineer for additional information. Alternatives 1 _ Recommend to the City Council the approval of the vacation. 2. Recommend to the City Council denial of the request. 3. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 2, recommending denial of the easement vacation request to the City Council. Action Requested Offer and pass a motion recommending to the City Council denial of the easement vacation. s:\boaa- pc\2001 \0 5- 17\vacqualityforkli ft. doc P Vacation of Easement for Quality • LLJ Zoning Boundary — Parcel Boundary I ' PETE S PRICE & SAMSON LAND §URVEYORS LTD. 124 00 PRINCETON AVENUE SOUTH SAVAGE UINNESOTA 812-890-929 PR OPOS ED / BL CANTE PA RK A DDITION 0 1' = 50' SCALE IN FEET N39 20.00 -Point of beginning intersection of Southeasterly and Southwesterly 20' Drainage & Utility Easement Most southerly corner of Lot 4 PROPOSED VACATION The Northwesterly 15.00 feet of the 20.00 foot drainage and utility easment lying adjacent to the southeasterly line of Lot 4, Block 1, Canterbury Park 15T Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, which lies 15.00 feet southeosterly and adjacent to the following described line. Commencing of the most southerly corner of said Lot 4; thence North 39 degrees 08 minutes 57 seconds West, on assumed bearing along the southwesterly line of said Lot 4, o distance of 20.00 feet; thence northeasterly 20.00 feet along a non — tangential curve concave to the northwest, said curve has o central angle of 03 degrees 31 minutes 26 seconds, a radius of 325.27 feet and a chord which bears North 49 degrees 58 minutes 41 seconds East, to the intersection of the southwesterly and southeosfer /y 20 foot drainage and utility easments, and said point being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continue 126.40 feet along lost described curve said curve has o central angle of 22 degrees 15 minutes 51 seconds and a radius of 325.27 feet; and said line there terminating. I hereby Certify that this plan, report or specification was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. p As surveyed by us this 5T H day of H 20 0 1 Minnesota License No. t�g� .3` o°�\e oe >A �c \ �r 1 20.00 p =0331 '26' R= 325.27 Chrd Brg.= N49 hry �� 0 1 City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Julie Klima, Planper II FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Easement Vacation — Quality Forklift DATE: May 9, 200 After reviewing the above referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: The proposed vacation is for an area that has had drainage problems. The lots adjacent to the existing railroad tracks have drained along the tracks causing erosion and causing soil deposits that have been as high as the railroad tracks. During a recent site visit, deposits of sand were observed, which indicates the past problems have not been totally corrected. Typically the City requires a 10 -foot drainage and utility easement along all rear lot lines. When two lots abut each other, the result is a 20 -foot drainage and utility easement. Even though the easements are recorded on plats as drainage and utility easements, these rear lot easements are used almost exclusively for drainage. Because of the railroad tracks, the only drainage easement available is the 20 -foot easement located on the applicant's lot. Staff believes the proposed vacation would restrict the options available to correct any drainage problems that exist today or any problems that may develop in the future. Therefore, staff recommends that the 15 -foot (wide) vacation be denied, unless the applicant submits information that shows the existing easement is not needed to serve the drainage of the developments upstream. Staff also believes that any existing drainage problems would be made worse by vacating the existing easement. 0 o. The Chamber / V 5hakaaee Area Chamber of Cammerce / Conventinn ST �Lj Shakopee City Council Members: It is the intention of the Shakopee Convention & Visitors Bureau to provide the Council with quarterly reports containing financial information and summary documents for the Bureau's marketing efforts. These reports will begin this first quarter of 2001. The Shakopee Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) was established as a division of the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce. The mission of the Shakopee CVB is to advance the economic impact of tourism in the Shakopee area by attracting visitors, conventions, meetings, events, and trade shows, with emphasis on off - season tourism activities. In short, the primary purpose of the organization is to market the community of Shakopee. The CVB is governed by a Board of Advisors and the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. The CVB is also fortunate to have Deb Amundson serve as a liaison to the City Council on the CVB Board of Advisors. It is our hope that by providing quarterly reports on CVB activities, the CVB can foster a better understanding of the organization's marketing efforts on behalf of the community of Shakopee. Enclosed is a summary of first quarter financial and marketing activities for the Shakopee Convention & Visitors Bureau. If the Council members have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, Carol Schultz Executive Director M. Sh a k opee , 5537 Phone: 952-445-1660 Fax. 952-445 o, 8 SHAKOPEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (CVB ACCOUNT) Statement of support, revenue and expenses For the first quarter of 2001 ending March 31, 2001 Footnote: In tourism revenue and expenses are very seasonal_ The highest time for revenue receipts is July, August and September. Expenses are high the first four months of the year, primarily for design and printing of visitor guides, advertising, and postage to generate business for the year. This year the first quarter has a higher expenditure than usual, due to a special winter promotion into 4 different market areas. With the budget being established far before the beginning of the year there were some marketing funds put into the 2001 budget as un- designated, awaiting approval of the special promotion. Year -to -date 2001 budget INCOME Tourism grants $ 1,202 $ 15,792 Partnership 12,500 75,000 Hotel/Motel local lodging tax (3 %) 27,360 176,000 (from Shakopee and Savage) Interest Income 663 2,555 $ 41,725 $ 270,197 EXPENSES General Administrative Expenses $ 9,875 $ 34,865 Payroll Expenses 23,571 97,625 Building Expenses 2,651 10,675 Marketing Expenses 73,349 125,500 $ 109,446 $ 268,665 Footnote: In tourism revenue and expenses are very seasonal_ The highest time for revenue receipts is July, August and September. Expenses are high the first four months of the year, primarily for design and printing of visitor guides, advertising, and postage to generate business for the year. This year the first quarter has a higher expenditure than usual, due to a special winter promotion into 4 different market areas. With the budget being established far before the beginning of the year there were some marketing funds put into the 2001 budget as un- designated, awaiting approval of the special promotion. To follow are marketing summaries prepared on a monthly basis for the Shakopee Convention & Visitors Bureau Advisory Board. For the CVB, the goal is to generate requests, which convert into overnight rooms stays in Shakopee and Savage hotels /motels. The summary charts that follow provide detailed analysis of requests received by the CVB. The summary charts provide a gauge by which the CVB can measure its marketing and cost - per - inquiry on a monthly and annual basis. Below is a brief explanation of each chart: 2001 Media: Response Distribution -All Inquiries Compares the number of requests received by phone versus those received by email and those received via advertising sources. Those inquiries resulting directly from advertising are titled "Leads ". The numbers shown are cumulative for the year -to -date. These totals allow the CVB to analyze the quantities of materials being supplied and the comparative ratios for print versus electronic media. 2001 Inquiry Distribution: Phone & Email Request Total Details total monthly requests resulting from phone and email requests (combined). Only phone and email requests that require a mailed response are included in this chart. This analysis provides the CVB with an overview of requests made directly to the Bureau office. Displaying requests received by month also illustrates weaker inquiry and /or travel times during the year. 2001 Inquiry Distribution: B Sy tate This chart breaks out the number of requests received by state or province. Only requests via phone or email requiring a mailed response are totaled. The state comparison allows the Bureau to target marketing in stronger or weaker states in relation to advertising and promotion. 2001 Inquiry Distribution: Response to Media Displays a comparison of print and electronic media response ratios. The chart provides a visual summary of which print and electronic media are producing the most requests. Analyzing the results shown enables the CVB to tailor marketing efforts and advertising to those publications and outlets that consistently result in higher request rates. 2001 Inquiry Distribution: Gender This chart provides a visual comparison of inquiries based on gender. Research has shown that the individual who makes the inquiry most often plans the vacation or trip. Tracking gender allows the Bureau to customize advertising and promotions based on the perceived wants, desires, and motives of a gender - specific traveler in order to generate increased travel to Shakopee. 2001 Email Inquiry Tabulation Details actual numbers of emails received on a monthly basis by the Bureau. The number reflects both direct (immediate email reply) and mailed response email requests. The number of emails received monthly illustrates weaker travel times during the year and also reflects any increase in views of our website due to advertising or promotions. 0 1 1 1' 3 /. •6 ' 0 ',.-; E cm • S 1. C\j 7 0 in ED • 1 0 r vi 0 N O N O N C O Q. N O L �L W ^ W O ^ O W W U O W 11 DISTRIBUTION: *PHONE REQUESTS & EMAIL REQUESTS REQUIRING MAIL RESPONSE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC state_ total:; AK 0 AL 1 1 AR 0 AZ 0 CA 1 1 4 6 CO 1 2 1 4 CT 1 1 FL 1 1 2 GA 1 1 HI 1 1 IA 6 7 14 27 ID 0 IL 3 8 11 IN 1 1 KS 1 2 3 KY 0 LA 0 MA 0 MD 1 1 ME 0 I 1 1 2 MN 12 9 27 48 MO 1 1 2 MS 0 T 0 NC 1 1 2 ND 3 6 9 NE 1 5 6 NH 0 NJ 1 1 NM 0 NY 1 2 3 OH 3 1 1 5 OK 1 1 2 OR 1 1 2 PA 1 1 2 4 Sc 1 1 SD 2 1 8 11 TN 0 TX 1 1 2 UT 0 VA 1 1 WA 1 1 WI 5 10 19 34 WY 0 0 ALB 1 1 2 BC 1 1 MAN 2 2 9 13 ONT 1 1 2 4 QUE 0 SAS 0 OTHER 0 total 42 50 123 Revised 04.02.01 *PHONE REQUESTS & EMAIL REQUESTS REQUIRING MAIL RESPONSE m •; ' • co ITT o LO i6 cn a a; l l . . ' a I r O CD O 9 Q� n O J N O F :tF CO) _ O (� a . ' .; E a, • O c6 (D cn i . Z U (D - • .1 •' >, •• ° 06 0 D O E 4— O L- CD � r O CD O 9 Q� n O J N O F :tF CO) _ O (� a . ' .; 0 a, • O c6 (D i Z U (D - • .1 •' >, •• ° CC D LO *%../ r O CD O 9 Q� n O J N O F :tF CO) _ O (� a . ' � O O c6 (D Z U (D ° D *%../ U L O (n M u I s r O r 0 J - r O N O d N d8 � � G d ¥ k / CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of VALLEY GREEN CORPORATE CENTER 1 st ADDITION MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 1112101 • 1 •, Shakopee Crossings has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed VALLEY GREEN CORPORATE CENTER 1 st ADDITION. The proposed plat is located south of STH 169 at its intersection with CSAH 83. The public hearing on this request was originally opened on March 8, 2001, and was continued several times to allow additional deliberation related to the CSAH 16 realignment, Southbridge/Dean Lake Area Master Park and Trail Plan. The public hearing was closed on May 19, 2001, and the Planning Commission recommended approval. A copy of the March 8 report to the Commission is attached for the Council's information. There were a number of conditions precedent to review of this preliminary plat by the City Council. These conditions have been met, or where appropriate, incorporated into the draft resolution of approval. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5539, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of VALLEY GREEN CORPORATE CENTER 1st ADDITION subject to the conditions contained therein; 2. Approve Resolution No. 5539 with revised conditions. 3. Deny the requested preliminary plat, and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with that action. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. • 1 • • 1 1 1 • The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions as presented in the draft resolution. 1 9 1 0 Offer a motion consistent with Alternative 1 or 2. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2001 \0605 \ppvalleygreencorp 1 st.doc is � y�� ► ►� ' y 9 UW l l " I Offis PO O MT 91 1 .Gi;I ADDI TION WHEREAS, Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, applicants and property owners have made application for preliminary plat approval of VALLEY GREEN CORPORATE CENTER lst ADDITION; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as found on Exhibit A, attached; and WHE REAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the preliminary plat on March 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to the conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request at its meeting of June 5, 2001. 09 0 2 1MMU" a Malmo II • • That the preliminary plat of VALLEY GREEN CORPORATE CENTER 1 ST 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. The applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the plat accurately reflects the applicant's ownership, or the plat be revised to reflect corrected ownership. Execution of a Developers Agreement for; 1. Construction of public improvements, including Corporate Center Drive, Corporate Center Way, and Corporate Center Circle. 2. The granting of public easement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, for the establishment of a public trail corridor or other appropriate public purposes, as well as the construction of the trail itself either adjacent to or within 150 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHW) of Dean Lake. 3. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 5. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 6. 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. 7. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, trunk water fees security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. 8. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. Park dedication shall be due, and shall take the following forms; a) Cash in lieu of land. The payment of the cash dedication may be deferred to the time of issuance of building permits, in which case the amount due shall be at the rate in force and effect in the adopted City Fee Schedule. 10. The open space /park area shown as a part of the plat shall be dedicated to the City. II. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; The applicant, as well as their successors or assigns in interest, shall work with the City to maintain the shore impact zone. In addition, the applicant, successors or assigns, the City, and the City's ecological consulting team shall identify locations for, and sizes of an additional "ecological buffer zone." B. A restrictive covenant shall be filed confirming the right of The City to require the submission of additional traffic analysis regarding the potential impact of future phases of development on the functioning of access points serving the development on CSAH 83 and 16. Should such analysis reveal that level of service (LOS) maybe less than "D," the City may and will restrict development types that would result in a level of service of less than D. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of VALLEY GREEN CORPORATE CENTER 1 ST 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. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 5 .� �.... .M 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 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 corner 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 E, Registered Land Survey Number 172, Scott County, Minnesota. Ci�c h. b LL C� M 1. Introduction This document is intended to provide general project design and construction information for the grading of Valley Green Corporate Center. The project area consists of approximately 320 acres located in the southeast quadrant of Trunk Highwav 169 and CSAH 83. The overall grading of the site was separated into two phases to accommodate the required realignment of CSAH 16 in the southwest comer of the property prior to the completion of Phase 2 grading operations. 2. Grading Grading for this project consists of Phase 1 grading, which includes the area generally north of the existing CSAH 16 al bgnment. Phase 2 grading includes the grading of the southwest comer of the site to the proposed CSAH 16 realignment. Site grading includes the overall grading of the site, including the excavation and /or fill of boulevards, street sub grade, and storm water ponds. Final storm water pond locations constructed were revised from the original design to minimize the impact of rock excavation, with the final locations shown on revised Sheet 5R of the grading plan and on Sheet 3 of the preliminary plat. In accordance with City of Shakopee requirements, storm water ponds A, B, and C were lined with 18 inches of clay material. For storm water ponds D, E, F, and G, an 18 -inch sand liner was constructed. The decision to line these ponds with sand was made based on the presence of the groundwater table and the inability to maintain a clay liner in these storm water ponds. All storm water ponds were constructed with a 10:1 bench at the proposed normal water level. 3. Street Design Information Proposed street sections were based on traffic studies completed for the project and are shown on the grading plan and preliminary plat. The proposed pavement sections are based on an R -value of 50 and projected traffic volumes for the project. The location of a 10 -foot wide bituminous path is identified on the preliminary plat document. 4. Utility Design Information Sanitary sewer and watermain alignments to serve the development have been identified on the preliminary plat document. Proposed alignments include the extension of 10 -inch PVC sanitary sewer and 12 -inch DIP watermain from existing sanitary sewer and watermain located at the north property line east of Corporate Center Circle. Ten -inch PVC sanitary sewer is also proposed to be extended from proposed trunk sanitary sewer along CSAH 83 at Corporate Center Drive. At this time, sanitary sewer and water service locations for individual lots have not been identified and will need to be reviewed Pale 1 of 2 C-kVoM SKIIProfil�� \jon \Temporary Interne[ Filcs lContcnLIE5\8X '- LC765\ProjDcsign- snm.wpd at the time of final design with respect to size and location. 5. Storm Sewer Design Information Drainage for the project area has been designed to accommodate the runoff for a 10 -year rainfall event. A copy of the storm sewer drainage areas and storm sewer design is being provided for use in the preparation of construction plans. The storm sewer has been designed to collect surface runoff from the street rights -of -way and to accommodate surface runoff from adjacent sites as identified on the storm sewer drainage area map. The stormwater drainage system consists of the following components: • 100 -year emergency overland overflow from Pond A to the northwest at elevation 750.0. • Pond A, B and C were designed to function as a single equalizing pond. • Pond C contains a wetland mitigation cell with a berm separating the two -cells at elevation 750.0. The wetland cell should not bounce more than 1 foot in the 10 -year storm event per Wetland Conservation Act Rules. • Stormwater Ponds D, E, F and G will provide treatment to NURP recommendations prior to discharging water to Deans Lake. • Discharge rates from Valley Green Corporate Center do not have to meet the 1/3 or 1 /10 cfs /acre restrictions as Dean's Lake and the K -Mart Linear Pond north of TH 169 provide regional rate control. • The 100 -year HWL for the area downstream of TH 169 (K -Mart Linear Pond) is approximately 948.0. Page 2 of Z C. \WINNI \ProMcsVon \Temporary Intemet Files\ Contcnt. IE5\8X2LCI65\ProiDesign- sum.wpd 77 _ - r,-EVIEW PEMIOD: Febnlary 6, 2000 — April 9, 2001 yrr r • ' , • Applicant: Valley Green Business Par'_t Limited Pars er ship Location: South of STH 169; north of CS �� 16; ai CSAH 33 Current Zoning: Business Par'. (BP) and Highway Business CB -1) Ad;acent `_'cnina: North: HwI. 169 South: A •citural Preservation (kG); Rural Residential (RR) East: Low Density Residential Zone West: A Preservation (AG); Rural Residential CRR) Adopted Comprehensive Plan: Business Park; Commercial Fnis site is wimm the MU SA boundary. Exhibits: A Applicant's narrative B - SPUC comment C- AUAR mitigation plan E_ Existing conditions map Valley Green Business Park Lir.it Palmersiup has made appllcation for preliminary plat approval of Valley Green Corporate Center 1 Addition. A copy of the applicant's narrative is attached. Transportation: Drainage: Planning staff has spoken with Kevin Bizaike, Manager for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (L- FWD)_ He did receive a copy of the drainage information from STS Consultants, LTD., and is reviewing it Staff e°pe= to receive those comments early the week of yfarch 4`�. City engrr Bering s' has not provided any specinc comments draina regarding ge at this time. As a result of these faces, planning staff has not incorporated any additional, spe�.Ec recomameadatiers re ar "L-:a drainage at this time_ Parti LDediCa. - JOn: T"ne submission indicates treat an area totaling 10-78 acres is proposed for park dedication. It appears that much or , of that is weTdand area. Neither the Par'< and Recreation Ad visory � �+ 'P ��j or Na_ :ral Resources D � e or have reviewed or made recommendations on the B Q e �] v `l 1 tv and an, ounts of dedication that should be required in conne�on w this plat. The fetal plat area is a:=out 273.38 acres. Thus, a land dedication would amount e rate w r this 27.3? acres. The balance of any de ic�tion would be payaDie at the app time is 53,880.00 /acre_ Prcr to action by the Comsission, a speciEc recorr,.Trendation regarding park dedication should be made by the PRAB_ AUAR Mitigation Plan: A copy of the mitigation plan from the revised AUAR is attached for Commission's information- Other Comments: Scott County Environmeatal Heap made t usual om c This concern is addressed ed by the of areas within Shakopee to groundwater fact that the City requires that development pondmg meet Iv�LRP standards, and the agreement between the City and `lie LMRWD. • T '. has corrimented that the develo men the e res? requirements of 1MPCA Noise Rules Ch that noise mitigation should be designed to 7030. A Continue �. the public hearing to 1 = 2001or some other meeting date, to allow time for additional information on at least the following; Improvemen to CSAH 16 and 83 b. Comments from NLNDOT. C. Specific cam rents on drainage from the I.I�WD. d. A recommendation from the PR-AB on park dedication for the proposed plat. 2. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat of ti alley Green Corporate Center 1' Addition, subj ect to conditions as outlined below. Prior t® review of the pr�.liminary Plat by the City Council, the following actions shall be taken: �, Tne plat s::all be re`rised to respond to R. ant Ener =y 1 L=egasco's obj eons_ B The develep shall comply and/or mare provisions for compliance with any requirements outlined by the Watershed District. II, The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A- Approval cfIItle by he City Attor:ey_ B. E of a Developers Agreemznt �zth pro�zsicns for Plan A and Plan B iri , orovements, as well as payment of -naneering review's, and ar�;� other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. C. As par` of the Plan A improvements, ' o Par'.tizg" si �:s shat be installed along "A" Street.and "C" Street, per the sign type and spacing requirements dete:r.�ir�ed by rye City Engineer. 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 th Sh akope-e Public Utilities Commission. 3 Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 4 Ins tallation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and . construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsole for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges for the residential portion of the plat, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other revs as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat 3 11 3. 4. 5. t setback of300 feet (reterence II iLy t.uuc I L -J — J . roadways, drive•w ays, and parizing areas shall be in accordance with City Code Sec. 11.54 1. Recommend approval of the pre' 1 ay plat of Valet Green Corporate Center 1st Addition, subject to revise C ondiuors. Deny the Preliminary Plat ^ Table action and re:,uest acci4Gnal ;rZc =a -Lon � om S � ,.-_ and/or the appHc:st. REM ®BAND ATION: Staff recommends continuing the public hearing to March 22, 2001 (Alternative No. 1) or another future rzee *�in?_. in order to allow time fcr 1) further review before the Councl of the plans for t'�e realignment of CSAH 16 at CSAH 33, 2) receipt of MIMOT and Scott County !Egnway d 3) receipt of revised plat drawings consistent with Reliant Energy's Department comments, an request. the public hearing to March '1 2001 or another future meeting, and Off a motion to continue move its adoption- R Michael Leek vgcclst.doc Community Development Direc or g: \boats pc\2001\rnar \pp 4 DESIGN i Rx • - 32 ®3E CG ® TE CEN _ - YG S11 ®PEE, NffiTiESOTA IntroductiOn This document is intended to provide generalproject design and construction information ara�g of Valley Green Corporate Center. TIle project area consists of for the 169 and appro . , d=tely 320 acres located in the southeast Brant of Trunk Him wa Y CSAH 83. Tne overall grading of the site was separated into two phases t.. ac�amodate re at; �m ent of CSAH 16 in the southwest corner of the properTty prior to the the reed completion of Phase 2 ��g operations. 2 Grading e a zeneraily Grading or his orojec. Consists of Phase 1 ? rdin_Q wh'c� -=i des _ n� t'l n_v CSC.;_ 16 ,L ;zr len PLase 7 �dlnQ Inc ?'CdeS the �'adinP Of th IlOLt�' C `` CCL zr Oi %e SitC t0 'u pLCpCS: d CS A. 16 southv -he txcavation ar_dior fill --Q CCOS 'h,'- overall ?L�d1na 01 'u ":e bite. inClLtd�� - Sile ?"ad:- = in u _ --a1 StOL -i watC. CI'_d ICCal of Doule': aids. s >r suc� -ace- and szor _va. -- pGIIds. F :� CDIIStr'�C-ed were Le' is ed Eros: the oral design to minimize the inipac: of rock eYCayatioP_, wlt:4 -h e 1r al locations shG�`a On "eVlSed Sheet =� Oi ille Q'a dinQ Dian and on of :ht prel air.a-. pia` S c:e " �� iaal�Opee ,e;L'Le� StOtIIi wat CIlCS A, B, and C were In accor ^ -c� `� i C r1 O Shakope an 1Q -inch c� onds E, F, and G_ e d, N , t , 18r,C�es o_ CIa; mateal. For tGi__. titer d The decision to II:.e here ponds w rh sand w as made based sand Ii;:er was const scte - , a cla.v liner in these OIl the t�- 'S�nCe Of'�:z c=0uud�:ti arer table =rd :, C nablllLy t0 �. _� rIl storm water pon=s. AlI store wale: ponds were constructed with a 10.1 beech at the gropesed normal waver level. 3, Street Design Information Proposed street sections were based ' on ^ tran st?Idie e °� me p roject t seCfi ns are shown on the �-ading plan and r r ­ plat. T based en an R -value of 50 and proje to tr v olumes f or P� °'edoc�r�e location of a 10 -foot wide big Incus Pam s 'd q, Utility Design Information Sanitary sewer and wate:maiIl ail �IIl ents to serve the dev mciudIIthe eYtens or IO�ch V on the preliminary plat document. Proposer aliments ewer and PVC s sewer and 12 -inch DIP hue o Corporate Center Circle 5 Ten -u1 watermain located at the north property ch PVC sanitary sewer is also proposed to be extended from proposed trun -k sanitary sewer along CSAH 83 at Corporate Center Drive. At this time, sanitary Sewer and water service locations for individual lloot identified and will need to be reviewed EX . P 1 of � G.7rCCfIt'to�' u ` "RJEL_IC UTILITIES TO 15 =15 F� g a.31 4 • • FROM SL;B.IEC?: CAS- DA: =: , //�V qtr "'�iC.ii� t�:=uS s7'iCr CTG.ZiCS�5_ 'I"j'i�;C to ?5»aC3IC3 S�-r ' .. r. "'� �y. ^ JY iLL. �T�i...11-f Uli:ly �; ✓ -`� �^ �i�(M �Lniill z\.. 10 3L'iLG:.'T L r u n '- '•:.L4 y " • IICIuGIL. �LL OU_• �� GludC� aT° fat Q 3450' fc --s- � t II� '-- n,,rr =s,;zy c�calt�, and P -� d �Y u e'r to 0 S md=d , a nd c Lc:uc"L =- a va�ble 5 � '� t s 5 get Li �oacj_ Aggac= �� Ciro 0.1 ,� -.^L wee jiiL'4t � file 3S5G`��-^i Az;puc=t ee pub�lc Gies da r �c to tht� F1. -7--'W gECORD CONSL E:�ZS for. r Cyr-:. Cie= -1 ca ?r ft r vaZ . Gr~a Adr. 01�= v . Page4-1 City of Shakopee, Minnesota - .T11:2Q 132 Prepared by Bolton do Meek Inc. . V Green Center ,FUR _ Green CarpOrar `� to eier, Mr �7 RMODUCIION i samitted as a part o f th Akmmaft Urban m Are Review (AUAR) process to Ma gadon PI= t with an un dm:anding o f the actions necessary' to p reviewers, regull'ors, and prospective COL, M=Y O f t h e potential environmental the env and limit impacts by t h e p Prof es and v are as Protect te Micct boundar. _Mc improvements, activiti so with the spec i within w id 3 'Valley G Business Park- Th those operations o tenan w b,® will choose to locate impacts =n ot be prec is e ly defined until the appropr p a re made on are the effective use o f c d st i n g codes, ru and regulations together The pr vehicles formitigati the enforcement o ptions which pertain thertIO. 'These enforcement opt i Comprehensive • Devlopment Agre with 0 Execution of a men Which M i Planned unit Development (PUD) Requirements e permitting Requirements of All Agenc es 0 Enforcement o f th 0 R Submission o f Pe Bonds Initiation of Civ S i & Res—taining Orders 0 u . T recommended m itigation pla-ri is divided into three levels: concepts to be achieved. Ga ls Oals _ 7 nis l defines broad Id he achieve -5, b asic philosophies which cou I stlrnte-ajeS l ident b the reia:e-4 =aoal- 1 i rriav be . lis-,s "ev a c:ivities ,Vji level Prec's'. .,.cTion is e olove I - to achieve he associated goal. m ory of shakopea Minne-Tota - TI 1-2 0132 _Valley Green UAR Co, F., Cor porate Cent - Page 4-2 Prepared by Bolton & Menk. Irc. tea' GOAL _ - - u jIM and ma i n tain the public's expectations for the Ordinanc c h ar a cter of etc. a city p the zo ning as defined b numerous protection Strategies: be subject to appropriate review and approval by the ons must J - I. �,yodittcations to such . verniag agencies and onmes. T e reviews may include public bearings and an o,unity for the public to comment. Scott Coun various State and Federal agencies, and p iible Pardo City of Shakopee, ty� special distriar. ,action Required . Rigorous enforcement of amendment and variance procedures. Execution of a Deve,oP'n P `�a eement be, c--n the City and the developer_ Responsible Parties : City of Shakopee and the developer VGCC - 3 Execution of perfor-nance bonds to p ro v ide red by the Delel prnenz doreementceSS`n' roquirernents are met. The amount should be as toga , Responsible Parties Action Required 4. Enforcement by all ao' Responsible Parties Action Required : T,:e ?oce-, VGCC, and the City of Shakopee_ Care uI rev iew of the amount of the bonds to assure ade quacy. rernin4 authorities of their respective ales and e?uIations All at;oropriate asenc:es_ Ri�erous en�orcee -n of the -uses, re?uIat:ers and De��elopment �Q±eojn e.Ttt. Perp etuate the wetland habitat surrounding Dean's ?eke for continued use by COAL 2 _ wildlife - Protection Strategies: Th e City should accept the dedication of the d the Ci Park - and Trail Svste. -n Comprehensive 1. Th , Preliminary Plot T"ne City should rhea amei Plan approorately City of Shakopee and the developer, VGCC. Responsible Parties : er's laps include a planting schedule of a variety of n e U.sses and fortes- This 2. The develor p l a ns include and enfirc should be documented in the Development Ao The developer, VGCC, and the City of Shakopee. Assistance by the Responsible Par' a�enc:es may be Sz1Pi� _ es : , DNR or other appropriate nitor the health of the native wetlands, the uP on of tacement desired species� ponds to assure se �orm water deYenYion ,. M� Q FO wth and matu if sustainin Page4 -3 - City of Shakopee 'VIT'nesota - 711.20132 Prepared by Bolton do �V6nk Inc. _ Valley Green Corporate CPater - FA UAR _ ,._.. _.L' =' _"__.-_ �__ —__. —_. _._.___"per^ :�_ -'-�n _ ?•� ••_ .« NS :' :`�"ia.•� -.. ��z.=- J .- :- y >'TM npa�;3�'.a_ - 0 7 . l, r=lz a,,., — -.--- Responsible Parties : g: Increase public awarel Responsible Parties : Action Required : All public agencies with authority over the route of the channel and all land owners adjacent to the channel. ess of th e e ff ec t s of residential and agicultural fertilizers on water quality. City of Shakopee and all public asencies 'with wale" Quality authority within the watershed. Develov and conduct r. ^s periodic educational proa fee residents_ GO AL S Stabilize wares levels in Dean's Lake. Protection Strate, es: Implement ;he pro Plan to constrsc:, maintain and operate a water l control strscture 1. F north of L''S`Ib Responsible Parties : City of Shakopee, DN Ivtn/DOT, or the water district, if created. R es p 6 Limit the visual impacts of the development from Dean's Lake and the G® p south of CSAH Protection Stratej es: 1 Ricrorous enforcernent of the City's Shoreland Ordinance arding setbacks. ® Responst-bkParties : City of Shakopee. Iantin� along street boulevards and around = tormwater detention ponds within the 2. Encourage le' r _ project arm. Responsible PartieS : City of Shakopee and the developer, VGCC. Page4- Ciry of Srrckopee TeSOta - Tll?013Z . - -_ prepared by Bolton & Menk c. In -- F`; UDR Palley Green Corporate Center - __ , requirements It in the Development s It may be to include these Action Agreement. _ enforcement of the City's zoning ordinance concerning building height. 3° Rigorous �'ble °es ° C'nY ®f Shakope°_, individua �lot �p berins � PI tenants )ruucflurage use of scr, sing Action ge and IiQnting- 4° Rigorous enforc -'anent of City ordinances regarding sign and building tenants - nsible Pm-des ' city of Shakopee, individual lot purchases Limit the impact of traffic generated by activities within the project are GOAL 7 : a Protection Strstegies: I. Identify high traffic activities to be conducted within the project area. of s;iak -gee individual lot purchasers and building- tenants - � -ten C 1Lti' . Recuir° the rnat:on as a par of u`1z ir. , u dv b wh ca shouid request process. This includes a site trar�ic impact scud. encompass he access t oa Co. F d t 1 f t and n of tot opmert e the e:cisting xa�c on Responsible Parties = Action Rewired : Monitor traffic Ievels Of in°re55 and egress t0 ule �iie, and on u1e collector aRC a erial st. _e *_s n -' surrounding the site_ esponsible Parties Cir✓ of Shakocee, Scott Courn'. �in1LOT. tiiet Council and other _ R l�pncles_ interest_. - -• T for the access points Action Rewired : Enforce maintenance of the Lev .-0 (LOS) of the overall development to a minimum LOS of :D- This may include denial of specific developrrent types due to the high trade gene ating the site, access points and surrounding sz:__ts. impacts to hanoes in tenant tr sfF activity level and implement any necessary changes to the Cir✓'s 3. iVionitor c _ tran sportation systern. T l e -s an C i T , Of SnakOCee_ indiVidL'a. d building tenants pu... Responsible Pa• : as ' Require the necessary information as a part of the building permit Action Required : re quest process for ;e nodeiirg and alterations. traffic generation g 4. Monitor enerated on the adjacent roadways generated by the development ar;AIcr mO difjcation of adjacent developments and PrePen' l Council and other Responsible Parties : Cir✓ of Shakopee, Scott County, bin/DOT, interested agencies_ Ci o Sirakope, , nn escra - T11.1013 ry f Ya Green Corporate Cenaer_ FA UAIZ Page 4 - 5 Prepared by Bolton & j fen;, Inc. •�_ . --- �- �' -^-- -i -fir. -� . - - '4:k' impravesnriss of canecmr and Ys to develop and c amp c the proposed - 1 r„m the mo unding arm - Council and er ms s . Sccn Copy, T, le - es - City of SI�Icope -y . agencies. I m p l e ment the reconstruction I relocation of CSAH I6, CP 2I, CR g' = A Required - and I J Avenue - 'on Plan, when ne�tY- '�- 's comprehensive T 6 Monitor and update the C p : - City of Shakopee nsible Patti es - = Limit the noise impacts of the development on the properties loath of CSAH 16- AL S . - -- - protection Strategies: I. Separate the issues Of Noise gene mot ion from nitial cons= ion, a_ i 69 and serve motion from LS b. Noise _ C Noise gene =.ion from tenant activity. Ci of Shakope �1n/DOT, individual lot purchase s and building Responsible P : tenants- Qorous enforcem of tr:e Ciry's orcira ^ces re?'rdinQ nois� �� ^emotion. Responsible Parties = Cirr of Shakopee, individual lot put` : ^ase'S and building tenants. 3_ .: scnon ac:iviry and allowable construct ion noise. Limit hours of cots Responsible Parties : City of Shakopee- glom? ,tee_ bhin the proie:t site. culevards wif 4. Encourge LLe= p - -�- _ - Responsible Parties : City of Shakopee and the developer, VGCC. Action Required - It may be useful to include these requirements in the Development c' _._�- f 5 Encourage landscaping and screening of individual building �•�_� �e • C ity Y of Shakopee, individual lot purchases and building tenants - Responsible Parties impacts of traffic generated by the development and the G®AL 9 - Limit the air quali tv . p -- activities of individual building tenants. Page d —7 Ciry of Shakopee, 'Vinnes°ra - 7 11 . 20132 Prepar by Balton & Menl4 Inc - - - Valley Green Corporate Center - FA UAR _ - Y•.. r r - :.:.. .�.r®ias���+c'.� = _� w.- �• + ... - - - `- -ya`- `�r ' - � � ` -. - ma y _' e . ti t- -" -. •�'� 's ` ems. _ • l ii .� I C _ R . - -►tt -, -i � r .. - _ -_ .- •. - .. - - � . - - _ .. _ - - --_ _ ; • : eat Of S tate Air Stan _ 3]f Ca1i551 - a Chr Of p" - _ co ion n wtvTty t- - 1 s ffi Son= P - ( the City Utger II C eat for 3n nsid re quiring in co one as a part of the platting or P p��- should dnsz during ®n activities. S� =r - Scott County the deveIopet - �GCC, individual lot - City of Shakopee: _ - ;;a ;;: , le P ` - purchasers and building tenants. Monitor changes in tenant air emissions potential. Responsible Pa�� = City of Shakopee, MPCA and building tenants. o e :nit Require the necessary information as a part of the bLiIdin_ p - Action Regui� = reqlles process for remodeling and alterations. - 771-20132 -- { — City of Shakopee Min ota Valley Green Corporate Cetaa - FAUAR . Page 4 - 8 Prepared by Bolton & Menk Inc. :- '^-'r"'."- '��5� -» mss._.; �__ •.. MM L MINNES WATERSHED DISTRICT _ !�"� � U��L • _ � �" Wiz Scan C=ry ca� cwt MO •rAva= Weg $tom '%M So March 2, 2001 R Michael Leek Community Development Director Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, iTL, 553 Dear Mr. LeeiC: Thank you for allowing the Lower ylinnesota River Waters D (D i Center to re ne :r the' .elirnirary P ans for the Valley opportunity to the prelinainarr plan Addition. Dis _ctstaf and zn J'_neerin consultanthave :v and we offer * follow sz cor :its for your conside �tlon. 1 2 4 El 5. Q The storm Ponds are''- ocated on the bluffs in fine sandy soils. Care should be taken not to subject h bluff area to concentrated flows from the area above the site during cons _ruction. L The e e:Qencv ove:=io�vs :�oLn the ponds are indicated to ?o to the e:st dltcn a1onQ Coup Road 3=. The Scott County High;�•av Dep� ent should be tiotllled OL t%i� and eS�aDI1Si1 the present ditch can ta'_ {e overi'lO�vs frost? he 100 to 500 years storm events. Because of t h e fide sandy soils of thus site, store water beula contained in the - ponds should not be allowed to encroach upon the constructed berms or the edge r1S�. - DL'��: ` a be�±c_ The -_ ^L� w ove OL 1I _:v `�, m r. of Tl e t)iu: zi s0 S 0 D. a o berms should be constructed of materials to handle such conditions. The ponds should not be allowed to overflow the beans as an erte'g Z' outlet This could cause a failure of the berm and potential u i be ideal for storm water The sandy nature of the soils on this site would typica infiltration. But, due to the storm ponds being constricted on the bluffs, the District is apprehensive about us i n g infiltration e berms pr r esulting � blow out t infiltration, there is the poten and flooding of properties to the north Water main and storm sewer trenches ��c�� below the t water level of Dean 741 feet MSLD. T"nis would p la ce Lake, which is 7� 7 feet'NISLD. The District has concerns that the trenches may intercept groundwater flows to Dean Lake. This may result in the groundwater flows to Dean Lake being altered and the Dean Lake water elevations receding. We recommend using see co llars alter Mlle groundwat rl� and storm sewer trenches to reduce the p otenti al c - - ends these issues bea n Engineer and that the Design - The .c °ons have been for the pond design and °t a letter or rt � $ - water mai t before the City of � appro this project. op Ters of the Lower Mmesota, River Watershed District, I on behalf of the Board ofMan4 for tbe opportUn to assist the City of Shakopee in review would like to you to wo with yon ofl this and projects- If you this project- We look the above mentioned concerns, Please contact have any questions or comments regar me at (952 )496 -88 Cc: L Board of Managers a Engineer Larry Sam.s``ad, District Consulting : Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R. Michatl Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Valley Green Corporate Center I' Addition MEETING DATE: May 3, 2001 1 § ` This public hearing on this matter was first continued on March 8 t ' pending the outcome of the Council's deliberation on the feasibility report for the realignment of CSAH 16 and improvement of CSAH 83. It has subsequently been continued to accommodate the Park and Recreation Advisory Board's (PRAB) request related to the completion of the Southbridge -Dean Lake Area park master planning process. On May 14 the PRAB is expected to make a recommendation relative to the proposed preliminary plat based on the outcome of its review of the proposed park master plan. That recommendation will be shared with the Commission on or before the May 17 meeting_ DISCUSSION: Commission members have been asked to bring the report from the May 3` meeting with them on the 17` To recap, this report contained the following listed documents; Sender Date Subject 1. Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Dir. 4/25/01 Park Requirements 2. Kevin D. Bigalke, LMRWD 3/02/01 Watershed Comments 3. Patrick J. Lynch III, MNDNR 4125/01 Shoreland Ordinance 4. Sharon Anderson, MNDOT 4/05/01 Traffic, Access 5. Brian Timerson, PCA 2/13/01 Noise Mitigation 6. Steve L. Steuber, Scott Co. Env. Health 2/23/01 Storm water Handling 7. Thomas E. Casey (for SEPA) 2/13/01 Shoreland Ordinance 8. Bret R. Anderson/STS for applicant 2/08/01 Alternative Storm water Control and Drainage 9. Steven J. Carlson/Bret Anderson 3/27/01 Comments on March 8`'' City Staff Memorandum 10. R. Michael Leek 3/08/01 Staff Report [Note: this is principally provided for reference to proposed conditions of approval] Since that meeting, City staff has received the following additional letters; ppvalleyglst 1. Jon R. Albinson, Valley Green 5/04/01 Shoreland Ordinance Application 2. Kevin D. Bigalke, 5/02/01 Response to additional Lower Minnesota River Watershed information from applicant The remaining, significant issues for discussion and determination by the Commission are 1) whether the setback requirements of the City's Shoreland Ordinance specifically apply directly to the proposed plat, and, if so, 2) how they apply. In short, the letters from Messrs. Casey and Lynch take the position that 1) they should apply, and 2) the subject site must be subject to a 150 ft. shore impact zone and a 300 ft. structure setback (including such things as parking lots and driveways). Mr. Albinson's letter states the belief that, while the Shoreland Ordinance is ultimately applicable to the site, it 1) can only effectively be decided what is required when there is a specific site plan under review, and that 2) the ordinance provides alternative impact zone requirements and setbacks for water - oriented and non - water - oriented uses, as well as a substantial screening alternative. The City Attorney has been provided copies of the relevant letters, and asked to render his opinion relative to the questions set forth above. When this opinion becomes available, staff will provide it to the Commission along with more specific staff comments on the applicability of the Shoreland Ordinance. An additional issue that was raised with staff after the last Commission meeting is a disagreement about whether the proposed preliminary plat improperly includes lands owned by adjacent property owners_ It is staffs understanding that there has previously been some discussion regarding this item between the applicant and property owners. Staff has included a proposed condition of approval requiring that before recording of the final plat the applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the plat accurately reflects the applicant's ownership or that the plat be revised to reflect corrected ownership- ALTERNATIVES: Close the public hearing and recommend approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions previously proposed, which are as follows; . The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. The applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Attorney that the plat accurately reflects the applicant's ownership, or the plat be revised to reflect corrected ownership_ C. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. D. As part of the Plan A improvements, "No Parking" signs shall be installed along "A" Street and "C" Street, per the sign type and spacing requirements determined by the City Engineer. 2 ppvalleyglst 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2_ Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges for the residential portion of the plat, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. 6. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications_ 7. Park Dedication shall be taken in the form and amount recommended by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. E. A MnDOT drainage permit will be required for this development. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). B. No berming, ponding, signage, or landscaping shall be located in the Scott County or MNDOT right -of -way. C. Any work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a utility permit from the County. D. Development of that portion of the subject plat that is within the Shoreland Overlay Zone is subject to the requirements of the Shoreland ordinance, which may includes a 150 foot Shore Impact Zone severely restricting clearing activity, and a structure setback of 300 feet (reference City Code Sec. 11.54). 2. Close the public hearing, and recommend approval to the City Council subject to revised conditions. Close the public hearing and recommend denial of the proposed preliminary. • mom Staff recommends either alternative no. 1 or 2. ppvalleyg I st Offer a motion consistent with either alternative no. 1 or 2. Z L Lo R. Michael Leek Community Development Director 4 ppvalleyglst AT_11 -� b iJ S 7 1 i •j % FA R K Mr, Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 i < .i MAY 0 7 2001 BY I MGM E1 1 RE: Preliminary Plat Approval for Valley Green Corporate Center, STS Project 1 95394 -T Dear Mr. Leek Vallev Green Business Park (Valley Green) has submitted a Preliminary Plat Application for the approximately 290 -acre site in the southeast quadrant of Highway 169 and CR 83, to be known as Valley Green Corporate Center- One of the issues being discussed in the review of this plat is the application of building and parking setbacks from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of Dean's Lake (747.0 MSL) within Shakopee's Shoreland Overlay Zoning District. It is necessary to clarify Valley Green's position regarding the Shoreland issues that have been raised - The preparation of this letter utilized the collaboration of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., STS Consultants, Ltd., and the legal counsel provided by Best & Flanagan, LLP. The Shoreland Overlay District is clear in its intent to establish different setbacks depending on the design of buildings to be built and on the character of the site being developed. The City will be able to review and administer Zoning ordinance requ>rements clearly and carefully when specific plans for buildings are submitted. We are in receipt of the April 13 letter from Attorney Thomas E. Casey, representing the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association, the Dean's Lake Homeowners Association and others, which attempts to raise some concerns about what the Zoning Ordinance states and how it c 1,� „1 h� ,. ,1;A 1 to �Ialla (rPPn'c nrnnarty `.UP ctmnt71y Hicntlte rr2nv nF l/fr Casey's conclusions (as outlined below) and wish to set forth the clear requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to Valley Green's property - We are requesting a clear and timely resolution of the issues surrounding this plat application. Scone of Preliminary Plat The Preliminary Plat controls the division of property into various lots and provides for the construction of streets, utilities and storm ponds to serve these lots. No buildings, parking lots, or other lot - specific improvements are being proposed at this time. We merely wish to subdivide the property for sale. WProlcctsNaUcy Or =n Cooperate Cmt r PLcr Pr Iv u=ry x to MLcck m response to Thomas Cr, y ktta.DOC � �'v a 1..- _ - ® _ ,. ® __ - •. ra i it OG; .104 Nfichael Leek May 4, 2001 Page 2 There are ample protections withiir Shakopee's zoning ordinance, including the Shoreland Overlay Zone, to control how and where future buildings will be developed_ In fact no construction may begin (other than streets and utilities) without thorough review and approval of a building project by the City. Reasonable conditions can and should be attached to a Preliminary Plat with regards to property subdivision and improvements, but such conditions should be based on the actual property improvements involved and in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. To blanket the site with very restrictive conditions is unreasonable and arbitrary and, would ignore the clear intent of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the ShoreIand Overlay District as stated in Shakopee City Code Section 11.54, Subd. IA. In light of the zoning ordinance requirements the following is a reasonable disposition of the plat application_ Valley Green Corporate Center agrees to the approval of the preliminary plat by the City of Shakopee with the following conditions related to the Shoreland Overlay: a) All provisions of the Shoreland Overlay district shall be adhered to in the site and building plans for each of the lots in the plat located within the Shoreland district. b) No additional wading or removal of trees or vegetation will be commenced without City approval. Lot - specific site plans, grading plans, and building plans will identify vegetation that requires approval by the City of Shakopee for removal. c) If the use of an individual lot does not involve a use with "water- oriented needs" as that term is defined in the Shakopee ordinance, we agree that the building and parking setbacks will be a minimum of 150 feet from the OHW of Dean's Lake, elevation 747.0, so long as the building is "substantially screened from view of the water vegetation or topography" as required under City Code Section 11.54, Subd. SB_ 1 A. d) If proposed lot improvements do not involve a use with "water- oriented needs" the building setbacks will be 300 feet from the OHW, if the building is not "substantially errPPnPr� frnm View �f the eater by ��esetation or tonoaranhv " The City will reouire no additional screening or berming of these buildings or parking areas from Dean's Lake if the 300 -foot setback is followed, as defined by Zoning Ordinance_ As established in City Code Section 11.54, Subd. 9D, the term "substantially screened from view of water" when applied to industrial uses without water - oriented needs shall mean 75 percent opacity (assuming summer, leaf on conditions). This opacity shall include screening by vegetation or topography, as approved by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. H:,ProjcctsWaHcy Great CotPonte C-- P13rPrc1 -MaW -' to Ntl,ak re response to T'nomas C.sey letta.DC)C Michael Leek May 4, 2001 Page 3 e) If the use of an individual lot involves "water- oriented needs" which might include a gazebo, picnic shelter, trail, water access or other recreational or interpretive use, the building and parking setbacks will be 150 feet from the OHW, and the City will require no additional screening of these features. Other "water- oriented needs" are allowed as Conditional Uses in City Code 11.54 and include restaurants serving the business park that have amenities related to water features, or have an aquatic theme. if the City wishes to attach Special Provisions to the approval of our Preliminary Plat, they should be limited to specific activities that affect the division and improvement of land. The following are offered for the City to apply at its discretion: a ) Approval is granted contingent upon the approval of CSAH 16183 improvements_ b) The Parkland Dedication to be required will be consistent with disposition of the Valley Green's proposal by the Shakopee Parks and Recreation Board. We offer the following responses to main points raised in Mr. Casey's April 1 3th letter. The issues addressed are in italics: Intent of the Shoreland OVerlCW Zone We are in agreement as to the stated intent of the Shoreland ordinance_ The Ordinance intention includes goals of conserving natural environmental value and conserving economic values_ Legal Structure Setback We disagree strongly with Mr. Casey's conclusion that 300 feet is the only legal structure setback from the OI�W of Dean's Lake. The Zoning Ordinance Section 11.54 is very plain that where there are uses with "water- oriented needs ", or where there is screening of a structure from view of the water, the setback is 150 feet. Uses With Water- Oriented Needs There may be uses with water - oriented needs proposed in the Valley Green Corporate Center. We can imagine a restaurant that would take advantage of the proximity and view to the lake to provide a water - oriented atmosphere to its patrons. Parkland improvements (if any) would seek to maximize the benefits available though water - oriented uses. However specific uses of the parcels and buildings in Valley Green Corporate Center have not been determined, which is exactly why the City should wait to apply the legally appropriate setback and not summarily dismiss the possibility or the opportunity for a water - oriented use by requiring a greater setback than is legally required. Certainly most of the uses in Valley Green Corporate Center are 'Ihortras Casey letta.DOC H- �projects\vaUcy Green Corporate Cent r PiarPrt irnmarlxto MLxk re response to d� Michael Leek May 4, 2001 Page 4 expected to be office and business park type uses, but it would be inappropriate for the City to close off the possibility of other uses by imposing incorrect setbacks. In doing so, Applicant is damaged by the lost opportunity to locate water - oriented uses in the park- Screening of Property There is no evidence that the individual future buildings in Valley Green Corporate Center could not be screened as required in the Zoning Ordinance, precisely because such buildings have not been proposed or designed - When those buildings are designed and located, they can be analyzed against whatever vegetation exists- Additional vegetation could be added to provide proper screening. It should be kept in mind that the vast maiority of the Dean's Lake shoreline in the development remains vegetated and will in all probability qualify und the screen requirements of the Ordinance A determination can be made as to what setback needs to be applied only when a specific building parking4et or road (with applicable screening) is proposed in the Shoreland Overlay Zone. If the screening is adequate, a 150 -foot setback applies. If the City determines the screening is not or cannot be made adequate, then a greater setback, up to 300 feet, may be required. Mr. Casey's assertion that site clearing completely eliminated all opportunity for screening is not supported by any maps, drawings or analysis. He quotes Nir- Thomas Balcom's letter noting that site clearing "diminishes" the opportunity for screening, and that "most of the existing tree cover' is gone- But that does not mean that all vegetation and all opportunities for screemng are gone- There has been no determination made on any specific site of the adequacy of vegetation to provide screening for a specific building because no specific buildings have been proposed - Activities Associated with Property \ 1r (�cn. ct�toc th t �r�lln<• (�roPn "hoc not - rnnnco4 n `cj —r�r`a <, eta * -manta l r- nmmarr -;q1 nr industrial use. "' Valley Green has proposed no specific uses in the Preliminary Plat and is not required to do so. We have proposed a plat which will eventually provide uses that are subject to the Shakopee Zoning Ordinances and other applicable codes - Valley Green has completed grading of storm water ponds. All ponds were placed at a distance greater than 150 feet from the OHW- The ponds are present in topographic lows and as such are screened from water due to topography. In addition, ponds are not included in the Ordinance's definition of structures. Lastly, the pond locations in many cases were chosen such that runoff from nearby roads, parking areas, buildings, and undeveloped land would be intercepted for water quality improvement. Doing so allows the ponds to be more protective of Dean's Lake, H:`Prcjeets \VaUeY Green Corporate Center Plat`prelimmary`x to Mock re tesponse to Thomas Casey later. DOC Michael Leek May 4, 2001 Page 5 and can be considered a "water- oriented need" in that the proximity to the Shore Impact Zone is vital for feasible storm water management. Placement and Design of Roads, Driveways and Parking Areas As noted above we agree that roads, driveways and parking areas must meet the structure (building) setbacks, which might be 150 feet or might be 300 feet depending on the use. It is premature for the City to assume specific final uses for the purpose of Preliminary Plat review. Evaluation Criteria for Conditiotlal Uses in Shorelcnld Districts When a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is requested by any of the specific end users in the Valley Green plat, appropriate criteria will apply. There is no such application in front of the City. Pre- supposing CUP conditions that will be required and applying them to Plat approvals would be an inappropriate action by the City as it is not provided for in the City Code. Conditions Can Be Attached Again, we agree that conditions can be attached to a CUP when it is reviewed. There is no CUP application at the moment. The general statement that the Shoreland regulations will be followed is sufficient. These regulations contain flexible setback distances that consider among other things, specific construction on a particular lot for a specific use. Therefore, the conditions that are attached to Plat approval must relate only to specific Plat provisions and features. Conclusion Mr. Casey mentions in his conclusion the previous grading permit granted to Valley Green. There has been considerable discussion of this legally- issued permit_ Although the City Council previously considered the possibility of revoking and/or altering the Grading Permit, the City did not pursue this action, on the advice of the City Attorney. That grading permit is no longer a Thf- PrPliminnrri Plat is the submittal that is the tonic of review and approval by the City. Reasonable conditions can be attached to a preliminary plat and we believe we have suggested reasonable conditions in the statement at the beginning of this letter. We ask that the City not attach unreasonable conditions to the plat that go against the duly enacted provisions of the Shoreland ordinance. Those provisions allow the opportunity to offer either a use with water - oriented needs or reasonable screening of future buildings. Specific setbacks are set forth in the Ordinance which apply to uses that are not water - oriented and are not otherwise visually screened. To narrow the emphasis of Plat review to an arbitrary setback distance, is not only legally inappropriate, but also diminishes the opportunity for wise land use_ The stated objective H.TrojecruWaUey Green Corporate CeaterPlar Prdimmaryx to %'L•ek re response to Thomas Caney 3etter.DOC Michael Leek May 4, 2001 Page 6 of the Shoreland Overlay Zone includes conservation of natural and economic values associated with shorelands. We urge the City to retain the full intent and provisions set forth in Section 11.54 of the City Code, and approve the Preliminary Plat based on the merits of the land subdivision and improvements described therein_ The Valley Green Corporate Center development team appreciates your efforts spent reviewing the Preliminary Plat documents. The documents represent an intensive effort provided by our subcontractors, and us, and were prepared in conformance with the City's many standards and laws. We sincerely hope your understanding of the City's Shoreland Ordinance will allow you to assemble the divergent opinions regarding Valley Green Corporate Center and approve the Preliminary Plat in conformance with the established regulations and procedures that apply. Respectfully, ALL Y GREEN BUSIlVESS PARK t 1 1 Jon R. Albinson Project Director cc: Mayor Jon Brekke — City of Shakopee Richard Peterson — Best & Flanagan Kent Carlson — Ryan Companies US Inc. Jeff Schoenbauer — Brauer & Associates Phil Carlson — Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban Steve Carlson.— STS Consultants Brian Brennan — Allianz of America William Mars — City of Shakopee Planning Commission T nr; (',1111,k — ( Itv n f ChaknnPe Planning C'nmmiccinn Mary Romansky — City of Shakopee Planning Commission . Michael Willard — City of Shakopee Planning Commission Larry Meilleur — City of Shakopee Planning Commission Terry Joos — City of Shakopee Planning Commission Mark Houser — City of Shakopee Planning commission H:\ProIactsIValley Or= Corporate Cerre"P12X Prdonc r 'x to MLxk re response to Thomas Casey IcamDOC m LOWER M INNESOTA I R go WATERSHED DISTRICT Scott County Government Center ZOO 4•Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Tel: (952) 496 -8842. Fa;c (952) 496 -8844 May 2, 2001 Mr. Steven Carlson STS Consultant, Ltd. 10900 73` Avenue North, Suite 150 Maple Grove, MN 55369 -5547 I 2c �L Terry L Scinvalbe, rresdW Office: (612) 404-5312 Fax (612) 404 -5318 Wallace E. Neal, VAmPhwdeN Office= (952) 884 -1632 Fax (452) 8&1-7726 Glenda Spiotta, Seadary Office: (952) 471 - 05W. ems. M. Fax (952) 471-M Edward A. SdUampp, 7raaww Office: (612) 920 348. Fax (612 920-M Ron Kraemer. Asst rmmurer Cell: (651) 335 - X3305. Fax (952) 894-3235 Kevin D. 81galke, A&rua,sMar Otrw (952) 4%-8842. Fax (952) 495 -8844 Dear Mr. Carlson: Thank you for providing a response to the concerns raised in our March 2, 2001 letter regarding the Valley Green Corporate Center 1 Addition. At this time, we feel that you have adequately addressed our concerns regarding the ability of the bluffs and constructed berms to handle the storm water. While your points regarding the incorporation of seepage collars are well taken, the District still feels that seepage collars should be incorporated into the design of the water mains and storm sewer trenches. Our concerns are based oil past experiences in the Dean Lake area. Previous projects in the area have been constructed without seepayge collars only to have the collars added at a later time which resulted in a greater expense to the project than if the collars had been added at the time of construction. Because of the dependence of Dean Lake on the groundwater in the area and the previous experiences in ± li .rc^ Sti rli„ 1 ,r, ,t �;,,,, )1. 1 , , ,1 ,: 1 1 S , . Sti .CaL' ..a .:CC1J " COu rS bC IiSC a o iCuuCC Ll iJU tCii i I iiiipaC t S to the groundwater flows. Again, I thank you for responding to the concerns of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. If you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 997 - 2355. Very truly ;ours, Kevin D. Bigalke DISt!'ict Administrator Cc: Michael Leek, City of Shakopee tr � o . 4 Minnes _•_ of •• • M etropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 May 7, 2001 Mr. Michael Leek City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 J. SUBJECT: Valley Green Corporate Center and CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Improvements Mn/DOT Review TPO1 -022 TH 169 & CSAH 83 Shakopee, Scott Count C.S. 7005 Dear Michael Leek: This is a follow -up to our January 12 and February 14, 2001 letters and our most recent meeting on April 30, 2001 concerning the above- referenced development. In our discussions with Bruce Loney of your office, there was an agreement that the City would require the developer to reduce the size and/or intensity of the development by 20 percent reduction. In addition to this 20 percent reduction and before any further development, please address the following general issues. Please note that additional or more specific comments may arise during Mn/DOT - Metro Division's permitting process. ■ Mn/DOT - Metro Division's Traffic section has completed a review of WSB's Synchro /SimTraffic modeling of CSAH 83 from 12th Avenue to the proposed south leg of CSAH 16 in Shakopee. This was done for the proposed Valley Green Corporate Center. The area of greatest concern is the new CSAH 83 /Corporate Center Drive intersection, which is in close proximity to our ramps. The initial traffic analysis showed the southbound (SB) lefts backing up into 'Yfn/DOT's south ramps intersection. Since this initial analysis, the City has agreed to limit the development to 80% of what was originally proposed. The "20% reduction" simulation results show that the dual SB CSAH 83 left turners to Corporate Center Drive should not back up to NIn/DOT's south ramps intersection. i hereiure, We beiteve that the reuLlCed layout W iii iuncuon v, anout backups out inure are a tew details that will eventually have to be addressed including:" 1. The modeling shows the maximum PM queue length for the westbound (WB) TH 169 exit ramp for left turners to be longer than the existing left turn land (LTL) length. It appears on this layout, the City/developer propose to use the existing lanes as the two LTL's and just add a right turn lane (RTL) on the ramp. The LTL's on the iN 'B 169 exit ramp should be extended (:50'- 100') to accomodate all peak left turners so they don't block the RTL. We believe there is plenty of room on the ramp to accomplish this extension. 2. An additional LTL is being added for northbound (NB) CSAH 83 to the WB TH 169 on ramp. From the layout it does not appear there are plans for widening the throat of the ramp to accommodate two lanes. If the throat width on the WB on ramp is not wide enough and if there is not an adequate lane drop, the project should be modified to accomplish those improvements. 3. The modeling shows the maximum PSI queue length for the eastbound (EB) TH 169 exit ramp right turners to be longer than the existing RTL. The EB TH 169 exit ramp RTL should be extended (50' 100') to accommodate all right turners so they do not block the LTL's. An equal opportunity employer The City, County and NfrvDoT have also discussed the new CSAH 831'Corporate Center Drive intersection and the possibility of restricting this to a' /4 access. This would allow NB and SB CSAH 83 lefts only. Mn/DOT believes this would improve the operation of CSAH 83 in this area; however, we have not seen this modeled to determine how much improvement would be achieved. Since the modeling results with a full access indicate that this area should function and given that the County has no plans for conducting an analysis for a' /4 access, Mn/DOT will not require the " analysis" at this time. However, if the intersection fails in the future and there are excessive backups, the City and County should make provisions to conduct a 3 /a analysis and, if necessary, make necessary improvement for restricting this intersection to a 3 /4 access. Mn/DOT supports the City's initiative that restricts the size and intensity of the Valley Green Corporate Center to ensure that a minimum level of service (LOS) "D" is maintained for all movements at the adjacent intersections. Mn/DOT believes that the City should have a binding agreement with the developer to ensure that the LOS "D" provision is upheld. Please provide Mn/DOT with a copy of this agreement. Please direct questions concerning these issues to Lars Impola (651- 634 -2379) of Mn/DOT - Metro Division's Traffic section. ■ Please send a copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review at the following address: Jeff Hoffstrom Mn/DOT — Metro West Surveys 2055 North Lilac Dri%: e Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Phone: (612) 79 7 -3108 In addition to the above comments, please address the following issues as listed in our previous letter correspondence concerning this development: ■ Mn/DOT owns right of way in this area. The plat shows exceptions that are not clear. Please contact Jim Flannigan of Mn/DOT - Metro Division's Right of Way section at (651) 582 -1374 to clarify issues relating to right of way and access control documentation. • A Mn /DOT drainage permit may be required for these improvements. In order to determine the need for a permit, grading and drainage plans should be submitted for review prior to any construction. The plans must include existing and proposed conditions along with hydraulic computations addressing the 10 and 100-; "ear storm cvcrits. Existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff affecting Mn/DOT right of way must be perpetuated. The sites storm water discharge rate must not increase. Please direct questions regarding these issues to Katherine Heinz of ivirvDOT - Metro Division's Water Resources section at (65 1) 634 -2407. • Any work within lvin/DOT right of way must be justified and requires a permit. Please direct questions regarding per: pit process to Keith VanWagncr of %I LDOT - Metro Division's Permit section at (651) 582 -1443. Please note that Mn/DOT is copying this correspondence to representatives at Scott County and, as a reminder, Mn/DOT would like to begin the process for turning back excess right of way along CR 83, extending to 17` Avenue. Feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1771 if should have any questions. ' cerely, Paul Czech Principal Transportation PIanner Copy: Lezlie Vermillion — Mn/DOT - Metro Division Susan Klein — Mn/DOT - Metro Division Bruce Loney — City of Shakopee Brad Larson - Scott County Brian Sorenson — Scott County Chuck Rikart i WSB & Associates, Inc. Mn/DOT Division File C.S. 7005 Mn/DOT LGL — Shakopee . , •' i. : e 'f D 111 I I I 19 .11 I r f� • ,JJ I. td-, Ir I �>L I , % 1. tLW W N OR I \� 11 ►1 ►' h \► �II � I hr 8 - iv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Y/Y 75 �4 ,�� , // /� / /% r 1/ Ilk' I I II ��' /lI'l���II %�p // '/ -` 1 �\ .� 1 / / � � II I �� � '-�-�- ���.>_ Jam: = � R %� � --• lit �a. Ell 1� J V.,,ul!':IIIF.Jill 'tF:4elu)IVIIFi f 1 111 s „"e•t ee/ate ;► 'lln'lll 'IV 111,1,11111111► A'�Il'IVn BIYtIU � 1 l',{ aC ve. a LKSO ;�1,VilUc111UJ N',1311U Il',�'1'lvn n ®, CL o, 1� 11 110 all a�od aar NUI,LitItIV 1 ' 11�' NU151AI(IU[lS �, w rllt J,N:'16VN:)I'1V tl; ^ a�21.1,5 ` JNIMV21(I °l °V`1J AtiVN1Wl`1;]2IcI ��� r ........��"""""�� 17PVO '►e eDl�hu e }rl U1, IMI H61/le/to pit i 1 ,I m ` I IY / 1 `IgR/l70 •DmVe (�1e vt Q • � sQ � � ��.Yf � ti � '•� � � 4 °• Wit, ' i f � Q 1 t a i , t a6e1 t• °= 11IIP:— -71, - •-! °�� � • 1 1 t L' I p �' wti t 1 C 1 � i i � ti t F! 1 1 1• F` � E a 1 e - t - - - - X ' ,!. ' i •y11� y 4 . ` r,114' Ii i �' ... 4 ��f' � � • ;.1 ILL • •1 � a � r • � � 1 i - ��-� \ i',. � {t;�; .. I fe L1 == 1 • ' � 1jC � ��� � � . J l+ 1-1- ..::'1� �)`,e .e�..� -�.,` , • t gal I �.�• _ /_c -- �t•'�5= - -_ Q :A LO V mom ''" ■ � I M I M 1 Jr \ E j • t , J a Yt t.� d fL LAJ _j Of LLJ a t •J tf I U1 (n J I ; r� °� 9� �v �� •�;t /. r '') 1, \�_ . 11 r 1 1 �, II :� �• 4t 1 S• ® /l d �I { )1 .�t4, - \ F •^:5��:�'.'1 . .... :°r+•tr•r.a� r_aerse.•tx+eTM' 1 u. •� TI 1 � tl� - \1�' \ el ..- ...... •-'• .... �• /• _ _ a- r�•errn "i;,'::S„ ................... All to 1 i it • �.i�. e � ' d . I t � I i ( ��'• 1 A1 ' �• ✓ t 1 1 1 1 ` 3 i �Q { 1 ` ------ - ---1— - - - -' I CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CASE NO.: 01061 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I �1 SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment Regarding Home Occupations in the Rural Residential (RR) Zone MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION: The City Council reviewed a proposed text amendment filed by Troy and Stacey Schuette at their May 15, 2001 meeting. At that meeting, planning staff was directed to work with legal council to draft language consistent with the Council's wishes. In this particular case, staff has prepared text amending the Rural Residential (RR) Zone to allow home occupations such as Schuette's to be a listed conditional use. This language would specifically read as: SECTION 11.24. RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RR). Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Q. home occupations on properties 10 acres or greater in area where more than one (1) employee does not reside in the dwelling unit. If approved, applicants would be required to submit an application for a conditional use permit that would be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and would be subject to the criteria for granting Conditional Use Permits (Section 11.85 of the City Code). It is staff's determination that the criteria for granting home occupations would also apply in these situations. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Review the proposed text language and refer it to the Planning Commission. 2. Revise the proposed text language and refer it to the Planning Commission. 3. Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Review and determine that the proposed language is consistent with the Council's wishes and refer it to the Planning Commission for consideration. This request has been set for review by the Planning Commission at their June 7, 2001 meeting. Mark Noble Planner I J G. \cc \\2001 \0605 \txta=dschutes.doc (27- 929014 -0) /,S - / CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Distribution and Publication of Notice of Availability of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Document for Opus and United Properties Properties on Fourth Avenue MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 Introduction: The draft AUAR has been prepared, and copies have been provided for Council's information. Council is not being asked to rule on the adequacy of the AUAR at this time. Rather, Council is asked to approve distribution of the draft AUAR for review and comment. Accompanying this memo are copies of the AUAR for Council's information. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion to authorize publication of notice in the "EQB Monitor" and distribution of the draft AUAR for review and comment. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director AUAR4thAveNotice.D0C1W9U is. 1_ n. t - Wlsm• ' La LLC Mi nne s o ta Op us Northwest, L.L.C. Shakopee, Minnesota Responsible Governmental Unit City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 (952) 445 -3650 Project Proposers: United Land LLC 3500 West 80th Street Minneapolis, MN 55431 (952) 893 -8836 Opus Northwest, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 (952) 656 -4611 23 May 2001 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Table of Contents 1 . PROJECT TITLE ................................................................................................... ........................•...... 1 2 . PROPOSER ............................................................................................................ ............................... 1 3 . RGU ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 2 5 . PROJECT LOCATION .......................................................................................... ............................... 2 6 . DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ ..............................7 7 . PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA ........................................................................... ............................... 9 8. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED ......................................................... .............................10 9 . LAND USE ............................................................................................................ •............................11 10 . COVER TYPES .................................................................................................... ............................... 18 11. FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES ............. .............................18 12. PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES ........................................... ............................... 21 13 . WATERUSE .......................................................................................................... .............................23 14. WATER - RELATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ........................ ............................... 24 15 . WATER SURFACE USE ..................................................................................... ............................... 24 16. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION .................................................................. ............................... 24 17. WATER QUALITY: SURFACE WATER RUNOFF .......................................... ............................... 27 18 . WATER QUALITY: WASTEWATERS .............................................................. ............................... 29 19. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL, CONDITIONS .......................................... ............................... 32 20. SOLID WASTES, HAZARDOUS WASTES, STORAGE TANKS .................... ............................... 36 21 . TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................ .............................38 22. VEHICLE - RELATED AIR EMISSIONS ............................................................. ............................... 55 23. STATIONARY SOURCE AIR EMISSIONS ....................................................... ............................... 60 24 . ODORS, NOISE AND DUST .............................................................................. ............................... 60 25 . NEARBY RESOURCES ...................................................................................... ............................... 62 26 . VISUAL IMPACTS .............................................................................................. .................•............. 63 27. COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS AND LAND USE REGULATIONS ............ ............................... 64 28. IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ........................ ............................... 64 29 . CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . ................................................................................................................ 65 30. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................................... ............................... 66 31 . SUMMARY OF ISSUES ...................................................................................... ............................... 66 APPENDIX A DNR Natural Heritage and Non -Game Research Program Review for Shenandoah Business Park APPENDIX B SHPO Cultural Review for Shenandoah Business Park United Properties /Opus A UAR - Shakopee, Minnesota Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review List of Figures FIGURE 5.1 County Map Showing Site Location .. ............................... FIGURE 5.2 U.S. Geological Survey Quad ............ ............................... FIGURE 5.3 Proposed Site Plan for Shenandoah Business Park........... FIGURE 5.4 Proposed Site Plan for Minnesota Valley West ................ FIGURE 9.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses .................. FIGURE 9.2 Shakopee Land Use Plan .................... ............................... FIGURE 9.3 _Shakopee Urban Zoning ..................... ............................... FIGURE 9.4 Shakopee Rural Zoning ...................... ............................... FIGURE 12.1 National Wetlands Inventory .............. ............................... FIGURE 14.1 FEMA 100 Year Floodway and Watershed Provenance... FIGURE 14.2 MnDNR Protected Waters Inventory . ............................... FIGURE 19.1 Site Geomorphology ........................... ............................... FIGURE19.2 Site Soils ............................................. ............................... FIGURE 21.1 Existing Intersection Geometry and Traffic Control......... FIGURE 21.2 Estimated Site Access Pattern ............ ............................... FIGURE 21.3 Explanation of Level -of- Service ........ ............................... FIGURE 21.4 Comparison of Estimated Roadway Capacity in 2020...... 3 ............. ............................... 4 ............. ............................... 5 ............. ............................... 6 ............. .............................13 ............. .............................14 ... . .............................15 ............. .............................16 ........... ............................... 22 ........... ............................... 25 ........... ............................... 26 ......... ............................... 33 ........... ............................... 35 ........... ............................... 40 ........... ............................... 43 ........... ............................... 48 ........... ............................... 53 United Properties /Opus AUAR - Shakopee, Minnesota Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review List of Tables TABLE 19.1 SOIL MAP UNITS WITHIN THE TWO PROJECT SITES ................ ............................... 34 TABLE 20.1 TYPICAL SOLID WASTE GENERATION .......................................... .............................37 TABLE 21.1 BUILDING AREAS ASSUMED FOR 2003 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .................41 TABLE 21.2 TRIP GENERATION FOR 2003 .......................................................... ............................... 42 TABLE 21.3 EXISTING AND FORECAST 2003 TURNING MOVEMENTS .......... .............................45 TABLE 21.4 PM PEAK HOUR (2003) INTERSECTION CAPACITY ...................... .............................46 TABLE 21.5 BUILDING AREAS ASSUMED FOR 2020 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .................49 TABLE 21.6 TRIP GENERATION FOR 2020 .......................................................... ............................... 50 TABLE 21.7 EXISTING AND FORECAST TURNING MOVEMENTS - HIGH OFFICE .................... 51 TABLE 22.1 MPCA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE ...........55 TABLE 22.2 INTERSECTIONS EXAMINED FOR CO CONCENTRATIONS ...... ............................... 56 TABLE 22.3 ADJUSTED CO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS .................... .............................56 TABLE22.4 CO RECEPTOR SITES ........................................................................... .............................57 TABLE 22.5 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN CO MODELING ........................................ .............................57 TABLE 22.6 PROJECTED CO CONCENTRATIONS (No Build 2003) ................... .............................58 TABLE 22.7 PROJECTED CO CONCENTRATIONS (Build 2003) ....................... ............................... 59 TABLE 22.8 PROJECTED CO CONCENTRATIONS (Build 2020) ....................... ............................... 59 TABLE 24.1 ROADWAYS AND RECEPTOR SITES ANALYZED FOR NOISE . ............................... 61 TABLE 24.2 PREDICTED L10 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AT RECEPTOR SITES ............................61 TABLE 24.3 COMPARISON OF L10 LEVELS WITH DAYTIME NOISE STANDARDS .................. 62 TABLE 24.4 IMPACT OF COMBINED PROJECT ON L10 NOISE LEVELS IN 2003 ........................ 62 United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Information in this Alternative Urban Areawide Review has been provided by the following organizations: Organization EAW Responsibility/Information Provided United Land LLC Project proposer /project information Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Project proposer /project information City of Shakopee Responsible Governmental Unit/project review David Braslau Associates, Inc. AUAR preparation, air quality and noise Howard R. Green Company Combined traffic analysis; civil engineering for Shenandoah Business Park Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. Natural resources, wetlands, water impacts Faegre & Benson LLP Legal counsel United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review ALTERNATIVE URBANAREAWIDEREVIEW Note to reviewers: Comments on this Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) should be submitted to the City of Shakopee (see Question 3) during the 30 -day comment period following notice of publication of the AUAR in the EQB Monitor. The 30 -day comment period will end on May 13, 2001. Comments should be submitted to the City of Shakopee at the address under Question 3 of this AUAR. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information and potential impacts that warrant further investigation. Since the AUAR substitutes for an EIS, there is no need to comment on the need for an EIS. 1. PROJECT TITLE This AUAR covers two projects: (1) Shenandoah Business Park (United Land LLC) (2) Minnesota Valley West (Opus Northwest, L.L.C.) 2. PROPOSER United Land LLC Name of Project Contact person Title Address City, state, zip Phone Fax E -mail Shenandoah Business Park George I. Burkards Assistant Vice President 3500 West 80th St. Minneapolis, MN 55431 (952) 233 -3800 (952) 233 -3801 gburkards @uproperties.com Onus Northwest. L.L.C. Name of Project Minnesota Valley West Contact person Craig H. Patterson Title Director, Real Estate Development Address 10350 Bren Road West City, state, zip Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone (952) 656 -4611 Fax (952) 656 -4529 E -mail craig.patterson @ opuscorp.com United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page I Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review �C�l�fJ Citv of Shakopee Contact person Michael Leek Title Community Development Director Address 129 Holmes Street South City, state, zip Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone (952) 233 -3800 Fax (952) 233 -3801 E -mail mleek @ci.shakopee.mn.us 4. REASON FOR AUAR PREPARATION Not applicable to an AUAR. Shenandoah Business Park The project site is located within the corporate limits of Shakopee, Minnesota in Scott County. The site is bordered on the north by County Highway (CH 101), on the south by 4 Avenue (Old Highway 82), on the east by Scherer Brothers Lumber and CertainTeed Corporation further east, and on the west by Steel Road and undeveloped land. Shenandoah Drive passes through the westerly portion of the site, connecting TH 101 on the north and 4 Avenue on the south. NW 1/4 & NE 1/4 Section 5 County Scott Township 115N Range 22W City/Twp. Shakopee Minnesota Valley West The project site is located within the corporate limits of Shakopee, Minnesota in Scott County. The site is bordered on the north by 4th Avenue (Old Highway 82) and by Kosovich Valley Park First Addition, on the south by Canterbury Park Racetrack, on the east by Canterbury Road (County Road 83), and on the west by a Canterbury Park access roadway. Southwest 1/4 Section 4 County Scott Township 115N Range 22W City /Twp. Shakopee Attach each of the following to the AUAR: • County map showing the general location of the project (FIGURE 5.1) • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable) (FIGURE 5.2) • Site plan showing all significant project and natural features (FIGURE 5.3 and FIGURE 5.4) United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 2 3 a� � o ^o ca U 3 �a O a 0 Sy CD LLTTN�� w � � W Y - > cr U L i O Lj Z Z N + W - U {lI J n (� C � U t Y Q W Y C Lu W J U W � Q W \� W ir Z_ Z U a W J J c W m y 3 - - U m U Q. }Q a a w � Y 'b U2 N m b L ca y ° z � 0 `b a M b QxW as a 0 b ° ° 3 b 3 r �^ s.; r..� :r ! lY t !n`v a a$ ty I i 0 , - -A V t k-r $ � `WI < #f t � y ,Ny. ,: y _x", - �.� u < E co �I f i %M ti —�`•� yj < > s.-- ....�_- ��I ��! i € `'��`~ fi , r : f ✓ t f : Via. \�\..\� } NA r f�� u � 0 � � I"S � e' ,a1�r.�`-� S � A'/ . � # �,' ♦® � \i +�4 { �� n.� �, s ���olt Sri j:�i � � J' � .•_� '° y3�§ v n Ltr ,� g ,�.. d � ,✓r, �"�.��� �l a �,; `� :� \ j� �1 � / j j' ^;� � 'i � W ' O p� z Q' but t S M � Y .qy _. � t 4 ( • `�sssttt � � y L $ � � M v1 W , o s ^� � j� c£✓ r. �? .: f F Q;§ �i �._� � FF �"" ' fi _ r � � •e �,.. --� --- , a %Mp ' 1 .te :��� 4 <1 ::" r �•, two mm `� F. �2+'y ;� '�uy�`°. •3- ipt"'C �"'--� ,s*'..': P N .W .� \' U .t ,.a a !2 0 0 An T <�\ F YEA `� Y �..r � -�--�\ .' t r =� �`` �' t { ����> � i • TJ 'f".. P" .� �c h� ��, �E s� � fitk a t$ {t � �" ck �• s .- ...�lx- �a � � z (�' � -> >,.,.:: ...'�:..8 .6.•.z.. .,1.;,\,Cd_. YIt_.F'P .. aci -- o -d c OM 1 — S B MN NM MI NM — NM — MI MI all I 11111 MI MO Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review = -- - --- ------- L.... „I :0T i r 1 l--- a - Alp 4 - � ' . � 1 6,OCL a^ L i i' LQT l 7.01' 2 ' 101 3 \ \\ � nil � (.�:� . 1 I 1 1 Il ' \ 1-1 "k kin a wimt l ` United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 5.3 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota Proposed Site Plan for David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park Howard R. Green Company Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW United Land LLC /Onus Northwest. L.L.C. 3 U b 8 '0 N 0 7 0 2f e J. 1 N ' z o m n 0 0 - �° °3 C7 c, o Lu ti v J ti W Z O V 2 �e W � Q W vs 3 0 �3 ¢A �y LD 0Q rn a¢ 01V/07 /n9 32/nln3 76771d30N00 y 3 U Y-ILN30 '1S /0 .(377691 NNIn 9N/1S/X3 U ~ 2 2L� cd a"� 0 �v A a �'2 9 _ (1 ( ONOd � a o -o 0 >r a� Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review 6. DESCRIPTION a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB monitor. This AUAR studies two office /warehouse projects in the City of Shakopee, Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West, each proposed to includel.l million square feet of floor space. Each of the sites will contain access roadways, automobile parking and loading docks for trucks. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Shenandoah Business Park United Land LLC is proposing construction of an office /warehouse development in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on a 112 -acre site that that is currently undeveloped and brush/grassland. There are no wetlands on the site. The concept plan (FIGURE 5.3) shows a total building area of 1,161,000 gross square feet, which consists of the following: United Land LLC Low Office Alternative High Office Alternative Building (Lot) GSF Office(14 %) Warehouse(86 1 /6) Office(50 %) Warehouse(50 %) Lot 1 140,000 19,600 120,400 70,000 70,000 Lot 2 100,000 14,000 86,000 50,000 50,000 Lot 3 100,000 14,000 86,000 50,000 50,000 Lot 4 72,000 10,080 61,920 36,000 36,000 Lot 5 100,000 14,000 86,000 50,000 50,000 Lot 6 157,000 21,980 135,020 78,500 78,500 Lot 7 204,000 28,560 175,440 102,000 102,000 Lot 8 176,000 24,640 151,360 88,000 88,000 Lot 9 1 56,000 7,840 48,160 28,000 28,000 Lot 10 TOTAL 56,000 1,161,000 7,840 162,540 48,160 998,460 28,000 580,500 28,000 580,500 The proposed buildings will vary in size. While it appears that it will not be necessary to dewater to construct the underground utilities, it may be necessary to blast to remove shallow bedrock from the site. It is anticipated that common utility trenches will be used to reduce the amount of blasting required for the installation of water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. With full build -out of the site, it is projected that there will be maximum of 2,220 passenger vehicle parking spaces on the site. Therefore, an Indirect Source Permit will be required for this project. Construction on the project is scheduled to begin in the Spring of 2001. The project will be phased in over a 10 -year period, with occupancy of the initial 10% increment anticipated in 2002. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Minnesota Valley West Opus Northwest, L.L.C. is proposing construction of an office and warehouse development in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on a 75 -acre site which includes 2.5 acres of undeveloped land that is not currently under the ownership of Opus Northwest, L.L.C. The site, except for the 2.5 acres, has been graded and contains two buildings evaluated in a previous Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this project site. Prior to grading and construction, the site formerly included a farmstead with a two -story home and several out buildings, a grass airstrip and taxi area, several rye grass fields, pine plantations, and some small deciduous woodlots. Two previous EAWs have been prepared for this site. The first EAW (April 1998) studied a SuperValu Distribution Center that included development of a total of 600,040 square feet of building area, parking for 375 automobiles, 138 semi - trailer docks parking stalls, and 112 loading bays. The City of Shakopee City Council adopted a "Negative Declaration" on July 7, 1998. This project was never built. The second EAW (January 1999) studied the Department 56 Distribution Center with a total building area of 333,700 square feet consisting of 326,800 square feet of warehouse and 6,900 square feet of office. The concept plan studied also included a building expansion area of 150,000 square feet. That project would have provided 226 total parking stalls. A stormwater pond to accommodate future development of the site was also studied in the EAW. The City of Shakopee City Council adopted a "Negative Declaration" on March 16, 1999. Following completion of that EAW, the site was graded, stormwater ponds provided and two buildings constructed. The concept plan studied in this AUAR (FIGURE 5.4) shows a total building area of 1,160,000 gross square feet, which consists of the following: Minnesota Valley West Low Office Altemative High Office Alternative Building GSF Office(10 %) Warehouse(90 %) Office(14 9 /6) Warehouse(86 0 /6) MN Valley Dist. Center (existing) 232,000 23,200 208,800 32,480 199,520 Future officelwarehouse 232,000 23,200 208,800 32,480 199,520 Conceptual future building 300,000 30,000 270,000 42,000 258,000 Existing USCG Logistics 158,0001 15,800 142,200 22,120 1 135,880 USCG Logistics (future expansion) 238,0001 23,800 214,200 33,320 204,680 TOTAL 1,160,0001 116,000 1 1,044,000 162,400 997,600 Currently there is limited parking on the site for 58 passenger vehicles and 50 semi - trailer trucks. With full build -out of the site, it is projected that there will be maximum of 976 passenger vehicle parking spaces and approximately 100 semi - trailer truck parking stalls on the site. Therefore, an Indirect Source Permit will not be required. It is anticipated that project construction will begin in the Spring of 2001 and be completed later in the year. Full build -out of Minnesota Valley West is anticipated by 2002. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. Both of the presently funded projects will provide for a mixture of office and warehouse facilities to serve businesses and stimulate economic development within the City of Shakopee. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 8 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? ❑ Yes 0 No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. This AUAR addresses potential impacts of full development of the combined projects. e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? 0 Yes (Minnesota Valley West) No (Shenandoah Business Park) If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. Minnesota Valley Vest Two of the buildings were constructed on this site following preparation and approval of an EAW. Because of changes in anticipated land uses on the project site that were evaluated in the earlier environmental review, these buildings are also incorporated into the environmental review being performed for this AUAR. Shenandoah Business Park Total project acreage 112 acres Number of residential units: unattached 0 attached 0 maximum units per building 0 Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): 1,161,000 total square feet Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): Office (14 -50 %) 162,540 - 580,500 Manufacturing N/A Retail N/A Other Industrial N/A Warehouse (86 -50 %) 998,460 - 580,500 Institutional N/A Light Industrial N/A Agricultural N/A Other commercial (specify) N/A Building Height(s) One Story (36 feet) If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 9 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Minnesota Valley West Number of residential units: unattached 0 attached 0 maximum units per building 0 Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): 1,160,000 total square feet Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): Office (10 -14 %) 116,000 - 162,400 Retail N/A Warehouse (90 -86 %) 1,044,000 - 997,600 Light Industrial N/A Other commercial (specify) N/A Building Height(s) One Story (36 feet) If ove buildings Manufacturing N/A Other Industrial N/A Institutional N/A Agricultural N/A r 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Shenandoah Business Park Unit of Government Type of Application Status State: Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for Pollution Control Agency Natl. Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit DES To be applied for Pollution Control Agency Indirect Source Permit To be applied for Dept. of Health Watermain Extension Permit To be applied for Regional: Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for Lower MN Watershed District Grading and Stormwater Management To be applied for Local: City of Shakopee Preliminary Plat Approval To be applied for Final Plat Approval To be applied for Site Plan Approval To be applied for Grading Plan Approval To be applied for Utility Plan water and sanitary sewer To be applied for Building Permits I To be applied for United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 10 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Minnesota Valley West Unit of Government Type of Application Status State: Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Approved Pollution Control Agency Natl. Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit DES Approved Dept. of Health Watermain Extension Permit Approved Dept. of Health Well Abandonment Approval Approved Regional: Metropolitan Council Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit Approved Lower MN Watershed District Grading and Stormwater Management Approved Local: City of Shakopee Preliminary Plat Approval Approved Final Plat Approval Approved Site Plan Approval Approved Grading Plan Approval Approved Utility Plan water and sanity sewer Approved Building Permits To be applied for It is not the objective of the AUAR preparation to develop all the detailed information required for construction permits. The Proposers will assemble the required information and apply for these permits when appropriate. 9. LAND USE Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Shenandoah Business Park Historical Land Use Due to soil conditions (shallow bedrock formation), most of the land is considered non - agricultural and has not previously been developed although the southeast and southwest corners of the site have been cleared and used for agriculture. The natural vegetation is primarily pasture grass and with scattered trees. Elevations at the site range from 752 feet in the southwest portion of the property to 732 along the north - central border. Adjoining Land Use Compatibility Land surrounding the project area is generally undeveloped or industrial (FIGURE 9.1). Land situated west of the site is undeveloped. South of the site and south of 4th Avenue is the Knights of Columbus Hall, a cemetery, and the Shakopee Ballroom. Southeast of the site is the Canterbury Park Racetrack. East of the site is Sherer Brothers Lumber and the CertainTeed Corporation, which is a manufacturer of materials for new construction. North of the site (north of TH 101) is United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 11 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota-Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review the Murphy's Landing Historic Site. The proposed project is compatible with this zoning and all adjacent land uses, and no land use conflicts are anticipated. The project must comply with the City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan (Update 1999) and the City of Shakopee Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Map is the primary plan by which the City decides whether a project is compatible with intended land use. The City uses the Comprehensive Plan in deciding how an area should be zoned. Zoning designations provide further detail regarding permitted activities for a tract of land. The current City of Shakopee Land Use Plan is shown in FIGURE 9.2. The site is currently guided light industrial and is therefore consistent with the Plan. The current urban area Zoning Map (FIGURE 9.3) shows the location of Shenandoah Business Park relative to the downtown area. The rural area Zoning Map (FIGURE 9.4), shows Shenandoah Business Park zoned Il (Light Industrial). Therefore, construction of Shenandoah Business Park is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning. Potential Environmental Contamination A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in June 2000 by Braun Intertec. That ESA was an update to the Phase I ESA conducted by Braun Intertec in July 1999 and an evaluation of the site for recognized environmental conditions that may have become apparent since the time of that report. Access to some areas of the site was limited by dense vegetative cover. No soil borings or investigative wells were included in the study. The following conclusions were reached in the ESA: • No indication of spills, leaks or storage of hazardous substances or petroleum products were noted on the site. • No indications of above - ground or underground storage tanks were noted on the site. • No pole- mounted or slab- mounted electrical transformers or other equipment suspected of containing PCB's were noted on the site. • No indications of solid waste disposal were noted on the site. • No pits, ponds, or surface impoundments or lagoons were noted on the site. w • No buildings or heating or cooling systems were present on the site. • No wells or septic systems were identified on the site. • No recognized environmental conditions were revealed in connection with the site. Minnesota Valley West Historical Land Use Much of the site was in row crops or other associated agricultural use for several decades. Land use prior to the mid -1950s included corn cropping on the slopes located in the southwestern portion of the property. During this period, gully erosion developed on the slopes that were planted with corn. After ownership was transferred in approximately 1953, the new owner employed heavy machinery to fill and compact the previously eroded areas. After the gullies were filled, the owner planted these areas to trees resulting in control of the previous erosion problems. Prior to grading, elevations on the site ranged from 735 feet in the south - central portion of the property to 765 feet along the south - central border and in the southwestern portion of the site. Following completion of the second EAW for the project, the site was graded, retention ponds provided, and two buildings constructed. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.LC. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 12 Jnenandoan tSusmess YarkUMmnesota Valley west Alternative Urban Areawide Keview United Land LLC Shenandoah Business Park Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Minnesota Valley West FIGURE 9.1 Shakopee, Minnesota David Braslau Associates, Inc. ALTERNATIVE URBAN Project Location and Howard R. Green Company Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. AREAWIDE REVIEW Surrounding Land Uses L.L.C. MN i OM MI — In r — MI N M N MI all I_— UM On Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review r LEGEND ° 4 L Single Family Residential l. _. � � '-`° %\ „FP Medium Density Residential „! \ s \ High Density Residential I 44 p � Vl , ^• ` � I - 1 Rural Residential a.�4 `_ e ` _�` : _ ak \'—\:.#1'. S r= Planned Reeidentiel 'f �a L \ \t ` '_ • 17- 1y `�. ~� ` w .... = NeiQh6orhood Commercial Ali, ItO .111,r i l – tab .1 r �/ � Kw Office f rty � I 1 pit IS U I •Y= 4 " / [� (j. {({!!/( �,. -•�+. �. " � t ._. • rl- n p , : i ` �ti►i l Commercial ..„.. km:m _ ! ,� l c4� .al " - ..�s� �..%„• {` 1 4 L ( Business Perk NM Light Industrial �f. ..a .... — is . ai a.. , � MI Heavy Industrial sc N 7 e ,q�"t _� 9 ._.` ',. mg Institutional (current lead um) fi . a \ ... - "- • " Park _ s/ b i. RIIP _ t I Open Space ': : P 4 __ ERtortaloment 6 ? L tsa,a '�" MO$6 Rnunaary ;; r ": �' M _..._ city Unfit v ; t ?`Ny `` t 0 [Y'i Lake . M13 Exp posad M Areas II_ k >. i < Exy so e ion Aroas ��o Overlay Uses mm A Wuin over., to 3 SMSC Lama IS Trust Existing Residential - ;; WM SMSC Land Proposed tc be Deestoptuente Within ,�� i e[aeea Into Treat hokum Township i Shin Land em u[ --Nit" CITY WIDE • � gxx< ::, >< LAND USE PLAN co .c.o. T a � x : c3 ,.a DRAFT' ONLY* m Shakopee .P • .. Comprehensive Plan , ---_ City of Shakopee, Minnesota , 1999 40 - P illaill i s t o. ,,, , A'' HL K �'m eo c*aAAR•EtYPRIIDESINOrWEP — United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 9.2 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota Shakopee Land Use Plan David Braslau Associates, Inc. Howard R Green Company ALTERNATIVE URBAN Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. AREAWIDE REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Yalff West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Adjoining Land Use Compatibility Land surrounding the project area is predominantly developed for industrial use (FIGURE 9.1). Land situated southwest of the site is occupied by Canterbury Park. Office and warehouse developments, a small construction company, and an outboard motor distributor are located to the southeast. The east side of the property is bordered by Canterbury Road (CSAH 83). On the east side of Canterbury Road there is a glass bottle manufacturing industry, other light industries, a Kmart Distribution Center, and a City of Shakopee water tower. To the north of the property is the Inland Container Corporation, and to the northwest is the CertainTeed Corporation. The site is currently guided for industrial use in the City of Shakopee Land Use Plan as shown in FIGURE 9.2, and zoned Light Industrial (1 -1) by the City of Shakopee as shown in FIGURE 9.4. Ten acres of the site that were previously zoned for Major Recreation were rezoned to Light Industrial by the Shakopee City Council on January 19, 1999. The proposed project is compatible with this zoning and all adjacent land uses. No land use conflicts are anticipated. Potential Environmental Contamination A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was previously completed by Delta Environmental Consultants for the property (August, 1997) during EAW preparation for a potential SuperValu Distribution Center. The Phase I ESA evaluated the potential for and/or presence of recognized environmental conditions that could be associated with contamination and current or past property use. The ESA included an EDR- Radius Map report with GeoCheck completed for the property by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to identify potential sources of contamination within the standard search radius from the site. The EDR database search accessed records for more than 35 different types of environmentally relevant sites. Delta recommended that several conditions identified should be addressed with abandoning and sealing of septic tanks, removal of above-ground storage tanks, and proper handling of asbestos in demolition of the house that was located on the site. Delta concluded that, other than those items, further environmental assessment of the property was not warranted as of August 1997 when the Phase 1 ESA was completed. All of the recommendations of Delta Environmental Consultants were implemented during site grading and construction of the two existing buildings. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 17 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review 10. COVER TYPES Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Shenandoah Business Park Before After Type 1- 8 wetlands 0 0 Wooded/Forest 0 0 Brush/Grassland 112 0 Cropland 0 0 Minnesota Valley West Before After Type 1- 8 wetlands 0 0 Wooded/Forest 0 1 0 Brush/Grassland 0 0 Cropland 0 0 Before After Lawn/Landscaping 0 28 Impervious surfaces 0 84 Other Total area 112 112 If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: 11. FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Shenandoah Business Park Existing Plant Communities The Shenandoah Business Park site is predominantly vegetated with disturbed, upland, old field plant community with pioneering tree and shrub species beginning to encroach in some areas. Dominant plant species in the herbaceous layer include common pasture grasses such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense) and quack grass (Agropyron repens). Forb species include Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), field thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and various United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 18 Befor After Lawn/Landscaping Lawn/Landscaping 48.0 16.0 Impervious surfaces 18.0 1 50.0 Road Right-of-Way 1.9 1.9 Stormwater Ponds 7.1 7.1 Total area 75.0 75.0 If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: 11. FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Shenandoah Business Park Existing Plant Communities The Shenandoah Business Park site is predominantly vegetated with disturbed, upland, old field plant community with pioneering tree and shrub species beginning to encroach in some areas. Dominant plant species in the herbaceous layer include common pasture grasses such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense) and quack grass (Agropyron repens). Forb species include Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), field thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and various United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 18 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review aster species (Aster spp.). Shrub species include prickly ash (Zanthoxylum americanum), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and hawthorn (Cretaeg spp.). Common tree species include (in order of abundance); eastern red cedar, Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), hawthorn, and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa). A degraded oak woodlot is located at the extreme eastern end of the site and consists of fourteen bur oaks with an understory of elm and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Existing Fish and Wildlife Species Fish No fish habitat exists on the Shenandoah Business Park site, as it encompasses no wetlands, waterbodies or watercourses. Mammals The Shenandoah Business Park site is utilized by wildlife species typical of suburban environments, pastures, and fragmented woodlands. Typical mammals found in this environment include thirteen -lined ground squirrels (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), woodchucks (Marmota momax), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), pocket gophers (Geomys bursarius), meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) and coyotes (Canis latrans). Birds Bird species utilizing the shrubby portions of the project site include American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), downy woodpeckers (Picoides pubescens), blue jays (Cyanactta cristata), black - capped chickadees (Parus atricapillus), white breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis), house wrens (Troglodytes adeon), gray catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), American robins (Turdus migratorius), ring- necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), brown thrashers (Toxostoma rufum), cedar waxwings (Bombycilla cedrorum), northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), chipping sparrows (Spizella passerina), white - throated sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis) and American goldfinches (Carduelis tristis). Birds common to the grassland areas of the site include mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), American robins, chimney swifts (Chaetura pelagica), eastern kingbirds (Tyrannus tyrannus), tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), field sparrows (Spizella pusilla), barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), common grackles (Quiscalus quiscala), brown headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrows (Passer domesticus) and starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Amphibians and Reptiles Typical reptiles and amphibians using the project site include garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), gopher snakes (Pituophis catenifer) and possibly ring- necked snakes (Diadophis punctatus). Wildlife Habitat Impacts The primary wildlife habitat type affected on the Shenandoah Business Park site will be old field plant communities. These communities will be converted from grassland/shrubland to commercial buildings and associated parking areas. Nearly all of the wildlife species currently using the grassland and shrubland are common in urban and suburban areas and adapt well to adjacent United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 19 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review human activities. Although there will be a shift in the type of wildlife using portions of the site, none of the species likely to be affected are in danger of becoming uncommon or endangered. The proposed project will have little impact upon urban species, such as American robins, American crows, house sparrows, gray squirrels, and common grackles but will experience diminished use by less tolerant species. Use of the site by species characteristic of old field/pasture such as pocket gophers, thirteen lined ground squirrels and meadow voles (and by the predators that hunt them such as coyotes and red foxes) will also be reduced. Minnesota Valley West Prior to grading and construction, the area provided potential habitat for small mammals and those songbirds that are disturbance tolerant, but was less likely to be used significantly by larger mammals such as white - tailed deer, which occupy larger home ranges and require more contiguous habitat. The site was not likely to experience immigration from the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge or other habitat resources in the area due to the isolating effect of established industries and busy roadways located between the site and the Minnesota River valley. Some local decline in wildlife was expected to result from grading and construction, that did not result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity. Migratory birds were expected to respond to the development by locating alternative nesting sites upon their return from wintering habitats. Non - migratory species with small home ranges such as small mammals may have experienced more adverse effects. These species; which include meadow voles and shrews, must either compete with other individuals of the same species to claim territories in neighboring habitats or die during project construction. b. Are any state- listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? E Yes (Shenandoah Business Park) No (Minnesota Valley West) If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been Conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Shenandoah Business Park In February 2001, the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame research program conducted a search of its database for reported locations of threatened, endangered, and special concern species located within one mile of the Shenandoah Business Park site (DNR #ERDB 20010701 in Appendix A). This search yielded 19 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities within one - mile of the project site. The listed species and natural communities located south of the Minnesota River on terrestrial habitats near the project site include; loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a threatened species, and Hill's thistle (Cirsium hillit), milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), all special concern species. The database information provided by the DNR indicate that most of the species with the exception of loggerhead shrike were observed prior to 1951 or were species associated with the Minnesota River and its floodplain. No use of the Shenandoah Business Park site by loggerhead shrikes has been documented to date, but the old field and shrubby portions of the site could potentially provide feeding and nesting habitat for this species. A final inspection of the Shenandoah Business Park site will be conducted during United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 20 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review May 2001 to ensure that loggerhead shrikes are not nesting there. If loggerhead shrikes are found to be nesting on the site, the project proponents will pursue appropriate mitigation measures in coordination with staff from the DNR Nongame Wildlife Program. Minnesota Valley West No evidence of any threatened, endangered, or rare plant or wildlife species was observed on the site during a field review on July 9, 1997. The site did not contain any rare plant communities, since most of the site had been in agricultural use for decades. The Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program conducted a database search for this site in 1997 (in support of a SuperValu EAW for the site prepared in August 1997) to determine if any records exist for the occurrence of rare or endangered plants, animals, or communities on or within one mile of the site. The results of the search completed by the DNR in 1997 are contained in Appendix A. The 1997 search indicated that no known occurrences of rare>species or natural features exist within approximately one mile of the project site. 12. PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? ❑ Yes E No Shenandoah Business Park There are no jurisdictional wetlands or other surface water resources on the site. The national wetlands inventory (NWI) indicates one small wetland (PEC) adjacent to and to the north of 4` Avenue, and an additional wetland (PEC) off -site and to the north of the site boundary (FIGURE 12.1). These potential wetland areas were examined in the field on February 6 and were found to be non - wetland. These areas will be re- examined in the field with the City of Shakopee, which is the LGU administering the Minndota Wetlands Conservation Act, as soon as practicable during Spring, 2001 to confirm the lack of wetlands on the site. No physical impacts are expected on any off -site jurisdictional wetland or surface water. Surface water and stormwater management effects on receiving water bodies are discussed under Questions 17 and 18, below. Minnesota Valley West The site does not contain any wetlands shown on the National Wetlands Inventory or any hydric soils according to the Soil Survey of Scott County (USDA, 1959) and the list of Hydric Soils of Minnesota (SCS,1990). The absence of wetlands was confirmed during a field inspection on July 9, 1997. If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc_ Page 21 M s — — i r i — a■i r- — Me/SINE — — — — — MO Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review 4 - , 4 1 ,., , .„, »•' rR '�'�� 194` 1 r w' i i , 4 11, Ili , A , . * 4 4' S.k 4 :;; . • , w...1. x. ,.z .. . " 1. - 4„x , _ Y , cres r k ' f r 9 .. 4t h A .f. f s f z a {i Site » 75 acres 4 {'� ' r .' ( T \ e,. ,-:• � ,. Lei git • ¢ Hey , .' st j 1 I y * i US • L �St L.L.Cr r / „ , ' _ , ....# 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Feet N W / E S United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 12.1 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota National Wetlands Inventory David Braslau Associates, Inc. Howard R. Green Company Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review 13. WATER USE Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? Yes ❑ No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. Shenandoah Business Park The proposed project will be served by the City of Shakopee municipal water system and will not involve installation of any wells. A review of the County Well Index for Scott County did not identify any registered wells located within the property and there was no evidence of any wells during on site observations. Subsurface exploration was completed in January 1999 by Braun Intertec. Sixteen test pits were dug from 11/2 to 14 feet in depth. Ground water was not encountered in any of the test pits. However, Braun Intertec stated that seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater should be anticipated. Based on this data and the proposal for construction of slab -on -grade warehouse and office facilities, it appears that it will not be necessary to conduct any construction dewatering to extend utilities or make other construction activities feasible. The project will be connected to the City of Shakopee public water supply system that has DNR Water Appropriation Permit Number 80 -6205 and utilizes groundwater aquifers as its water source. It is expected that the quantity of water used will be proportional to the sanitary wastewater produced. Assuming consumption is approximately 110 percent of the wastewater generation rate (see Item 18a), the estimated water demand is 97,896 gallons per day. This estimate is based upon the assumption of maximum office area accounting for 50% of the project. Capacity to accommodate this volume is addressed in Question 28. Minnesota Valley West The proposed project is currently connected to the City of Shakopee municipal water system that has DNR Water Appropriation Permit Number 80 -6205 and utilizes groundwater aquifers as its water source. It is expected that the quantity of water used will be proportional to the sanitary wastewater produced. Assuming consumption is approximately 110 percent of the wastewater generation rate (see Item 18a), the estimated water demand is 63,349 gallons per day. This estimate is based upon the assumption of maximum office area accounting for 14% of the project. Capacity to accommodate this volume is addressed in Question 28. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 23 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? ❑ Yes M No Shenandoah Business Park The site is not within any specific water - related management district. The 100 and 500 -year FEMA floodway boundaries established for the Minnesota River are on the other side of TH 101 to the north of the site (FIGURE 14.1). The closest approach of the 100 -year floodway is over 400 feet from the north boundary. Two DNR protected waters, 253P and 244W (FIGURE 14.2), lie within the floodplain of the Minnesota River. At its closest approach, DNR protected waters 253P and 244W are over 1,000 and 1,300 feet, respectively, from the northern boundary of the site. Construction and post construction activities are not expected to have an affect on these wetlands. Minnesota Vallev West The project is located approximately 2,400 feet from the Minnesota River and over 2,000 feet from the Minnesota River floodplain wetlands. No DNR protected waters are located within 1,000 feet of the site. If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. 15. WATER SURFACE USE Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ❑ Yes M No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: Shenandoah Business Park acres 112 ; cubic yards 332,000 Minnesota Valley West acres 14 ; cubic yards 30,000 United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 24 Ill. I M all — B WIN —I NS MI MI 1 r — 11111 1•11 ION NMI Shenandoah Business Par1�/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawiide Review o'l, �ti J� 4 T f `r M 4 I $.% I ,� J 1 ,, C , r a, 1 ' a4..;t d . - ,♦ _ _ 2 y 1 , 1 !, a c , 4.. , :, f r i ,f' irsz-4.=,'.1 \ ', . - : ____,___ , 12 acres J: 5 I 1, q -�... t . ' She T 'a o: a , e Sit- 1 4 w, ' \ ■ 100 Year Flvotlway Flevati y �. . I � a tley 1° il. �z ' • , 500 Year ay Elevate i .J- Nort west L.L.0 1 ._ t G ` f { 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Feet N W -- -7 - r E S United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 14.1 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota FEMA 100 Year Floodway and David Breslau Associates, Inc. Watershed Provenance Howard R. Green Company Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. 3 b 0 � 3 > W N L o od z O cz 3 m ix Cd -' . Awl o a LL Q ' ..�- CD +• _ • te r � Id a • as* Igo ' 0 06 I L CD CD a3 ¢w CD CD 0 _> w> CD CD a Wb • • s + a cC • eri ., r • U a � O O oUU 0 CD CN yz �aa b .� CID on A4 0 CIL — — — — — — — v a a O 0 U a a Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Shenandoah Business Park According to the Soil Survey of Scott County, soils on steep (12 percent or greater) slopes are subject to severe erosion. Based on the analysis of site topography, maximum slopes within the site were found to be approximately 6 percent. Because the project will involve disturbance of more than five acres of land, application for coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities will be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to initiating earthwork on the site. This permit requires that best management practices (BMPs) be used to control erosion and that all erosion controls be inspected after each rainfall exceeding 0.1 inch of precipitation. Potential erosion control practices to be used on the site will include: 1. Construction of a temporary sediment basin in the location proposed for storm water ponding, and development of this basin for permanent use following construction. 2. Silt fence installed at the construction limits prior to the initiation of earthwork and maintained until all exposed soil is stabilized. 3. Periodic cleaning of adjacent city streets. 4. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls. 5. Use of cover crops, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after final grading. All erosion control plans will be reviewed by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and the City of Shakopee. Because the above BMPs will be implemented, the potential adverse effects from construction- related sediment and erosion on water quality will be minim' ed to the extent practical. It is anticipated that potential adverse erosion and sedimentation impacts will be limited primarily to short -term effects. Minnesota Vallev West The site has been graded and stormwater retention ponds constructed to maintain site runoff at its pre - construction level. BMPs as outlined above will also be followed for new construction on the site. 17. WATER QUALITY: SURFACE WATER RUNOFF a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. Shenandoah Business Park No increase in the rate of runoff from the site is anticipated as a result of this project. The total volume of site runoff will increase due to a proposed increase of approximately 84 acres of impervious surface resulting from street, building and parking lot development. However, this United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 27 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review increase will be mitigated by on -site ponding that will be constructed to provide storage and rate control to limit the discharge rate of runoff from the site at or below existing levels. Because of the proposed ponding, no increase in the rate of site runoff discharging off -site is anticipated as a result of this project. No substantial decrease in the quality of site runoff is anticipated as a result of this project due to the ponding that will be constructed to provide water quality treatment. Post - development runoff is expected to be typical of light industrial development. Runoff after development will likely have small amounts of pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer residues along with an increased amount of phosphates and other typical components of urban runoff from impervious surfaces. The proposed on -site detention basins will provide treatment of runoff before it flows off -site. BMPs will be employed during construction to help reduce erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff. Project development will increase impervious surface to 84 acres, but will also create 10 acres of stormwater ponding. Stormwater runoff from all impervious surfaces will be routed into one of two detention basins which will be constructed as part of this project. Runoff generated east of Shenandoah Drive will be collected and conveyed to the detention basin on the eastern side of the site. Similarly, flows generated on the west side of the site will be directed to the detention basin on the west side of Shenandoah Drive. Both basins will discharge to the north for ultimate discharge to the Minnesota River via existing channels and culverts. The basins will be designed consistent with Nationwide Urban Runoff Program ) guidelines and will conform to storm drainage design criteria developed by the City of Shakopee. City of Shakopee storm drainage design criteria include pond sizing and design to accommodate both a 10 -year initial storm event and a 100 -year major storm event. Minnesota Vallev West No increase in the rate of runoff from the site is anticipated as a result of this project due to the stormwater ponds that are now in place. The total volume of site runoff will increase due to a proposed increase of approximately 45 acres of impervious surface resulting from building and parking lot development. However, this increase will be mitigated by the on -site ponding that has already been constructed to provide rate control and limit the discharge rate of runoff from the site to or below existing levels. Because of the ponding, no increase in the rate of site runoff discharging to regional ponding is anticipated as a result of this project. The on -site detention basins provide treatment of runoff before it flows into a regional stormwater ponding basin constructed west of the site. BMPs will be employed during parking area and building construction to help reduce erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff from all impervious surfaces will be routed into the detention basins, which are located in the western portion of the site, before discharging to the City of Shakopee storm sewer system. The basins have been designed consistent with NURP guidelines and conform to storm drainage design criteria developed by the City of Shakopee. City of Shakopee storm drainage design criteria include pond sizing and design to accommodate both a 10 -year initial storm event and a 100 -year major storm event. Stormwater is discharged from the on -site detention basins to a regional ponding basin about one quarter mile west of the project. According to the Stormwater Feasibility Study for Northern Shakopee (OSM Associates, 1994), alternative designs show that the regional ponding basin will have a volume of 32.2 to 40.6 acre -feet and a peak discharge rate of 10.6 to 31.9 cfs (cubic feet per second). United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 28 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Shenandoah Business Park The project is located approximately 800 feet from the Minnesota River and over 700 feet from the Minnesota River floodplain wetlands. Post - development runoff will be routed to on -site detention basins that meet NURP guidelines prior to discharge to a ditch located north of the site in MnDOT right -of -way. From this ditch, water will flow west and north before discharging to the Minnesota River. Typical Mean Pollutant Concentrations (USEPA, 1983, Table 6 -12) for commercial type land use for COD, TSS, and Total P (mg/1) are 61, 90, and 0.24, respectively. Annual loadings (Best Management Practices for Minnesota, MPCA, 1991, Eqn. 2 -4) for COD, TSS, and Total P, assuming an area watershed of 112 acres, annual rainfall of 26 inches, and a runoff coefficient of 0.80, are estimated at 32,116, 47,384, and 126 lbs, respectively. Post development annual loading ranges for COD, TSS, and Total P, after the installation of detention basins meeting NURY guidelines, are expected to be 6,420- 12,846, 4,740- 14,215, and 38 -50 lbs., respectively. Minnesota Valley West The project is located approximately 2,400 feet from the Minnesota River and over 2,000 feet from the Minnesota River floodplain wetlands. Stormwater is routed to on -site detention basins that meet NURP guidelines prior to discharge to the regional stormwater pond located about a quarter mile west of the site. From this regional pond, water flows north and passes through one or two additional ponds before discharging to the Minnesota River. This route for Stormwater runoff provides rate control and water quality treatment. 18. WATER QUALITY: WASTEWATERS a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. Shenandoah Business Park Sanitary wastewater production has been estimated based on the methods outlined in the Service Availability Charge (SAC) Procedures Manual (Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, 1996). One SAC unit equals 274 gallons of maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume. The volume of wastewater production was estimated by assigning one SAC unit per 2,400 SF (square feet) of office and per 7,000 SF of warehouse. Based on these methods, Metropolitan Council guidelines indicate that this type of development would be expected to generate a maximum of 66,281 gallons of wastewater per day from the office space, and the warehouse space would be expected to generate a maximum of 22,715 gallons of wastewater per day. This estimate is based upon the assumption of maximum office area accounting for 50% of the project. Based on these United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 29 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review figures, the estimated maximum potential wastewater production for the entire proposed development is 88,996 gallons per day, as shown in the following table. Proposed Use SAC Rate Area (sq ft) (max. office area) SAC Units Wastewater (gallons /day) Office 1/2400 SF 580,500 241.9 66,281 Warehouse 117000 SF 580,500 82.9 22,715 Total I 1 88,996 The types of wastewater produced will be typical of shipping and distribution warehouse industries. Minnesota Valley West Sanitary wastewater production has been estimated based on the methods outlined in the Service Availability Charge (SAC) Procedures Manual (Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, 1996). One SAC unit equals 274 gallons of maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume. The volume of wastewater production was estimated by assigning one SAC unit per 2,400 SF (square feet) of office and per 7,000 SF of warehouse. Based on these methods, Metropolitan Council guidelines indicate that this type of development would be expected to generate a maximum of 18,541 gallons of wastewater per day from the office space, and the warehouse space would be expected to generate a maximum of 39,049 gallons of wastewater per day. This estimate is based upon the assumption of maximum office area accounting for 14% of the project. Based on these figures, the estimated maximum potential wastewater production for the entire proposed development is 57,590 gallons per day, as shown in the following table. Proposed Use SAC Rate Area (sq ft) (max. office area) SAC Units Wastewater (gallons /day) Office 1/2400 SF 162,400 67.7 18,541 Warehouse 117000 SF 997,600 142.5 39,049 Total 57,590 The types of wastewater produced will be typical of shipping and distribution warehouse industries. The proposed project will not entail any food processing or wet industrial processes. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on -site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. Shenandoah Business Park No on -site waste treatment is proposed. All wastewater will be discharged to the City of Shakopee sanitary sewer system. Capacity to accommodate this discharge is addressed below. Minnesota Valley West No onsite waste treatment is proposed. All wastewater will be discharged to the City of Shakopee sanitary sewer system. Capacity to accommodate this discharge is addressed below. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc_ Page 30 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. Shenandoah Business Park Wastewater will be routed to the trunk sanitary sewer line via connecting sanitary sewer pipes sized and constructed to appropriate specifications. The eastern portion of the subject site lies within the VIP Sanitary Sewer District and the western portion lies within the East District of the City of Shakopee. The City of Shakopee 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update estimates future average sanitary sewer flow rates at 1,500 gallons per day per acre ( gpd/ac) for commercial and 1,300 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) for office uses within both sewer districts. The estimated 88,996 gallons per day for this 112 -acre site is well below the 156,800 gallons per day that would be predicted based on the projected flow rates contained in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Wastewater will eventually flow to the Blue Lake Treatment Facility operated by the Metropolitan Council. The treatment facility has a design capacity of 32 million gallons per day and currently receives about 23 million gallons per day. The estimated 88,996 gallons per day maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume is well within the 11 million gallons per day of excess now capacity of the Blue Lake Treatment Facility. Minnesota Valley West Wastewater will be routed to the trunk sanitary sewer line via connecting sanitary sewer pipes sized and constructed to appropriate specifications. The eastern portion of the subject site lies within the Industrial Sanitary Sewer District and the western portion lies within the VIP District of the City of Shakopee. The City of Shakopee 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update estimates future average sanitary sewer flow rates at 1,500 gallons per day per acre ( gpd/ac) for industrial uses within both sewer districts. The estimated 59,590 gallons per day for this 75 -acre site is well below the 112,500 gallons per day that would be predicted based on the 1,500 gpd/ac flow rate contained in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update. Wastewater will eventually flow to the Blue Lake Treatment Facility operated by the Metropolitan Council. The treatment facility has a design capacity of 32 million gallons per day and currently receives about 23 million gallons per day. The estimated 59,590 gallons per day maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume is well within the 11 million gallons per day of excess now capacity of the Blue Lake Treatment Facility. d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. Not Applicable United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L_C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 31 Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review a. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Shenandoah Business Park Minnesota Valley West Minimum Average Ground Water: >14 n.a. Bedrock: 1 3 Minnesota Valley West Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. Shenandoah Business Park The Geomorphology Map of Minnesota (FIGURE 19.1) indicates that the Shenandoah Business Park project site is mapped FWi1Rbk, indicating a relatively level terrace landform consisting of a thin layer of water -laid, coarse textured sediments deposited over a bedrock bench by glacial river Warren during the Wisconsin Glaciation. The most restrictive geologic characteristic is bedrock appearing at shallow depths coupled with coarse-textured overlying sediments. The presence of shallow bedrock needs to be considered in construction design, site grading, landscaping, and sewer siting and design. Shallow bedrock coupled with overlying coarse textured sediment suggests the presence of shallow, perched water tables with a high potential for groundwater contamination. Water movement through the overlying coarse - textured sediments would be fast and the flow path to the restrictive bedrock layer is short. If the need for a clay liner is identified, it would be constructed to minimiz seepage from stormwater ponds, prevention of groundwater contamination and unexpected increases in water table elevations near the stormwater pond. None of the public water supply wells for the City of Shakopee are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Minnesota Valley West The Geomorphology Map of Minnesota (FIGURE 19.1) indicates that the Minnesota Valley West - project site is dominated by Map Unit FWi1Rod, a moderately level terrace landform consisting of a relatively thick layer of water -laid, coarse textured sediments deposited over a bedrock bench by glacial river Warren during the Wisconsin Glaciation. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 32 Minimum Average Ground Water: 18 n.a. Bedrock: 10 21 Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. Shenandoah Business Park The Geomorphology Map of Minnesota (FIGURE 19.1) indicates that the Shenandoah Business Park project site is mapped FWi1Rbk, indicating a relatively level terrace landform consisting of a thin layer of water -laid, coarse textured sediments deposited over a bedrock bench by glacial river Warren during the Wisconsin Glaciation. The most restrictive geologic characteristic is bedrock appearing at shallow depths coupled with coarse-textured overlying sediments. The presence of shallow bedrock needs to be considered in construction design, site grading, landscaping, and sewer siting and design. Shallow bedrock coupled with overlying coarse textured sediment suggests the presence of shallow, perched water tables with a high potential for groundwater contamination. Water movement through the overlying coarse - textured sediments would be fast and the flow path to the restrictive bedrock layer is short. If the need for a clay liner is identified, it would be constructed to minimiz seepage from stormwater ponds, prevention of groundwater contamination and unexpected increases in water table elevations near the stormwater pond. None of the public water supply wells for the City of Shakopee are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Minnesota Valley West The Geomorphology Map of Minnesota (FIGURE 19.1) indicates that the Minnesota Valley West - project site is dominated by Map Unit FWi1Rod, a moderately level terrace landform consisting of a relatively thick layer of water -laid, coarse textured sediments deposited over a bedrock bench by glacial river Warren during the Wisconsin Glaciation. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 32 — r — • — 1 M OM O S B all r s— S I M• Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review ' v d.' 4 ! ,, � � � e ' ' � , ,,* • ., t o x. 4 ' .7 V • f � c �. r t, s YS. S ,A r,. 3 1,.A f fi .7 r 4 + 3 Ar, . / oa t JBkai, '- Y S 1 d s, ' t i � 441/4 '' 1} i If I 1_ � 4 � p wY mow •?6 { .1'�Y r 1 i� ''' *h z w, ,,,� i F y r n , , , Oil ` , ' j , { E' MUM 69 ,440t4j*I'ker . �l s ! - - • 4 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Feet N W /f,,,, E S United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 19.1 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota Site Geomorphology David Braslau Associates, Inc. Howard R. Green Company Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review The development of approximately an additional 45 acres of impervious surface on the site and the routing of stormwater to detention basins is expected to limit the potential for contaminated surface water infiltration and minimize the potential for groundwater contamination. As stated in the Geologic Atlas, the "Minnesota Department of Health Water -Well Code prohibits the use of a limestone or dolomite formation as a source of ground -water supply if it occurs within fifty feet of the land surface within a . one -mile radius around the well site ". Because the geologic data for the site shows that the Prairie du Chien dolomite is known to occur within 50 feet of the land surface, the pumping level for any wells must be below the top of this unit within the project site. According to the Atlas, "wells must be drilled deeper to tap a lower aquifer" under these geologic conditions. This safeguard, and the observation that most established wells within one mile of the project site record the inclusion of cement grout in their design, limit the potential for project development to affect adversely domestic or municipal wells. According to the Phase I ESA prepared by Delta Environmental Consultants in 1997, the sources of public water for the City of Shakopee are seven municipal wells. Five of these wells are in the Jordan Sandstone aquifer and the remaining two wells are in the Franconia Formation aquifer. None of the public water supply wells for the City of Shakopee are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. The Scott County Soil Survey indicates four soil Map Units within the two site boundaries: HdA, HdC2, Sc, and CsA (FIGURE 19.2). All map units identified on the site consist of consociations that are dominated by one major soil type. The soil maps units that occur within the site boundaries of the two projects, based upon the Scott County Soil Survey [USDA, 1959, with revisions in 1996] are presented below in TABLE 19.1. 1 WIT NWHIODHIMILIATLIMIJ Map Symbol Soil Series and Classification H dric' Prime Farmland CdA Copaston, loamy, mixed, superactive Lithic Ha ludolls No No HdA Sparta, sandy, mixed, mesic Entic Ha ludolls No No HdC2 Sparta, sandy, mixed, mesic Entic Ha ludolls No No Sc Stony Land, No Classification No No 1 Based on the list of Hydric Soils of Minnesota (1990). 2 Based on the list of Prime Farmlands of Minnesota. Shenandoah Business Park The Shenandoah Business Park site is dominated by Copaston soils (Map Unit CdA) with minor percentages of Stony land (Map Unit Sc) and Sparta soils (Map Unit HdA). The Copaston and Stony Land soils contain a high percentage of rock fragments, and are shallow to limestone bedrock. None of the soils are considered Prime Farmland. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 34 ION OM MI MI i MI N w M 1111111 MI M N M IIIIII i M S NM Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review � � 0 , , A ?, , � :fie ' S ' ¢ d4 = j 6 4e.N.' , _. t, 4.o„ t' 1 ' f __ III 1 ,' i- '"! PV tt .; '- `l.' p. a 4th venue ` a` 7 , , , r f e ,, 75 acres - , ti �` I ( j r, i r . a b _ i t w47 Kyps" x notekto M . _ : i 1 `i$ Opus Nort - st L.L.C. O - r I . . 1.. { 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Feet f N W 2- r E S United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 19.2 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota Site Soils David Breslau Associates, Inc. Howard R.. Green Company Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review The Copaston series consists of shallow, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in a mantle of alluvial sediments over bedrock on stream terraces. Permeability is moderately rapid. Copaston soils have severe limitations for building site development and water management due to the shallow depth to bedrock, rapid permeability, and piping hazards. Soils in the Stony Land Map Unit (Sc) constitute a miscellaneous land type whose soils would probably be classified as loamy, mixed, superactive Lithic Udorthents. These soils would have characteristics similar to those examined for the Copaston series, above. However, use ratings would be even more restrictive due to shallower bedrock and the presence of stones at the surface and throughout the soil. In general, the most restrictive characteristics of site soils are the shallow depth to bedrock and the high permeability of the overlying sediments. The presence of shallow bedrock needs to be considered in construction and stormwater design, site grading, landscaping, and sewer siting and design. The use of a clay liner constructed according to specifications will minimize seepage out of stormwater ponds, preventing groundwater contamination and unexpected increases in water table elevation peripheral to the stormwater pond. Landscaping and revegetation will likely require bringing in suitable topsoil. Minnesota Valley West The Soil Survey of Scott County, Minnesota (USDA, 1959, with revisions in 1996) shows that the Minnesota Valley West site is dominated by soils of the Sparta series (TABLE 19.1). The Minnesota Valley West site is dominated by soil Map Units HdA and HdC2, indicating soil mapped into the Sparta soil series. Sparta soils are typically very deep, excessively drained soils formed in sandy outwash on stream terraces. Permeability is rapid. The land capability classification for Sparta soils is 4S indicating severe limitations for plant growth due to droughtiness. Sparta soils are not prime farmland. Sparta soils frequently have severe limitations for uses that depend upon low hydraulic conductivity characteristics, such as unlined ponds and reservoirs, embankments, and dikes. Sparta soils can also be droughty, limiting plant growth. Excavations in Sparta soils are subject to slumping. The potential for groundwater contamination in areas dominated by Sparta soils is high due to high infiltration and percolation rates. However, the stormwater ponds have been constructed to minimize infiltration into the groundwater. 20. SOLID WASTES, HAZARDOUS WASTES, STORAGE TANKS a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. Shenandoah Business Park The proposed development will not generate significant amounts of wastes that would be considered "hazardous ". Types of solid wastes to be generated by the facility and the relative percentage of each type (by weight) are estimated in TABLE 20.1. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 36 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Waste Type Percent Paper 50 Other organics 22 Plastics 14 Glass 7 Metals 4 Other wastes 2 Wood/ and wastes <1 Hazardous wastes <1 Total 100 Source: City of Los Angeles Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Vol. 2 Solid Waste Generation Study, 1994. Other organics include such items as food wastes, textiles /clothes, and rubber products. Hazardous wastes, which are not expected to be generated on the site, include items such as used oil, batteries, paint, adhesives, cleaners, gas, and antifreeze. Estimated yearly disposal of solid wastes from the proposed office /warehouse development is 3,600 tons. This estimate is based on a disposal rate of 10.6 pounds per employee per day (King County, Washington, Waste Monitoring Program: Large Generator Study Final Report, 1994), 2,220 employees, and full operation of the facility for 300 days of the year. The City of Shakopee has no recycling program or applicable recycling ordinance in place for businesses. The distribution facility will be responsible for its own source separation plan, and recycling will be coordinated through a chosen solid waste contractor. Non - recycled waste will be hauled to either the Scott County Incinerator or a sanitary landfill. Minnesota Vallev West The proposed distribution center will not generate significant amounts of wastes that would be considered "hazardous ". Types of solid wastes to be generated by the facility are similar to those listed above. Estimated yearly disposal of solid wastes from the proposed office /warehouse development is 1,370 to 1,596 tons. This estimate is based on a disposal rate of 10.6 pounds per employee per day (King County, Washington, Waste Monitoring Program: Large Generator Study Final Report, 1994), 838 to 936 employees, and full operation of the facility for 300 days per year. The distribution facility will be responsible for its own source separation plan, and recycling will be coordinated through a chosen solid waste contractor. Non - recycled waste will be hauled to either the Scott County Incinerator or a sanitary landfill. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimi or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 37 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Shenandoah Business Park It is not anticipated that any toxic or hazardous materials, other than standard construction and cleaning materials will be used or present at the site. Minnesota Valley West No known hazardous materials are currently located on the site. No toxic or hazardous materials other than vehicle fuels and normal cleaners are expected to be used on the project site. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. Shenandoah Business Park It is not anticipated that development of this site will include the installation of any above - ground or underground storage tanks. Minnesota Vallev West It is not anticipated that development of this site will include the installation of any above - ground or underground storage tanks. 21. TRAFFIC Shenandoah Business Park Parking spaces added: 2,220 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 0 Estimated total average daily traffic generated 9,270 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence: 1,210 Minnesota Valley West Parking spaces added: 918 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 58 Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 5,820 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence: 740 Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Introduction to Combined Traffic Study Opus Northwest, L.L.C. (Minnesota Valley West) and United Land LLC (Shenandoah Business Park) are currently proposing mixed -use industrial developments in the City of Shakopee, which is generally bounded by County Highway (CH) 101, CH 83, 4 Avenue East and Shenandoah Drive. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 38 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review The proposed development is planned to be constructed over the next several years, with Opus completing their portion by 2002 and United Properties completing their portion by 2012 with an assumed addition of 10% each year. This report documents the estimated traffic related characteristics of the combined sites, as well as documenting the impacts onto the existing roadway system. Two analysis years are evaluated in this traffic study. Traffic impacts have been analyzed for the year 2003, which represents the year after full build -out of Minnesota Valley West and 10% build- out of Shenandoah Business Park, and 2020, which represents full build -out of both projects. The methodology used in the completion of this traffic study, as well as a summary of the findings, are documented below. Existing Conditions The proposed developments are located just south of CH 101 between CH 83 and Shenandoah Drive. CH 101 is a high -speed divided rural highway with full accesses at CH 83 (signalized intersection) and Shenandoah Drive (through -STOP control). CH 83 is a north -south four -lane undivided roadway between 12` Avenue and CH 101. To the south, CH 83 widens to a four -lane divided roadway through the interchange with TH 169, a principal arterial divided highway, which is commonly referred to as the Shakopee Bypass. TH 169 provides the principal link to the surrounding regional roadway system, connecting to Minneapolis to the north and Mankato to the south. Local access to the combined sites is provided principally by 4 Avenue East, which is currently a two -lane rural section between CH 83 and Shenandoah Drive. 4 Avenue East connects with C 83 at a three - legged through -STOP intersection just to the south of CH 101. The geometry and traffic control at the key intersections are documented in FIGURE 21.1. Trip Generation The expected traffic generation associated with the proposed developments is a function of the proposed type and intensity of land use. Trip generation rates were obtained from ITE Trip Generation, 6` Edition, which is the industry -wide recognized standard for estimating trip generation in these types of circumstances. For the 2003 projection year, building areas for the "high" office scenario for both sites are assumed, with the combinations of office and warehouse shown in TABLE 21.1. As shown in the table, the existing office and warehouse space in Minnesota Valley West is already included in background traffic, and is therefore not used to generate new traffic. However, this existing area is included in the total project area in Question 6 of this AUAR. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 39 U a 3 �, 0 z 0 U c� a w .� Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review TABLE 21.1 BUILDING AREAS ASSUMED FOR 2003 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Minnesota Valley West (100% Build -out) New for Traffic Impact Study In Background Total Project New GSF % of total Existing GSF Total GSF General Office 140,280 14 22,120 162,400 Warehouse 861,720 86 135,880 997,600 Total 1,002,000 100 158,000 1,160,000 Shenandoah Business Park (10% Build -out) New for Traffic Impact Study In Background Total Project New GSF % of Total Existing GSF Total GSF General Office 58,050 50 58,050 Warehouse 58,050 50 58,050 Total 116,100 100 116,100 Combined Projects New for Traffic Impact Study In Background Total Project New GSF % of Total Existing GSF Total GSF General Office 198,330 17.7 22,120 220,450 Warehouse 919,770 82.3 135,880 1,055,650 Total 1,118,100 100.0 158,000 1,276,100 Based on the above documented development characteristics, the combined projects are expected to generate approximately 6,750 new vehicle trips per day, with 860 of those trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The trip generation rates utilized in this analysis are documented in TABLE 21.2. As noted above, one of the two structures in the Minnesota Valley West project was already leased and occupied at the time that existing traffic counts were collected in January 2001. Therefore, the development that was already in operation was not included in the trip generation calculations, as traffic associated from this development would have been accounted for in the existing traffic counts. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc_ Page 41 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review TABLE 21.2 TRIP GENERATION FOR 2003 Minnesota Valley West (100% of Total Plan) % of Size Estimated Daily Trips Estimated PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Category Site (SF) Rate Trips Rate Trips IN OUT General Office 14 1 /6 140,280 11.01 1,545 1.49 210 35 175 Warehouse 86% 861,720 4.96 4,275 0.61 530 40 490 ISUBTOTAL 1 100%1 1,002,0001 5,820 1 740 75 665 Shenandoah Business Park 10% of Total Plan % of Size Estimated Daily Trips Estimated PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Category Site (SF) Rate Trips Rate Trips IN OUT General Office 50% 58,050 11.01 640 1.49 90 15 75 Warehouse 50% 58,050 4.96 290 0.61 40 5 35 SUBTOTAL 1 100% 116,100 930 130 20 110 Combined Projects Size Estimated Daily Trips Estimated PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Category (SF) Rate Trips Rate Trips IN OUT General Office 198,330 11.01 2,185 1.49 300 50 250 Warehouse 919,770 4.96 4,560 0.61 560 45 515 TOTAL 1,118,100 6,745 860 95 765 Source: ITE Trip Generation, 6` Edition Directional Orientation The directional orientation of new traffic from the combined sites was estimated using two separate procedures. The purpose for the redundancy was to obtain a higher degree of certainty that the results would be reasonable, since the estimation of directional orientation is one of the most subjective procedures in the traffic impact analysis process. First, the directional orientation was estimated by using the "sum of entering ADT" method. This procedure essentially creates a cordon line around the combined sites and distributes the site - generated traffic onto the existing roadway network at the same proportion as existing background traffic passes through this encircled area. Second, the results from this analysis were then compared to results from a regional travel model previously completed for the Shakopee area. The results compared quite closely, which indicates that the estimate of directional orientation should have a reasonably high degree of certainty. The directional orientation was then rounded to the nearest 5% of the total, so as not to imply a level of precision that would be inconsistent with the rest of the directional orientation analysis. The directional orientation of new trips from the combined sites used in this analysis is summarized below and documented in FIGURE 21.2. West (CH 101): Southwest (TH 169): South (CH 83): 10% East (CH 101) 35% 15% Southeast (TH 169) 20% 10% Local (4` Avenue) 10% United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 42 U a a a� 3 0 z 0 v a a 79 a as a b 5 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Operational Impact Analysis Procedure Six key intersections were selected for operational analysis based on estimating the probability of site development related traffic impacts. Those six intersections included: 1. CH 101 /CH 83 2. CH 83/4 Avenue 3. CH 101 /Shenandoah Drive 4. North TH 169 Ramps /CH 83 5. South TH 169 Ramps /CH 83 6. 4"' Avenue East / Shenandoah Road The intersection of CH 83 / 12 Avenue was not analyzed as part of this study. Based on the site layout and the estimated directional orientation of site - generated trips, it was assumed that the ramp terminals at TH 169 would better reflect traffic operations in the area and would likely experience operational deficiencies before the intersection of CH 83 and 12 Avenue. At these key intersections, a capacity analysis was completed to determine the quality of traffic flow at these locations. The quality of traffic operations through any intersection is a function of three key components: (1) roadway geometry, intersection traffic control, and traffic volumes. The geometry and traffic control (including signal phasing and typical g) were identified based on field observations. The existing traffic volumes were collected by counting PM peak hour turning movements at all five key intersections during January, 2001. These traffic volumes were used as existing "baseline" conditions. The year after opening analysis (2003) was performed for two different scenarios; first a "no- build" scenario, which accounted for increases in background traffic only, but assumed no new construction on either of the sites. The second scenario was a "post- development" or "build" condition, which utilized the trip generation and directional orientation characteristics that were documented in the previous sections. No changes from the existing intersection traffic controls (including signal timing) or roadway geometry were assumed for either of the 2003 scenarios. Forecast PM peak hour turning movements were developed for both the "no- build" and "build" scenarios. The "no- build" traffic volumes were based on an increase of 2% per year for all movements (to account for other development in the area). The existing and forecast 2003 PM peak hour turning movements are documented in TABLE 21.3. In order to document the quality of traffic operations, the Level -of- Service (LOS) at each intersection was determined using the guidelines outlined in the 1997 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. LOS is a qualitative measurement of the quality of traffic flow through intersections or along roadway segments using a letter -grace scale. Much like an academic report card, LOS A represents high- quality conditions with little or no congestion. Conversely, LOS F represents poor conditions with extreme congestion and long delays. In most urban areas, including the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the threshold between LOS D and LOS E has been chosen as the index of congestion (i.e. LOS D conditions are typically considered acceptable, while LOS E conditions are typically considered deficient). United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 44 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review TABLE 21.3 EXISTING AND FORECAST 2003 TURNING MOVEMENTS CH 101 /CH 83 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) - 2 - 64 425 1 233 1 106 2 325 98 No -Build (2003) 2 - 67 442 1 242 1 110 2 338 102 I Post-Development (2003) 2 - 90 452 1 281 1 298 2 415 107 CH 83/4th Avenue Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) 216 46 - - 69 268 45 59 No -Build (2003) 225 48 - 72 279 47 61 Post - Development (2003) - 225 76 - - 115 279 272 406 CH 101 /Shenandoah Drive Southbound Westbound No Eastbound Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) - 25 582 4 - 19 - 513 16 No -Build (2003) - 26 606 - 4 20 534 17 Post - Development (2003) 36 644 - 42 96 538 17 CH 83 /12th Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) No -Build (2003) Post - Development (2003) - 344 - - - 43 - - North TH 169 83 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) 334 116 320 2 36 36 106 - - - No -Build (2003) - 347 121 333 2 37 37 110 - - - - Post- Development (2003) 577 235 333 2 56 37 134 - South TH 169 Ramps/CH 83 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) 363 628 - - 127 299 59 24 No -Build (2003) 378 653 - - - - 132 311 61 25 Post - Development (2003) 531 730 - - 142 311 76 - 25 4th Avenue / Shenandoah Road Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) 10 20 10 30 55 30 10 20 10 10 80 10 No -Build (2003) 10 21 10 31 57 31 10 21 10 10 83 10 Post - Development (2003) 25 20 13 32 124 147 10 20 10 10 134 27 United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 45 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review For signalized intersections, the documented LOS represents the overall LOS for the entire intersection. However, for through -STOP intersections, it is more common to present the "worst - approach" LOS instead of the overall LOS. The purpose for this distinction is to account for conditions where higher mainline through volumes at a through -STOP intersection incur no delay, where the lower minor street volumes incur significant delay (but the actual impact is masked by the calculation of average delay per vehicle). Therefore, the LOS at through -STOP intersections that is documented in this study represents the LOS on the approach with the highest delay. Intersection Capacity Analysis Results At CH 101 /CH 83, as well as CH 83 at the North TH 169 Ramps, the intersections are estimated to operate at LOS B for the 2003 "no- build" scenario and the 2003 "build" scenario. At CH 83 /South TH 169 Ramps, the intersection will continue to operate at LOS A under both scenarios. The LOS at each of these intersections in documented in TABLE 21.4. These results indicate that the traffic associated with this new development will have little impact on the overall operation of these intersections in the year 2003. TABLE 21.4 PM PEAK HOUR (2003) INTERSECTION CAPACITY Source: HCS (Ver 3.0) and Synchro TM (Ver. 4.0) based on Highway capacity Manual X199 i) caictuauum. Notes: 1. LOS for Thru -STOP intersections is LOS on worst approach and not LOS for entire intersection. 2. No signal timing or phasing changes were assumed for any signalized intersections. 3. Analysis does not account for Valley Green development near TH 169 / CH 83. However, this impact analysis concludes that traffic associated with Opus / United Properties development does not have significant impact on ramp terminal operations. At the intersection of CH 101 /Shenandoah Drive, the LOS is estimated to decline from LOS B to LOS C under the "build" scenario. Although the impact of the new site - generated traffic is apparent, the operation of the intersection will still be better than the typical index of congestion for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (defined as the LOS D/E boundary). United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 46 Traffic Level -of- Intersection Control Scenario Service Notes No -Build B CH 101 / CH 83 Traffic Signal post Development B No -Build C Addition of eastbound right turn CH 83 / 4th Avenue East Thru - S post Development ?` ` 3.r lane on 4th results in LOS D operation for intersection (post development conditions) 4 th Avenue/ All -Way Stop No-Build A Based on estimated turning movements from existing ADT and Shenandoah Road Post Development A Trip Generation with documented directional orientation No -Build B CH 83 / North TH 169 Traffic Signal See Note # 3 Below post Development B Ramps No -Build A CH 83 / South TH 169 Traffic Signal See Note # 3 Below post Development A Ramps No -Build B CH 101 / Shenandoah Road Thru - STOP post Development C Source: HCS (Ver 3.0) and Synchro TM (Ver. 4.0) based on Highway capacity Manual X199 i) caictuauum. Notes: 1. LOS for Thru -STOP intersections is LOS on worst approach and not LOS for entire intersection. 2. No signal timing or phasing changes were assumed for any signalized intersections. 3. Analysis does not account for Valley Green development near TH 169 / CH 83. However, this impact analysis concludes that traffic associated with Opus / United Properties development does not have significant impact on ramp terminal operations. At the intersection of CH 101 /Shenandoah Drive, the LOS is estimated to decline from LOS B to LOS C under the "build" scenario. Although the impact of the new site - generated traffic is apparent, the operation of the intersection will still be better than the typical index of congestion for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (defined as the LOS D/E boundary). United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 46 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review At the intersection of CH 83/4 Avenue, the LOS will decline from LOS C to LOS F after the development traffic is added. These conditions are representative of congested operations, and it can be concluded that the change is caused by site - generated traffic. A graphical representation of the LOS at this intersection is documented in FIGURE 21.3. The intersection of 4th Avenue East / Shenandoah Road was also analyzed due to it's proximity to the actual development. Since this intersection was selected for analysis after all data collection had been completed, the PM peak hour turning movements at this intersection were extrapolated from adjacent intersections, which provides a reasonably good estimate of the actual volumes (and for the associated LOS — especially for low volume conditions). During the existing PM peak hour, as well as for the 2003 development scenario, this intersection was calculated to operate at LOS A as an All-Way STOP condition. This indicates that site generated traffic has little adverse impact on the operation of this intersection. Potential Mitigation Strategies The intersection of CH 83/4 Avenue was identified as the only intersection in 2003 that is estimated to be above the index of congestion after the development of the combined projects. In order to mitigate the LOS F condition, two possibilities were considered; first, installation of a traffic signal, and second, the addition of turning lanes on the minor street approach. The installation of a traffic signal at this intersection would likely be accompanied by an increase in overall intersection delay (LOS B overall instead of the existing overall LOS A), since the through vehicles on CH 83 currently experience no delay as a result of the intersection traffic control. In addition, the number of accidents at this intersection would likely increase (especially due to the lack of a northbound left turn lane on CH 83), since signalized intersections typically have approximately twice as many accidents as through -STOP intersections of this type. Therefore, the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection would only be effective if traffic volumes were to significantly increase from what is expected, and the installation were also accompanied by the addition of auxiliary left turning lanes. Since 4th Avenue only has one lane of approach to CH 83, the delay incurred by left - turning vehicles has a direct negative impact onto right - turning vehicles on 4 th Avenue. To mitigate this situation, a right turn lane could be added on 4 th Avenue such that the left turning vehicles were separated from the right turning vehicles. In the 2003 "build" scenario, the intersection would be expected to operate at LOS D with this geometric modification. This quality of operation would be considered acceptable based on a typical index of congestion for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The City of Shakopee has identified the connection of Shenandoah Road to 12 Avenue as a part of their transportation plan by 2005. This connection provides an additional link to CH 83 for site - generated traffic, avoiding the more heavily used intersection of CH 83 / 4 th Avenue. However, due to the circuity of this route, combined with the fact that the focus of the proposed development is toward 4 th Avenue, it appears unlikely that a large percentage of site - generated traffic would utilize this new connection. It can be assumed that some amount of site - generated traffic (especially that west of Shenandoah Road) may utilize this new street. However, even with diversion of as many as % (or more) of the trips, the deficiencies at CH 83 / 4 th Avenue still would exist. It should also be noted that even with diversion of trips to a new 12 Avenue connection, the intersection of CH 83 / 12 Avenue would still not be adversely impacted by site - generated traffic due to the low amount of likely diversions to this connection. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 47 NM t■ r MI r MI O1 INN OM MN A s OM - MM wu NMI MI All Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valle West Alternative Urban Areawide Review ® PM Peak Hour United Properties / Opus AUAR Traffic Analysis - Shakopee, Minnesota 4th Avenue Approach to CH 83 Post - Development vie ratio No Mitigation increasing ®e8a 1.0 .e °m. —. -- LOSE ---- - - -- - - LOS E 0.9 Congested PM Peak Hour LOS D Not Congested 4th Avenue 0.8 f.__. ° — . - - - - — - — - — - — - Approach to CH 83 LOS C Post - Development Existing PM Peak With Right Turn Ln. 0.7 _. ° ®° ®° ° ° — Hour Conditions LOS B 4th Avenue 0.6 =m ° ® ° - -® — - - -- - — Approach toCH83 0 .5 ° ® ° ® ° —.® _.— . —. ®. -- 0 .4 _ ° ® ° —. -- - - -. - -- LOS A 0 .3 .— .®.® -- - - - . - - - . - - 0.2 . _. ®.— .,o. —. Decreasing D. 0.1 — – - – _.-- - - - - -- Notes: 1. V/C ratio = traffic volume divided by intersection capacity (a function of lanes and signal timing) United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 21.3 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota Explanation of Level -of- Service David Braslau Associates, Inc. Howard R. Green Company ALTERNATIVE URBAN Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. AR ALTERNATIVE REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Discussion of 2020 Traffic Operations Traffic operations in 2020, with full build -out of both projects, were also considered as part of this analysis. Because of uncertainties in background traffic growth, an in -depth traffic analysis was not completed for 2020 conditions. However, an overview of conditions was conducted to provide some indication of the anticipated traffic operations in 2020 as they relate to this development. For the 2020 projection year, the "high" office scenario with full build -out for both sites is assumed, with the following combinations of office and warehouse as shown in TABLE 21.5. TABLE 21.5 BUILDING AREAS ASS D FOR 2020 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Minnesota Valley West (100% Build -out) New for Traffic Impact Study In Background Total Project New GSF % of total Existing GSF Total GSF General Office 140,280 14 22,120 162,400 Warehouse 861,720 86 135,880 997,600 Total 1,002,000 100 158,000 1,160,000 Shenandoah Business Park (100% Build -out) New for Traffic Impact Study In Background Total Project New GSF % of Total Existing GSF Total GSF General Office 580,050 50 580,050 Warehouse 580,050 50 580,050 Total 1,160,100 100 1 1,160,100 Combined Projects New for Traffic Impact Study In Background Total Project New GSF % of Total Existing GSF Total GSF General Office 720,330 33.3 22,120 742,450 Warehouse 1,441,770 66.7 135,880 1,577,650 Total 2,162,100 100.0 158,000 2,320,100 United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 49 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review TABLE 21.6 TRIP GENERATION FOR 2020 Minnesota Valley West % of Size Estimated Daily Trips Estimated PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Category Site (SF) Rate Trips Rate Trips IN OUT General Office 14% 140,280 11.01 1,545 1.49 210 35 175 Warehouse 86% 861,720 4.96 4,275 0.61 530 40 490 SUBTOTAL 100% 1,002,000 5,820 740 75 665 Shenandoah Business Park % of Size Estimated Daily Trips Estimated PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Category Site (SF) Rate Trips Rate Trips IN OUT General Office 50% 580,500 11.01 6,390 1.49 860 145 715 Warehouse 50% 580,500 4.96 2,880 0.61 350 30 320 SUBTOTAL 100 0 0 1,161,000 9,270 1,210 175 1,035 Combined Projects Size Estimated Daily Trips Estimated PM Peak Hour Trips Land Use Category (SF) Rate Trips Rate Trips IN OUT General Office 720,780 11.01 7,935 1.49 1,070 180 890 Warehouse 1,442,220 4.96 7,155 0.61 880 70 810 TOTAL 2,163,0001 15,090 1,950 250 1,700 Source: ITE Trip Generation, 6' Edition United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 50 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review 1 11 11 11 11 • 1 • 1 .1'i 0• at CH 101 /CH 83 North East South West Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thee Right Left Thee Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) - 2 64 425 1 233 1 106 2 325 98 No -Build (2020) - 2 67 442 1 242 1 110 2 338 102 Post - Development (2003) 2 - 128 467 1 327 1 527 2 508 114 CH 83 / 4th Avenue North East South West Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) 216 46 - 69 268 45 - 59 No -Build (2020) 225 48 - 72 279 47 61 Post - Development (2003) 225 122 - - 184 279 - 548 826 CH 101 /Shenandoah Road North East South West Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) - 25 582 4 19 - 513 16 No -Build (2020) - - 26 606 4 20 534 17 Post - Development (2003) 51 691 89 - 190 - 546 17 CH 83/ 12th Avenue North East South West Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) No -Build (2020) - " Post - Development (2003) - 765 - 113 - - - - North TH 169 Ramps /CH 83 North East South West Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thee Right Existing (2001) 334 116 320 2 36 36 106 - No -Build (2020) 347 121 333 2 37 37 110 - - - - Post- Development (2003) . 857 . 376 333 2 87 1 37 173 - South TH 169 Ramps / CH 83 North East South West Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) 363 628 - 127 299 59 24 No -Build (2020) 378 653 - - 132 311 61 - 25 Post - Development (2003) 718 823 - - 157 311 99 25 4 th Avenue / Shenandoah Road North East South West Scenario Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Existing (2001) 10 20 10 30 55 30 10 20 10 10 80 10 No -Build (2020) 15 29 15 44 80 44 15 29 15 15 117 15 Post - Development (2003) 35 28 18 45 175 206 14 28 14 38 188 14 United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 51 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review In addition to the turning movements for 2020, the estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was calculated for the roadways surrounding the combined sites in order to determine the level of reserve capacity within the roadway. The process used to determine the future ADT was similar to that for the turning movements (extrapolating existing data for 19 years and then adding full build -out site - generated traffic). A comparison of the reserve capacity of the surrounding roadway segments is illustrated in FIGURE 21.4. The following conclusions can be drawn based on the 2020 turning movements and estimation of the reserve capacity of the existing roadway infrastructure: • CH 101 north of the combined projects appears to have adequate capacity to accommodate 2020 traffic, including traffic associated with the combined development. The intersection of CH 101/CH 83 is expected to be more congested than it is today, although major reconstruction of this intersection will not likely be needed. • CH 83 between CH 101 and TH 169 will likely operate near capacity as a four -lane undivided roadway between intersections. However, at major intersections, such as at 4th Avenue, left turn lanes and most likely right turn lanes would be required to achieve acceptable operation. • The intersection of 4th Avenue and CH 83 will likely require major reconstruction including the installation of a traffic signal, left turn lanes on CH 83, and three lanes of approach on 4th Avenue (perhaps combined with an eastbound free -right with an appropriate acceleration lane onto CH 83). • The demand on 4th Avenue will exceed the capacity by approximately 65% in 2020, which indicates that the existing two -lane rural section will not meet the transportation needs of the area in 2020. The expected ADT (approximately 16,500) could be accommodated by a three -lane section with additional lanes at major intersections, such as at CH 83. • The intersection of 4 th Avenue / Shenandoah Road will likely operate at acceptable (i.e. uncongested) levels during the PM peak hour in 2020 as an All-way STOP condition. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 52 i i i • i i i i • in i i i i i i i i i Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review 45000 40000 ❑ No -Build 2020 ADT 35000 ® Post - Development 2020 ADT ❑ Capacity of Road (LOS D /E) Q 30000 Reserve 25000 Capacity 165% of Reserve 20000 Capacity Used a) V by New Devel. ca > 15000 I a 10000 - - 10% of Reserve 40% of Reserve 67% of Reserve 5000 Capacity Used Capacity Used Capacity Used by New Devel. by New Devel. by New Devel. 0 — 111 - 7 — 1 - 1111F7 CH 101 Past Site CH 83: 4th Ave. to CH 101 CH 83: 4th Ave. to 12th Ave. 4th Ave: Shanendoah to CH 83 United Land LLC Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park FIGURE 21.4 Minnesota Valley West Shakopee, Minnesota Comparison of David Braslau Associates, Inc. Estimated Roadway Capacity in 2020 Howard R Green Company VE URBAN ER LTNATI Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. ALTERNATIVE NATI REVIEW United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Conclusions for 2003 • The proposed developments of Minnesota Valley West and Shenandoah Business Park in Shakopee are expected to consist of 198,000 SF of office ad 920,000 SF of warehouse in the year 2003. • The proposed developments are expected to generate approximately 6,750 vehicle -trips per day in 2003, with 860 of those trips occurring during the PM peak hour. • Only minimal impact is expect on the surrounding signalized intersections as a result of the combined development, when compared to background (i.e. "no- build" conditions in 2003). • The intersection of CH 83/0' Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F under the "build" scenario in 2003. However, the addition of an eastbound right turn lane would improve operations to LOS D. • The intersection of 4 Avenue East / Shenandoah Road is expected to operate at LOS A in 2003 as an All-Way STOP condition, indicating that site generated traffic will have little adverse impact on the operation of this intersection. Conclusions for 2020 • In 2020, the intersection of CH 83/4` Avenue will likely require significant reconstruction, including the addition of turn lanes on CH 83 and 4` Avenue. 4 Avenue is not expected to meet transportation needs in 2020. Expansion to a three -lane urban section with additional lanes at major intersections appears to be a likely mitigation strategy. • The intersection of 4 Avenue / Shenandoah Road would likely operate at acceptable (i.e. uncongested) levels during the PM peak hour in 2020 as an All-way STOP condition. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 54 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review C1 H Do ONN 1 1 Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. Introduction to Combined Air Quality Study As with the traffic study in Question 21, this air quality study has been based upon traffic associated with the combined projects as it passes through critical intersections while accessing the two sites. As with the traffic analysis, vehicle emissions and air quality have been analyzed for two time periods: 2003, which represents the year after full build -out of Minnesota Valley West and 10% build -out of Shenandoah Business Park; and 2020, which represents full build -out of both projects Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant emissions will be associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the two developments. These and other vehicles already passing through critical intersections contribute to the overall pollutant concentration near the critical intersections serving the project. The most critical pollutant associated with vehicular traffic is Carbon Monoxide (CO) for which 1 -hour and 8 -hour ambient air quality standards have been established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The MPCA 1 -hour standard is slightly more stringent than the EPA 1 -hour standard and will therefore be used in this air quality assessment for this AUAR. The standards are presented in TABLE 22.1. •,; !' 1.I p �, 1.';1 �' �� � � 111 Period Standard 1 -hour 30 ppm 8 -hour 9 m Intersections Analyzed Three intersections were analyzed for air quality where receptor sites are located within several hundred feet of the intersection. These intersections with total approach volumes are listed in TABLE 22.2. The CH 83 and South Ramp intersection was not analyzed since there are no receptor sites in the vicinity of that intersection. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 55 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Palley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review TABLE 22.2 INTERSECTIONS EXAMINED FOR CO CONCENTRATIONS PM Peak Hour Total Approach Volumes (1) This intersection was not analyzed for traffic or air quality in 2020 Carbon Monoxide Background Concentrations The CO background concentrations used here are based upon data from recent background monitoring in the City of Shakopee. Monitoring was conducted by Interpoll in December 1999 for the Shakopee Valley Marketplace development near the St. Frances Regional Medical Center east of CSAH 17 and between 17` Avenue and TH 169. That monitoring yielded a maximum 1 -hour concentration of 1.70 ppm and a maximum 8 -hour concentration of 1.66 ppm. The observed background concentrations have been adjusted to future projection years using the ratio of 1999 to 2003 and 2020 emission rates from the MOBILE 5A emissions model and using the regional background traffic assumed in the traffic analysis. The results of these adjustments are shown in TABLE 22.3. Factor 2001 2003 N 2003 Build 2020 Buildout CH 83 at 4th Avenue 703 732 1,372 2,477 CH 83 at TH 169 North Rams 950 987 1,374 (1) Shenandoah Drive at CH 101 1,159 1,206 1,373 2,066 (1) This intersection was not analyzed for traffic or air quality in 2020 Carbon Monoxide Background Concentrations The CO background concentrations used here are based upon data from recent background monitoring in the City of Shakopee. Monitoring was conducted by Interpoll in December 1999 for the Shakopee Valley Marketplace development near the St. Frances Regional Medical Center east of CSAH 17 and between 17` Avenue and TH 169. That monitoring yielded a maximum 1 -hour concentration of 1.70 ppm and a maximum 8 -hour concentration of 1.66 ppm. The observed background concentrations have been adjusted to future projection years using the ratio of 1999 to 2003 and 2020 emission rates from the MOBILE 5A emissions model and using the regional background traffic assumed in the traffic analysis. The results of these adjustments are shown in TABLE 22.3. Factor 1999 2003 2020 Emission rate at 25 mph 23.40 21.20 20.00 Emission rate ratio from 1999 1.00 0.91 0.85 Assumed area traffic growth 1.08 1.52 Combined correction 1.00 0.98 1.30 1 -HOUR m 1.70 1.67 2.20 8 -HOUR m 1.66 1.63 2.15 CO Receptor Sites The CAL3QHC dispersion model was used to estimate CO concentrations at receptor sites near the three intersections analyzed for air quality. Receptor sites were identified from a windshield survey of these intersections and are identified in TABLE 22.4. For currently open space adjacent to the intersections, a receptor at a distance of 200 feet was assumed which is the closest distance that any future development is likely to occur at these intersections. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 56 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review TABLE 22.4 CO RECEPTOR SITES Assumed Coordinates from Center of Intersection Assumptions Used in CO Emission and Dispersion Modeling The air quality analysis is based upon PM peak hour traffic projections for the years 2003 and 2020 developed in Question 21. The U.S. EPA MOBILE 5A emissions model for these years was run with the vehicle mix for the Twin Cities Seven - County Metropolitan Area (without the vehicle inspection and maintenance program that was terminated in 1999). The CA1L3QHC model has been used to estimate downwind concentrations of carbon monoxide at receptor sites adjacent to critical intersections. 8 -hour concentrations associated with each roadway are estimated using a persistence factor of 0.70 applied to the PM peak hour emissions. The assumptions used for the dispersion model are summarized in TABLE 22.5. TABLE 22.5 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN CO MODELING Traffic App roach Speed: 25 mph on all approach roadways Signal Cycle Time: 100 seconds for all intersections Green Time: Based upon Synchro analysis for the intersection Percent Cold Starts: 20% Vehicle Mix: Metropolitan Area mix with no I/M program Wind Speed: 1 meter per second Wind Direction: Direction yielding highest concentration United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 57 X east/west Y north/south CH 83 and 4' Avenue 1 NE Anchor Glass 410 339 2 SE Air Products 371 -275 3 SW USGO Logistics -211 -128 4 NW CertainTeed -448 288 CH 83 and TH 169 North Ramps 1 NE Open 100 200 2 SE Open 100 -100 3 SW Open -100 100 4 NW Seagate 400 160 CH 101 and Shenandoah Drive 1 NE Murphy's Landing 110 230 2 SE Open 100 -100 3 SW Open -100 100 4 NW Open -100 100 Assumptions Used in CO Emission and Dispersion Modeling The air quality analysis is based upon PM peak hour traffic projections for the years 2003 and 2020 developed in Question 21. The U.S. EPA MOBILE 5A emissions model for these years was run with the vehicle mix for the Twin Cities Seven - County Metropolitan Area (without the vehicle inspection and maintenance program that was terminated in 1999). The CA1L3QHC model has been used to estimate downwind concentrations of carbon monoxide at receptor sites adjacent to critical intersections. 8 -hour concentrations associated with each roadway are estimated using a persistence factor of 0.70 applied to the PM peak hour emissions. The assumptions used for the dispersion model are summarized in TABLE 22.5. TABLE 22.5 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN CO MODELING Traffic App roach Speed: 25 mph on all approach roadways Signal Cycle Time: 100 seconds for all intersections Green Time: Based upon Synchro analysis for the intersection Percent Cold Starts: 20% Vehicle Mix: Metropolitan Area mix with no I/M program Wind Speed: 1 meter per second Wind Direction: Direction yielding highest concentration United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 57 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Projected CO Concentrations Based upon the approach traffic volumes and the emission assumptions noted above, CO concentrations have been projected for each of the four quadrant receptor sites at the three intersections for the No Build 2003 and Build 2003 scenarios as well as the 2020 Build scenario. CO concentrations for the No Build 2003 scenario are presented in TABLE 22.6. Concentrations are present for the Build 2003 scenario in TABLE 22.7 and for the Build 2020 scenario in TABLE 22.8. TABLE 22.6 PROJECTED CO CONCENTRATIONS (No Build 2003) From TABLE 22.6, it can be seen that the critical 8 -hour CO concentrations are well below the ambient air quality standard of 9 ppm under the No Build 2003 scenario. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 58 1 -HOUR 8 -HOUR Intersection/Receptor Site Roadway Background Total Roadway Backgroun d Total CH 83 and 4th Avenue 1 NE Anchor Glass 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 2 SE Air Products 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 3 SW USGO Logistics 0.2 1.7 1.9 0.1 1.6 1.7 4 NW CertainTeed 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 i CH 83 and TH 169 North Ramps 1 NE Open (100') 0.3 1.7 2.0 0.2 1.6 1.8 2 SE Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 3 SW Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 4 NW Seagate 0.1 1.7 1.8 0.1 1.6 1.7 CH 101 and Shenandoah Drive 1 NE Murphy's Landing 0.3 1.7 2.0 0.2 1.6 1.8 2 SE Open (100 0.5 1.7 2.2 0.4 1.6 2.0 3 SW Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 4 NW Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 MPCA Standard I 1 30.0 1 9.0 From TABLE 22.6, it can be seen that the critical 8 -hour CO concentrations are well below the ambient air quality standard of 9 ppm under the No Build 2003 scenario. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 58 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review TABLE 22.7 PROJECTED CO CONCENTRATIONS (Build 2003) TABLE 22.8 PROJECTED CO CONCENTRATIONS (Build 2020) 1 -HOUR 8 -HOUR Intersection/Receptor Site Roadway Background Total Roadway Backgroun d Total CH 83 and 4th Avenue 1 NE Anchor Glass 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 2 SE Air Products 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 3 SW USGO Logistics 0.2 1.7 1.9 0.1 1.6 1.7 4 NW CertainTeed 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 CH 83 and TH 169 North Ramps 1 NE Open (100') 0.3 1.7 2.0 0.2 1.6 1.8 2 SE Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 3 SW Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 4 NW Seagate 0.1 1.7 1.8 0.1 1.6 1.7 CH 101 and Shenandoah Drive 1 NE Murphy's Landing 03 1.7 2.0 0.2 1.6 1.8 2 SE Open (100') 0.5 1.7 2.2 0.4 1.6 2.0 3 SW Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 4 NW Open (100') 1 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 TABLE 22.8 PROJECTED CO CONCENTRATIONS (Build 2020) From TABLE 22.7 and TABLE 22.8, it can be seen that the 8 -hour CO concentrations are generally 2.0 ppm or lower, so that predicted air quality concentrations at receptor sites adjacent United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 59 1 -HOUR 8 -HOUR Intersection/Receptor Site Roadway Background Total Roadway Backgroun d Total CH 83 and 4th Avenue 1 NE Anchor Glass 0:0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 2 SE Air Products 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 3 SW USGO Logistics 0.2 1.7 1.9 0.1 1.6 1.7 4 NW CertainTeed 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.6 1.6 CH 83 and TH 169 North Ramps 1 NE Open (100') 0.3 1.7 2.0 0.2 1.6 1.8 2 SE Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 3 SW Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 4 NW Seagate 0.1 1.7 1.8 0.1 1.6 1.7 CH 101 and Shenandoah Drive 1 NE Murphy's Landing 03 1.7 2.0 0.2 1.6 1.8 2 SE Open (100') 0.5 1.7 2.2 0.4 1.6 2.0 3 SW Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 4 NW Open (100') 0.4 1.7 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 From TABLE 22.7 and TABLE 22.8, it can be seen that the 8 -hour CO concentrations are generally 2.0 ppm or lower, so that predicted air quality concentrations at receptor sites adjacent United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 59 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review to the critical intersections are well below the 8 -hour ambient standard of 9 ppm. The 1 -hour concentrations are less than 10% of the 1 -hour ambient standard of 30 ppm. Based upon the CO emission and dispersion analysis at these intersections, the 1 -hour and 8 -hour concentrations fall well below the established standards so that no violations of MPCA air quality standards are expected in 2003 or 2020 because of the two developments. 23. STATIONARY SOURCE AIR EMISSIONS Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone - depleting chemicals (chloro- fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. No stationary emissions are expected from either of the projects. 24. ODORS, NOISE AND DUST Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? M Yes ❑ No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Project construction and operation Dust and noise may be associated with grading of both sites and construction of building, drives, and parking areas. The following measures to minimize noise and dust emissions will be incorporated into the construction procedures for the project: • All internal combustion motors will be fitted with mufflers and other noise control equipment as specified by the manufacturer. • Minnesota Rules 7005.0050 on the control of fugitive particulate matter from construction and hauling activities will be complied with so as to minimize adverse air quality impacts. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L_C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 60 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West _ Alternative Urban Areawide Review Traffic Noise Under Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd.2a, Minnesota noise standards do not apply to the following: (1) segments of trunk highways constructed with federal interstate substitution money, provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures are employed to abate noise, (2) an existing or newly constructed segment of a highway, provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures, as approved by the commissioners of the departments of transportation and pollution control agency, are employed to abate noise, (3) except for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, an existing or newly constructed segment of a road, street, or highway under the jurisdiction of a road authority of a town, statutory or home rule charter city, or county, except for roadways for which full control of access has been acquired...." Based upon (3) in the above paragraph, major roadways serving the combined projects in Shakopee are exempt from the Minnesota noise standards. However, an evaluation of projected noise levels is included here to provide an estimate of potential noise impacts from the combined projects. Traffic noise levels have been analyzed along four roadway segments identified in the following receptor sites have been used for this analysis Roadway Segment Receptor Distance from Roadwa CH 101 CH 83 to Shenandoah Murphy's Landin 250 feet 4'' Avenue CH 83 to Shenandoah Residence 100 feet CH 83 4` Ave to CH 101 Industrial sites 100 feet CH 83 4` Ave to TH 169 Hotel 250 feet Along CH 101, a vehicle mix of 3% medium and 3% heavy trucks has been assumed. Along the other roadways, a mix of 3% medium and 2% heavy trucks has been assumed. Average travel speed has been assumed to be 55 mph on CH 101, 40 mph on CH 83, and 40 mph on 4` Avenue in 2003, but 30 mph on 4 Avenue in 2020 when the roadway is over capacity. The results of the noise analysis are presented in TABLE 24.2. Levels are predicted for 2003 No Build and Build, and for 2020 with full buildout of the combined projects. TABLE 24.2 PREDICTED L10 TRAFTIC NOISE LEVELS AT RECEPTOR SITES [ RoadwaylReceptor Site 2003 No Build 2003 Build 2020 Buildout CH 101 (Murphy's Landing) 67.8 68.1 69.6 4th Ave (residential) 61.7 67.3 67.2 CH 83 N of 4'' Ave (industrial) 66.0 67.6 69.7 CH 83 S of 4 Ave (hotel) 61.4 63.3 65.3 United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 61 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Difference between the applicable noise standard for each land use and the predicted L10 traffic noise level is shown in TABLE 24.3. Roadway/Receptor Site L10 Standard 2003 No Build 2003 Build 2020 Buildout CH 101 (Murphy's Landing) 70 -2.2 -1.9 -0.4 4th Ave (residential) 65 -3.3 23 2.2 CH 83 N of 4` Ave (industrial) 80 -14.0 -12.4 -10.3 CH 83 S of 4` Ave (hotel) 65 -3.6 -1.7 0.3 It can be seen that predicted traffic noise levels are generally below applicable standards, although at the one residence along 4` Avenue that may be exposed to traffic noise from the combined projects, the level is less than 3 dBA above the standard. Noise levels relative to the No Build 2003 level is shown in TABLE 24.4 I' • • 115 1: '1 1 • •, MLG 1 R Site 2003 Build 2020 Buildout CH 101 (Murphy's Landing) 0.3 1.5 4th Ave (residential) 5.6 -0.1 CH 83 N of 4` Ave (industrial) 1.6 2.1 CH 83 S of 4 Ave (hotel) 1.9 2.0 The noise level at the only residence along 4 Avenue that will be affected by traffic from the combined projects is expected to increase by more than 3 dBA because of the relative increase in traffic along 4 Avenue. By the year 2020, assuming no improvement in 4 Avenue, the level is likely to decrease along this segment because of the lower travel speed due to operation of the roadway at or above capacity. 25. NEARBY RESOURCES Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? Scenic views and vistas? Other unique resources? Yes ❑ No (Shenandoah Business Park) ❑ Yes M No Yes ❑ No (both projects) ❑ Yes M No ❑ Yes 0 No United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 62 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review If yes, describe the resource and identify any prof ect- related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Shenandoah Business Park Murphy's Landing is located north of TH 101 across from the proposed development. "Murphy's Landing is a living history village of the 1800s. More than forty period buildings that were once in danger of being destroyed, have been moved to the Landing's 88 acre site for their preservation and restoration, and the enjoyment and education of more than 40,000 visitor's a year." (website). Recreational trail corridors are identified in the City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan along 4th Avenue and CH 83 corridors. As noted in the Plan, "Trail land shall be of sufficient width and slope to accommodate a 10' wide trail and appropriate buffer areas. General guidelines include a minimum width of 16 -30' and a slope less than 12 percent with an average slope not to exceed four percent." The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has requested Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of the project. That letter is included in Appendix B of the AUAR. Since the area to the north of the site includes archaeological properties, SHPO has recommended that: (1) A survey of the area be completed that will meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation that should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any identified properties. (2) The design of the project take into account effects of the historic district, both from a visual/ aesthetic standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc.) standpoint. (3) The requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act be addressed because of the location of burials in the vicinity. Minnesota Vallev West A cultural review of this property was requested from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in advance of the EAW publication of the SuperValu proposal for the site in 1997. That proposal was assigned SHPO Number 97 -3393, and SHPO concluded that the project was unlikely to affect any historic properties and did not request a cultural resources investigation. Correspondence received from SHPO in 1998 is included in Appendix B. Recreational corridors adjacent to the site are discussed above under Shenandoah Business Park. 26. VISUAL IMPACTS Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? ❑ Yes N No If yes, explain. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 63 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota iralley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review I' • 1: 1 0 I 1 Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? Yes ❑ No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. Both of the sites are guided for Light Industrial in the City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. Both of the sites are zoned as Light Industrial by the City of Shakopee. Neither of the sites is within any specific water - related management district. Shenandoah Business Park is compatible with the City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan and each of the subsidiary plans contained within the Comprehensive Plan. • Transportation Plan • Parks and Open Space Plan • Sanitary Sewer Plan • Water Supply Plan • Stormwater Management Plan 28. IMPACT ON STRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? 0 Yes ❑ No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) The maximum wastewater flow of the combined projects is estimated at 146,586 gallons per day (88,996 gallons per day from Shenandoah Business Park and 57,590 gallons per day from Minnesota Valley West.). With appropriate connections to the sanitary system as noted below, the sanitary sewer system will be able to accommodate these volumes. The maximum demand for water by the combined projects is estimated at 151,245 gallons per day (97,896 gallons per day by Shenandoah Business Park and 63,349 gallons per day by Minnesota Valley West.). With appropriate connections to the municipal water supply system as noted below, this volume can be accommodated by the Shakopee Water Utility. The following roadway improvements will be needed to ensure adequate traffic flow with the combined projects: An additional eastbound right turn lane on 4 th Avenue at its intersection with CH 83 will be required by 2003 to ininimi e delays at this intersection United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 64 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review • The intersection of 4` Avenue and CH 83 will require major reconstruction prior to 2020 including the installation of a traffic signal, left turn lanes on CH 83, and three lanes of approach on 4 th Avenue (perhaps combined with an eastbound free -right with an appropriate acceleration lane onto CH 83). • The demand on 4 Avenue will exceed the capacity by approximately 65% in 2020. The expected ADT (approximately 16,500) could be accommodated by a three -lane section with additional lanes at CH 83 as described above. Development of Shenandoah Business Park and further development of Minnesota Valley West will require additional police and fire protection for these two sites. Shenandoah Business Park Water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and street will be constructed as part of this project. The infrastructure shall be designed in accordance with applicable design standards. Upon completion, the ownership of these utilities will be transferred to the City of Shakopee or other public utility agency. Private utilities to be installed will include telephone, electric and gas. Watermain will be sized in accordance with Shakopee Water Utility design standards. Due to the size of the development, 12 -inch watermain will be required. Shakopee Water Utility also requires installation of a minimum of at least one trunk line in the east -west direction and two trunk lines in the north -south direction across the proposed development site. Due to the shallow bedrock formation throughout the site, the watermain and sanitary sewer will share a common trench where feasible. The City requires installation of DR18 (C900 PVC) or CL52 (DIP) for the sanitary sewer pipe in common trench situations. Approximately half of the site's lot will drain via gravity sanitary sewer to an existing sanitary sewer located in 4 Avenue and along the eastern property line. Due to grade restraints, lots west of Shenandoah may require individual grinder pumps, and a centralized publicly owned lift station or will require a significant amount of fill to elevate the building pads. Maintenance of any grinder pumps installed will be the responsibility of the individual property owner(s). Minnesota Valley West Storm and sanitary sewer and water supply infrastructure is already in place to serve the existing and future buildings on the site. i UT - VO RM Minnesota rule 4410.1700, Subpart 7(b) requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this AUAR in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 65 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review This item does not require a response for an AUAR since the entire AUAR process deals with cumulative impacts from related developments within the AUAR area. Specifically, the analysis of each of the questions below has taken into account potential cumulative impacts from related or anticipated future development in the study project area: 12. Physical impacts on water resources 17. Water quality: surface water runoff 21. Traffic 22. Vehicle - related air emissions 24. Odors, noise and dust 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services The potential for other development is limited as can be seen in the aerial photograph of the study area in FIGURE 9.1. One small parcel zoned I -1 exists just west of the Shenandoah Business Park site. The open parcel south of this site is zoned MR (Major Recreation). These two parcels are guided Light Industrial and Entertainment, respectively, in the Shakopee Land Use Plan and are addressed accordingly in the City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan (Update 1999). In addition, the traffic study assumed an areawide annual growth rate of 2% to account for possible development in the area. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. No other potential environmental impacts have been identified. 31. SUMMARY OF ISSUES. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS Scoping. Instead, address relevant issues in the draft scoping decision document, which must accompany the EA W. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. 11.A. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources: Shenandoah Business Park The primary wildlife habitat type affected on the Shenandoah Business Park site will be old field plant communities. Nearly all of the wildlife species currently using the grassland and shrubland on the site are common in urban and suburban areas and adapt well to adjacent human activities. Although there will be a shift in the type of wildlife using portions of the site, none of the species likely to be affected are in danger of becoming uncommon or endangered. The DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame research program search of its database yielded 19 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities within one -mile of the project site. The database information provided by the DNR indicate that most of the species with the exception of loggerhead shrike were observed prior to 1951 or were species associated with the Minnesota River and its floodplain. No use of the Shenandoah Business Park site by loggerhead shrikes has been documented to date. A United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 66 Shenandoah Business ParVMinnesota Valla West Alternative Urban Areawide Review final inspection of the Shenandoah Business Park site will be conducted during May 2001 to ensure that loggerhead shrikes are not nesting there. If loggerhead shrikes are found to be nesting on the site, the project proponents will pursue appropriate mitigation measures in coordination with staff from the DNR Nongame Wildlife Program. Minnesota Valley West The site has been graded for construction following completion of previous EAW and no additional impacts are anticipated. Prior to grading of the site, no evidence of any threatened, endangered, or rare plant or wildlife species was observed on the site during a field review on July 9, 1997. The 1997 search by the Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program also indicated that no known occurrences of rare species or natural features exist within approximately one mile of the project site. 13. Water Use: Shenandoah Business Park The project will be connected to the City of Shakopee public water supply system that utilizes groundwater aquifers as its water source. It is expected that the quantity of water used will be proportional to the sanitary wastewater produced. Estimated water demand is 97,896 gallons per day on a maximum potential average daily basis. This can be accommodated by the water supply system. Minnesota Valley West The proposed project is currently connected to the City of Shakopee municipal water system that utilizes groundwater aquifers as its water source. It is expected that the quantity of water used will be proportional to the sanitary wastewater produced. Estimated water demand is 63,349 gallons per day on a maximum potential average daily basis. This can be accommodated by the water supply system. 16. Erosion and Sedimentation: Shenandoah Business Park The proposed development will involve grading and additional fill on the site. Ultimately 112 acres of the site will be graded and as much as 332,000 cubic yards of material could be moved. Minnesota Valley West The proposed development will involve grading of any additional 14 acres and movement of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of material. 17. Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff: Shenandoah Business Park No increase in the rate of runoff from the site is anticipated as a result of this project. The total quantity of site runoff will increase due to a proposed increase of approximately 75 acres of impervious surface resulting from street, building and parking lot development, but this increase will be mitigated by two stormwater retention ponds with a total of ten acres constructed on the site. BMPs will be employed during construction to help reduce erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff. Both basins will discharge to the north for ultimate discharge to the Minnesota River via existing channels and culverts. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 67 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valle West Alternative Urban Areawide Review Minnesota Vallev West No increase in the rate of runoff from the site is anticipated as a result of this project due to the stormwater ponds that are now in place. The total quantity of site runoff will increase due to a proposed increase of approximately 45 acres of impervious surface resulting from building and parking lot development. However, this increase will be mitigated by the on -site ponding that has already been constructed to provide rate control and limit the discharge rate of runoff from the site to or below existing levels. Because of the ponding, no increase in the rate of site runoff discharging to regional ponding is anticipated as a result of this project. BMps will be employed during new construction to help reduce erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff. 18. Water Quality: Wastewaters: Shenandoah Business Park Metropolitan Council guidelines indicate that this type of development would be expected to generate a maximum of 66,281 gallons of wastewater per day from the office space, and the warehouse space would be expected to generate a maximum of 22,715 gallons of wastewater per day. This assumes maximum office area accounting for 50% of the project. Based on these figures, the estimated maximum potential wastewater production for the entire proposed development is 88,996 gallons per day. This is below the projected flow rate contained in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Minnesota Valley West Metropolitan Council guidelines indicate that this type of development would be expected to generate a maximum of 18,541 gallons of wastewater per day from the office space, and the warehouse space would be expected to generate a maximum of 39,049 gallons of wastewater per day. This assumes maximum office area accounting for 14% of the project. Based on these figures, the estimated maximum potential wastewater production for the entire proposed development is 57,590 gallons per day. This is below the projected flow rate contained in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. 20. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks Shenandoah Business Park Estimated yearly disposal of solid wastes from the proposed office /warehouse development is 3,600 tons. This estimate is based on 2,220 employees and full operation of the facility for 300 days per year. Minnesota Valley West Estimated yearly disposal of solid wastes from the proposed office /warehouse development is 1,370 to 1,596 tons. This estimate is based on 838 to 936 employees and full operation of the facility for 300 days per year. 21. Traffic: A traffic analysis of the combined projects project has been completed. Based on the findings and analyses summarized above, the following conclusions have been made: • The proposed developments are expected to generate approximately 6,750 vehicle -trips per day in 2003, with 860 of those trips occurring during the PM peak hour. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 68 Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review • Only minimal impact is expect on the surrounding signalized intersections as a result of the combined development, when compared to background (i.e. "no- build" conditions in 2003). • In 2003, the intersection of CH 83/4 Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F under the "build" scenario. However, the addition of an eastbound right turn lane would improve operations to LOS D. • The intersection of 4th Avenue East / Shenandoah Road is expected to operate at LOS A in 2003 as an All-Way STOP condition,. • In 2020, the intersection of CH 83/4 Avenue will likely require significant reconstruction, including the addition of turn lanes on CH 83 and 4 th Avenue. 4 th Avenue is not expected to meet transportation needs in 2020. Expansion to a three -lane urban section with additional lanes at major intersections appears to be a likely mitigation strategy. • The intersection of 4th Avenue / Shenandoah Road will likely operate at acceptable (i.e. uncongested) levels during the PM peak hour in 2020 as an All-way STOP condition. 22. Vehicle Related Air Emissions: Increased vehicle emissions will be associated with traffic traveling to and from the combined projects. Vehicle carbon monoxide concentrations, estimated at three intersections indicated levels well below the Minnesota 1 -hour and 8 -hour ambient air quality standards. Based upon the air quality analysis of traffic on roadways providing access to the project, no significant adverse impacts on air quality are expected. 24. Odors, Noise and Dust: Dust and noise may be associated with grading of the two sites site and construction of the buildings, drives, and parking areas. Some noise will be associated with traffic traveling on roadways to and from the site and while these roadways are exempt from state noise standards, noise levels at most receptor sites are predicted to be below state noise standards. Levels are predicted to be slightly above the standard at the only residence on 4 th Avenue potentially impacted by traffic from the combined projects. 25. Nearby Resources Shenandoah Business Park Murphy's Landing, a living history village of the 1800s with more than forty buildings, is located north of TH 101 across from the proposed development. Recreational trail corridors are identified in the Comprehensive Plan along 4th Avenue and CH 83 corridors. Minnesota Vallev West A cultural review of this property was requested from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in advance of the EAW publication of the SuperValu proposal for the site in 1997 United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 69 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valla West Alternative Urban Areawide Review concluded that the project was unlikely to affect any historic properties and did not request a cultural resources investigation. 28. Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services: The maximum wastewater flow of the combined projects (146,586 gallons per day) can be accommodated by the sanitary sewer system with appropriate connections to the sanitary sewer system. The maximum demand for water by the combined projects (151,245 gallons per day) can be accommodated by the Shakopee Water Utility with appropriate connections to the municipal water supply system. The following roadway improvements will be needed to ensure adequate traffic flow with the combined projects: By 2003, an additional eastbound right turn lane on 4 Avenue at its intersection with CH 83 Prior to 2020, the intersection of 4 Avenue and CH 83 will require major reconstruction prior to 2020 including the installation of a traffic signal Prior to 2020, increase traffic demand on 4 Avenue east of CH 83 will require additional capacity which could be accommodated by a three -lane section along this roadway segment. Development of Shenandoah Business Park and further development of Minnesota Valley West will require additional police and fire protection for these two sites. United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0 Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 70 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review I 01 The certification below must be SIGNED for Environmental Quality Board acceptance of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review for publication of notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: ® The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my lrnowledge. This AUAR describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. Copies of this AUAR are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date Title y: \j ob s\200091 \AUAR03 3 0 V er6. do c United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc_ Page 71 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review l DNR Natural Heritage and Non -Game Research Program Review for Shenandoah Business Park United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, h4innesota 55155 -40_ Phone: (651) 2964863 Fax(651)296-1811 E -mail: saiah hofrman@dnr.state -mn us REC" February 14, 2001 James Arndt Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 FEB 16 2001 Peterson EnVironmental Consi -iffi 1G, inc. Rex Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Shenandoah Drive Site/Minnesota Valley West Office and Warehouse Development, T1 15N R22W Sec. 4 and 5, Scott County. NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20010701 Dear Mr. Arndt, The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one -mile radius of the area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there are 19 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched (for details, see enclosed database printout and explanation of selected fields).. However, based on the nature and location of the proposed project I do not believe it will affect any known occurrences of rare features. The Natural Heritage database amaintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Services, Department of Natural Resources. It is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, natural communities, and other natural features. Its purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by- county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Scott County. our information about natural communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on -site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the project area_ The enclosed results of the database search are provided i two formats: index and full record. To control the release of locational information which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both printout formats are copyrighted. The index provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Copyright notice for the index should include the following disclaimer: 'Copyright (year) State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. This index may be reprinted, unaltered, in Environmental Assessment Worlmheets, municipal natural resource plans, and internal reports_ For any other use, written permission is required.' DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- 888 - 646 -6367 • TTY. 651-296-5484 • 1 -800 -657 -3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer A' Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity %; hrnimu. of lo% Post - Consumer Waste MAR 15 2001 09:19 6516860369 PAGE.02 The full- record printout includes more detailed locational information, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to reprint the full- record printouts for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nougame Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. If you require further information on the environmental review process for other wildlife- related issues, you may contact your Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Wayne Barstad, at (651)772 -7940. An invoice for the work completed is enclosed. You are being billed for map and database search and staff scientist review. - -Please forward this invoice to your Accounts Payable Department. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, 0 / Sarah D. Hoffman Environmental Review Coordinator / Ecologist encl: Database search results Rare Feature Database Print -Outs: An Explanation of Fields Invoice MRR 15 2001 09 18 6516860369 PRGE.03 w z C) m � 0 0 0 o m N d C - C y w O (K L m b W aJ D'. w �O N a F M U .a 14 N N a .4 o F z a O a > E DI m O k w U) O Gu O ,(Vf W RG H rt � v d m v 2 C - w w to E O 3 re N m 9 o > �+ C H F U Y z ` - d W Id W w ? U W z O o z m d f z O w a z w w m V1 N O A H m m L N m w E w w +-1 U Li e7 da x d > z U O H d tl 7 fL W z U t6 O 0 N o C R C m a E W H z 2 N �+ w a a a > a > a � o y y � m 2 z N o .-r n of N W W rt o m a 0 W 0 I w .-. rJ2 m W 'Cl Cl) .a © w a o a .4 W a rf F ui m m CA E o> Cl aaa a > >aaa ca� w z hd Hw1W4 0 w x A 0 S m O Z [ E� D Z L Q F m 3 fl yy `1 O W p (Z(i]].,, rS W y E v U d E- � W � U 1 9 U N K W W r 0 0 W 3 •a z 0 0 F v1 O .-i O F a pz 0.>+Up �0 alt C70 v F — . a .7 w w z� w a a C 0m �'�JJ cx F W F F tq F F nt 0 0 FH Xi V1 Nw 0 H0. Hz0 U U' M o uwzmo 3v i>4 . . >6a�m i S a S.$9 E. N.1 ar+OU wF wUUUUaW aUH s a m m a m F d a m 3 a� F a' m o W w x O w 4 0 pa a N 0.S 5 O w W Cq w x 1 -+ O x 0 A+ a W O S z Fv>>+ ma�FaaN �AFN �v��dma��r ° Ua �w��" N N cn v) Uri zCU Ed O zUUz U UZ a,o.oxas Z owm0 w ao W v1 Z E. co El W z rnz W rnz m E a c4 a 0 O W m N w w N N N t.f f'i Pi <' d' C d' a s E- X 3 3 3 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz x 0 F F F F H F F F F F F F F F F F F r F C MAR 15 2021 29:19 6516860369 PAGE.04 Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Alternative Urban Areawide Review 1 SBPO Letter Requesting a Cultural Review for Shenandoah Business Park United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Uallev West Alternative Urban Areawide Review ''J►11 ►, SHPO Cultural Review for Shenandoah Business Park (to be provided) United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, LL C. Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. , v 20 MIN NESOTA, HISTORICAL SOCIETY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE April 30, 2001 Mr. David Braslau David Braslau Associates, Inc. 1313 5� Street SE, Suite 322 Minneapolis, MN 55414 RE: AUAR —Shenandoah Business Park T115 R22 S5, Shakopee, Scott County SHPO Number: 2001 -2004 Dear Mr. Braslau: Thank you for consulting with our office during the planning phase for the above referenced project. This property is located across the highway from Murphy's Landing, a portion of which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Shakopee Historic District. The area north of the highway also includes archaeological properties and burial areas. Therefore, we recommend the following: 1.We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties may be present in the Shenandoah project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of the area be completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys. 2. The design of the project should take into account effects on the historic district, both from a visual /aesthetic - standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc.) standpoint. 3. Because of the location of burials in the vicinity, the requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act should be addressed. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency. If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 296 -5462. Sincerely, Dennis A. Gimmestad Government Programs and Compliance Officer Enclosure: List of Consultants cc: Mark Dudzik; OSA' Jim Jones, MIAC '- Dennis Kelly, Murphy's Landing 31S tU':[.LUli4 fill( I -I:A vItU �� I:�'I , ;VIV'I PVLI..'N II\ \I -�I)] . )..510 - 1906 / rEL.Ef'IIUNE: 6.51 -2% 6126 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Shakopee Crossings l't Addition MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 1 T o - T ITCM -1 At its May 17, 2001 meeting the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution amending the approval of the preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings 1 St Addition. That resolution is attached for Council's consideration. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5536, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings 1 st Addition subject to the conditions contained therein; 2. Approve Resolution No. 5536, with revised conditions. 3. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Offer a Resolution No. 5536, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings l't Addition with revised conditions. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2001 \0605 \ppshakopeecrossings 1 st.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5536 WHEREAS, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, applicants and property owners have made application for preliminary plat approval of Shakopee Crossings 1 st Addition; and REAS, the subject properties are legally described as found on Exhibit A, attached; and V4WREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the preliminary plat on December 7, 2000; and VdIEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to the conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request at its meeting of April 17, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the preliminary plat of SHAKOPEE CROSSINGS 1 ST ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the fmal plat: A. Drawings shall be revised to provide all streets with a minim street width of 36 feet, face to face. 2 B. Drawings shall be revised to show a right -in access only from CSAH 18 as recommended by the Scott County Highway Department. C. The location and configuration of the mid -block access on Street A between Southbridge Parkway and Street B shall be approved by the City and its traffic consultant. D. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) right -of -way must be clearly labeled on the plat, as well as any in -place monuments. E. The location of site driveways should be determined, as well as the queue lengths that would be anticipated with the development. F. Approval of title by the City Attorney. G. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. H. As part of the Plan A improvements, "No Parking" signs shall be installed along "A" Street and "C" Street, per the sign type and spacing requirements determined by the City Engineer. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges for the residential portion of the plat, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. 6. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. H. Following approval of the preliminary plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Prior to development work commencing the developer shall submit drainage calculations including existing and proposed conditions, and summarizing the change in drainage to CSAH 18 and future CSAH 21. B. Subsequent revisions of the preliminary plat or final plat of a portion of the project area will require evaluation of the adequacy, and possible revision of, the Traffic Impact Report filed with the preliminary plat application. C. The temporary signalization of the intersection of CSAH 18 and Southbridge Parkway shall be installed and functioning by September 1, 2001. IV. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; 3 A. No temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any structure within the plat unless and until the intersection improvements and temporary signalization are installed and functioning. B. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). C. No berming, ponding, signage, or landscaping shall be located in the Scott County right -of -way. D. Any work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a utility permit from the County. E. Best Management Practices shall be used during the construction of this project to insure against water and wind erosion. F. Utilities shall be constructed with seepage collars to prevent improper draining of groundwater from the area. A. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat consistent with the fees outlined in the City's adopted fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. B. If any private streets are allowed, the streets shall be designed and constructed per the City's requirements for public streets. C. Receipt of approval of the right -in access from CSAH 18 from Scott County; in the event that such approval is not given, the applicant understands that the entire plat may need to be revised and reviewed to address any traffic issues that result from denial of the access, and that the traffic impact report would be revised. D. A MnDOT drainage permit will be required for this development. E. Outlet structures should be equipped with skimmers to prevent floatables from entering the City's storm sewer system. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall supersede Resolution No. 5510 approving the preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings lst Addition. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of SHAKOPEE CROSSINGS 1ST 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. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 1 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: 0 e , CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum Im FWX1IM Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Julie Klima, Planner H Set Public Hearing for Vacation of Easement within Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition M[EETTNG DATE: June 5, 2001 1 '11 1 H.R. Spurrier has submitted an application for vacation of easement within Lot 4, Block 2, Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition. The attached Resolution No. sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of easements within Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition. DISCUSSION The attached resolution sets a public hearing for July 3, 2001. On that date, comments from staff members and utilities, as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will be presented to the City Council for consideration. 1 1 1 Offer Resolution No. 5541, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of Easement within Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition, and move its adoption. p f1 I At ianner e ima II gAc c\ 2001 \cc0605 \vacsetphspunier.doc (IlL 9 WWI W13 I Mel WAI Its C1 lend 11 / ll vmyl__ vim W&Awffllq 11 WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that a portion of easement within Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, serves no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action to vacate can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. WHEREAS, two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIEE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 3rd day of July, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, on the matter of vacating a portion of easement within Minnesota Valley 2 Addition, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of ' 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee /: City Clerk 9 Zoning Bound 7 - 7 Parcel Boundal CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum Im '1 SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Julie Klima, Planner II Set Public Hearing for Vacation of Easement within Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition ME ETING DATE: June 5, 2001 I► Y � I 1 Y 1]►`I H.R. Spurrier has submitted an application for vacation of easement within Lot 4, Block 2, Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition. The attached Resolution No. sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of easements within Minnesota Valley 2 Addition. 1 1 The attached resolution sets a public hearing for July 10, 2001. On that date, comments from staff members and utilities, as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will be presented to the City Council for consideration. 1 ► 1 1' `TIY1117 Offer Resolution No. 5541, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of Easement within Minnesota Valley 2 Addition, and move its adoption. Julie Klima Planner 11 0: \cc\2001 \cc0605 \vacsetphspurrier. doc 1 1 1 I 1 11 p :1 11. I I II I .1, WWWWAI 1 1 WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that a portion of easement within Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, serves no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action to vacate can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. WHEREAS, two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CM OF SHAKOPEE, MUqNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 10th day of July, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, on the matter of vacating a portion of easement within Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition, City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of ' 2001- Mayor of the City of Shakopee /: all City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve Traffic Control Sign for Right Turn Lane on Vierling Drive DATE: June 5, 2001 • @ a� t , This agenda item is for Council to consider installing a "right lane must turn right" sign on eastbound Vierling Drive to Marschall Road in order to facilitate traffic in this area. Previously a Council concern was expressed at the April 17, 2001 City Council meeting on the traffic at the intersection of Vierling Drive and Marschall Road. City staff has reviewed this situation and would recommend that a traffic control sign be installed just east of the first driveway into the Crossroad Center commercial development and this sign would state "right lane must turn right ". The reasons for this sign to be installed are as follows: 1. One of the major movements of traffic in this area are left turns, from Marschall Road to Vierling Drive; and right turns, from Vierling Drive to Marschall Road to and from T.H. 169. 2. This sign is a regulatory sign, which can be enforced by City police. 3. This sign will alert the motoring public to use the furthest most lane as a right turn lane and prevent traffic from backing up during the peak times to the first driveway into the Crossroad Center. This signage change affects the traffic along Vierling Drive and, per City Ordinance Section 7.03, requires Council approval in order for this sign to be installed. Attached to this memo is a drawing showing the signage along Vierling Drive and shows the placement of the new sign being requested for installation with this memo. Staff did investigate the construction of a right turn lane in this area and the cost to install a right turn lane would be very significant due to two major gas transmission lines which are located in this area. This would require the relocation of these lines and the relocation of the traffic control signal in order to accomplish a right turn lane. At this time staff believes this measure will help with the traffic movement in this area and will proceed with traffic counts and a more detailed traffic study later this year. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to install the traffic sign as outlined in this memo on Vierling Drive. 2. Direct staff not to make the sign change as outlined in this memo. 3. Table for additional information. The City's traffic engineer, Chuck Rickart of WSB & Associates, believes that this sign will help move traffic in this area and provide the necessary enforcement by City police to do so. Staff is recommending that this traffic sign be authorized in order to move traffic more effectively in this area. Approve a motion directing staff to install the traffic sign as outlined in this memo on Vierling Drive. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp TRAFFIC SIGN CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize the Execution of an Amendment to Reliant Energy Minnegasco Easement No. 1999 -55 DATE: June 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Please fmd attached a letter and an amendment to an easement agreement between Evergreen Heights Townhomes, the City of Shakopee and Reliant Energy Minmgasco for an amendment to an easement that was previously provided to Minnegasco for their gas high- pressure natural gas transmission line at the fire station property on Vierling Drive. BACKGROUND: Previously, on October 5, 1999, a transmission line easement was granted by the City of Shakopee to Reliant Energy - Minnegasco for their high- pressure natural gas transmission line on the fire station site and Evergreen Heights Townhomes development. Attached is a letter from Reliant Energy Minnegasco from Minnegasco's Right -of -Way Administrator, Mr. Steve Von Bargen, on an amendment to this easement to change the easement based on the relocation of the high- pressure natural gas transmission line in its actual location. This relocation of the high- pressure gas transmission line was due to the Evergreen Heights development and was placed in an area to minimize the impact to the roadway serving this development. Also attached to this agreement is a drawing showing the relocation of the gas main and the additional easement being given by the City of Shakopee for this relocation. Staff believes this amendment has minimal impact to the City facilities and City property and recommends approval of this amendment. 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an amendment to Easement No. 1999 -55 between the City of Shakopee, Evergreen Heights and Reliant Energy Minnegasco. 2. Do not execute the amendment to Easement No. 1999 -55. 3. Table for additional information. I N i 01 1XI ON Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an amendment to Easement No. 1999- 55 between the City of Shakopee, Evergreen Heights and Reliant Energy Minnegasco. Bruce Loney Public Workirector BL/pmp EASEMENT \\ 'Re �a EerM Bruce Loney Public Works Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN. 55379 -1328 f 754 West "Linden Avenue Ro. Box 1155 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55445 -1155 April 30, 2001 A RE: Amendment to Reliant Energy Minnegasco easement #1999 -55 Dear Mr. Loney: With reference to my telephone message earlier today, I have enclosed information relating to the relocation of the high pressure nature gas transmission line over the fire station property on Vierling Drive. Enclosed, please find: 1. Three copies of the Amendment to Easement redefining the correct legal description of the natural gas transmission line as relocated on July 27, 2000. The amendment has been executed by Gregory McClenahan as owner of Lots 2 and 5. 2. A copy of the plat of Evergreen Heights showing the new transmission line in red over the fire station property described as Lot 1, Block 1. The old easement boundary is highlighted in orange. The new easement boundary is highlighted in yellow. The relocation was minimal on the City property and only completed to accommodate the townhouse project. 3. A copy of the originally easement, executed by the City of Shakopee on October 5, 1999 to redefine the old blanket easement created in 1939 when the gas main was originally installed. If everything is in order, please arrange for execution by the appropriate representatives of the City of Shakopee with proper notarization. Retain one copy for the City's records and return two copies to me at the address below. Upon receipt of the amendment I will have it executed by a Vice President of Reliant Energy Minnegasco and return one copy to Gregory McClenahan for his records. The amendment will then be recorded with the Scott County Recorder. Please call at 612- 321 -5381 with any questions. Respectfully, RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO Steven Von Bargen Right -of -Way Administrator P.O. Box 1165 Mpls., MN. 55440 -1165 Steven L VonBargen @ReliantEnergy.com THIS AMENDMENT Agreement made , 2001, by and between EverGreen Heights Townhomes, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ( "EverGreen 1 "), and EverGreen Heights Townhomes 11, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ( "EverGreen II "), and the City of Shakopee, 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota, 55379, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota ( "CITY "), collectively referred to as ( "GRANTOR "), and Reliant Energy Minnegasco, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corp., a Delaware Corporation, ( "GRANTEE "), 800 LaSalle Avenue, 1 1 th Floor, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. A. EverGreen I is the fee owner of Lot 2, Block 1, EverGreen Heights, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Scott county. B. EverGreen II is the fee owner of Lot 5, Block 1, EverGreen Heights, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Scott county. C. The City is the fee owner of Lot 1, Block 1, EverGreen Heights, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Scott county. D. CITY, their successors and assigns, and GRANTEE are parties to that certain Easement Agreement dated October 5, 1999, recorded October 6, 1999, as document number A458524 in the Scott County Recorder's Office (the "Easement Agreement "), granting GRANTEE a perpetual 100.00 -foot and 66.00 -foot easement over certain portions of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, which has since been platted as EverGreen Heights, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota (the "Easement Area "). E. GRANTOR and GRANTEE wish to amend the Easement Agreement, and to amend the legal description of the Easement Area. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, GRANTOR and GRANTEE agree as follows: 1. Easement Area. The legal description of the easement granted ("Premises"), as that term is defined in the Easement Agreement, is hereby amended and described as follows: A 100.00 -foot easement over, under and across that part of Lot 5 and Lot 2, Block 1, EverGreen Heights, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Scott county, which lies 50.00 feet on each side, measured at right angles, of a centerline described as: Commencing at the most northeasterly corner of said Lot 5; thence on an assumed bearing of North 60 35' 30" West, along the northeasterly line of said Lot 5, a distance of 90.85 feet to a point referred to on the plat of EverGreen Heights as point "C" and the actual point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence South 84 04' 23" West, a distance of 290.00 feet to a point referred to on the plat of EverGreen Heights as point "B ", and said centerline there terminating. The sidelines of the 100.00 -foot easement are to be prolonged or shortened to intersect with the northeasterly line of said Lot 5. ("Premises") A 66.00 -foot easement over, under and across that part of Lot 2 and Lot 1, Block 1, EverGreen Heights, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Scott county, which lies 33.00 feet on each side, measured at right angles, of a centerline described as: Beginning at the aforementioned point "B "; thence continuing along the extension of the centerline described above, having an assumed bearing of South 84 04' 23" West, a distance of 285.00 feet; thence South 66 07' 48" West, a distance of 224.00 feet; thence North 71 25' 00" West, a distance of 52.74 feet; thence South 69 57' 03" West to a point on the west line of said Lot 1, said point being 31.80 feet south of the northwest corner of Lot 1, and said centerline there terminating. The sidelines of the 66.00 -foot easement are to be prolonged or shortened to intersect with the west line of said Lot 1. ( "Premises ") 2. Except as herein specifically amended, the Easement Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR and GRANTEE have signed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF j4CKNCPr rJ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I Z +� day of �r� I 2001, by Gregory A. McClenahan, the president of EverGreen Real Estate Development Corp., general partner of EverGreen Heights Townhomes, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public / C�' o ua4 - 6 1 - K,- - -�. DALE A. O' j Notary P�Gc �, � Minnesota ASy Cammission Expra dap, 31. T075 GRANTOR(s) EverGreen Heights Townhomes II, Limited artnership By: Its: Pre * e , General Partner STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF rvEP/r-3 ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Jh- day of 2001, by Gregory A. McClenahan, the president of EverGreen Real Estate Development Corp., general partner of EverGreen Heights Townhomes II, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public / �.�, ' v�►/L� -� DALE A. 0 - 1- R etAl N fr` aY Commission Fiala JM. Jt. Z�5 GRANTOR(s) The City of Shakopee By: Its: Mayor By: Its: Clerk By: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF SCOTT) Its: City Administrator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of •I on the Mayor, Clerk, and City Administrator of the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the municipal corporation. , 2001, by Notary GRANTEE Reliant Energy Minnegasco, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corp. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) By: Its: Senior Vice President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001, by Steven J. Holmstoen, Senior Vice President of Reliant Energy Minnegasco, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corp., a Delaware corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public ATTENTION COUNTY RECORDER Please mail this document subsequent to recording to: Steve Von Bargen Right of Way Administrator Reliant Energy Minnegasco P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Reliant Energy Minnegasco, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corp. 800 LaSalle Ave., 11t Floor, Mpls., M. 55402 10-06-1999 at 1 0-55 f AM I I ' Deputy Pat Boecknron, County Recorder 01 11 THIS AGREEMENT made C 5 1999, by and between the City of Shakopee, 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota, 55379, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, ("GRANTOR"), and Reliant Energy Minnegasco, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corp., 800 LaSalle Avenue, 1 1th Floor, Minneapolis, r • •' • •• • • • • - •• 1,1111 6 • good and valuable consideration to GRANTOR from GRANTEE, of which is acknowledged, grants to GRANTEE, • •' assigns, perpetual •• oot and 66-foot easement at all times to lay, construct, inspect, protect, operate, maintain, alter, abandon, relocate, replace, substitute and remove gas transmission or distribution pipelines or • •- .., • appurtenances thereto in, under following described Property in the City of Shakopee, County of Scott, State of ♦ - • Property The described as that part of • Quarter of - Southeast Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of the No - theast Quarter oY Section 8, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying E northerly • the north right-of-way line • MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT • TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 70-7 and southeasterly of the plat of HAUER'S 4 th ADDITION, as on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in said County, and which lies westerly of the following described line: Um Excepting therefrom the following described property I� ing westerly and .iortherly • the following described line; K The easement is described as a permanent easement over, under and across that part of the above described Property, the centerline of- said easement is described as follows: G promises 2. GRANTOR • warrants that it has legal and fee title to the tbove Premises • has the r ight, without • execute and deliver this instrument. I I I I I I I � 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 111 111 1 1 I WO which have been placed on the Premises by GRANTEE. 7. The terms and provisions of this instrument shall run with the land, and 1"MCII 002 IM61 t WWII let I'm �'� representatives, successors, and assigns. 9 )ss pxvn��� rk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of C) 1999, by 1&1-12 . —; and and Map V— iii sr I " ��ill��ill����������ill,��rommmw.rqllll���������l���ll�� '', -111FORN MS. 1 F ; , SAVA 11 l 1 • � li���umwn.m rv�f • � Notary Public ------------- TONIWARHOL - MINNESOTA E Expres Jan. 31,2000 f� ------- 0 —, — • _ :• ) ss The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2 0 1 day of 1999, by Steven J. Holmstoen, Senior Vice President of • •• • c •- • • •• . • Notary Public Uv-✓ Jy -A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA STEVEN VON BARGEN Gg Notary Public- Minnesota r Dakota County My Commission Expires 1131000 EA 1111 #Z 1 U97 • ••, Please mail this document subsequent to recording to: Steve Von Bargen Right of Way Administrator Reliant Energy Minnegasco P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis, MN 55440 -1165 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Reliant Energ -•. • a divisiun of Reliant Energy • Corp. 800 LaSalle Avenue, 1 1th Floor, • 1 rl RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO, A DIVISION OF RELIANT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND /OR ENCROACHMENT ITI GAS PIPELINE EASEMENTS The following guidelines are general requirements only. Reliant Energy Minnegasco may inspect the area and review construction plans. Final construction plans must be reviewed and approved, in writing, by Reliant Energy Minnegasco prior to the start of any construction within Reliant Energy innegasco's easement. 1. Soil shall not be removed or placed in a manner that will result in earth or pavement cover over the pipeline of less than three feet or more than five feet. A level area of not less than six feet on each side of the pipeline shall be maintained at all times. Slope beyond 6' from the pipeline shall not be steeper than 4 to 1, unless otherwise agreed. Any amount of cut or fill, within the 4 to 1 slope area, shall increase the width of the level area on each side of the pipeline by that same footage of cut or fill. The pipeline must be fully accessible at all times before, during, and after the construction. 2. Landscaping over and within ten feet on each side of the pipeline is restricted to grass cover only. Beyond ten feet on each side of the pipeline, upright plantings are restricted to (and shall not exceed) six feet in height. No trees shall be planted or remain within the easement. Any trees, removed by Reliant Energy Minnegasco from within the easement, while performing maintenance activities shall not be replaced by Reliant Energy Minnegasco or the current owner, their successors or assigns. 3. Any buried utility line installed across the inplace pipeline shall be placed with no less than one foot of vertical separation, padded with well compacted granular soil and cross at an angle less than 450, from normal to the pipeline. 4. With prior Reliant Energy Minnegasco approval by the Senior Engineer or Right of Way Administrator, parking lots, perpendicular driveways or roadways of portland cement concrete or asphaltic concrete (or similar materials) may be placed within the easement, but shall be limited in width when crossing the easement to minimize the interference with or access to the pipeline for inspection and maintenance. Permanent structures including, but not limited to, buildings, signs, screen walls, decks, tennis courts, and swimming pools are not allowed under any circumstances within the easement. Installations including, but not limited to, retaining walls and fences crossing the pipeline require approval by the Reliant Energy Minnegasco Senior Engineer or Right of Way Administrator, before construction. All fences crossing the pipeline must have a 10 -foot wide gate centered over the pipeline. All fences installed parallel with the pipeline will maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation from the pipeline. 5. Once Reliant Energy Minnegasco and the Owner, Developer or Contractor have reached an agreement, Reliant Energy Minnegasco shall be given at least two working days advance notice cf planned construction activity so arrangements can be made for Reliant Energy Minnegasco Personnel to monitor the construction. Reliant Energy Minnegasco will locate and stake the pipeline, but will not assume res;jonsibility to expose or backfill the pipeline or to determine the actual elevation of the inplace pipeline. Exca` ation to expose the pipeline shall be parallel to the pipeline. Reliant Energy Minnegasco Personnel must ba present during this excavation. 6. Any subsequent damage or removals caused by Reliant Energy Minnegasco ;n the exercise of its easements rights, of any and all of those certain foreign constructions (landscaping, driveway, roadway, utility lines, etc.) which may be permitted within the easement area, will be permanently repaired or replaced at the owner's or contractor's (not Reliant Energy Minnegasco's) expense. 7. In accordance with Federal Department of Transportation Codes, Reliant Energy Minnegasco must place markers over transmission pipelines. These markers will be placed at all road crassings, in back of curb or at Property line, and at changes of direction. All markers placed by Reliant Energy Minnegasco will not be removed. If you have any questions call: Richard J. Pilon, P.E., Senior Administration Engineer at 321 -5426. Dated: February 2, 1999 0 a . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase of Land at NE Quadrant of Harrison Street and 5 th Avenue DATE: June 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Staff has had discussions with one of the heirs of the Joseph & Norma Notermann estate for purchase of Lot 9, Hussman Addition for storm water management purposes. This agenda item is to request from City Council on whether or not to authorize staff to enter into a purchase agreement for parcels owned by the Notermann estate. Adjacent to Riverview Park near Harrison Street and south platted 5 th Avenue right -of- way, exists undeveloped Lot 8 and Lot 9, Hussman Addition owned by the Joseph & Norma Notermann estate. Lot 9 is approximately .78 acres and Lot 8 is approximately .58 acres and are both zoned R -3. Staff has had discussions over the past several months with Mr. Bert Notermann, one of the heirs of the Notermann estate, for possible purchase of Lot 9, Hussman Addition for storm water management purposes. This lot is adjacent to a major storm water line that serves much of the residential area in western Shakopee and could provide some treatment and infiltration of storm water prior to discharging into the Minnesota River. Currently Lot 9 does have a low area, which may possibly be a wetland, and holds water during the spring of the year and during major storm events. Staff's intent on purchasing this parcel is to divert storm water from the west side storm sewer system through pond area for infiltration and water quality treatment. In the discussions for possible purchase with Mr. Notermann, the availability of Lot 8 was also discussed. Lot 8, Hussman Addition is approximately .58 acres and is heavily vegetated and would provide the City with more open space or area for other park shelters or other park and recreation activities in this area. The total purchase price mentioned for both of these lots is $15,000.00. The City would then also assume assessments along Harrison Street for Lot 9, Hussman Addition that is approximately $7,000.00. It is staff's intent to purchase 2/3 of these parcels with Storm Drainage Funds for the storm water management purposes and the remaining 1/3 with Park Reserve Funds for the open space for park purposes. The assessments would be paid for by Storm Drainage Funds. Attached to this memo is a map showing the parcels and in relation to Riverview Park and the west side storm sewer system. Both of these lots were platted in the late 1950's and would need sanitary sewer from 4th Avenue. They would also need 5 th Avenue to be constructed and would need significant grading in order for these lots to be developed. The question for City Council is whether or not to enter into a purchase agreement for these two parcels in order to provide storm water management ponding and more open space in this area. The purchase price for 1.36 acres, as mentioned previously, is $15,000.00. ALTERNATIVES: Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a purchase agreement to purchase Lot 8 and Lot 9, Hussman Addition for a purchase price of $15,000.00. 2. Direct staff not to enter into a purchase agreement for these parcels. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 as the purchase price for 1.36 acres of R -3 land that is in the MUSA for $15,000.00 is an acceptable price. The City would gain property for storm water management and additional open space for Riverview Park area. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a purchase agreement for Lot 8 and Lot 9, Hussman Addition at a purchase price of $15,000.00. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp LANDPURCHASE CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request of E.H. Renner & Sons and Allied Blacktop, Inc. DATE: June 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION: By letter dated June 1, 2001, E.H. Renner & Sons, the contractor for Well No. 10 for Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has requested that City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, be suspended for certain work hours. Also, the City is doing street maintenance work and Allied Blacktop is requesting to work early one day to avoid traffic in the downtown area for seal coating. DISCUSSION: The above named section of the City Code restricts the hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays, and from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. E.H. Renner & Sons is requesting a suspension on the hours as follows: Wednesday, June 6, 2001 to Friday, June 8, 2001 to conduct a 24 -hour pumping test which is required as part of Well No. 10 construction. Allied Blacktop, Inc. is requesting a suspension on the hours as follows: Work early one day (4:00 A.M.) to seal coat streets in the downtown area to avoid traffic in this area. Staff would recommend that if the suspension of hours is granted, that the approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is contingent upon minimizing noise exposure near residential areas. 2. If residential complaints are received by the City, the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the City Engineer. If Council approves the suspension, a public notice to meet the City Code requirements and notice such as a news release would be placed in the Shakopee Valley News. Staff believes by allowing this suspension of work hours, work for these projects can be completed and inconvenience is minimi ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, per this memo, and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff. 2. Approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, for some other period of time as determined appropriate by the City Council, and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms. 3. Do not approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion approving a suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, per this memo, and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff. j f f ruce Lone Public Works Director BI/pmp RESTRICT 06/04/2001 12:11 E H RENNER & SONS 4 9522333801 NO.437 P02 SW Am Mff WELL DRILLING FOR FOUR GENERATIONS 15588 JARVIS STREET N.W. t ELK RIVER, MN 55330 te Ho Renner 58fis PHONE: (612) 427 -6100 J FAX: (612) 427 -0533 INC ORPOR ATE D 1 June 2001 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 12 9 HOMES S TREE T SHAKOPEE, MN SS3'/ 9 ATTN: Mr., Bruce Lone (952) 233-38011 Subject_ Shakopee well #10 SFDC r e t Dear Sir, E. H. RENNER & SONS, INC. is requestinq approval for extending our working hours to accommodate around the clock_ test pumping of Deep Well No 10. This well is located at 2200 Eagle Creek Blvd. The work involved will be limited to our test engine pumping the well for oapaci t:y & yield. Our work wi.1 1 begin on Monday the 4 of June (lam to 10pm) . If we do get approval, we will begin 24 -Hour around the clock {manned} test pum.pinq Lo allow us Lo completed this work as soon as possible_ This would provide the Ci.ty of Shakopee additional. water sooner. Noise is the only factor. It is equivalent to a dewatering pump. The, v -871 Detroit has two mufflers that keep the noise down to a minimum. It is doubtful that anyone would even hear llS. We. request approval to run this pimp no later than Friday the P' of June, 2001 at 10 :00pm. We are requesting City Council. approval for these three days (Wednesday June 6 to Friday June 8th). If you wish to experience the noise, we will be running on Monday and Tuesday from lam to 10pm. Thank you for your prompt consideration. An Equal Opportunity Employer 06/04/2001 12:11 E H RENNER & SONS 4 9522333901 Sincerely requested, Cc : Ken Molt, Schoell & Madsorl dot= R. Crooke, Shakopee Pub.L3.a Utilities NO.437 P03 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City Administrator From: Marvin Athmann, Fire Chief Date: 3/26/2001 Re: Purchase of Extractor and Dryer % Introduction The 2001 Fire Department budget has a line item under capital expenditures 4550 (equipment), for the amount of $7,500 for the purchase of a Extractor /Washer and Dryer for Station 50. Back Ground Smoke, soot and gas from burning materials soil fire fighting turn -out gear during fire suppression activities. This contamination cause accelerated wear and shortened life of a $1,295.00 set fire fighting turn -out gear. The contamination, also may be a health concern for fire fighters. The Shakopee Fire Dept has a Extractor/Washer and Dryer at the Station 51, but it is impractical and inconvenient for the fire fighters at Station 50 to clean their gear in a timely and efficient manner. To have a Extractor/Washer and Dryer at Station 50 is efficient and highly desirable. Discussion The Fire Dept received two quotation for the extractor /washer and dryer. They are from BDS Laundry Systems and Simods Appliance. The total of the quotes for the Extractor/Washer and Dryer are: Simon's Appliance $7,860.95 BDS Laundry Systems $7195.00 Recommendation The Shakopee Fire Dept recommends the purchase of the Extractor/Washer and Dryer from BDS Laundry Systems for a quote of $7,195.00. Action Required If City Council concurs, approve the purchase of the Extractor/Washer and Dryer from BDS Laundry Systems for a quote of $7,195.00. Siman j of pV&zjzce RE,RVTff. 7090 Cahill Avenue East UNIMAC UC35PN2 35# WASHER $4,579.56 COMPUTER CONTROLS - 13 DIFFERENT WASH. FORMULAS 208- 240,3- PHASE U N I MAC DTB50CG 50# GAS DRYER $2,159.68 MANUAL DUAL TIMERS, 110/60/1 FREIGHT FROM FACTORY $359.21 ....... ......... ... ...._ DELIVERY & INSTALL: ....... ...:..... $762.50. WASHER WILL BE DELIVERED, SET IN PLACE AND LEVELED, ANCHORED, GROUTED & HOOKED! UP TO YOUR CONNECTIONS. DRYER WILL BE DELIVERED, SET IN -PLACE AND LEVELED WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS DONE BY OTHERS WARRANTY: 3 -YEAR ... PARTS PRODUCT 13623T FOLD AT ( >) TO FIT COMPANION 740 STANDARD ENVELOPE, PRINTED IN U.S.A. P. jBj D S LA UNDRY SYSTEM April 3, 2001 Mr. Al Geis 910 South Pierce Street Shakopee, MN 55379 I am pleased to submit this quotation for your consideration. Re: Shakopee Fire Department Descriptian Price UniMac 35 lb. Washer/Extractor, Model UC35PN2, Microprocessor Controls, $ 4,296.00 12 Cycle - 2 -Speed Motor, Voltage: 208 - 240/60/3 -3 Wire Optional prefabricated steel base for ease of loading and unloading washer $ 197.00 UniMac 50 lb. Gas Dryer, Model DTB50CG, Manual Dual Timers, Electronic $ 2,060.00 Ignition, Natural Gas, Voltage: 120/60/1 Installation $ 642.00 Includes delivery, set, leveled and anchored in place ready for final service connections by others. Start up and check out by company engineer. Warrantv 5 years frame, basket, shaft, bearings and seals 3 years parts 30 days labor This quotation is valid for 90 days. Thereafter, it is subject to change without notice. Above prices do not include applicable sales tax. Signed Sales Manager Thank You! Alex Frey erger hn SltakapeeFD Direct Dial Number: 651.286.7802 2430 Enterprise Drive, St. Paul, MN 55120 -1143 • 651,688.8000 1800.688.0020 / Fax: 651.688.8820 • www.bdslaundry.com G, 3, Mem TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tom Pitschneider, Fire Inspector SUBJECT: Running Fires Within Prairie, Native or Adaptive Plant Landscapes DATE: May 31, 2001 � At the May 15, 2001 meeting City Council directed staff to amend the City Code for open burning to allow for prairie land management fires. • , .I Presently City Code, Section 10.29 — Open Burning, does not allow for the management of prairie land by the use of fire. Many people in the natural resources field believe that fire is the best tool for prairie land management. It has been the policy of the Shakopee Fire Department and the City of Shakopee to limit open burning within the City due to increased population density. Open burning was also restricted because several permit holders were hauling in debris to be burned in Shakopee because they could not obtain permits in other communities. In the past few years' prairie land management has become a larger issue as we work to maintain and regenerate natural resource areas. The use of fire as a management tool is one of the most cost effective ways to manage prairie land. 6 )' 1. Adopt Ordinance 4599 an Ordinance Amending Section 10.29 of the City Code relating to Open Burning. 2_ Direct staff to issue a burning permit to Eco -Tech for a prairie management fire on behalf of Mark & Susie Overbye. Section 4 — Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 12000. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2001 PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, NIN 55379 /s® CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Subject: New Play Equipment for Holmes and Hiawatha parks Date: May 22, 2001 INTRODUCTION Staff request Council's approval to purchase play equipment for Holmes Park from Earl F. Andersen, Inc. and Webber Recreational Design, Inc. BACKGROUND In 1999, the City Council directed staff to include new play equipment for Holmes and Hiawatha parks on the first park referendum of that year. Subsequently, the referendum failed and the projects were placed in the Parks 5 Year Capital Improvement Program. The plan was to install new equipment in Holmes Park in year 2000_ However, due to time restraints, the project was delayed to year 2001. The City purchased the current play equipment in 1981 from Earl F. Andersen (Landscape Structures Company). We will keep parts of the old equipment, and remove some of it. The new play system design will integrate the old with the new. Earl F. Anderson, Inc. will supply equipment (by Landscape Structures) that will attach to the old equipment (made by Landscape Structures). Most manufacturers of play systems will not allow another manufacturer's play equipment to be attached their equipment_ By doing so, you may jeopardize losing the warranty on the equipment and possibly exempt both companies from product liability if something fails during use. Webber Recreational Design, Inc (Miracle Recreation Equipment Co.) will supply auxiliary equipment such as swing sets, riders, diggers and wood fiber for the surface area. Three suppliers submitted price quotes for the auxiliary equipment. A fourth company submitted a quote after the deadline and, therefore, not considered_ Webber Recreational Design, Inc_ submitted the lowest quote of $6,982.27. (EFA: $7,693.07 & Minn/Wisc. Playground: $7.999.21) The Public Works Dept. will prep the site for the new equipment and install the concrete border. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost for the new equipment and materials is: Earl F. Andersen, Inc. $29,741.20 Webber Recreational Design, Inc. $ 6.982.27 Total $36,732.47 ALTERNATIVES 1. Purchase playground equipment and materials for Holmes Park from Earl F. Andersen, Inc. and Webber Recreational Design, Inc. at a total cost not to exceed $36,732.47. 2. Do nothing. ACTION REQUESTED Move to authorize staff to purchase of new playground equipment from Earl F_ Andersen, Inc. and Webber Recreation Design, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $36,732.47 with fu ing allocation from the Park Reserve Fund. Mark J. McQuillan, atural Resource Director as GQ L 0 aa® s =�3 £5 � f T: ai g bt kk i fl f v � �a1►� Zn -z o Zi^ met m gt w J <- Wa n li S x t rig b@ { g yg�C HIP F5 N It tt W 1p - - 1� ' Y mod I C $ _ EMSi1Ni / Ll Zw 'NN ` e v � oR�vaR�8 A��oS o � a Ls P - i • a WHIM s =�3 £5 � f T: ai g bt kk i fl f v � �a1►� Zn -z o Zi^ met m gt w J <- Wa n li S x t rig b@ { g yg�C HIP F5 N It tt W 1p - - 1� ' Y mod I C $ _ EMSi1Ni / Ll Zw 'NN ` e v � To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director 31 May, 2001 Extension of Vending Contract INTRODUCTION Our current contract with Midwest Coca -Cola expires on June 6, 2001. City Council is asked to authorize an extension of this contract with current terms for a period of one year. BACKGROUND Prior to the opening of the Community Center, the City entered into a six -year agreement with Midwest Coca -Cola for exclusively vending Coca -Cola soft drinks at the Community Center, as well as in the Ice Arena concession stand. Since Coca -Cola didn't vend other products at the time, the City also entered into a seven -year agreement with Midwest Vending and Dean - Superior Vending for snacks, hot beverages, and video games. The current agreement with Coca -Cola provides commissions of $2.70 -$2.80 /case sold, in addition to an annual payment of $3,333.33. Coca -Cola has provided excellent service during the term of this agreement, and is receptive to a one -year extension. RECOMMENDATION With the two agreements expiring at different times, we are recommending that the current agreement with Midwest Coca -Cola be extended one year. This will allow us to solicit proposals for all vending services, hopefully resulting in significantly higher commissions and direct payments to the City. In addition, we are recommending that the Aquatic Park be added to the current agreement, since we have been vending Coca -Cola beverages at this facility. REQUESTED ACTION If City Council concurs, motion to authorize a one -year extension to the current agreement with Midwest Coca -Cola for vending services at the Community Center and Aquatic Park. 1 Facilities and Recreation Director CONSULTANT CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this day of , 2001, by and between the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City" with offices at 129 S. Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota, and Midwest Coca -Cola Bottling Company, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant" with offices at 2750 Eagandale Boulevard, Eagan, MN 55121. WITNESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee desires to engage the Consultant to render provide various vending machines and services more particularly described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Consultant made certain representations and statements to the City with respect to the provision of such machines and services and the City has accepted said proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations herein expressed, it is agreed by and between the City and the Consultant as follows: 1. Services. The City agrees to engage the services of the Consultant and the Consultant agrees to perform the services hereinafter set forth as described in Exhibit A. 2. Personnel. The Consultant represents that the Consultant will secure at the Consultant's own expense, all personnel required to perform the services called for under this Contract by the Consultant. Such personnel shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with the City except as employees of the Consultant. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by the Consultant or under the Consultant's direct supervision and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized under state and local law to perform such services. None of the work or services covered by this Contract shall be subcontracted without the written approval of the City. 3. Term. This agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year. 4. Pay. The Consultant shall pay the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Exhibit A. Payments shall be made quarterly, based upon the sales for the previous quarter. 5. Termination. If, through any cause, the Consultant shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner the Consultant's obligations under this Contract, or if the Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this Contract, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Contract by giving written notice to the Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least 30 days 1 before the effective day of such termination. For the first two violation notices, the Consultant may, within the 30 -day period, correct the conditions cited as reasons for termination, for the third and any subsequent notices, the City may terminate with allowing correction. 6. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City, and no member of the City Council shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Contract. A violation of this provision renders the Contract void. Any federal regulations, and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 7. Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Con- tract, without prior written consent of the City thereto. 8. Discrimination. The Consultant agrees in the performance of this Contract not to discriminate on the ground or because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or age, against any employee of the Consultant or applicant for employment, and shall include a similar provision in all subcontracts let or awarded hereunder. The Consultant shall be bound by and comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Sec. 181.59 as fully as if it were set forth verbatim herein. 9. Independent Contractor. The Consultant is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall constitute or designate the Consultant or any of the Consultant's agents or employees as agents or employees of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. 10. City Benefits. The Consultant shall not be entitled to any of the benefits es- tablished for the employees of the City nor be covered by the Worker's Compensation Pro- gram of the City. 11. Liability and Indemnity. The parties mutually agree to the following: a. The Consultant shall hold the City harmless and agrees to defend and indemnify the City, its employees and agents, for any claims, damages, losses, and expenses related to its work under this Contract, or arising out of the award of this Contract to Consultant. b. The Consultant assumes full responsibility for relations with subcontractors, and shall hold the City harmless and shall defend and indemnify the City, its employees and agents, for any claims, damages, losses, and expenses in any manner caused by such subcontractors, arising out of or connected with this Contract. 12. Notices. All notices required or permitted hereinunder and required to be in writing may be given by first class mail addressed to the City and the Consultant at the ad- 2 dress shown above. The date of delivery of any notice shall be the date falling on the second full day after the day of its mailing. 13. Jurisdiction. This Contract and every question arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. Executed the day and year first above written. MIDWEST COCO -COLA BOTTLING COMPANY By Kelly Lovik District Sales Manager CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Mayor By City Clerk ,x4 t Ll 1 � A S p l E..A\.E s w tr r Presented By: Liesr Koeni Mau 22. 1995 1 E A G A N_ M I N N E S O T A B R A N C H 2750 Eagandale Boulevard Eagan. MN 55121 -1292 612.454.5450 612.681.4112 Fax `fending Midwest Coca -Cola will provide the Shakopee Civic Center with the following Full- Service vending machines: ✓ Two (2) can soft drink machines ✓ One (1) Minute Maid Juice machine ✓ One (1) Fruitopia machine ✓ One (1) Evian machine ✓ Two (2) POWERaDE machines ✓ Three (3) Contour machines These machines will be serviced and filled by a uniformed Coca -Cola employee on a regular basis. Commissio Schedule Vend Price Product 60 (� 12 oz. Soft Drinks .......................... 75 � 12 oz. Juice / Fruitopia ................... $1.00 16.9 oz. Evian . ............................... $1.00 20 oz. POWERaDE ......................... $1.00 20 oz. Contour ............................... Commission $2.70 $2.70 per case $2.80 per case $2.80 per case $5.50 per case 0 Additional Equipment ✓ All pre -mix /post -mix equipment @ no charge. ✓ no charge. A cooler (MT -45) for the concession area @ �� Midwest Coca -Cola Bottling Company Mi6west Coca -Cola Service ✓ 24 hours /day ✓ 7 days /week ✓ 365 days /year Monday - Friday 0• . - •• 681-355 After Hours 332 -6636 Financial Supports Midwest Coca -Cola will provide an additional $20,000.00 in agreement of an exclusive six (6) year contract. (Payment schedule will be set -up to best meet the needs of the Shakopee Civic Center) *In agreement with the Shakopee Civic Center, Midwest Coca -Cola will also provide needed equipment at the Shakopee Pool. The Shakopee Civic Center agrees to exclusive sales of Coca -Cola products. These include the following: ✓ Coca -Cola soft drinks (cans & 20 oz.) ✓ Mendota Springs Water ✓ Minute Maid Juices ✓ Fruitopia ✓ Nestea ✓ Evian ✓ POWERaDE ✓ Coca -Cola pre -mix /post -mix ✓ Coca -Cola trademark cups ✓ CO2 Midwest Coca -Cola Bottling Company In agreement with the Shakopee Civic Center, Midwest Coca -Cola will service any additional concerns that develop in the future. Each opportunity will be discussed as they develop. Barry Stock City of Shakopee Date Liesl Koenig Midwest Coca -Cola Bottling Co. Date C C 0 ,. _n' _R PIS =S - ? t2_car. MN Hl 2" June 1.2001 Shakopee Civic Center 1255 Fuller Street Shakopee MIST 6379 Dear Mark, T letter�,l �A,�.eas t h of 'Civ =uiu w .�..� » ai? u.uuv:l4c.'�iil to. LL . CCu��a:,t bet�%�een tue vtlukotaL'e t.avic Cciat�_L and Midwest Coca -Cola Bottling dated 6/7/95- 6106101. Midwest Coca -Cola Bottling Company and the Shakopee Civic Center agree to extend the current contract for one year thru 6/06/02. All aspects of the current contract will stay the same. The new annual support will be 53,333.00 and will be paid in June of this year. The new addendum also includes the Aquatic Center as part of the exclusive beverage agreement. All other specific items of the agreement will carry over through the term of the new contract extension. Midwest Coca -Cola continues to look forward to our business partnership. We look forward to continuing to develop programs that meet your needs and the needs of the community that you serve. Tha for your business, and for continuing to offer Coca -Cola. This addendum is agreed to on June 1 2001 by the signing parties. Kelfy K. tovik District Sales Manager Midwest Coca -Cola Bottling Company City of Shakopee Shakopee Civic Center F- E CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk`__ 9 SUBJECT: Application to Conduct Annual Off -Site Gambling (Pull -Tabs) Shakopee Hockey Association DATE: May 23, 2001 I1 1 1 1 y � City Council is asked to approve an annual off -site gambling application and a lease in order that the Shakopee Hockey Association may sell pull -tabs during Derby Days. The Shakopee Hockey Association is making application to conduct annual off -site gambling in order to sell pull -tabs during Derby Days. The permit will ultimately be issued by the State Gambling Control Board. When application is made, the Board requires that the local unit of government pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the application. The Hockey Association desires to sell the pull -tabs on the municipal parking lot located in the northeast comer of 2 °a and Lewis. They will be located within the beer garden area run by the Jaycees_ As part of the application, the Hockey Association must submit a lease agreement with the property owner. The money that is made from the sale of the pull -tabs will stay within the youth hockey program. The Hockey Association also has a premises permit to sell pull -tabs at the Main Event. They are in compliance with the city code which requires that 75% of the proceeds from gambling be spent within the City's trade area. Offer Resolution No. 5537, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Minnesota Approving An Application from the Shako Valley Amateur Hockey Association to Conduct Annual Off -Site Gambling, and move its adoption. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a lease agreement with the Shako Valley Amateur Hockey Association to sell pull - tabs in the municipal parking lot at 2" and Lewis during Derby Days, August 3 and 4, 2001, for $0. RESOLUTION NO. 5537 ASSOCIATION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING AN APPLICATION FROM THE SHAKO VALLEY AMATEUR HOCKEY • CONDUCT WHEREAS, the 1990 legislature adopted a law which requires municipal approval in order for the Gambling Control Board to issue or renew premises permits and issue annual off - site gambling permits; and WHEREAS, the Shako Valley Amateur Hockey Association is seeking permission to conduct off -site gambling on August 3 and 4, 2001 for a fund raising event at Derby Days, in the municipal parking lot at 2nd Avenue and Lewis Street, Shakopee, Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, • E CITY COUNCIL OF 1 CITY • O• MINNESOTA: That the application from the Shako Valley Amateur Hockey Association to conduct annual off -site gambling in the municipal parking lot at 2 Avenue and Lewis Street, Shakopee, Minnesota, is hereby approved. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 5` day of June, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk M 21 2001 Shakopee Junior Youth Hockey NM I :R � Patricia Lang Gambling Manager Shakopee J r. Youth H ockey Minnesota Lawful Gambling Lease for Annual Off-Site Gambling Activity - LG22 4/00 Na a of Legal Owner of Property Street Address cityG�,, State Zip Daytime Phone Name of Lessor Street Address City State Zip Daytime Phone (If same as I al ownnerr w Aain "SAME ") Na e of Lea Premised Z t Address, or road designati City ��6�� Zi e Chit � 4e— i S S1 - Daytime �` one � f/� & G � —/ Naamme1�of Le see (name of organization asi e premises Organization license number Daytime Ph nee / Activity Date(S) f)Q Beginning date of off -site activity: vl/ l l 1�/ Ending date of off -site activity: I 1 ype of Gamuling Activity Check the box(es) which indicate(s) the type of gambling activity that will be cond!cl Bingo ❑ Raffles ❑ Paddlewheels ❑ Pull -Ta one -day off -site activity. Tipboards ❑ Rent Information • Rent may not be based on a percentage of receipts, Rent to be paid for the leased area: profits from lawful gambling, or the number of participants attending a bingo occasion. $ 0 . An organization may not pay rent to itself or to any of its affiliates for space used for the conduct of (If none, write -0 -) lawful gambling. OTHER OBLIGATIONS AND AGREEMENTS - Attachment All obligations and agreements between the organization and the lessor are listed below or attached to t lease. (Attach additional sheets if necessary. Any attachments to this lease must be dated and signed by bot the lessor and lessee.) Sales are confined within the beer barden Volunteers from the Association will help clean up after each night P AM �y s I This lease is the total and only agreement between the lessor and the organization conducting lawful gambli activities_ There is no other agreement and no other consideration regjuired between the parties as to the lawf I gambling and other matters related to this lease. / ® , A City of Shakopee li-1- - Signature of Lessor Date Sign rganization ii I L s ) D Jon Brekke Mark McNeill Judith S. Cox CI � •� . Mayor City Admr. City Clerk �� P� Print Name of Lessor Print Name and Title of Parson Signing on Behalf of Organization Questions on this form should be directed to your licensing The information requested on this form will become public specialist at the Gambling Control Board at 651 - 639 -4000. information when received by the Board, and will be used to Hearing impaired individuals using a TTY may call the Minnesota determine your compliance with Minnesota statutes and rules Relay Service at 1- 800 - 627 -3529 and ask to place a call to 651- governing lawful gambling activities. 639 -4000. V. This publication will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. ® . CI'T'Y OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Premises Permit Renewal — Shakopee Rotary Club DATE: May 29, 2001 CONSENT The Shakopee Rotary Club is making application to renew their premises permits for their gambling activities at Turtle's Bar and Grill, 132 East 1' Avenue; Pullman Club, 124 West 1' Avenue and Arnie's Bar, 122 East 1' Avenue. The permits will ultimately be issued by the State Gambling Control Board. When application is made, the Board requires that the local unit of government pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the application. The Shakopee Rotary Club is in compliance with the Shakopee City Code. Offer Resolution No. 5540, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Premises Permits for the Shakopee Rotary Club, and move its adoption. I JA Jud't 'S. Cox, City Clerk JSC /js WHEREAS, the 1990 legislature adopted a law which requires municipal approval in order for the Gambling Control Board to issue or renew premises permits; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Rotary Club is seeking renewal of their premises permits through August 31, 2003, for the following locations: Turtle's Bar & Grill at 132 East 1' Avenue; Pullman Club at 124 West 1' Avenue and Arnie's Bar at 122 East ? Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the premises permits for the Shakopee Rotary Club at the following locations are hereby approved: 132 East ? Avenue, 124 West 1' Avenue, and 122 East V Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 5th day of June, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 5® l° s MY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Request to Amend Liquor Licenses for T.L. Foods dba Harwell's Steak House DATE: June 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION• City Council is asked to consider the request of Frank Sawatzke to amend his Sunday and on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses to include outdoor dining and drinking. BACKGROUND: On April 22, 1999, a previous owner of T.L. Foods LLC was granted a conditional use permit for a Class II Restaurant including outdoor dining and drinking within a patio area. The CUP was granted with the condition that the applicant would install a three -foot high fence around the seating area with planters across the front as shown in the plans received from him dated March 25, 2001. A request to amend the liquor licenses was never received. On July 20, 2000, Sgt. Flynn met with Paul Bromberg, Manager of the Brewstation, and discussed the responsibilities of a license holder and looked at the physical layout for the outdoor dining. In the July 20, 2000 memo from Sgt. Flynn to Police Chief Dan Hughes, Sgt. Flynn stated that he saw no reason to deny the request to serve alcohol within the patio area. On May 15, 2001, the City received a written request from Frank Sawatzke, Vice President of TL Foods LLC (Harwell's Steak House formerly the Brewstation Restaurant), to amend his liquor licenses to allow the sale and consumption of alcohol outside of the building. City Council has previously amended the liquor licenses to include outside consumption of alcohol for both Dangerfields Restaurant and The Main Event. In both cases the outside area is screened and access is from the interior of the restaurant. Pablo Is Mexican Restaurant will be undergoing remodeling to include outside dining and drinking this summer. The license was amended last year to allow outside dining and drinking. The outside area will also be screened and access will be from the interior of the restaurant. Request to Amend Liquor Licenses T.L. Foods dba Harwell's Steak House Page -2- ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve request drinking with no 2. Approve request drinking with coi 3. Deny the request RECOMMENDED ACTION: and amend the license to allow outdoor conditions and amend the license to allow outdoor zditions to have outdoor drinking If Council concurs, approve an amendment to the on -sale Sunday and on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses of T.L. Foods LLC to allow outdoor drinking with the condition that access be from the interior of the restaurant with screening as required by the Chief of Police and pursuant to the conditions outlined in Conditional Use Permit No. PC99 -60. r I: \clerk \jeanette \liquor \TLFoods May 14, 2001 Ms. Judith Cox City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Judy: I am writing this letter in order to request an expansion of our liquor license to the confined area outside of our building. The Shakopee Police Department has already reviewed the site and discussed our responsibilities as a license holder. I've enclosed the positive recommendation of Sgt. Flynn to Chief Hughes on this matter. Please forward this letter to the City Council for their review and appro -val. If you need any further information, please call me at 612- 798 -1286. Sincerely, Frank Sawatzke Vice President TL Foods LLC dba Harwell's Steak House (Formerly the Brewstation Restaurant) encl. W3y. 2 9:5 METRO SALES @O.09 P. Y/Y . _ ........ All > � � ` \ ' ^� i ��-' ,+r~ @O.09 P. Y/Y . _ ........ All > � TO CHIEF HUGHES FROM SGT FLYNN SUB BREW STATION, OUTDOOR SEA= - G DATE 07/20/00 . ON 07/20/00 AT I I OOHRS I MET WITH PAUL BROBERG AT THE BREW STATION_ PAUL, IS THE MANAGER OF THAT ESTABLISHMENT AND WISHES TO EXPAN-D HIS LIQUOR LICENSE TO OUTDOOR DINING. DURING OUR MEETING WE DISCUSSED HIS RESPONSIBILITIES AS A LICENSE HOLDER BOTH TO HIS CUSTOMERS AND TO THE PUBLIC. I LOOKED AT THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT FOR THE SIDEWALK DINPIG. AFTER TALKING WITH PAUL BROBERG, LOOKING AT THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT OF THE RESTAURANT AND REVIEWING DEPARTMEVT ACTIVITIES AT THIS BUSINESS I SEE NO REASON TO DENY HIS REQUEST. vig SOLUTION NO. PC99 -60 RESOLUTION OF a OF .+ • 11 OTA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PER1 •• A CLASS IE[ • 1 IN N HIGHWAY f : ZONE WHEREAS, Michael S. Lindsoe, Applicant, Oppidan Investments, owner have filed an application dated received March 25, 1999, for a conditional use permit for a Class H Restaurant under the provisions of Chapter 11 (Zoning) of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.36 (Highway Business Zone), Subd. 3.; and WHEREAS, this parcel is presently zoned Highway Business (B =1); and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: Lot 5, Block 1, Crossroads Center, Scott County, Minnesota WHEREAS, notice was provided and on April 22, 1999, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director and invited members of the public to comment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1 APPEALS OF pt OF • ' MINNESOTA, FOLLOWS: That the application for conditional use permit No. PC99 -60 is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The trash enclosure must be fully covered. 2. There shall be no public address system which is audible from any residential property. 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit for any and all signs. 4. Any signs associated with this use must be screened to prevent any direct illumination from the residential property to the west. 5. Must comply with State of Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 6. Must comply with SEC. 10.60. Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention of the City Code. 7. Lighting associated with this use must not emit more than 1/2 foot -candle of light at the west property line. 8. Must obtain necessary liquor license with the City. The patio area shall also be included and inspected for liquor license compliance at the normal annual review. 9. Any umbrellas or awnings over the patio area must be of fire rated material to be approved of by the building official 10. The patio shall be limited to a capacity of 40 patrons and the plans submitted March 25, 1999 are hereby adopted. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, this 22th day of April, 1999. Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals � ATTEST: Community Development Director L2 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: July City Council Meeting Dates/Workshop Meeting DATE: May 31, 2001 _'i1 • Cr ' 7 7 7 The Council is asked to adopt a resolution, which would change the regular City Council meeting dates from the first and third Tuesdays, to the second and fourth Tuesdays, July 10 and July 24 The Council is also asked to establish a workshop meeting with Jackson Township to discuss annexation. I:: • i. : i�ilU July has five Tuesdays. The regularly scheduled first meeting is scheduled for the evening of July 3 one day before the Independence Day holiday is observed on Wednesday. In reviewing, it appears that there would be some support for moving the regular meetings of July to the second and fourth Tuesdays. On the fifth Tuesday, July 31 it is proposed that Council schedule a workshop meeting to discuss a joint meeting with the Jackson Town Board. That would also be attended by staff members from the Scott County Planning Department. The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss annexation. It is anticipated that this could be a workshop meeting, which could start at 5:00 pm. We recommend that the Council take two actions (1) approve the scheduling of the regular City Council meetings in July for July 10 and 24 (2) establish a workshop meeting to be held at 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 3 1 with the Jackson Town Board. ' 4 1 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following: A resolution establishing July I O and July 24 as regular City Council meeting dates: 2. By motion, approve a workshop meeting to be scheduled for Tuesday, July 31 at 5:00 p.m. v.&a A&kv�; Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th RESOLUTION NO. 5542 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JULY 10 AND JULY 24 AS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES. WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council has established normal City Council meeting dates on the first and third Tuesdays of each month; and WHEREAS, the first regular meeting in July would be held on the evening before the observance of the July 4 th Independence Day holiday; and WHEREAS, a desire has been expressed to establish the second and fourth Tuesdays of July, 2001, as a regular meeting date for that month only. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the regular Council meeting dates for July, 2001 will be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays, July 10 and July 24 th . Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 5 th day of June 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk H h n au Z . 9 � 00 v t a. N' N N N Z n L IL MO �NM C \_ .ti F- O V) N m Q F ^ANN z � t0. Cl) N :... �. lL tOMOi� O F- mCRC.+ LO N: m l0'. �y .r 1 -4 rl, 1 N' O O 2: NmbMO U v ra C a CD CD O O � Ln a) Q) E � _ @ E O v U E N Q L W Q E a O o • O O co rl M O '.. -{ r-4 CN M N tn � Q H 0 E CL O M O N Ol. �. M o N.. ol N N m O � N C C U m n fa L a a Cl O o M '.. O rn M H h n au Z . 9 [ \ s �..—" e Lf CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Derby Days Request for Funding DATE: May 31, 2001 The Derby Days Committee has asked that the City Council consider allocating $2,000 for the rental of portable toilets during the Derby Days celebration. Mayor Brekke has been approached by members of the Derby Days organizing committee. Derby Days has asked the City to consider funding $2,000 of rental toilet facilities for use throughout the Derby Days activities. Two years ago, SPUC and the City shared the cost of the portable toilets; the amount spent by the City was about $ 750. I have approached SPUC on a similar arrangement this year; they will respond by the June 5 Council meeting. I: 1 There is nothing established in the budget for this specific item; if the Council wishes to approve this expenditure, it would have to amend the budget; the logical source of funding would be Council contingency. e a • @ 1 The Council should indicate whether it wishes, or does not wish, to expend City funds of up to $2,000 for the rental of portable toilets during the Derby Days activities, August 2 — 5, 2001. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Budget Discussion — Police Hiring/Building Fund DATE: May 29, 2001 The Council is asked to have further discussion regarding two items which were considered at the May 15 City Council meeting — the need to hire additional Police Officers, and funding for building improvements. 17R ,T . Police Hires - At the May 15 meeting, Deputy Chief Jerry Poole reviewed with the Council staffing needs at the Police Department. Seven new Police Officer positions were requested as part of the FY 2001 budget; however, five of those are to be funded in part by Federal "COPS FAST" grant monies. However, with the change in Administrations at the White House, those grant monies are no longer available. The discussion at the May 15 meeting by the City Council focused on two key issues — the desire to add additional police officers, balanced with the uncertainty of what the impact would be on the budget for next year (it appears that by the time the new officers would be hired, this year's budget could absorb the additional costs, even without the Federal grants). The motion was to table until the June 5 th meeting, anticipating that the legislature would by then have adopted a tax plan, and the City would know whether levy limits were going to be put in place. As of this writing, the legislature has not met, but it appears that levy limits will be part of an overall tax package. Staff has also discussed Police staffing needs further. Chief Hughes and Deputy Chief Poole recognize Councilor Sweeney's concern about impact on future budgets. There is a need to establish an eligibility list at this time, regardless of that particular discussion (the existing eligibility list has been exhausted). After discussions at a staff level, it was determined that the Council would have time to discuss budgetary concerns as part of their regular workshop considerations in August; the police testing process could proceed as originally anticipated, with no offers to hire being made before September 1 That would give the Police Department an opportunity to stay "on track", without the City Council having to commit to staffing levels before it has had a chance to discuss the FY `02 budget. For that reason, we recommend that no action be taken at this time regarding police hiring; however, please keep in mind that decisions will need to be made regarding funding issues before September 1St BUILDING FUND — One of the concerns expressed at the May 15 City Council meeting was that hiring personnel (an ongoing expense) will reduce the amount of monies anticipated as "excess" which has previously been placed into the Building Fund. Through the CIP, the Council has adopted an aggressive schedule for the repair and construction of major facilities — Library, Police Station, Public Works addition, and a new City Hall. Because of a desire to be sensitive to the School District's building needs, the Council has also adopted an informal policy to not go to referenda for these buildings, and instead ask the voters to consider bonding only for new Fire Station construction. The buildings mentioned would need to be constructed through development and related fees. The Council is already aware that there is a fairly significant reliance upon development fees in the current operating budget — approximately 30 %. (The Council may wish to reduce the City's reliance upon building permit fees as part of the operating budget as it discusses the FY '02 budget.) The Legislature has also looked at building permit fees, and a bill, which of this time has not been signed by the Governor, will require cities to report building permit fee revenue, and related expenses by the City, beginning April 1, 2003. If the Legislature chooses to take stronger action in the future, and place limits upon what cities can generate for building - related fees, that will reduce the flow of income for building projects such as what the City of Shakopee has scheduled. Therefore, staff has come up with two scenarios for the Building Fund: 1. Schedule A - A "pessimistic" view, showing transfers (which has been averaging $1.5 million over the past four years) being reduced to $700,000 in 2002 and 2003, and $300,000 for a four year period beginning in 2004; and also an interfund loan being taken out in 2003 to fund building construction, which will need to be repaid starting 2008. Under this scenario, the new City Hall would not begin construction until late 2006, and being finished in 2007. The Public Works building would start in 2005 and end the following year. 2. Schedule B — An "optimistic" scenario which shows $1.5 million through 2007. There would be no interfund loan needed, and the Public Works and City Hall projects could each be moved ahead one year. Both scenarios assume a "scaling down" of the Police building from the first version brought from the architect — it shows $5 million, which is still considerably above the $3.3 million originally budgeted. It also does not provide for an amount of money ($150,000) to remodel the vacated Police building to be better utilized by Public Works, beginning in 2003. If the fire referendum to replace the Downtown Fire Station is successful in 2004, it is possible that the Downtown Fire Station might be able to be utilized for storage by the Public Works Department, which could affect the need for the Public Works expansion as currently scheduled. Under Schedule A, the new City Hall would not be funded without another source of income — there is a $3.2 million deficit as of the end of 2007. Therefore, the Council would have to consider other alternatives. There are two aspects going in the recommendation. Staff recommends that nothing be done at this time regarding the police hires; in August the Council will need to discuss Police hires during FY '02 budget consideration. September 1' would be a decision date to offer employment. 2. Discuss with the architect possible cost savings for the Library and Police buildings (reduction in size, phased construction, etc.) so at least the Library, Police, and Public Works construction would be able to be done under the under the Schedule A scenario. While there is still a need to proceed with acquisition of the City Hall site, the City should be prepared to look for leased space in which to put temporary City offices in a few years, once the existing building is full. ETGQV 1 � The Council should discuss, and give direction based upon the recommendations listed above. Mark McNeill City Administrator ul�i1 5 r-I r 0 U O 0 m m O R O � O U E U O O M M C: O O rn I� s E to CD O c O 0 fA y w O O O .O O .L T (B fl � N V O 0 ° L d c U O M Ch � L to U m c U) O CL c y E C L N 0) O O N O O O O a) N O y N a) d m D a) C 3 C M to - 0 U 4 V p N 00 *k *k _ O (6 (6 U) U� CO O C d C6 Q j o U > W 0 c c c O O O a) _= N a) a) «- � O - a c c U O U U 00 '� Q ❑ O EA O O L L N (II C6 (6 L .0 O Ca O- m X LLI H f3 m Y 3 LL Cn to 5 O O d N O c 0 0 0 CD a) C6 .- .- X O d � cn � 0 � I - - 0 to � W O a) E a n a) F � U) U) U) O c6 00 _ Cp U) O d d Z 00 >p N N O O � W R — O °►- 00 a) COI O F O N N U CT LU > r V CT — - (A W W N O C{} M N (0. C" O O O 0 0 O O O Cn O LO L LO 00 ..........: M I- NIA O O r O O O O O O O O U') O M LO O O T O CD Ll Lf) U') N fa Ch p C C 0 0 O O O O p O 00 00 0 0 (D O O pI O O (, Cr) O U') O r- N e N M M O O� O O O O O 'IT CD 1 1 O — CD CD OO LO c� _ O CD CD O CD ti N 00 N O r- I- O co O N CN EA M N O O O O O O O O CD 0 0 �I U) O— O O O O O O O LO CD M 0 0 M O N CO It N co LC) N ffT � N ti O LO O M m r co C m p - O "t LC) c r p Co ct p (fl <- O N 6,). — N co f` M t` N co d' O0 M M O ti N E!} co LO O co N N (fl M O r Ef} co co I- 0 e4 L LO t` co (fJ d' ti co N N N Ln O ti O CO co d' In fA E R � O U E U O w CD C: O O rn s E to U) c a) cn n fA y w O O O .O O .L a) E (B fl � N V O 0 ° L d c U O >. '0 CO 00 � L to U m c U) >. C) M CL c y E C L N 0) O O N O O O O a) y N a) d m D a) C 3 C M N V N 6 (6 _N O CM i - 0 U 4 V p N 00 *k *k _ O (6 (6 U) U� CO O C d C6 Q j o U > W 0 c c c O O O a) _= N a) a) «- � O - a c c U O U U 00 '� Q ❑ O O V O O O L L N (II C6 (6 L .0 O Ca O- m X LLI H f3 m Y 3 LL Cn to 5 O O d N ❑ c 0 0 0 CD a) C6 .- .- X O d � cn � to - - 0 to � W a) E a n a) F � U) U) U) co LU a c c6 U rn _ Cp U) Z ��� >p N N O O � W R — O °►- Z a) a) O mH F LLLLLLJUZZZZZa -0 .w a) G) a) > >� .� a- LL 0- U -a yN O O LU > LU d — - O � mdC W W Q ti O 0 O 0) N LO O L6 X O co O rl is Q) U U] O ° O v O E 00 O N N 00 �O L a) Imo) O O O P 0 O O L N O t4 • 3 O O Ln LO N cn In O C O O N P N i d U O m 00 U N c D. to V Cl) `N t4 �O U CL L C C C 0 0 0 w O N P V o m 3 3 00 c .N c o rn O L Q c N O M m *k o- — O — U) co co (6 L6 g 2 I c 0 LO c o G O N =3 -0 J U j d O C C C -� O O O a) N O O L == U U U N O " C C C: O O O N fl CD O O 07 C w... O i N cc C _ — T ._ O O O O LII U O' Q O m (6 N X W 0 R m O O O W N E m w �c4cnc4 O N �SUUn n �- WW ° o -C cq� c6 _ N 6 o N 7E5 15 R U LL t + o cn �m O �I O O � � O t6 W L� 00 p C O LO 0 O r- LP) ti O O '• 00 N M 0 O tO 0 LO z O 6 1- N O a a> f > , - W > W a N j o o . W O O C5 d - d - O O C C O pI O O O v L' O O Ln P O p O O CD 0 O� L j O O N� 6 4 M r �j LO 1.0 r f P P Cl O N O O O O N 00 O �- — O O O CI O N co N O O LO O O � - LO O N CO P N M O O Oaf d• 00 OO O CD O O O O O LO N O O O P O O Ln O O O 00 In N P P O O P tl- I- O co O P N CO 64 1- N M N D O 0 00 00 O O O O O O PI O M OO N M L �N m L P N CD LO O M m 0 p r - O d• LO N T ~ CD N LO O N EFT P N co ti M ti d CD co O ,I* O O O � O r-- co N M ell CD CD rl_ OP 00 N co , It LO d O7 M VC,91. M r O LO O r d' O_ O mi r NO a IN V LO O Ni co ti V O � O O ti co P EF3 N LO co O 0 O N 0 r � co co O O M i (A LO lf) 00 O N d O co a' P fA O ti M O N N r Lt) 6`3 O O N rl - N O ti (D co co LO Ln ft> Q O o_ 0 0) N O L6 x O m 0 0- O E C N �O L a) L C = 4 O L N O t4 • 3 N cn In C N C4 i d U O m 00 U N c D. to V Cl) `N t4 �O U CL L C C C 0 0 0 w O N P V o m 3 3 c .N c o rn Q c a a) c Lo O M m *k o- — O — U) co co (6 L6 g 2 I c y E C c o G O N =3 -0 J U j d O C C C -� O O O a) N O O L == U U U N O " C C C: O O O N fl ® lC > 41 w... O i N cc C _ — T ._ O O O O LII U O' Q O m (6 N X W 0 R m . J fl a�i W N E m w �c4cnc4 N �SUUn n �- WW ° o -C cq� c6 _ o 7E5 15 R U LL t + o cn �m �LLLLLLJUZZZZZMdv}•LL0 t6 W W F 0 4 -- u N z O a a> f > , - W > W a o o . W M CL L) Q O o_ 0 0) N O L6 x O m 0 0- CITY OF SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Police Department Staffing Information DATE: May 23, 2001 Please review the attached information concerning the 2001 Police Department budget requests and the latest work analysis done by Deputy Chief Poole for the year 2000. 1. Memo — July 21, 2000; 2001 Police Department Budget Requests. 2. Overhead presentation prepared for the 2001 budget work session held on 08/17/2000. 3. Official proceedings of the City Council meeting 08/17/2000. The consensus of the Council was to have the Police Department obtain 7 additional police officers, add a one -half time support staff member and promote two sergeants. 4. Memo — May 16, 2001; From Deputy Chief Jerry Poole to myself regarding the 2000 workload analysis, indicating a recommended level of patrol officers of 23.5. Based upon the Council's consensus at the August 17, 2000 meeting, our allocated sworn strength should be 32 sworn positions. Currently we have 25. Of those 25, fourteen are patrol officers. The 1999 workload analysis recommended a level of 21 patrol officers (an additional 7, as authorized by Council). Based upon the most recent data (2000 workload analysis), an additional 2 -1/2 positions should be added to attain the recommended levels by I.A.C.P. along with our population growth. I look forward to addressing any particular questions that you may have in regards to the staffing needs of the Police Department. CITY OF SEEAKOPEE Memorandum To: Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police Date: July 21, 2000 Subject: 2001 Police Department Budget Requests Introduction The Police Department is seeking authorization to increase our number of sworn police officers from 25 positions, two currently vacant pending Cops in Schools Grant, to 30 positions, increase our records technician staff from 4.25 positions to 4.75 positions, increase our number of sergeants from 3 positions to 4 positions, and the purchase of a new dictation system. Police Officer Position The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) staffing formula was used to analyze the events Department personnel responded to during 1999. The formula produced a total of 23869 weighted events. The weighted events are then used to determine the number of shifts needed to handle the number -of events. The final factor analyzed is the availability of an officer to be scheduled to work and the number of officers required to staff the established shifts. The analysis supported a staffing level of 20.8 patrol officer positions. (See attachment) Another way of determining staffing levels is what is commonly referred to as the F.B.I. officer to citizen ratio. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) determined that a quick an efficient method of establishing the number of police officers a community needs is to use the ratio of 1.0 officer per 1000 population. The most recent Metropolitan Council population estimate for Shakopee is 18,500, which when multiplied by 1.0 establishes the number of police officers at 18 -19. The staffing level of 1.5 officers per 1000 residents is consistent with a consultant recommendation from 1986. The larger 1.5 ratio was used by the consultant to minimize the impact of our then blossoming entertainment industry. This larger ratio multiplied by our current population establishes the number of police officers needed to provide an acceptable level of service to the citizens of Shakopee at 28. In 1997 our population was 16,053 and we had 22 sworn officers for a ratio of 1.37. The number of sworn staff remained the same in 1998 with an estimated population of 17,725 provided a ratio of 1.29 per 1,000 residents. In 1999, the staffing level was 23 sworn officers and an estimated population of 21,181, a ratio of 1.08 officers per 1000 residents. In order for the City to adjust our level of staffing of sworn officers per 1000 to 1.26, we must add five additional police officer positions in 2001. This assumes there is no increase in the number of events Shakopee police officers responded to in 2000 and there is no population growth in 2001, which is most likely, unrealistic. For the first six months of 2000 we are 13.2% ahead of the same period of time for 1999 in calls for service. We have submitted grant applications to the COPS Office in Washington, D.C. for the funding of 5 police officer positions and two school resource officer positions. If awarded all of the funding the City would increase the number of sworn police officer positions from 23 to 30 in 2001. The City would receive approximately $475,000 over the next three years in partial funding of the positions from the grants. Records Technician The request for an additional half -time records technician position is in response to a number of factors. The first factor to consider is the existing work load which, as mention previously in this memo, is 13% ahead of last year. A significant portion of the increased work load is DUI arrests and speeding citations. In 1999 officers made 226 DUI arrests and issued 506 speeding citations. In 2000, to date, officers made 116 DUI arrests and issued 587 speeding citations. DUI arrests are very labor intensive requiring three hours of the officer's time and nearly the same amount of time for the support staff to process a DUI case. This factor coupled with organizational and community growth creates significant justification for the position. The conversion to New World Systems (NWS) has proven to be labor intensive. NWS will provide a significant amount of information for use in strategic planning. However, the information must be gathered, organized, and entered before it can be extracted and utilized. The input of information and the ongoing maintenance of the system are proving to be a larger task than anticipated. A key ingredient of community policing is the effective use of timely and accurate information. The information is critical to meet community needs, expectations and the allocation of resources. We must maintain the ability to stay current with our information if it is to be used to its optimum level. Sergeant Position The additional Sergeant position will be drawn from the additional police officer positions. The single most important reason for this request is that the average experience level of 70% of our patrol force is less than 3 years. I believe we have hired excellent people over the past few years but they do lack experience. Policing is an extremely complex job and often times the best effort can result in mistakes being made. Additional supervision can provide better police service and ultimately help to reduce the City's exposure to risk. The three Sergeant positions provide 120 hours of supervisory coverage for a seven - day /168 hour time period. The 120 hours of scheduling availability drops to approximately 100 hours when the employee utilizes vacation, sick leave, holiday time and compensatory time off. Roughly 60% of the current work schedule has supervisory coverage. The additional sergeant position should raise the coverage to 80% with many of those hours being added on weekends and nights. Finally, the transition to community policing by the organization, more specifically the creation of beats, has created a situation where the Sergeant is required to be more than just another uniform on the street. The role of the Beat Sergeant creates additional expectations of administration and management of the area assigned and all the problems arising from that area of the City. They have the responsibility of determining the training needs of the officers assigned to their beat and matching those needs with the needs of the beat. The evolving role of a Shakopee Police Sergeant is not complete and will continue to evolve in response to the needs of the community and the organization. Dictation System The dictation needs of the Police Department have increased and will continue to increase proportionate to community and organizational growth. Our current system limits the ability of our people to work in effective and efficient manner. Our records staff has more than enough work to do and experience little down time. However, system design controls work flow which has a negative effect upon our overall efficiency. Dictaphone Corporation installed a state of the art dictation system for Scott County that offers expanded capabilities to Cities within the County. We can utilize the technology with the purchase of the appropriate equipment. Savage P.D. is currently on -line with Scott County's dictation system and enjoys the benefits of the equipment. Our involvement with this system will meet our dictation needs for many years to come. A major expandability feature of the system provides for voice recognition capability in the future for our police officers. The system would not only have a significant impact on the efficiency of our existing staff but should have a direct impact on the number of human resources in the future. Budget Impact The estimated budget impact of the seven police officer positions is $350,000 based upon current contract language and benefits. The estimated budget impact of the half -time records technician position is $14,000 based upon the current City pay plan. The estimated budget impact of the Sergeant position is $63,000 based upon current contract language and benefits. (Note: the additional Sergeant position would reduce the police officer expenditure to $287,000.) The estimated budget impact of the dictation system is $25,000. The City could receive approximately $200,000 if awarded the COPS grants pending in Washington, D.C. Action Requested Authorization for 5 additional police officer positions, a half time records technician position, a Sergeant position and a dictation system be included in the Police Departments 2001 Budget. Dan Hughes Police Chief , I ,� Mem To: Chief Hughes Frown: Jerry D ate: April 19, 2000 Subject: Staffing Formula I applied the IACP staffing needs formula to our 1999 statistics which produced a staffing level of 20.8 patrol officers. METHODOLOGY The following formula is from a system devised and accepted by the IACP. The formula is intended to calculate the number of patrol officers needed to cover the existing workload. It is a formula based on actual police service demands and not simply on population. Weighting of Events Incidents are first weighted by the formula to take into account the longer time necessary for a police officer to process more serious offenses. Class of Event Weighting X 1999 events = Total Part 1 crimes 4 X 679 = 2716 Part 2 crimes 3 X 1024 = 3072 Accidents 2 X 542 = 1084 Other 1 X 8957 = 8957 Arrests 2 X 4020 = 8040 Part 1 128 Part 2 1022 DUI 226 Other 2644 Total weighted events 23869 1 . . For the purposes of this study, a patrol beat is defined as a basic one officer patrol shift, 10 hours a day, 365 days per year. A. Total weighted events 23,869 B. The number of weighted events is multiplied by .55 hours (35 minutes) which is the average time required for handling an incident or investigation 13128 at the patrol level. C. This total is then multiplied by 3 to allow for a buffer factor to cover time spent on preventive patrol, court time, training, meetings, care of equipment, and report writing. These are times 39 384 that are not reflected in incident reports. D. The total is then divided by 3650 which represents the number of hours necessary to staff one patrol beat (10 hours per day X 365 days = 3650). This total is the number of patrol beats required to cover existing work loads. 10.8 E. The 10.8 beats would be divided over 3 shifts and a night power shift. This averages out to 3.6 beats per shift, plus the power shift. To determine the number of patrol officers necessary to cover a single beat, we must subtract the number of hours an officer is unavailable for duty, because of days off, vacation, holidays, sick leave, etc. from 3650 (10 hours per day X 365 days = 3650). The remaining hours represent the net hours an officer is actually available for patrol. That figure can then be used to calculate the number of officers required to staff a beat and the total number needed to adequately staff the force. Availability Factor Days Off (40 hour work week) 1560 Vacation 80 Holidays 88 Sick 40 Total hours unavailable for patrol 1768 When the number 1768 is subtracted from the 3650, the result shows that each officer provides 1882 hours on duty per year. To determine the number of patrol officers necessary to staff one beat, the figure 3650 is divided by the 1882. The resulting ratio is 1.93 officers to staff one beat. When this figure is multiplied by the number of beats found to be required in the above calculations, based upon the current level of 10.8 beats, the result is that 20.84 patrol officers are needed. Changes directly related to additional staffing requests Supplies — Radios/Uniforms for New Employees Fuel Expenses Professional Services — recruitment/selection of new employees and promotional expenses Additional Civil Defense Siren - Placed south and east of the hospital Dictation Equipment - State of the art in communication technology. - Partnering with Scott County on their mainframe system. - Will enhance effectiveness and efficiency - Alternative funding sources (a) Law Enforcement Block Grant (b) D.W.I. Forfeitures Weights calls for service /arrests /citations /accidents Workload analysis is the best indication of future needs based upon similar level of service and to provide a multiple officer response. assign According to analysis, the number of police office to patrol should b 20 • positio Currently have 14 officers W sph"A" " A , �J Average number of police officers per 1,000 residents for Minnesota is 1.6. Consultant recommendation for Shakopee in 1986 is 1.5 officers per 1,000 based upon entertainment industry. 1 Year Population Sworn Officer Number Per 1,000 F d s 1.5 /1,000 1997 16,053 22 1.37 24 1998 17,725 22 1.24 27 1.999 18,015 23 1.27 27 2000 19,000 — 20,000 23 1.21 1.15 28.5 30 2001 2000 — 21,000 30 1.5 1.428 30 31.5 Directly related to experience level of patrol officers Over 70% ®f police officers assigned t® patrol have less than 4 years experience. Additional position n - - d t to address workload To: Chief Hughes From: Jerry Date: May 16, 2001 Subject: Staffing Formula I applied the IACP staffing needs formula to our 2000 statistics that produced a staffing level of 23.5 patrol officers. MEETHODOLOGY The following formula is from a system devised and accepted by the IACP. The formula is intended to calculate the number of patrol officers needed to cover the existing workload. It is a formula based on actual police service demands and not simply on population. Weighting of Events Incidents are first weighted by the formula to take into account the longer time necessary for a police officer to process more serious offenses. Class of Event Weighting X 2000 events = Total Part 1 crimes 4 X 796 = 3,184 Part 2 crimes 3 X 1167 = 3,501 Accidents 2 X 790 = 1,580 Other 1 X 9888 = 9,888 ISM Part 1 164 Part 2 1299 DUI 226 Other 2744 Total weighted events 2 X 4433 = 8,866 27,019 For the purposes of this study, a patrol beat is defined as a basic one- officer patrol shift, 10 hours a day, 365 days per year. A. Total weighted events 27,019 B. The number of weighted events is multiplied by .55 hours (35 minutes) which is the average time required for handling an incident or investigation at the patrol level. 14,860 C. This total is then multiplied by 3 to allow for a buffer factor to cover time spent on preventive patrol, court time, training, meetings, care of equipment, and report writing. These are times that are not reflected in incident reports. 44,580 D. The total is then divided by 3650 which represents the number of hours necessary to staff one patrol beat (10 hours per day X 365 days = 3650). This total is the number of patrol beats required to cover existing workloads. 12.2 E. The 12.2 beats would be divided over 3 shifts and a night power shift. This averages out to 4.0 beats per shift, plus the power shift. To determine the number of patrol officers necessary to cover a single beat, we must subtract the number of hours an officer is unavailable for duty, because of days off, vacation, holidays, sick leave, etc. from 3650 (10 hours per day X 365 days = 3650). The remaining hours represent the net hours an officer is actually available for patrol. That figure can then be used to calculate the number of officers required to staff a beat and the total number needed to adequately staff the force. Availability Factor Days Off (40 hour work week) 1560 Vacation 80 Holidays 88 Sick 40 Total hours unavailable for patrol 1768 When the number 1768 is subtracted from the 3650, the result shows that each officer provides 1882 hours on duty per year. To determine the number of patrol officers necessary to staff one beat, the figure 3650 is divided by the 1882. The resulting ratio is 1.93 officers to staff one beat. When this figure is multiplied by the number of beats found to be required in the above calculations, based upon the current level of 12.2 beats, the result is that 23.5 patrol officers are needed. 15 F CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: FY02 Budget Process DATE: June 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to consider enlisting outside input as part of the FY02 budget review. BACKGROUND The budget discussions for FY02 will likely be contentious, given the anticipated imposition of levy limits on municipalities by the Legislature. This likely means that the Council will have to make some very tough decisions. Councilor Sweeney has suggested to me that City may wish to recruit people knowledgeable about money management, especially in the public sector, to sit in with the City Council during the budget discussions. It is proposed that perhaps three individuals might sit in as active participants (in terms of discussion) and could share their viewpoints with the Council during the process. This would allow the Council some additional input, which should be helpful when making difficult decisions. The individuals would be non - voting members of the budget review team. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council direct staff to approach knowledgeable individuals who might be willing to sit in with the Council on budget deliberations. If this concept is acceptable, the names of the individuals who respond in the affirmative would be brought back to the Council for formal appointment. This appointment would be for the FY2002 budget discussions only. • Iv If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct staff to contact individuals who are knowledgeable about public money management and who might be interested in serving in an advisory capacity to the City Council during the upcoming budget deliberations. i Mark McNeill City Administrator MWjs To: From: Subject: Date: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Acceptance of Metro Greenways Planning Grant May 29, 2001 '7 INTRODUCTION Staff is seeking City Council's approval to accept matching funds from the Metropolitan Greenways Planning Grant Program to conduct a natural resource inventory of the City and neighboring townships. BUDGET IMPACT The City's matching portion will come from the following sources: $11,000 Natural Resources Budget $14,000 Community Development Budget $25,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The Environmental Advisory Committee recommends the hiring of the Kestrel Design Group to facilitate the Natural Resource Inventory. They have extensive expertise is in the area of ecological designs, bio technical engineering, landscape architecture, natural resources inventories and environmental consulting. The Kestrel Design Group wrote and provided technical information for the grant application. Peter MacDonagh of the Kestrel Design Group voluntarily served as our resource/spokesperson for various information requested by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Peter also attended the township meetings with me to garner their support for the grant. At your December 19, 2000 meeting, Council approved hiring of the Kunde Company for a tree inventory of the City and adjoining townships. The Kunde Company has agreed to collaborate with the Kestrel Design Group to combine the tree inventory with the natural resources inventory. In the past, the City has used Brauer & Associates, Ltd. and Ingraham & Associates, Inc. for park projects. Both companies are capable in doing the natural resource inventory. However, the costs may be higher because Brauer & Associates partners with Applied Ecological Services for their inventory work and Ingraham & Associates collaborates with Emmons & Offivier Resources. The tree inventory by the Kunde Company would add a third party for both Brauer and Ingraham. The Kestrel Design Group specializes in this area and no second party is involved (except for tree inventory by the Kunde Company). ATE RNATIVES 1. Hire the Kestrel. Design Group to facilitate the Natural Resources Inventory. 2. Direct staff to seek Request For Qualifications from other consulting firms. If the Kestrel Design Group is not selected for the inventory, then staff recommends remunerating the Kestrel Design Group for their time in preparing the grant. That amount was not available when this memo was prepared. Mr. MacDonagh is on vacation. 3. Do nothing. RECOMMENDATION Alternative #1 Mark J. McQW11a Natural Resource U . n �mi CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant SUBJECT: SPUC MEETINGS - VIDEOTAPED DATE: June 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION: SPUC (Shakopee Public Utilities) has requested that their meetings, which are normally held the first and third Monday of the month, be videotaped and broadcasted live from the City Council chambers. BACKGROUND: Currently, City Council, Planning Commission, Cable Access and Cable Commission meetings and workshops are all broadcasted live through PFR Production's 2001 contract. To keep with the spirit of broadcasting live public meetings, SPUC is requesting to use public access funds (franchise fees) to ensure the proper broadcasting of their meetings. According to the contract approved by the Access Corporation on March 6, 2001, Section 12 B states, The SCAC agrees to compensate the Contractor on an actual cost basis of $14.16 per hour for services related to staffing live broadcasts of the public meetings as directed by the City Council. The Contractor shall invoice SCAC monthly for these services. RECEOMMENDATION: Approve SPUC meetings to be broadcasted live and send such recommendation to the Cable Access Corporation for funding. Tracy Coenen Management Assistant F { I CITE' OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Special Council Meetings DATE: June 5, 2001 The Council is asked to designate meeting times in July and August to deal with CIP and Budget review. Staff is proposing to have one CIP review (with PARB and Planning Commission) and three budget review meetings. We propose the following: Thursday, July 26 , 5:00 PM — CIP Thursday, August 16 , 5:00 PM — Budget Tuesday, August 28 5:00 PM — Budget Thursday, August 30 , 5:00 PM — Budget If these times do not work, alternate dates should be suggested. If the Council concurs, it should designate special meeting dates on July 26 and August 16 28 and 30 at 5:00 PM. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th 0 c cr m t+ l�D' N' Ln O ° ° ° 3 3 3 3 � N o ° c ca o�' v o = 3 O ONV m 3 O. Ln CL N vows 3 O O (D O co CC c t VI OJ N.G ^' O W N H O +.AVOW T T ... C v cn OWTtDN :fn Lo to V w avow ' 3 m O Ln O ,. ) VOWO� - I En NNH �NVIWt+V1 (!7 O CD p p o ° 0 3 3 3 3 3 v a a - -0 C: c c o o 3 a 0 a ( (D 3 CD m m CD c to co t 3 CD rt to N NJ N N O O O O Q Q 3 CD 3 3 3 3 3 3 o Z Z D D c c 7� n n n n o o C C C = 3 3 3 3 W ( (D o o O > > O CD O O O V O O 3 < < 0 0 CD M (D m n ( m o :3 3 3 v 3 — c c CD V � � O O O CD -0 O 3 3 N 3 Ln v � C C 3 C) 3 o m CD m _ o :3 n to LO 3 (D CD O O W N O O O O 7 0 3 3 3 3 f) n -. (D O O Q C Q _ 3 3 (D O rD o 3 to LID f .. ri V O W O O O O - 0 3 Dl _ 3 Q C 7 G (D < <, d cq O O = w CD En 3 O O 3 v (D 3 0 O (D Ul µ W V1 V V O O C 3 3 3 v o �z W 3 ;v n M °a n n = o 0 t NN W r' Vf 1n-I 3 3 Ln I O O µ 7 rA�Ow U'1 - I c t N A.� O 0 O1�D N 41 -I VOWO� T T p m�.nv to O �pN V1 V1. N V N O W . 3 D CC c t V1 Q>r G ^ N L C. C ,+.AVOW T t N T � C n N N N