HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/13/1985 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 13 , 1985
Mayor Reinke presiding
11 Roll Call at 7 :00 P .M.
21 Recess for an H.R.A. Meeting
31 Reconvene
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
51 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
61 Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick
are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted
by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will
be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the agenda. )
71 Communications:
a]
bzl
b]
81 Public Hearings : None
91 Boards and Commissions:
Planning Commission:
a] Preliminary Plat of Hentges 1st Add'n. , 1513 West 3rd Ave . -
Tabled August 6th (bring item 10c from 8/6 agenda)
Energy and Transportation Committee :
b] Van Pool Holiday Policy Amendment and Fare Policy Poll (bring
item 10h from 8/6 agenda)
c] Character Generator Deadline (bring item 10i from 8/6 agenda)
d] Council Chambers Sound System (bring item 10j from 8/6 agenda)
101 Reports from Staff:
a] Curb Cut Request - Mr. Samstad has asked to have this reconsidered
X-101 Vacation of Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street to Alley
c] Community Development Budget Amendment
d] Community Services Telephone System
e] Fire Hydrant Additions to K-Mart Distribution Center (bring item
110 from 8/6 agenda)
f] Consultant Selection for Trunk Highway Work (TH169 Mn. River
Crossing/Downtown Approach Improvements)
g] Additional Fees for Racetrack Offsite Improvements, Barton-Aschman.
Consultant
TENTATIVE AGENDA
August 13 , 1985
Page -2-
11] Resolutions and Ordinances :
*a] Res. No. 2423 , Special Commendation to Kenneth Hanel
b] Ord. No. 177 , increases maximum fine for misdemeanor
c] Ord. No. 178 , establishes a Housing Advisory and Appeals Board
d] Ord. No. 179 , amends some liquor licensing regulations
e] Ord. No . 180, repeals city' s gambling and bingo regulations
f] Ord. No. 181 , updates the adoption by reference of the Highway
Regulation Act through the laws of 1985
g] Ord. No. 182, covers throwing stars and nun chucks as dangerous
weapons, and specifies where gambling will be
permitted within Shakopee
h] Ord. No. 183 , specifies foundation construction for dwelling
structures
12] Other Business :
a] Petition submitted to Council on Aug. 6th from Baron Development
Corp . - informational only
b] Information on conditional use permit for mining permit for
Scott County Lumber Co. & Bert Notermann - informational only
- c]
13] Adjourn to Tuesday, August 20, 1985 at 7:00 P .M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 23, 1985
Chrm. Vierling called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Comm. Lebens,
Wampach, Colligan and Leroux present. Also present were HRA Director
Jeanne Andre and City Admr. John K. Anderson.
Lebens/Colligan moved to accept the special call of the Chair. Motion
carried unanimously.
The HRA Director went over the background of the request for an appraisal
for a downtown housing project. The City Admr. added that several firms
were checked, all of which were very busy; but this recommended firm
said they could get the appraisal done in the shortest time.
Leroux/Colligan moved to authorize appropriate officials to execute an
agreement with Shenehon and Associates to conduct an appraisal of Lots 4,
5, 6 & 7, Block 32, in the original Shakopee Plat, for a fee not to exceed
$880.00.
Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Vierling, Colligan, Leroux
Noes; None
Abstain: Wampach
Motion carried.
The City Admr. stated they are researching the design study done on the
Holmes Street Lateral Storm Sewer system. Because the Housing Alliance
wants to break ground next spring on their development, the City also
needs to break ground on the storm system next spring. For this project
the 429 formal public hearings are not required, but City Council has
indicated it wants to have public meetings to inform the public and take
questions and comments. He suggested August for the public meetings.
There was some consensus that August would not be a good time for public
meetings because so many people are out of town on vacations. Consensus
was to set the meeting for September, for as soon as the engineering firm
could put the information together.
The HRA Director confirmed that the City was successful in obtaining a
$2 million MHFA Municipal Home Mortgage Program. At the time of the sub-
mission of the grant proposal, authorization was not sought for the execu-
tion of the documents necessary to pay the commitment fee of $6,000, which
is received from the builders interested --it is just a pass-through payment.
Consensus was to pay it as required.
Colligan/Leroux moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
Jeanne Andre
HRA Director
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
OV
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 6, 1985
Chrm. Vierling called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. with Comm. Leroux,
Colligan and Wampach present. Comm. Lebens was absent. Also present were
3eanne Andre, YjRA Director; Jdnn x. Anderson, City Aamr.; Judith S. Cox,
City Clerk; Judi Simac, City Planner; Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney;
Rod Krass, Ass't City Attorney and Mayor Reinke.
Colligan/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of July 2, 1985 as kept.
Motion carried unanimously.
The HRA Director gave an update on the Housing Alliance Downtown Project
in which she informed the Commissioners that a formal proposal has been
filed for Phase I on Block 32 which contains 4 vacant lots and the Jacks
by the Tracks bar. Negotiations are still underway to acquire some'of the
property. They are also considering the beginning of Phase II in a shorter
time frame than had been previously discussed. She will have a new evalua-
tion to consider at next week's meeting.
Wampach/Leroux moved to adjourn to August 13, 1985. Motion carried unani-
mously. Meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
Jeanne Andre
HRA Director
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
J'
MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Executive Director
RE: Housing Alliance Preliminary Tax -Increment Financing
Proposal
DATE: August 9, 1985
Introduction•
In November of 1984 the City Council reviewed a proposal
by the Housing Alliance to develop a portion of block 32, Original
Shakopee Plat, with 40 units of senior housing with tax increment
financing assistance. The City Council was generally favorable
to their proposal, but the Housing Alliance was informed that
storm sewer improvements were advisable before they develop
underground parking at this site. Therefore they have been
on hold while the Council considered financing schemes for major
storm sewer projects. Assuming the Council is now ready to
proceed with Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer laterals, the Housing
Alliance would like to finalize their project development package,
preparing for spring construction.
Background•
The proposal previously reviewed by the City Council provided
for 40 housing units, 20 rental and 20 owner occupied to be
constructed on four vacant lots on the east end of block 32.
The Housing Alliance requested approximately $250,000 of assistance
in the form of land write-down, which Bob Pulscher of Springsted
advised could be supported by tax -increment from the proposed
improvements. The City Council was favorable to this proposal,
but asked that the HRA review a formal application (filed with
application fee of $500) and secure an appraisal on the land
to be acquired when the Housing Alliance was ready to proceed.
The Housing Alliance is now ready to proceed, but has slightly
revised the proposal in the interim since November of 1984.
The proposal now includes development of 44 rental housing units
with underground parking with an additional 4825 square feet
of ground floor space to be utilized for a -restaurant and beauty
shop (to be privately operated). This development would be
built on the easterly four vacant lots. Property now utilized
as a bar would additionally be acquired and used for 20 parking
spaces. This plan has been reviewed by the City Planner who
has determined that:
1) A conditional use
family residential
This permit would
Although there are
zoningdistrict,
provided, and that
uses is adequate
permit would be required, for a multi-
use in a downtown zoning district.
look at parking and general design.
no parking requirements in the downtown
the Planner recommends that parking be
the proposed parking for the residential
but further study should be undertaken
of parking for commercial uses.
2) The easterly portion of the alley would need to be vacated
to accomodate this plan, but the alley traffic ould be
routed through the parking lot. r
3) The electrical lines through the alley would be underground,
probably relocated in the 3rd Avenue right-of-way.
With this plan, costs have been revised to provide the
acquisition of four vacant lots as in the original proposal,
acquisition of the Abeln's Bar property, demolition and fill
for this property, relocation fees, and the undergrounding and
relocation of the electrical lines. This creates a new project
cost estimated to be $471,000, with estimated annual increment
available of $84,000. Bob Pulcher of Springsted is once again
reviewing these numbers and a report should be available at
the August 13th meeting.
The Housing Alliance is also considering a second phase
to this project to be undertaken in as short as 0-6 months from
the start of the first phase. However the Housing Alliance
staff desire to talk to affected property owners before submitting
such a proposal.
If the HRA finds the revised proposal worthwhile, it should
authorize the necessary additional appraisal of property (estimated
to cost $750) and begin formal negotiation of a developers agreement
and initiation of the formal tax -increment process.
Requested Action:
1. Review and comment on revised Housing Alliance project
in Block 32.
2. Authorize appropriate city officials to enter an agreement
for appraisal services with Shenehon and Associates not
to exceed $750.
IV
SHAKOPEE AREA
e4m /W t' 5 /�' (7 ee M /� �
P.O. BOX NO. 203 ❑ SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 ❑ (612) 445-1660
August 13, 1985
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Shakopee Area Chamber of
Commerce held Monday, August 12, 1985, the following motion was passed.
Jim Dunning/Ruben Ruehle moved that the City take the lead
in alleviating the traffic problem on Hwy. 169 and 101
during the peak hours of traffic flow. Motion carried.
M01
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner
RE: Preliminary Plat Approval of Hentges 1st Addn.
DATE: August 9, 1985
Introduction:
At the August 6, 1985 meeting the City Council approved a
motion to table the discussion of the preliminary plat of
Hentges 1st Addition in order to determine whether a variance
from the subdivision ordinance could be granted which would
result in minor improvements to Third Avenue instead of
complete construction to standard specifications.
Background:
The Planning Commission had recommended that the plat be
approved subject to five conditions. One of the conditions
would require that Third Avenue would be rough graded to a
standard. mutually agreeable between the City Engineer and
the developer. This condition was attached without any
reference to a variance from existing standards for road
construction.
Section 12.06, Subd. 1, D states, "If the Council, upon
the affirmative recommendation of staff, determines that it
is impractical for the subdivider or City to install any of
the required improvements at the time of the subdivision
because of unavailability of proper storm drainage, unreason-
able segmentation of street or sidewalk construction or inability
to install necessary utilities, the Council may postpone the
construction of such improvements until the conditions have been
eliminated. In such case the subdivider shall execute and
deliver to the City an agreement for recording in the office of
the County Recorder/Register of Deeds for Scott County, agreeing
to be assessed for the costs of such improvements when con-
structed and -waiving all rights to a hearing on the improvement
and assessment. The agreement shall run with the land and be
binding upon all successors in interest of the subdivider to the
affected property. In such case no bond or cash deposit will
be required for the postponed improvements.
Section 12.13 Variations and Exceptions allows for variations
to the subdivision regulations provided findings can be made
that:
A. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental
to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to
other property or improvements in the neighborhood in
which the property is located.
B. The conditions upon which the r.eauest for a variatio
is based are unique to the property for which the
variation is sought, and are not applicable, general
to other property.
C. "iteral interpretation of the provisions of this
Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights common y
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district
under the terms of this Chapter.
D. The special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant.
E. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape,
or topographical conditions of the specific property in-
volved, a particular hardship to the owner would result,
as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict
letter of the regulations were carried out.
It has been policy to require street improvements whethe
the street is being platted or abuts the proposed plat. Thi
Avenue is a platted street but has not been constructed, the
fore some improvements should be made to adequately serve th
proposed Lot 1, Block 1.
Alternatives:
1. Approve a variance for the rough grading of Third Avenue.
2. Determine that is impractical to construct Third Avenue tb
standard specifications at this time and require the deve oper
to record an agreement to accept future assessments when he
Third Avenue improvements are ordered.
3. Other
Recommendation:
Should the Council desire to approve the preliminary plat of
Hentaes 1st Addn. the following conditions are recommended:,
1. The applicant must designate the principal and accessory use
on Lot 1, Block 1.
2. The on-site systems must conform with City Codes.
3. A variance is granted to allow Third -.Avenue to be rough
graded to a standard mutually agreeable between the City
Engineer and the developer; OR the developer shall record
an agreement to accept future assessments when the Third
Avenue improvements are orderer.
4. Before the final plat is recorded, the developer must
bring Block 1 to compliance with code standards, re:
exterior storage.
S. Existing easements must be validated.
6. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
i. Park Dedication in the form of a cash contribution shall
be made in lieu of land dedication.
Action Reauested:
Motion to approve with conditions, or deny the preliminary
plat of Hentges 1st Addn.
tw
-;Z
:R
August 13, 1985
of Shakopee
POLICE DEPARTMENT
476 South Gorman Street
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
Tel. 445-6666
a�
Mr. Lawrence E. Samstad
315 East 3rd Street
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Dear Mr. Samstad:
I am writing in response to your inquiry of August 13, 1985,
whereby you posed certain questions regarding access to your
building site at County Road 17 and 10th Avenue.
1. The City of Shakopee does not have an ordinance prohibiting
a vehicle from backing onto a roadway.
2. It would be safer to exit your property onto a roadway in a
forward motion other than backing onto the roadway.
3. A turnaround on your property would be a viable solution
to enable you to exit in a foward manner providing it is
acceptable with the appropriate city department.
We are looking forward to having you as a resident of our city
and hope this matter can be resolved in the best interest of
all parties.
Sincerely,
i:7 d47-f'x�
Tom Brownell
Chief of Police
TB: pm
go CSE2VE �:7O —SPwtect
315 East 3rd Street
Chaska, MN 55318
July 13, 1985
Chief Tom Brownell
City of Shakopee
476 Gorman Street
Shakopee, ILMI 55379
Dear Chief Brownell:
q
In reference to our conversation last Thursday, and a request that we have
had for the results of that conversation, this letter is being written so
that the questions addressed can be made clear to the Shakopee City Council.
As you remember the discussion centered on the application that we have before
the City Council for consideration for a turnaround and curb cut at 1342
loth Avenue East for a -two car garage for a single family home as shown on
the accompanying map.
Assuming the question of State or Federal Aid for loth Avenue has been settled
to the point that to insure continued Federal and State Aid, the driveway
should be modified to an opening face to face of curb of 22 ft. and not
24 ft as shown on the original survey, would you please answer either by
lining out the appropriate words or by a short note indicating your thoughts
on the following three points?
1. There IS or IS NOT a Shakopee City Ordinance against backing out onto
a Shakopee City Street
2. Considering a back -out or turnaround and forward -out driveway, the
turnaround and forward -out IS or IS NOT significantly safer than the back -out
driveway in the location shown.
3. Turnaround and forward -out driveway IS or IS NOT considered to be a
viable mitigation of the back -out driveway.
Your time to consider this matter is very much appreciated. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lawrence E. Samstad
Certificate for:
Larry Samstad
cl
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ
LANDSURVEVOR %r WCC
_ Rgistarad UndM Laws of The State of Minnesota
/pyo • G✓�2�
21178- 146TH STREET W. -So M OGVAOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068 PHONE 612 423-1769
/Ni'795.30 - Benchmark: Top of hyr? rant
SURVEY(g Wtir TIFI ATE at SE. corner of 3. 0th
r—,✓�'�� tC & Co. Rd. 17 Elev.
�
��sisG 813.82 feet.
z--
��� �y�►�C,,�t, SIS \ ,� fir; �° �,
Denotes existing
N elevation
U 1
Denotes proposed
elevation
I
r Denotes proposed
s d drainage
Proposed top of
block elev. �/ S
N
oposed garage
floor elev./4, 2-
I
I hereby certify that this
a is a true and correct
Irepresentation of a survey
of the boundaries of
Lot 1, Block 7, EAGLE BLUFF
SECOND ADDITION, according to
the recorded plat thereof,
Scott County, Minnesota.
Also showing the location of a
proposed bougie as staked thereon.
0'
Dated: July 25, 1985
MINNESOTA REGISTRATION No. 8625
•
315 E. 3rd Street
Chaska, MN 55318
August 9, 1985
City Council
City of Shakopee
129 First Ave. East
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Councilpersons:
rDo
Inas much as certain materials and information regarding my previous
request for a curb cut were erroneous or misrepresented, I respectfully
request that the request for curb cut at 1342 10th Avenue East be reconsidered
at your August 13th meeting.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
l j
v
Lawrence E. Samstad
40
OF Ta�
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District Five
5801 Duluth Street
Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
August 9, 1985
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376
RE: Curb Cut on 10th Avenue
for a Driveway
Dear Mr. Anderson:
RECEIVED
AUG 1 2M
(612) 545-3761
/0 c-.
You have requested our review of a curb cut for a driveway on
a Mr. Samstad's property on 10th Avenue.
We find that if the maximum width of the driveway, face of curb
to face of curb, is 22 ft. maximum there should be no problem
of jeopardizing either State -aid funds or Federal funds on
this street.
We hope that this answers your question.
Sincerely,
C. E. Weichselbaum, P.E.
District State -Aid Engineer
An Equal Opportunity Employer
315 E. 3rd Street
Chaska, MN 55318
August 9, 1985
City Council
City of Shakopee
129 First Ave. East
Shakopee, NW 55379
Dear Councilpersons:
Inas much as certain materials and information regarding my previous
request for a curb cut were erroneous or misrepresented, I respectfully
request that the request for curb cut at 1342 10th Avenue East be reconsidered -
at your August 13th meeting.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
i
Lawrence E. Samstad
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
District Five
5801 Duluth Street
Golden valley, Minnesota 55422
August 9, 1985
'. .,7_ s:-r�
1"in I. 2
(612) 545.3761
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376
RE: Curb Cut on 10th Avenue
for a Driveway
Dear Mr. Anderson:
You have requested our review of a curb cut for a driveway on
a Mr. Samstad's property on 10th Avenue.
We find that if the maximum width of the driveway, face of curb
to face of curb, is 22 ft. maximum there should be no problem
of jeopardizing either State -aid funds or Federal funds on
this street.
We hope that this answers your question.
Sincerely,
C. E. Weichselbaum, P.E.-
District State -Aid Engineer
Art Equal Opportunity Employer
4 P 0&5
M'a-)
315 E. 3rd Street
Chaska, MI 55318
July 11, 1985
City Council .
City of Shakopee
129 First Ave. East
Shakopee,_MN 55379
Dear Councilpersons:
I respectfully request that a curb cut be allowed as indicated on the
enclosed drawing, 1342 East 10th Avenue, Shakopee. The legal description
is Lot 1', Block 7, Eagle Bluff Second Addition._
The proposed house location is shown as is the turnaround driveway which
will eliminate the need for backing onto 10th Avenue. As you can see by
the drawing, the setbacks for this lot .determines the orientation of the
house which is also shown on an en closed drawing.
I feel that the proposed turnaround drive way eliminates a potentially
hazardous traffic entrance to 10th Avenue.
The proposed house is a rambler style, single family, first floor and.
basement only.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sinc rely,
Lawrence E. Samstad
Encl: Proposed location map
Proposed house rendering
cc: Mr. .Bo Spurrier, City Engineer
it
tS3
O
zif,f:•
64
N
u
• i
o 0
` N
T :1
i
V
c, m H
\\ I rq
i .wln
� Y �
. n -EDA
00/
S,i9R
_ � 4
I
1
ISMO TO: -- .Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Lawrence E. Samstad Curb Cut Request
DATE: July 11 , 1985
Introduction
Attached is a letter and site plan from Mr. Lawrence E. Samstad,
regarding a home he proposes to build at 1342 East 10th Avenue
in Shakopee. Mr. Samstad is requesting a curb cut on 10th Avenue
which has been denied by the City Engineer.
Backaround
The City has severely limited driveway access on 10th- Avenue
through the controlling of curb cut permits. Mr. Samstad would
like to have . curb cuts on both Legion Street and 10th Avenue .
as shown in his site plan. I reviewed this issue with the City
Engineer and he indicated that all driveway accesses in this
subdivision were intended to be on the north/south streets and
that the driveway access for this lot was intended to be on
Legion Street. Because the City Engineer is responsible for
the safety aspects of streets in Shakopee, he cannot recommend
approval of Mr. Samstad' s request.
When Mr. Samstad .* appears before Council, Council may wish to
discuss alternative garage configurations available to him that
would would permit a driveway on Legion Street.
Alternatives
1. Pass a motion supporting the City Engineer ' s denial of
Mr. Samstad ' s request .to. have a second curb cut for a driveway
on 10th Avenue.
i
2. Approve Mr. Samstad' s request for a second driveway cut
on 10th Avenue.
Summary and Recommendation
- I
City Council receives occasional requests from citizens regarding
exceptions to normal street cut policies that affect overall
roadway safety. Even though the City Engineer or Chief of Police
may render a professional "opinion" , it is an opinion from -a
professional that would be acceptable in a court of law should
there ever be an accident and resultant legal case. According
to Rod Krass City Council may select other "reasonable alternatives"
which may or may not be as defensible as a professional "opinion"
once in court on an issue. To my knowledge, staff has not discussed
this peculiar decision making dilemma with Council before.
it only became clear to me after discussing the recent Council
decision on speed linits on 4th Avenue kith Rod Krass , the Ci`y
Enginner and the Chief cf Police. In short , factual recommendations
by professionals and "opinions" by professionals are acceptable
in court testimony if things go wrong, any reasonable decisions
.by a City Council may be defensible. This dilemma is more comp-
licated the farther a Council decision gets from a professional ' s
recommendation(s ) .
For the reasons discussed above I recommend alternative No. 1.
Action Reauested
Pass a motion supporting the City Engineer' s recommendation
to deny Mr. Lawrence E. Samstad a curb cut for 1342 East 10th
Avenue.
JKA/J ms
NOTE: 8/9/85
Per discussion at the July 16th Council Meeting, . this request is
for a curb cut on 10th Avenue only, not Legion Street also .
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 16, 1985
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. with Cncl. Lebens,
Wampach, Vierling, Colligan and Leroux present. Also present were John
K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judi Simac, City Planner; H. R. Spurrier, City
Engineer; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director and Julius A.
Coller, II, City Attorney.
Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers.
Mayor Reinke initiated discussion relative to Bloomington's financial
proposal for old Met Stadium site development. Discussion followed.
Consensus was to have the City Admr. contact the AMM to find out more
about the financial package proposal and its affects on other metropoli-
tan areas, contact Legislators relative to the City's concerns, have
Mayor Reinke find out what Minneapolis and St. Paul are doing about the
proposal, and call a special session of the City Council if a special
session of -the Legislature is called.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to ad-
dress the Council on any item not on the agenda, and there was no response.
Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the minutes of July 2, 1985 special
session and July 2, 1985 regular-meeting as kept.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried.
The City Admr. gave the background of the request of Lawrence E. Samstad
for a curb cut on 10th Avenue for a home -he proposes to build at 1342 E.
10th Avenue.
` Mr. Samstad clarified that he is not requesting two curb cuts. He said
he is a registered civil engineer for the Lower Minnesota Watershed Dis-
trict. He explained his lot is a corner one bounded by CR17 and 10th
Avenue. He said that .because of the setbacks he is faced with a lot that
. is only 452 x 120 feet, and the house they want to build is 36' x 71' . He
is asking for .a turnarounddrive-way so they could turn cars around on
their property and enter 10th Avenue in a forward fashion. To the west
of this location there are 26 drive-ways that back out onto 10th Ave. ,
including 3 commercial drive-ways. To the east there are 10 drive-ways
that back out onto 10th Ave. , including some new duplexes that have two
drive-ways instead of one center one. He further said this lot is one
of 3 remaining lots in the development, one -of which -is being developed now,
so he wouldn't be setting a precedent.
Mr. Samstad explained -the orientation of the house is such that the drive-
way is to the front, and the long side only fits facing 10th Ave. He is
also over 132 feet from the stop sign at CR17 and 10th Ave. He agrees a
back-out driveway on 10th would not be a good idea, but he thinks this
is much safer. He pointed out -that the clinic has two drive-ways with a
lot more cars coming out than he will have. He thinks this is a profes-
sional and prudent request.
Sna�:opee L�t-, ;,vurc.«
Jule lb, 1985
Page 2
The Cit-- Engineer responded the basic probler.., which occurs o_`ten, is wnen
people Dick out a home and then a lot and don' t match the house to the
specific conditions tnat affect the lot. he said 10th Ave. is a popular
predestrian and bicycle route, and when it is possible to avoid pedestrian
conflicts that is the choice that is made. Tenth Ave. is a collector street
and a main element of the City's traffic system. Legion Street was desig-
nated on the plat as the access for the lots, with surmountable curb put
in for that purpose. This house stele doesn't fit the lot, but there are
other common floor plans that do. All of the recently constructed dwellings
on 10th Ave. have garages that front the side streets. He pointed out the
alternative of having the garage doors on the west side of that part of
the house, with windows in place of the doors. This alternative would
somewhat change the looks of the house, but not the floor plan.
Mr. Samstad agreed that it would change the architecture of the house.
He would have thought if the house was meant to front on Legion, the short
side of the lot would face 10th Ave. He believes the turn-around driveway
proposed is a prudent way to handle traffic entering 10th Ave.
The City Admr. said that if you believe that even one more drive-way on
10th incrementally increases the possibility of an accident, even if the
possibility reduced somewhat because of the forward entering, and decide
to allow this one, the message is being given that aesthetics are more
important that safety. He added a lot of drive-ways on 10th were in place
before the City became aware of the safety hazard.
Cncl. Leroux: said there is not a curb cut on 10th Ave. that wasn't in before
10th Ave. was widened and paved. Since that paving, there has not been a
curb cut allowed. He asked if this lot was any different in size from
any other lots or. the corners of 10th Ave. The City Engineer answered
that it isn't any different in size. Cncl. Lebens agreed that in the last
11 years, since the paving of 10th Ave. , there have not been any curb cuts
allowed.
Leroux/Lebens moved to deny the request by Lawrence E. Samstad for a curb
cut onto 10th Avenue for 1342 East 10th Avenue, in support of the City
Engineer's decision.
Mr. Samstad he would not allow visitors to back out onto 10th Ave. either.
He .thinks that backing out onto Legion Street is more dangerous than
entering 10th Ave. in a forward fashion. He would still have to cross
any pedestrian traffic to get onto 10th Ave. The City Engineer countered
that the Courts have held that intersections are a special warning to
pedestrians and the City has a reduced liability_ for all of the perils at
an intersection. Cncl. Leroux pointed out that many times, even with a
turn-around drive-way, a car will back out onto the street. Discussion
continued.
Mrs. Samstad said that evervone else who has a curb cut on 10th backs out.
She said they are the last lot and by the time you get down to C 7/ , the
pedestrian traffic has dwindled to zlich. She can' t understand why they
can' t drive out onto 10th when evervone else is allowed to back onto it.
She thinks it is unfair. Councilmembers countered that when the schools
are open there is a lot of pedestrial traffic attheend of 10th Avenue.
/`� vj u t TV-, ouv,
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator �.
IL �
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk3'/
RE: Vacation of Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street
to the Alley
DATE: August 9 , 1985
Introduction
On July 2nd, Council held a public hearing on a request to vacate
Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street to the alley.
Background
As a policy when vacating streets and alleys , the resolution
of vacation prepared by staff, retained a utility easement the
full width of the street. At the hearing, the applicants explained
that retaining an easement the full width of the street would
not allow the construction of a home in the future and asked
that the easement be reduced to permit future construction.
Staff was directed to contact Minnegasco asking them to better
define the easement they needed.
The City Engineer reported no easement necessary for the City.
The SPUC Manager requests any alley extension vacation to retain
easements , but this request does not include the alley extension.
Minnegasco wishes an easement to be retained within the easterly
25 feet of the proposed Shakopee Avenue vacation west of Adams .
Minnegasco is agreeable to abandoning in place, a 2" steel pipeline
lying in the north half of the street in question, if reimbursed
for the cost of the abandonment in the amount of $425 . 00 . If
this pipeline were abandoned, it would not be necessary to retain
an easement along the north half of the street and would then
make the vacated street large enough to accommodate a construction
on the site. See attached letter from Mr. Anderson of Minnegasco.
Mr. Aronson and Mr. Miller are agreeable to paying the $425 . 00
cost of the abandonment of the in place, 2" steel pipeline lying
in the north half of the street, letter attached.
Mr. Coller has advised me that the City should not vacate the
street free of retaining the easement in the north half of the
street until receipt of permission from Minnegasco. Therefore ,
it is recommended that Council direct staff to prepare the vacation
resolution free of retaining the easement in the north half
of the street upon receipt of authorization from Minnegasco,
if Council is in agreement with the vacation. The applicant
will then enter into an agreement with Minnegasco for the abandoning
of the pipeline, and Minnegasco can subsequently authorize the
vacation free of an easement in the north half of the street.
Then staff will bring the resolution to Council. This process
i
will tell the applicants that Council is agreeable to the vacation
request, but the City will not actually vacate the street until-
Minnegasco
ntilMinnegasco authorizes the vacation free of an easement in the
north half of the street.
Alternatives
1. Direct staff to prepare resolution: of vacation upon receipt
of okay from Minnegasco, free of easement on the north
half of the street.
2. Direct staff to prepare resolution of vacation retaining
a utility easement the full 80 foot width of the street.
3 . Deny vacation request.
Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative No. 1
Action Requested
Direct staff to prepare the proper resolution vacating Shakopee
Avenue West of Adams Street to the alley retaining a 25 foot
easement along the easterly 25 feet, upon receipt of authorization
from Minnegasco to vacate the north half of the street free
from retaining an easement.
JSC/jms
MinJames H. Anaerson. Administrator, Minnesota Pubuc Aftairs
July 31, 1985
rj �tM
✓'.^:!Y\: 4`.� �r. [ice rz',i:�}-{..
Mrs. Judith A. Cox
City Clerk
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Proposed Shakopee Avenue Vacation
Dear Mrs. Cox:
Thank you for the opportunity to present input in the above matter.
I have discussed the situation with Messrs Miller and Aronson, property
owners adjacent to Shakopee Avenue, who will benefit from the vacation.
Both are agreeable to the following stipulations for vacation:
1. Retained easement for Minnegasco's 4" steel pipeline
lying 10' ± west of the west line of Adams Street. The
easement should be described as follows : The east 25
feet of all that part of Shakopee Avenue West, .vacated ,
lying west -of Adams Street between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1 ,
Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition.
2. Reimbursement of Minnegasco' s cost to abandon, in place ,
a 2" steel pipeline lying in the north half of Shakopee
Avenue West. The total cost of the abandonment will be
$425.00.
If the conditions are satisfactory to the City, please let me know.
Thanks again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
/"James H. Anderson
/pa
A Company of Diversified Energies, Inc. 700 West Linden Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 612-343-7004
August 7 , 1985
City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Vacation of Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street
we are interested in having Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street
vacated if it can be vacated free of easements which would then -permit the
construction of a home in the future.
We are agreeable to paying Minnegascc $425. 00 to abandon, in place,
a 2" steel pipeline lying in the north half of Shakopee Avenue West
of Adams. This abandonment will eliminate the need to retain the
east/west easement. We have no problem with the north/south 25
foot easement immediately west of Adams Street as it will lie
within the front yard setback required by the City.
We thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully,
` 9v
,2Ck ,o -
c^ 501 ^'
a' ��� X26 ti 5 Q f
� \S12 - o < CU
LD_ I
Go
m
X26? 122.2 (czz m —
�1
Co 0) 120 �1
\
5c;3 2 N N � O I to3� lm
42 �� M m 12 0 !
120
2 '. ,
ADDN.
-�
CF) An. . to
i20 ! 120 .
BLKSz
I i
41
in
CD
BLK 2681 W �6Z
„ Itit
h T
-F
NO MANN
G2 p� 120 120
ss� z •
m SHAKO EE -A �.
!
120 1 120 120 120
�c9 o = m 9o-t- m
CD
ill
cnIt
at ,, V
BLK B LK I 3
� 4 n
o _ o r � m
m '131 m r�'U.� Z m
6/20/85 Minnegasco asked -that an easement -be retained in the North
half of the street as well as the east half of the street .
7/21/85 Minnegasco is - agreeable to abandoning, in place, a 2" steel
pipeline lying in the north half of Shakopee Avenue West
of Adams if reimbursed $425 .00 for the cost. This -would-
eliminate the need to retain the easement in the North half
of the street .
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator 'V
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Intern
RE: Community Development Budget Amendment
DATE: July 31, 1985
Introduction•
The City of Shakopee has received project funding assistance
under the Community Energy Council Grant Program. It is therefore
necessary to amend the 1985 Community Development portion of
the 1985 City Budget to reflect this grant award and proposed
expenditures.
Background:
Last October the Shakopee City Council authorized staff
to submit an application to the Mn Dept. of Energy and Economic
Development for funding under the Community Energy Council Grant
Program with a 10% local match not to exceed $1500 to be taken
from the City' s contingency fund. The primary objective of
the grant proposal was to promote and develop a comprehensive
waste abatement and recycling program in Shakopee.
Shakopee' s grant proposal was approved by the Dept. of
Energy and Economic Development last December. A grant award
in the amount of $8169 with a 10% local match of $817 brought
the total project cost up to $8985.
In May, the City embarked on a city-wide curbside recycling
program utilizing the efforts of three local volunteer groups.
The majority of the project costs budgeted for 1985 fall into
three categories; staff time, promotions (advertising) and supplies
(bins and bags) .
Attached is the 1985 recycling budget that is being presented
for approval this evening as an amendment to the 1985 Community
Development budget.
Alternatives:
1. Amend the 1985 Community Development budget to include
the 1985 recycling program expenses in the amount of $8985 .
2. Do not amend the 1985 Community Development budget.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
Action Requested:
Move to amend the 1985 Community Development budget to
include the 1985 recycling program expenses in the amount of
$8985, and direct staff to prepare appropriate resolution.
1985 Recycling Budget
Program 178
OBJECT DESCRIPTION
1985 Budget
4100 Salaries 2500
4140 PERA 107
4141 FICA 175
4150 HEALTH & LIFE 226
Total Personal Services 3008
4210 Supplies 3250
4310 Professional Services 150
4319 Promotions 2309
4320 Postage 100
4321 Telephone 20
4330 Travel & Subsistence 40
4390 Conferences & Schools 100
4391 Dues & Subscriptions 8
Total Supplies/Services 5977
TOTAL AMOUNTS THIS PROGRAM 8985
MEMO TO: City Council
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
RE: Community Services Telephone System
DATE: July 30 , 1985
Introduction:
I authorized a new telephone system to be installed at
Community Services .
Background:
I inadvertently authorized the installation of a new telephone
system for Community Services . The money is not in my budget
nor is it in George' s budget. I thought it was. It is my
mistake.
Recommendation:
Amend Government Building budget for the installation cost
of $801 . 76 .
Action Requested:
Direct staff_ to_ prepare resolution increasing__ Building__ _ _____
Inspections budget by $800, 00 for 2.985.
LH: cah
\%..�..i.vi 1 �vi i►
MOR-TEL-CO
104 EAS 1st AVE.-
SHAKOPEE, MH 55379
Gate
To SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY SERVICES
129 EAST LEVEE DRIVE
SHAKOPEE , MN . 55379
Terms
Please detach and return upper portion with your remittance. 5
ITT 6 BUTTON PHONES4951361
TONE COMMANDER 186 0.
SUB TOTAL 681176
TAX EX# 80252 7
6 hr . @ $20 .00 per hr . 1120 00
TOTAL BALANCE DUE 801 I 6
WORK ORDER , 2078
I
WkxwJorles _
GRA VLINE FORM".510?-PART -
:1993•PRINTED IN US.A,
Your Check is Your Receipt
ID
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 f� r
s
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Consulting Engineer for Trunk Highway Work
DATE: August 6 , 1985
INTRODUCTION:
The consulting Engineer Selection Committee met and considered
the selection of a consultant to specialize in major highway
design work.
BACKGROUND:
After discussing the merits of the qualifications submitted
by twenty-two firms, the Selection Committee consensus recom-
mendation was the firm of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. (B.A. ) .
Strong points favoring B.A. were the following:
1. Environmental Assessment Background.
2. Knowledge of Federal and State Approval Process.
3 . Proven Ability to Work with State -and Local Officials.
4 . Knowledge of the Project.
I have reviewed the document titled Proposed and Professional
Services for Location Studies and Environmental Assessment.
The only recommended addition I would make is to add that the
document should be an appendix to the City' s Standard Form Agreement.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize proper City officials to enter into an agreement with
Barton-Aschman Associates , Inc. for professional services for
Location Studies and Environmental Assessment for T.H. 169
Minnesota River Crossing/Downtown Approach Improvements at a
cost not to exceed $141 ,771. 00.
The Heart of Progress Valley
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-32-0421
July 30, 1985 RECEIVED
J U L ; 1 1985
Mr. John Anderson S Af,C)P:-.
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Proposal addendum for items subject to further review with MnDOT
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Rather than hold up the proposal development process, three survey items that the state
had requested additional time to examine were omitted from the body of the proposal.
Referred to in the proposal cover letter as activities to be dealt with separately these
items included control surveys, design surveys and bridge surveys.
As a result of a subsequent meeting between MnDOT, the City and a Barton-Aschman
Associate, Inc. representative, the disposition of these work items was resolved.
MnDOT will complete the control surveys work using the Mark Hurd aerial photography
and the James Boerhave survey notes for the orthographic mapping and downtown
improvements. You, as City Administrator, are asked to secure the release of this
material to the state.
MnDOT will also handle the design surveys and the bridge surveys. The state's contact
person will be Mr. Gene Nelson, Acting District 5 Surveys Engineer.
With the assumption of these tasks by MnDOT, the proposal work program and cost
estimate will remain as submitted.
Sincerely,
JohnC. Mul
Vice President
JCM:kro
/0
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421
July 25, 1985
Mr. John Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
It gives us a great deal of satisfaction to have had the opportunity of working with you,
Mr. Spurrier and other local officials in securing a tentative commitment of resources
from MnDOT for the scheduling of this much needed project. Equally satisfying was the
fact that we were able to convince MnDOT to let the city take the lead on contracting for
the first phase of preliminary engineering, thereby cutting six months from the project
development process.
As a result of the progress made at our July 16, 1985, meeting with MnDOT district office
people and in response to your request for an outline of scope of services we have
assembled the enclosed proposal. It addresses the agreed to pre-design Preliminary
Engineering phase of project development.
The major products of this effort include a Project Path Report, an Environmental
Assessment and a Study Report. The survey work (design and bridge) which contributes
largely to the detail design phase of preliminary engineering is still an item of discussion
with MnDOT. For that reason it is not included as a part of this submittal. If it is
determined that MnDOT does not have the resources to complete these activities, they
will be dealt with separately.
Our proposal is divided into the following three basic parts:
1. Study approach and work program
2. Management structure and experience of our key staff members
3. Schedule/Compensation
To assist us in these studies, we have selected Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff to
provide bridge design services. They will augment our staff of environmental planners and
highway engineers to provide a technically sound team.
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Mr. John Anderson
July 25, 1985
Page 2
Barton-Aschman has considerable management experience in similar studies. John Mullan
will personally serve as Project Executive and will be responsible for the overall project
and contractual items. Bruce Warzala will serve as the Project Engineer and will be
responsible for implementing the work program and the day-to-day project management.
Joint partnership funding and work agreements will be drafted as one of the first elements
of this phase of project development. These agreements will outline services and
construction cost sharing as previously agreed to between the city and state. They will
also serve as the basis for further project development activity.
If this proposal meets with the councils approval please return one signed copy as our
authorization to proceed. If you have any questions about the scope of services please
give us a call.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to serve you.
Sincerely
t
John C. Mu ian
Vice President
gze
Bruce L. Warzala
Senior Associate
JCM:BLW:kro
ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY:
Signature
Typed Name
AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE
AGREEMENT FOR:
Date
Ll
STUDY APPROACH AND WORK PROGRAM
The City of Shakopee, through it's downtown committee, commissioned an
implementation plan to revitalize it's downtown business district. A key element in
strengthening Shakopee's retail vitality involves reestablishing First Avenue as the
main business street of the central business district. In 1983 the city evaluated a
4variety of alignments to relocate TH 101 and TH 169 north of First Avenue to
remove heavy trucks and through traffic from downtown streets. That evaluation
lead to an engineering report which recommended widening of the existing TH 169
river crossing bridge and reconstruction of the TH 101/169 intersection.
To implement their proposal, the city beqan negotiations with MnDOT in December
of 1984. The city offered to pay up to $2.4 million toward this improvement. This
was estimated to be 50 percent of the construction cost of that early proposal
which included $1.5 million for bridge capacity improvements. Since then MnDOT
has agreed to schedule the construction of a new bridge which they will fund with
state and federal bridge replacement funds (including approach work necessary to
link in place TH 169 and the new bridge). Construction costs for the downtown TH
169 geometric revisions and other work agreed to be done by the city, therefore,
must be limited to the amount approved by the city council. This spending
limitation will be a consideration in the alternative development process.
Since considerable study has already been undertaken by the City of Shakopee, and
records of considerable public involvement exist,- it is Barton-Asch man's intent to
approach this project using the existing studies and records as a key ingredient to
the completion of this initial preliminary engineering phase of project
development.
By use of the staff members shown in the management section of this proposal,
with their varied backgrounds, we are confident that all of the issues attendant to
the TH 169 project will be addressed.
On the following page is a flow diagram which illustrates the approach to the
completion of this phase of the project. Detailed descriptions of each task appear
after the flow diagram. In the Schedule/Compensation section of this proposal
there is a time line guide for each of the tasks. On the sheet following the time
line guide is an estimated fee for these tasks.
mrn ca
y •� cr� o .
a� N
= m6 � c o
m� o�a o a
n >> E ° ai
G J 1.�. Q.
"cLL
- 3.
: Y
C .0 cu
O U p G
U L c G O 0
a c C � i Cl)
C coC
rn 3 E
T
. 3a
= o
ca 3
-o
a ° EE v ^' � mz� ° C
v m u
Q z ccm Vf C C n m C a CO
m [
C --m > m C
aW a 0 m °c 3�...L a .. .�.
G
u
m — n
E
Ln
o c C c `¢ "
- °'°,,•• ¢ QCT d >. c4 ccU
d"•`� G� ca � _u �
� L UG u
C G
cu L) e
c
E `c-,
c �c u
L i
C c p �— 'c
c— c
m� cG
� p d z
a _u c c
m p p m •
c a �
m c �c
p� C
�a
> m
c
v
�Q
a c
c
fi
f�
�t
TASK 1
FUNDING AGREEMENT AND PROJECT INITIATION
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The first and possibly most important issue of this joint partnership proposal is the
execution of an agreement which outlines the respective agency work roles and
items of cost participation. The Project Manager working in a liaison capacity
between the city and the state, shall assist MnDOT in drafting a formal
agreement(s). The agreement(s) will be based on understandings reached to date at
meetings held (and recorded) between the participants. Draft agreements will be
submitted for review and approval by the appropriate authority prior to final draft
3
preparation and execution processing.
J
For reasons of expediency, efforts will be made to combine under one agreement
each of the elements of this joint partnership (preliminary engineering, right-of-
J
way acquisition and construction cost sharing).
If combining these elements in the agreement poses a delay, we will proceed to
draw up separate agreements.
ix
TASK 2
DATA COLLECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERNS,
COSTS AND BENEFITS l
SCOPE OF SERVICES
This task involves obtaining the base data from the City of Shakopee and MnDOT, a
listing of the historically documented concerns and the preliminary costs involved.
The attendant benefits will be itemized. This would include the following specific
items:
2.1 Meet with city and MnDOT staff members to collect data and obtain
background information on the project area. Additionally, obtain background
information on the public involvement which has previously taken place.
2.2 Inspect the study area and collect utility information which may affect the
study impacts. This would include both private and public utilities.
Additionally, agencies with facilities, such as the Minnesota DNR, would also
be contacted for information on the trail system in the area. i
2.3 Anaivze the collected data focusing on the existing and projected traffic for
the facility.
Categorize and list the types of concerns stated on this project. This would
include concerns of special interest groups as well as the city, county, and
state.
TASK 3
DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES
SCOPE OF SERVICES
This task includes preparing preliminary geometric layouts for up to (4) four
alternative alignments.
3.1 With assistance from local and state agencies prepare basic planimetric
design base mapping with proper area coverage.
3.2 Prepare preliminary layouts of the proposed TH 169 alternatives including
preliminary cross section, vertical and hoizontal alignments, and right-of-way
needs.
3.3 Prepare preliminary cost estimates for each preliminary alternative.
3.4 Review alternatives with the City of Shakopee and MnDOT.
3.5 Determine the most feasible alternate.
3.6 Obtain tentative approval of recommended alternate from all approving
agencies.
3.7 Notify utility companies of any conflicts and required changes to their mains
and services. Minutes of meetings with the utility companies will be part of
the permanent project record transferred to the city.
TASK 4
BRIDGE TYPE STUDY
SCOPE OF SERVICES
It shall be the general intent of this scope of services to have HNTB perform all
tasks related to the bridge type study for the Shakopee bridge improvement
project. Services shall include analysis of bridge configuration elements such as
span lengths, pier shapes and bridge types, examination of flood plain restrictions,
investigation of staged construction alternatives and preparation of cost estimates
for feasible bridge type alternates. For inclusion in the Project Path Report,
HNTB shall prepare a preliminary sketch of each bridge type alternate
accompanied by a cost estimate based on unit prices and estimated quantities.
Specific tasks to be performed by HNTB are listed below.
4.1 Collect data
- topographical map, existing soils data in area, river soundings, river
flow data, existing bridge plans
4.2 Determine preliminary design criteria
- maintenance objectives
- design loadings
pedestrian requirements
- construction restraints
- economic concerns
4.3 Determine bridge types for each alternate (4)
study physical restraints
prepare pre-preliminary sketches (8 to 12)
t 0
- determine rough comparative costs
4.4 Review bridge types with city
- present types studied
- select types to complete cost estimates
4.5 Determine major bridge quantities and costs
- preliminary design (4 bridges)
determine quantities
- complete cost estimate with unit prices
4.6 Summarize results in letter report
4.7 Attend public hearing
TASK 5
PROJECT PATH REPORT (PPR)
SCOPE OF SERVICES
This task will involve preparation of draft and final Project Path Report (PPR)
which will incorporate the following.
t
5.1 A discussion of the project including: the inplace structure and street
network, traffic and accident history, objectives, proposed improvements,
hydraulics and public agency involvement.
5.2 Determine the project development path and recommend course of further
development.
5.3 Seek concurrence from the city and Minnesota Department of Transportation
on the project development path selected in the Project Path Report.
5.4 Revise the Project Path Report as necessary for approval of path and course
of further development.
5.5 Submit Final Project Path Report.
TASK 6
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIAL STUDIES
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The issues to be addressed in the Shakopee Bypass Environmental Assessment (EA)
are: Air, Noise, Wetlands, Floodplains, Transportation, Historical Resources,
4(f)/6(f) Lands and Right-of-Way/Relocation impacts. The Environmental
Assessment will be prepared so as to comply with FHWA Technical Advisory
T6640.8 (1982). The scope of services and budget for addressing each issue in the
Environmental Assessment has been developed assuming that a maximum of four
(4) location alternatives will be analyzed. Additional alternatives will be analyzed
only by negotiation and are not included in the following work scope.
6.1 Traffic Forecasting - Assistance will be given to MnDOT as-needed in
establishing reqional traffic forecasts.
6.2 Air Quality - One-hour and eight-hour CO concentrations will be derived
from peak hour traffic volumes using Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance
Plannino and Analvsis. Volume 9 (Revised): Evaluating Indirect Sources U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 1978 . A computer program COERP will
be used to facilitate emission rate calculations, MOBILE 3 correction factors
will be used to compile emission rates and CALINE 3 will be used as a
dispersion model. Analysis will be carried out for one and ten years after
project completion. We have assumed in the budget for this task that four
receptors would be modeled for each of four alternatives; additional
receptors or alternatives will be analyzed at additional cost to be fixed by
negotiation. We have assumed that no monitoring will be necessary to
establish background CO concentrations. Unless directed otherwise by
MPCA, we plan to use the background CO concentrations used for the
Shakopee Racetrack EIS in 1984. CO concentrations projected for the
various alternatives will be compared to MPCA standards to determine if any
violations might occur.
Possible assistance from MnDOT may be available for the air quality analysis.
6.3 Noise - Existing and proposed noise susceptible land uses will be identified
along each of the alternative bypass routes. Existing noise levels will be
determined by monitoring and by using the FHWA Level 2 Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model. STAMINA 1.0. Existing noise levels predicted with
STAMINA 1.0 will be based on peak hour traffic volumes. Analysis years will
be 1985 and 2000. Traffic volumes for the year 2000 will be based on
Metropolitan Council and MnDOT Regional Traffic forecasts. Predicted
noise levels will be compared to MPCA standards to determine if any
violation might occur. Where violations are predicted, additional analysis of
potential noise abatement measures will be undertaken. Construction noise
will also be evaluated.
6.4 Wetlands - Several alternatives will involve a new bridge over the Minnesota
River. A wetland assessment will be prepared to comply with Executive
Order 11990 on protection of wetlands and corresponding FHWA regulations.
Any change in bridoe alignment will affect wetlands that lie either east or
west of the existing alignment. These wetlands will be classified according
to Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et
a1FWS/035 Pub'. 79/31, 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (Shaw and
Fredine, USFWS Circular 39, 1971). These classification systems are those
used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, respectively. Wetlands will be mapped and a graphic
prepared showing wetland locations, types and impacts. Minnesota protected
waters will be identified.
Impacts will be quantified using a modified version of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). This version of HEP has been
defined in the Draft Wetland Mitigation Banking Guidelines developed jointly by
MnDOT, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota DNR and FHWA for Minnesota
highway projects. This method was used to quantify wetland impacts and develop
mitigation measures for the Litchfield Municipal Airport. All HEP quantified
impacts will be set forth in tabular form to facilitate development of mitigation
ared
measures. Any alternatives addressed in the EIS will a be Spored theusinpreferrto
determine which would cause the least impact to wetl
alternative have greater impacts
ds than reasons whyethe otherother ltaltern�ative his
engineering, economic and/or environmental
not practicable will be detailed.
Mitigation measures will be identified for d 11 stages land projectdevelopment.
are loserious
Design mitigation features will be discus
enough, habitat replacement, either on or off-site may be required. The presence
w. if on-site
of suitable mitigation sites will be determine entereduring inthe MnDOT District
revie
mitigation is unavailable, project impacts will b
mitigation bank.
ecial
Construction measures to minimize arm may fence, temporary dsePtli g bas�ns� checdk
sedimentation control measures (e.g. silt
dams), restricted construction limits and appropriate construction staging.
The wetland assessment will be formatted as an FHWA Wetland Finding as per U.S.
DOT order 5660.1A.
6.5 Floodplains - Floodplain impacts must beaddeessefor Minnesota any of the
alternatives involving new bridge work d over sufficient to comply with the
floodplain assessment will be prepnt
requirements of Executive Order 11998 on floodplain
will eusedato
corresponding FHWA regulations FEMA floodplain
describe the floodplain areas involved in the project. Floodplain
encroachments will be described for all alternatives and, if encroachment is
unavoidable, the reasons why alternatives which avoid floodplains are
impracticable will be discussed. The potential for interruption or termination
of transportation facilities needed for emergency vehicles or as a
community's only evacuation route will be assessed.nnd dee Impacts
tonation natural and ade to
beneficial floodplain values will be analyzedthe
whether a significant risk of increased
flooding
floodplawill
in developmentulandf the
project. The potential for incompatible
project's compliance with state and local floodplain protection standards will
be determined. The floodplain analysis will b1979ormatted as an FHWA
Floodplain Finding as per U.S. DOT Order 5650.2 (1979).
6.6 Transportation - The regional forecasts supplied by MnDOT will be collected
and reviewed. In addition, data on accidents will be p ollecteoffrom the city
proposed
and/or county, as appropriate. A statement r ect path
project will be developed from available assessmen�atTherinclusion in the pralternatives will be discussed
report and the environments
with respect to their
relative
of design equ�ementsthe tfortherproject andtm ps
There will also be disc
displaying the design year volume projections.
d by any alternave
6.7 4(f)/6(f) Lands - All lands to
investigated to determine if they fall withill be
affectn dthe land categories coverled by
Section 4(f) of the 1966 U.S. DOT Act of Section 69f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act. All federal, state and local siencies ted to de ermine if thend y own
by any alternative will be contacted and requctede
such lands and, if so, the exact locations and d aft ages to s atementiwill
ally
affected.- If any such lands may be affected,
bere r
p pa ed for inclusion in the Environmental Assessment. This statement
will be formatted and contain all necessary information to satisfy the
requirements of FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8 (1982). The statment will
i
include the following information as appropriate:
A. A detailed map or drawing of sufficient scale to identify essential
elements of the highway/Section 4(f) land involvement.
1
B. Size (acres or square feet) and location (maps or other exhibits such as
photographs, sketches, etc.) of involvement.
C. Type of property (recreation, historic, etc.).
D. Available activities at the property (fishing, swimming, golfing, etc.).
E. Description and location of all existing and planned facilities (ball
diamonds, tennis courts, etc.).
F. Usage (approximate number of users/visitors, etc.).
G. Relationship to other similarly used lands in the vicinity.
H. Access (pedestrian and vehicular).
I. Ownershp (city, county, State, etc.).
J. Applicable clauses affecting the title.
K. Unusual characteristics.
L. The probable increase or decrease in environmental impacts (noise, air
pollution, visual, etc.) of the alternative locations and designs
considered on the Section 4(f)/6(f) land users.
M. A description of all reasonable andracticab
p le measures which are
available to minimize the impacts of the proposed action on the Section
4(f)/6(f) property. Discussions of alternatives in the EA will be
referenced rather than repeated.
N. Sufficient information to evaluate all alternatives which would avoid
the Section 4(f)/6(f) property. Discussions of alternatives in the EA will
be referenced rather than repeated.
O. The results of preliminary coordination with public officials having
jurisdiction over the Section 4(f)/6(f) property.
6.8 Historical Resources - Properties potentially affected by the project
alternatives will be investigated to determine if they are eligible for the
Natural Register of Historic Places by virtue of their historical,
archaeological, architectural or cultural resources. If any such properties
might be affected by project alternatives an assessment will be conducted
sufficient to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. If the affected property is 4(f) or 6(f) land, the draft 4(f)/6(f) statement
will be prepared to also provide the information required in a Preliminary
X � F
1�
F
t
Case Report on a historic property. Historic sites will be identified and
decribed, a determination of effect will be prepared in consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the significance of the property
will be assessed, and alternatives that would avoid or mitigate adverse
effects will be evaluated.
TASK 7
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
SCOPE OF SERVICES
This work task will involve conducting the public hearing process. Specific tasks
would .include the following:
7.1 Prepare presentation materials and handouts
7.2 Prepare verbal presentation of analysis
7.3 Prepare a transcript of the public hearing proceedings
TASK 8
STUDY REPORT I
f
SCOPE OF SERVICES
This task involves preparation of the final geometric layout and Study Report for
the selected alternative.
8.1 Prepare a 1" = 50' geometric layout of the selected alternative
8.2 Prepare the Study Report which shall address the following:
A. Description of the proposed location of the new river crossing and
approach improvements.
B. Discuss staging for proposed improvement.
C. Summarize for incorporation into the study the record of the public
hearing.
D. Describe all pertinent design elements including pavement width,
surfacing materials, design loading, drainage elements, and other
pertinent design specifications.
E. Average daily traffic for the proposed design year.
F. Design speed.
G. Determine right-of-way requirements.
H. Determine construction options available.
I. Preparation of a preliminary construction cost estimate.
8.3 Submit geometric layout and Study Report for approval by applicable
agencies.
E
i
i
ESTIMATED COST PROPOSAL FOR LOCATION STUDIES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Task Description Cost
1 Funding Agreement and Project Initiation $ 4,824.00
2 Data Collection and identification of
socioeconomic concerns, costs and benefits 8,217.00
3 Develop Alternatives 28,600.00
4 Bridge Type Study 20,658.00
5 Project Path Report 12,430.00
6 Environmental Assessment 47,600.00
7 Public Involvement 5,071.00
8 Study Report 14,366.00
TOTAL $141,771.00
3
j�
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator
RE: Racetrack Offsite Improvements
Barton-Aschman Consultant Fees
DATE: August 9 , 1985
Introduction:
The attached correspondence requests additional payment for
design of the 4th Avenue Project No. 85-1 , S .A.P. No. 166-108-01 .
Also, Barton-Aschman is requesting an additional amount be
budgeted for additional survey services .
Background:
The attached letter of 6/27/85 from Barton-Aschman requests
an additional $13 ,643. 11 in design costs not included in the
original contract. The project has since been extended to
Shenandoah Drive and these additional design costs have been
incurred. Council approved this August 6th.
The attached letter of 6/25/85 from Barton-Aschman requests
that an additional $8,000.00 be budgeted for additional survey
services necessary to complete Racetrack offsite improvements .
On August 6 , 1985 , City Council has approved, by motion,
appointment of John Mullen of Barton-Aschman Associates , Inc.
as acting City Engineer for the 4th Avenue Project No. 85-1 ,
S .A.P. No. 166-108-01 . It ' s estimated that this will cost
$13 ,720 .00.
Action Requested:
A motion to approve payment of additional survey fees (not
to exceed $8 ,000.00) necessary to complete all Racetrack
offsite improvements , to Barton-Aschman Associates , Inc.
RR: cah
Attachments
Barton-Aschman Associates, inc-
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454
612-332-0421
June 27, 1965
Mr. H.R. Spurrier
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Contract amendment for design services associated with city project No. 65-17
S.A.P. No. 166-106-01.
Dear Mr. Spurrier:
As requested by the City of Shakopee, the construction limits for 4th Avenue were
extended approximately a half mile to the west which was, as you know, not a part of our
original contract agreement dated July 10, 1964. Therefore, Barton-Aschman Associates,
Inc. is hereby requesting a contract amendment in the amount of $13,643.11 for additional
costs accrued during the design phase of the 4th Avenue reconstruction project (city
project 85-1)-
Based on the current status of all roadway improvements associated with Canterbury
Downs, we do not anticipate any further design fee increases beyond the request stated
herein.
I
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
avid B. Warzala
Senior Associate
DBW:kro
Carton-Aschrnan Associates, Inc.
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421
June 25, 1985
Mr. H.R. Spurrier
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Re: Requests for additional survey work for City of Shakopee Projects 84-8, 84-9, 1984-
4 and 85-1
Dear Mr. Spurrier:
As you know, city staff has. requested additional survey services from our subconsultant,
Valley Engineering Co., Inc., which they define as extra work outside the scope of their
original contract with Barton-Aschman. Therefore, Barton-Aschman submits the enclosed
invoice numbers: 4747-2, 4779-2, 4817 and 4848 for consideration by the City of
Shakopee.
The total amount requested to date for additional survey services is $4,802.50. Based on
continuing requests by the city for surveying, easement data, etc., we would suggest that
an upset maximum of $8,000 be budgeted for these additional services, to be provided for
the above subject projects.
If the enclosed billing meets with your approval, please forward payment to our office for
distributuion to our subconsultant.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Since rel
l y -��
W, -
David B. Ja, azla
Senior Associate
DBW:jkc
cc: Ron Swanson, Valley Engineering Co., Inc.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: A Resolution of Special Commendation to Kenneth Hanel
DATE: August 9 , 1985
Introduction & Background
in conjunction with the Employee Picnic , the city has implemented
the practice of recognizing employees who have completed a continuous
employment of 5 , 10 , 15 , 20 , 25 years. Certificates are presented
to employees after 5 , 10 , 15 and 20 years. It is policy that a
resolution be adopted for employees who have completed 25 years
of employment with the City. Mr. Ken Hanel has recently completed
25 years of employment with the City and the attached resolution
expresses the City' s appreciation for his devotion to the City.
Alternatives
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2423 .
2. Don't adopt Resolution No. 2423 .
Recommendation
Alternative No. 1. Will be presented to Mr. Hanel at the picnic .
Action Requested
Offer Resolution No. 2423 , A Resolution Of Special Commendation
to Kenneth Hanel, and move its adoption.
JSC/jms
RESOLUTION N0. 2423
A RESOLUTION OF SPECIAL COMMENDATION
TO KENNETH HANEL
Be it remembered that on the 1st day of April, 1960
KENNETH HANEL
entered City employment and from that date on he has faithfully
served the City of Shakopee, its citizens and residents over and
beyond the call of duty for all these many years .
Therefore, Be It Resolved by the Shakopee City Council that
the City hereby expresses its deep appreciation and gratitude and
do hereby commend Kenneth Hanel for his devotion to duty, his
loyalty and his friendship.
Adopted this adjourned regular session of the City Council
of the City of Shakopee, this 13th day of August, 1985 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1985 .
City Attorney
tel/
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Updating of City Code
DATE: August 1, 1985
Introduction
As a result of the annual revision conference, which included
the City' s codifiers, City Attorney, City Administrator and
City Clerk, the codifiers have prepared the attached seven ordinances
for Council consideration. After their adoption and publication,
the codifiers will prepare the substitution pages to update
the City Code. The substitute pages will include the attached
seven ordinances as well as all of the ordinances adopted since
the last revision through to Ordinance No. 140 in December,
1983.
Background
Ord. No. 177 - increases the maximum fine for a misdemeanor
from $500 to $700.
Ord. No. 178 - establishes a Housing Advisory and Appeals Board
giving them the powers and duties set forth in the Uniform Housing
Code.
Ord. No. 179 - amends Chapter 5 , licensing of liquor, beer and
wine, as follows:
Sec. I - requires sewer and water and suitable lavatory facilities,
in the general provisions of this chapter, while Sec. VII repeals
this requirement from the beer provisions and liquor provisions
- listed separately (Ord. 155 and Ord. 156 ) .
Sec. II requires the insurance policy (as distinguished from
insurance binder or certificate, to be placed on file within
90 days after license renewal, or initial approval.
Sec. III - limits employment to persons under 18 to responsibilities
of musicians, bus boys, dishwashers, waiters or waitresses ,
but may not sell or serve wine.
Sec. IV - requires 30 day notice, as opposed to 10 days notice,
prior to cancellation of liquor liability insurance.
Sec. V - eliminates the ambiguous language which states that
a person who has attained the age of seventeen ( 17 ) years may
be employed in any restaurant licensed to sell beer in which
the principal part of said business is the serving of food.
The section now reads, "No minor shall be employed to sell or
serve beer in any on-sale establishment. "
Sec. VI - amends code to be consistent with state law; minor
may not consume beer on licensed premises , even in company of
parent or guardian.
Sec. VII - repeals Ord. No. 155 and 156 requiring sewer and
water, because it is being inserted elsewhere, per Sec. II of
this ordinance.
Ord. No. 180 - repeals the gambling and bingo licensing section,
which is now controlled by the State Gambling Board.
Ord. No. 181 - updates the adoption by reference of the Highway
Regulation Act through the laws of 1985.
Ord. No. 182
.Sec. I - adds a provision covering throwing stars and nun chucks
as dangerous weapons .
Sec. II - limits gambling ( 1 ) on liquor licensed premises to
clubs and ( 2 ) to churches and service organizations which carry
on activities and are located and G ased in the City of Shakopee.
Ord. No. 183 - adds a section to the zoning chapter which requires
any dwelling structure to be placed on a foundation constructed
of masonry, concrete or treated wood with 42 inch footings.
Alternatives
a. Adopt ordinances as drafted.
b , Amend ordinances before adopting.
C. Don' t adopt revision ordinances .
Recommendation
Alternative No. a and b.
Action Requested
Offer and adopt ordinances numbered 177 through 183 , which will
continue the updating of the City Code.
JSC/jms
/1 b
ORDINANCE NO. 177 , FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE
SHAKOPEE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1 ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS AND
DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE CITY CODE INCLUDING PENALTY
FOR VIOLATION" BY CHANGING THE PROVISION RELATING TO PENALTY FOR
A MISDEMEANOR, AND MAKING THIS ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO EVERY
CHAPTER, SECTION OR OTHER PROVISION OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY CODE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION I. Shakopee City Code , Sec. 1.02, Subd. 10 , is
hereby amended to read:
Subd. 10. The term "misdemeanor" means the crime
for which a fine of not more than $700.00 may be imposed.
On appeal, the costs of prosecution may be added by the
Court as provided by Statute.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be applicable to every
chapter , section or other provision of the Shakopee City Code.
SECTION III. After the adoption, signing and attestation of
this ordinance it shall be published once in the official news-
paper of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and
effect on and after the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19_________
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form this
day of , 19
City Attorney of the City. of Shakopee
Published in Shakopee Valley News : 19
f
ORDINANCE N0. 17F , FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2 ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT"
BY ADDING A PROVISION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOUSING ADVISORY
AND APPEALS BOARD; AND, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, SHAKOPEE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 2.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, ORDAINS :
SECTION I. Shakopee City Code Chapter 2 is hereby amended by
adding a Section to read:
SEC. 2. 21. HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD.
Subd. 1. Establishment and Composition. A Housing
Advisory and Appeals Board, composed of five members who are not
employees of the City, and who shall serve staggered three year
terms., is hereby established. The Building Official shall be an
ex-officio member and shall act as Secretary of the Board.
Subd. 2. Powers and Duties. The Board shall have all
of the powers and duties set forth in the Uniform Housing Code.
SECTION II. Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 2.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as
though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION III. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this
)rdinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the
City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after
the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 1-79 , FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 5 ENTITLED "LIQUOR, BEER AND WINE LICENSING AND
REGULATION" BY ADDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REQUIREMENT OF WATER AND
SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS BY LICENSEES, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF LICENSEES, AND EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS BY ON-SALE WINE LICENSEES; BY
CHANGING PROVISIONS RELATING TO INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, BEER LICENSE
RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS AND UNLAWFUL ACTS; BY REPEALING
PROVISIONS RELATING TO WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS; AND, BY ADOPTING
BY REFERENCE, SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 5.99 WHICH,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION I. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.02 entitled "Applications
and Licenses - Procedure and Administration" is hereby amended by
adding a Subdivision to read:
Subd. 9. Water and Sewer Connection Requirement. No
on-sale license under this Chapter , except a temporary beer
license, shall be granted for operation on any premises which
does not have City water and sewer connections with suitable
lavatory facilities.
SECTION II. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.09 entitled "Financial
Responsibility of Licensees" is hereby amended by adding a Subdivision
to read:
Subd. 3. Insurance Policy Requirement. Failure on the
part of any licensee required by this Section to have insurance
to file a policy of insurance, as distinguished from an insurance
binder or certificate, acceptable to the City within ninety (90)
days after the effective date of the initial or renewal license
shall be grounds for suspension or revocation.
SECTION III. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.40 entitled "On-Sale Wine
License" is hereby amended by adding Subparagraph F to Subd. 2 , to
reads
F. No person under the age of eighteen (18) years
shall be employed upon premises, or in any rooms constituting the
same, except that persons under the age of eighteen years may be
employed as musicians or to perform the duties of a busboy or
dishwashing services in places defined as a restaurant, hotel or
motel. Persons under eighteen years of age may be employed as
waiters or waitresses in places defined as a .restaurant, hotel or
motel to serve food in rooms in which only wine is sold on-sale,
provided they shall not be permitted to serve or sell wine .
-1- -
read:SECTION IV. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.07 is hereby amended to
SEC. 5.07. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Whenever an insurance
policy or certificate is required by this Chapter, the applicant
shall file with the City Clerk a policy or certificate of
insurance showing (1) that the limits are at least as high as
required, (2) that coverage is effective for at least the license
term approved, and (3) that such insurance will not be cancelled
or terminated without thirty days' written notice served upon the
City Clerk. Cancellation or termination of such coverage shall
be grounds for license revocation.
SECTION V. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.13 entitled "Beer License
Restrictions and Regulations" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 4,
to read:
Subd. 4. No minor shall be employed to sell or serve
beer in any on-sale establishment.
SECTION VI. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.15 entitled "Restrictions
on Minors" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 4, to read:
Subd. 4. Minor to consume any beer on licensed
premises.
SECTION VII. Shakopee City Code Chapter 5 is hereby amended by
repealing Subd. 6 of Sec. 5.13 entitled "Beer License Restrictions and
Regulations"; and Subd. 9 of Sec. 5.32 entitled "Liquor License
Restrictions and Regulations", relating to water and sewer connection
requirement by licensees.
SECTION VIII. Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 5.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as
though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION IX. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this
ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the
City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after
the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ORDINANCE NO. 180 , FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 6 ENTITLED "OTHER BUSINESS REGULATION AND
LICENSING" BY REPEALING PROVISIONS RELATING TO BINGO AND GAMBLING; AND
BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION
6.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS :
SECTION I. Shakopee City Core Chapter 6 is hereby amended by
repealing Sec. 6.32 entitled "Gambling Device and Bingo Licenses".
SECTION II. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this
ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the
City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after
the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form this
day of 19
City Attorney off the City of Shakopee
Published in Shakopee Valley News : 19
1J
ORDINANCE NO. � gl , FOURTH SERIES j
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 8 ENTITLED "TRAFFIC REGULATIONS" BY CHANGING THE
PROVISION RELATING TO ADOPTION OF CERTAIN STATUTES BY REFERENCE; AND,
BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION
8.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, ORDAINS :
SECTION I. Shakopee City Code Section 8.01 is hereby amended to
read:
SECTION 8.01. MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTERS 168, 169 AND 171
ADOPTED BY REFERENCE. Except as otherwise provided in this
Chapter, or in Chapters 7 and 9 of this Code, the regulatory and
procedural provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 168, Chapter
169 (commonly referred to as the Highway Traffic Regulation Act)
and Chapter 171, as amended through Laws 1985 , are hereby
incorporated herein and adopted by reference , including the
penalty provisions thereof.
SECTION II. Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 8.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor or Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION III. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this
ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the
City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after
the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form this
day of 19
City Attorney of the City of Shakopee
Published in Shakopee Valley News : 19
-..�
ORDINANCE NO. 182 FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 10 ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND
OFFENSES" BY ADDING A PROVISION RELATING TO DANGEROUS WEAPONS, AND A
PROVISION AS TO GAMBLING; AND, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, SHAKOPEE CITY
CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 10.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN
PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, ORDAINS :
SECTION I. Shakopee City Code Sec. 10.20 entitled "Dangerous
Weapons and Articles" is hereby amended by adding Subparagraph I to
Subd. 1, to read:
I. Possess, sell, transfer, or have in possession
for sale or transfer, any weapon commonly known as a throwing
star or nun chuck. For the purposes of this Subparagraph, (1) a
"throwing star" means a circular metallic device with any number
of points projecting from the edge, and (2) a "nun chuck" means a
pair of wood sticks or metallic rods separated by chain links
attached to one end of each such stick or rod.
SECTION II. Shakopee City Code, Chapter 10, is hereby amended by
adding a Section to read:
SEC. 10.61. GAMBLING.
Subd. 1. Definition. "Lawful Gambling" as used in
this Section is the operation, conduct or sale of bingo, raffles,
paddlewheels, tipboards, and pull-tabs, either licensed by the
Charitable Gambling Control Board, or specifically exempt from
such licensing by statute.
Subd. 2. Unlawful Act. It is unlawful to operate ,
conduct or sell gambling unless it is lawful gambling, and then
only if it is operated , conducted, or sold by , (1) and on the
premises of, a club, as defined in City Code, Chapter 5, or (2)
to churches and service organizations which carry on activities
and are located and based in the City of Shakopee.
SECTION III. Shakopee City Code Chapter .1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
tion" and Section 10.99 entitled "Violation
Including Penalty for Viola
a Petty Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference
as though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION IV. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this
ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the
City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after
the date following such publication.
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 183 FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATION" BY ADDING A
SECTION RELATING TO FOUNDATIONS; AND, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE,
SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA, ORDAINS :
SECTION I. Shakopee City Code Chapter 11 is hereby amended by
adding a Section to read:
SEC. 11.06. FOUNDATIONS. Any structure designed to be used
as a dwelling shall be placed on a foundation constructed of
masonry, concrete or treated wood. All footings supporting the
foundation shall be constructed of solid masonry or concrete
placed at a minimum depth of forty-two (42) inches below the
finished grade.
SECTION II. Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as
though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION III. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this
ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the
City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after
the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,
19
ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form this
day of 19
City Attorney of the City of Shakopee
Published in Shakopee Valley News : 10
llC�
ORDINANCE NO. 179 , FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE SHAKOPEE
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 5 ENTITLED LIQUOR, BEER AND WINE LICENSING AND
REGULATION" BY ADDING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REQUIREMENT OF WATER AND
SEWER CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS BY LICENSEES, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF LICENSEES, AND EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS BY ON-SALE WINE LICENSEES; BY
CHANGING PROVISIONS RELATING TO INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, BEER LICENSE
RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS AND UNLAWFUL ACTS; BY REPEALING
PROVISIONS RELATING TO WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS; AND, BY ADOPTING
BY REFERENCE, SHAKOPEE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 5.99 WHICH,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS :
SECTION I. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.02 entitled "Applications
and Licenses - Procedure and Administration" is hereby amended by
adding a Subdivision to read:
Subd. 9. Water and Sewer Connection Requirement. No
on-sale license under this Chapter , except a temporary beer
license, shall be granted for operation on any premises which
does not have City water and sewer connections with suitable
lavatory facilities.
SECTION II. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.09 entitled "Financial
Responsibility of Licensees" is hereby amended by adding a Subdivision
to read:
Subd. 3. Insurance Policy Requirement. Failure on the
part of any licensee required by this Section to have insurance
to file a policy of insurance, as distinguished from an insurance
binder or certificate, acceptable to the City within ninety (90)
days after the effective date of the initial or renewal license
shall be grounds for suspension or revocation.
SECTION III. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.40 entitled On-Sale Wine
License" is hereby amended by adding Subparagraph F to Subd. 2 , to
read:
F. No person under the age of eighteen (16) years
shall be employed upon premises, or in any rooms constituting the
same, except that persons under the age of eighteen years may be
employed as musicians or to perform the duties of a busboy or
dishwashing services in places defined as a restaurant, hotel or
motel. Persons under eighteen years of age may be employed as
waiters or waitresses in places defined as a restaurant, hotel or
motel to serve food in rooms in which only wine is sold on-sale,
provided they shall not be permitted to serve or sell wine .
-1- -
(read:SECTION IV. Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.07 is hereby amended to
SEC. 5.07. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Whenever an insurance
policy or certificate is required by this Chapter, the applicant
shall file with the City Clerk a policy or certificate of
insurance showing (1) that the limits are at least as high as
�r(J required, (2) that coverage is effective for at least the license
term approved, and (3) that such insurance will not be cancelled
or terminated without thirty days' written notice served upon the
City Clerk. Cancellation or termination of such coverage shall
be grounds for license revocation.
SECTION,JV,.- Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.13 entitled "Beer License
Restrictions and Regulations" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 4,
to read:
Subd. 4. No minor shall be employed to sell or serve
beer in ani on-sale establishment.
SECTION Shakopee City Code Sec. 5.15 entitled "Restrictions
on Minors" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 4, to read:
Subd. 4. Minor to consume any beer on licensed
premises.
SECTION Shakopee City Code Chapter 5 is hereby amended by
repealing Subd. 6 of Sec. 5.13 entitled "Beer License Restrictions and
Regulations"; and Subd. 9 of Sec. 5.32 entitled "Liquor License
Restrictions and Regulations", relating to water and sewer connection
requirement by licensees.
SECTION . Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 5.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety. by reference as
though repeated verbatim herein.
U�
SECTION -IX. After the adoption, signing and attestation of this
ordinance it shall be published once in the official newspaper of the
City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on and after
the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
-2-
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
From: Judi Simac , City Planner
RE: Petition related to Baron Develop.
Request for rezoning
Date: August 7 , 1985
Please find attached a copy of the petition which was submitted
to the City Council on August 6 , 1985 by the Baron Development
Corp. This testimony should be distributed to each Council
member for their consideration.
ACTION REQUESTED
Distribute above referenced petition to City Council members
in their August 13 , 1985 agenda packets.
DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS-
AS A RESIDENT OF SHAKOPEE I AM AWARE OF OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
BY BARON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CECIL BEHRINGER AT THE CURRENT
SITE OF THE THE SHAKOPEE VELODROME . IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT WILL INCLUDE A 150 ROOM RADISSON HOTEL , MEETING AND CONFERENCE
FACILITIES , COMMUNITY AND DESTINATION RELATED COMMERCIAL FACILITIES ,
AS WELL AS FINE RESTAURANTS AND OTHER AMENITIES .
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY AND AS A RESIDENT OF THIS
COMMUNITY , I HEREBY PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .
DATE NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATTURE�
2742
a AL
V e.�►1 /
age a=kKud
�l
i ll"� � '- / � �Jv'�,.�1 ' %,SYS ✓ a � �� /vi
reOc v
ti
v
r�
I
i I I
i
L L-
DEAR PLANNING COMM.ISSI.ON AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS— t
AS A RESIDENT OF SHAKOPEE I AM AWARE OF OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
BY BARON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND CECIL BEHRINGER AT THE CURRENT
SITE OF THE THE SHAKOPEE VELODROME. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT WILL INCLUDE A 150 ROOM RADISSON HOTEL , MEETING AND CONFERENCE
FACILITIES , COMMUNITY AND DESTINATION RELATED COMMERCIAL FACILITIES ,
AS WELL AS FIN£ RESTAURANTS AND OTHER AMENITIES .
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY AND AS A RESIDENT OF THIS
COMMUNITY , I HEREBY PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
DATE NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
ol
Lj()ud
—� LAI% SU toCD
L"L L � —
i
DEAR PLANNING CQYLMI_SSLON AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS-
AS A RESIDENT OF SHAKOPEE I AM AWARE OF OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
BY BARON DEVELbPMENT CORPORATION AND CECIL BEHRINGER AT THE CURRENT
SITE OF THE THE SHAKOPEE VELODROME . IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT WILL INCLUDE A 150 ROOM RADISSON HOTEL , MEETING AND CONFERENCE
FACILITIES , COMMUNITY AND DESTINATION RELATED COMMERCIAL FACILITIES ,
AS WELL AS FINE RESTAURANTS AND OTHER AMENITIES .
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY AND AS A RESIDENT OF THIS
COMMUNITY, I HEREBY PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
DATE NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
1
� I
lo�
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner
RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit and Mining
Permit by Scott County Lumber Co. and Bert Notermann
DATE: August 9 , 1985
Background:
As per the request of the City Council, attached is a
copy of the transcript of the July 9 , 1985 public hearing held
by the City Council for consideration of a Conditional Use
Permit and Mining Permit application by Scott County Lumber Co.
and Bert Notermann.
Also attached is a copy of the Resolution of findings
prepared by the Assistant City Attorney, Rod Krass. A copy
of this resolution has been distributed to the applicant and
other interested parties.
Action Requested:
Distribute the attached information to the City Council
in their .August 13 , 1985 agenda packets.
cc: P.R. Krass , Asst City Attorney
Attachments
tw
FITCH & JOHNSON �✓
ATTORNEYS AT LAW `"V
15 NO. 16TH ST. t -
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55403
TELEPHONE:1612)332-1023
RAYMOND W.FITCH
VICTOR C.JOHNSON
DAVID N.LARSON 8 O
DIANNE E.WALSH August , 1985
DEBRA A.WILSON
ALSO ADMI'"SD IN WISCONSIN
Shakopee City Council
Shakopee, MN
Gentlemen:
The undersigned, of course, is the owner of the horse farm
adjacent to the proposed gravel pit. We would like to submit
a few comments on the impending resolution in this case.
Two points of law discussed at the August 6 , 1985, meeting
deserve comment, and you may wish to seek clarification on
these points from the city attorney:
A. It is the duty of the petitioners to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that they have complied
with any and all of the 12 points. There was a suggestion
that if there was no creditable evidence either way, the
point has been proved in favor of the petition. We do not
believe this is the law. If there is no evidence either
way, or if the evidence is essentially equally creditable
on both sides , then the petitioners have failed to prove
that that point is in their favor . See Westley v. City
of St. Louis Park, 284 MN 351 , 170 N.W. 2d 218 (1969) .
B. Evidence has been presented (by the undersigned) that the
traffic flow on County Road 83 is up at least 20 times
since the road has been black topped and the track is
active. The question was asked whether the City might
be partially responsible for accidents occurring
as a result of the truck traffic. As we see it, they
not only could be, but probably would be. The City is
on notice of the slow nature of the truck traffic , the
50 mile per hour traffic limit, and the greatly increased
local and track traffic . We can imagine ("foresee" -
one of the legal tests of "proximate cause") many ways
these three elements , added to some negligence on the
parts of some drivers , would probably combine to cause
serious accidents. The hearing notes before the City
Council for August 6 , 1985 , my ouby testimony, this
very letter , and an affirmative vote by the City Council
in favor of the instant petition would be ample evidence
to make Shakopee a defendant in the accident action,
. C1n—AA cI'-Ir4 < I Tom.AN^5OLITN".FNNFPIN
Shakopee City Council August 8, 1985
Page 2
es eciall if the plaintiff is a passenger.. Couple this
with the act the City is paid by the gravel people., and-
the
ndthe City becomes (what we call a "target .defendant" (some-
one with deep pockets) . We note with some .interest item
10-G on your agenda for August 6th, "Use of an agreement
to indemnify the City when variances are granted. " If
such agreements are required (and none has -been required
in this case) , the primary responsibility -to pay judgements
against the City would remain against the City itself,
and recovery under the agreement would only occur where
there was financial responsibility. Normal comprehensive
general liability policies, if carried by the indemnitor,
would not cover the agreement because such insurance does
not cover liability incurred by such an indemnification
contract. Absent a special rider on the policy, the City
would be left to recover from whatever other financial
responsibility there might be with the proposed indemnitor.
Before we move to the 12 points, we must address what should be
an overriding factor to all those 12 : aesthetics.
Aesthetics is involved in items 1 , 2, 5, probably 8 , and 10,
but we believe the City should be increasingly alert to the
influx of visitors (track, Valley Fair, Renaissance, bingo,
Murphy ' s Landing, new motels, etc. ) and the impressions left
with them. Do we want those visitors ' stay to be pleasant
enough to linger in our restaurants and stores and perhaps
come again? If so, retaining the beautiful nature of County
Road 83 can be of substantial benefit. Dirt, noise, unsightly-
ness, and slow-moving trucks, where avoidable, are inconsisent
with a beautiful Shakopee. In the Naegele case (281 Minn. 49.2)
.the Supreme Court sustained a zoning og o drdapLnce where the sole
and complete test was aesthetics . Shakopee aesthetics is so
important that it deserves (and should be) a separate "finding, "
but for the present should be weighed heavily in those findings
(1, 2 , 5, 8 , and 10) where it is involved. For the future, we
would think that a 13th finding should - be reserved solely for
this purpose.
Moving to the 12 points themselves , we agree with virtually
all the comments of the people on the Council at the time of
the August 6th meeting , so that our failure to itemize those
comments below is only in the interest of conserving verbiage.
We would like to point out a few matters which were not
mentioned (or not mentioned very thoroughly) on some of the
points :
Point 1 : We agree with everything that was said by the Council.
We think that the holding of the Westley case to the effect that
special use permits must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence that their use will not result in substantial detriment
to neighboring property applies completely in this case and that,
for Point 1 alone , the conditional use permit must be denied.
Shakopee City Council August 8 , 1985 2
Page 3
Point 2 : While agricultural development (orcurtailment) was {
discussed, we also believe the residential developments on the
North sidecannot be ignored. In the petition, proponents suggest
(without proof) -that they do...not think there will be development
residentially until the mid 1990 's. We believe there is ample
evidence to suggest otherwise. At the planning committee meeting
(which we understand is part of the instant record) , we pointed
out that the very minutes for their preceding meeting had to
do with the shortage of residential property and building in
the area just north of the track. At the August 6th City
Council meeting, an item earlier on the agenda spoke to four
and six-plexes just off the Northeast corner of the alleged
pit. The scramble for motel variances around the track belie
any comment that there will be no residential or other development
of significance to the North side of the pit until the mid 1990 's.
Point 3 : There was a .question whether on-traffic lanes for the
trucks has been discussed because of the traffic problems. Any
on-traffic lane for South bound trucks would require the taking
of some of our (Fitch 's) land - because of the proximity of the
pit entrance to our property. We would vigorously resist such
taking and, of course, this gets the trucks that much closer to
our horses and interfers with their usage of the front part of
our pastures. Horses can be scared rather easily by big trucks
with big noises.
Point 5 : Regarding the "beep-beeping, " the Council rightfully
points out that the noise may not be loud, but certainly is
annoying over an insensant period of time. As I -said at the
meeting , the test is not whether we wiil be deafened by it, but
whether we should reasonably be subjected to it over along
period of time . The word "reasonable" is the main element of
a "nusiance. " The emphasis , as far as dust, noise, fumes,
etc. , should focuse on whether it is reasonable to subject
us to such problems.
In addition, we want to re-emphasize the fact that it is
unreasonable to expect us (the neighbors) to be the enforcer
of whatever "measures" are taken allegedly to solve the problems.
There is no provision for policing the proponents except
the neighbors ' complaints. Is it not unreasonable to require
us to monitor this facility?
This point is especially appropriate to the instant petitioners .
The "adequate measures" issue should weigh the veracity or
"track record" of the petitioner . The evidence is undisputed
that when Mr. Johnstone (sp?) , representing the gravel company,
was confronted with the fact that his coripany ' s Osseo pit is ,
in essence, a junk yard easily visable from the public street
(82nd Ave. North) , sought to dismiss responsibility by stating,
"That ' s the way we did it 35 years ago. " Should the neighbors
be exposed to a company so callous in (1) the treatment of the
land and (2) their present responsibility for cleaning up past
mistakes?
Shakopee City Council August 8 , 1985
Page 4
Point 6 : The Council did not mention much about the evidence
brought in by Mrs. Snyder suggesting that the long-term gravel
requirements are sufficient without this pit. We believe Mrs.
Snyder will address this point in a separate correspondence,
but the Council will recall that she quoted extensively from
a study which did not indicate a genuine need for a gravel pit
in this particular area at this particular time.
Point 7 : If this case should ever get into court, one of the
iss es (we do not think it need be discussed in your resolution)
will be whether "mineral extraction" means the surface taking
of gravel and sand. Nationally, the cases seem to be split on
whether sand and gravel on the surface is a "mineral . " Recent
cases seem to suggest that such surface material is not a
mineral (see 185 S. 2nd 388; 642 P.2nd 1089; 554 S.W.2nd 169,
172) .
However, the point is perhaps worth mentioning here because
of the brief discussion as to whether a gold discovery would
make a difference. A petition for gold mining, underground,
would -be far different and we might even do some diggin' our-
selves if such were the case. However, sand, gravel, and
dirt are all items that we neighbors all have, and the material
is not normally thought of as a real resources "find" or
discovery.
Point 8 : The Council had some trouble understanding this
requirement, and we believe it arises out of the fact that
all other items are part of the "comprehensive plan" of the
City. The point would be easier to handle if the word
"otherwise" was inserted after the word "not. " The Council
obviously does not want to say the plan is "not in conflict"
where there are so many obvious reasons it is objectionable
and clearly in conflict. Whatever answer the Council gives ,
we believe they should qualify it by indicating that their
answer is subject to the reservations in items 1, 2 , 3 , 5 ,
6 , 7 , 9 , and 10. _
Point 9 : See "B" and 3 , above.
Point 10 : As pointed out by one councilman, the Fitch horse
far— miss dependent on customers. We testified not only as to
race track people soliciting boarding , but (more important
to us) our 20 boarding horses . These customers depend on a
pleasant environment- for their riding. We value each boarder,
from the one who owns the National Champion Pinto all the way
up to the most inexpensive horse. It_ is not enjoyable to
ride horses around a gravel pit. And the trucks not only
can spook the horses , but they also are a traffic hazard.
The existance of the pit would endanager our losing these
valuable customers.
Shakopee City Council August 8 , 1985
Page 5
Thank you for your attention.
Very t ly ours,
Rand W. Fitch
RWF/jmm
i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SC CTT COUNTY
LUMBER CO. , INC. AND BERT N OTERMANN FOR
THE REMOVAL OF SAND AND GRAVEL
WHEREAS, Scott County Lumber Co. , Inc. and Bert Notermann have
applied for a conditional use permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate from
a site of approximately 130 acres located in the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 17, and the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 16, and the west One-Half of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 16, Township 115, Range 22 West; and
WHEREAS, said application received public hearing before the Planning
Commission of the City of Shakopee on 1985, May 16, 1985 and June 20, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the Flanning Commission did on June 20, 1985 vote to deny
said application for a conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed said denial to the City Council
of the City of Shakopee; and
WHEREAS, the- City _ Council did hold a public hearing on said
application on the 9th day of July, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the evidence adduced in the
record which was developed at its August 6, 1985 meeting and discussed said
evidence in relationship to the criteria of the Shakopee City Code respecting
conditional use permits, which criteria is set forth on Appendix "A" which is
attached hereto and made a part her eof;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Shakopee finds as
.follows:
1. With respect to Criteria No. 1:
(a) No evidence was presented by the applicant as to the possible
impairment of property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
use except for Killarney Hills, and evidence was presented by
opinion of affected landowners that values of property in the
immediate vicinity including Kiliarney Hills will be
substantially diminished as a result of the proposed use, and
the City Council finds that such values will in fact be
substantially diminished.
(b) Evidence was presented by opinion of the owners of land in the
immediate vicinity that the berms to be created, the noise, the
dust, the traffic and the aesthetics of the proposed use will be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of their property, and the
City Council finds such to be the case.
-1-
2. With respect to Criteria No. 2:
(a) The predominant use of the surrounding area is agricultural,
with small hobby farms and equestrian uses some of which relate
to Canterbury Downs Racetrack located just to the North of this
property.
(b) Undisputed evidence was presented that the vein of gravel to be
mines by the applicant covers land significantly in excess of
the applicant' s land and the Council determines that the
granting of this conditional use permit would open up this
entire general area to additional such requests which have the
potential of making the area a series of such gravel extraction
operations, which would compound the problems the Council finds
to be associated with this proposed use.
(c) Gravel mining operations will increase the amount of dust and
the time period during which dust will be a problem, and said
dust as well as the noise associated with the proposed use will
discourage agricultural uses of the surrounding vacant property
and impede both its development as agricultural land and its
development into equestrian related hobby farms since
prospective buyers and users will not choose to locate such
enterprises in an area where the noise, dust and truck traffic
may effect their animals.
(d) The problems set forth in paragraph 2(c) above will also impede
the development of Killarney Hills, a platted residential tract
located to the Northwest of the proposed gravel pit which
presently consists of 28 residential—size lots of which only
five are occupied.
3. With respect to Criteria No. 3, the Council determines that the
applicant has met this criteria.
4. With respect to Criteria No. 4, the Council determines that the
applicant has met this criteria.
5. With respect to Criteria No. 5, the Council finds that the
proposed use will in fact constitute a nuisance to some of the surrounding
properties because of the noise of the various pieces of heavy equipment
proposed to be used and in particular the backup beepers mandated by CSHL.
Moreover the dust and vibration will constitute a nuisance to animals located
on surrounding property. Evidence indicates that although the noise levels of
the equipment proposed to be used met city and state standards, nevertheless
these noise levels will constitute a nuisance and moreover these studies
presented by the applicant relative to such noise levels did not include
studies of the backup beepers.
6. With respect to Criteria No. 6, the Council recognizes that
there was conflicting evidence submitted by both the applicant and the
opponents, but finds there is and remains sufficient gravel and sand in the
Shakopee area for the overall needs of the City, and notes that some existing
gravel pits have been discontinued apparently because the supply of sand and
gravel is adequate.
-L-
7. With respect to Criteria No. 7, the Council recognizes and finds
that the proposed use is located within the Agricultural Preservation
District, the purpose of which is set forth in Section 11.24, Subd. 1 of the
Shakopee City Code as follows:
"Agricultural preservation areas are established for the purpose of
preserving, promoting, maintaining and enhancing the use of the land
for commercial agricultural purposes, to prevent scattered and
leapfrog non-farm growth to protect expenditures for such public
services as roads and road maintenance, and police and fire
protection."
The Council finds that the proximity of the proposed gravel pit to Canterbury
Downs makes agricultural uses and particularly equestrian related uses more
predominant in this particular area, and makes it more difficult for this area
to accept a gravel pit and continue to maintain its agricultural preservation
use and purpose. If the proposed use were located in an area of the
Agricultural Preservation District where increased agricultural use and
development such as that occurring in the immediate area of this proposed use
were not as probable, a gravel pit might not be in conflict with the purpose
of the Agricultural Preservation Zone. The Council finds, however, that given
the location of this particular land and its proximity to Canterbury Downs, a
gravel pit operation would conflict with the purpose of the Agricultural
Preservation District.
B. With respect to Criteria No. 8, the Council determines that the
applicant has met this criteria.
9. With respect to Criteria No. 9:
(a) The applicant has indicated that at least initially 140 truck
trips per day will occur as a result of the proposed use. The
City cannot control any increase in the number of such truck
trips.
(b) County Road 83 has been within the past year significantly
upgraded and paved with a bituminous surface with a design to
accomodate both greater and higher speed traffic, and this
roadway constitutes a major entry to Canterbury Downs in
addition to being a major North-South roadway from County Road
42 to Minnesota Highway 101.
(c) Testimony was submitted to the City Council that County Road 83
in the area of the proposed gravel pit handles between 150 and
200 passenger cars per hour during non-racetrack times.
(d) The Council finds that the heavy, slow moving trucks which this
proposed use will cause to be driven on County Road 83 will
create a serious traffic hazard when combined with high speed
passenger traffic and that such trucks lack the speed to enter
the traffic flow of this two-lane County Highway safely.
( e) A significant increase by the applicant of the number of truck
trips will further create traffic congestion in this area.
-3-
10. With respect to Criteria No. 10, evidence was presented and the
City Council finds that the business of Willias Fitch, to-wit: the breeding,
raising and storage of horses, located adjacent to the proposed
gra and pit,
will be curtailed because of the effects of traffic, noise,
the
aesthetics of the proposed gravel pit. The proposed use will adversely effect
the health and welfare of animals raised and located in the Fitch business
enterprise and make it likely that potential users of the Fitch business will
prefer to keep their horses elsewhere.
11. With respect to Criteria No. 11, the Council determines that the
applicant has met this criteria.
12. With respect to Criteria No. 12, the Council determines that the
applicant has met this criteria.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council finds that under the evidence and
testimony adduced, the applicant has failed to meet Criteria 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9
and 10 and therefore the application for a conditional use permit to mine
gravel and sand is hereby in all respects denied.
Adopted this 20th day of August, 1985, by the City Council of the
City of Shakopee.
Eldon Reinke, Mayor
ATTESTED TO BY:
Judy Cox, City Clerk
-4-
Subd. 6. Conditional Use Permit.
A. Criteria for Granting Use Permits. In grant-
ing a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission shall con-
sider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the occupants of surrounding lands.
Among other things, the Planning Commission shall make the fol-
lowing finds where applicable:
1. That the conditional use will not be in-
jurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immedi-
ate vicinity for the purposes already permitted , nor substan-
tially diminish and impair property values within the immediate
vicinity.
2. That the establishment of the conditional
use will not impede the normal and orderly development and im-
provement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in
the area.
3. That adequate utilities, access roads,
drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
4 . That adequate measures have been or will
be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading
space to serve the proposed use.
S. That adequate measures have been or will
be taken to prevent or control offensive odor , fumes, dust, noise
and vibration , so that none of these will constitute a nuisance,
and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner
that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result.
6. The use , in the opinion of the Council,
is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the
existing land use.
7 . The use is consistent with the purposes
of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in
which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use.
8 . The use is not in conflict with the Com-
prehensive Plan of the City.
9 . The use will not cause traffic hazard or
congestion.
10 . Existing businesses nearby will not be
adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade
brought about by .intrusion of noise , glare or general unsightli-
ness.
11. The developer shall submit a time sched-
ule for completion of the project.
12. The developer shall provide_ proof of own-
ership of the property to the Administrator .
APPENDIX "A"