Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/1985 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: August 15 , 1985 1 . The Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development has approved the $1. 8 million commercial development revenue bonds for the Super 8 Motel project. 2 . The City had been working with the Scott Carver Economic Council on the possible paving of the Eagle Creek Town Hall parking lot. We had proposed adding one year to our present contract so that after the Council paid off the new building addition they would pay off the parking lot. Based on cost estimates the Council decided not to move ahead with this plan so the idea has been dropped for now. 3 . LeRoy Houser is meeting with Scottland, Inc. to see if they will donate an isolated piece of property they own between the City' s Eagle Creek property and County Road 16 . This would add additional parking space to the Eagle Creek Hall. Currently it looks as though we will be able to get the property for $1 . 00 as long as it is used for City purposes and we provide an easement for a future sign of some sort. If you have questions about this please contact me. 4 . Attached is the notice given that affidavits for candidacy can be filed beginning September 10th through September 24th. 5. Attached is a claim the City received for damage during a police hot pursuit and follow up investigation. The claim will either be paid by the insurance company for the defendant or will go through the City' s normal insurance procedure. 6 . Attached is a release signed by Chuck Mensing. The purpose of the release was to allow him to carve a sculpture out of the elm tree trunk. 7 . Attached is an excerpt from the National League of Cities Newsletter updating members on NLC activities . 8 . Attached is an update on the joint compensation study for comparable worth. 9 . Attached is a letter notifying me that I have been appointed to the Suburban Rate Authority Executive Committee. The Executive Committee meets generally four times per year. 10 . The applications of Palace Properties Inc. for on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses were tabled July 2 , 1985 . The application is not in order. Rather than continue to place the applications on the agenda and table them to keep them alive until the applications are in order, the applicants have agreed to advise the City Clerk when they are ready to puruse the licenses at which time the applications will be readvertised for Council consideration. 11 . Attached is the building activity report for the period ending July 31 , 1985 . 12 . Attached is the revenue and expenditure report as of 7/31/85 . 13 . Attached are the minutes of the August 1 , 1985 meeting of the Shakopee Coalition. 14 . Attached are the minutes of the July 15 , 1985 meeting of the Shakopee Community Services Board. 15 . Attached are the minutes of the July 18 , 1985 meeting of the Energy and Transportation Committee. 16 . Attached is the agenda for the August 22 , 1985 meeting of the Energy and Transportation Committee. 17 . Attached is the August 1 , 1985 Ehlers and Associates newsletter. 18 . After working one week with Jim Norton and two weeks with Bob Frigaard from OSM City staff requested that we change key contact engineers from Jim to Bob. I have spoken with Bernie Mittelsteadt, President of OSM, and he has said the change can be made smoothly and without problems. 19 . Attached is a memo from George Muenchow regarding Metro River Corridors Study Committee Meeting. 20 . Attached is a memo from Gregg Voxland regarding storm drainage utility billing. JKA/jms NOTICE FILINGS OPEN CITY OF SHAKOPEE Notice is hereby given that affidavits of candidacy may be filed in my office at 129 East First Avenue between 8 : 00 a.m. and 4 : 30 p.m. beginning Tuesday, September 10th and ending Tuesday, September 24th for the offices of: 1 MAYOR - two year term 2 COUNCILPERSONS - four year term Dated this 16th day of August, 1985 . Judith S. Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee Shakopee City Council Shakopee City Hall Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Gentlemen: I farm land at the Northwest corner of County Road 14-17 and on Saturday night, May 18, 1985, around 11:00 P.M. one of the Shakopee police cars chasing another car followed it unto my farm land driving around the property and in so doing seriously damaged some of my crops. The following day Shakopee Police car came back to the scene and again drove over and around my field damaging and smashing flat the wheat on the property that I am farming. I have had the damage appraised by David Hart, Scott County Extension Director, and it is his estimate that approximately 2 acres of crops were destroyed, figuring 40 bushels an acre for 2 acres would be 80 bushels of wheat lost at $4.00 a bushel for a total of $320.00 loss. Moreover, after trespassing on my property, damaging the property, no report was ever made of this damage to my property and I hereby make a claim against the City of Shakopee for the loss incurred by me, namely $320.00 and I am requesting your favorable attention to this claim immediately. Very truly yours, r Richard Schmitz 436 South Apgar Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 P.S. Attached is a copy of David Hart's appraisal and I also have some pictures taken the morning after the incident showing the damage. AUG 1 1985 , 1• 121O l - i' I , / oe Iiv ,r 1! - -rG�4,7/ .441111 hq44e- ac ` { 05 vo Z)v d -,l-G 1 / S 41 1' f �I l� t� - NO. 85-2450 /NO. 85-2460 NO. ARREST REPORT NO. NAME OF PERSON ARRESTED ALIAS OR NICKNAME(S) ARREST DATE Z Leslie Leo Ahola 5-19-85 a a. ADDRESS OF SUSPECT OCCUPATION TIME AM m 1930 Burns Ave. , St. Paul, MN. Unemployed 2309 PM SOCIAL SECURITY NO. DRIVERS LICENSE INFORMATION f=- WE A-40n—��—�E,�N�1—q� TYPE EXPIRES hM1LL1�1 ',! ,U! .3 C_0 Revoked AGE RACE SEX EYES HAIR HEIGHT WEIGHT DATE OF BIRTH PLACE OF BIRTH TATTOOES OR ID. MARKS 23 W M Bro. Blk 511 140 05-24-61 Canada WHERE ARRESTED HOW ARREST MADE: EXON VIEW [] CALL F1 WARRANT Marschall Rd. north Of CR 14, WARR T NO, , m A A D T _ $ OFFENSE(S) SUSPECTED OR CHARGED .� - s' a � ;�16913 ,FleePof�� $�}9 487 . ., DATE OFFENSE COMMITTED TIME May 19, 1985 2305 bra. O A.M. WHERE OFFENSE COMMITTED TYPE PREMISES BUSINESS TRADE NAME Co. Rd. 17 Public Roadway ARMED -..: 0 YES NO _ CHECK ALL ITEMS WHICH APPLY - TYPE WEAPON DRUNK (3 DRINKING CURSED RESISTED PREVIOUS ARRESTS OTHER PERSONS ARRESTED FOR SAME OFFENSE Yes None VEHICLE _YEAR MAKh MODEL STYLE.,., :.. .COLO LICENS�E ..-. STATE-,J_EXP IMPOUNDED YES ONO INVOLV . 3.'.: WHERE ..-. ,•. M PROPERTY PLACEDIN PROPERTY ROOM Blue athletic bag containing marijuana NAME OF COMPLAINANT 1sw� RELATION OF COMPLAINANT & SUSPECT - IF ANY? 'r1�[f riL.7 'Ignn15�.. tYone ADDRESS OF COMPLAINANT BEST PHONE OTHER PHONE Shakopee Police Dept. , 476 Gorman St. , Shakopee, MN. 445-6666 WIT,NESS, StJAMyiE�; �_nQ BESTRCON'yT�AL�C-Tj,+pADeDRE'SS,t,. �,..AGE.,,d,BEST—PHONE OTHER PHONE PARENT OR GUARDIAN? 2 +� YdsliaschIha' opee: + f6 . NOTE FACTS OF ARREST NOT INCLUDED ABOVE. - On Saturday, 5-18-85, shortly after 2300 hours I was at the intersection of First Avenue a Minnesota Street. At this time I saw and heard the screeching 'tires-of-a blue B-Burck--Riviera-as- t---turned--from-Dakota.._ Street-eastbound--=onto First Avenue. I turned eastbound on First Avenue following the Riviera, and just west of the intersection of 1st Ave. and Marschall Road I activated the red lights of my, squad car attempting a traffic stop. I observed the driver __of the blue Buick, -a while male with dark hair and blue t-shirt, glance--­into------ --the -rearview mirror---T-.also lance--into__the -rearview__mirror-__.-..T -.also _observed__his..passenger, a white male with lighter colored hair wearing a white t-shirt, turn and look at my squad. The Riviera stopped a red light momentarily at 1st and Marschall Road then turn southbound on-Ears-0--hall -Road_.-----After traveling approximately one-half block, the- vehicle-`s ARRESTEES RIGHTS GIVEN BY DATE TIME PLACE i RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION NCIC #r Defendant jailed A STING I RS RE Y FINAL DISPOSITION ` Jynneson/Nosbusch I� 2P � Flynn X15 nm Use supplementary report for additional information not covered above. 85-2460 (Adult Arrest Report) pg. -2- Defendant: Leslie Leo Ahola Report By: Officer- John M. Flynn, Shakopee P.D. lights went out, it: changed lanes and accelerated rapidly. At this time I advised dispatch that I was in pursuit and gave the plate number as CXZ-030. I also activated the siren on the squad car. As I stated vehicle accelerated rapidly pulling away from my squad car. I observed the vehicle brake abruptly to avoid colliding with a slower moving vehicle at the intersection of Marschall Road and Shakopee Avenue. The Riviera continued southbound on CR 17 through the intersection of 10th Avenue without stopping for the stop sign. Vehicle continued southbound on CR 17 intermittently turning the lights on and then turning them off. I accelerated the squad car to a speed of ninty plus (90+) M.P. H. and was unable to make any gain on the Riviera. Vehicle crossed center line int he oncomming lane as it proceeded southbound and driving another vehicle into the ditch. That vehicle was driven;;Mark Elis LEVIN, DOB/5-14-60, current address; 10141 Lyndale-- Ave. , Bloomington, sphone: 884-4938: I talked with Levin later in the evening and he stated that the blue Riviera came at him in his lane of travel without lights and forced him into the ditch, possibly causing front end damage to his vehicle. I-lost sight of the Riviera as it proceeded southbound on Marschall Road from Marschall ' s Hill. I slowed the squad car anticipating that the Riviera might have taken a side road. It was at this time that Officer Nosbusch and Nelson, approaching from behind, observed the operator of the Riveriera once again momentarily turn on his lights to get his bearings. They pursued to a curve located approximatley one-quarter north of the intersection of CR 14 & CR 17, where the Buick left the roadway coming to rest in a farmer' s field. Driver and passenger both left the vehicle on foot with the passenger traveling south- bound through the field and the driver traveling westbound through the field. Nosbusch and Nelson then left the roadway with the squad and pursued the driver. The driver was apprehended a short time later by Officer Nelson, being placed under arrest by Officer Nelson. The driver was placed in the rear of Nosbusch and Nelson' s squad and transported back to the roadway. It was at this time that the driver was identified as the above-named defendant, Leslie Leo AHOLA, and it was also at this time that Officer Nelson read Ahola his Rights Per Miranda. The passenger of the vehicle was not apprehended. Ahola was transported to the Shakopee Police Department by Nosbusch and Nelson. 85-2460 (Adult Arrest Report) pg. -�- Defendant: Leslie Leo Ahola Report By: Officer John M. Flynn, Shakopee P.D. The vehicle Ahola was driving was towed by Koehnen ' s Towing and impounded at the police department garage. The Buick Riviera registers to a Gary Hugh Welp, �of 5610 Country View, Farmington, MN. According to Officer Nelson, during the arrest he noted the defendant' s eyes were watery, bloodshot, that he was somewhat unsteady on his feet, that his speech was slurred and that he had the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. I also made these same observations during my contact witht he defendant at the scene. Defendant was transported to the Shakopee Police Department by Nelson and Nosbusch. Once at the Shakopee Police Department Ahola was videotaped with sound track as he was read the Minnesota Implied Consent Form in its entirety by Nelson. Ahola refused the breath test which was asked. Officer Nelson then read Ahola his Rights Per Miranda once again with Ahola refusing to answeri-n-g any of the questions on the D.W. I. Procedure Form. I then talked to Ahola who told me he had never been to Shakopee before, that he had come here to visit RICHARD' S PUB. Beyond that he declined to answer any of my questions. Ahola was transported to the Scott County Jail where he was turned over to personnel at that facility for booking. Custodial search by jail personnel, Brian Wondra and Ed Witt revealed a number of capsules containing an unknown substance. When arrested Ahola told me he was unemployed but custodial search showed that Ahola had approximately two hundred fifty to three hundred dollars ($250 . 00 - $300. 00) in cash in his billfold. I request that Ahola be charged by formal complaint with aggravated D.W. I. under 169 . 129 , �� -Mess driving under 169 . 13, fleeing a police officer under 609 . 487, excessive speed (estimated to be 100 MPH) under 169 . 14 , and because the State of Minnesota has a revoked status on his driver' s license, driving after revocation under 171 . 24. pm J� SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO 85-2460 NO. 85-2460 Classification Name of Complainant Address Phone No. Officer John Flynn #15, Shakopee Police Department 445-6666 Offense Careless Driving, Agg, D.W.Z. , Flee Police, Poss. Conti. Subst. with Intent to sell, DAR, Apeed, DETAILS OF OFFENSE, PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATION, ETC.: (Investigating Officer must sign) Page No. —1— Date-Sun. May 19, 19 85 On Sunday, 5-19-85, at approximately 2000 hours, I met with Gary Welp and Karen Welp at- the ShakopeePolice Department. Gary Welp is registered as the - - owner of the 1971 Buick Riviera involved in a high speed pursuit from the _ previous night. - Karen Welp is in possession of that vehicle and had given the defendant, Leslie Leo Ahola, permission to use it on Saturday, 5-18-85, for` the purpose of repairing the brakes. Following the pursuit on 5-18-85, Ahola had thrown the keys as he was running through a field in an attempt to escape. Karen Welp and her husband brought another set of keys to the Shakopee Police Department and gave officers Nelson and Flynn consent to search the vehicle- including the glove compartment and the trunk_. Both Karen and Gary Welp signed a permission to search form. The inventory search was done by - _ Miscellaneous itemsidentified as personal Officer Nelson of this department. _— -- — -- --- belongings of Karen Welp were found in the vehicle, but two items not belonging ------------ to Karen Welp, according to her, were a large light blue athletic bag contain- - --------_-- _—_,----------_---- ing two large plastic bags of suspected marijuana, an address book_, an empty brown paper bag and a set of nunchuks. Nunchuks are a Martial Arts weapon. Also in the passenger compartment of the Riviera we discovered_ a _pager_. Karen Welp identified the pager as one she had seen the defendant Ahola with numerous - times. According-to_Welp, Ahola used the pager for some type of business purposes. Karen Welp also identified the blue athletic bag as belonging to the j defendant, Ahola. These items were placed in the property foom at the Shakopee - ------------------------------ Police Department as evidence of possession of Marijuana_ with intent to _ ! distrubute under M.S.S. 152.09. At the time of Ahola's arrest as stated ~— —_ - --— - ----- -—..---- .. - - - ------- ----- ---._. ----------. earlier in the arrest report, Ahola's billfold contained numerous addresses, names, articles of identification and approximately $200 to $300 in cash. j _Although-Ahola told me that he was unemployed and he had been for about a month. ! 25 INVESTIGATING OFFICER(S) 26 REPORT MADE BY Officer Flynn #15 DATES-19-85 P 27 CASE FILED 28 THIS CASE IS Active ❑ 29 APPROVED BY Yes ❑ No ❑ I Cleored by arrest ❑ Unfounded ❑ Inactive ❑ Other ❑ FORM LE6 3R - - PRICE GROUP A 85-2450 (Supplementary RepoLL.) pg. -2- Report By: Officer John Flynn #15, Sbhkopee P.D. Defendant: Leslie Leo Ahola Also in his possession at that time was another address book. These items remain with Ahola's personal belongings at the Scott County Jail. According to Karen Welp, she met Ahola at her place of employment and the two became friends. She stated that on Saturday, 5-18-85, it was arranged with Ahola that he would replace the disk brake pads on her Buick Riviera. She drove to his residence at 1930 Burns Avenue, St. Paul, picked up Ahola then drove herself to work and turned the car over to him for the purpose of repair- ing it. She also stated that another car who she believes belongs to Ahola has been parked in the driveway of her residence in Farmington for quite some time. She identified the car as a Pontiac, possibly a 1971. That vehicle does remain in her driveway at this time. According to Welp Ahola told her at one time that he used the pager in his business and he did not want her to know very much about heA' business encase at some time in the future he would run into problems with the police. Welp was advised to make arrangements to remove the Riviera from the police station garage on Monday, 5-20-85. i I I I I i pm i t r t f AW T i TXT + WELS GARY WE,, 5. }_.�t�! J e E'—e .` '• ' Y `^.). . _ . f (f•�i�'�B t.l+_•w �•.tl�'l'_J!`2.T_�. '` DOB/011357._ t N CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 E. First Ave., Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612)445-3650 AUGUST 2 , 1985 I , Charl es Mensi ng , acknowl edge t hat t he el m t ree t runk 1 of t st andi ng i n t he boul evard west of 126 W. 1st Ave . by the City of Shakopee Public Works Department , may possibly be removed at a later dat e by t he Ci t y of Shakopee at t he Ci t ys ' expense . The property owner wi 1 1 be not i f i ed and consul t ed i f and when t he t ree t runk has to be removed . or the CITY OF SHAKOPEE CHARLES MENSING � S ------------------------- DATE The Heart of Progress Valley An Equal Opportunity Employer Natlonal 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Officers �O�e�1111 League Washington,D.C.UU UU UU ea9 9 Presgdenr Of 200pq George v vomovicn Mavnr.Ci­ land,Ohio CRles (202)626-3000 Cable:NLCITIES Carol Presuh^; arollrst Beliam,: Council Pie,denl.New York.New York Second Vice P,es,dent Henry G Cisneros Mayor.San Antonio.Texas Immediate Past President George Latimer Mayer.St Paul.Minnesota Executive Director Alan Beals Dear Municipal Official: What has the National League of Cities done for cities lately? A lot. 1984 was a banner year. When the 98th Congress concluded late last fall, NLC had successfully kept revenue sharing and other urban programs in place through mounting deficit reduction pressures and NLC had successfully completed work on two complex and time-consuming issues -- antitrust liability and cable television regulation. But that's all behind us now. We have to turn to 1985, clearly a watershed year for municipal governments at the national level. Every program of financial assistance to cities -- from revenue sharing to urban development action grants, from transit assistance to wastewater treatment grants -- is threatened with immediate or near-term elimination. And every federal tax reform proposal has major impact on cities. Deductibility of state and local taxes and tax-exempt financing are only two in the long list of special tax reform issues that will radically alter how state and local governments are financed. I'm proud that the nation's cities can look back on 1984 as a good year. But more important now is how we tackle the unprecedented challenges of 1985. That's what the National League of Cities is all about -- the nation's cities, towns and villages working together to shape national policies in the best interests of municipal reside Sincerely, S. C_0 a444 �`� /�✓� '� Alan Beals 0414-01""R Executive Director Past Presidents:Tom Bradley,Mayor,Los Angeles,California•Ferd L.Harrison,Mayor,Scotland Neck.North Carolina•William H.Hudnut,111,Mayor,Indianapolis.Indiana•Henry W.Meier, Mayor,Milwaukee,Wisconsin•Jessie M.Rattley,Councilwoman,Newport News.Virginia•John P.Rousakis,Mayor,Savannah,Georgia•Charles Royer,Mayor,Seattle.Washington•Directors: Art Ashley,Mayor,Nitro,West Virginia•Rose Besserman,Council Member,Vancouver,Washington•Robert R.Cantine,Executive Director,Wyoming Association of Municipalities•Henry Cook, Council Member,Jacksonville,Florida•Joe W.Davis,Mayor,Huntsville.Alabama•James E.Ferguson,Mayor,Provo,Utah•Donald Fraser,Mayor,Minneapolis,Minnesota•Terry Goddard,Mayor, Phoenix,Arizona•Ron Gonzales,Council Member,Sunnyvale,California•George D.Goodman,Executive Director,Michigan Municipal League•Daniel E.Griset,Mayor,Santa Ana.California Richard Guthman,Jr.,Council Member,Atlanta,Georgia•Robert W.Harpster,Executive Director,League of Iowa Municipalities•Delores Hudson,Council Member,Warrensburg,Missouri Brendan J.Kennedy,Alderman,New Britain,Connecticut•Dud Lastrapes,Mayor..Lafayette,Louisiana•Paul A.Lenz,Mayor,Alton,Illinois•Gerald McCann,Mayor,Jersey City,New Jersey•Brian J.O'Neill,Council Member,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania•Pamela P.Plumb,Councilor,Portland,Maine•Ruth H.Scott,Council Member,Rochester,New York•James W.Segel,Executive Director, Massachusetts Municipal Association•Lottie Shackelford,City Director,Little Rock,Arkansas•Raymond C.Sittig,Executive Director,Florida League of Cities•Donald A.Slater,Executive Director,League of Minnesota Cities•Consuelo S.Thompson,Mayor,Espanola,New Mexico•Minette C.Trosch,Mayor Pro Tem.Charlotte,North Carolina-Donald.Tucker,Council Member, Newark,New Jersey•Thomas X.White,Council Member.Greenbelt,Maryland•Louis Zapata,Council Member,Fort Worth,Texas Page 2 WHAT HAS THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES DONE RECENTLY ABOUT . . . FEDERAL LEGISLATION? A full legislative year for cities in 1984 saw NLC successful in its efforts to clarify local authority to regulate cable television, exempt cities from monetary damages under federal anti-trust laws and preserve authority and funding for general revenue sharing, urban development action grants, community development block grants and other key programs. ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT? NLC continues to advocate and to defend municipal interests in critical cases pending in the Supreme Court. Currently NLC (with other concerned public interests groups) is actively involved in a number of controversies which deal with issues affecting cities , among which are taxation of interest on state and local bonds (S.C. v. Regan) and application of federal age discrimination standards to state and local public safety employees. (EEOC and Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore) . SMALL CITIES? The League's Small Cities Advisory Council continues to help NLC's leadership make sure that the country's smaller municipalities -- its most numerous ones -- don't get overlooked. NLC is working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development on record-keeping, performance reporting and auditing requirements for the state-administered Small Cities Community Development Block Grant program. INFORMATION RESOURCES? A new Local Information Network for Universal Service (LINUS) , sponsored by National League of Cities and International City Management Association, provides an electronic communications network linking cities to each other and NLC. Also, NLC, through its cooperative venture with Control Data Corporation, uses LOGIN, the Local Government Information Network, to help cities share information. LOGIN provides a data base of innovative local government programs, solutions to common problems and other information, including NLC' s Urban Affairs Abstracts. 7 Page 3 WHAT WILL NLC BE DOING FOR CITIES IN 1985? Priorities for America' s Cities, adopted by NLC' s 41-member Board of Directors, spells out the commitment of elected leaders of the nation' s municipal governments to immediate reduction, and eventual elimination, of the Federal budget deficit. But it also calls for the Federal government to maintain its partnership with states and local governments in the nation' s domestic affairs. The following highlights from the priorities statement outline NLC' s 1985 legislative agenda: "The National League of Cities proposes a deficit reduction package which includes the following items: o an immediate across-the-board freeze in all non-needs-tested federal program spending, with the exception of the COLA (cost of living adjustment) to social security recipients, and an immediate freeze on the total of tax expenditures; o an increase in revenues to pay for increases in program spending to assure a pay-as-you-go approach to the budget; and o that any consideration of further cuts--below a freeze level--in any policy area not be limited to direct spending but also include tax expenditures and credit activities. Adopting such an approach would allow us to reduce the Federal deficit by over $70 Billion in FY '86. While we strongly support a freeze at FY 1985 funding levels on all urban programs, the nation's municipal leaders identify the following as our top priority urban programs: o General Revenue Sharing o Community Development Block Grants o Urban Development Action Grants o Housing Assistance o Public Transportation o Wastewater Treatment Grants o Job Training Partnership Act America' s cities and towns have already sacrificed one-half of their federal aid in the cause of deficit reduction. Many programs no longer exist. We propose instead a fair and balanced program which outlines reasonable policy alternatives at the same time affirming our two-fold commitment to eliminating the deficit and purusing sound, equitable and responsible national domestic policy." Page 4 WHAT HAS THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES DONE RECENTLY ABOUT . . . CONFERENCES, WORKSHOPS? Each year, NLC holds two major conferences -- the nation' s largest gatherings of municipal officials. The Congressional-City Conference in March, in Washington, D. C. , provides detailed briefings on federal legislation affecting cities and gives local officials an opportunity to call on their Congressional representatives in person. The late-Fall Congress of Cities is packed with workshops and seminars on subjects ranging from antitrust liability to wastewater treatment. NLC officers are elected and the National Municipal Policy is adopted each year at this meeting. The 1985 Congress of Cities is in Seattle. AFFILIATE ORGANIZATIONS? Affiliate groups, including the Conference of Local Energy Officials (CLEO) and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) , hold major meetings each year to exchange information and ideas and provide important technical advice and assistance to NLC' s policy committees. SPECIAL MEMBERSHIP CAUCUSES? As they do every year, NLC' s special membership caucuses -- Women in Municipal Government, the National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, and Hispanic Elected Local Officials -- work to make sure that local government represents all segments of our society. nTfli AMetropolitan Area Management Affodation of the Twin City Area August 6, 1985 TO: CITY MANAGERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS NIA OFF- OF ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATINGTY 0�. SHAKO IN JOINT COMPENSATION STUDY i FROM: William S. Joynes, Chairman MAMA General. Labor Relations Committee SUBJECT: JOINT COMPENSATION STUDY STATUS REPORT July Progress and Completion Questionnaires were completed by employees, returned to Business Advisors, and questionnaire computer processing began. All jurisdictions participated in completing questionnaires. Task valuing began. All jurisdictions were requested to participate in valuing meetings from July 22 to August 2. August Plans Business Advisors will complete data entry of completed questionnaires and produce computer-generated position descriptions (tasks performed and percent of- time spent) for all employees completing questionnaires. These will be returned to the jurisdiction with Business Advisors instructions for review and revision by employees and their supervisors. Task valuing within occupational group will be completed . Business Advisors will notify jurisdictions of selection areas which will require more valuers. Business Advisors will arrange data entry and produce initial values for Occupational Advisory Group review. The process of linking job evaluation results across questionnaires will begin. 1012K-F SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY MEMBERS July 24 , 1985 BLOOMINGTON BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK BURNSVILLE CHAMPLIN CIRCLE PINES COLUMBIA HEIGHTS John Anderson DEEPHAVEN EDEN PRAIRIE City Administrator EDINA City of Shakopee EXCELSIOR FRIDLEY 219 East First Avenue GREENWOOD Shakopee, MN 55379 HASTINGS HOPKINS LAKE ST.CROIX BEACH Dear John: LAUDERDALE LORETTO MAPLE PLAIN I am pleased to advise you that the SRA Board elected you to MAPLE WOOD MINNETONKA the SRA Executive Committee by unanimous vote at the July 17 MINNETRISTA quarterly meeting. NEW BRIGHTON NORTH ST.PAUL ORONO The other Executive Committee members are Fred Moore of OSSEO PLYMOUTH Plymouth, John Greavu of Maplewood (who is also the new vice RICHFIELD chairman) , Gary Brown of Hastings, Jerry Dalen of Edina, ROBBINSDALE ROSEVILLE Dave Magraw of Shoreview and I. We do not have a regular ST.ANTHONY meeting schedule. Most of our meetings have just preceded ST.LOUIS PARK SHAKOPEE the quarterly board meetings. Other meetings have been by SHOREVIEW SHOREWOOD special call. SPRING PARK VADNAISHElGHTS g vlcroRlA Again, welcome to the Executive Committee. We look forward WAYZATA to having your advice and enthusiasm. - WOODLAND Very/uly yours, /S % G Graydon R. Boeck Chairman GRB:GEP/sbp 2000 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 (612) 333-0543 CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT July, 1985 PERMITS ISSUED Yr. to Date Total Previous Year 6739 - 6773 Number Number Valuation Number Valuation Mo. Ytd. Single Fam-Sewered 2 21 1 ,498 ,260 3 22 1 ,358 ,000 Single Fam-Septic 4 7 596 ,611 1 6 665 ,000 Multiple Dwellings - 7 917 ,600 - 8 6945500 (No.Units ) (YTD Units ) - (18) - (- ) ( 18 ) Dwelling Additions 7 30 1155588 7 43 304,107 Other 2 7 119 ,222 3 3 459 ,912 Comm. New Bldgs . - 5 25090, 341 - 5 1 ,198 ,875 Comm. Bldg. Addns . 1 11 9 ,806 ,010 - - - Industrial-Sewered - - - - Ind.-Sewered Addns . - 1 5 ,475 - - - Industrial-Septic - - - - Ind.-Septic Addns . - - - - Accessory/Garages 3 22 150 , 308 4 31 248 ,848 Signs & Fences 7 38 27 ,688 5 26 26 ,160 Fireplaces/Wood Stove - 5 11 ,380 - 5 17 , 900 Grading Foundation - 5 51 ,000 - 5 1 ,7755500 Remodeling(Res . ) 4 14 47 , 795 1 22 90 ,192 Remodeling( Inst. ) - 1 1 ,093 ,000 - - - Remodeling(�n2m)or 2 21 156555678 2 27 383 ,509 TOTAL TAXABLE 32 205 17 ,092 ,956 26 213 75222 , 503 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - 1 1 ,093 ,000 - - GRAND TOTAL 32 206 18 ,185 ,956 26 213 7 ,222 ,503 Mo. Ytd. Mo. Ytd. Variances - 10 - 5 Conditional Use 3 21 - 4 Re-Zoning - 4 - 1 Moving - 2 - 1 Electric Permits 28 160 19 151 Plbg. & Hts . Permits 26 145 23 141 Razing Permits Residential - - - 1 Commercial - - - - Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ,784 Cora Hullander Bldg. Dept. Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN JULY, 1985 6739 Patio Enclosures 1944 Davis Court Addn. $ 6 ,900 6740 Johnson-Reiland Const. 2360 Horizon Cir. House 94,600 6741 Cancelled 6742 Jim Sandin Const. 936 E. 3rd Ave. Alt . 500 6743 Amcon Const. 730 Ind. Circle Alt. 80,000 6744 Shakopee ' 84 572-578 Marschall Rd. Addn. 160,000 6745 Egan & Sons 1010 W. 6th Addn. 6 ,000 6746 Custom Pools 1194 Van Buren Pool 10,000 6747 Dennis Johnson 1723 Co. Rd. 89 Addn. 7 ,000 6748 Michael Borka 234 W. 7th Alt . 2 ,000 6749 Larry Freeman 1455 Sharon Pkwy. Addn. 6 ,000 6750 Harold Fox 915 Ramsey Addn. 1 ,000 6751 Peter Stemmer 2704 Co. Rd. 42 Stg. Bldg. 6 ,390 6752 St. Mark' s Temp Sign 6753 Harlan Scott 1237 Polk Addn. 1 ,620 6754 Landico 2910 Marcia Lane House 140 ,000 a/ 6755 Thayer & Assoc. 533 E. 7th Addn. 10 ,900 6756 Ge-urge Malek 2205 Park Ridge Dr. Fence 450 6757 Mid-Am. Festivals Temp Sign 6758 David Eager 1037 E. 1st Fence _500 6759 S. Wermerskirchen 1756 Montecito Dr. Alt. 200 6760 J. Wermerskirchen 621 Thomas Ave. Fence 250 6761 E.L. Prahm 8576 Hwy 101 Alt . 63 ,400 6762 Joseph Link 1006 Dakota House 61 ,000 6763 Krautkremer Const . 'dZ4! Merr4ii 6� � House 75 ,000 X764 Void 6765 John Ploof 319 Shakopee Ave. Garage 5 ,000 6766 Daniel Koenig 618 E. 4th Garage 7 ,500 6767 Joe Honermann 637 Jackson Addn. 630 6768 Ronald Scherer 1037 Bluff Fence 300 6769 Thomas Bourka 2099 Footfill r. House 54,000 6770 Dennis Lang � 1472 B e Hero ,Tr. House 68, 168, 6771 Cynthia Perry 409 E. 1st Sign 13000 6772 Void 3773 Roger Bauer 3693 Marschall Rd. Alt . 100 $870,408 U 10EL 0 .... w P M O O ill: O.D S lfl N M O 3 S .a-� J A. 7 JA O' NMT �..ion S .O !(1 O 7 A C.10 O •0?�' N1N I a U N .O J M n.L:n n A ZI N P .p .+ 0 7 .Q A kn N N N 1 t l 1 ¢ :> .O. i N ,.• ..• � O-�C O J lAi O r 1 Z > > I O .n a O JI000N O .'�NP i!'I anAOso o I A OM S Otrl O'n»O J OO7-J 000 NruO Ln n o,O A O fn 4)O.O S o M Ln ..• ,O N ,p.r O P • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • i •.0 a 00 .O 0000 S O N.p t/l z 'OM j 0 a -7 MMS .+-r NIA P N APNO S x/1000 P 00001A.+ .OA Mafl SM-r SO M�0 I i P w N O S.+•N .� P P-•0.fl YI 0 0 0 O A^ J N 00 NnM .+ �'n ' ,O S A to?A W a ? I N s N....... to AM AO. -r n k( I 7 "' C f I r A f ¢ `' a O a .:• ... O J O b 7At o to LO..O to .� 0 O o. U_ O k P J P .� O v^ Y!1 C�'O O-C O J1y.P1(1,q7A G AlOO N OMa.cO JK O O^..r' -D O030000 .t C�1O 3 .>r I s s . « r • • . s •: • • • • • in Oo OOO P I O.00 O OO.'� iLt NIO • ,• ♦ • . .. ♦ s • . i • • • • . • • •. • • e • e u P r un n n o A 7 Ji+M -n ub o..J M n., O S O a" 'n a c� 0 0 o � Z;.7 N I'D co JO-MI w.tp 7 a0'll M..9 in.r N S' N P A S Jt A 3 0 0 0 0 to P .0 K `^A M'M fr: S n ]P a I.:Sl I = -0 f •o ►~ ► • «.-0-0 .Y M M ` i ti If l 10 4 AM N w i { �W � aa o o- o 000000aoaao6 �odoo J ooapoo0o0J o �odoo�000J ? oo- o 0 0 ooaa0000000000000 o aa0000000� ol000J000a�o > ! Oa:- O E.. O ^J000 0000 000 JJ00 O q'1. O pI(1 ,�OJO M ; a.000OgO:as 0 0 3 0'11 0 0 0 0 0 0 {[1I- O O P _r O 0 m. O an`N MQ`O ap M.K P P 0 0 3 I O a Q O (V.0 0 C.0 0 0 .O O M 7S.... M ` O i(11 A M J}3 .i•?w ` K to N om.• .s!(f T I P.0 o o No N N.M h III( A M E I M S S I .0 O W i N 7 A U a W '> u 2 f a < H w z ¢ i < [ Na N .w. .r O QO Oq OIA ttt0 a00 000 0 P O NPC.C. 0 0 MI'. .+ 00 O O o CSO l;0 OO.00 CO N M in p Ln O O O O ,O O M U1 O O O O 0 N`O O 'r O O O J O O O Ta O > U .0 .0 to kn N.O OO •O7O0�.O M1(1 O 1 A O.0 c0 to MK N f O I Mn Oto.o!fl 2 <. A A V. 10 I ap•+�'r 0 A A ,O O A MA�+ •+ S O P A j P AMI .O I 0 t�M N N M W w in in ,O in'0•+ 00 P N.N A .p O-P O .• S.:• S Ill 0.N M A N10 ft Nw nPt MnrQ a I* .moo uw m, uj cn 2 W 2 f � I,W i I •. i < I I tu to v7 I- I J N W to 2 Vl s A u A -W ¢ W to 'jLU w 7 i.9 J7 n:A H ai~-•W 1- -r /- • •r _ W M I =rn u W M z z►- x W W:i7 Z a w I-►» `L a... J ! .. p .•- z J j W MA i ,n s/7 W +-•W(i Y C9-t • Y O Q L 'M `•- W O W W W¢ W< "'• u¢ H U), w OS w Z W H w f.• `-+O W SO X 2 >.a re gal W w E> tt Y J F- < z. LLI L S 2 w t'o•+J z Y 4 :A W d —CL rn J d 7f Q w< L.7'A Q W N W uc M m f I < ¢0- / Q. ►+ N Q mSJ w f-t- 2 W n !- I.-g Z W 01- f 1-W C9 u S .Y•-• h y 2zu Z< W M1 CL -i C _jW .03 1 +a SH < • -us < L OC<O ?W x1- 00 W :/7 W2 3.- �.. < I QQM Wc.9W J <Tt_ a.�.Z ¢>0{-r�-LL.00 W W ►+1' -tea u20NW ?u >Q I T4'JuFr'[O t5 V u1' u00W 0 MA OCOf tl73 is W Lx �" > 41-W tY<W W LAA U. � . v.. in W Y- J I LL.LL- "+ x1.+ ¢ ==wji aAH Aug W 0t9W L LO ¢ 0 W:A>WS =2LL.Cz O 69 LLJ J J. 1 F- < at _i W t-.r.•Z O_ S 1- t-• n ►-uJ W>_t9 c7 W W c.9 U 02 0 t :.2 0 Q I J tr YWO 00¢ 0.D< ,�"_ •.J • z WJfq uW WJJF-W 1 ;y Z= Z 03 J7 z au W < u uJ3 xIz Q JJ$ x JW UW U u W ►-<W MY-1-MM MIX w J.» •» •Z W W►--. z 'W <SJ w U30 UJ$ wmto t90 U <U F J C <>0O C9 r JS Cyu U' <m J< J O 2 I to�'+ � C ;•1 y z<.s W.+o-aJ O J W W W Jr--+O•+ r+ M-OOJ►-t-N0 00 z <O Z L L J93 C U 0 u u. i- 1 to I t-u Jaericaa mm x c0 .a102a .1 as-iL ILm J7ux u a fr 3. Ww0l < 0a,LL. � Ln 'J L) •+N # N # P O+NMSM NMytn 10Ac0 0 O.• : # Or+NMNM.0A O-• # ZA'OP 0 . NMS D a zu -•N # tN # 1 0-+.+�+ .+.+M MM MM MMus 0 0 # N NNN rnwlMM SS # OO O' .•.•.! i P = < OO # O # �+^•-+-'�'• =-•n-•.+.•.a n.+.tw # MMMM M MMMMM # non no too 17V;;; .r W M M # M # ; M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M # M M M I"M M M M M M # M M M M M M M M M M N 1 • ni • � • • a an K ^� a K t� N O 7 .p • • N K E .0.1 .Ji d - � ¢ J J,X)r J.n O.DJ J RNs NOJ M t { 1 ._ O:O J a O O�O O 11l J1 M: •O O 9 Vl '11 Jl -- '�D :T T - > > "' oa •M� o Poona -� l...00 ,n o to M M OM` coz - ro � 0 a a. i- > 9 W r I .1 O.�nj..• O N a T a.. `.. • _ I,. i I N.. l K a .. n L Ka N _ a N r• 1 ( N � i I D J i a o J n o 0 0 lt.:M s •�C •-. T 0O "U-,a •^JO' v p.. p ' �.. I- I -I N IM . • o I o • N 'o 0 tD .p .O n{P M N N .6TK 0tft� n �` .) ...a, S .ar SLe ul ¢ ~ I .-•..•...•37 �... N N N T N.e O O O W W - { i OOu>O JO 000 JO OO.0000 3al O g 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O J O O J -� 0 0 0 0 0 J O O O.'7 Y N a p 0 O I J O 0 0 0 n O I a O O O J I.O I N ola- n incotn o i .n "• ` n I OIV n ILI 7 In? S i a K r � � a I f I I s LU f I I ! { I I I w 2 ) I I k ¢ OOOOO S'O inOn ON aN00n K t ! i W O ! ONOOM.=p00:OMK 7JO S N 00 p y ap p0 O O U ! S S a K .r ! p K O S ,O I M • • Z < I ti - n O M • j W S I M,�tT N a - I .p W K O I i to N j x Y M ( y 0jo cov w z � I W I I � II w W I w ' f H L'Au aD to N W �- : I I J W WIc U J O F. :1.yui~y= O V I w rn I W OZ 4zt2� J•YZQ 4 � £ y W 1 WO O w�-•�- t J Z O SUW J'n V,n N77U G W w H 3 ! ¢ ¢Z tL 4 Y Z tq Q y N S _ •„� to U w Y t W Q. z of H Q O O W>:YHY1z2•-•nNOU nJJtn L"7 O H :n W1' :SOF-3 W<JJ W J•r rti2 O•r O w jj UW W L U O 13 r •'Y tY.r Q W J J V? L� Lu m LuI--O U' O O N 2 2 Z F- 0 tL I I O U' W 2�' UUtib►r9y�j�c;uj W U0 2y.r1 W W W :L h OJ J W O w I J IL U j~ 1--] bW OL' a!>vUj ?:t Y wF-h-J U 2U Z I I wL OW t-rn-•+Orr J•+¢WO 3 -+w = 7 !-2<;n n <7 < I U tl{L 3! 0 ¢of £.Y O O 2'W•+r-r 1-• Y tL S i OU KO..•NM ru( 7 .p•..rN MONO ,,.FNM O t O •t •pi a G U �N u-U'U NMM,MM S 1S S Il t d 1t NMO a ntn�nntnwnu►InnlninnUfn o w o „ a �.• tL MMMM MMMMM tm on'n MMMM 1[ 00G'i * a•a ti I M t MMMM x MM I ' i '1J. J Ilt 42 O cTi • • 0= S O O :cp : .-�N O -r.M!f1 7 U1.r in N O : tvl M A .a U1 to M S N .a —to 7 9 N n.-e ,a [U D • •. rA.a Ulf JJ In ill?!/1111M 7 7 N0J J4 'n.aM P \ 7 x' :a a J7 P N N M M to til .. .+S O U J J •JI W � 1 � � t 1 1 t t d U 11r0Q`PON� ,a OSPPA OO Owt1l J Moro 7,o v O.D M 'nal O � 7 � Fti N O O ra S M.a P A P .� I O A 7 • • • • • s • s to i • a OP V1 O NA.a MMO MAw7 0.yl:A SO.a 7 KM J O O P ! P co Q J N M N tp 7 0 N S N N AL .�M(V N JJ ,a P O to P M P 7 O O v11 1[T w .r ^•-NO O .aP A Qr PO 7tA SO N.l'M�NapON Oif1NM.a t>A�.. O to d O O ca ap I. ,.Ln �. ? . .: I . . . ...► zT co W ( .lY M 7 N I in.-� J S'O K 111 P w .. ill ( .r K N: K J ++?M w M N•1LL P N frl b .1r I A til...N fY!M ` '- A O J t 1I � 'i toA OP-0 J M'v NP A N NS to _ O? O O P v K= +K U1 O O O M 7 M :Q-O fA=.� in N q A :!'1 coO M J r!- ♦ • '+ ► • • •..s • ♦ • • • �ti in N � ! O O M % iR1 :11 to J N.!1 ^Il Jl :;ft ND M.r .~.• • • • • • • • j :n H ¢ IP 7.«T A.+Cf1 J .a a Jl M n N f+R 'n 111 UI J J t h t S �.P S b K A,a 1`Z M .11 I N N N N M O N.a .+ J O A J 7 J ,a p. 1(1 n tA1 J d I O AM In: ( =0` �a QI O D.�..r I MK M ..eKM NwtA I�a1 : 1 f ? w N 11 J P MR..�,.•N N ...J K N»K y A Jt O .+ I t1;1 q i jl N N i O f I II ti OO 000.-7t Q ) O il0000 0700000000.00000000 J OO O O O O 1 O H O OO O O O p O O O O O O O O J O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 -2, 0 O O O O O co, O I O 0 CP O 0 0 I to O 1 0 ;tlt 0 0 0 N O O O O O O i17 IA O O to O i(t O O O O O O U1 t>A O 1 0 !{t N 1 -a A O Ill t!'1 3 S I K �•O O O N O J A O .p P N.a J O N co 7 0 0 0 7 O ! O. M M I �. NP.Ow ` '..MO J POP aA 1AO :il1M NP ..•OP J NN J iA IITM O O to ;� ► • ► . i . +y : I A = n ! to !� N a. O N O P to I w P .@.N.S 1111.p .ti w N I M.J-•Ui M P O .O Q M.N.w cp w I .n A co, ,. w ' M M a N I O.aN I CD, (3. to I NMN N.. ul UIIA CL f f W z I f Z z t,<• a:LLII f Z I ' { t i A P M tp P <, 'Co O w O -•C3 M P O O I(1 0 0 .a ' 7 t to S.aSJ JA O N IftM KMN OOO.aO to +AA .aON mOOKJO UT r • • •. • • t • s « • • • •-• • • • • • • « Z U ! PcOPO w 17 S OS OqM N M NM T'.-•l!'tN PIA.rO K ,p r .a • • • (� N I Z Q I O O.+N .P-r P S M O to O N.• M I O.O.U.•P ?..•.p A a6 to .a ,p K ! ^ I W O.pMN i PN.atto PON M i M p l p f Q Q ! a W I rn s ru A s t/s P o M yr m ul „ o X y O• S-• I w�.Ki w w w i N. 7 1 S t :111 N ` W U Z r < I - x CL Cl- us I < I i I W '-• I IY 2 w I N •O u La .' W 2 i J� f U'L flf W N W n s <t+ 43nIn �n lam > i woi I i•�+ 4A y `n Y Y I 1 _ z W � z rrw jw.a V <J .z.�-• X. .-.. u►- z w zZ ti 2 LL.O 'r s i r-• -C W W to J 4) 1 < - 7r LL/til .. n 1 -• JJ < d WWO. I > � Y .BL �e £ Ute" h> etl Y L) � S2 O Z I i I -i OL UYW f j Y W •�• J' W JO y a U ] CL-W z d I I W F-4) E.-: -3-C S O to ►•> W S j 1L 1 W J6 JU j to < JB2 W►+OLw4t 4t �O nV)W WJ OO y #.- L" N Y > - n L"X r 1 1 1 t £W zw W II0NW .i. Z U 4/W 4/ :A:A�C.in O J L W '.11 4) U O•r W a. W 1.- :// U L V ! J O t!< h < �r.�O Z,O(aU W L :0 < H I S 2 � : L W W 9 :D W er►a wM O O L W L „y„•W W:..F )-7 O W.r-•W O 2 •+ W 2 1-- J W J•r V C9 I U •r J W W 4 0 0 m£ O J< O d O U•a 4) F-.D 2 J ra< b<2 J ►a < < 2 to f F a z J W J O<tl W H at r+J3 W W W J t•-Y r < N N ! r ►+ r-• >• \ ca-i Y » t11LOJra JJ<LL. <Y1--ul>Z7 '" nUIYU O. '-•W rr E 2 W w r r wh- JWJ�ZZ<tY .1' SZ!-raj •r<>Ot90cn J<•rN wz "W�� of a. aS tL .2 < x WW WW J W »0 a-:9 w ?`t W YO W w m ZAlO --aw U 7 0) 00)a20:2 a tltW X O'n w4. J Q_:L L M S U n s U£ tin O Oru NO w # 7f/f NON 7 NwO.aP Ow0000 OO wiAw T # wP # O # N # # D Z U O wM17 7 SJ)l(1 # ..aw NMM M J P •+w w.11NM Jl .DA AP PM P # O # J < '+"•w""'�'^•.'+ + # n N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M S7 # N V1 # A # P # Q # J S ? I # 7 J J ?7 J J 7 J S 7 7 7 7 7 7 S 7 S 7 7 J 7 # J J # 7 # ? it 7 # 1 I 1 r a A >� I 1 a 1 i r ; i I CL i caW U I l +I z ¢ ' < I in ' W to z I oI CL a o i x i t I a ( I I t J r O i i i I ¢ ¢y = z.» IL O :D W 3 1 f I I I i I 1 r U n I I f ! I I ( { I , in �U tL I -- 13 SHAKOPEE COALITION August 1, 1985 Present: Jim Streefland Shakopee Lions Joan Salter Food Shelf Don Hamilton V.F.W. John Anderson City Of Shakopee Deloris Gorman Shakopee Community Services Kathy Lewis Shakopee Community Services George Muenchow Shakopee Community Services The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 AM by Chairman Jim Streefland in the Citizens State Bank Community Room. John Sheehan, organizer of the "Duck Open Golf Tourney", was to be the major presenter for the morning, but it was announced that the Tourney had been canceled and apparently John would not be with us. Too bad since the Scott County Food Shelf would have been the benefactor from this fund raising event. Joan Salter reported on the Food Shelf. They are fearful of an influx of new receipients if and when the State Of Minnesota tightens its requirements for eligibility for General Assistance. In July they served 167 families in the two counties. This is up from 153 served in June. (43 are from Shakopee). 12,243 Meals were served in July which figures out to approximately 24,486 lbs of food. More donations of food are desperately needed at this time. The Scott-Carver Economic Council still is working on securing a permanent home for their agency. John Anderson briefly reported: 1. A media boat ride had been held from St. Paul to Shakopee Murphy's Landing to public- ize the potential that that kind of business could have on the river. Another trip has been scheduled. 2. The signing of a contract is expected within 90 days with the Minn. Highway Dept. for the implementation of the construction of a new river bridge in downtown Shakopee perhaps in 1989-1990. 3. The major by-pass around Shakopee is anticipated for around 1991-1992. 4. City Hall re-location site preference has been determined to be on the east side of Gorman Street. 5. The Housing Alliance is moving ahead in its plans to develop a multi family housing structure on the former St. Paul House site. 6. Experimentation on re-cycling methods of collection continue. It is important that a voluntary procedure be developed or else mandatory procedures will be enacted. Don Hamilton reported that the V.F.W. had donated a $19,000.00 van for the handicapped to the County Veteran's Service Office. They are moving ahead in their plans to build a new Club House for around $750,000.00. In 1984 they provided approximately $40,000.00 in donations for community projects. George Muenchow reported on a statewide project being spearheaded by Channel 2 TV entitled "Survive". Several other state organizations are cooperating. A series of ten weekly programs will be aired this fall dealing with the subject of the impact of economic change on Minnesotans. An area Kickoff Session will be held Thursday, August 22, from 9:00 - 12:00 AM at the College of St Catherine. The intent is to have all communities in the area represented. Anyone interested from Shakopee may secure further information from Jim Streefland. The Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 AM. The next meeting will be Thursday, September 5, at 7:00 AM. Respectfully Submitted George F. Muenchow,Acting Secty. SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY SERVICES Board Meeting Minutes - July 15, 1985 The Shakopee Community Services Board Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Christensen in the Community Services Board Meeting Room. Present : Dean Colligan, Fred Jurewicz, Paulette Rislund & Nancy Christensen. Absent Eldon Reinke and Bob Ziegler Staff G.F. Muenchow, Director; Mark McQuillan, Program Supervisor; and Kathy Lewis, Clerk/Secretary. Motion by Jurewicz/Rislund to approve the Minutes of the June 11, 1985 Meeting. Motion carried. Due to a lack of quorum, the adjourned meeting of June 26 was not held. Motion by Rislund/Colligan to approve the June Financial Report. Motion carried. Motion by Colligan/Rislund to approve the Outstanding Bills of $2,797.56. Motion carried. Valley Sports Tee-League Incrediballs, Dog Show Ribbons, Soccer 152.22 Balls, 12" Rubber Balls, Soft baseballs. Suel Business Office Supplies 78.33 Berens Market Candy, Kool-Aid, Forks, Ice for Playground Days 31.08 Dueber's Frisbees & Balloons 11. 17 Sport Stop 2 Bows, 36 Arrows for Archery Class 64.60 Roberts Drugs Photofinishing, Stars 12.95 City of Shakopee Additional Workcomp per bill from League for 1984 audit 1,246.55 City of Shakopee Gas Usage-June, 85, 114.1 gal @ $1.015/gal 115.81 City of Shakopee Copier Usage - 258 copies @ 3Q/copy 7.74 Mark McQuillan Mileage for June, 1985-484 miles @ 280mile 135.52 Deloris Gorman Mileage reimbursement to Playground Leader Workshop in St. Paul 6/14--72 miles @ 28d/mile 20.16 Steffany Colgan Mileage reimbursement: Playground Leader Workshop - 72 miles Moorlan's for Carnival Supplies - 70 miles 142 @ 28Q/mile 39.76 Jerilyn Hall Instr Fee-Jazz Exercise - 2 students @ $10 Additional students in Spring Class 20.00 Link Printing 2,000 Certificates Printed 76.40 Mark Sikish Instr Fee-Tennis Camp 28 students @ $15/student = 420.00 1 case Tennis Balls = 45.00 465.00 465.00 Northwestern Bell Phone Service 6/25 - 7/24 119.86 Minnegasco Service 6/03/85 - 7/2/85 2.65 Valley Sports 30 T-shirts & Logos for Tennis Camp 192.00 Dunning' s Hardware 8 Keys made 5. 76 $2 ,797. 56 Staff Report was given by Director Muenchow, discussing June Activities and Current Activities. A compliment was issued to McQuillan regarding the quality of work that -t- he did with summer sports coordinators and summer staff. 1985 Summer Staff was complimented by Director Muenchow, stating that programs run by them were done with extreme quality. Waterslide was discussed. Teens have returned to the pool due to the construction of the waterslide. Season Ticket sales are approximately the same as in 1985. John Anderson entered. The Ice Arena is having a fundraiser to attempt staying afloat . There will be no more free ice skating. Planning is being done for Fall and Winter Adult Ed Classes. Coalition Report was heard. Quality vs quantity attendance was a major factor to change to monthly meetings. Through the Food Shelf, battered women are being found and referred for counseling and assistance. Don Mertz, Lions Club representative gave a report on a drug program that is being looked into by the Shakopee Lions Club. It is too late to initiate it into the 1985 curriculum, but it may be possible for the initiation into the curriculum in the 1986 school year. Early Childhood Family Education written report was submitted. Anderson stated that the reports be more effective if they were submitted in 3 year increments. This is a very expensive program to run yet the registration numbers are not there. Board advised that ECFE get the message to television. Chairperson Christensen requested to table the above subject until the next meeting when the School Board person is available. 1985-86 Programming was discussed. Most programs are self-supporting or generate revenue. There is a downward trend on Adult Education. Larger numbers trends were seen where Exercise, Computer and Financial Planning classes were-'on the upswing. Director Muenchow reported that the Shakopee School Board had indicated a willingness to consider the funding of hardware expenditures for a proposed computer system for Shakopee Community Services. The City Council, although interested in the development of such a system, is presently unable to provide such funds. The TIES software program was investigated, but is not as comprehensive as the LOGIS Program. Members of the Board expressed a concern that the LOGIS System would incorporate an operating cost of approximately $6,000.00/year if adopted. It was agreed that a beginning Computer System should be included in the Proposed 1986 Budget, but that before any funds would be released for purchasing any parts of this system that more information shall be provided in support of the system. The proposed 1986 Budget was discussed in length. Motion by Colligan, seconded by Rislund, that a 1986 Proposed Budget of $169,030.00 be adopted and that furthermore the Shakopee City Council be requested to allot $42,300.00 and School District #720 $58,800.00 in support of this Proposed 1986 Budget. Carried. An invitation was issued to Board Members and staff from the City Council to attend a "Voluntee Appreciation Nite" at Lions Park on August 14. Agenda is as follows: 5:00 - 6:30 Swimming & Water Slide Fun 6:30 - 9:00 Picnic The above invitation includes the entire family. Chairperson Christensen requested Board Members to please exercise the courtesy to let Community Services know if they will be unable to attend the regular scheduled Board Meetings. Motion by Jurewicz/Rislund to adjourn. Carried. Respectfully submitted, Fred Jur icz, S�y. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 18, 1985 Vice-Chairperson Spiotta called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. with Commissioners Allen, Dunwell, McNeil, Sorenson, and Weeks present. Barry Stock, Administrative Intern, was also present. Commissioners Schwingler and Ziegler were absent. Dunwell/Weeks moved to approve the minutes of April 18th, May 16th, and June 20, 1985, as kept. Motion carried unanimously. BRW TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY PRESENTATION Barry Stock recalled that on December 20, 1984, the Energy and Transportation Committee recommended to City Council the inclusion of Shakopee in a joint transit feasibility study between the cities of Chaska, Chanhassen, and Eden Prairie at a cost not to exceed $7,500. On January 8, 1985, the Shakopee City Council approved that recommendation. With that background, Mr. Stock introduced Mr. Jeff Benson from BRW. Mr. Benson began by explaining the methodology of the study, and he illustrated the following points which BRW is analyzing: -existing service deficiencies -transit market potential -transit needs community objectives -alternative transit service concepts -transit alternatives in terms of cost effectiveness and ridership potential -existing transit programs -implementation of a transit plan -marketing concepts Mr. Benson noted that he had called several major businesses in Shakopee to obtain statistics showing which areas of the- metropolitan area their employees are coming from. The only business which cooperated with Mr. Benson was Valley Fair, so he used their statistics as representative of Shakopee. t In terms of Shakopee's objectives for the program, Mr. Benson stated they are as follows: 1 . Out commute to Minneapolis 2. Midday interval (such as Dial-A-Ride) 3. Out commute to nearby suburbs 4. Midday special services Mr. Benson also showed traffic counts and projections from Minneapolis, Bloomington, Edina, Hopkins, and Minnetonka to Chaska, Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, and Shakopee along with inter-and intra-commute traffic counts and projections. Energy and Transportation Commission July 18, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Benson said the private sector could support the program in the following ways: 1. Make information available to employees 2. Participate by granting userside subsidy and with marketing. 3. Actively participate by granting userside subsidies, with strong marketing, and with private contributions to operating costs. Barry Stock noted that he would like to see the Dial-A-Ride contract expanded to carry commuters from Shakopee to the Eden Prairie Center with runs in the morning, at noon, and in the evening. From the Eden Prairie Center, commuters could transfer to busses travelling to Minneapolis, Chaska or other suburbs. Mr. Stock also informed the Commission that Shakopee is doing a license plate study at Anchor Glass, the Valley Mall, and other major businesses. He has sent information in to MnDOT to obtain the names of the car owners and their addresses. The people with Shakopee addresses will be sent Dial-A-Ride fliers in an attempt to raise the ridership or at least the awareness of the service. Commissioner Sorenson suggested as an alternative to the Dial-A-Ride program that taxis could be subsidized and they would also offer 24-hour service. Mr. Stock agreed that when the Dial-A-Ride contract expires, this should be one of the options considered. Mr. Stock .also told the Commissioners of several marketing plans for the Dial-A-Ride program. Mr. Benson noted that the City of Plymouth has also established its own transit program utilizing Medicine Lake Lines. They have an internal circulator which runs from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and every hour makes a loop through the city. They also have five mini-busses which pick up people in the morning and evening and transport them to a large bus which carries them to Minneapolis or other suburbs. They are also trying to establish a reverse route to carry people into Plymouth on the return trip. The Commissioners discussed why employers in Shakopee may not have responded to Mr. Benson's request for statistical information on where their employees live. Barry Stock will be in touch with Anchor Glass and the Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to get additional information because the Commissioners did not find Valley Fair to be representative of Shakopee. Mr. Benson will attend another commission meeting in the future to explain any additional findings or recommendations in connection with the transit feasibility study. VAN POOL HOLIDAY POLICY AMENDMENT Mr. Stock recalled that in the van pool rider survey, fifty percent of those responding were dissatisfied with the pay-when-you-don't-ride policy. Staff believes that given the high fixed cost of the program, it would not be advisable to eliminate the policy. Instead, a compromise solution such as a reduction in fares during holiday weeks or months may be more appropriate. Therefore, staff recommended that Van Pool Policy #13 be amended by granting a reduction in fares during the week or month in which the six specified van pool holidays fall. Energy and Transportation Commission July 18, 1985 Page 3 1 Mr. Stock noted that the maximum average subsidy per passenger trip that the van pool program could support based on 1985 budget and ridership projections was $1 . 12. The June subsidy was $1 . 15, but the overall subsidy is about 85¢. Commissioner Sorenson stated that he is not in favor of the pay-when-you-don't- ride policy. He suggested that a vote be taken to determine how the riders feel. After some discussion, Commissioner Sorenson moved that by the next meeting staff develop about three different options to be offered to the vans for a three month trial period. After the three month period, the vans would automatically revert back to the old system because this would be a test. Motion died for lack of second. Dunwell/Allen moved to recommend to City Council that the second paragraph of Van Pool Policy #13 be amended to read, "During the week or month in which the van pool holidays specified above fall, there shall be a reduction in fares for van pool riders." Motion carried unanimously. Discussion then returned to the pay-when-you-don't-ride policy, the alternatives, and methods of letting each van decide on their own policy. Weeks/McNeil moved that Barry Stock ballot all van riders. At the August meeting, the Commission will take action on the majority decision. The program will begin on September 1 , 1985, and run for three months after which time it will revert back to the old system. The following options will be offered: 1 . Keep the status quo. 2. $1 .50 daily one way fare via punch card or $47.50 monthly fare. (This would eliminate the weekly fare. ) Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock distributed the June Van Pool Monthly Report noting that June had the highest subsidy to date, probably caused by vacations. In the June Dial-A-Ride Monthly Report, Mr. Stock pointed out that the Dial-A- Ride program is improving and summer is usually considered a slow month for transit programs. Discussion again turned to subsidizing taxis as an alternative to the Dial-A-Ride program and the concensus was to consider this alternative before the next contract period. The June Recycing Monthly Report contained the Scrap Target Area Participation Rates which the Commissioners were interested in reviewing. Mr. Stock noted that the volunteers preferred the bags over the bins. McNeil/Dunwell moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The next meeting date was changed and will be held on August 22, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. Barry Stock Judy Hughes Administrative Intern Recording Secretary Transit/Recycling Coordinator TENTATIVE AGENDA Energy and Transportation Committee Shakopee, Minnesota August 22, 1985 Chrm. Ziegler presiding: 1 . Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2. Approval of Minutes - July 18 , 1985 3. Action: Van Pool Fare Policy Ballot Results 4. Informational Items A. Recycling Monthly Report - July B. Dial-A-Ride Monthly Report - July C. Van Pool Monthly Report - July 5 . Other Business A. B. 6 . Adjournment Barry A. Stock Admin. Intern CITY OF SHAKOPEE /7 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS FIRST NATIONAL-SOD LINE CONCOURSE 507 MARQUETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339-8291 (AREA CODE 612) I I FILE: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Please distribute to governing body members August 1, 1985 NEWSLETTER I In our last issue we saw nothing that would substantially reduce interest rates. But rates did drop almost a percentage point, of which about a fifth was lost. On July 11, the Bond Buyer Index stood at 8.81%. What will the proposed tax law do to tax exempt bonds? Trade groups, allied with some public organizations, predict that industrial development, housing and student loans and private purpose financings will stop if their financings are taxed. Nonsense. Private purpose financings were and will be financed without tax exemption. But without the burden of billions of dollars of tax exempt private financings, public purpose financings will be at much lower rates. i States and localities must vigorously oppose Treasury proposals to tax interest on bonds where more than 1% of the public facility's capacity will be used by a private entity. If the facility provides a necessary governmental function or service and will be publicly owned, the financing should be exempt. This is not because of some "comity" observed by the federal government, but is a right reserved by the states in delegating limited powers to the federal government. Some counties, school districts and cities are considering leasing capital facilities. Many leases are subject to annual appropriations and levy limits. However, if the length of the lease is fairly short, it may be possible to enter into a lease/purchase financing whereby the entity ends up with title. Other long-term leases may be possible where the private owner/lessor retains ownership after the lease period. Minnesota counties may enter into long-term lease/purchase arrangements to acquire jails. Lease payments on these are outside of levy and debt limits. Such lease/purchase bond issues should be taken to competitive sale, especially since the county pledges its full faith, credit and taxing powers to the underlying lease, especially where bond insurance is available. Private sales often cost the issuer substantially higher interest rates and/or higher issuance costs. Sometimes an interest rate can appear attractive until one examines the negotiated underwriting and issuance costs which inflate the lease payments even though they're not in the "interest rate". Issuance and underwriting expenses are present value, not future value costs. Some leasing companies reduce the net interest rate by subtracting investment yields during and after construction! Looking at "net interest rates" alone can be costly. I Enjoy your summer! Warmest regards, EHL D SS CI rt hler I I i I 77- 2 4_- <46i<< Q<<<<<-¢ SA-- ~�.~o e u�.~o u e U�5:������ �� -•� amm m ~�.�R"MM�mmmm m m .o io.�d Z 6I �m�N � o Pb�N ry N m^^•^�Vef N�V~f�!„1 O v ~rg m Hf P P ^ m^.N m^^m88 m m m m m m.mnilffmilmli N 1�1 m C .P �-.In N P P P N C Np` 9 N N ^ o P 9 NC C < giEpp o c E Op qq�Opp E Op vpN q� O«4^ O.� O c ?V 7 ^ P P T P C 4 EO E g N p ]Ep p L O �+ -r ----R L m C m .- - C c C O Ey GG EE EE EE r U V U m'c c c L c a `v g Ag o 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 0 6 0 6 6 6 6 0 0 o d o 0 8 0'�'.' Sc o o y( C o 6 0 6 0 0 0 C;C;coy,C; u v u v ci v uLi o66ci 66 Liuii Liuuai Li Li�i ti L�ou+iiu oc ca.. vv .'n Lg'i ovLi u ou mm ............... .o u.o.o u.o�.o u .n .n.n r+ � .v.o �✓+v�+✓+v+ u��.o.moo.o u.on�eu.o T T O _ �� O q C � g g d T O ^ N OOONS L d � ✓< T t m Yqq Nq b _ O Oi. LL 6 J^ ¢ S ._• N b d 4. b d d p p r« o � P� NHHbd C NN O .L 6 YLJOW�Y O+m aO � � �u�«y _ oo s ;sk ? :2sL;mm ««< nen en MMmM N W MMM m m .9 P P mm mmm m m mm P m *;,7; m m s.00.00�.Oo.0o.00.0o b m —1n en^- ^m P P m m m m m m m m m m m m P PP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mmm m m m mmm m m m m =�CQMm �x� �aaMm�� x N m�m f�f N � m P.O m Uf P�mm P P P Pm a m�mm P P O P mm mP mm�m� T O P m�P N a P m� N P N m P m�a m P O Pm mm�Nm pm T�P mm�mm�m0 m�m P m Pm m P mp P m P-P P P--P P P P P P�P P P P P P P P P P m Ni P m - O N m m m ^m N a N O 1. e o`e « a d o o o $ v a v vC i `N � L Co Co ` �Oop Opp Cp Co d VN oo m « N O Ooo N Do O OOO m¢ P'oOo$OgCp � Cp 9O O� ON S d v v c 1 N c c.: - -.: _ - _ « o 1 o-vq o N `b O `« i T a.� `m o o `a.� o.. > c o._ o S Qhs o 'o�.c v£ o o v �s--°c--— E.---- 0 0 0 6 o o 6 o w-o c o 0 0 o g$o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o A Q LL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0@ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - . oLi Lio Lio Lio tociocici 7�tic4 cg oo ti00000tiLio oLiv ci cioovcv titiutititi00000L+a uL+o Li ciuouci mc�aiv YI mmmmNNNN�mm.o.o.o ,u11f1m1 ,mm�1"mzzv,.nu,v,�,v,mmmmmmmmmmm,o.o.o,o.o.o.o.o.o a u N o__m m m a N vii ___c 7Z.o N oggo= N.�7Z Z ggg'8 g000000= NX'iry o000000000g .n.n v+ w.ten W T Y O O O P O d 8 b N ..a?'- 1 1 � I �jn�n�rr C�nmmunitLi teruirts 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 445-2742 Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education Memo To: John Anderson, City Administrator From George Muenchow, Community Services Director Subject: Metro River Corridors Study Committee Meeting Report Date August 15, 1985 Per your request after some revising of my schedule I was able to attend this meeting in Eden Prairie August 14. It was an opportunity for local government to provide input to this committee prior to the public hearings scheduled in September. There were only five of us in attendance in addition to Mr. Ray Black, Chairman of the River Corridors Study Committee and Tim Kelly from the DNR assigned to be the staff person for the committee. The committee was appointed by the Secretary Of Interior after having been authorized by congress. As we know there is a maze of governmental agencies that are affecting the three metropolitan rivers. The intent of this legislation i.s to provide a management plan to insure that recreational, fish and wildlife, historic, natural, scientific, . and scenic and cultural values of these rivers will be maintained and enhanced. At -this meeting is was emphasized that they are not attempting to add another tier of government. A committee will be established. It will not have any authority, but will review community comprehensive plans that are in these corridors. If they see something that is in conflict, they will attempt to instigate change through "jawboning". There were only three or four communities represented at this meeting which focused on the Lower Minnestoa River- (Shakopee, Eden Prairie, Bloomington) . One concern that was expressed was that the landfill at Flying Cloud Airport already is polluting wells in the area and this facility has the great potential of leeching into the Minnesota River. I stated that we are in general agreement with the goals of this committee and at this time we are in support. The public hearing in this area will be at the Burnsville Sr H.S. on Wednesday evening, September 11, at 7:30 P.M. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Storm Drainage Utility Billing (Informational) Date: August 16, 1985 Staff has discussed four methods of producing bills for the storm drainage utility over the past months. They are: 1. SPUC billing SPUC reportedly does not have the capacity on their current machine to handle this billing. 2. In-house The City does not have the staff or resources to develop a billing system within the allocated time. 3. Scott County The County staff has been slow to respond to City staff on some issues and there is considerable question in the minds of City staff whether the County could develop a system within the time allotted. Initial cost estimate by the County is $5,000 for the first year. 4. LOGIS LOGIS has a system in place and operating. We have experience and familarity with LOGIS operations. Our utility is patterned after Roseville who bills on LOGIS. Estimated cost is $5,000 per year. Staff is proceeding with known vendor (LOGIS) for storm drainage billing unless given direction to proceed otherwise. GV:mmr TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA AUGUST 20, 1985 Mayor Reinke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. 21 Recess for an H.R.A. Meeting 31 Reconvene 41 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 Approval of Minutes of August 6, 1985 a] Communications: a] b] .. .9] Public Hearings: 7 : 30 P.M. - Appeal of the Planning Commission=approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Don McKush to move in a single family dwelling at the intersection of CR-17 and CR-81 10] Boards and Commissions: Energy and Transportation Committee : a] Van Pool Fare Ballot Results - memo on table Planning Commission: b] Final Plat of Hauer 3rd Addition, lying South of Hauer Trail and Southwest of St. Marks Cemetery - Res. No . 2426 c] Preliminary Plat of Canterbury Village , lying South of CR-16 and East of CR-17 d] Rezoning of the NE 1/4 of the S 1/2 of -Sec. 12-115-22 from I-1 Light Industrial to R-1 Rural Residential ( 13th Ave . East of CR-89) e] Recommendation on Capital Improvement Program f] Designation of 13th Avenue as a collector street TENTATIVE AGENDA August 20, 1985 Page -2- 101 Boards and Commissions continued: g] Appeal by Scott County Lumber Co. and Bert Notermann of the Plann- ing Commission denial of a conditional use permit to remove sand and gravel aggregate in the SW corner of the intersection of CR-16 and CR-83 (bring info from July 9th and August 6th meetings h] Rezoningrequestfrom I-2 to B-2 for a 10 acre parcel lying within the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec . 4-115-22 (700 CR-83) Applicant , Baron Development Corp . /Cecil Behringer (bring info from July 16ti and August 6th meetings) 11] Reports from Staff: a] Recommendation for Site of New City Hall b] Mortgage Revenue Bonds - memo on table c] Application from Scottland Inc . for I .R. Bonds ' d] Eaglewood Project Soils Inspection *e] Wire Feed Welder for Public Works Department *f] Purchase of AT & T Equipment *g] Kawasaki Corporation Siren Agreement h] Holmes Street- 101 Intersection Traffic Problems i] Approve bills in amount of $290, 715 .05 j ] 1986 Proposed Budget -�n�e Q 41 �� 121 Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No . 2425 , Accepting Work on the Tahpah Park Sewer and Water Improvement 1984-3 131 Other Business: a] ICMA Conference and Fall Vacation for City Administrator b] c] d] 141 Adjourn to Tuesday, August 27 , 1985 at 7 :00 P .M. for a worksession on the 1986 budget . John K. Anderson City Administrator TENTATIVE AGENDA Housing Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Special Session August 20 , 1985 Chairperson Vierling presiding 1. Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2. Accept Special Meeting Call 3 . Authorize Certificate of Completion and Release of Forfeiture 4 . Other Business a. b. 5 . Adjourn Jeanne Andre Executive Director CITY OF SHAKOPEE To: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority(HRA) From: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director RE: Canterbury Downs , Certificate of Completion Date: August 16 , 1985 Bruce Malkerson, General Counsel for Canterbury Downs , has requested the HRA to execute a certificate of completion and release of forfeiture for its facility, as called for in the second amended contract for private development dated November 20 , 1984 . The certificate would document that the developer has constructed a 45 million dollars facility. Leroy Houser , the City Building Official has reviewed the expenditures for the facilities as documented by approved building permits and determined that permits for the 45 million dollar valuation have not been pulled. However further analysis of the records of Kraus-Anderson, the general contractor , demonstrate that the valuation has been made. If amended permits are submitted to Mr. Houser, he will be able to certify the value. REQUESTED ACTION Upon confirmation by the City Building Official that amended building permits and related fees have been submitted to the City, authorize appropriate HRA Officials to execute the Certificate of Completion and release of forfeiture as provided for (exhibit B) in the Second Amended Contract for Pri'v_ ate Development by and among the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, and Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. as executed November 20 , 1984 . JA/mi y EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION AND RELEASE OF FORFEITURE EITITRE WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota ( the Grantor pub- lic body corporate and politic, by a Deed recorded in the Office of the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in and for the County of Scott and State of Minnesota, as Deed Document Number has conveyed to Minnesota Race- track, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation ( the "Grantee" ) , the following described land ( the "Development Property" ) - in the County of Scott and State of Minnesota, to wit : The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5 , Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota excepting therefrom: The West 150 . 00 feet of the north 333. 00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 115, Range 22 . r - The South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 115 , Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. That part of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8 , Township 115 , Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the centerline of County Road No. 16 . The Northwest Quarter of Section 9 , Township115 , - Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota excepting there- from: The south 400 feet of the west 100 feet of the South Half of the Northwest Quar- ter . and WHEREAS, said Deed incorporated and contained certain covenants and restrictions, the breach of which by the Grantee, its successors and assigns , would result in a for- feiture and right of re-entry by the Grantor , its successors and assigns, said covenants and restrictions being set forth in said Deed and in a Contract For Private Development , executed by and among the Grantor , the Grantee and the City B 1 of Shakopee, Minnesota, and dated June 1984 (the "De- velopment Agreement" ) ; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has to the present date performed , said covenants and conditions insofar as it is able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Grantor to permit the execu- tion and recording of this certification; NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all building construction and other physical improvements specified to be done and made by the Grantee have been completed and the above covenants and conditions in said Deed and Development Agreement have been performed by the Grantee therein and that the provisions for forfeiture of title and right to re- entry for breach of condition subsequent by the Grantor , contained therein, are hereby released absolutely and for- ever insofar as they apply to the land described herein, and the Countv Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in and for the County of Scott and State of Minnesota is hereby autho- rized to accept for recording and to record the filing of this instrument , to be a conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of the contract referred to herein which would result in a forfeiture by the Grantee, its successors and assigns, and right of re-entry in the Grantor , its successors and assigns , as set forth in said Deed, and that said Deed shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA By Its Chairman By Its Secretary B - 2 MEMO TO _Jeanne Kn3r`e,'Oommunity Development Director FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. ( $45 ,000 ,0.00 .00 certification) DATE: August 16 , 1985 At your request I have reviewed the expenditures for the Canterbury Downs facility to determine its value for the Shakopee HRA. Review of expenditures as documented by building permit sub- missions indicates a valuation of $41 ,593 ,621 . However, I have also reviewed Kraus-Anderson' s contract documents to see if a higher valuation can be documented. This review established an expenditure by Canterbury Downs of $45 ,293 ,621 , including direct construction expenditures by Kraus-Anderson and owners ' soft costs such as architecture fees , insurance , etc. I will be willing to certify the total expenditure of Canterbury Downs as soon as City building permits are corrected to reflect this amount , including the payment of $15 ,664 in additional building permit fees . LH: cah OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 6, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Colligan and Leroux present. Cncl. Lebens was absent. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Judi Simac, City Planner; Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director; Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney and Rod Krass, Ass't City Attorney. The meet- ing was held at the Citizens State Bank. Wampach/Vierling moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to re-convene at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried unani- mously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda, and there was no response. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of July 9, 1985 and July 16, 1985 as kept. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. John Ostdiek addressed the Council regarding the traffic problem that occurs on Sunday nights when Canterbury Downs lets out and causes a back- up in traffic at the same time patrons to his car racing are trying to get in to his property. He said that once the traffic is backed up so far that it actually stops in front of Raceway Park, it isn't much of a problem because the cars can get through. The biggest problem time is from about 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. He said he has been deluged with complaints from his customers who want the traffic problem solved. Mr. Ostdiek has talked to the Highway Patrol about the problem but they don't have the manpower to assist. They suggest he hire Highway Patrol at Shiely to stop the traffic. The main problem with that is there is a 4 hour minimum, and the problem really only exists for 11-2 hrs. His security people are not allowed on the highway to control traffic-. Discussion followed regarding the service road that was proposed for the area, but objected to by other businesses in the area. Mr. Ostdiek said he just purchased the property in December of 1982 and wasn't aware of those plans, and Canterbury Downs was not a reality at that time either. He thinks the people will just have to get used to sitting in some traffic for a while until something else can be done to expedite it. Mr. Ostdiek also commented on his concern that a entrance ramp/merge lane should have been constructed at the east end of the service road because of the safety hazard of the slow moving gravel trucks entering Hwy. 101. Shakopee City Council August 6, 1985 Page 2 Leroux/Wampach moved to bring this traffic problem to the attention of the new City Engineer when hired. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to open the public hearing on the appeal by John Ostdiek of the Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Class II Restaurant on property east of J.I. Case and west of Raceway Park. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated the Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1985, with conditions. She said Mr. Ostdiek's appeal is mainly concerning traffic problems and incompatibility between Raceway Park and a nightclub. Parking requirements for Raceway Park are being looked into, but the noise level test has not been completed. Mr. Ostdiek said he has three times more parking area than required. He pointed out that he added signs of his own for No Parking along the ditches of the service road. Mr. Ostdiek related that by the time this item got on the agenda of the Planning Commission it was the early morning hours, and he didn't feel proper consideration had been given to the 12 criteria for granting conditional use permits. He said there were no factual materials regarding traffic impacts. He thinks the noise of his racing and the blast- ing in the quarry next to him would not be compatible .with this use, and especially not with a hotel, which has been discussed for the back portion of this plat. He would think a business similar to those out there would be ideal--such as Case, Ziegler & truck repair. He foresees problems with running his races on Sundays and holidays and possibly other nights of the week, which might cause problems with neighbors. He wants to give notice about the noise. Colligan/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution of the City Council No. CC-420, and moved its adoption, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is contingent upon Preliminary and Final Plat approval of Palace 1st Addition. 2. Building capacity will be limited to 270 people. 3. The required number of parking spaces must be provided. 4. Applicant must obtain an approved highway access permit from Mn/DOT. 5. Let the record show that the applicant has been advised of the potential noise problems to the east. 6. Annual review of permit. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None: Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct staff to place on file the July 26, 1985 letter from Gary Laurent, Chairman of the Downtown Committee, reeard�nQ the location of a new City Hall, understanding the letter will be discussed at the August 20, 1985 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The HRA Director said it has been determined that a better bid could be received with a larger project, and therefore the Downtown Committee has recommended the Second Avenue Parking Lot Project be combined with the Fourth Avenue Reconstruction Project in advertisements for bids. The City Shakopee City Council August 6, 1985 Page 3 Admr. added that the solicitation for bids will be structured in such a �1 way that either of the projects can be done independently, whether or not l the other project goes. The Comm. Develop. Dir. explained the reasoning for the recommendation of the firm of Westwood Planning & Engineering to do the parking lot, while Orr-Schelen-Mayer will still do the Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer project. Discussion ensued regarding the advisability of having two engineering firms working on the different elements and the possibilities of getting the work done this fall. The City Admr. explained the Downtown Committee would like to have the trenches dug this fall so they can settle over winter, but not put on the wearing coat until spring. Leroux/Colligan moved to direct staff to include Section C.1 of the Holmes Street Storm Sewer Laterals (Feb. 1985 Supplemental Feasibility Report for Holmes Street Basin Laterals) and C.2 Lewis Street segment with the Second Avenue Parking Lot Project. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux moved to order the Second Avenue Parking Lot as City Pro- ject 85-4, to be constructed with funds from Tax Increment District No. 3, and request appropriate City officials to provide for the preparation of the plans and specifications and advertise for bids to be opened September 3, 1985. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to direct Westwood Planning & Engineering to prepare the plans and specifications for the Second Avenue Parking Lot, Project No. 85-4 at a cost not to .exceed $8,300.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Wampach/Colligan moved to direct appropriate City officials to advertise the Second Avenue Parking Lot, Project No. 85-4, in conjunction with the Fourth Avenue Reconstruction Project, Project No. 85-1. Roll Call: Ayes; UnanimousNoes; None Motion carried. The City Planner advised the Council that Planning Commission recommended to City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Hentges 1st Addition subject to 5 conditions. She added two additional routine conditions: No. 6: Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney; and No. 7: Park dedication in the form of a cash contribution shall be made in lieu of land dedication. Discussion ensued regarding the recommended condition of having Third Ave. rough graded and whether or not that would .require a variance and if a rough graded street is sufficient to allow building adjacent to it. John Schmitt, Planning Commissioner, explained that the requirement of only rough grading the street was intended to constitute a variance from the existing ordinance which requires a finished street. Discussion continued regarding this divergence from the ordinance and the precedent setting elements involved. The City Planner suggested other pre- cedent elements be researched if the plat is to be approved without satis- fying the required findings regarding public utilities and other elements of development. Shakopee City Counci August 6, 1985 Page 4 Leroux/Wampach moved to table consideration of the Preliminary Plat of Hentges lst Addition until August 13, 1985 and direct staff to research precedent setting elements of the plat regarding rough grading of the street and inability to supply public utilities. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner said the Planning Commission recommended approval, with 8 conditions, of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Eagle Creek Junction. She elaborated on the condition regarding sidewalk construction wherein she would like the requirement waived at this time until CR16 is upgraded by the County. She would recommend entering into an agreement at this time to construct a concrete sidewalk after CR16 is improved, rather than to make a decision now on either a sidewalk or bituminous walk-way. Gary Laurent, developer, said there have been discussions of putting in an internal walkway through the development to CR17 for school children who want to take a shortcut. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the Preliminary Plat of Eagle Creek Junc- tion 1st Addition, and move its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. Plat be designated as Eagle Creek Junction 1st Addition. 2. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3. Park dedication to be made in cash at the time of building per- mit issuance. 4. Execution of a recordable agreement to accept future assessment for sidewalks along CR16, waiving all rights to a hearing on the improvements and assessments; such agreement to run with the land and be binding on all heirs and assigns of the applicant. 5. Execution of a Developers Agreement for the construction of the required improvements: a) Installation of a water system in accordance with the re- quirements of SPUC Manager. b) Installation of a planting screen along the north lot line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. c) Outlot A shall be undevelopable until it is replatted. d) Installation of street lighting in accordance with the requirements of SPUC Manager. e) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer system in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. f) Constructionof streets and street signs in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. g) The developer shall agreee to the City Engineer's method of apportioning the installments remaining unpaid against the plat and the developer waives his right to appeal the apportionment. h) Dedication of a drainage easement along the north lot line of- Outlot A where it abuts CSAH 16. 6. The developer shall obtain anapprovedCounty Entrance Permit for Roundhouse Circle access to CR16. 7. Construction plans approved and filed with the City Engineer prior to recording the plat. 8. The applicant has been advised of ordinance requirements and no further variances shall be considered. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. August 6, 1985 Page 5 Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2420, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Eagle Creek Junction lst Addition, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved for a five minute recess at 8:18 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to re-convene at 8: 38 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The Ass't City Attorney explained that the public hearing on the application by Scott County Lumber Co. and Bert Notermann for a Conditional Use and Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation (Mining) Permit was held on July 9, 1985, at which time public comment was taken. He further explained that tonight the City Council would consider the evidence, without further public input, and arrive at a consensus. He suggested going over the 12 criteria listed in the ordinance for the approval of a conditional use permit. He stressed that it is on the public record that a determination must be made. He asked the Councilmembers to indicate on the record the facts that support their position, reach a consensus and direct the prepara- tion of a resolution that will embody that consensus. He suggested consi- deration of written comments by the public which could be submitted for consideration before the next meeting. Cncl. Leroux asked for a transcript from the Court Reporter who was present at that public hearing on July 9, 1985. Timothy Thornton, attorney for the applicant, indicated he would get transcripts to Councilmembers. The Ass't City Attorney read the first criteria listed for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit. He said the comments made by Mr. Hagemeister regarding market values in Kilarney Hills would be admissible in a Court room because of his qualification as an expert. Mr. Hagemeister's appraisal is a series of opinions that the values in Kilarney Hills will not be low- ered as a result of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The Asst City Attorney added that the opinions of the property owners in the imme- diate vicinity of the proposed use that they believed the proposed use would lower their value are valid and would be considered in Court. Discussion ensued regarding the testimony of Mr. Caldwell regarding the worth of the land and its ability to produce so many bushels per acre, which s. Cncl. Leroux was much less than that claimed by surrounding propertie commented that if the land was not reclaimed and made to produce the higher yield claimed by the surrounding landowners, he would think there was some impairment of value. He also believes there would be some diminishment of value to the property of the. Rutts and Fitches with the noise and the berms. Cncl. Vierling and Colligan agreed. The Ass't City Attorney defined the term "substantially diminish" as more than just a small amount; one that would be felt substantially in a finan- cial way when selling. The Asst City Attorney read the watsecond the othercriteria propertyasked usesCinnthemarears to consider the evidence as to what are predominantly and whether or not this use for the period of time re- quested will impede the development of the property for the use that is predominant. He pointed out that there was evidence that this property does not constitute all the area that is under consideration to be mined, and - therefore it is legitimate to consider that more area could be__mined., He __ . Snaxopee ;,ounce August 6, 1985 Page 6 pointed out that if this conditional use permit is granted, unless there are significant differences in conditions, it will be hard to deny a conditional use permit for surrounding properties that might have gravel on them. Therefore, the two questions to consider are: 1) what uses are predominant and whether this use will impede that development and 2) whether this conditional use permit might open up additional mining which would impede even more the ordinary development of the area surrounding this land. Cncl. Colligan expressed his concern with opening up the surrounding land for a larger area to be mined. Cncl. Wampach agreed that opening up a larger area for mining would be injurious to other properties in the area. Cncl. Vierling identified the predominant uses as agricultural and small hobby farms, to which a gravel pit would not improve development. Cncl. Leroux agreed that a gravel pit would impede the normal and ordinary de- velopment in the area. The Asst City Attorney asked for further clarification of how this proposed use would interfere with the agricultural, hobby farm and horse farms. Cncl. Wampach stated his concern with the health of people and animals which would be adversely affected by the dust and noise. The City Admr. questioned whether there would be more or less dust created by a gravel pit than is created by agricultural fields in the spring and fall. Cncl. Leroux pointed out that this would prolong the period of dust, as the agricultural fields eventually grow to a point where the crops control the dust. He also thinks that even with the berms there will be an appearance change that will be detrimental to the surrounding properties and especially to development. He thinks people will be less likely to develop small horse farms in the vicinity. Cncl. Vierling concurred that the aesthetics of a gravel pit are not com- patible with the surrounding rural agricultural land in this particular area, and the heavy machinery is more like industrial uses. The Asst City Attorney read the third criteria. Consensus was this criteria has been met. The Ass't City Attorney read the fourth criteria. Consensus was this criteria has been met. The Asst City Attorney read the fifth criteria. Mayor Reinke indicated he thinks crops adjacent to a dust-producer can be damaged, and therefore this use can hinder development of the crops. Cncl. Colligan mentioned the concern of the neighbor with horses because of the dust. He also agreed that the constant beeping of the machines backing up could drive you crazy, and it is a requirement that it has to be that loud.. Cncl. Vierling indi- cated that the ordinance states that "no" disturbance to neighboring pro- perties should result, and she doesn't think it is possible to have enough controls to prevent any disturbance. Cncl. Leroux elaborated that this would go along with the first and second criteria which would prevent the neighbors from the full enjoyment of their property. Cncl. Wampach and Mayor Reinke concurred. Cncl. Leroux pointed out the reverse beeping is outside the noise ordinance. Shakopee City Council August 6, 1985 Page 7 The Ass't City Attorney read the sixth criteria, and asked for considera- tion of the overall needs of the City for gravel and how it relates to the existing land use. Cncl. Leroux acknowledged the conflicting testimony as to the adequacy of the gravel resources, but he believes there is quite a bit of gravel in the area at the present time. Cncl. Wampach added there are a number of existing pits no longer in operation which might still have gravel in them. He believes if there is a great need, those could be re-opened. Cncl. Vierling reiterated that it would be incompatible with the existing land uses. The Ass't City Attorney read the seventh criteria. The City Planner read the following: Sec. 11.24 Agricultural Preservation District (AG) , Subd. 1; Purpose: Agricultural preservation areas are established for the purpose of preserving, promoting, maintaining and enhancing the use of land for commercial agricultural purposes, to prevent scattered and leap-frog non-farm growth, to protect expenditures for such public services as roads and road maintenance, and police and fire protection. She added that "Mining, sand and gravel extraction" is listed as a condi- tional use in Subd. 3. Cncl. Leroux addressed the contradictory comments by Mr. Caldwell and the adjacent property owners regarding whether or not this land is prime ag- ricultural land. The Ass't City Attorney granted that if it is not prime agricultural land perhaps it should be rezoned, but at this time the pro- perty is designated as agricultural preservation so it is to be concluded that is the best use of the land. The City Planner reported that on the Comp Plan this area is designated as prime, which has good agricultural suitability. The Ass't City Attorney responded that whether or not the land is prime or not is an issue. He said the question is the purpose of the land as set forth in the zoning ordinance and whether or not this use as a proposed gravel pit will be consistent with the purpose of that zone. Cncl. Vierling stated that in her opinion a gravel pit does not fit because it is completely surrounded by agricultural land at this location. The Ass't City Attorney read the eighth criteria, and pointed out that an outside consultant hired by the City found there was no conflict in this application and the Comp Plan. Cncl. Leroux allowed this, but thought the difference in the EAW prepared by the consultant for a use of 9 years and a use of 17 years would be substantial. He thinks the consultant's com- ments were marginal and if it was looked at for 17 years, he believes it would be found to be in conflict with the Comp Plan. Cncl. Vierling asked for clarification on how the use can be incorporated as a conditional use and be in conflict with the Comp Plan. The Ass't City Attorney explained it is more like a zoning argument. The fact that there are numerous criteria upon which to base a decision on a particular appli- cation allows for a finding of inconsistency with the Comp Plan even if it is listed as a conditional use. The City Planner said it is her interpre- tation that the land use plan corresponds to the Comp Plan and an amendment to the map or language could be made to either as they over-lap. The zoning ordinance is in part extracted from the Comp Plan. oankopeeuouncii August 6, 1985 Page 8 The Ass't City Attorney cautioned that decisions have to be made based on the record. Therefore, even if you believe the results would be different if the EAW would have addressed the operation for 17 years, assumptions cannot be made. If no facts were presented that this use is not in con- flict with the Comp Plan, that determination has been met based on the facts before us. He said that in 17 years instead of 9 years of use, the reclamation would be delayed, and a determination has to be made as to how much effect that would have on the land. He reminded the Council- members that Mr. Caldwell testified that the agricultural use would be as good at reclamation as it is now, keeping in mind he felt it was poor now. Cncl. Leroux conceded that there is no testimony available that directly states this use would be inconsistent to the Comp Plan. Cncl. Wampach declared the topsoil removed and stockpiled would never cover up the land when you tried to fill it back up. The Ass't City Attorney pointed out the evidence presented regarding the reclamation program, and said he didn't recall any evidence that the reclamation plan was insufficient by the City's Engineering and Planning staff. The Ass't City Attorney summarized that if there is no evidence to the con- trary in the Court Reporter's transcript, consensus will be that this cri- teria has been met. The Ass't City Attorney read the ninth criteria. Cncl. Leroux stated that with the change from agricultural to mineral extraction with 140 truck trips,slow moving vehicles would be coming into the paths of higher speed vehicles, just like at the 5hiely entrance onto Hwy. 101, which is creating a problem. He described the significant increase in traffic on CR83, and believes the City would be abetting the traffic hazard in the area if it allowed this many slow moving trucks. The City Planner said there was a review made by the County Engineer who recommended an entrance permit, with no stipulation for a turn lane. Cncl. Leroux said he didn't really feel that number of trucks would cause a great deal of congestion, but the City has no control over the number of trucks that will be travelling there, and there could be double that amount mentioned, and that would cause congestion. The Ass't City Attorney read the tenth criteria. Cncl. Colligan believes that the horse business of Mr. Fitch could be curtailed because of the noise and dust of the proposed use. The Ass't City Attorney read the eleventh criteria, with consensus being it has been met. The Ass' t City Attorney read the twelfth criteria, with consensus being it has been met. The Ass't City Attorney summarized that based on the comments made tonight, he will prepare a resolution to come back to the Council and be distributed to the applicant. He added it would be appropriate, if the Council desired, to receive written comments to be considered before the next meeting. Dis- cussion followed regarding timing and the next appropriate date for consi- deration. Written comments are to be received by August 14,1985. Shakopee City Council August 6, 1985 Page 9 Leroux/Wampach moved to table consideration of the application by Scott County Lumber Co and Bert Notermann for an application for conditional use and mineral extraction permit until August 20, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved for a five minute recess at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling moved to re-convene at 10:17 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The Ass't City Attorney recommend that for the Baron Development rezoning application public testimony is taken tonight, and at the next meeting of City Council they will go through the criteria for rezoning in light of the evidence submitted and come to a consensus. At that time staff will draw up a resolution that will be submitted to Council and any interested parties who may be invited to submit written comments before consideration of the resolution at the next meeting. He assured the interested parties that all the evidence that was submitted to Planning Commission will be taken into consideration, and therefore those documents and arguments need not be repeated. The City Planner chronicled zoning events from the time the announcement was made that Canterbury Downs would be located in Shakopee, including all the development interest, the moratorium on development which included predictions on the impact on the area, drafting of the Racetrack Area Study Plan and its recommended changes in zoning, which she went over in more detail, along with the addition of performance standards. Throughout this spring she indicated there has been increased development interest and she sought direction from Planning Commission and City Council, who indicated they wished the rezoning requests to be considered on a case-by- case basis Mr. Rockenstein, of Faegre & Benson, attorney for the applicant Baron De- velopment Corp. and Cecil Behringer, briefly went over the hotel, retail and restaurant development they have proposed for rezoning from I-2 to B-2, which would be followed by a request for a conditional use permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) , which would allow the City to have con- siderable control and input in the design and layout of the development. Robert Vanney, of Heise, Vanney & Assoc. , Vice-President, presented a packet of further information to the Council. He explained the proposed site is property owned by Cecil Behringer located south of Hwy. 101 on CR83, one- half mile from Valleyfair and of equal distance between the two main access gates to Canterbury Downs , and is situated on 10 acres. Mr. Vanney further described the proposed development as 13,500 square -_feet of convenience retail such as laundry and grocery; 14,000 square feet of restaurant space, 10,000 of which would be entertainment dining and the rest upscale fast food; and a 150 unit first class hotel consisting of suites with terraced views of the racetrack, as well as regular rooms. Shakopee City Council August 6, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Vanney illustrated that their over-all design concept is to create a spin-off facility compatible and attractive, to complement the racetrack and other entertainment facilities, as well as the community. They wish to create a resort-like setting with some of the romance of a New England resort. He pointed out on the concept plan the various amenities of ponds, footbridge, pool, tot lot and banquet and convention center. He said their goal is to provide a facility for patrons to the racetrack and also provide a destination vacation-like setting that will encourage families to come for week-end get-aways, as well as management meetings. They will strive for a quality development that would set the precedent for spin-off develop- ment. Mr. Vanney enumerated the similarities of this proposal to the conditions existing on the racetrack site now, such as entertainment, dining, conces- sions, dormitory for 700 year around employees of the racetrack, with another 1200 people on site during the racing season. They have immediate sewer and water access. He pointed out the compatible neighbors that are not industrial, such as racquetball, racetrack and office buildings across CR83, and a substantial tree-lined area along the north edge. He believes there will be increased demand for facilities like this to service the sur- rounding community as well as the people coming to the racetrack. They have good highway access and believe they are a prime location. Mr. Vanney indicated that they have development, construction, architectural and legal firms in place and ready to proceed as soon as approval is received. Mr. Rockenstein mentioned the traffic study that was presented to the Plan- ning Commission which concluded that the additional traffic that would be placed on the highway as a result of this proposal is considerably less than would be generated by other permitted uses, such as an office building, because of the high probability of multiple trips. The highway is more than capable of serving the traffic, and this project would not contribute to peaking traffic flows, as it would have a more even traffic flow which would not coincide with the racetrack or the industrial park. Mr. Rockenstein addressed the spot zoning issue by presenting extensive law which leads to the conclusion that this is not spot zoning. He stated the size of this parcel is considerably larger than others that have been challenged and upheld. He believes the public interest is served with the retail and hotel businesses, which would also provide tax base. He submits that the racetrack is clearly an adjacent commercial use, and there has been a change in the conditions after the adoption of the Comp Plan with the development of the racetrack. Mr. Rockenstein further asserted that they don't believe they would be a detriment to the adjacent land uses. He presented a letter, dated August 5, 1985, from Robert H. Carlson, owner of the 30 acres between this subject parcel and the racetrack, in which he does not object to the rezoning of his 30 acres along with the rezoning request of Baron Development. Mr. Rockenstein offered the full scale market report they had done which clearly indicated that a facility such as theirs is in need and is being provided by hotels in Bloomington which are advertising their proximity to the race- track. He thinks Shakopee should have a full service hotel close to the finish line and capture that market they are currently losing. Snakopee City Councii August 6, 1985 Page 11 Mr. Rockenstein submits that the retail portion fits in very well to service those 300 overnight employees and 700 daily employees at the racetrack. Mr. Vannev admitted that as part of the PUD concept, they would be working with staff to determine height limitations and lay-outs and any necessary variances and conditional use permits. Mr. Rockenstein added that anything they can do to enhance the racetrack will enhance their development. Mayor Reinke asked for comments from the audience relative to this proposal. Bruce Malkerson, Vice-President of Scottland and General Counsel, mentioned the numerous documents they have submitted to Planning Commission and City Council relative to this application. He distributed two letters enumerat- ing reasons for denial of this application. He went over the letter dated August 6, 1985 listing 15 reasons for denial, as follows: 1. There has been no testimony that the industrial zoning is in error. 2. There has been no testimony that there has been any change in community-goals and policies. 3. There has been no testimony that significant changes in City- wide or neighborhood patterns have occurred. He said. the racetrack has always been listed as a conditional use in the industrial zone. He does not believe the racetrack has any commercial use similar to retail. The stable area of the racetrack is very similar to industrial use with its noise, smell, trucks, trailers, outdoor storage and 24 hour operation; which is just as it is supposed to be in an industrial park which they are trying to preserve. He added the grandstand area is used only a small por- tion of time and is separated from the industrial uses of the backstretch and other industrial uses. 4. There has been no determination that the rezoning implements the growth management plans. He reminded the Councilmembers of the testimony by Charles Weaver, formerly of the Metropolitan Council, about the compromise reached regarding sewer allocation for the City and the industrial area. A rezoning would upset this delicate balance achieved. The former City Engineer told him that a 9 acre development would affect the sewer allocation of 45 other acres, which is a 5:1 ratio. 5. There has been no expert testimony to the contrary regarding the adverse affects of commercial uses in the industrial park. The developers of the hotel say they will assume the risk of problems in the future, but he thinks the risk is being assumed by the other tenants in the industrial park. He mentioned the letters submitted by various industrial uses against this rezoning. He clarified that across the street from the proposal is not office buildings, but industrial uses with small offices in front. He maintains that the City is not being adverse to development by denying this request, but rather pro-development by telling people you intend to stand by the Comp Plan and you won't allow an in- compatible use to come in next to your development. The integrity of the industrial park has to be maintained to attract others to the 1,000 acres of industrial area being developed by Scottland. SnaKo:,ee Oiiv i,ounci� August 6, 1985 Page 12 6. - The City needs to preserve the industrial park area for present and future development needs as stated in the Comp Plan. 7. The Comp Plan seeks to preserve the large centrally located in- dustrial park. Placing of commercial uses in the middle of the park is contrary to that planning principle. 8. The rezoning of this parcel to commercial in the middle of the industrial park would be spot zoning. He added that if the ad- ditional 30 acres is added to the request, there should be another review done of the effects on sewer allocation, drainage, traffic, etc. He contends that if rezoning is considered on another 30 acres, it should be done by proper application and review. 9. The rezoning is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. 10. There is more than enough vacant commercial planned and zoned properties owned by several different entities. 11. The Comp Plan allocates certain amounts of sewer capacity for the industrial zone. He referred to other documents that addressed this issue in more detail. 12. This rezoning would create an adverse precedent--if this can be rezoned, what makes it different from other parcels. 13. Commercial uses next to an industrial park are incompatible. 14. There is a hazard for commercial uses adjacent to an industrial park which contains some of the uses of this one. He pointed out the opinion of the Fire Chief who expressed his concern with safety. 15. Numberous adjacent property owners have objected to the rezoning because they believe it would adversely affect their businesses. Mr. Malkerson added there are 300 to 350 people who live inthe dormitories at the racetrack while the horses are there. He said the traffic impact of the proposed development is not too great unless 40 acres are rezoned instead of 10 acres. Mr. Malkerson cautioned that as much as these developers may want to put this hotel concept on the property, if it is rezoned there is no control to put this proposal on the property. At that time any of the permitted B-2 uses can be developed and then traffic impact and sewer allocations can all vary. Tim Keane, attorney and planner for Scottland, explained that he was involved, as City Planner, with the considerations and planning that went into the development of the Comp Plan and its approval by the Met Council. He stated the understandings that were reached were predicated on certain land use schemes and projections regarding sewer flow. At the time a great deal of con- templation was given to setting aside areas for industrial use. He main- tains this proposed rezoning would not be in conformance with the Comp Plan. Charles Weaver, of Holmes and Graven, said he is representing several land- owners in the industrial park and asked them to speak. Mark Russ, President of Fremont Industries, said they were formerly located in Bloomington and they chose to move here because commercial uses were allowed adjacent to them, and they became guilty of being in business. He asks City Council to turn down the rezoning request. Snakopee City Council August 6, 1985 Page 13 Forrest L. Colston, of Ashland Chemical, said he moved from Minneapolis to Shakopee so they could exist in an industrial park. He requests the City Council decline this request for rezoning. Mr. Weaver said these people moved to Shakopee to the industrial park and assumed they could count on that kind of zoning and have neighbors that wouldn't object to their type of business. The use of the sewer allocation affects them and their ability to expand and attract additional industries. If the whole 40 acres is addressed, that would be 200 acres that would be subtracted from development because of lack of sewer flow. They moved here in good faith, expecting the zoning to be upheld. They request the denial of the rezoning application. John Schmitt, Planning Commissioner, said it is unbelievable to him that anyone can consider that there are no changes to the community since the Comp Plan was adopted. He believes the proposal offers similar or compli- mentary services to the commercial recreational facilities in place. How- ever, he had a problem with the proposal because it is not tied into the adjoining land uses and didn't offer the protection necessary to the already established facilities in the area. He still maintains that from a spot zoning point of view this particular proposal should be denied. However, this is not the end of the issue. The City will be dealing. with numerous similar proposals. The concerns of the industrial park are valid. He re- quests denial of this proposal and direction given to the Planning Commission to initiate further discussions to deal with the impact of the racetrack and the concerns of the industrial park. Mr. Rockenstein agreed that to say there has been no fundamental change in land use in Shakopee since the adoption of the Comp Plan is to fly in the face of reality. This whole area was contemplated to be industrial, and now a huge chunk is taken out for commercial-recreational. The Comp Plan refers to Valleyfair and states that a further use of this nature would not be probable. Also, it was contemplated that the by-pass would be in place at this time. The major change has been the racetrack. He referred Councilmembers to the 8 pages of law he submitted regarding the spot zoning question. He submits that the whole impact of the racetrack is a commercial-recreational facility--not just the backstretch which may be more industrial. He requested a return to City staff's opinion regard ing the sewer allocation issue. He said the purpose was to balance uses over time and make sure no more than the allocation is used. He said there is a large graveyard which can be balanced off against other properties. Mr. Rockenstein clarified that they. didn't say they would assume the risk of future incompatibility, but that they would assume the cost of design- ing to try to avoid the future risk of incompatibility with the use of external to internal extenuation standards and filter systems. As far as safety is concerned, Valleyfair is as close or closer and the grandstand and seasonal and daily employees are also just as affected. They don't believe that is a critical concern. He explained they are willing to work with City staff and the industrial neighbors to make sure they won't be bad neighbors. Some of the business they hope to get would be from the industrial uses who have visitors, and therefore want to encourage their growth. He thinks the Comp Plan should be considered as a guide. Shakopee City Council August 6, 1985 Page 14 Mr. Rockenstein pointed out they are not asking for tax increment financing or industrial revenue bonds or any change in highway construction. He said he served on the Minneapolis City Council for 10 years and he thinks that a City sees few developments with as little cost to the City. Mr. Rockenstein asserts this will not set a precedent as there are many differences that can be enumerated on this parcel, such as the trees, road, change in elevation, etc. He could list 15-20 reasons why this parcel is unique. He allowed that to grant this rezoning it would be reasonable to rezone the 30 acres between it and the racetrack, but the separation from other industrial parcels is readily apparent. Mr. Rockenstein submitted a petition signed by 33 people who work in the industrial park who don't think they would be a bad neighbor. Mr. Malkerson again suggested the B-2 use be looked at and not this pro- posal, as these developers may not be here at the time of development. He reiterated the concern expressed by the Fire Chief. He still believes a major recreational use such as .the racetrack or other commercial use was contemplated at the time of the development of the Comp Plan. In any case, after the racetrack was sited, the area was reviewed and the decision was made not to rezone the industrial district. He countered that all the noise attenuation and filter systems designed would not address the people outside the development in the retail areas. He said there are a lot of other potential rezoning applications that are waiting to see what prece- dent will be set with this proposal, and he doesn't believe this parcel is different enough from others to allow the City to deny several other requests for rezoning it will receive. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to address this rezoning request, and there was no response. Cncl. Leroux expressed his belief that a Court Reporter should be hired for public hearings of this import. The City Admr, said he would address the pros and cons and costs and considerations of such an action in a memo, to be discussed later. The Ass't City Attorney said that both sides have presented excellent memos regarding the issue of spot zoning and are very sure of their positions. He thought he wasthe only attorney present who thinks it is a close issue. Cncl. Colligan stated he is an owner and partner in a development which is similar to this and he has been advised by the Ass't City Attorney to abstain from any vote on this request. Colligan/Vierling moved to table further consideration of this rezoning ap- plication until August 20, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. The Ass't City Attorney left at 12:07 a.m. Leroux/Wampach moved to approve the application and grant a temporary 3.2 beer license to Knights- of Columbus Home Association, Inc. at Tahpah Park for August 24th and 25th, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. August 61 1985 Page 15 7 -__ - Leroux/Vierling moved to approve theta use_of an"indemnfi-cation agreement--- as part of the application for a variance from Chapter 11 of the City Code (Zoning) . Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize advertisement for bids for the rescue truck for the Fire Dept. which is budgeted for 1985 as proposed. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize proper City officials to execute a 12 month contract with LeRoy Heitz at $10.826/hr plus benefits, and to review the need for parttime permanent status for Mr. Heitz beginning 1/1/86 as a shared employee with Scott County during 1986 budget process. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to affirm the execution by appropriate City officials of the Program Application - Commitment Agreement for the Minnesota Hous- ing Finance Agency Municipal Participation Home Mortgage Loan Program and authorize the payment of a $60,000 commitment fee secured through payments by participating builders. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the City Admr. to execute the proposal for audit services for the 1985 audit from Jaspers & Co. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to declare the 1978 Kawasaki motorcycle and the 1974 Chevrolet dump truck surplus property and that they be sold at auction. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the City Building Official to waive all building permit fees for the construction of the grandstand by the Shakopee Baseball Stadium and Lighting Committee at Tahpah Park. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved that bills in the amount of $218, 357.53 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve payment of $1,500 to Mike Schmitt and Bill Lepley for the Shakopee promotional tape. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution increasing the following budgets: Pool by $11,415.56, Inspections by $383.12, and Government Buildings by $4,786.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize payment of the right-of-way costs, easement costs and damages as listed in the memo dated August 1, 1985 from the Engineering Inspector, estimated total of $64,934.78, for the Fourth Ave.- CR83 to Shenandoah Project No. 85-1. (Doc. No. CC-95) Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Shakopee City Council August 6, 1985 Page 16 Leroux/Vierling moved to direct proper City officials to execute a "Loan Agreement Between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Shakopee for Highway Right-of-Way Acquisition" for Parcels 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the amount of $182,490.57. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. said the low bid was 19% under projections for Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation. Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2422, A Resolution Accepting Bid on Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation Project No. 1985-2, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2421, A Resolution Authorizing the Improvement, Approving Plans and Specifications, Ordering Advertisement for Bids and Designating a Project Engineer, Fourth Avenue Reconstruction, Project No. 1985-1, State Aid Project No. 166-108-01. ., Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes None Motion carried. The City Admr. went over some background relating to the racetrack off- site improvements, especially as they relate to CR83. Vierling/Wampach moved to approve the encumbrances for additional technical services required for Fourth Avenue to Shenandoah Drive, racetrack off-site improvement, in the amount of $13,643.11 to Barton-Aschman (1985-1). Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Wampach/Colligan moved to appoint John Mullen, Barton-Aschman, acting City Engineer, for the reconstruction of Fourth Avenue-CR83 to Shenandoah Drive, State Aid Project No. 166-108-01, City project 1985-1. (Estimated cost of $13,720.00) Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the proper City officials to execute an agreement with Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. for traffic management on public streets adjacent to Canterbury Downs. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux moved to adjourn to August 13, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:19 a.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary 9) W7 SCOrTTLAND INCA. Ausust 12, 1985 Mayor Eldon Reinke and Members of the City Council City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Mn 55379 Dear Mayor Reinke and Members of the City Council: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Scottland has recently purchased a 6 .5 acre site planned and zoned for multi-family development located on the west side of County Road 17 between 10th Avenue and Shakopee Avenue. It is our intent to immediately proceed with plans for the development of a high-quality multi-family market rate rental development project at this site. Scottland will be proceeding to apply for housing revenue bond financing for the development of this project. It is our hope that we can commence construction as soon as possible but no later than November 1 , 1985 , for spring 1986 occupancy. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us 445-3242. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vi e President Timothy J. K ane Vice Presiden TJK: lb c. c. John Anderson Judi Simac Jeanne Andre 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/612-445-3242 9 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit #413 which grants approval to Don McKush to move-in a single family dwelling DATE: August 16 , 1985 Introduction: At the July 18 , 1985 meeting the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit Resolution #413 which permits Don McKush to move-in a single family dwelling on property located at the intersection of County Roads 17 and 81. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The house must have a manufactured house seal and state inspection certificates . 2. Entrance Permit and Moving Permit is issued by Scott County Highway Engineer. 3. The Building Official approves on-site disposal system -and well location and design. Well may not be placed in R-O-W. 4. Certification from a Geotechnical Engineer that the foundation and subgrade are acceptable for anticipated loads . Receipt of six soil borings ; four at each house corner and two within the lot . Subgrade must be acceptable. 5. The basement_ floor must be a minimum of 3 .feet above the highest known water level . 6. All required building setbacks must .be met. 7 . Must take out a permit for placing existing fill and any additional to be brought in. 8. Power line easement identified and recorded. 9 Determination by the City Engineer that drainage has not been disturbed. If determined to be disturbed than drainage easements are required._ Background: The approval was appealed by seven of the neighbors in the area. Because the property is on the Shakopee-Prior Lake border, several- of those appealing are Prior Lake residents . One of the concerns of the neighbors is the suitability of the property for development. Attached is a report from a registered engineer that certifies the fill capable of support- ing the house . Mr. McKush has taken out a permit for placing fill on the property, as required in condition number 7 . For your information, please find attached the staff report and site location maps . C.U.P. 0413 Appeal Don McKush August_ 16�_ 198 Page Action Requested: Motion to approve Conditional Use Permit Resolution of the CC-No. 413 , subject to conditions numbered 1 - 9 , and move for its adoption. JS : cah Attachments cc : Don McKush To Whom It May Concern: We, the undersigned, hereby appeal the decision of the Shakopee Planning Commission to grant Conditional Use Permit #413 to Mr. Donald McKush. This was granted to Mr. McKush on Thursday July 18,1985. T l /, 15201 an,Shipton AFriank J Mea Howard Lake Rd. NW 15201 owardLake Rd. NWShakopee, MN. 55379 Shakopee, MN. 55379 /t � � uer � - Kenneth Rauer 3693 Marshall Rd. 3693 Marshall Rd. Shakopee, NW. 55379 Shakopee;yNd3. 55379 _ ,/Charles and .Marilyn Timmerman Donna Battcher 15231 Howard Lake Rd. NW 15251 Howard Lake Rd. NW 55379 Shakopee, MN. 55379 Sh�kop ee MN. Boe %rig inweri2w P. 0. box 25�5 3hakprwe, Telephone i (b;2) 445 - 3M Ju2.7 20, 2985 Mr. LeRoy Bohnead, bohnaack & he=en Lcoavating i 5611 Dake Ave. K.U. 1--iw Lake, M.irmesota 55372 RE: 'Boil Tests on 'Lot located RE of Scott Gotznty Roads 17 & 18, N.iat;o Deer Sir t At your request., I inspected the excavation o' the poor Boils on the above site. All of the poor scils were removed dmar to the bTo sand, loss. Z gave approval to fill the building ares it -6 inch layersfw coacpact with the large, self-propelled,, vibrating, Bheepefo t, eampact TJ On July 17, 1985, I made 5 is-puce den-sty tests on the eamMated firz'. All of the tests indicated a compaction off ort- of more thaw go '% of fjhe modified arnctor density with the average of 96 %. Th;- +'ill should be able-to uumort the house vel 4e11 with ar all.ovikbIe ,add ees-,.ing pressure of 43,000 pounds per square foot. It is oonnidered good practise to reinforce the footings`-Zth 2 JF4 or re--bare continuoual„r around the perimeter of the footings. Attached are the results of the ire-.place density tests, the plan of their location ane, the modified Proctor density carve that vas made for the f, soil. Sincerel,�-, 'ice'i sic A. boe P.R. ( FAnr.. Rag. Score co.0wt -( 17 »s f31 . .=a PAlf 146, 103 1� " SCALD : t"� 3a ' tR r 5 c y LTA+ o f- S4-3 Q L..A t.M- V Q 'IS TT'f T QTS • D R p T ri M a est wc.R D re•� Mc 9ri��io P��r+T T AST t>Arm Cow 7,C wr' 'DC#.+S r'r`( P&ar-Twt. No 9/fit a- C on,.�tfi�'•S rIL1 P�e�,z ;.�.s,/�.:.�� nr••i,rY PaocTo�C. D 1 7//7/9e '7/,�1� 11-o p� ri•s. �•. + 3pl M.It.V• C�;: CID- !/D.zo /D FC4 1D.1s`1.. jJL'Rr 4/00—d T rt r- 1 N—p LA,C— T)CFa►S tTY 'r'CSTS VJ 8 2+� +�/i�� u.!t'sH T►►C SnND Cook .ACco2Dit.3G rte ASTr,.A ^'• li +- l 1�'t`OD E P R ilPV A •.T. 1.0 GAT I IONr '' `' Ir ems- f . ' .s• _ `.v� _ _. ^tr t- ,, ^• r.b �. z '~AD.0 r «� 130.0 �— r •�> - i 4 r ' Q 1i -�---- 1 +� __ --- - t• 120.0 '^• 110.0 - J 10.0 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 r z % 4r! J I C•T r I r� 5 -t„ SOIL DESCRIPTION _ L/G�•: `y �c�w .tv w...� .0 o i ;. SIEVE ANALYSIS RETAINED ON NO. 6 SIEVE - 7. 200 a � � } PASSING A N O,L 2 OO S I£V E_.-- 'NOTE THE MODIFIED PROCTOR DENSITY T.ES W4 MADE 10- L$.---+4AMWE7R- FALLING •18 INCHES_ THE SQ1LJ•WAaS�`F'»�'`': � •`. } COM PAC T E D 1 N 5 -L AY E RS °W(TIq ,t'_5 PLOWS -PEAR {: A.S_T.-M. D MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner DATE: July 5 , 1985 APPLICANT: Don McKush ZONING : Shoreland LAND USE: Vacant Parcel Approx. 27 , 788 sq. ft . in area APPLICABLE REGULATIONS : Section 11 . 35 , Subd. 3 ; Section 11 . 05 , Subd. 9 ; Section 11 . 03 , Subd. 3 FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11 .04 , Subd. 6 ; Section 11 . 05 , Subd. 9 ; Section 11 . 35 , Subd. 9 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to move-in a single family dwelling UTILITIES : Public sanitary sewer , water and storm sewer are not available. SURROUNDING LAND USES: R-1 Land Uses and Agricultural CONSIDERATIONS 1 . The applicant would like to move-in a single family structure with attached garage , which has been constructed at the Hennepin Technical Center - South Campus . The proposed location is within the Shoreland District, at the northeast corner of the intersection of County Roads 17 and 81 . The triangular shaped parcel is a compilation of Outlot A, Eaglewood 3rd Addition and a lot of record formerly owned by the school district. 2 . Along with being located within the Shoreland District , the parcel has severe development limitations . The composite is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as poor for development and farming. 3 . The parcel will have an on-site disposal system. A 75 foot setback is required between the water well and septic system. Each must also be 10 feet from property lines . Percolation tests have been taken on the property and a gopher mound septic system is proposed. 4. Upon review of the application, the County Engineer has expressed concern over the access location due to the curve of the CSAH 17 and 81 intersection. This access will require an approved entrance permit from the Scott County Highway Department. The use of County roads for moving a house onto a site requires an approved Moving Permit from the Scott County Highway Department . For information, the CSAH 17 is proposed for upgrading in 1986 , requiring a minimum 50 foot r-o-w each side of the centerline . Presently the required front _yard setback for the Shoreland District is 75 ft . from the centerline. A 17 foot road easement was platted with Eaglewood 3rd Addition. 5 .- The Building Official will require that the house has a manufactured house seal and state inspection certificates . Don McKush July 5 , 1985 _ Page —2— RECOMMENDATION:2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions : 1 . The house must have a manufactured house seal and state inspection certificates . 2 . Entrance Permit and Moving Permit is issued by Scott County Highway Engineer. 3 . The Building Official approves on-site disposal system and well location and design. 4. Certification from a Geotechnical Engineer that the foundation and subgrade are acceptable for anticipated loads . 5 . The basement floor must be a minimum of 3 feet above the highest known water level . 6 . All required building setbacks must be met. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 413 and move for its adoption subject to staff recommended conditions . JS : cah Attachments cc : Don McKush _ t �t [S'LT E: \ <II I ! T 1z -- --•r 1 f i I I I l i ! TRAILS A1D 11 c`�1tr3 I� liltCO j R t 2F n7:p !il. T`-^•�r i; DEERVIEr. J,,;ajOK— - , iDDIT l01 c u - t VIP- I EAGLE M'O"�, \ _ —_ I / 77 , �, \ N. w _ tm Sl/2 NW1 S80-04S 4S E t 123.8 pta+ - - - - 7Orz6 1A) _ f, En , N Oo i .0 c(D 60 k=tit) T6 f � F � 1 i Ilk I � A 6 RODS , a , 1 \ w F MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Intern RE: Vanpool Fare Ballot Results DATE: August 20, 1985 Introduction and Background: At the City Council meeting on August 13 , 1985 , the Council agreed to poll the vanpool riders giving them a choice between two fare alternatives . The Energy and Transportation Committee has recommended that the majority decision of the riders be implemented on September 1 , 1985. However, before implementing the majority decision, City Council requested to view the ballot results . The first fare alternative to be considered by the vanpool riders involved a $1. 50 per passenger trip fare or a monthly fare of $47 . 50. Approval of this alternative would eliminate the existing pay when you don' t ride policy. The second fare alternative to be considered by the vanpool riders involved the preservation of the status quo. Here passengers pay by the week - $12. 50, by the month - $47 . 50 or by the trip - $2 .00. Survey results ( see chart below) seem to indicate that the majority of our vanpool riders are satisfied with the current fare policy. - Of the 56 riders surveyed, 44 responses were returned. # Responding Option #1 18 41% Option #2 26 59% Alternatives : 1. Implement the majority decision of the vanpool riders which preserves the existing fare policy. 2 . Adopt Option #1 as the new vanpool fare policy. 3 . Request staff to develop additional fare alternatives for City Council consideration. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative #1. Anderson/Stock Vanpool Fare Ballot Results August 20, 1985 Action Requested: Move to implement the majority decision of the vanpool riders which preserves the existing fare structure in which passengers can pay by the week - $12. 50 , by the month - $47 . 50, or by the trip - $2 .00. BAS : cah -2- 10� Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Final plat approval of Hauer 3rd addition Date: August 16 , 1985 Introduction At their August 8 , 1985 meeting the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to the City Council final approval of Hauer 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of a Developer ' s Agreement for the construction of required improvements: A. A sidewalk to be constructed along the North side of 13th Avenue when Outlots A, D, and E are replatted or 13th Avenue is constructed, in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. B. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. D. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. E. Streets and street signs shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. Construction of the southern end of limestone Drive shall end in a temporary hammerhead turnaround. The turnaround shall be replaced with a temporary cul de sac if the balance of road- construction is not completed within one year. F. The developer shall agree to the City Engineer' s method of apportioning the installments remaining unpaid against the plat and that the developer waives his right to appealing the apportionment. G. In lieu of land dedication, a cash payment should be made to the park fund at the time building permits are issued. - H. Curb cuts onto 13th Avenue shall not be permitted except to provide access to lots 2 and 3 , Block 5. 3 . Outlots A,B,C,D, and E must be replatted prior to any devel- opement. 4 . Outlots B and C shall be dedicated as Onyx Drive right of way. 5 . The developer shall submit to the County Engineer construction plans for access to CSAH 16 and obtain the necessary permits when Outlots A,B,C,D, and E are developed. 6 . The developer shall provide a recordable agreement stating that not more than 100 of the plat will be developed into twin homes. 7 . The developer shall be responsible for the construction of 13th Avenue when the remaining Outlots are replatted. Funding for the oversizing of 13th Avenue and condemnation of property for the R-O-W which is not controlled by the developer will be provided by the City of Shakopee. 8 . A seperate recordable agreement shall be provided for the construction of the extra depth and oversize of the sewer line in Limestone Drive pursuant to the provisions of M.S.A 429 with the cost of oversizing to be assumed by the City of Shakopee. 9 . The Developer shall provide a recordable agreement between himself and property owner Steven Stepanek in which Mr. Stepanek agrees to sell the necessary portion of L26 B3 to the developer; or the developer agrees to purchase from the City, the portion of L26 , B3 which is acquired through R-O-W acquisition, at the same price per sq. ft. that the City paid. In either case L26 B3 shall be deemed undevelopable until said portion is acquired by the developer. 10. A recordable drainage easement must be obtained from Scottland Inc. which allows storm water to flow onto their property. 11. All of the lots are deemed buildable at the date of platting because no variances will be considered in the future. Background The preliminary plat of Hauer ' s 3rd Addition consisted of 54 proposed R-2 lots. The final plat which has been submitted is essentially Phase I of the entire project. The lots which are not intended for immediate development have been compiled into OUTLOTS which must be replatted. The Phase I portion of the plat can be developed without constructing Thirteenth Avenue. The developer has submitted the recordable agreement regarding twin home developement, and has also obtained permission from Scottland Inc. to allow stormwater to flow onto their property. At this time the developer is not required to obtain L26 B3 for street R-O-W, construct thirteenth avenue, obtain a County Entrance permit for access to CSAH 16 , nor construct sidewalk along the north side of thirteenth avenue. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 2426 , a resolution approving the Final Plat of Hauer ' s Third Addition, and move for its adoption. JS/mi RESOLUTION NO. 2426 / 6 A Resolution Approving The Final Plat of Hauer ' s Third Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did approve the Final Plat of Hauer ' s Third Addition on August 8 , 1985 and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all things; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Final Plat of Hauer ' s Third Addition, described as follows: (EXHIBIT A, attached) be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the requirements that: 1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 2 . Execution of a Developer' s Agreement for the construction of required improvements: A. A sidewalk to be constructed along the North side of 13th Avenue when Outlots A, D, and E are replatted or 13th Avenue is constructed, in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. B. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. D. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. E. Streets and street signs shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. Construction of the southern end of limestone Drive shall end in a temporary hammerhead turnaround. The turnaround shall be replaced with a temporary cul de sac if the balance of road construction is not completed within one year . F. The developer shall agree to the City Engineer ' s method of apportioning the installments remaining unpaid against the plat and that the developer waives his right to appealing the apportionment. G. In lieu of land dedication, a cash payment should be made to the park fund at the time building permits are issued. H. Curb cuts onto 13th Avenue shall not be permitted except to provide access to lots 2 and 3 , Block 5 . 3 . Outlots A,B, C,D, and E must be replatted prior to any devel- opement. 4. Outlots B and C shall be dedicated as Onyx Drive right of way. 5 . The developer shall submit to the County Engineer construction plans for access to CSAH 16 and obtain the necessary permits when Outlots A,B,C,D, and E are developed. 6 . The developer shall provide a recordable agreement stating that not more than l00 of the plat will be developed into twin homes . 7 . The developer shall be responsible for the construction of 13th Avenue when the remaining Outlots are replatted. Funding for the oversizing of 13th Avenue and condemnation of property for the R-O-W which is not controlled by the developer will be provided by the City of Shakopee. 8 . A seperate recordable agreement shall be provided for the construction of the extra depth and oversize of the sewer line in Limestone Drive pursuant to the provisions of M.S.A 429 with the cost of oversizing to be assumed by the City of Shakopee. 9 . The Developer shall provide a recordable agreement between himself and property owner Steven Stepanek in which Mr. Stepanek agrees to sell the necessary portion of L26 B3 to the developer; or the developer agrees to purchase from the City, the portion of L26 , B3 which is acquired through R-O-W acquisition, at the same price per sq. ft. that the City paid. In either case L26 B3 shall be deemed undevelopable until said portion is acquired by the developer. 10 . A recordable drainage easement must be obtained from Scottland Inc. which allows storm water to flow onto their property. 11 . All of the lots are deemed buildable at the date of platting V because no variances will be considered in the future. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk be and the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said approved plat and Developers Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985. City Attorney Civil Engineers Land Surveyors Planners Q Valley En--pneerin-_Co j nc:-* (612) 447-2570 P.O. Box 478, Suite 120C 16670 Franklin Trail S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 EXHIBIT A PRELIMINARY PLAT: HAUERS 3RD ADD'N Proposed Plat Description: That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, and that part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 8, and that part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 8, and that part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 8, described as follows: Ccmmncing at the intersection of the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 8, with the southekly right--of-way line of County Road No. 16; thence South 00 degrees, 13 minutes, 22 secunl s West along said east line a distance of 475.50 feet (meas. 469.00 feet) ; thence North 65 degrees, 08 minutes, 16 seconds West a distance of 107.50 feet (meas. 107.30 feet) ; thence South 24 degrees, 51 minutes, 44 seconds West a distance of 140.00 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing South 24 degrees, 51 minutes, 44 seconds West a distance of 160.00 feet; thence North 65 degrees, 08 minutes, 16 seconds West a distance of 150.00 feet; thence North 24 degrees, 51 minutes, 44 seconds East a distance of 300 .00 feet; thence North 65 degrees, 08 minutes, 16 seconds West a distance of 50.00 feet; thence South 24 degrees, 51 minutes, 44 seconds West a distance of 150.00 feet; thence North 65 degrees, 08 minutes, 16 seconds West a distance of 997.07 feet; thence North 16 degrees, 05 minutes, 44 seconds East a distance of 177.06 feet to the centerline of a Town Road; thence northwesterly, southwesterly, westerly and northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the southeasterly extension of the southwesterly line of HAVERS ;ST ADD'N, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence northwesterly along said southeasterly extension and the southwesterly line of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the now abandoned Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad, the slam now being the easterly line of HAVERS 2ND ADD'N, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence southeasterly along the easterly line of said plat of HAUERS 2ND ADD'N to the southeast corner of said plat; thence westerly along the south line of said plat to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of said abandoned railroad;- thence ailroad;thence southeasterly along said westerly right-of-way line to its intersection with the south line of the north 40 .00 feet of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 8; thence South 89 degrees, 47 minutes, 30 seconds East along said south line of the north 40 .00 feet a distance of 651.08 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the south having a radius of 1858.94 feet, a central angle of 3 degrees, 59 minutes, 07 seconds, an arc length of 129.30 feet to its intersection with the west line of the east 1166.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 8; thence North 00 degrees, 13 ainutes, 30 seconds East along said west line of the east 1166.00 feet a distance of 44.49 feet to the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees, 47 minutes, 30 seconds East along said north line a distance of 416.00 feet to the northwest corner of the east 750 .00 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees, 13 minutes, 30 seconds West along the west line of said east 750 .00 feet a distance of 120.50 feet; thence South 74 degrees, 47 minutes, 30 seconds East a distance of 203.70 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 1102.74 feet, a central angle of 19 degrees, 45 minutes, 00seconds, an arc length of 380.12 feet; thence North 85 degrees, 27 minutes, 30 seconds East tangent to said last described curve a distance of 486 .95 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 595 .51 feet, a central angle of 55 degrees, 09 minutes, 56 seconds, an arc length of 573.37 feet; thence North 30 degrees, 17 minutes, 34 seconds East tangent to said last described curve a distance of 33.00 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 16; thence northwesterly along said centerline of County Iniad No. 16 to its intersection with the west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 8; thence southerly along said west line a distance of 611.31 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence northwesterly a distance of 157.39 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom the following two Tracts of land: EXCEPTION NO._l: That part of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, and that part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 8, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of said East Half of the Northeast Quarter with the centerline of County Road No. 16; thence south along said west line and the west line of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 750.00 feet; thence east at right angles to said west line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 332.00 feet, thence north parallel with said west line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter and the west line of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter to the centerline of said County Road No. 16; thence northwesterly along said centerline a distance of 3. 83 feet more or less to the point of beginning. EXCEPTION NO. 2: That part of the East one-half of the Northeast Quarter and that part of the East one- half of the Southeast Quarter all in Section 8, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, des=ibed as follows: Com encing at the intersection of the west line of said East one-half of the Northeast Quarter with the centerline of County Road No. 16; thence South along said west line of the East one-half of the Northeast Quarter and the west .line of the East one-half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 750.00 feet; thence east at right angles to said west line of the East one-half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 332.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence north and parallel with said west line of the East one- half of the Southeast Quarter and the west line- of the East one-half of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 557.34 feet more or less to its intersection with said centerline of County Road No. 16 ; thence Southeasterly along said centerline a distance of 1142.57 feet more or less to its intersection with the east line of said East one-half of the Southeast 7uarter; thence southerly along said east line a distance of 148.00 feet; thence Northwesterlv a distance of 1002.76 feet to the point of beginning. r � MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner DATE: August 2 , 1985 APPLICANT: ince Development Co. LOCATION: SE4 Sec. 6 ; cast of CSAH 17 and South of CSAH 16 ZONING: R-4 Multi Family Development LAND USE: Vacant APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 12 Subdivision Regulations FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 12. 01 , Subd. 4 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of Canterbury Village 1st Addition. The proposed plat is a replat of Outlot A, Eagle Creek Junction 'lst Addition. ' SURROUNDING LAND USES: North - Vacant B-2 and R-4 East Proposed R-4 (Eagle Creek Junction) South - Developed R-2 and R-4 West - Developed B-2 PUBLIC UTILITIES: SanitarySewer and Water .Available PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Bedrock close to surface COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The area is designated for multi family development CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposed plat is a replat C.L. Outlot A, Eagle Creek Junction 1st Addition. Tne plat consists of one block and ten lots . The lots are proposed to develop -as follows Lcz 1 - Future development of a church. Lot 2 - Development of a multi-family p.u.d. , consisting of 62 two bedroom .units with aeached garages , with Ownership of entire site maintained by the developer. 2. Lot 1 will be accessible to CSAE 1-7 . Three drive .cuts onto CSAH - 16 are proposed fc Lot 2. Lots 3-10 will front Roundhouse Court which ties -into Roundhouse Circle. 3 . All of the lots provide .the required area for-.the pro posed development. 4. The applicant must obtain a Conditional Use Permit to develop Lot 2 as proposed. If public ut_lities are going to be extended into Lot 2, recordable. utility easements kill have to be dedicated at that time. 5. The SPDC Manager has indicated that .water iss -availanle for the p"lat, however the lavout of the watermain is not ne-essarily approved as shown in the. developer ' s plans . Looping of the water system is generally recuired. Lcca tion of the fire hvarants in Lot 2 will be further reviewed by the _ --e Chief when the C.U.P. is submitted. Inca Development August .2 , pate -2- 6 . Roundhouse Court wlibeToconstisyted as proposedutolbe~private. Internal circulation 7 . A sidewalk should be constructed along CSAH 16 . A bituminous pedestrian walkway should be constructed from the west end of Roundhouse Court , along the southern lot line of Lots 2 and 1 , to the CSAH ii . s. Lots 8 , 9 and 10 are double frontage lots and should have screen planting along the north lot line where they abut CSAH 16. 9. The Community Services Director has not recommended that any portion of the plat be dedicated for public parkland, .therefore a cash payment to the park fund at the time of building permit issuanceshould aConditional UsePermit,However, when Lot 2 is -developed consideration should be given to an open space area for either passive or active recreation facilities. 10. The orading and drainage pian and the drainage calculations have been reviewed by the City' s Consulting -ngineer . The drainage route proposed is for over-land drainage to the south ditch of -CSAH 16 , and then westerly along this ditch to a proposed 33 inch storm sewer extended to the east edge of the Brook' s Superette driveway. The culverts in the CSAH ditch are too small for the proposed .run off . There are no immediate plans to up- grade CSAH 16 and any additional water added to the CSAH 1b ditch would reouJ -e additional work in the etch to carry the water. RECO*'LI—FE DATION Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat Off: Canterbury Village subiect to the following conetions: 1. The plat name be changed to Canterbury Village 1st Addn. 2. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney. 3 . xecution of a Developer' s Agreement for the construction of the required improvements : -A. A sidewalk be constructed -where the plat abuts CSAH i6 in accordance ��ith the .Design Criteria and Standard Spec-lfications of the City of Shakopee. Because construction should not occur until CSAH 16 is ungraded, the developer should agree to accept future assessments ; waiving X11 r_ghts to a hearing fln the ,lmnrovements and assessments , such� agreemert to run-with the land and be D,lnding cn he-_='s d ass._rns c_ the ap_ p_icara: cr p,�ace the estimated cost cf the sidewalk construction in an interest Inca Develoamen� - August 1 , 19E5 C� page - � D ea�ning escrow account t0 be used SpeCifical'ly -,or that purpose. E. Installa- Zion of the water system in accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager. C. Installation of street li the requirements of the Sph^ing in accordance with D• Sanitary Sewer and storm wateanager. in accordance with the requirementseOfttheeDesign lled Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Srakopee. .-• Streets and street signs shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. - • The developer shall agree to the City Engineer ' s method of apportioning the installments remaining unpaid against the plat and that the developer waives his right to appealing the apportionment. G. In lieu of land dedication, a cash payment should be made th are issued. e park fund at. the time b- uilding .permits _ : H. Construction of bituminous pedestrian walkway from the west end of Roundhouse Court along the southern Io-t line of Lot 2 and Lot 1, to CSAR ng 17 . Installation C.L. a screen piano p lot linenb along the north of moots 8, 9 and 10, where they .abut CSAH 10 . 4. The Ciry Engineer must r y eceive and approve all final plans and .spec_fications for all pubic ^; , ; - cluding facili ties , in- but not limited to, roads , sanitary sewer system, " storm sewer, .cra�naQe, over-lot _ lo� grac�ng, etc. The Developer scall submit plans for review, and approv be the County Engineer falor work orrk =n the CSP�i ib cra�naQe c ACTION PWOUESTED: Motion to recommend to the Ci~v Council - ry approval of Canterbury Zillaoe ist rp` m_na_� plat conditions . Addition, sub iect to JS can c" ' Inca Development Eili EngeIhard /0 (0( MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner RE: Zoning Map Amendment in the NE4 of the S2 of Section 12 , Range 22; 13th Avenue East DATE: August 16 , 1985 Introduction: At their August 8 , 1985 meeting the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that a zoning map amendment, which rezones eleven parcels of property on Thirteenth Avenue East from I-1 to R-1, be adopted. (Please refer to attached staff memo dated August 5 , 1985 and location map) . Background: The Planning Commission approval of the zoning map amendment is based upon the following findings : 1. Exceptional circumstances apply to the properties which do not generally apply to properties in the same zoning district or vicinity and these circum- stances are of a nature that the property owners have had no control. 2. The proposed properties for R-1 zoning are adjacent to existing residential zoning and uses to the east , in - the City of Savage. Action Requested: Offer a motion to direct staff to prepare an Ordinance which amends the zoning map by removing the following -parcels of land from the I-1 Light Industrial District and placing them in an R-1 Rural Residential District, and move for its - adoption: 27-043002-0 27-043003-0 27-043004-0 27-043005-0 27-043006-0 27-043007-0 27-043008-0 27-043009-0 27-043010-0 27-043011-0 27-043016-0 = JS : cah Attachments Memo To: Shakopee Planning Commission From: Judi Simac, City Planner Re: Zoning Amendment in the NE 1/4 of S 1i2 of Sect. 12 , R 22 Date: August 5 , 1985 Introduction At the July 18 , 1985 meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing for August 8, 1985 to consider the rezoning of several residentially used parcels in the NE 1/4 cf the S 1/2 of Section 12, T115 , R22 from I-1 to R-1. Background Listed below are the parcel numbers ( in lieu of legal descriptions) and owners names of the properties to be considered for rezoning. Attached is a map which indicates the properties Property Identification # Address Owner ' s Name 27-043002-0 8992 13th Ave. Maynard• CD Mahoney 27-043003-0 9016 13th Ave. Miller , John 27-043004-0 9040 lath Ave. Cheever , Daniel & Carolyn 27-043005-0 9064 13th Ave. Moen, Raymond & Eloise 27-043006-0 9100 13th Ave. Gilbert, Donald 27-043007-0 9081 13th Ave. Van Hale , Charles & Debra 27-043008-0 9085 13th Ave. Krause, Neil 27-043009-0 9085 13th Ave. Krause, Neil 27-043010-0 9095 13th Ave. Cheever, P. 27-043011-0 9097 13th Ave. Kessler , Richard & - Colleen 27-043016-0 9064 lath Ave. Moen, Raymond The residents of Thirteenth Avenue have petitioned for the rezoning for the reason that potential buyers of their homes can not obtain financing because the land is zoned light industrial and the existing homes are non-conforming uses. (Actually local banks are willing to provide mortgages ; however the Federal National Mortgage Assoc. will not buy the loan from the local lending agency) . The area had previously been a part of Eagle Creek Township, which was annexed in 1971. At that time the property was zoned R-2 , however the Comprehensive zoning of -the city . placed the area in an I-1 District. The by-pass is north of the parcels. The zoning to the east in Savage is R-1 Low Density Residential and to the west and south is the non conforming junk vard which will remain in the light industrial zoning district. l � -- Recommendation_— ---__� The proposed zoning amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. if rezoned to R-1 the lots will be non-conforming in regard to lot size requirements , setbacks , etc. The most practical future use of the property is industrial, however given the large supply of vacant industrial land within the City, the probability of a developer buying-out the homeowners is unlikely at this point in time. Should the Planning Commission decide to make a favorable recommendation to the City Council, the motion should include findings of fact which support the recommendation. Such findings may include, but not be limited to the following: 1. The original zoning ordinance may not have been prepared erroneously in regard to the subject parcels however the-- subsequent implications of zoning the existing residential uses to industrial are just now surfacing. 2. No significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place which would support the rezoning however an existing housing rehabilitation policy in the Comprehensive Plan recommends that rehabilitation efforts take place in areas predominated by structures built prior to 1940 , thus recognizing the fact that these older units exist and are owner occupied. 3 . No significant changes in city-wide or neighborhood developement patterns have occurred which would support the rezoning. 4. The proposed rezoning is not an implementation of the Compre- hensive Plan' s growth management program. 5. Exceptional circumstances do apply to the properties which do not generally apply to properties in the same zoning district or vicinity and these circumstances are of a nature that the property owners have had no control. 6. The proposed zoning category of R-1 will allow for the existing conditions which include on site septic systems and water wells. " 7. The proposed properties for R-1 zoning are adjacent to existing residential zoning and uses, to the east, in the City of Savage. Action Requested Motion to recommend to the City Council approval -or denial of the proposed zoning amendment which would change the following parcels from 1-1 to R-1. : 27-043002-0 27-043005-0 27-043008-0 27-043011-0 . 27-043003-0 27-043006-0 27-043009-0 27-0-43016-0 27-043004-0 27-043007-0 27-043010-0 r _ Blue LOke LUE LAKE - \ /•ih:.'/ [Ont - .TBREAIYENI PLANT 1 �. - _ 1•\\\ kTti O�_ CRETEA 4VC ` i1 \ 1 _ T ` \ NSP I - ASO 1 BLUE LAKE ` fqs ` OES MTtOR ��IVATUR4i 24 1 � ADMAR D' . i La oke � - - -�— -— — - -- -- ------ — -- ---- -- -- -- ;Tf - 14 13 i CS4h to �MCC E's AWN HORIZON RIVERVIEW ' AqT HEIGHTS ESTATES ND ADD'N CT -t - �'\ HORIZ N HGHT'S y / 23 \ �� - �?4 Pike Loke Ibd IN Tb Sc ;ZE'Z4QCb 43 X003 �4 3-rxr! y 3 cas M%LLE- L HrEY OEN M NnRD� I G:�t betx+ �4r.'AF- K C i 6 I I 3 i t i LLEE Y RIC 2 G � • {r I AbD ' N ro � MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Planning Commission recommendation on Capital Improvement DATE: August 16 , 1985 Background: At their August 8 , 1985 meeting the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that the following amendments be made to the proposed Capital Improvement Program: 1. Construction of Valley Industrial Boulevard North 2. Move up the Deans Lake Outlet Control 3. Construction of a frontage road from Howe Chemical to Cretex Drive. Action Requested: Motion to accept the Planning Commission recommendations to the proposed Capital Improvement Program. JS : cah /01 Memo to: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From. Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Designation of 13th Avenue as a collector street Dater August 16 , 1985 BACKGROUND In 1984 the City Council approved the City Street Traffic Evaluation, prepared by Westwood Planning and Engineering. In the report there is discussion regarding the 13th Avenue Corridor , which has an east/west alignment. The entire corridor has not been precisely located, however portions of the road will logically follow the approximate location of 13th Avenue. The report recommends that 100 foot r-o-w be reserved for 13th Avenue from Marschall Road to Adams Street and an 80 foot r-o-w west of Adams. In new plats east of Marschall Road, 80 foot r-o-w is being platted. The designation of Thirteenth Avenue as a future collector street is not contained in the existing Comprehensive Plan. However , as new plats are submitted, the location r-o-w width of Thirteenth Avenue are being determined, to the standards of a collector street. Therefore , even though the planning status of 13th Avenue as a collector street , it -is not officially noted in the comp. p'lan. For this .reason, _staff cannot require additional setbacks when oui-Laing permit applications are submitted for lots abutting existing Thirteenth Avenue r-o-w. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council officially recognize the status- of Thirteenth Avenue as a collector street, and until such time that the Transportation section of the Comprehensive Plan is amended, all land use permit applications which involve Thirteenth Avenue shall be subject to the existing requirements for collector streets. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to direct staff to interpret Thirteenth Avenue as a proposed collector street and Administer all code language which refers to collector streets to any applicaiton for a land use permit, and move for its adoption. JS/mi l C�_ RESOLUTION N0, 2427 A RES CLUTI ON DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR CVvr - A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SCCIT COUNTY LUMBER CO. , INC. AND BERT NOTERMANN 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 Planning 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 hereof; 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 Killarney 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 equestriar 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 mined 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 OSHA. 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. -2- /0 Cl] 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. 8. 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 truce 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 Willian Fitch, to-wit: the breeding, raising and storage of horses, located adjacent to the proposed gravel pit, will be curtailed because of the effects of traffic, noise, dust and 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 Cor, City Clerk -4- f 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. 5. 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" ) D�_ RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL WILLIAM T. EGAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN C. DOOLEY EDWARD M. ARUNDEL MICHAEL D. TEWKSBURY DONALD R. BACKSTROM 2500 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST JEANNE H. UNGER DAVID F. FITZGERALD JOHN D. SAUNDERS AV ID R. STRAND LARRY R. HENNEMAN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S5402 DRANK e. BENNETT JOHN P. PLATEN KEITH J. KERFELD DAYTON E. SOBY DAVID J. BYRON (612) 340-79 51 BRIAN A.WOOD RICHARD J. NYGAARD - MATTHEW J. VALITCHKA JOHN C. UNTHANK ANN S. BURNS ALFRED SEDGWICK BARRY F. CLEGG RITDAVID M. BOLT STEVEN J.J. KLU2 E. K KAREN LEE PARK JERSTE P. RICHARD H. KROCHOCK August 13 , 1985 GARY MF.4ALBRECHTVAN GENE C. OLSON PAUL R. HAIK ROGER R. ROE, JR. TIMOTHY R. THORNTON WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER MARTHA M. SIMON ETT SCOTT K. GOLDSMITH EDGAR H. REX,JR. GREGORY M.WEYANDT ERIC J. MAG NU SON GENE F. BENNETT 340-7922 RONALD B. LAHNER (1926-1983) JOHN B. LU NSETH II JOAN S. MORROW OF COUNSEL GENE H. HENNIG STUA RT W. RIDER, JR. LEW IS A. REMELE,JR, KENNETH R.JOHNSON Shakopee City Council City Hall 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 ";s• •p�-� Re: Scott County Lumber and Bert Notermann Application for Conditional Use Pittt�( Permit and Gravel Extraction Permit Dear City Council: This is the applicant ' s response to the proposed resolution denying the application for conditional use permit. This letter is organized according to the paragraphs in the proposed resolu- tion. Furthermore , the comments contained attempt to be concise. If expansion is desired, please notify me in advance of the August 20th meeting, and I will arrange for the appropriate witness to be present. I note again for the record that the applicant was denied rebuttal of the opponent ' s presentation. Therefore, factual responses to some of the "evidence" the resolution relies upon was prevented from being in the record. CRITERIA 1 : 1 (a) . The record establishes that the applicant presented evidence regarding the impact on all property values in the immediate vicinity of the gravel operations. Land Use Planner Shardlow found that the conditional use permit would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Transcript "T. " 46) . Moreover, he concluded that all environmental impacts could be reasonably mitigated. Therefore , Shardlow concluded that he was aware of no facts that would suppor- the conclusion that the conditional use permit would substan-:�ially diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity (T. 47) . RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL Shakopee City Council -2- August 13 , 1985 Similarly, Appraiser Hagermeister directly opined that a gravel land use would not impair the value of the "surrounding property" (T. 52) . While Hagermeister' s written report expressly addressed Killarney Hills , his testimony concerned all of the surrounding property. He specifically addressed the Rud property in response to questions by Mr. Leroux (T. 53-55) . In Hagermeister' s opinion, the impact on the Rud property would not be "negative" and ultimately the Rud property would increase in value (T. 54-55) . The only responses to Shardlow' s and Hagermeister' s profes- sional opinions were the unsupported, emotional ramblings of opponents. The opponents ' "opinions" were constrained by their short-sighted view about the ultimate use of the land. The oppo- nents totally ignored Hagermeister' s approach to valuing the property, which took into consideration the inevitable long-term progress and development that is occurring in Shakopee (T. 50-53) . 1 (b) . while the land owners may be qualified to give "opinions" about land values, there is absolutely no foundations for them to give opinions about noise, dust, traffic and aesthet- ics. Engineer Merila, an expert , testified that dust would be controlled (T. 18) , that the gravel operations would not be visible (T. 19) and that there would be no noise impact (T. 19) . He also testified that the traffic impact would be minimal. The unrebutted evidence that there would be no adverse environmental impact was supported by the EAW prepared for the City and Shardlow' s testimony, which concluded that any environmental impact would be reasonably mitigated through conditions (T. 46) . Similarly, the City' s own planning staff concluded that environ- mental impacts could be mitigated by permit conditions. CRITERIA 2 2 (a) . Finding 2 (a) is contradicted by itself. Canterbury Downs is the dominant use in the surrounding area. Canterbury Downs is highly commercial. The race track is and will continue to force commercial and industrial development all around it. The commercial, industrial and overall growth impact of Canterbury Downs on Shakopee as a whole , and on the property in the surrounding area cannot be ignored. The gravel extraction operation is not inconsistent with this inevitable commercial and industrial use, nor is it inconsistent with agricultural use. Furthermore , an industrial park is directly to the north of the proposed property. Finally, the restoration of the property to as good of agricultural land as existed prior to the gravel extraction PIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL lu Shakopee City Council -3- August 13 , 1985 operation -- Soil Scientist Caldwell ' s testimony (T. 25-32) -- establishes that the land will not be lost for agricultural use. The phased extraction and reclamation will ensure that the land is returned promptly to .agricultural use , or any other suitable use. No land will be unavailable for agricultural use for any extended time. 2 (b) . The natural existence of the gravel vein and the permitted conditional uses under current zoning, opens up this entire area for gravel extraction, not the granting of this permit. Therefore , if the City intends to address the impact of this gravel vein on long-term land use, it must do so through the rezoning process, not by piecemeal denials of conditional use permits. 2 (c) . There are no hobby farms , except Fitch' s, in the vicinity of the proposed gravel operation. There has been no showing that the operation will cause excessive dust. Indeed, it was recognized that all agricultural operations produce dust -- even horse operations, which take place on ground that is always bare. Unlike agriculture, dust will be aggressively mitigated in the gravel operation. Therefore, in all likelihood there will be less dust from the gravel operation than the surrounding agricul- tural uses. The evidence of the experts establishes that dust can and will be controlled. 2 (d) . There was no showing and no testimony whatsoever that the Killarney Hills development will be impacted by the proposed gravel operation. No resident of Killarney Hills testified about impacts on the residential tract. And Hagermeister' s report directly concludes that there will be no adverse impact. There- fore this finding is totally unsupported by the evidence. CRITERIA 3 -- Applicant agrees. CRITERIA 4 -- Applicant agrees. f CRITERIA 5 The evidence , verified by independent testing, establishes that there will be no noise impact (T. 19) . It is unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair to impose an invented -noise standard -- one that exceeds and- is more stringent than the ordinance -- upon gravel operation. Such standards are not imposed upon any other activity in the City of Shakopee. OSHA back-up beepers are -not a basis for denial of any other permitted land use. RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL Shakopee City Council -4- August 13 , 1985 CRITERIA 6 No competent evidence supports that sufficient gravel and sand is available for the City' s overall needs. The competent and expert testimony demonstrated that gravel is a scarce, valuable and disappearing natural resource, for Shakopee and every other community (T. 34-37) . Furthermore , there is no existing gravel source within 10 miles of Shakopee , and hauling gravel 10 miles doubles its price (T. 37) . Therefore, there is no basis to conclude that the City does not need the gravel, especially gravel at half the price of alternative sources. Finally, the suggestion that prior gravel operations were discon- tinued because of lack of demand is pure speculation. There was no evidence about why these operations were abandoned. CRITERIA 7 The agricultural preservation purpose expressed in the zoning ordinance would be complied with by these operations. The undisputed evidence is that very little of the land will be removed from agricultural use at any one time . Furthermore, as soon as it is mined, the land will be returned to agricultural use. The restored land will be as good a farm land as it ever was (T. 29-32) . In fact , the leveling of the surface topography caused by the gravel operations will minimize soil erosion, an improvement to the agricultural capacity of the land (T. 29) . Dr. Caldwell ' s testimony (T. 28) as is supplemented by his report (attached as Exhibit A) also establishes that this partic- ular tract is not prime agricultural land. On the contrary, it is classified as having among the "poorer" soils of Minnesota. (It must be noted that reference in Dr. Caldwell' s report to bushel yields , e.g. 40 bushels per acre corn, were for compara- tive purposes only. Thus Hubbard soil has a relative production capacity of 40 bus/acre compared with Nicollet soil which has a relative capacity of 160 bus/acre. ) The unsupported suggestion that the proximity of the site to Canterbury Downs makes agricultural use and preservation more predominate is totally without basis. . As everyone in Shakopee knows , Canterbury Downs has triggered and vastly stimulated non-agricultural growth and progress in the City. If anything, Canterbury Downs will cause the surrounding land to more quickly leave agricultural use. Therefore, Canterbury Downs does not make agriculture use more predominate, rather the racetrack accelerates the change from agricultural use. The upgrading of roads alone establishes that agriculture will not be the ultimate long-term use of the land. CRITERIA 8 -- Applicant agrees. RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL Shakopee City Council -6- August 13, 1985 CRITERIA 11 -- Applicant agrees. CRITERIA 12 -- Applicant agrees. CONCLUSION The applicants believe that they have made a sufficient showing to satisfy all the applicable criteria. The record establishes that the requested use is consistent with the compre- hensive plan and with the uses permitted in the zoning district. Consistency with the comprehensive plan and compliance with the applicable zoning precludes the finding of a substantial impair- ment or diminishment of property values. Furthermore, all the competent evidence demonstrates that any potential adverse environmental impacts from the site can be mitigated and any traffic hazards can be controlled through permit conditions. Therefore, we urge the City Council to reconsider its anticipated denial. At least further study or negotiation concerning the permit -is appropriate. Sincerel Timothy R. Thornton TRT/ks Enc. cc: E. Hennen L. Bush B. Notermann J. Merila Cro^ rrc,uction on �urbrd loamv sand In arrivinc at an evaluation of the relative crop production value of a soil, it is useful to ohserve the LER ratinn (or Crop Equivalent Rating), of that soil. (The CER value is an index of the relative ;-roductive ratincs of soils, with the best soils ratio at 100, and lessproductive soils divan value below this). The dominant soil of the mining tract was mapped as Hubbard loamy fine sand, 2-6`� slcpe (sume shown to be eroded, some not). The CE index cf, the -iull!-Jar.- loamy fine sand, 2-6;'!. s) ops, varies from 25 to 20, de;,endinq on erosion (see attached s`-eet, p.37 of 14; - 5U 2199). In crder to illustrate the difference tetwe--n CER ratios of 10C and 25, we could use as an example the corn vield from a �Jicollet soil ( wits- a 100 CE; ratine), and a HubbErd (with a CER rating of 25)/ If we assume a 160 bushel per ac_e crop on, the fuicollet soil, an equivElent yield on the Hubbard (based on CE= ratinos) would be 40 bu/P.. These yields indicate symbolically the relative crop production value of 2 dif�erent soils. f',Jicollet soils Fire consic_red prime acricultural land, and if se, considering the difference in crcp-.roducinc c2pavilities as indicated in the above exam -';le, Hubnard soils are not prime acricultural land. On the contrary, they can be classified among the poorer scils of ^jinn=sota. s a class, they are low in orr,anic matter (and thus in nit�oeen), are low in pctzssium, have a low wLterholdinc c_:,,acity, and are easily erodible. Witr res acs tc-,, =ctu:l yilas on Hubcar❑ s ils in tri mining site area, soil survey data shop: corn yields of 40 bu/,(sae attached p.45 frcm Scott County Soil Survey 9ulletin). A typical corn yield r:er acre on a. Hubbard soil in �--herhurne county is given as 58 bushels (see attE-c-ied 7.37 from AG - -OU 2199). The 5cctt ccunty bulletin was puhlished in tr= late 195C's. ::;ince tlat time, nreducers h,-ve learned mora about ❑reducing corn and it is likely tn-.t, with the use of fertilizer nitrcgar,, acditicnal fertilizer goti:ssium, improved varieties end weEid contrcl, that, in years when rainfall is aceouate, corn yields on the=!ubbErd soils in the minim tree Ere& cowlc LJell average :'o: s. than 40 bushels V:er -acre. A.C..CaldwelI t SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA __.,-__.. 45 TABLE 3. -Estimated ai�eragc acre yields of principal crops under tufo let,cls of management -Continued Alfalfa or Corn Corn Oats Snvhvnns alfoif._ I D^+-+,-- Soil silage i bromegrass pasture (Forest a ge- yields ment A I B A I B A I B A I B I A I B group I A I B ig P I 11 Bu. Bu. Topa I Tons i Bu. Bu. Bu. Bu. i Tons I Tone I COW- Cow- I Bd. Jeer' I Hayden sandy loam, 6 to 12 per- � area acre - cent slo es___________ 45 Hayden sandy loam, 6 to 12 per- slopes, moderately 55 9 11 I 35 i 45 16 0 2.2 2.5 115 ! 125 260 8 cent eroded _ _, 40 Hayden sandy loam, 12 to 18 per- 50 8 10 - 30 40 14 18 2.0 2.2 100 115 (6) g cent slopes -------------------40 Hayden sandy loam, 12 to 18 per- cent slopes, moderately eroded 35 50 45 8 10 I 30 40 10 13 1.7 2.0 90 100 210 15 _ _ Hayden sandy loam, 18 to 25 per- 7 9 25 35 8 10 1.5 1.7 75 90 (6) 15 cent slopes, slightly and moder- ately eroded----------------- ------ Hayden sandy loam, 25 to 35 per- ------ ----- ------I----- ------ ------ ----- 1.2 1.5 65 -75 160 22 cent slopes, slightly and moder- ately eroded----------------- ------ Hayden sandy clay loam, 12 to 18 ------ ------------I------ ----------------- 1.0 1.2 50 65 70 24 percent slopes, severely eroded__ ______ Hayden sandy clay loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded__ ______,_-__ -- ------ --- ___ ______ ______ ______ 1.2 1.5 65- 75 (6) 22 ______ Hubbard fine sand, 0 to 2 percent ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _____ 1.0 1.2 50 65 (6) 24 so -- ---- Hubbard u op -b rd fine sand to 6_ percent ----- _ ----------- ------ ------ ---- !------ --- - i------ ------ ------ ---- I `'6 --- Hubbard fine sand, 2 to 6 percent ----- 1 ------!----------- ------ ------I------ ------ ------I (°) 26 slopes, moderately wind eroded-! ------ Hubbard fine sand, 6 to 12 ger-� I----- i------ ------ ------ ------ I'---- -- ------ ---I ------ I I 26 centslopes ------------------- I ------ Hubbard fine sand, 6 to 12 per- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------I------ ------ ------ ------ ------ (`) 26 cent slopes, moderately wind eroded---------------------- ------ Hubbard loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ (`) 26 percent slopes______________ _ 25 Hubbard loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 40 5 8 25 30 6 6 .5 1.0 25 50 (+) 18 rcent_-slo es----- =-- --- Hu bar loam fine sand, 2 to 6 35 ��-- - -_2,i 3 _. �.�. �` (S)- 18 percent slopes, moderately wind eroded______________________ 18 Hubbard loamy fine sand, 6 to 12 33 4 7 20 25 4 4 .5 1.0 25 50 (+) 18 percent slopes Hubbard loamy fine sand, _ 6 to 12 _ _ 12 20 3 4 20 25 4 4 .2 .7 10 40 (6) 19 percent slopes, moderately eroded______________________ 10 Isantifine sandy loamb----------- 35 20 50 2 7 4 10 15 30 20 40 3 15 3 20 .2 1.7 .7 10 2.0 90 40 100 (+) 19 12 Kasota silt loam, 0 to 2 percent ______ slopes_________ _ _ ______ _ 55 Kasota silt loam, 2 to 6 percent 65 11 12 50 60 28 33 2.7 3.2 140 165 (+) 4 slopes____________________ __ 50 Lakeville -Burnsville gravelly 60 10- 12 45 *55 25 30 2.5 3.0 125 150 (6) 4 sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes----------------------- ------------ Lakeville -Burnsville gravelly ------------ ------ ------ 8 10 .5 1.0 25 50 45 ( 20 sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded ------ ______ Lakeville -Burnsville gravelly ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ 7 9 .5 1.0 25 50 (6) 20 sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes----------------------- ------ Lakeville -Burnsville gravelly ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 7 9 .5 1.0 25 50 45 25 sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes, moderately eroded______ ______ •akeville-Burns ville gravelly ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 5 6 .2 .7 25 35 (6) 25 sandy loams, 12 to 50 percent slopes----------------------- ------ Lakeville loam, 0 to 2 percent ------ ------ - -- -- ------ ------ ------------!------ ------ 45 25 slopes----------------------- 30 Lakeville loam, 2 to 6 percent 40 6 8 30 35 10 12 1.5 1.7 75 90 (6) 4 slopes_______________________ 25 Lakeville loam, 2 to 6 percent I 35 5 7 25 30 8 10 1.5 1.7 75 90 (+1 i 4 slopes, moderately eroded______ 20 ! 30 4 i 6 20 25 i 7 9 1 1.51 1.7 6 75 90 ! (+l d oee 100MOtes at end of table. 1 I Table 8 (continued). Representative soils, surface textures, slope and erosion or drainage condition, estimated yields of major crops, pasture, and timber species and crop equivalent rating (CER). Map Reference Soil Slope Erosion' Wneat Mixed May Permanent' TIMBER: CER' No. Soil County Texture Percent Condition Corn Oats' Altalta Pasture Species Production .... bu .... T/A AUM1 Coros/Acre 401 Mt. Carroll Olmsted - sil 2- 6 1 137 84' � 5.0 5.7 6-12 1 122 78` 4.5 5.5 6-12 2 122 78' 4.5 5.3 = 12-18 1 102 65' 3.8 5.0 12-18 2 97 64` 3.9 4.8 525 Muskego _ Blue Earth M.- = 0- 2 dr 80 - 3.6 - 492 Nasset Houston sil 3- 6 1 110 85' 4.4 3.5 6-12 1 100 80` 4.0 2.8 40 Nebish Douglas 1 2- 6 1 82 70` 4.0 4.2 Red Pine .3 2- 6 2 72 65' 3.8 4.0 6-12 1 72 65' 3.6 3.7 6-12 2 67 60' 3.2 3.7 12-18 1 - 55' 3.0 3.3 186 Nemadji Carlton is 0- 2 1 - 60` 3.5 3.5 Aspen .7 583 Nereson Kittson fsl 0- 2 1 - 46 4.5 - Aspen 5 235 Nessel Hennepin 1 1- 4 1 96 80" 4.7 5.0 515 Newfound Lake grsl 2-18 1 - - - - - Red Pine .6 381 Newry Freeborn sil 1- 3 1 118 - 4.5 5.0 274 Newson Carlton ..:�._ ._ mis 0- 2 1 - 55'_.-- .. 3.5 5.0` Black Spruce_ _,_,.3 130 Nicollet Martin cl 1- 3 1 140 - 5.8 - 575 Nishna Yellow Medicine sic 0- 2 1 92 40 3.4 3.9 217 Nokasippi Benton Its 0- 2 1 65 - 3.0 3.1 142 Nokay Crow Wing sl 0- 2 1 90 - 4.0 4.3 Aspen .8 2- 7 1 85 - 3.8 4.0 446 Normania Yellow Medicine cl 1- 3 1 110 47 4.9 - 429- Northcote Kittson c 0--2 1 - 42 - 3.8 2- 6 1 - 38 3.6 - 224 Nowen Anoka sl 0- 2 1 92 74' 3.5 4.0 Green Ash ".3 430 Noyes Kittson sacl 0- 2 1 - 40 3.7 - 207 Nymore Anoka is 0- 2 1 55 - 2.2 2.7 2- 6 1 50 - 2.0 2.5 6-12 1 44 - 1.8 2.2 466 Ogilvie Benton sil 0- 2 1 84 - 4.0 4.6 Aspen .8 134 Okoboji Brown sicl 0- 2 1 92 42 4.1 3.5 276 Oldham Swift sicl 0- 2 1 85 38 3.7 4.0 188 Omega Carlton Is 0- 2 1 - 45.' 3.0 2.7 Red Pine .6 2-12 1 - 40' 2.8 2.5 277 Onamia Crow Wing SI 0- 2 1 82 76' 3.8 2.4 Jack Pine .4 2- 7 1 76 72' 3.6 2.2 303 Ontonagon Carlton sic 0- 2 1 - 75' 4.0 4.6 White Spruce .5 2-12 1 - 70' 3.6 4.3 12-25 1 - - - 3.7 - 493 Oronoco Olmsted 1 6-12 1 95 77' 4.0 5.2 413 Osakis Douglas 1 0- 3 1 70 34 2.8 2.4 317 Oshawa Blue Earth sil 0- 2 1 - - - 5.7 2 Ostrander Dakota 1 1- 6 1 125 86` .5.0 5.2 6-12 1 115 79' 4.4 5.0 279 Otterholt Dakota sil 1- 6 1 113 86' 4.1 6.1 506 Overly Clay Sicl 0- 2 1 - 47 3.7 - 40 87T 75 70 63 55 60 80 65 60 54 50 45 40 10W 60 72 5W 80 100 i 60, 35 40 37 80 58 54 50 56 33 28 20 50 65 55 18W 15W 40 38 35 30 12W 55 30 10P 80 75 65 1 76 4 Table 8 (continued). Representative soils, surface textures, slope and erosion or drainage condition, estimated yields of major crops, pasture, and timber species and crop equivalent rating (CER). Map Reference Soil Slope Erosion' WheatMixed May Permanent' TIMBER: CER` No. Soil County Texture Percent Condition Corn Oats' Alfalfa Pasture Species Production .... bu .... T/A AUM2 CordsiAcre `104 Hayden---- Wrigfit'..,�. 1_ 2- 6,t,.,,- f 112 - -4.9 .. 4.7- 70 2- 6' 2 108 - 4.6 4.7 66 6-12 1 101 _ - 4.4 4.2 62 6-12 2 95 - 3.9 4.1 58 I 12-18 1 90 - 3.6 3.6 58 12-18 2 85 .... - 3.4 3.1 42 F. 18-25 1 - - - 2.9 10P r - 25-35 1 -._ _..- - 2.7 8P _ 190 Hayfield Freeborn sil 1- 3 1 98 - 3.8 3.5 68 366 Hecla Swift Is 0- 3 1 55 25 2.4 2.2 36 232 Heyder Hennepin Sl 2- 6 1 86 - 3.4 4.5 55 6-12 1 80 - 3.2 4.1 45 12-18 1 70 - 3.0 3.8 40 18-24 1 - - - 3.3 8P 254 Hibbing Carlton sil 0- 2 . 1 - 76` 5.0 4.5 Red Pine .7 40 2-12 1 - 70` 4.5 4.0 35(15W) 436 Hidewood Pipestone sicl 0- 2 ` 1 93 84` 4.3 - 65.' 326 Hillet Benton _ sil 0- 2 1 84 31 3.3 4.9 45 200 Holdingford Steams sl 4- 8 1 95 76` 4.5 4.0 Red Oak .8 52 8-15---1. 85-', 68*- ..- 4.0. 3.9--:.- 9.;_-„,:._. - 7 7 Hubbard Sherburne Is 0- 2 1 65 42' 3.0 2.9 34 -- - 2- 6 1 62 37" 2.8 2.8 -2- 6 2 X5_88 , 32' 2.5 2.5 25 6-12 1 - - 2.5 2.5 - 27 194 Huntsville Wabasha sil 0- 2 oc 106 - 4.2 5.2 75 54 Ihlen Pipestone sicl 0- 2 1 100 69' 3.4 2.9 53 2- 61--.1--- 90 69' 3.0 2.6 48 172 Indus Lake ` Sic 0- 2 1 - - - - White Cedar .9 20W 556 Insula " Lake grsl 2-18 1 - - - - - Jack Pine .4 10W 18-35. 1 - - - - 5W 261 fsan. Hennepin _ sl : 0 2 1 66 _ - 2.8 3.0 _ 34 .' 161 Isanti Sherbume Its 0- 2 1 64 - 2.6 2.8 30 = 594 JeffersCottonwood _ . cl _ 0- 2 ... ..J 83 34 .. 3.6 3.2- :. -:._ _ _ fi5� 1902 Jewett Stearns sil 2- 8 1 100 75' 3.8 3.4 55 203 Joy Olmsted sil 1- 4 1 142 - 5.2 5.7 100 15- Judson Rice sil 4-12 1 120 - 4.2 5.0 80 518 Kalmarville Houston sicl 0- 2 oc 87 - 3.1 9.0' Cottonwood 2.7 50 105 Kamrar Blue Earth sic 2- 6 1 102 - 4.0 4.1 80 6-12 1 97 - 3.8 4.1 70 x415 Kanaianzi- Nobles- 1 0- 2 1 77 3.2 4.2 50 2- 6 1 72 - 3.0 4.0. 45 205- Karlstad Pennington sl 0- 2 1 - 26 3.0 2.7 Aspen .5 28 206 Kasota - Carver t 0- 2 1 85 - 3.8 4.0 70 24 Kasson Mower sit 1- 4 1 107 65' 4.0 4.6 70 208 Kato Rice sicl 0- 2 1 115.w_ . 4.2 4.9 . _ _._ 70. _. 209 Kegonsa Olmsted sil 0- 2 1 97 66' 3.9 4.0 65 2- 6 1 92 64' 3.6 3.9 60 250 Kennebec Houston sil 0- 2 oc 130 - 4.5 5.6 82 30 Kenyon Olmsted 1 1- 6 1 127 81' 4.9 5.2 80 37 �� ( cc,. c .9�►-��J K"tie-�v Revised Ila, MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Hall Siting Committee RE: Recommendation for Site of New City Hall DATE: July 25, 1985 Introduction In 1984 the City Council appointed a five member committee made up of three City Councilmembers and two Planning Commission Members to analyze possible sites for a new City Hall. On July 23, 1985 the Committee held a public meeting at City Hall to hear final comments from citizens regarding the siting of a new City Hall. Eight citizens attended the meeting along with all of the Committee Members and at the end of the meeting the Committee made a final recommendation for the siting of a new City Hall. Site Recommendation The minutes of the Siting Committee meeting held July 23, 1985 are attached for Council review. As a result of the analysis by the Committee, the citizen survey mailed in the July utility billing and the public meeting the Committee passed three motions: 1. Vierling/Lebens moved to recommend to City Council the new City Hall be placed on the east side of Gorman Street, across from Public Works, as the No. 1 choice. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. 2. Lebens/Vierling moved to recommend as a secondary site that property along Gorman Street known as Gorman field, adjacent to Public Works and owned by Gene Hauer. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. 3. Vierling/Lebens moved to present to City Council only the first and second choices for siting the City Hall. Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Vierling, Rockne, Leroux Noes; Czaja Motion carried. Summary of Data Used by the Committee in the Siting Process The Siting Committee began by listing site evaluation criteria, weighting those criteria and then ranking any and all sites recommended by City Councilmembers, City staff members, the public and Committee Members themselves. The initial list included 24 sites. The Committee also took a trip viewing six city halls in the Metropolitan area built in the last ten years and took a trip viewing the highest ranking of the original 24 sites in Shakopee. The Committee then refined its final ranking criteria and re-evaluated the top sites. The final criteria and sites evaluated are attached. Key items attached for Council review: 1. Minutes of July 23, 1985 public meeting. 2. Needs analysis report update by LeRoy Houser dated November 20, 1984. 3. Employee traffic survey (outgoing traffic) and public traffic survey (incoming traffic) to City Hall. 4. Copy of final site evaluation criteria and the weighting of each criteria. 5. Analysis of final eight sites by site criteria. 6. Final tabulation of utility bill survey mailed to approximately 4500 homes with the July billing. 7. General financial information regarding monies available for the purchase of land and construction of a new City Hall. Recommendation The City Hall Siting Committee unanimously recommends that City Council employ an architectual firm to: 1) review and verify the City's needs analysis information; 2) provide the preliminary design for a structure on the No. 1 site east of Gorman Street; and 3) provide hard estimates for site acquisition, relocation and building construction costs. The Committee also recommends that the City Council reappoint the Committee as the body to select the consultant and work with the consultant to accomplish 1 through 3 above. Action Reauested 1. Pass a _motion reappointing the City Hall Siting Committee as the City Hall Building Committee. 2. Direct the City Hall Building Committee to advertise, screen and recommend employment of an architectual firm to 1) verify existing needs analysis figures, 2) develop a design for a city hall structure on the site east of Gorman Street, and 3) prepare hard estimates on site acquisition, relocation and building construction costs. JKA/jms City Hall Siting Committee July 23, 1935 Page 2 Chrm. Leroux reported that money is available for the site, but not for the building at this time. There will probably be a referendum to the citizens for the funding of a new City Hall with General Obligation Bonds. The purchase of the site may be postponed until such time as there is a referendum authorizing the funding for the building. Dolores Lebens added there may be more than enough money than is needed for the site purchase, and the excess will go towards the building. Chrm. Leroux explained the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund which has been accumulating money for such a purpose. Jim Schmitt asked if the Gorman Street site is owned by the City. He was told it is not. Tom Phillips asked about the figures printed in the Shakopee Valley News regarding the purchase of the properties on the block where he lives for $100,000. Chrm. Leroux clarified that he did not make such a statement, and he does not know where the paper got that figure. He said the only property the City owns now is by the Public Works building, SPUC and the Eagle Creek Town Hall. Mr. Phillips thought it would be wise to try to buy vacant land, rather than property with buildings on it. Dolores Lebens confirmed that many people are more interested in the Gorman Street pro- perty because it is vacant. Mr. Phillips thought it would be more logical to have Public Works and utilities and City Hall all in one complex. Chrm. Leroux explained that costs were not really considered in weighting the various sites, as they tried to look for the best possible site. There are no facts to support construction and acquisition costs for any of the possible sites. Chrm. Leroux went over the results of the survey in which 615 responses were received, out of approximately 4500 surveys mailed. This is con- sidered to be a good response ratio. Ray Deutch thought the old Shakopee publishing building could be purchased reasonably. Chrm. Leroux responded that the site was quite a ways away and has problems with storm sewer drainage. Jim Schmitt thought that because there was no question that asked if a new City Hall is needed, the assumption that only the 8% don't think it is needed may not be quite right. He also asked about the site east of the Public Works where the ball fields were. Chrm. Leroux pointed out that site is No. 5 on the list. Terry Forbord said he is really in favor of a new City Hall, but he asked why most of the information on need was taken from the forcast made in 1981. He thought with all the changes in the City within the past few years the forecast made in 1981 might not be adequate. The City Admr. explained that the City is still behind the projections for where it would be by this time, and its hard to tell how much the racetrack will add to its functions. Chrm. Leroux added that once a decision has been made by City Council to proceed with development, a new needs study will be con- ducted. Mr. Forbord asked if the survey response of 14% is strong enough to sup- port a decision. Dave Rockne answered that 15% is considered a good response. City Hall Siting Committee July 23, 19085 Page 3 Dave Czaja arrived and took his seat at 8:33 p.m. Chrm. Leroux informed the audience of the City's obligation to make the City Hall handicap accessible by October of 1986 or face loss of revenue sharing monies. The City has applied for an extension because of plans for a new City Hall, but those plans must proceed. Chrm. Leroux asked if there were any questions from the audience. Frank Schneider asked how much money there is for the site, and if there is extra money if it can be used for the building. Chrm. Leroux responded that excess money for the site purchase can be used for the building. He would prefer to not divulge exactly how much is available at this time. An appraisal will be made of any site chosen to determine the fair market value. He said there is not enough money to buy the whole block Tom Phillips in on, but if the City's two buidings are sold, there would be enough. There is no Federal assistance availabe to remove urban blight to site a City Hall. Mr. Schmitt asked if any of the money to be used will be coming from the racetrack tax increment district. Chrm. Leroux responded that at this time none is proposed, but it could be done. The City Admr. added the City Council has just reviewed its priorities for the tax increment monies, and the City Hall is not on that list. He explained what types of things the 10q, ticket tax is being used for. Vierling/Lebens moved to recommend to City Council the new City Hall be placed on the east side of Gorman Street, across from Public Works, as the No. 1 choice. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Vierling moved to recommend as a secondary site that property along Gorman Street known as Gorman field, adjacent to Public Works and owned by Gene Hauer. Gene Hauer said there are two parcels there, along with abutting railroad right-of-way.. Chrm. Leroux likes these parcels because there is some commercial there already and it will not be surrounded -by residential uses. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The Committee discussed the pros and cons of the site at the Southeast corner of the urban area, which is the Southwest corner of Marschall Road and Shakopee Avenue. Dave Czaja commented that location was high in res- ponse from the survey. Czaja/Rockne moved to recommend to City Council consideration of a third site which is the Southwest corner of Marschall Road and Shakopee Avenue. Roll Call: Ayes; Czaja, Rockne Noes; Leroux, Vierling, Lebens Motion failed. City Hall Siting Committee July 23, 1985 Page 4 Vierling/Lebens moved to present to City Council only the first and second choices for siting the City Hall. Dave Czaja asked for consideration for a downtown site, as that got 183 votes in the survey. Discussion ensued regarding financial considerations of vacant land vs. improved land. Mr. Forbord agreed with Mr. Czaja regarding a downtown site and the votes that were given that location by the survey. He pointed out that if you add the specific sites in the Central Business District that were mentioned, that would add 3.5% to those favoring a site in the downtown area. He would think that would be a mandate of the voters and there would be merit in having a downtown site as a consideration, especially in that financial considerations were not included. Chrm. Leroux stated he has personal feelings against the site at Marschall Road and Shakopee Ave because he lives near there, but that isn't why he voted against it. He doesn't think the Committee should recommend too many sites or it hasn't done its job. Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Vierling, Rockne, Leroux Noes; Czaja Motion carried. Chrm. Leroux asked for one of the Planning Commissioners to make the pre- sentation of the recommendation to City Council, to be done at the second meeting in August. Vierling/Lebens moved to appoint Dave Czaja to make the presentation to City Council on August 20, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Leroux said after that presentation this Committee will no longer be viable, but he plans to ask City Council to charge this same Committee with continued development of the new City Hall. Vierling/Lebens moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary MEMO TO:-- Mayor and City Council FROM: City Hall Siting Committee RE: Recommendation for Site of New City Hall DATE: July 25, 1985 Introduction In 1984 the City Council appointed a five member committee made up of three City Councilmembers and two Planning Commission Members to analyze possible sites for a new City Hall. On July 23, 1985 the Committee held a public meeting at City Hall to hear final comments from citizens regarding the siting of a new City Hall. Eight citizens attended the meeting along with all of the Committee Members and at the end of the meeting the Committee made a final recommendation for the siting of a new City Hail. Site Recommendation The minutes of the Siting Committee meeting held July 23, 1985 are attached for Council review. As a result of the analysis by the Committee, the citizen survey mailed in the July utility billing and the public meeting the Committee passed three motions: 1. 2. 3. Summary of Data Used by the Committee in the Siting Process The Siting Committee began by listing site evaluation criteria, weighting those criteria and -then ranking any and all sites recommended by City Councilmembers, City staff members, the public and Committee Members themselves. The initial list included 24 sites. The Committee also took a trip viewing six city hails in the Metropolitan area built in the last ten years and took a trip viewing the highest ranking of the original 24 sites in Shakopee. The Committee then refined its final ranking criteria and re-evaluated the top sites. The final criteria and sites evaluated are attached. Key items attached for Council review: 1. Minutes of July 23, 1985 public meeting. 2. Needs analysis report update by LeRoy Houser dated November 20, 1984. CITY HALL SITE SURVEY - S; to I ��n�/2V,�"" �l`�' y / �� ` East side, annex to poiice or utility 286.0 46.50 building,.least expensive site, consider cost of land, all offices should be in central location Near downtown, between 2nd & 3rd Street, 183.0 29.76 1st or 2nd Avenue Don't need a new City Hall 51.0 8.29 Southeast corner 39.0 6.34 Blank 11.0 1.79 Present site as part of D.T. renovation, 11.0 1.79 north side of 1st Ave., present site - 2nd floor Old Woman's Correctional Facility 6.0 0.98 Vacant Building 5.0 0.81 MV Gas Building, 2nd and Lewis 6.0 0.98 Courthouse 2.0 0.33 No City Hall anywhere 2.0 0.33 No preference 2.0 0.33 East of Cavanaugh funeral home 1.0 0.16 239 W. 1st Ave. 1.0 0.16 Multiple suggestions 1.0 0.16 Let Council decide best site 1.0 0.16 Southside of senior high 1.0 0.16 Old Shakopee Valley Publishing Building 1.0 0.16 Minnesota Valley Mall 1.0 0.16 Montevideo 1.0 0.16 City doesn't listen to citizens 1.0 0.16 Concerned about senior citizens 1.01 0.16 Geographic center of City 0.5 -O.08 West End 0.5 0.08 Total 615.0 100.00 V Ifs ` (/1 ZS fl Ifi'h i (r- - JW Vk _ Y500 mwledt roll"#1 JM hill% h Would you please indicate your preference below. Do not hesitatito choo e "Other" and write in your choice and the reason for suggesting it.-: - East side of urban area (in the vicinity of Gorman Street near the Police Depart- ment, Marschall Road and 4th Avenue) - affords some consolidation of City ser- vices with good access and large area for expansion. Southeast corner of urban area (Southwest corner of Marschall Roadnd Shakopee Avenue) - aesthetically pleasing with split level, good access, rge area for expansion. Near downtown (near Courthouse and hospital) - aesthetically pleasing, removes urban blight, near County offices and downtown businesses. Other Please list your street address{4�. 900 block of Swift Street N.E.): 13 MEMO TO:- City Hall Siting Committee �C O FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director DATE: July 25, 1985 Bond Issue - 8.5% - 1052 levy per statute - Approximate amounts Term Principal Payment Total Interest Total Cost Mills per Year Levy per Year 10 yr. $ 500,000 $ 76,200 $ 262,000 $ 762,000 1.03 $ 80,000 15 yr. 500,000 63,200 403,300 903,300 .82 63,200 10 yr. 1,000,000 152,400 524,000 1,524,000 2.07 160,000 15 yr. 1,000,000 120,400 806,300 1,806,300 1.63 126,500 10 yr. 1,500,000 228,600 786,000 2,286,000 3.10 240,000 15 1,500,000 180,600 1,209,500 2,709,500 2.45 189,700 One mill = $77,400 (approximately) Residence with E.M.V. of $81,300, 16,950 assessed value; 1 mill = $16.95 C.I.F. Cash balance 6/30/85 $409,000 1985 Budget exp. (Norton Dr.) - 27,000 Est. 1985 interest 40,000 422,000 ? Minimum balance - 75,000 347,000 Sale of old site = $200,000 CITY � OF - SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379.1376 (612) 445.3650 r July 26, 1983 Honorable Mayor Reinke and Members of the City Council 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 33379 Re: City Hall Siting Dear Mayor Reinke and Members of the City Council: Upon hearing of the recommendation of the'City Hall Siting Committee the Downtown Committee has requested me to respectfully present an alternative perspective for your consideration. The Downtown Committee believes that a downtown site should be con- sidered in the initial site and cost analysis undertaken to reach a final proposal. The Committee recommends consideration of the vacant Minne casco building as a reasonable cost .alternative, and believes that such an downtown alternative would-be the top choice if citizens surveyed are able to consider cost as one factor in their selection c1 a.�.:. L� • 1�`1 L�.L1L:11.1 V11 Llle\..�Jllil ltl..l. l.�G Nu -.S 1 Vl Wa1 d, l.11e VV►' hive attributes of the Minnecasco site: The building could be accuired for a reasonable price and with alterations and a 40-00 scuare foot addition could meet current city hall space needs. The building is relatively new and would be adaptable to remodel- ing as optional governmental office space. The building was designed for the addition of a second floor and could also be expanded to the south. A significant amount of parking .could be provided through - existing spaces in the library lot, the Golden Arrow municipal lot, the new expanded Second Ave. lot, and HRA owned property to the east of the iibrarv. This site is very accessible and an office use is compatible with downtown zoning. - This site is two blocks to the court house and one-half block from the Aost office. The Heart of Progress VaIIev page two City Hall workers and clients would be more inclinded to spend money in a aoWntown site. When results of the city hall siting survey were tabulated, a combination of all downtown sites received a strong th_rt'%_­ three percent of the votes. This high response deserves further Council consideration as a detailed site and cost analysis is undertaken. We request such consideration and would like to speak to this issue when the City Counc'�1 considers its report from the City Hall Siting Committee. Sincerely, Gary Laurent Chairman MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clem_—,Y/ RE Application From Scottland kc. for $850,000 I.R.Bonds DATE: August 16, 1985 Introduction• The City has received the attached application from Scottland Inc. for $850,000 I.R.Bonds. According to our recent policy and procedures for review of municipal industrial and commercial development financing applications, all project applications received on or after August 1st will be submitted to the City Council for consideration as they are received. The attached application was received on Monday, August 12, 1985. Although staff -has been in contact with two other interested applicants, no applications have been submitted to date. Shakopee's allocation for 1985 is $2,598,015 and $1,800,000 has already been approved by the State for the Super 8 Motel Project. The above applicant has indicated verbally that they wish to apply for $850,000 and wish the City to locate from another entitlement city the $51,985 difference. If this can not be done, the amount will have t.o be reduced to $798,015 when the preliminary resolution is adopted. Alternatives• 11 Adopt a resolution setting a public hearing date 21 Deny application Recommendation: Alternative 1. Action Reauested: Adopt Resolution No. 2428, Establishing The Date for A Public Hearing On A Proposal to Undertake and Finance A Project Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, and move its adoption. hb- r August 16, 1985 Ms. Judith Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: IRB Application Dear Judy: Please find enclosed the City and State applications for an $850,000 Industrial Revenue Bond for Scottland Inc. If the City is not able to obtain State approval for this amount, we request in the alternative the balance of the current City bonding allocation in the amount of $798,000. Please note that the legal description provided to your office by Holmes & Graven should read Lot 2, Block 3, Valley Park First Addition, not Lot 2, Block 2, Valley Park First Addition. If you have any questions, please contact Bruce Malkerson or me at 445-3242. Very truly yours, IMS Timothy J. Keane Vice President TJK:ap Enclosure 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 / 612-445-3242 Attorneys at Law JAMES S. HOLMES DAVID L. GRAVEN JOHN R. LARSON CHARLES R. WEAVER ROBERT L. DAVIDSON ROBERT J. LINDALL JOHN M. LEFEVRE,JR. LARRY M. W ERTH-EIM JOHN C. UTLEY STANLEY E. KEHL JONATHANP. SCOLL JEFFREY R. BRAUCHLE August 16, 1985 -Judith Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 338-1177 2200 Northwestern Financial Center. Bloomington, MN 55431 (612)893-9400 Re: City of Shakopee, Minnesota $850,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Scottland, Inc. Project), Series 1985 - Dear Ms. Cox: t C_ TIMOTHYP. FLAHERTY STEFANIE-N. GALEY DANIEL R. NELSON BARBARA L. PORTWOOD ROBERT J. DEIKE 'MARK A. LINDGREN LAURA K. MOLLET BRUCE A. KOHN STEWART D. GREGG CHRISTINE M. CHALE MARY G. DOBBINS MARYJ. BRENDEN STEVEN T. HETLAND P ATR ICI A. BLOODGOOD TIMOTHY E. MARX ERICA. SHORT Enclosed is the resolution establishing the date for a public hearing for the above - referenced project which the City Council needs for August 20, 1985. I have also enclosed a draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for approval of the project, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, which needs to be available for public inspection at the City offices. Sincerely, Stef ie N. Galey, SNG:mj Enclosures cc: Mr. Tim Keane RESOLUTION NO. ?a?R I t C - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE AND FINANCE A PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 474.01 et seq. (the "Act"), authorizes the issuance o revenue bonds to finance projects; and WHEREAS, the term "project" is defined by Section 474.02, subdivision la, of the Act to include "any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise"; and WHEREAS, a representative of Scottland, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, or a partnership of which Scottland, Inc. will be a partner (the "Developer") has presented this City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Shakopee (the "City") with information concerning a proposed project (the "Project") to be undertaken within the City; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City resolve to issue revenue bonds pursuant to the Act .to finance the Project and has presented to the City Council a form of preliminary resolution concerning such issuance with a request that such preliminary resolution, attached hereto as Exhibit A, be considered for adoption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that the City Council must conduct a public hearing on any proposal to undertake and finance a project; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that notice of the time and place of such public hearing and stating the general nature of the project and an estimate of the principal amount of the bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the project must be published at least once not less than fifteen (15) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, subdivision 7b, of the Act provides that the notice must state that a draft copy of the proposed application (the "Application") to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for approval of the Project, together with all attachments and exhibits, is on file with the City and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented to the City a form of public notice, attached hereto as Exhibit B, with a request that the City Council establish a date for a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project and authorize publication of the form of public notice provided by the Developer; 5C I t C_ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE THAT: 1. The City will conduct a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project on the 17th day of September, 1985. 2. The City Clerk of the City is hereby authorized to cause a public notice, substantially in the form of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B, to be published in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. The City Clerk of the City is hereby authorized and directed to have available for public inspection in the offices of the City a draft copy of the proposed Application, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of August, 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of August, 1985. City Attorney -2- Mayor of the City of Shakopee EXHIBIT B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, AS AMENDED THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the governing body of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "City"), will meet on September 17, 1985, at 8:00 p.m. at the City offices in Shakopee, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue its revenue bonds under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, in order to finance the cost of a project. The proposed project will consist of acquiring land for the new construction of a 27,000 square foot office/warehouse facility located in the City at Lot 2, Blogk-.:3 Halley Park First Addition. The proposed project will be initially owned or operdted by Scottland, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, or a partnership of which Scottland, Inc. will be a partner. The estimated total amount of the proposed issue is $850,000. The bonds shall be a limited obligation of the City and the bonds and interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, except that such bonds may be secured by a mortgage and other encumbrance on the project. No holder of any such bond shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the bonds, or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the City except the project. A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for approval of the project, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the City offices. All persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above. Dated: , 1985 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE :A Judith Cox City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION Application for Approval of Industrial Development Bond Project Pursuant to Chapter 474 (Please submit this form in duplicate — all supporting data in single copy only) Date: The governing body of Shakopee , County of Scott , Minnesota, hereby applies to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development (Department) for approval of a proposed Industrial Development Bond issue as required by Minn. Stat. 474.01 , subd. 7a. Ana I location of issuance authority under Minn. Laws 1984, ch. 582 §13-20 (to be codified as Minn. Stat. 474.16 — 474.24) for this proposed issue has has not ❑, been received from the Department. (If an allocation has been received, please show source: Entitlement ❑, Competitive Pool ❑) We have entered into preliminary discussions with: Firm: Scottland, Inc. Attorney Address: 5244 Valley Industrial Blvd. Address Jim Lockart 4344 IDS Center City: Shakpee State: MN City: Minneapolis State: MN NameofProject: Scottland, Inc. Project This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): real estate The proceeds from the sale of the Industrial Development Bonds will be used to (describe project): Acquire land for the new construction of a 27,000 square oO office warehouse facility. Address of Project: Lot 2 Block 2 Valley Park ist Addition, Shakopee, MN Proceeds from the sale of the bonds of approximately $ 850,000 will be applied toward payment of costs now estimated as follows: Acquisition of land: New construction: Demolition and site preparation: Acquisition of Equipment: Movable (limited to 10% of proceeds) Other Installation Fees: Architectural, engineering, inspection, fiscal, legal, administration, or printing: Construction Interest: Initial Bond Reserve: Contingencies: Other: $ 150,000 832,000 100,000 22,000 58,240 It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about November 1 , 19 85 , and will be completed on or about Al2ril 1 , 1988 . When completed, there will be approxi- mately 3 0 new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approximately $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 based upon currently prevailing wages. (If applicable) There are existing jobs provided by business. (If applicable) There will be 3_ jobs created by construction of the project. Number of hours 40 Aver- age wage level S 22,000 The tentative term of the financing is 30 years, commencing November 1 , 19 85 The following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by reference: 1. An opinion of bond counsel that proposal constitutes a project under Minn. Stat. 474.02 and Minn. Laws 1984, chp. 582 § 12 (to be codified as Minn. Stat. 474.23). 2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance of its revenue bonds and stating that the project, except for a project under Minn. Stat. 474.02, subd. 1 f, would not be undertaken but for the availability of Industrial Development Bond financing. 3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project satisfies the public or purpose and policies of Minn. Stat. ch. 474. 4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibility of the project from a financial standpoint. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority to the effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement, the information required by Minn. Stat. 474.01, Subd. 8 will be submitted to the Department (not applicable to project under Minn. Stat. 474.02, subd. 1 f). 6. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that the project does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence. 7. A statement signed by the principal representatives of the issuing authority stating that the project: (1 ) does not include: an airplane; a private luxury box; a facility primarily used for gambling; or a store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises; and (2) that no more than 10 percent of the proceeds of revenue bonds will be used to finance movable equipment not constituting a fixture, no more than 25 percent of revenue bonds will be used to finance the acquisition of land, and not .more than $10,000,000 in revenue bonds which are industrial development bonds subject to the exemption described in section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended December 31; 1983, will be issued with respect to any one building which is used for commercial, office or industrial purposes, with- out regard to ownership of condominium units within the building. 8. A statement signed by a representative of the issuing authority that a public hearing was conducted pursu- ant to Minn. Stat. 474.01 , Subd. 7b. The statement shall include the date, time and place of the meeting and certify that a draft copy of this application with all attachments was available for public inspection and that all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. 9. Copies of notice(s) as published which indicate the date(s) of publication and the newspaper(s) in which the notice(s) were published. 10. Provide a plan for compliance of employment preference of economically disadvantaged or unemployed indi- viduals. (See Minn. Stat. 474.01 , Subd. 1 1.) c(C,— We, the undersigned, are duly elected representatives of Minnesota and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final conclusion. Signed by: (Principal Officers or Representatives of Issuing Authority; type or print official's name on the line to the left of the signature line. Thank you.) Mayor/chair Title: Signature Signature This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Department or the State of the feasibility of the project or the terms of the revenue agreement to be executed or the bonds to be issued therefor. Authorized Signature Minnesota Department of Date of Approval Energy and Economic Development Please return to: Minnesota Dept. of Energy and Economic Development Business Financial Management 900 American Center Building 150 East Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 [ Letterhead of Financial Institution] , 1985 Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development 900 American Center Building 150 East Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: City of Shakopee, Minnesota $850,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Scottland, Inc. Project), Series 1985 We have informally considered the economic feasibility of the above -referenced Bonds to be issued under the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act to provide funds for acquiring land for the new construction of a 27,000 square foot office/warehouse facility located in the City of Bemidji, Minnesota (the "City"). The proposed project will be initially owned or operated by Scottland, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, or a partnership of which Scottland, Inc. will be a partner. Based on our preliminary investigation, we believe the project is economically feasible and the Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City can be successfully issued and sold. We propose to purchase said Bonds subject to the approval of the project by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development and subject to final agreement by and among the City, Scottland, Inc. and , as to the terms and conditions of the issuance and sale of the Bonds. Sincerely, 0 Its MAYOR'S STATEMENT CONCERNING A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474 The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Mayor of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "City"), certifies that the City Council of the City (the "Council") has been provided by Scottland, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, or a partnership of which Scottland, Inc. will be a partner (the "Developer"), or its representatives, with certain information concerning a proposed Project under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474. On the basis of such information the Council, by resolution adopted September 17, 1985 (the "Preliminary Resolution), has given preliminary approval to the proposed Project and the financing thereof by the issuance of a revenue obligation or obligations of the City. The following are factors considered by the Council in determining to give preliminary approval to said Project: 1. The Project consists generally of: Acquiring land for the new construction of a 27,000 square foot office/warehouse facility located in the City at Lot 2, Block 2, Valley Park First Addition. The proposed project will be initially owned or operated by the Developer. 2. Holmes be Graven, Chartered, bond counsel for the Project, is of the opinion that the Project constitutes a "project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.02, Subdivision la. 3. Based on an estimated total cost of acquisition and construc- tion in excess of $850,000, it is the opinion of the Council that the Project, when completed, will add significantly to the commercial and industrial tax base of the City and the County and School District in which the Project is located. 4. The Developer estimates that, as a result of the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project, the Project will generate employment opportunities for approximately 30 persons (in addition to those currently employed by the Developer), in the City and the surrounding area. The Council is concerned about the level of unemployment in the City and surrounding area and the resulting movement of persons to other areas where jobs are more plentiful, and believes that the existence of the Project in the City would help alleviate those problems. 5. The Developer estimates that the acquisition, renovation, construction and installation of the Project will result in an additional payroll of approximately $22,000, based on currently prevailing wages. The Council believes that a substantial percentage of that additional payroll will be spent on housing, food and other goods and services in the City and surrounding area, thus benefiting the local housing industry and local merchants. 6. Based on representations of the Developer as to the nature of the Project, the City Council believes that the Project, when completed, will be compatible with present and projected development in its area. -1- 7. Nothing has come to the attention of the Council to indicate that the proposed financing of the Project by the City would adversely and unfairly affect any other business enterprise located in the City. 8. Pursuant to the Preliminary Resolution of September 17, 1985, the City will comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subd. 8. 9. The Project does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence. 10. Based on representations of the Developer, the City Council believes that the Project: (1) does not include: an airplane; a private luxury box; a facility primarily used for gambling; or a store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises; and (2) that no more than 10% of the proceeds of revenue bonds will be used to finance movable equipment not constituting a fixture, no more than 25% of revenue bonds will be used to finance the acquisition of land, and not more than $10,000,000 in revenue bonds which are industrial development bonds subject to the exemption described in Section 103(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended December 31, 1983, will be issued with respect to any one building which is used for commercial, office or industrial purposes, without regard to ownership of condominium units within the building. 11. A public hearing was conducted on September 17, 1985, at City offices in Shakopee, Minnesota, at 8:00 p.m., pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subd. 7b, to consider the proposal that the City undertake and finance the Project, at which time a draft copy of this application with all attachments hereto was made available for public inspection. All interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. 12. The City will undertake to encourage that the employment opportunities made available by the Project will, if feasible, be offered to individuals who are unemployed or economically disadvantaged as contemplated in Minnesota Laws 1983, Chapter 289, Section 113. The City will comply with the reporting requirements set forth in said Section 113. Mayor -2- I , C, HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402 , 1985 Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development 900 American Center Building 150 East Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: City of Shakopee, Minnesota $850,000 Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Scottland, Inc. Project), Series 1985 Dear Commissioner: Based upon a preliminary review of certain facts and circumstances presented to us concerning the project proposed to be financed by issuance of the above -referenced revenue note, it is our opinion that such project qualifies as a "project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.02, Subdivision la. In addition, it is our opinion that as of the date hereof the City of Shakopee has complied with all applicable public approval requirements of Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Very truly yours, HOLMES & GRAVEN, Chartered Stefanie N. Galey SNG:mj — — - -- -EXHIBIT-f3 — — -- - RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE MINNESOTA ENERGY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL, AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the welfare of the .State of Minnesota (the "State") requires active promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment, and it is the policy of the State to facilitate and encourage action by local government units to prevent the economic deterioration of such areas to the point where the process can be reversed only by total redevelopment through the use of local, state and federal funds derived from taxation, with the attendant necessity of relocating displaced persons and of duplicating public services in other areas; and WHEREAS, technological change has caused a shift to a significant degree in the area of opportunity for educated youth to processing, transporting, marketing, service and other industries, and unless existing and related industries are retained and new industries are developed to use the available resources of the City of Shakopee (the "City"), a large part of the existing investment of the community and of the State as a whole in educational and public service facilities will be lost, and the movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to areas where their services may be effectively used and compensated and the lessening attraction of persons and businesses from other areas for purposes of industry, commerce and tourism will deprive the City and the State of the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities for the remaining population; and WHEREAS, the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services requires the need for more intensive development and use of land to provide an adequate tax base to finance these costs; and WHEREAS, a representative of Scottland, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, or a partnership of which Scottland, Inc. will be a partner (the "Developer") has presented this City Council .(the "City Council") of the City with information concerning a proposed project (the "Project") to be undertaken within the City; and WHEREAS, the existence of the Project in the City will contribute to more intensive development and use of land to increase the tax base of the City and overlapping taxing authorities and maintain and provide for an increase in opportunities for employment for residents of the City, including economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals; and -1- WHEREAS, the City has been advised that conventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available at such costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, and, therefore, the City finds that but for the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting lower borrowing cost, the Project would not be economically feasible; and WHEREAS, this Council has been advised by a representative of the Developer that on the basis of information submitted to them and their discussions with representatives of area financial institutions and potential buyers of tax- exempt bonds, industrial development revenue bonds of the City could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to issue its revenue bonds to finance the cost, in whole or in part, of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement or extension of - capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the Developer, and the issuance of such bonds by the City would be a substantial inducement to the Developer to construct its facility in the City; and WHEREAS, on the basis of information given the City to date, it appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the provisions of Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the Developer in an amount presently estimated not to exceed $850,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of the revenue bonds for such purpose and in such amount is preliminarily approved, subject to approval of the Project by the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development and to the mutual agreement of this body, the Developer and the initial purchaser of the bonds as to the details of the bonds and provisions for their payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the bonds of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the Project, and the bonds, when, as, and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City. 2. In accordance with '_Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7a, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for approval of the Project. The Mayor and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development with any preliminary information needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project, if it is approved by the Minnesota Department of Energy -and Economic Development. 3. The law firm of Holmes & Graven, Chartered, is authorized to act as Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents -2- relating -to the -Project -and bonds issued in -connection-therewith.. -"'Me Mayor, City Attorney, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such documents. 4. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 11, the City Administrator and other officers, emplovees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to encourage the Developer to provide employment opportunities to economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals. Such individuals may be identified by such mechanisms as are available to the City, including a first source agreement in which the Developer agrees to use a designated State employment office as a first source for employment recruitment, referral, and placement. MCC r August 16, 1985 Ms. Judi Simac, City Planner Ms. Judy Cox, City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: IRB Application Dear Judi and Judy: In the course of preparing an application for Industrial Revenue Bonds last week, the outdated form of application for Plan Review was given to my secretary. We had filled out and filed with the City that form and the application for Industrial or Commercial Development Financing with our check for $1,000 on Monday, August 12, 1985. I enclose a completed application for Plan Review on the new form. The resolution calling for a public hearing, public hearing notice, state application, and other necessary bond documents will be delivered to you, today by our bond counsel, Holmes & Graven. I understand the City Council will review this application on August 20, 1985, and hopefully set a public hearing for September 17, 1985. Because we will build the building on two lots proposed in our preliminary plat, we have combined those two lots into one on our preliminary plat for Canterbury Park First Addition. So that there is no confusion, I have enclosed a clarification of the application for Industrial or Commercial Development Financing. 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 / 612-445-3242 Judi Simace August 16, 1985 Page 2 I have enclosed ten copies of all documents, including site plan with all of the requirements we discussed today shown thereon. Additional related information is in our plat application. As we discussed today, we can proceed with the application for bonds without having a final plat, because this building would front on a public road without a new plat. If you have any questions, please call me or Tim Keane. Very truly yours, SCOTTLAND INC. Q- AU&O�� Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President BDM:ap Enclosures lI C— M 7 ^J f — T��ES 70 N_ I _ 61TuMINOUL fA'p*IN6 ti I 41 C^Ft6 mc Lr hr1Ne W-9 n ffi V ; 1 CANMOM vlSTi.ZA " GONMeN TOItLf4 - / � • - � • J i F Office/ Warehouse Facility, Z6,400 SQ. PL \ A i — I — w..aa H0w4[ ALaM I `\1 I -7371 —jZ [(2 od W1 I 171 I933VU le 30, 30 ; Z4W 0' P O 61-rUMINOUS LOAOW(a 1 II SARs pR �»-�Naw.HT 3�. 73'&1 �33 �2£L. 1 .. - BITE - FLOOR. PLo.N Canterbury Park Scottland, Inc., OPPIGE / WAAAAH0Ufi FACILITY GANT9P84FY PARK ,SI(I'HAAXOPEfi, MINNn4(o��T�VA��(��yp�I(y1�I- �-�/—� OIIt1� m O O off lJ\'/ pr-odEGT VATA SI?O LL(aN- s LoTIFIICXW. u.o'oL, [,unFEs�s-( rA - v.0 gIIILOINb I.R[A I lI0' + 7.�0 + 16, 400 ornca I 8, Co" wN0JS4;- 16,400 ��[[wb 040U,"v: ,3/s.a .a..' INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND Application For Plan Review n w I1T I1 T1.\T 11Tw� AMT^VT Applicant: Scottland Inc. Contact' Person : Bruce D. Malkerson Address: 5244 Valley Industrial Blvd. South City: Shakopee State:.Minnesota . Zip 55379 Date Filed: Hearing Date: Phone No. 445-3242 Phone No. 445-3242 Property Owner: Valley Industrial Development CoPhone No. 445-3242 Address: 5244 Valley Industrial Blvd. So. City: Shakopee State: Minnesota Consultant: None Address: City: State: Phone No. Zip: 55379 Zip. Location of Proposed Site Plan -as proposed to be platted: Lot 1, Block*2, Canterbury Park First Addition; -as presently platted: Lot 2, Block 3, Valle Park First Addition Proper y Acreage: 2 Present Zoning: I-1 Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Industrial Warehouse Legal Description - PLEASE attach 'as Exhibit."A". Deed Restrictions: Yes X No If so, PLEASE attach as:;Exhibit "B". SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: r CII G A. Completed application form B. Exhibit A - Legal Description C. Exhibit B - Deed Restrictions (if necessary). D. A site plan shall include, but not be limited to, a scaled drawing of the following items: (10 copies) 1. Location and dimensions of lot, building; driveways and off-street parking spaces. 2. Distance between building and front, side and rear lot lines; principal and accessory buildings, principal and accessory buildings on adjacent lots. •.3. Location of signs, easement, underground utilities, septic tanks, tile fields, water wells, etc. 4. Existing grades and buildings within 100 feet of the site. 5. Location of all buildings, heights and square footages. 6: Curb cuts, driveways, parking spaces, walks and curbing. 7. Off-street loading areas. 8. Drainage plan and finished grades. 9. Type of business, proposed number of employees by shift. 10. Proposed floor plan with use indicated and building elevations. 11. Proposed exterior building material. 12. Sanitary sewer and water plan. 13. Lighting plan showing the lighting of parking area, walks, security lighting and driveway entrance light. .14. Landscape plan with schedule of plantings and proposed screening. 15. Refuse area. 16. Existing trees of 6 inches in diameter or more. Failure to comply with submission requirements will result in return of your application for compliance. Submitted this _E�day of 19 0 Applicant's Signature Title Property Owner' -s Signature NOTE: "Any misrepresentation or incorrect information of a material nature submitted shall be sufficient reason to rescind approval .vf a ,project under the Mn Municipal Industrial Development Act and/or revocation of a -building permit." 6/85 c(C Exhibit A Legal Description: As proposed to be platted Lot 1, Block 2, Canterbury Park First Addition As presently platted: Lot 2, Block 3 Valley Park First.Addition Exhibit B Deed Restrictions attached DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS ( Cr THIS DECLARATION, made this day of 9 19 , by Valley Industrial Park, Ltd., a limited partnership organ- ized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called Declarant, WITNESSETH THAT, WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain land lying and being in the County of Scott, State of Minnesota, described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Declarant is desirous of subjecting said land to the conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations, and easements hereinafter set forth, to: ensure proper use and appropriate development and improvement of each building site therein contained; to protect the owners of building sites against such improper use of surrounding buildings as will depreciate the value of their pro- perty; to guard against the erection thereon of structures built of improper or unsuitable materials; to encourage the erection of attractive improvements appropriately located so as to prevent inharmonious appearance and function; to provide adequate setbacks and off-street parking; and in general to provide for development which will promote the general welfare of the Valley Industrial Park. NOW, THEREFORE, Valley Industrial Park, Ltd., Declarant, hereby declares that the land described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof is subject to the following conditions, covenants, restrictions, reservations and easements, which shall operate as equitable restrictions and covenants running with the land and with each and every part and parcel thereof and shall apply to and bind each and every successor in interest thereof; and are imposed upon said land as a servitude in favor of Declarant: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS OF TERMS As hereinafter used, the following terms and words shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Article I: "Building Site" shall mean any lot, or portion thereof, or two or more contiguous lots or portions thereof, or a parcel of land upon which an industrial or commercial building or buildings and appurtenant structures may be erected in conformance with the re- quirements of this Declaration, the size and dimensions of which are determined by the legal description in the original conveyance from Declarant to the first fee owner of each parcel. "Declarant" shall mean Valley Industrial Park, Ltd., its successors and assigns. "Improvements" shall mean and include an industrial or commer- cial building or buildings, outbuildings appurtenant thereto, parking areas, signs, loading areas, trackage, fences, masonry walls, hedges, (� lawns, mass plantings, and any structures of any type or kind located above ground, or any alteration thereto. "Owner" shall mean any party or parties, their heirs, successors, or assigns, who hold the title to any part or parcel of the land des- cribed in Exhibit A. "Front Yard" . a yard extending along the full length of the front lot line between side lot lines and extending from the abutting front street right-of-way line to a depth required in this Declaration. Any street facing shall be considered a Front Yard. "Side Yard" : a yard extending along the side lot line between the front and rear lot lines,.having a width as specified in this Declaration. "Rear Yard" : a yard extending along the full length of the rear lot line between the side lot lines and extending toward the front for a depth as specified in this Declaration. ARTICLE II GENERAL DEVELOpMENr REGULATIONS A. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on on the premises, nor shall anything be done thereon which, in the use of the premises for industrial or commercial purposes and other uses ordinarily incidental to the operation of an industrial plant or commercial business, may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the Owners or Declarant. B. Without otherwise limiting the provisions of Paragraph A above or any other terms and conditions of this Declaration, the improvements or premises shall be used for industrial or commercial purposes and other uses ordinarily incidental to the operation of an industrial plant or a commercial business and shall comply with all zoning regulations of the City of Shakopee, or any successor governing body. Said zoning regulations shall govern if inconsistent herewith, the standards herein contained shall be considered as requirements in addition to said zoning regulations. The premises shall not be used for any of the following purposes: a. Vehicle wrecking or reduction for parts. b. Manufacturing, storage, distribution or sales of explosives. c. Paper and pulp manufacturing. d. Pickle, sauerkraut or sausage manufacturing. e. Slaughter house or smoke house. f. Tar distillation or manufacturing. g. Ready -mix concrete plant. h. Asphalt mix plant. C. No improvement shall be erected, placed, or altered on any Building Site until the building or other improvement plans, spec- ifications (including front elevation and/or architects rendering) and a plot plan showing the locations of such improvements on -the -9- particular Building Site have been submitted to and approved in writing by Declarant as to conformity and harmony of external design with ex- isting structures in the development, and as to location of the improve- C- ments on the Building Site, giving due regard to the anticipated use l� thereof as same may affect adjoining structures, uses and operations, and as to location of the improvements with respect to topography, grade.i and finished ground elevation. Declarant shall not be liable to anyone in damages so submitting plans for approval, or to any Owner by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence, or nonfeasance of itself, its agents, or employee, arising out of or in such plans. Likewise, anyone so submitting plans to the Declarant for approval, by submitting of such plans, and any party, becoming an Owner, agrees that he or it will not bring any action or suit to recover for any such damages against the Declarant. In the event Declarant fails to a prove or disapprove such plans and specifications within sixty (60days after they have been submitted to Declarant, this will be deemed to be fulfilled and in compliance. If an Improvement is begun in violation of the terms and conditions hereof, or without written approval as required, and no suit to enjoin the erection, establish- ment, or alteration of such Improvement has been commenced prior to the completion thereof, this covenant shall be deemed to be fulfilled and in compliance. D. No building or other structure, or combination of buildings or structures, shall be erected, altered, placed, or maintained on the premises which shall occupy more than thirty-five percent of the land area of a Building Site for its original building. After a period of one year from the completion of the original building on a Building Site, a maximum expansion to fifty percent land coverage shall be allowed; provided, however, in no event shall any building or structure, or combination of buildings or structures, be erected upon a Building Site so as to reduce the remaining land area below that which is necessary to fulfill the parking, yards and loading area requirements as hereinafter set forth. E. All Building Sites shall be subject to the following set- backs and additional restrictions: (1) The minimum Front Yard shall be fifty feet. Parcels at the corner of intersecting streets shall main- tain a minimum Front Yard of fifty feet from each street. (2) The minimum Side Yard shall be twenty feet. (3) The minimum Rear Yard shall be thirty feet. (4) Where railroad spurs or railroad easements are located on Building Sites or contiguous thereto, the Side Yard or Rear Yard, as the case may be, may be the minimum clearance required by Minnesota Statutes or railroad rules and regulations. (5) Yards and any other vacant area except those areas designated for parking, loading, research and development sites or facilitates, or storage, shall be sodded or seeded and landscaped in an attractive manner with trees or shrubs,.according to plans first approved in writing by the Declarant. Such landscaped areas shall be adequately maintained -3- during the life of this Declaration in an attractive and presentable manner. (6) No buildings or structures except fences shall be per- mitted in the required setback. The Front Yard setback area shall be used as a landscaped yard only and for no other purpose. (7) All setbacks shall be free at all times from debris, papers, excessive leaves, branches and trash of all kinds. F. Off-street parking shall be provided by an Owner for cus- tomers and employees. From and after the date that a building is constructed on a Building Site, the Owner or Owners of such Build- ing Site shall maintain adequate on-site parking spaces and loading facilities to serve the needs of each such Building Site, taking into account the building or buildings, located or to be located thereon and the use made or to be made thereof, and shall keep such parking areas, drives and loading area surfaced with asphalt or con- crete and properly kept and maintained at all times. No parking shall be located in the required Front Yards and Side Yards. A Building Site shall not have more than two curb cuts per street facing, and the maximum width of the driveway through the required Front Yard or Side Yard shall not exceed 24 feet. All parking spaces and access drives shall be adequately surfaced with a dust free mater- ial and be properly maintained during the life of this Declaration. Parking arrangements and access drives, drainage methods, and surfacing must be approved in writing by the Declarant. In the event that the parking requirements as set forth herein cannot be met, an Owner may meet the requirements by acquiring an additional parcel in the premises or contiguous thereto fulfill these requirements. How- ever,.all such proposals must be submitted to the Declarant and receive written approval. G. Loading areas shall be constructed and maintained upon a Building Site in such a location that any vehicle transporting goods, wares, merchandise or materials to or from a Building Site shall not be required to park on any street or minimum Front Yard. Plans for loading dock arrangements must be approved by the Declarant in writing. H. All Improvements on the premises shall be constructed to comply with the then existing building codes in effect for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, or suc- cessor governing bodies, and in compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations of any governmental body that may be applicable. I. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed, or maintained upon the property, except accessory to and during construction of permanent buildings. J. Storage of all materials, products, either in process of construction or in completed form, equipment, or other necessary tools or articles outside of any building shall be in an area designated for such -4- purpose and enclosed by a fence or other appropriate enclosure which shall screen such storage from public view. Plans for such storage arrangements must be approved by the Declarant in writing. K. All advertising signs and devices shall have prior written approval of the Declarant and shall conform.to the following: 1. The total advertising square footage shall .not exceed the area permitted by the ordinances of the Cilty of Shakopee. 2. No single surface of a sign shall exceed 600 square feet. 3. Each Building Site may have one pole -type name plate sign located 25 feet back of the curb and not exceeding 400 square feet of surface in total. All other signs shall be considered as an Improvement. 4. No signs shall be painted directly on the buildings. 5. No signs shall contain a rotating light beam or a flashing system. 6. No signs shall be located on the roof. L. No fence or masonry wall over 3 feet in height shall be permitted to extend into the Front or Side Yard except upon approval in writing by the Declarant. M. The dimensions, size and area of a Building Site, once determined by the original conveyance from -the Declarant, may -be changed or divided only upon the written approval of the Declarant and then only if each new Building Site created thereby conforms to the restrictions contained herein. N. Whenever the written approval of the Declarant is required under this Declaration, then the same conditions and waivers apply in such case as are applied in Article II, Paragraph C. 0. Each of the conditions, covenants, restrictions, and reservations contained herein shall continue and be binding upon the Declarant and upon its successors and assigns and upon each of them, and upon all parties and persons claiming under them for a period of thirty years from the date hereof. Thereafter, the covenants can be extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each upon the execution of a recordable instrument to that effect executed by a majority of record Owners of the Building Sites at the time, said instrument to be executed and recorded prior to the expiration of the initial period or of the prior exten- sion period. These covenants or any part thereof may be amended at any time, in whole or in part, upon the written approval of the Declarant and of a majority of the record Owners of the premises. For purposes of this section, the record Owner or Owners of each Building Site shall be entitled to one vote. Such written approval must be properly recorded in the office of the Registrar of Titles, County of Scott, State of Minnesota. -5- A recordable certificate by an abstract company showing record owner- ship of the various Building Sites shall be conclusive evidence of ownership under this section. P. As hereinbefore stated, the covenants, restrictions, and prohibitions herein contained are for the benefit of Declarant and the Owners from time to time of any part or parcel of the premises, and the power and privilege of enforcement thereof against any party or parties who shall violate or attempt to violate the same by appropriate proceedings at law or in equity are granted to any and all parties in interest in any part or parcel of the premises, and the failure of the Declarant or any party in interest to enforce any part of this Declaration upon its violation shall in no event be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so as to any subsequent violation. Any violation of this Declaration shall not defeat nor render invalid the lein of any mortgage or deed or trust made in good faith and for value. Q. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or any part thereof by judgement or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions hereof, which shall remain in full force and effect. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said Declarant has caused these presents to be executed by its General Partner the day and year first above written. In Presence of: VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK, LTD. By Scottland Inc., A General Partner By Its And Its I C7 STATE OF MINNESOTA) SS. COUNIY OF ) On this day of , 19 , before me, a Notary Public within a or said County personally appeared and , To me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the and the of Scottland, Inc. A General Partner o Valley Industrial Park, Ltd., and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deedof said corporation. Notary Public This instrument drafted by: Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney and Halladay 2300 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -7- r Site Plan Review (Per Application) 1. See plan. 2. See plan. 3. Signs will conform to City Code. Easements on plat. Underground utilities shown on plat. No septic tanks, tile fields or wells. 4. No buildings within 100 feet. See plat submission for present grades. 5. See plan. 6. See plan. 7. See plan. 8. See plan for drainage and plat submission for overall drainage plan. 9. Warehouse business; maximum number of employees per shift expected to be eight (8) separate businesses with two to three employees on average for a total of 16 to 26 employees per shift. 10. See plan. 11. Painted decorative block in the front and painted block on sides and rear of building. 12. See preliminary plat. 13. See plan. 14. See plan. 15. See plan. 16. No existing trees of 6" in diameter or more. CITY OF Sl1AKOPCG ll C' APPLICATION V LCOMMERCIAL I OPHL•'NT FINANCING Date: August ..8, 1.985 Scottland lnc• " ..... .... ....... Applicants Name: nnni 55179 5244 Va] le Industrial" Bl vd : 'S' Address: • •• phone• . 445-3242 l.description): Location of Proposed Project (address and leg a Canterbury Park First Addition, Lot 1, Block 2• Proposed plat; Block. 3.Y Valley Industrial Boulevard -North; Existing.•.p1.a.t.:....Lot...2 ,..• Valley Park First Add ti nall ot the following questions. Requested Please answer be attached: documents may Priority. l• Note appropriate category related to Section V. Group 1• ""-- redevelopment district manufacturing -- research' 2: , zone where manufacturing is permitted X. Group use Group 3: all other specific proposed use of the facility. Indicate the appli- Industrial Warehouse operated by List of all other facilities owned or cant. Scottl.and Inc: owns vacant industrial ]_and. eople will be employed . in Shakopee Indicate how many' new P osed project and •what is as a direct result of this prof the estimated payro117 26 employees, depending on tenants. timated minimum and maximum' Indicate what is the project's es size and/or. capacitY7 $406,0006 000s��V00,re 000tannual' payroll and ate for sconstruct Indicate the proposed dovember 1, 1985ion completion completion of'construction. Start N on April.l, 1986 -the by: List the estimated cost of the facility $832,000 a) Building construction. ------In . cluded in "a" above. b) Furnishings or•non-fixed equipment. . 8. 9. 10 . 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. U I I cn, 15% - land contribution Indicate the applicant's legal interest in the land. Option to buy from Valley Industrial.Developmentcorporation, Provide a list of all persons or members ot any partnership or other organizations which will have a'legal and fiscal interest in the ownership and management of project, identification 'of that interest, and listing of credit and professional references for all interested parties (if applicable) . If a corpor at resumen iudm � a-resume surae ol rs owners if privately held, o ectors of publicly held corporations. and the board of dir See Exhibit A . ct is be leased to other parties, If any of theproje provide an identific ati in of nterests parties n if leasinginformation of commitment for th . is available. Warehouse space will be leased to others. 'st Provide the borrower's financial the eme ts? prepared eparast d by a Certified - Public Accountant, for. years.. See Exhibit B f a commitment If interim,financing is required, submitsholender,l g oavailable. a for such financing fromreputable None needed.'to Provide a .statement as to thit-evenuecnotesehandethe al be used, such as bonds or -mortgage 'identity of the credit for repayment of the bonds -or notes. Industrial Revenue Bonds.ruments Submit statement as toduals h insurance financing companies,tsavings will be sold to indivi , institutions•or other. To be .sold to -individuals. If considered appropriate by the.City, a financing feasibility hicwill detl those physical report may be' requires t rshwhieh willai iindicate possible service and financial success or failure of the proposed facility.. -2- $150,000 c)' Land acquisition. . . Included in "a". d) Property development. e) Professional fees. 1) Architectural engineering. $60,000 2) Legal .,$20,000 3) Fiscal $20,000 f) Other (detail). g) Total h) Indicate amount and type of owner equity. I I cn, 15% - land contribution Indicate the applicant's legal interest in the land. Option to buy from Valley Industrial.Developmentcorporation, Provide a list of all persons or members ot any partnership or other organizations which will have a'legal and fiscal interest in the ownership and management of project, identification 'of that interest, and listing of credit and professional references for all interested parties (if applicable) . If a corpor at resumen iudm � a-resume surae ol rs owners if privately held, o ectors of publicly held corporations. and the board of dir See Exhibit A . ct is be leased to other parties, If any of theproje provide an identific ati in of nterests parties n if leasinginformation of commitment for th . is available. Warehouse space will be leased to others. 'st Provide the borrower's financial the eme ts? prepared eparast d by a Certified - Public Accountant, for. years.. See Exhibit B f a commitment If interim,financing is required, submitsholender,l g oavailable. a for such financing fromreputable None needed.'to Provide a .statement as to thit-evenuecnotesehandethe al be used, such as bonds or -mortgage 'identity of the credit for repayment of the bonds -or notes. Industrial Revenue Bonds.ruments Submit statement as toduals h insurance financing companies,tsavings will be sold to indivi , institutions•or other. To be .sold to -individuals. If considered appropriate by the.City, a financing feasibility hicwill detl those physical report may be' requires t rshwhieh willai iindicate possible service and financial success or failure of the proposed facility.. -2- 16. Submit the _resume of the underwriters including a listing of five other comparable offerings which have been placed with that underwriter.. See Exhibit C' 17. Indicate method of payment of all public cost to be incurred in development of the property. None :18. Attach completed "Application for Plan Review" and related j submission requirements. 19. Attach timetable for completion of the project.. See Exhibit 'D ....Scottland Inc :.................... _.. ( Type Name of Corporation, Partnership, or Individual) ( igned by). Executive .. Vice- _ *Pre s-tdent" ...... .._ ....' (Type Name and Title) .... August .8....1985......._ ..... .................... _... (Date) . 6/11/85 -3- tiX SDS TL AND IN Q Name Walter Brooks Fields, Jr. J. Brooks Hauser John Blake Hering Bruce D. Malkerson Thomas J. Moore Robert W. Nolan Richard W. Rose Harold H. Tearse, Jr. EXHIBIT A DIRECTORS (8/8/84) Ci C-1 Present Office and Director Since Principal Occupation Chairman of the Board; Chairman/President of ' r tiX SDS TL AND IN Q Name Walter Brooks Fields, Jr. J. Brooks Hauser John Blake Hering Bruce D. Malkerson Thomas J. Moore Robert W. Nolan Richard W. Rose Harold H. Tearse, Jr. EXHIBIT A DIRECTORS (8/8/84) Ci C-1 Present Office and Director Since Principal Occupation Chairman of the Board; Chairman/President of 1969 Minnesota Racetrack, lnc• President, Chief Executive 1969 Officer and Director Director; Presidentof 1982 John Blake HeringCompany Executive Vice President, General Counsel, 1984 and Director Director; former Chairman of Coca-Cola Bottling the Board of 1970 Midwest, Inc. Director; Grain Futures Trader 1976 Director; Vice President of 1971 Shatkin Trading Company Director; President of Searle 1971 Grain Company 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 / 612-445-3242 EXHIBIT B wi co tlarad In - nd subsidiaries - � �.:. •. '. $f4 _�_ ..__�-_ �..,.. �� �. FE k�wY�p._�aeyny:v ..�.1�_.— on ol-danancia-, 'tatemen�s _as'o70 - T Ali-- 9857 d emberD udym. ryi '. tm M'�,�siY a• � t .w.i- ^.mii.iZ:'.' w r _ M -'- MILLER & SCHROEDER MUNICIPALS, INC. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS Dated Principal Date Amount Community Company 12-01-84 $ 3,900,000 Irwindale, CA B & B Partnership Project 12-28-84 1,810,000 Minneapolis, MN (MCDA) Wanner Engineering, Inc. Project 2-01-85 2,540,000 Virginia, MN (IRRRB) *Medical Park Development Limited Partnership Project 4-01-85 1,600,000 Brooklyn Park, MN Lowell, Inc. Project 6-01-85 3,060,000 Lakeville, MN I-35/Lakeville Limited Partnership Project 6-01-85 2,615,000 Virginia, MN (IRRRB) *New Coates Plaza Limited Partnership Project 7-01-85 3,200,000 St. Cloud, MN M.E.S. Corporation/St. Cloud State University Project * Co-Manager t EXHIBIT D TIMETABLE Start Date November 1 , 1985 ( 1) Mass Grading November 15, 1985 (2) pouring of Footings November 30, 1985 ( 3) Installation of utilities December 20, 1985 (4) Structure January 15, 1986 ( 5) Sidewalls and Roof February 15, 1986 (6) Interior Finishes April 1, 1986 ( 7 ) Occupancy C = TY C F- SHAKOE>aa INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT +� 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, linnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ray Ruuska, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: Eaglewood Project Soils Inspection DATE: August 16, 1985 INTRODUCTION: Eaglewood construction will begin on August 19, 1985. BACKGROUND: As recommended in the Eaglewood Feasibility Report, a Soils Engineer is to be used to identify soil problem areas during construction of this project. Braun Engineering and Testing did the preliminary soils report and has submitted the attached proposal for on-site soils and materials inspection for this project. The Braun proposal is acceptable to the Engineering Department and is recommended for approval. ACTION REQUESTED: A motion by City Council to direct proper City officials to execute a proposal with Braun Engineering and Testing for on- site soils and materials inspection for the 1985-2 Eaglewood Street Reconstruction at a cost not to exceed $4, 500. 00. RR/pmp BRAUN- BRAUR" Services Since 1957 ENGINEERING TESTING '4ESOTA:Minneapolis.Hibbing.S:.Cloud.Rochester,St.Paul J.S.BRAUN,P.E. G.D.KLUEMPKE.P.E. Affiliated Offices P.H.ANDERSON DALE R.ALLEN,P.E. C.G.KRUSE.P.E JAMES J.CRAIG,Jr..P.E. NORTH DAKOTA: Bismarck,Williston-, MONTANA: Billings D.R.HAUSLER,P.E. Reply To: P.O. Box 35108 Mpls. , MN 55435 ( 612) 941-5600 August 14 , 1985 City of Shakopee Attn: Ray Ruuska 129 East lst Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: 84-214 PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING SERVICES Street Reconstruction Eaglewood Subdivision Shakopee, MN Mr. Ruuska: As requested by your telephone call of August 12 , 1985 , we are pleased to furnish this proposal for furnishing services during construction on the above referenced project. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The project involves reconstruction of the existing streets in Eaglewood Subdivision. Approximately 3/4 of a mile of street reconstruction is proposed. This includes subgrade correction, embankment fill, aggregate base and the bituminous courses . The completion date for this project will be September 30 , 1985 . SCOPE OF SERVICES We propose to furnish, on an on-call basis to the contractor a Technician and Senior Engineering Assistant to make and record CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SOILS AND MATERIALS Affiliated Company for Chemical &Environmental Testing and Consulting—Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc. City of Shakopee -2- August 14 , 1985 I � observations of excavations and conduct compaction tests on fill and aggregate base being completed by the contractor. We will also perform extraction and gradations on the bituminous being used and densities on the in-place bituminous, if required. Results will be periodically reviewed by a Project Engineer . The intent of these services is detailed in the attached GENERAL CONDITIONS. The concluding engineering report will include a summary of results of the observations and give professional opinions on the conformance of the earthwork and bituminous to the project speci- fications. BASIS FOR PROPOSAL We propose to furnish these services on an hourly basis as stated in the attached unit or hourly cost SCHEDULE OF CHARGES. The time required for our services will be dependent upon the contractor. It is currently estimated that approximately 20 to 25 hours by a Senior Engineering Assistant and 50 to 70 hours by a technician will be required, so the estimated cost of services is approximately $3 ,750 .00 to $4 ,500 .00 . We will contact you for additional authorization if the scheduling by the contractor is extended such that the estimated amount will be exceeded by more than 10% . GENERAL Current scheduling will permit us to furnish these services when required by the contractor' s scheduling. Advance notice of about 1 to 3 days will facilitate scheduling. Terms on payment for services are net 30 days with a service charge added to unpaid balances. The attached GENERAL CONDITIONS are part of this contract_ We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal. This proposal is being presented in duplicate so that one copy may be signed and returned as an authorization to proceed. City of Shakopee -3- August 14 , 1985 If there are questions on this proposal please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. �?ames M. Samuelson Senior Engineering Assistant JMS:gec Enclosures: SCHEDULE OF CHARGES GENERAL CONDITIONS GC:CT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please proceed according to the above-stated terms : Date Client' s Name Authorized Signature Title BRAM Environmental testing and consulting services available at all locations through Braun Environmental Laboratories,Inc. ENGINEERING TESTING ❑ MINNEAPOLIS 6800 S.County Rd. 18,P.O.Box 35108,Mpls.,MN 55435-0108 Additional or affiliated offices im ❑ CENTRAL MINNESOTA 1520-24th Ave.N.,P.O.Box 189,St.Cloud.MN 56302-0189 Hibbing Minnesota ❑ SOUTHERN MINNESOTA 1704-3rd Ave.S.E.,Rochester,MN 55901-7921 Bismarck&Williston,NO ❑ ST.PAUL 235 Roselawn Ave.,St. Paul,MN 55117-1940 Billings,MT SCHEDULE OF CHARGES 100 ENGINEERING SERVICES $150/day).Outside Metro area-$1.00/mile Field and Office Services, per hour (round trip-basis). Stand by - $75/day Reg. Over Double f) Materials for specialized unrecoverable installations Time Time Time such as piezometers,well-points,settlement plates, 01. Engineering Technician 1 $28.00 $35.00 $42.00 etc.Rental of road signs,special insurance. 02. Level I NDT Technician 31.00 38.00 46.00 permits.Consumable supplies such as roller bits, 03. Eng. Tech. If or Level II NDT 37.00 44.00 55.00 drilling fluid additives,grout,etc. Cost+15% 04. Engineering Assistant 42.00 52.00 62.00 g) Replacement of abandoned or ruined equipment 05. Senior Engineering Assistant 47.00 59.00 71.00 per 201. Cost 06. Level III NDT or AWS/CWI 47.00 07_Engineer or Geologist 47.00 h) Subcontracted specialized services such as snow_ 08. Registered Professional Engineer 58.00 plowing,grading for access,towing,etc. Cost+15% 09. Senior Staff Engineer 68.00 i) Welder or shop person on fabricating,steam cleaning, 10. Principal of Firm 85.00 assembly,or loading of specialized equipment $35.00/hr. 11. Services Assisting Litigation (1) NOTE: Reduced weekly & monthly rates available for continuous service. 300 LABORATORY TESTS OF SOILS Per Test 200 SITE EVALUATION SERVICES a. Proctor-modified or standard(ASTM D1557 or D698) 01. Drill Rig and Personnel Charges' 1. Method A $50.00 a) CME 55 or 75 drill rig taking penetration test borings 2. Methods B,C,or D 62.00 (ASTM D1586-7)or power auger borings,using solid b. Mechanical-Hydrometer Analysis(ASTM D422) 54.50 or 214"or 31/V I.D.hollow-stem augers or rotary_drilling c. Moisture Content and Density(Mercury Immersion methods,with crew chief and drill rig assistant. $93.00/hr• Method) 22.00 b) CME 45C trailer-mounted or mobile B-24 skid- d. Moisture Content 8.50 mounted drill rig per above. 85.00/hr. c) CME 45 power auger taking power auger borings e. Atterberg Limits(ASTM D423 and D424) 40.00 (ASTM D1452)for soil classification and water level f. Liquid Limit(ASTM D423) 30.00 determinations only,with crew chief and drill rig g. Max-min density of cohesionless soils(ASTM D2049) 90.00 assistant. 70.00/hr. h. Specific Gravity(ASTM D854) $29.00 to$50.00 d) Two-man field crew on surveying,locating utilities, i. Organic Content(ignition method) 24.50 taking hand auger probings or other field tests. 70.00/hr. e) Additional crew man-when special conditions require j. Sample preparation(ASTM D421 or other applicable method),if required 35.00 (in addition to hourly charges in'a"through"d"above): 1) regular time basis 28.00/hr. k. Unconfined Compression(ASTM D2166): 2) overtime basis 38.00/hr. (1) Maximum stress at failure 27.00 f) Overtime addition to all 2-man crew operations for (2) Complete stress-strain curve 30.00 work on Saturday as necessary or requested by client I. Consolidation-primary consolidation curve up - or in excess of 8 hours per day on weekdays. 28.00/hr. to 32 tsf.Cost varies depending upon number 'Hourly rates applyfortravel and when conducting testsand areforregular of loadings required-for a specific soil (1) time(8 hours or less on weekdays)and do not include truck or carrier M. Direct Shear(per normal pressure) $50.00 to$250.00 rental or use,supplies consumed in drilling or abandoned in test holes n. Triaxial Compression-ASTM D2850 (when more economical than recovering supplies at normal hourly rates) or per diem expenses on projects more than daily travel distance from (Per confining pressure) $50.00 to$210.00 location where equipment is based. o. Hveem Stabilometer("R"value test) $100.00 to$200.00(2) 02. Equipment Charges for Other Field Testing Services(in addition p. California Bearing Ratio,per specimen $150.00 to$200.00(2) to.drilling equipment, when required, or field crew). q. pH determination-by meter 8.50 a) Thin walled sample tubes(ASTM D1587) S15.00 each r. Permeability $90.00 to$250.00(2) b) Diamond core drilling(ASTM D2113)hourly rates s. Corrosion resistance plus diamond bit wear. Cost+15% (1) Electrical resistivity of soils 30.00 c) Dutch friction-cone soundings. 12.00/hr. (2) Oxidation reduction- 31.50 d) Vane shear test(ASTM D2573). 7.00/hr. (3) pH determination 9.00 e) Electrical resistivity testing. 10.00/hr. t. Toivane Shear or pocket penetrometer 7.00 f) Refraction Seismic surveying. .0 u. Shrinkage Limit(ASTM D427) 30.00 Di Refraction Inclinometer.- (1) _v. Extrusion of thinwall sample for visual examination g) 9 No tests conducted 9.00 h) Pore Pressure Indicator. 11) w. Specialty testing(sulfate,etc.)-hourly basis as in i) Pressure Meter. $210.00/day "100" above j) Surcharge for use of 6Y<"I.D.hollow-stem auger $15.00/hr. x. Topsoil testing(MN/DOT 3877) 9000 k) Organic Vapor Analyzer 15.00/hr.-90.00/day y. Sample pick-up - hourly basis as in "100" plus mileage 03.Truck Rental,Mileage,Expense Charges 400 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL TESTING&OBSERVATION and Misc.Services 01. Earthwork(Excavation observations,compaction a) Auxiliary truck for transporting crew and supplies: control testing,special foundation installations) 1) per day 50.00 2) per mile 0.50 a. Engineering consulting services as in"100" b) Drill Rig Truck: above,as required. 1) per day 95.00 b. Resident observations and testing services,including 2) per mile 0.60 soil compaction control testing,Proctor tests,earth- c) Flotation Tired Drill Rig Carrier 30.00/hr. work observations and/or other field testing of soil. d) Flextrac-Nodwell FN-160 Rubber Tracked Carrier Hourly rate as shown in 100"above. (10-foot wide unit) 35.00/hr. 1. Nuclear moisture-density meter charge in e) Low-Boy Tractor/Trailer to haul 203c and 203d- addition to hour rates in"100"above $12.50/hr. Metro area$90 per one-way trip(not to exceed c. Field laboratory rental,if required. (1) (1) Quoted on an individual basis. (2) Does not include classification and Proctor Tests or sample preparation (if required) d. Intermittent testing services by soils Per test g. Thickness and density of pavement cores 18.00 technician or returning to laboratory for except as noted(2) 1. Density only 1?,50 processing samples. 1. Compaction Test.Sand-Cone Method h. Voids analysis of compacted mix(in addition to ASTM D1556,or Nuclear Method "b"and"d") 12.00/mix ASTM D2922(normal conditions) $17.50 1. Nuclear density of pavement(ASTM D2950)-(per 401 b) 2. Laboratory Proctor Test-Standard or j. Moisture content of bituminous hot mix 22.00 Modified(ASTM D698 or D1557): k. Observation of bituminous production or 1) Method A 50.00 placement including inspection at batch plant 2) Method 8,C,or D 62.00 and job site checking batch weights,moisture 3. Max-min density of cohesionless soils and temperature.Hourly basis as in"100"above. (ASTM D2049) 90.00 1. Sampling or sample pick-up-hourly basis as in 4. Sample preparation,if required 35.00 "100"plus mileage e. Origination and Trip Charge (1) 04. Roofing Components 02. Concrete or masonry a. Observations of production and placement on job site-hourly rate as in"100"above,minimum a. Engineering Consulting Services as in "100"above,if required. 2 hours at project plus mileage. b. Laboratory analysis of built-up roof sample, b. Concrete Mix Design including number of piles,top and bottom coat 1. Theoretical based on ACI 211 (aggregate test bitumen application interply bitumen and lapping costs not included)or verification of mix felts and voids analysis(4"x 36"specimen) 70.00 design 50.00/mix 1. With glaze 81,00 2. Laboratory design mix and trial batch(does 05. Structural Steel and Metals not include aggregate tests or concrete cylinder compression tests) (1) a. Random testing of bolt tension,special c. Observation of concrete production or placement laboratory setups,etc.(hourly per"100") including batch plant inspections,slump,air b. Field observation of welds and shear studs- content and cylinder casting at project site, hourly basis as in"100"above hourly basis as in"100"above plus mileage. c. Procedure review,procedure qualification,welder d. Laboratory moist-curing and compression testing of qualification(hourly per"100") concrete cylinders delivered to laboratories. d. Magnetic Particle and Penetrant Testing.Ultra- 1. Standard Curing ASTM C39 7.00 sonic and Radiographic Testing.Hourly basis 2. Accelerated curing and testing ASTM D684 27.00 (as in"100")plus materials(film,penetrant,couplant, etc.)mileage and per diem expenses as required (1) e. Pullout testing for strength of inplace concrete (1) e. Tension testing of reinforcing bars or machined f. Special trip for cylinder pick-up,origination specimen including stress-strain curve (1) and trip charge depending on mileage Varies with from originating laboratory distance I. Preparation of mechanical specimens Cost+15% g. Curing and handling of"spare"untested cylinders 4.00 g• Bend Testing of welding coupons (1) h. Sawing of cores or concrete cylinders 25.00 h. Hardness Testing (1) i. Concrete cylinder molds(includes labels 06. Aggregate Testing for concrete,bituminous,and data slips. roofing,etc. 1. 6"x 12"cardboard 1.00/each a. Sieve Analysis(ASTM C136) 28.50 2. 6"x 12"plastic 1.30/each b. Analysis or determination of Materials finer 3. 3"x 6"cardboard 0.75/each than#200 sieve(ASTM C117 or D1140) 18.50 j. Compressive strength of 2"x 2"mortar cube 6.50 c. Organic Impurities(ASTM C40) 17.00 k. Concrete masonry units d. Soft Particles(ASTM C851) 29.00 1. Compressive strength,each 25.00 e. Lightweight Particles(ASTM C123} 32.50 2. Physical measurements and absorption,each 15.00 f. Clay Lumps(ASTM C142) 17.50 I. Compressive strength of concrete block or brick prisms 42.00 g. Soundness(ASTM C88)-5 cycles 110.00 m. Brick testing(ASTM C216) 250.00/set h. Abrasion(ASTM C131,C535)-including gradation 130.00 n. Concrete coring-portable core drill with i. Dry Rodded Density 17.00 diamond bits at 2 to 12-inch diameter,2-man j. Specific Gravity and Absorption Analysis crew,and generator.Plus mileage,truck rental (ASTM C127 8 ASTM C128) 41.00 and bit wear. 68.00/hr. 1. Bit wear,per inch of diameter per inch k. Los Angeles Rattler(ASTM C131,C535)- includes gradation,each 140.00 of core length 1.00/in./in. 07. Other Testing Services o. Compressive strength of concrete cores a. Pile driving observations or load testing, including physical measurements 10.00 9 9, p. Physical test of Portland Cement observation caisson installation,hourly basis as in"100 0"above plus mileage. (ASTM C150) (1) 1. Case-Goble Method of Analysis (1) q. Non-destructive on-site testing of inplace concrete.Hourly basis as in 100"above plus b. Vibration,sound level or specialized testing on material costs or equipment charge as follows. investigation--hourly basis as in 100"above, 1. Schmidt Hammer,ultrasonics, plus mileage and equipment rental (1)pull-out tests,maturity method (1) c Window testing (1) 2. Windsor Probe Tests material costs 10.00/probe d. Subcontracted services such as equipment r. Computer analysis of concrete cylinder strengths (1) rental,special insurance,permits,etc. Cost+15% s. Specialty testing of concrete or masonry units- e. Resale or rental of test equipment (1) hourly basis as in"100"above. 500 EXPENSES 03. Bituminous 01. Vehicle charge and mileage applying to Section 100 and other sections when not included in hourly rates a. Engineering Consulting Services as in"100" a. Per da above,if required. y 15.00 b. Mix Design-Marshall Method(aggregate b. Per mile 0.35 test costs not included) (1) 02. Per diem expenses when working away from head- c. Extraction and gradation of hot mix q�2e00&4b�ranch locations,applies to Sections o (ASTM D2172) 63.00 03. Long distance telephoneshipping Cost+15/o 1. Extraction only on pavement cores 43.00 charges and miscellaneous expenses Cost+15% d. Marshall stability and flow tests on laboratory- 600 CLERICAL SERVICES "compacted specimens(per set of 3) 34.00 01. Secretarial services,per hour 18.50 e. Marshall density determination of hot mix sample (ASTM D1559) 02. Report copies(3 copies furnished with initial distribution of report)-minimum charge for 1. 50 blows 41.00 additional copies after initial report issued 25.00 2. 75 blows - 46.00 a. Library retrieval for additional copies after f. Bituminous Coring-see 402N 68.00 initial distribution of report. (minimum charge) 15.00 b. Report reproduction of extra copies 0.25/per page (1) Quoted on an individual basis. - c. Postage Cost+15% GENERAL CONDITIONS_ CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES (I) Scope of Work (IV) Invoices Braun Engineering Testing,Inc.(hereinafter called BRAUN)shall perform Invoices will be submitted monthly.Payment is due upon receipt of invoice. the services defined in this contract and shall invoice the Client for those Interest will be added beginning 30 days after the date of the invoice at the services at the rates shown on the attached SCHEDULE OF CHARGES. rate of I%z%per month,but not to exceed the maximum rate by law.For Any estimate of cost to the Client as stated in this contract shall not be extended projects,the billing rates as described in this contract may be considered as a firm figure,but only an estimate,unless otherwise specifi- increased on each anniversary of the date of this contract at an annual rate cally stated in this contract.BRAUN will provide additional services under not to exceed 10%. this contract with charges for those additional services at the stated rates. (V) Insurance BRAUN will provide observation and testing services either on a full-time BRAUN is protected by Workers' Compensation Insurance (and/or or on-call basis,as agreed upon between BRAUN and the Client.BRAUN employer's liability insurance)and by public liability insurance for bodily will attempt to make observations and tests representative of the work injury and property damage and will furnish certificates of insurance upon executed by the contractor but will not observe or test each and every request.If the Client requests increased insurance coverage,BRAUN will increment of the work. Tests and observations will be conducted using take out additional insurance, if obtaintable, at the Client's expense in standard test procedures(where applicable). accordance with item 203f,but shall have no liability beyond the limits and (II) Responsibilities conditions of the insurance coverage. BRAUN's efforts will be directed toward assisting the Client in determining (VI) Limitation of Liability that the earthwork and other materials to be tested conform to project The Client recognizes the inherent risks connected with construction and specifications. the potential for variation in subsurface conditions. BRAUN will not be responsible for the contractor's failure to perform the In performing its professional services,BRAUN will use not less than that work in accordance with the contract documents and BRAUN's presence on the site shall in no way relieve the contractor of his responsibilities. degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised,under similar circumstances, by reputable members of its profession practicing in the same or similar BRAUN will not be responsible forsuperintending,supervising or directing locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made or intended by the the work of the contractor,or for job or site safety,those being the whole proposal for consulting services or by furnishing oral or written reports of responsibility of others. the findings made,and this statement,may not be modified except in writing BRAUN will not be responsible for construction staking or surveying, by authorized signature. unless those functions are specifically included in the accompanying des- In the event that BRAUN is held liable for damage due to its negligence or cription of services.BRAUN will reference results of tests and observations breach of any other obligation to Client or others,such liability is limited to to control lines and elevations set as part of surveying and/or construction an aptount not to exceed $50,000 or the fee, whichever is greater. In the staking by others. event that Client does not wish to limit BRAUN's liability,BRAUN agrees to waive this limitation upon written notice from the Client received within On the basis of on-site observations and tests, BRAUN field personnel,- five(5)days after the date this agreement is fully executed,and Client agrees under the supervision of a qualified design professional,will orally inform to pay an additional consideration equivalent to ten percent(10%)of the the Client or his representative of the results of tests and observations. total fee,said consideration to be called"Waiver of Limitation of Liability Follow-up written reports will give professional opinions regarding con- Charge." This charge will in no way be construed as being a charge for formance of the contractor's work to project specifications. insurance of any type but will be increased consideration for the greater risk involved in performing work for which there is no limitation of liability. (III) Reports Further,Client agrees to notify any contractor or subcontractor who may BRAUN will furnish a copy of each report to the Client, the owner, perform work in connection with any design,report or study prepared by architect and government officials in accordance with pre-construction BRAUN of such limitation of liability for design defects,errors,omissions instructions and agreements. or negligence,and to require as a condition precedent to it performing its All reports,boring logs,field data,field notes,laboratory test data,calcula- work,a like limitation and indemnity on its part as against BRAUN.In the tions,estimates,and other documents prepared by BRAUN,as instruments event the Client fails to obtain a like limitation and indemnity,Client agrees of service,shall remain the property of BRAUN. to indemnify BRAUN for any excess liability to any third party. C Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client or his Under no circumstances shall BRAUN be liable for extra costs or other agents which are not paid for,will be returned upon demand and will not be consequences due to changed conditions or for costs related to the failure of used by the Client for any purpose whatsoever. others to install work in accordance with the plans and specifications. BRAUN will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report,during which period the records will be made available to the Client at all reasonable times. U 11 GC:CT ENGINEERING TESTING 10/81 CITY OF SHAKOPEE t� "":'� 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee Minnesota 55379 � ; -a' MEMO TO: John Anderson & City Council FROM: Jim Karkanen - Public Works SUBJECT: Wi r e feed we 1 d e r for Mechanic DATE: August 12 , 198-9 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: The 1985 Capital Equipment budget provides $2000 for the purchase of a wire feed welder for the mechanic to use in various welding and fabricating projects . The mechanic , has recently located this type of welder , and has negotiated a price of $1250. 00 f or its ' purchase . The welder is in nearly new condition , and obviously hasn' t been used much . This type of welder is generally used in a special type of wel di,Zng application for cont i nous line welding , fabricating st ebl materials , because it provides a cooler weld , yet still gives good penetration . This is important when welding lighter gauge materials , because it won' t shrink or warp the welded material because of excessive heat . The welder can weld cont i nousl y without removing the striker arc because he used a cont i nous line feed , instead of single welding rods , which have to be replaced constantly . RECOMMENDATION: Purchase the Miller wire feed welder and attachments for $1250. 00, from Warren Clay , 1812 Eagle Creel; Rl ve . , Shakopee , Minnesota. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Publ i-c Works Department to purchase a Miller wire feed welder from Warren Clay , 1812 Eagle Creek Blvd . , Shakopee , Minn . , for the amount of $1250. 00 . MEMO TO: City Council FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official RE: AT&T DATE: August 8 , 1985 Introduction: We still have the following equipment on a rental basis from AT&T. Purchase Item Mo. Rental Price Payback 1. Multi console arranger & console/msg. waiting $33 . 50 $455.40 13. 59 Mo. 2. Tel-wall touch tone @ outside Police Station $ 3 . 19 $ 36 .00 11. 29 Mo. 3 . Key system terminator at Courthouse for Police telephone $ 2 . 11 $ 44.40 21 .04 Mo. It appears items two and three slipped through the cracks on our original purchase program. Item no. 1 was added after our purchase program. Recommendation: I recommend we purchase the above items for $535 .80 Action Requested: Move to authorize purchase of telephone equipment in the amount of $535 . 80 and charge to the appropriate department . LH: cah City of Shakopee t POLICE DEPARTMENT ;. ` 476 South Gorman Street ` SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Tel. 445-6666 _t 1 l:l TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: Tom Brownell , Chief of Police RE: Kawasaki Corporation Siren Agreement DATE: August 12, 1985 INTRODUCTION On August 27, 1975, the City of Shakopee and the Kawasaki Corporation executed an agreement authorizing the City to install and maintain a civil defense warning siren on property owned by the Kawasaki Corporation. BACKGROUND The agreement expires August 27, 1985, and it is in the best interest of the City of Shakooee to renew the agreement for an additional ten years. A new agreement has been signed by the appropriate corporate officers of the Kawasaki Corporation and requires formal action by the City Council . RECOMMENDATInN Renew the agreement to maintain the civil defense warning siren on the property of the Kawasaki Corporation to expire August 1995. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize proper City officials to execute an agreement with Kawasaki Corporation authorizing the City to maintain the civil defense warning siren on their property. �p �E2VE �O �'LOEE_^f Il � LICENSE TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN A CIVIL DEFENSE WARNING SIGNAL THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in the mutual interest of civil defense the day and year hereinafter set forth, between KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP. , U. S .A. , a Delaware corporation duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota with a post office address at Shakopee, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Licensor" , and THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, a municipal corporation in Scott County, Minnesota, with a post office address at Shakopee, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Licensee" . The Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee a license, right and permission to install , maintain, and service at the sole cost and expense of the Licensee, a civil defense warning system on the North fence line of Section 10 at approximately 1 ,500 feet East of the Northeast corner of Section 10, Township 115 , Range 22 , Scott County, Minnesota, together with the right of ingress and egress for the Licensee, its agents and employees , to enter said premises for the purpose of installation, service and removal of said civil defense warning system. Licensee hereby forever releases and discharges Licensor, its related companies , successors and assigns , from and against any and all liabilities of any kind and nature in connection with any injury or damage sustained by Licensee ' s employees or agents , or inflicted on others arising in any way out of activities engaged in under this agreement. If any claim is made or threatened against Licensor, its related companies , successors and assigns in any way connected with Licensor' s granting of the permission herein, Licensee agrees that it will , at its sole cost and expense , defend against any such claim or threat any pay all damages and costs awarded in any suit or proceeding brought against Licensor, its related companies , successors or assigns . The 'Licensee agrees that this license shall not be assigne-d or otherwise transferred by Licensee without the consent of the Licensor. This license is subject to termination by either party upon sixty ( 60) days written notice to the other party; otherwise, this license shall remain in full force and effect , but in no event for more than ten ( 10) years from and after the date hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto by the authority of their respective Board of Directors have caused this license to be executed as of this 2nd day of August 1985 . KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP. , U. S .A. 74 By M. Taza i , P sident B 7 � 'ros i '0 a, Vice Pres . THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE By Eldon A. Rein e , Mayor By Judith S . Cox, City Clerk– STATE erSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ) By ) SS John K. Anderson, city—T-clE. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On this 2nd day of August 1985 , before me a notary public within and for said county, personally appeared M. Tazaki and Hiroshi Noda, to me personally known, who, being each by duly sworn they did say that they are respectively the President and the Vice President of Kawasaki Motors Corp. , U .S .A. , the corporation named in the foregoing instrument , and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said M. Tazaki and Hiroshi Noda knowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. oRFI W SEAL YELGM J V LU Noary Pudic.Cil 0"OR ORANGE COUNTY 1Wq Commas.-or Ewes JUN 28. 1986 Notary Pu i , range County, A ,f My Commission pires : June 28 , 1986 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS COUNTY OF SCOTT ) On this day of 1985 , before me, a notary public wit in and for said county, personally appeared Eldon A. Reinke and Judith S. Cox to me personally known, who, being each y me personally sworn, they did say that they are respectively the Mayor and the City Clerk of The City of Shakopee, the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council and said acknowledged said instrument to be t e ree act and deedo said corporation. Notary Public , Scott County, MN My Commission Expires : 11,b MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Holmes Street-101 Intersection Traffic Problems DATE: August 15 , 1985 Introduction At its August 13 , 1985 meeting, City Council received a request from the Chamber of Commerce asking that the City take the lead in seeking solutions to the current traffic congestion problems at the above named intersection. Background I spent some time on Thursday, August 15 , 1985 talking to Bill Crawford, District Engineer, from District 5 in Golden Valley. Bill indicated that his staff had been looking into the problem even before I contacted him. He indicated that Mn/DOT would not be able to adjust the signals to improve traffic flow and that changes in signal sequencing would probably make things worst. He did indicate that one problem that occurs is that south bound traffic gaps thus failing to trigger the sensor devices which in turn allows the north/south traffic to be stopped by a changing signal. Bill indicated that a Mn/DOT engineer, a State Highway Patrolman Captain and Renaissance Festival officials met with the Sheriff ' s Department to review the potential problems caused by Renaissance Festival crowds. As a result of that meeting the Shakopee Police Department will have two officers at the intersection to move north/south traffic through the intersection to prevent the gapping problem. I also discussed the Highway 212 detour with Bill asking him when the detour would end. He called back and indicated that there were three more weeks of work before construction would be completed and the detour lifted. I then asked Bill if the State would permit the City to place someone at the intersection to move traffic along during week day rush hour traffic. He indicated that the State would permit it. I then asked if the State Highway Patrol could provide officers to move traffic during rush hour. Bill indicated that rush hour is their peak time and that only off duty officers would be available. Finally, I asked if Mn/DOT had standard detour procedures that allowed them to put officers on the highway to improve traffic flow problems caused by detours. He indicated that they do; however, three criteria must be met. ( 1 ) safety of public, ( 2 ) duplication of construction efforts must exist, and ( 3 ) they are required to make the physical construction on the project possible. He indicated that this project did not meet these three criteria and that it would set a precedent Mn/DOT could not live with. In a separate conversation with Fred Corrigan from Canterbury Downs, I learned that Canterbury Downs will provide two patrol officers at the County Road 18 signals for outbound traffic this weekend. The following two weekends they plan to have two officers at that intersection for both inbound and outbound traffic. At the end of the three week period they will then again evaluate traffic needs. Alternatives It appears that the Renaissance Festival and Canterbury Downs are taking prudent steps to facilitate traffic flow for the next three weekends. The question then is does the City want to do anything for normal week day traffic congestion at the intersection for three weeks until the Highway 212 detour is ended? 1. Continue with the status quo and place no officers at the intersection during the peak traffic hours for week day traffic over the next three weeks ( 15 days) . 2. Hire off duty police officers to move peak week day traffic through the intersection for the 15 day period. The cost would be 15 days x 4 hours x $21. 00 per hour plus benefits (or $36 . 00 per hour if we used County Sheriff Deputies ) _ $1 , 260 . 00 . 3 . Contact our State Senator and Representative and ask them to convince Mn/DOT to pay for the officers to move traffic through the intersection. Recommendation I believe that we should see what the actual traffic problems are after the Renaissance Festival ' s first weekend which will occur before Council considers this item at their August 20th meeting. The key question is whether or not having personnel at the intersection will in fact improve north/south traffic flow as anticipated by the Highway Patrol and Mn/DOT. If it does improve traffic flow and it appears that putting personnel at the intersection will be beneficial, Tom Brownell wants City Council to know that his officers are pretty worn out because of the off duty time they have spent working at the Racetrack. He is hesitant to make a 15 day commitment for more off duty work for his personnel. This means that we would probably hire County personnel at the higher rate. I will have a final recom- mendation for Council on Tuesday after we talk to County personnel and Highway Department personnel about the effectiveness of the Renaissance Festival efforts on August 17th and 18th. Action Requested Coming Tuesday. JKA/jms N r N • N N • N N N 4 N N ♦ N N N N N N N w N • N N N N N N r N w N N R N N N w N/l' ► N N N N N N N R N w N N h'N N A G P • P P P w P P 4 0,PPPO,PP 4 P w PPPP P S a' [ • w 70 w O C C''- w C C • C�J C C O O O w G w C C O O O r'1 y r V • r l r r W W V+ ► N N . N I 11 m N N N N • N • J O w w a ► POl ♦ P C • PPP PP PP r r w rrrr- w 7c M 2 -4 O -( • U o T O G� U� t� J.� C C: t t;C. L C C. t_ r_. C; .-3i t C n or a o. a a iro a. rz: a a,pa: aaa a a as a, a En r r r r r r r s- r r r r r r r r s r r r r r a m m mm cc mm ma oommmmmm m mmm W m r ut vi vt.n ut ✓t ✓1 ut N 1#1 V,u,In VI .n vm v, vt-vt m A z O N C LA N r J J O d r N I N N J J JJ J IN m fA m 0 N d J d r w r r .o NO`ut W JJ L4 NO O Nr 1n Cd ut 41v141NP �1 aD vt✓1 N10v ON NN- .p.,p :rr O C20 ut ut rOr � Od0 � NNV V Ov100W PP .0+ 000 L14 L4 E m n aD C. na mm aanaaiRA a aann D rnv, ccccccc rn szs c z F. m w fA 2 Eh\\ T T -1-I-1 N-4�i-'1 Vl m --n m rq m . m 00000 OD t7 ^MMM ?y K z ss 'g n _. N t 4• 1-1 7 i*7m 2 l7nAl7 f7nf"1 ,� n (9An 0 f*1 - • t7n 00 mmmmmmm Yr p Aa 3� a Z m2 Z m z z z z z z z -f O -i -1 O O oo oc yY:tsDDD.D a pAa fn - O m zz z rrrrrrr D "1-+-f-� z p• co 6 vi V)fn Vf to N(ir ch ro n LC z X z �2 as rororo ro'Ororo n aann A 0..1C)n to Jl r 2 2 <z Z oo rrrrrrr -+ xxx� `m,, r7n rn r� ' z �, m -r-1 1 m ¢ coN mmmmmmm to ro..ro.+ rn ►� C rr m r r GC rpoaaaaa0 C Azo': C fn J. pp roro CCCC GCC '� "1.t-i CI m ro ., mri < G, G. -n L «».,..•r.yMH L 7C Zx r 2 r v roro m rr vvrocvvv ti a x r s t mm szs n c� ch rn m o m z oo AA mm sszxm En�+ to m N a -22 P• ...►i (n V) DDnnAnn DWn-� Vr N _ n ri Z (A ..a ..{ 7277727 a -• -4--1� 0 3 3 m m U to m m 1 O d n O d O O C�O E O OO 00 0 r r - CO b J J J J J N r r rr r r+f- ii irrrrrr r rrrr o N N N N N N N N N N N N J P J J J Z W N N W W W J..• IN W W IN W W W r r d N J O O Cl O C:) N N N N N N N - + A,r ti r r W W w r n 0 O O -• W w W J N-� W N-•V N 0 0 0 0 \n O d 0 0 J • 4,4-wwwJ r OCUGO r •-r w w N J a N N �+NJ W NJ 1 I N Ca C.r O G V 1 2 N J W C vt W ut a C) J tl0 J o r r m a v S In � Ln n In Gr n N ► N • N ► N N r N N ► N ► N N • N • N 4 N N • - h ■ N ► N • h N s N N • N ♦ N N ■ N • fV * ► ry ... P • P • P r P P ► P P t> ol N N to • O ♦ ,a ► IX W r x G. ♦ m ► V • P • Ch • 1f Vt M (7 N + P r N • .0 Cc r N ► N s N N • IX + p ► �I V + T, ry M 2 � O K • G O O T �' c c c c,r 0 c C z- a a a a a cx a a Or cr oc a a c 1 v: r r r r r r s c r r r c r r x 11 1 11 - " C� 0o m :n a Oc co OD cc m Oc Co m m m %P Vf V( %P (r N V1 VI Ln W VI In% r. r� A E 3 O t O© -• v .1 r r -•r P -� F 0 P - P N-• PP 1 P O.O W W v(v( r Oo 00 w U oo - i �/'N - .a.O -a .a P W W lJ O EU N P N N._ _ 00 cm P••r +D UA AA - N1%Ai .O.O N N V O V O.O 00 N W %A(.Ii r.• O VI VI E rl - r 1 • r • r' r - ` E L C. - n;_ A i'! fl(7 n O O -t m Cu m C C r; Y a -D D K D D 4 ►+ •►+ -4 2 rl r r m z z 3. D C C C 0 v (n In V) 1'1 rl D 2 Z Z C S (A H b 00 (-( N ri v 0 o z mri n a ao z tIn •. i O r .q - m S S O. 0 T ry O X Z A ou p i. D cr O - a'v ;;u • s wr ,0 1 C ;ID 7u O rl r7 x f*1 f7 w O 0 m c c D c� x r Z U C C z ry ry s D r r c�; m rt v a z z •t m m x it m 1-d y H M A f co _ "!'i b r7 m rn U) ►r b b 0 C 'M C C z m O- C ;o -1 v o ., _c c vv Ncc z oG r� 17 T 2 H b b C T T T T T T 3 r -ti b l7 r r m L rn m e• x x rl rn z rn m rl m rn r cn '.b D D ch(A N A S 0, t b r-, r) c C r) Z c t ry c 2 = D 0 Y 0 z r r r r r rr r 41 r r rr p N W W N N N N W W W W N W W C O O O N N 00 O DO O V1 00 -i 41 0141 4' -• P N N N N .a N r N v(O O '• '� olV O V • j w w r P rr P j W r j ry N N N N .D N C at O On b j O r Do R Vf 3 rt -6 u� n ► ► ► ■ ► ► R r ► ► D rl n ry ry c� ry ry PI ry ry x xx x x x X x x x (n Vi Vi L7 (n (n N Ln N N N N * N ► tV N N N N N N N N * N` w N N N N N N N N h N N N • N N N N k » h N h N N N N N N ■ N • N N N N ti N N N h N N N' w N N N P ► P ♦ P P P P P P U P P • P ► P P P P P P P P P P P P w P P P M 01 .� * .. ► r .rr rr JJ J ■ ► rr rr rrrr ► J � '"' M vF �/'. * v� • r r r r r rrrr * W ► W W W W W W W W U W W h w J n i' ! ► V�I V V V r 'v V ♦ r ► C.O O C-. c C c 0 C C F.. .0 ► V1 r W 7f 7 M 7 � • O O T C G C O O O (.^U`Q O C• O .'7:�O O G C'C3 C:M:":)Cl C O- C o' k C. acre o' t1c 00 a, " D': C0. CF. 6ri A, r rrrrrrrrr r rrrrirrrrrr r r r r w c 00 0o m m m m m m 00 0o m 0o m M M M ro M M cm M M M V1'. no W Do m T V1 V1�n V1 n.n Vi ll1 VI Vi VIN vt vF LA to n Vn ll: Vn M ' n i i F 00 vt W J N-•'W N N N N O'— %A vt "r W W N N W W r A 0oF y N N �•W'O O N�A O N(3 N V-4 V A W V P P G`'•V W Vt r P P N NI 00 r r' P N W W .orvvi Wal of WW Zn.o!n WrD�:n -7 WJUP W W av oo .iV JtW r . k. P A.i• .o to VI as P A W Cf•► O O A VI'O 0 W+U1 W Vt .0.0 W%A P P co 'O m... :m- mrnmmmmrnmm M 0000a0000vv c aa a a a a a a a C c c C C c C c C C C C • o = N Vl(A fA co CA(A NN m 22222zzz 2Z2 mZ-- 4 Mn i-4- -1-1-1-4 X1-1 r 2 Z 2 2 Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 W r- ; H 2 H H 1-1 H H H IM H H pi • � � a a n a s p A y� 'T 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z ';u c'f r M Z.Z_z Z Z z Z Z z • c.cf a)t7 too vi.tri 0 S5 m :(A a. n n' z a >m O toNN(AN N V) ytoNN C = 0 ! 11 I O OOOOOOOO S 'D -O 2 O .in ii1 .-0."S)X.:) .11i?J x w .y a C C C C C C C C C N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l f f11 r" f'I t'f f'1 III f'i f':t*t C ;o O f'F Vi to 2 • .• • • • • r • • • • N -1 7 C M N e _ _ A - rn r i cF r ..1 i M M L F i rn `tA VJ to N Vf �?f N N N �N M©M M O CA 0 0 0 N N N 0 rn t �, c ccccv� ccc c rrrr- ccccccc c i" It c 4 r"*F c v vvvr000vroro v cccomTvvrov-o v v - H ro v'OrovTTrororo 'D HclOL� 't7 TiroroL v D ro cI H H 3 v r rrrr rrr r v rrrrrrr r ro o rri H H H m H 2 x m mmrimrnmmmm M saaar*irmmMmMm rn a n a N ' a y NN V)N .Z7 aT VIN Vl fA awr)H [/) V)(A NN [/l V) V) �t V -i H U Z O �O ITNN •OGOCJO U Od_00_i7 G�000 c.C) O O O D i•) 1 J1 r J 1 iirr its 1 17-1 -1 J i o r r r r r F N N N N N N W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C W ..• J+.•.JJ JJ JJ - J W W W W+..•+r..J r r W W W Z N -1 w - O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N ! W 1Nin VI+W W PrW r WP tai+PPUP j W w P N r 0 W Noo NN"• J N O W - 'O rrr+L. ol r WP W-•OlPPPALA Ol N N N W N r1i--- 00 �+ cc N N � N + C 0o V V V 0p a O co W m to 0o - '� .1• N _. O r • 1 W a �n 3 i'F T N n y L7 r r r * V) Vj AA 7C 7C V) N cn to W to rn in N N N'N • N N N • N N } N N N } N N N N • N N N N N '• N N N R N N- ♦ N N N R N N N N 4 N • N N R N N } r) ,C P Pa P M PPP # PP } PPP # PP.O.Ol # P # P P # P P • X m N NNN } NNN # NN * ....�.N.. } NNN �. r ♦ r •' m V 11 V V # P P P # V1 N R R :r L� G y [. M \ r R V V • (•) C: Cil # 11 V V # l- r R -��r y rrrr } CL' . w N R 7f] ♦ 7C n z -1 o < • o pocc ccc � .� ac.o onn � a c c cc v rn CC a a a Ira 0- a s oo a m r,: m a a: a, o Or a ol I r 'r .a It ...v .z p rrrr rrr r r rrr 41 4- r r r 41 .91 X mmmm oomm mm mmm mmmm m m m mm 'O v In N v+ kn y LA.n v v .n Ln u kA LA v, LP .n %n v, r m D x -• A r P P C 'Inut -1 W UIP N r coo-4, N L. -+..• NP -•^•• -I ti -_n%A rNN W W O D I VI 1O W W� O N CC: m •O W U O r O.10 .r r V•V O O �•aN-• •d 'V V Nm NUI t3�� mN W; NCJ V U1 W rUI NO .O•t) �,O OO NON N V1 VIOO 0000c rro, v10 vi 41-4 to%A A- 0- OD p0 ++IO%A P G C- C) 0 00o cc, rirnrrl Anna rgM71 CD a) z z z aaaa w a m as cnrnrnv, f sxa; an; z z z xxax r x !n<n y ti N N L L z N y y ; < rn I T 2 z Z:z z z 'I'I m rn x x x 3 z Z VI lA V,[A q N rA!A to < r r { Ill En ca rn m rn sn ryv E -<.4K K 'OM HH•v SS S2 z 0 lry^I m"I V,L'i Ln m r•1 rl (-7 n O O w U O X o : • • .� mMr'lm z NN x C4: x z z z CC . . . . 67 I''1 :: m nava vv0. an rrrr i D>. n 4141 =xss -� x i (A co C6 U) C aaa cc naaa a roro { 000 mI.1 - 222z O D A a rn rn m m k - x A X X r C C m ` zzza 4141 m N y m E a b-0vro " mrnm' 2 Vf rnmrn n rnr1 to _ S -� X •�•-I H aaaa COO 0 C GO b ntaOC O a L 0000 ccc Inv ccc ecce In a n t-I rn 'IITTT M-/H— riv m m x ro I,v r ivv -rroror rn z ;u 0 Vi In V, D 'r r w 6f r O - - r^.rnr^rn 2 3 3 m 3 3S 413 xrn w m zlaam bDD N Dp a bnN pc ri D...1 N C.0 CG H HH - H HM m wrl b r) 2 z 7 7 2 C. 7 z to c m'n a H m 'D T to S 1 In rn o _V N N G _O O_O _00 C70 Q _O p_00 O Q _V N\JI - n -' r r n i t i l I 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 0 rrrr r r r r r r r r r r 4-4- r r -• r r p W W W W N N N W N N N N U I I V I V N W W vi 2 a, C W W W Ip W W W -•W W r Ip W P �+ + Op00 NNN utp NNN - +N NO ut p O N^•• -1 1 / t f I t t 1 6 I t l I l i i t r 1 • 1 'V V1 UI"' rWWPP PrW PPWP P -+r N P -+r W N.r - -..+N... G O C C) Q -�W 11-� .•N... �� tea•N m r 00 ! 1 11 1 1 1 t { I t ! I I I I 1 1 1 ! t --j 4, PP Prw P D•wP P W N �..a IU-� r r r J O P. < • t O m V j o r oc a In x rl v Vi a # R • R R r R r L'i C• X X X X X X 7C 7c � N N # N rt N • N R N N • N N • N N • N # N N N R N # r N rt N rt N r N IV r N N • N N • N • N N N • N rt f7 `C • P 4 P R P • P P rt PC, rt P P_ ■ P ■_ P 010, • P # _ S 'z •.. W R w • W • W W •_..-. W w R W w R - W • NNN R N R m '1 ZJ V � • V p T U: iS.Q Oo R- Q Oi Cc LY or O. or, r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m m oo a m m m m m m Oo m 0[ m r.• in v+ W N vl n vl vi N�n vl VI m n 2 l € NN 0,U, �� 1 rr NN E W V r r C*Ol k OO W Nom+ 'PP 00 V -+ Ov+r OoN jN bo 00 P r�O rr Lnvl P vV WW N-•O PP f r-• N NN V PP ov aa* W .nW �+� r.�vi � v.i � Wvlwc] 1 00 ! W . o0 0o t o o vn vA w o w o o v.i i o 0 o vl�n E Oo-♦.!o 0 o t o t I E z x C 1 h H H y m M r I 7c 7C ; n t c M 2 z t 70A r �v v m 1 N C I '11 z z 0 00 r a = �yi cn o r, . z o W b Z z ,, m t o • r • M A - M _ m M 1 C m ° T 'D y A A m t p C7 m D - rn M Ill r C y C C �'+ C . C 0 A _ Z Z Z O O 3 i b b D D m b 0 0 co z 2 c z N m 2 2 7 N fn 2 - - -4 � C V H 2 C 2 I.i N h j, r r rr r r rr r rrr r o 'o N W N N W N w j .p W W W N C N W .p W W W - r N m m[,0 W z P N V, o J o r w a r o a Cl N N N r y O N W W W y. P N N P N W O `;; O 1 J l i 1 rw a r P + Q - r N r to N C W y n O P V C N a O j O O` N m LW O O -0 �+ OD N O r Ou 2 m T UI A # rt D f•1 n x x xx x x 2 2 N N In v, u, v rn to cn cn • N N- 4 N -4 N N N 4 N N N N N N N N 4 N 4 N N N N N N w N N w N N } N RNN'N M N N N NN N N N 4 N k Nry NIV NN 4 fJN n p 4 P P. rt P 4 P P P * P P P P P P P P R P } P P P P P P 4 P.P S 4 r r w r w rrr 4 w w w w w W W w r w rt w w w w w w 4 w W m P r rrrrr r r r y w w w w w IX'A } ." PPP PP P w 9 -Y O < • G OL a a air a a0aOra o a n ri oc oomOL >. a rn a a,�,a a'a r r r rrr r r r r r r.r r r r r r s- r r r r rn'A m cm ao m CS CX cc m ro m co m W m a no 00 Go m cn m b 'A Ul LA v vi v, M I.R LA♦n In Lrt �n v" �n W AN VI in rvI m r. + r4 c � z 1 W NN W W W N�+ -+ l.nN : 41 4. 'N W-+�, OC cc { W W J/O. O J N N Ln CID N N O W m V V P W W r C- +W Wi O { PCO O V -a-a _Ya 1OP ciN--j.1'1 PP OO r W W vlP • • • {{ .• • II • • • ♦ • • .• • • • • • .• ♦ • f • • .• • • • ♦ ♦ .• • • .• 'P Oo c10 t C'7 O In•,n N,./l; 1O-` W W ! W tni -4 b OD 10 O .o— r pp w :OOO� 00� Q000� PP :A VNOO�►A AP E WW -W�'Ot0yV CD 4- ({ t i I s 1 gym; I aoo` x zs ssx•z x s ssxx Sx x Da; m T-1-1 o ; oa0000 m o wwMMwMV .+.. 0 C3 ro 'n M4 z t -Yr-rte-,-r i r z z z z z z z �"(r(� N -w ti r•, 1 0 0 0 0 00 t z z z z z.lz z ool w 1 r�nn, -, ,uX ;u W,u�t w mmmmmm . ,• i mmm m - - O 1:10 7O Ot7 << ri c N N; n 1 r -9 b ro ro'a-0 In r O v v v. t a D an a.a D A to N fn to V1 N r r O Cl)nnn nn rr o G F1 w G V O G J rl rY .� O u O In W N In N N w = <K n O nnn w • fn I9 m t • t -(�-1 � rr n � w N m W NN` x i nnm, -4 nmm _'t: NN n Cc CC cc c C w F. cc, o _ Y a in, m n OO O C C row, (n 'U'v C. r -0 C C -(�� ►1 TJ r.lwwM Mw wM m ro ro, In www m w H H(v ro w r r r r r r r-'r S rr -+ -(t1 ro -4 'o ;orr --i w w D r- 2 r mm r rs o rx s71mm to r wwwwMw ww rl U)M' D z anc(ntn rlmIll r; rlm mrn u, m m m Cl)(n(A C6 In(A (n(n n C C� C-dti m C ►� w O Z 00CD 0 0 6 .'] U_00000 p _O DtJ000a OO D r.a 2 • t t : 6 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 f 1 i i I f I t n - rr r rrr r rrrrrt r r rr rrrr At O N N W N1\n N 14 W N"v N N N W yf W W W Cn W W W W C `0 -'W N W W N-�-+ In _ V V V v V V- V V z 0 0 W -+N IV-• -+ N iV 0 0 d 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 H W z v V N rr v r r W P(V N r r Nr—f-- N N O I rI N - V-• • 'a .P� t w P w 41 4' - r PP r , wW-O r(. w N� y,l -�NN N-+NNrCID N Vl _ C r aa- 0 no no 0 ro 1 W o r t a v+ S m ro U, la 4 w ► 4 R } R f.7 y1 4 r rt 4 • R r Y m P r ► N N N N N N * N r N * N N N N N n:N * N * N N N * N * N • N N N N N N • N R N w N N N N N N N • N * N N N * N ► N n .D ■ P P U P P a * P rt _ P * P P P P P P D• • _ U * P U D M P * P = x r v VI V1 V1 V1 V R V1 rt N ► P P Vt\n VI to vn -R V1 rt rrr . r * r f i VI c: r (';'•7 ] C: 11 ♦ c' * `O L L w P R n • :� G C...^, Cr C w « r N • .G [r cl,oc!n x r n • '�vI ti * Cti � T. n .+ z -+ • G O T u�i�GC�il C G rJ.] L]G a ODOcaa a o w as ol ccamoc « cc a D w -+ w_ rrrrrr r r rr rrrrr r rrr r r no m:n OD m m m m Oc OD m m m m m m - co M m W V1 V1 f'1 In N V1 V1 1.I1 VI\n V1 VI Vt \n VI VE In Vt VI VI Vt rl b X { O I z 01, D' W r m P N P tN P fV r Oo '!V V W P Q '' '• �_ �•Vi r V Oo• W P VI 0D O O W V V r A P U •• • • :• • • • • n • • • • • • • • • • -• •- • -• • • :• • • • �.: OD U W U 1 P-� V f 1-4 A A 0 Cl t D P V P U'V O D :W W U P O r 10 'O N N F O N0 N O W W 0 0 :'f7 O0 QJ n N A OD N VI W -•� 0 0 0 0 -VI V1 0 0 NNNNNN N E �'/ Co to ON(AN Nt O N NN N 0 }.. '•+-t-�-1-H-r t `r I... O .S S O O 00 O n 'm pp > C C > 000 m 'i F.. Aby.DV XM z D C C C-.. Ax -4-t -4-4 x --t-f1 rf z ac-7-11-71a N oo xsxSi a -•-i-� o c cnNNVANN D .. y Yr L•GT� 4S*4 S^ m SR S^•4^S*L fR n fl n nnIn0on n m mm NN NNN I rt -1-+-4 N o i-1 z w w � • . . � 5: .0 a Dbsbb a rnm NVINV) V) o c m n z z z z z z r z:0 c c c c c m NNN G) r + 2 2 2 2 2 O _ r•M C C C C C m m m _ inti mmmoM --- G> m N N a s a a a T T T O H N 1 mmmcamm ro n cc rorov-c -o m r+lmm rrrrr rA a -+-i a�amM o aoc i - H H rr Orr.-•O C CCG -0 - rl O O.O O 00 O •fl - - CIC, clM G7 G' T N rr z2z72 -i rrM -4O -4-40 O ro roro r r 222322 Vi b .y1 -r -4 aDbD DD m r .r.ti a- go to 2 322 m m rl rr rr rr w H o-. A M rl O G D a a n N In N 7'2 722 Z c m NN T C,CA C m m m -i -r-r-1 H U Z t O O G O G C3 O O 00 C-+0 0 j O 0 0 0 n r o rrrrrr r r rr rrrrr r rrr r N N N N N N W - W W aN W W W W W N N N N N N C W W W W W W - - V V W-+N V1 W W W W z - 000000 0100010 N NNN O Q -� I W W-�-.r J j UU Vt �U. .+ P N tv OD 00 Ot• -N �rry W m 10 t OD-+OD N-+ ••� P • P A rr 010, r i P J— A W W W r N r +W V N N-�•a N C u � O J m Q ro { oo oo o r • t oD a +n 3 rl � V) v r s R R r rt w • Vi C r ► a w * » _ � * D t1 t � a x x - 7 x •,, N L7 C lr N N N 'N s N • N • N w N ► N w rw * N N w N N N N N N F _ NNN N R N R N R N • A R N rt N ♦ N A f - N NNNN N Pi .p P G P O. R L, R P R P R O. w of R of s P P ■ P P O' O P U = �0 OG Oo cc cx ♦ P ♦ co R of w VI w vl w A vl V %P V1 fn to (',C. j C: r vl w W • N r �f r • W ` v. • • j • V V • N A'N N N A C) w w x� • V • W r r cx. v • o` U of o•P 0- 7[ n G -t • V D T P o �- -o � c v .� G cn -D 3 I- m o m a oc o o a oc a or a o a a a oc o -1 v, r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r A 0o Oo oc a m m rn S a m c m a m uo W w m ro V, Vn Ln VI %A %.n V1 v, L -.11 �n VI Vt VI V�V1 vl r'i m b 2 c r A N o 0 W t .U•O N N j W 'r In r %.n%A P P` �+ 'V y N N 'N N N N �� P P v1 A N-r N.A N O J 'r•� y y- r r W W W 3/ 'N N .. 0%A N 10 O 'o 'O; W W i O J - V y 10 10 N N UP 1.1, O O P V N W y W -r Col10 4'i.0% VI%Ai r A W aoVI W •W W O O O 0° O O -P'V W rl W W P i i � 1 W(A(A -1 N� t .t t C .0 ci - c W W W W to 4A -V b -� ^1 n _ 1-1 b 3r 2, • - C C C C C C - fif�C) -0�... in ! r H r r w� W rlmm mmm Om 19 iV: C m T! w r K K ro W m O G m 9 m CC CC cc .2 +r - • 1 Z D n 2 ,rn W N WNWW V).(a O 3 Z G r z v z n m m ml'1m m 0 r - m ro 17 r. (A co W W W W V) S ¢.. T 2 w C ,S7 w y W W W V,W V, rl c m z -+ o z rl rs z z m ro mmmill mm A _ i Z m Cc CC CC A yj y�y- - m O. - T2?.Tf Lrorl T G) r W f.. 1 M f C Cm 'rZ7 W G rt W Y '� W� ro W W W W W W ►'� "1wO 'm C� --1 0 C w a1 C =C T.. w c -0 ti © T W ro v ro v v ro m r- 'D.. v r v r C5 -n 'D -1 rorvvv-o z .� .. M -4 r -i-, r Y rrrrrr W .. G7 r-1 H w-.. U ww3 m m w 2 m !1 m m m mm rmmmm- m mm3► D W' m Y W C W' WW G7W W W W W W w 2 V) w r, 7 rn -r m y w .. i r o T m e oo± OD o o o 0 0 o aoc,a0o Y AAr A r r r r r r r r rrrrrA o W W N `0 N W N N N W N W N N NNN N C_ y-y W N -+ rAj OON VI - O O N O N O O O 000000 -/ • � 1 t 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 i t 1 L• L i• W j NQ N N VI N y / W y N C N P O P - r p. p, N OD r.p r.+ OD m N O N N .a Vl N V ..• .:a r..a W V N C g O OG T 1 o r • 1 Lt+ >Q � S v) n w s ► • • r • r in Ln ► s R ♦ r ♦ r s n m _ i Cl) A A A A A A A A (4 W cn W N V, to V) a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r:N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N h 'C P P P P P o• P P P P P P P P P U O,t T P o'P P P PP P P P01 - P P O,O P P P P P P 2 a a xxcnx x mck a x ococococxocxroocxaamxocmcr ax ocrooc00C%1xR CGMOC m N "� n f C.. C+.'t C C C. r r C.:'l C;O(�. _.� C. C n N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N N N N H H O K d T1 GG en CD ;� y '>-� O c-,uCC+C Jt: 04D sJ O f7 Ci C7 CO G 00 :-.7 CJG C.0 0:-1 C. 2 0. C. cxD. 4. 0� Cr C, R a aR: fcmaSX ra Ca. amQromIX C'� � mm •7c R Q:6 Q O" R R mo- -1 �; r r rrrr r rr r r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrr x m m 00 an on m mm ro m roxaroOcm mro mro mmmmOcromm Go mmmmw m xam l.n Lh Vf�n 'A In V1 In Vt VI�n n N1�n VM V1 Vt V1�V1 iA UA �Vf N VA VI V1 N N un Vt LA V1%P 1• r7 1- S i W N J O `+ i N' W.� J of wC AN ! 4- 4110, 4-o.p £ J ..+ t w-+ J V1 P A W t Vi �n V4- `V N 6n V N A A W r W J J �.J J N J V4-10 P A N W W`W W P W W 8tl w r m J W k U .4-A k V 1 N O Vq A ;00 Co W m r; vi%A V 1 A J W v 1 P N P W 01 r W ClLW t •OO-:> f• • *• • Y '• • • • �' • • 1 ' • • Y • • • • • •10•10 •J•w nWVi• W • O• • •W•W ! Oc • • •P•0 00 00 V J. •P•V•C,•OW•+r•+-1 N to-.j 6m A 01 C�O%.n C)r vvv P A St7 0 0 0 0 BOO - 10 IV O V1 N 0 0 0 0 10 A op.0 0 r - : t s € 1 O - O O O O O 1 O h h: h D' z Z z z Z Z z 2 Z 2.2 1 2 2 2 z42!2 to N N VN in (A N U)N N .+ n 1 Dn Dn l.. K V � u 0 m VZ717�� > •1 1, 7t 7C 7C 7C 2 W Q•�. r 1 zx z=�=ccw LC1=L LL tc t[ act C CCCC GC CGC E' x n J -iK-1 Y Z21.. ►+ 19. _. =m.O W co ca a) W co wcamOm WO,mm G z v {.. bD nb 1 f'•+ L=' Z r m m 1`i M m r li m m rn m In m m m m rn m m m D y ► ! h a� 4-a rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.rr z hn0C) f "'1-'1; h rrrr:rrrrrrrrrrr 41..4-4- DO r -ti r r_C C C C D a Z u m Z Z Z Z -/ n n 4-v -m--q-4--1 0 cn N z = Z Z K K K K V't) M M m h C z h h A 1 m 4-i m r- N ! hh 0h m 0p h c -1mmm -i-i --1-im-im-im-'1mmm-i t CCCC CCCCC --I r C 0000 �- C -�'�1'.. D c mmmr mmmrl r-r-m r;mm mmmm n -4"�r-i-----1- m { p 'p { Z 2 2 z 1 C �3. � � r r r r.r r r r r r r r r r r r r r -1 -1 w..4-f M 4-a r'•.r►. m Gi It T-n -n T «. rr1 4-i «. 'v 4-1 r�m 4-1 r,m m m r,r1l 4-1 rt rt rn m m 4-1 m f4- m r r r r r-r- r r s r M ;v:0 -4 r vv 'Dt 'C���'17'9 T1� vvv� -0'9 y ;ID-.-. -- - --- 3 ti p.Q. poQ• ( D H 2222 Z2222S 2 2S222S2 -1-'1-1 -1-i-y-1--i O D m S M M. r m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O C O = h---4-y f-4-—M M 4-1 ►a h (40) cnto a 23- tnzz z zzz zzzz zzzz zzz 4-i ommr"r:commr' N z hh 4-)A - «r -0-d m mrn rl m mm4-i I11 rn m m rl m rn mmrnm -'S zNfA In (N Ul toW N h 7 ]il 0 O m 3fl -t 0000 rrrr v m -4 NU1 NN 0 0 � Z O _O 00.00 O N N C1 O J-�-•J 00 O O O 00 O Cr O J 7 OO m m 0 0 a 0 0 0 0.7 n �-`-+-`2JJ J JJ J-. -,.J W W JJ JJ—- --+ Ci '. r r r A r A r 4-A r A A r r AA A r r r r r A r r r A A A W W 414,r r A A A r 0 N N W W W W - N V/%.A V, N M1 1N W W w W W W W W W W W W W W W W w 00 W W W W W W W W C LA �� ,o� w JJ -+ NNN-•NNNNNNNNNN NN NN w W V Vti'd r vrti 7 O 0 0 0 0 0 N J (] -•J J 10 J r J J J J J J J J J J J J SV J.O O 0 0 0 0 0 O K -t t ll l l l l t l I t i l i l i . . . 1.n W W N--•'J jrCW W W --J OOOPO.P jA W W j 2 4-r N w f o.o r N-+V I W N m V V 1 V 1 w N O O N N N N V I N O m m 4-W rQ N P W N J m r r r r O O OO Ol rnS J--j — • - i i l t t l I Y 1 1 1 1 1 t P - P W W W W W 4-r W r NJ JJ R.Ar W W W W-�-J JJ JJ O 11 c" P PA W W W f"S J J JJ JJ J JJ N J W 1C 1or-+N-•fn W NJ Op V 1,n%A W N-4- O J N N N' NN 7 N J 2 C O 11 a O w ro V 1 m • J A m a �n M TJ v, n n r1 cn r: N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r N N N N yV N N' N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P U P P P P P P P P !T 0, P P P P P P S 70 m ax m a a cc LC m u a a Q m M ac Jo Q u m m rn an N nl f\ N N N N P P � r N 7• n rti -1 Oc Q. Oc K 0. Q` Q Q cc 0. OL P LV OC Oc y LJ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r �c co m m m 00 m Oc 00 W 00 w m 00 cc 00 m 0. Of co 00 'U -an aA an 'UI N N W N N N an v'.6A W a!1 VI JI W N m b 2 r p � F C 'OD N N VI.N 1 :O 0/00 vt.>r N N r,r D•W W N v N N m 00 P, W W r r IA W W W, W W O O? %n `O. A A OP'P W W W'w 0 0 0 -V V r r W Nf r r -+r r V P oo W W WO O O 0, O.O• 00 ccs O 10 PP O:O 0 0 OC:I O O u O O N W 'N N G O .VI \A P v�O' r� O :O -:.O'p O C7 ,0 0 00 ,w W 00 .0 0 •O r v1 GD O 0 0; O CI O CJ r r N VIL G b o z z 11 n n j z rn m o c. z a z o a n o o ►+ z m m, w .,: o z m ... z r s 30. x x a x z [ o n 01 in z o m C41 F'O ,✓7 ,._ y"I I a 'I N S 1 O 7V Z I•I C rn n T .n X m T'1 T rJ m 7o Z ti C a; 91 z. x m z w TI S r m rn r, a m o VJ - Y .7C f7 n r G• f w � 2 •c O .aJ 2 rn T —! K < (n y a a - to x z v c -• r -� v n a m a ao r+ s n n co ro n En o a N z a v~-1 n x z rr- (A n z o y w U) rn o ro ro m n o KA > r r- 0 n e 1 fn/n m V 'O 'm ro T1 T7 (n CO 0 m rn' ;D T �1 C ® C .T.TJ 70 C r C C D C' O D. m ;u ,o o m c rn o o «+ ro C v m ro ro: c c z w o o m D T ,w w La -1 T 2 ro C ro N .S N W W Lo f!i a rn X3> "n w m s m rrn s a w m rn m 'w � N D .� m A - N w fn Z C C w C C C ro 2 C m M M ro C n -a 0 2 C S -N -! N m CA[n C -1 w m w A A V y w w w •-� O U O O _O fJ _O O O O _O _O 1 1 t t 1 i 1 1 1 t 1 I l i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r o 0 N IN W N W W W W N N IV W W N N N W W N W C W - '-� j W Z ..•r 'A r r r O -N r ClO O O O O r W W m N O r r - 1 i j t 1• �'O N N O O I ! O O -i r y � r / 1 1 ! f - 1 1 1♦ i 1 i +` 41 w r r w ww w w r r w r r W v W N OD N 2 PN 1 i 1 1 1 { 1 i 1 / 1 1 ! 1 ! 1 1+ r r r • - r w j rN 1 ! / w w j w w r r w r' .� W V W N 00 N W N N - � � N W C D mup . L4 ~ a O LQ r • o r • 1 m at v, Z m a UJ L v, c a m rl M N N N N N N -� k N N N N N N en � a nc oc a rt v+ ni N l7 `c [x 7C C7 M J < O Tf OL li o ao a a -1 v, rrrr r r x cc 00 oc cr x co 'U N W vl IA N Ln r. m A r 3 of W OD "� p 00 W-O lA P P N V V -• O C z G V 'r A-• vl j W~ N J f N 41 tn 4 W OD NI"j, r-W-� ' - P N V A V A00 D P v 1 N W W O P O P O N V 0 W W A u t ]D O N W-+ 0 0 P P` O E i vl u W-p N N 6.)vl V✓f W vl 70 N OD u(„( 10 N N J 0-40-N%A O O V OV V V W V d A NO© W W O - O 00 O C �� mmmrn O TTTT1T Tm11-1TT `?i t ro vroro H rn- �� �. n zzzzzz � zzzzzz m t T v000OOOOOOOOO 000 OST !"1 Fl, r OD as V P vl vt AN N+-�-+0 i ►'� O O W---41 0 V WP%.n 4- m m : d C C C K z n ooc�000 000a000 rtl•lrnrl -4 N-1 ZZ z z -n ri A A A D A A S+ D A A ADS'+ C C C C n rrrrrrrrrrrrr mmmm x x z m cs IH N y rl F - i C by �•v V M 7 .Z } - -lArn -O V-DND A2l �rn Orn DO -4 2: OD t V nS mD-gz 3a -4z z ro. In - - rAm vin PH rl x-r- Z4-( r.r) 171 'tl 2 ;u in Vf�o tno Xrl - r -cr T3-42 ;D> r w 0 L rn I'll . C T• ro O is O-i r !-! Vl (n N 75 x!-t o l-(o m c (/, rl x z CC C2Cx 2 x m0 O ('•! V) N m .0rlm - O rom G -i - • 77 Z 7 Q--( m -i n ro r rl o 2 0 r i s i t 0 W w W W r r G w✓, ai v! w N C rrWN -p - z o o -( U p o n W W z 0 0 0 0 W r p aoolx t s s s i i i u 0 0 W N C N .O tln W o r • 00 a v, x r� ro V, z• w V> 6, w D in » G; rn O O O O O O N N N ,�CO W OD W __0 07 CO OD OZ) -l _ -7 O N O O N N N N N N w \.D \O OD OD -P�_ a\w w O O O O O O H O O O N N N N N w w N H w H H H H H �n O N n • O w O H H N N O W H H O O \,D O O N r O H H H H H H H fi ✓ O O O O O O O O O O H !- H N 4=_ H F- N I. m LA) N N w N N H Co co W O O O O O O O O O O H H H H w H H c+ w w w w W w O O O O O O O O O O � -� N � � p:- H H H H H H H H H H O O O O O O O O O O H H H N H !- H N O O O O O O N N N cD W 07 pD cD W oD po cc) -J O N O O O F H H H 7 H H H w H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H R H H H H H H 9 OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 O O d 0 O n H H H H H H H H H H H F' H H H h H I f H' F- I-- H H H H I- F• n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 O O O O O rr H � 9 D\ � W H H `n W OD 8 4�' O W Zn O n g O H W -4 OD O O O O O O O H w r• w N N _p' O OJ O \�o O -i D\cp H W O H H N ON C O O O O O O � `n \'D N � Np- O - 1 O � � �,D O w Zvi O W N \,D O � O O O O O. O O n H N O O O O O O O O CO L W H CO O. O O O O\ H O OD�,O H O -P •F" H tzf w rr 9 � n n 0 c z y W "d 'v 'd I-d x x x x x x x H W 0 H r 'v O b CD m z Z r✓ I✓ (D m m co (D rn m m �5 a Z ::S O -t ct It w O 'd O '-t ''i ''t as E� s a B B ''a B c+ n It c+ �5 O �v H7 H c+ is h n n n r• H• H• r• r• r• r• r• (D 11 (D n -h lD P) 0 > -'V > H -' c+ cF c+ c+ c+ c+. c+ c+ ''i 0 (D 't It c+ 't i H• CO P) P) p I I I (D �r is (D 1-3 H• (D (D m m m I. I I t7 C7 C!) I I m P) c+ m (D CA H RO (D (n It (D (D (D (D (D cF ''t c+ K (D 8 m Sr O O O t2j H H (D (D H (D m b C "t G '4 H H �-3 �i 'i � W C G rt > m my 7 m H H H H H H H F F-' H H F H H H H H H H H H R H H H H H H n O\ O\ O\ O\ rn O\ O\ rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O\ rn O\O\O\ O\ rn rn O\ O\ O\ .F- W W W W W W W - W W W N N N N N N N N fU N N N N H H H Z H O \,O C)O 1 O\ \n - - w N H O \,D OD 1 O\ \.n � W R) IV N N H O \10 CO 7 O + y t7 t7 C7 2 y L t17 co H C) H b H C C!) 3 = _ = 3 3 W 3 x �-3 C O CD O O m W O c+- m O t) n m O c+ (D (D H• O 'd (D It (D �3 �3, z �5 O < '•t P c+ 8 M td C+ H. W It c+ P�r O H �:s P) O O (D P P O H• c+ C) RO Q c+ Cf) c+ c+ 'l '-t (D m m 11 n O It H H H• R, �3' '-i �:r (D CD :24 O (D H• O P. cG t) (D a P, m (D O. 3 't O P) n H co O CI) r_ O *1 QR H• H c+ O c+ H H E n n c+ CO O c:r n 0 . W a (D : (D m 't - Ft H. = 'l P �3 P) 10 H. O (D W H• O H t ?i c+ (D H O (D (D t I m E3 to 'i O H H• '-t m Ol m 3 CF O H• P) ::5 O P) C.G c+ H. 't m t7 H (D (D O (D m P m GJ (D W c+ m O (D c+ O RO �-i C] O m x 'i O m y x O O P) < H c+ m H. O `C O m m C) O i O (D H O' CD H (D H O O (D < (D 7r ::s to O RO It 11 rn � z r to (D � (D td H. (D RO x It c) x CO rn It x (D i m `� x m rn �- ON D\ � w H' H H d\ w CC) C -p 4=" -P .fi' N � W �,D •P- H H -1 O W Vl W Vl H W OD R O O O O O O H W •P- W N N -P' O CD O �'Q O \'D O H H N d\ O O O O O O � -n \,D N D N 4=- O ­� O CO -p- \,D w 0 \J1 N `O O O O O O O O O H a\ O O N D\ H N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD w CO H 07 0 0 0 0 O\ H OD O H O O O O O O O 0 O I� R N O O O O O O O O n a G R FQ W W W N N N N N N N C N h f I-' - - I- N F- CO CD - COCD r\) C) O O O O O O O O O F- Irr C I O O O O O O 0. 0 0 9 H �d CO 0 1 F-3 F-j H F f I-- h-' P (D 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n It 0 r c+ 0 N S I 1-1 C+ axe I 1-3 � a ! �-I 0 0 0 0 0 \10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . I. R ONO O O O O O O O 0 G R 9 n n 0 � i {g C z w I N O\N NIN - f�D "J �� �o �w w > �• -P=1I rn f-- \-n !- \10 ¢i a ON I-' W OD`n �o r• � t7 C+ .", t� G'1 n 00 to N N N � _m GN � x O �10 OD -J a\ -p- w N z O w O O 0 p N• CxD 0 phi C O m �3' O Z N O a C-4 a a z F1 I=j *mj (D co ro o N a x n n O cr r x x �• x o :✓ w w w � x cn cD N to E � ::I I � `� F, n w NI I 1 fi O O O O O O O 0 r vl10 O O O O O O O O I• 1OOOOOOOO0 O C = T Y CD F �5 H A K CD F>E E INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, linnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector SUBJECT: Tahpah Park Sewer and Water Service Contract No. 84-3 DATE: August 16, 1985 INTRODUCTION: Attached is the Certificate of Completion and the Final Payment Estimate Voucher for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: All of the work for this project has been completed in accord- ance with the contract and final payment should be made to T & S Excavating, Inc. , 2044 Chambers Street, St. Paul, MN, 55109. The final total contract amount, $52, 342. 51, is $380. 00 under the total funds encumbered. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution No. 2425, A Resolution Accepting Work On The Tahpah Park Sewer and Water Service, No. 84-3. The Resolution directs the appropriate City officials to make final payment to T & S Excavating, Inc. , 2044 Chambers . Street, St. Paul, MN, 55109 in the amount of $500. 00. FS/pmp T&S RESOLUTION NO. 2425 A Resolution Accepting Werk. On The Tahpah and Water Service Contract No. 84 WHEREAS, Pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Shakopee on May 10, 1984, T & S Excavating, Inc. , 2044 Chambers Street, St. Paul, MN, 55109 has satisfactorily completed the Tahpah park Sewer and Water Service, in accordance with such contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk and Mayor are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract in the amount of $500. 00, taking the contractor' s receipt in full. Adapted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayer of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19 City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CONTRACT NO. : 1984-3 DATE: August 16, 1985 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Tahpah Park Sewer and Water Service CONTRACTOR: T & S Excavating, Inc. 2044 Chambers Street St. Paul, MN 55109 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT , , , , . . , , , , , 48,570.50 QUANTITY CHANGE AMOUNT $ 380. 00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 THRU NO 3 AMOUNT , , , $ 4,152. 01 FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT , , . , . , . . . . $ 52,342.51 LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS , , 51 84� 51 FINAL PAYMENT 500. 00 I, hereby certify that the above described work was inspected under my direct supervision and that, -to the best of my belief and knowledge, I find that the some has -been fully completed .in all respects according to the contract, together with any modifications approved by City Council , I, therefore, recommend above specified final payment be made to the above named Contractor. - H.R. ontractor. -H R -Spurrier Professional Engineer FINAL rac P;o. p `i 1984-3 ar est_. �- - 4ve 'cuc:1e= ..�. 6 �Pr-Lod _ndink. August 16, 1985 Contractor T & .S Excavating Address 2044 Chambers Street St. Paul IM 55109 Project Description _Tahpah Park Sewer & Water Service Original Contract Amount $ 48,570. 50 Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 3 $ 4, 152. 01 Total Funds Encumbered � 52,722.51 Value of Work Completed $ _52, 342. 51 Value of Work Remaining Percent Retainage $ -0- Previous Payments $ 51, 842.51 Deductions .or Charges $ -0- Percent Complete Total $ 51,842.51 100° _tet Due ILinp- !i. _ _,,rp R -i-me $ 500. 00 C-=n'=1PICn 1; Or PAYy0n. (T, We) hereby agree that the quantity and value of wcrk shown herein is � ;N _te c_ the work cc=-Ie-.ed a tc q.4'vE. --TOR: °.TR -Lr ED OF SL-,,i1C,_"._,� Engineer —Y, Late y^`n_stratcr mate .�._AN fb �- 'a7 �17 r _ Sol Tx rn ` D w I I 1 I I I ► ( I ' ;I �` IS 1 rp It I i 1 I V �a O' O. , n 1. � � :A .� :O � :�. , • ,� C p °w 'o is p o ;� ro , m �l IL I{ 1� � r• f- Ilk N. rb _1 J � ,� ;f.� n .,• ,-1 f� .< ��,� ^ R. � � i_ tie C -fir 1�, Ci � �? b .� •� to =, �`v` (\��+ •1 IIS._. T__ �•.-•- ...- •0 .. ON •• .� w .. �J 1J 1 Vlz IZ ro ro ro Its � 0 - � 1 - ;� v V K