HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/1987 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 22, 1987
Mayor Reinke presiding
11 Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. in Room #318 at the Scott County Courthouse
2] 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal of the Shakopee Planning Commission's
approval of a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor music
center as a minor commercial recreational facility upon 86 acres
located North of 12th Avenue, West of Valley Park Drive, South
of Valley Industrial Blvd. South and East of the K-Mart Distribu-
tion Center on County Road 83
3] Other Business:
4] Adjourn to Tuesday, September 29, 1987 at 7:00 P.M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
1
z \_
i
R
PrP X
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Granted for Starwood
Music Center
DATE: September 16, 1987
INTRODUCTION•
On May 20, 1987 the Scottland Companies applied for a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a 17, 000 seat outdoor music
center (Starwood) at the intersection of 12th Ave. and Valley
Park Drive. The City Planning Commission held public hearings on
the request on June 18, July 30 and August 20. At the August 20,
1987 meeting the Planning Commission granted the Scottland
Companies a conditional use permit for the music center with
conditions. The conditional use permit has been appealed to the
City Council by Joseph Zak, representing Citizens Against
Starwood Amphitheater (CASA) and by the Scottland Companies.
BACKGROUND:
The attached information provides the background for the
appeal, included are:
1. Copy of C.U.P. Resolution #492
2. Copy of Assistant City Attorney's letter and staff memos
addressing conditions approved by the Planning Commission.
3. Staff memos to Planning Commission dated August 20, 1987;
August 14, 1987; July 24, 1987; and June 11, 1987.
4. Minutes from the June 18, July 30, and August 20 Planning
Commission Meetings.
5. Results from survey of other communities with amphitheaters.
For further background information refer to the following
correspondence previously distributed to the City Council:
1. Information submitted by the Scottland Companies which
includes application packet (in red cover) , EAW, and other
data submitted by the Scottland Companies.
2. Information submitted by Mr. Joseph Zak which included
packet containing newspaper clippings, original and revised
traffic study, and memo dated September 13, 1987.
3. Staff report on EAW.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. The City Council may pass Resolution CC-492 granting a
conditional use permit to `he Scottland Companies for an
outdoor music center subject to the conditions approved by
the Planning Commission (sustain Planning Commission
action) .
2. The City Council may pass Resolution CC-492 granting a
conditional use permit to the Scottland Companies for an
outdoor music center subject to different conditions.
3. The City Council may pass Resolution CC-492 denying a
conditional use permit to the Scottland Companies for an
outdoor music center.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and pass resolution #CC-492 as outlined in either
alternative 2 or 3. We are not recommending alternative 1 in
light of the letter from Rod Krass, Assistant City Attorney. A
staff recommendation is included with staff memo commenting on
the conditions approved by Planning Commission.
is
CZTY Or SHAKOPEE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 492
WHEREAS, Scottland Companies having duly filed an
application for a Conditional Use Permit dated May 20, 1987 under
the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, Section 11. 04,
Subd. 6, as follows: Conditional Use Permit to operate an
outdoor music center as a minor commercial recreation facility;
and
WHEREAS, the present zoning for the parcel on which the
Conditional Use Permit is being requested is designated as I-2;
and
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made
is described as being located at the intersection of Valley Park
Road and 12th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing the advice and recommendation of the
City Planner and upon considering the suggestions and objections
raised by the affected property owners within a radius of 350
feet thereof in a public hearing duly held thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the
aforementioned Conditional Use Permit application be and is
hereby approved with the following conditions:
i. The SAW for the Starwood Music Center along with all the
statements made therein, and all of the mitigating measures
stated therein are hereby adopted as a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit.
2. A written agreement between City and developer containing
the security recuirements for the facility. Said agreement
shall include the following:
A. Licensed officers will be permitted within the site.
B. Number and type of security personnel required for each
type of event.
C. Starwood shall be responsible for all costs relating to
on and off site security and traffic control.
D. All ushers as well as security personnel must receive
training in security procedures, first aid, and drug
abuse prevention/treatment.
E. The acreement must be approved by the Chief of Police.
F. The agreement can be amended at the request of either
Starwood or the City, with proper notification and
review.
G. Applicant and/or his agent will contract with the local
police department and county sheriff for traffic
control by on duty officers at all major county and
state roadway intersections within the City of
Shakopee.
3 . A qualified physician or paramedic team with ambulance shall
be in attendance at all performances. In addition a trained
drug crisis unit will be on site.
q. No alcoholic beverages shall be brought into the facility by
patrons. No consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be
allowed within the parking lot or other areas of the site
outside the performance area. The facility operator shall
be responsible for enforcing these conditions.
B. The Starwood Music Center shall only be allowed alcoholic
beverage licensed for the serving of beer and wine and only
two containers be sold at any one sale and the serving of
these beverages be terminated 1 hour prior to the end of the
event.
6. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of
reg_uired improvements:
A. An eight foot bituminous trail along 12th Avenue and
Valley Park Drive shall be required.
B. Additional street lighting to be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the sPUC manager
and the City Engineer.
C. Water system improvements along 12th Avenue required to
complete a loop from Canterbury Road to Valley Park
Drive to be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the SPUC manager.
D. Pavment in lieu of park dedication as required by City
Code Section 12.07 , Subd. 5.
7 . Deferred assessments against the property shall be paid
prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Any plans for use of the portion of ,he site not included in
the project shall require platting or the entire parcel.
9. General security and off site management:
A. Overnight camping on any part of the property or within
the immediate vicinity shall be prohibited.
B. No parking shall be allowed outside the immediate
vicinity of the facility.
C. No loitering will be allowed on the facility or in the
immediate vicinity of the facility 12 hours prior to or
after an event.
10. No event shall start prior to 8: 00 P.M. on Monday - Friday.
11. Approval by the City Engineer of final calculations for
storm drainage and detention area, and for peak sanitary
sewer flow form a major entertainment facility that would
have intermissions generating at a peak flow.
12. No event will be allowed that displays a history of causing
a disturbance. A citizen' s group shall be formed to review
events as well as to promote communication between and among
the citizens and the applicant.
13 . sound levels at the staae are limited to 100 decibels.
Sealed monitoring devices will be installed by the City at
the developer' s expense, one at the stage and one or more
off site. Fines for sound levels in excess of 100 dba at
the stage and sound levels in excess of those identified in
the application will be established by City Ordinance.
14. As a condition for granting this permit, Scottland and/or
its successors in land ownership will file a certified
statement of intent (moratorium) agreeing to refrain from
any rezoning requests and/or minor entertainment conditional
use permit requests on all properties zoned 1-2 within 3 , 000
of this application for a period of 7 years or until-
commercial
ntilcommercial recreational uses are eliminated from the 1-2
zone.
15. Developer agrees to clean all litter on all adjacent
properties and on all feeding roadways within 24 hours after
a concert/event on the site. said area shall be bordered on
the west by County Road 63, on the south by County Road 16,
on the east by the NSP substation road and on the north by
Highway 101.
16. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment be submitted and approved
prior to issuance of the Building Permit.
17. Ticket sales are to be limited to the stated capacity of the
facility which is 17 ,000.
18. No event shall last longer than 11:30 P.M.
19 . Pest control measures will be in conformance with MPCA
requirements.
20. Lighting shall be designed such that no direct light be
emitted outside the facility.
21. Any change in use of this facility as stated in the
application must be approved by this body (Planning
Commission) .
22. That the City receive advance notice of all events and the
anticipated attendance.
23. Belicopters will not be permitted except under emergency
conditions.
24. Beside off-site ticket sales, no event ticket sales will be
allowed in the immediate vicinity and prior to the parking
of the vehicles inside the facility.
25. If traffic levels at Starwood exceeds the criteria as set
forth in this application, all activities must be curtailed
until resolutions are found.
2E. City legal - staff shall review this resolution and all
conditions contained within the resolution. The Planning
Commission reserves the right to amend the resolution and
it' s conditions to comply with legal opinion.
BE IT FURTHFM RSOLVF..D, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code,
Section 11. 04, Subd. 6C-12, if an approved Conditrional Use Permit
isnot u`�ilized within one year from date herein approved or by
August 21, 1988, it shall become null and void.
Adopted in regular session of the Shakopee Planning
Commission of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 21st day
of August, 1987 . /f
Pairwoman of to Plgn g Commission
ATTEST;
�4 ja.9
City Planner
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Starwood Music Center
DATE: August 20, 1987
INTRODUCTION
Since the preparation of the Planning Commission packets for the
August 20 meeting the City has received two communications from
Mr. Joseph Zak relating to three concerns: (1) potential traffic
problems, (2) the use of chemicals for pest control, and (3)
contacts with individuals in other communities. These
communications were distributed to Commission members.
STAFF RESPONSE
Following is a response to each concern listed above:
1. PotentialTrafficProblems
The information submitted by Mr. Zak concerning
potential traffic problems is being reviewed by the
City Engineer. Mr. Ashfeld will present his comments
at the public hearing. The developer' s traffic
consultant will also be available to respond to Mr.
Zak ' s conclusions at the public hearing.
2. The Use Of Chemicals For Pest Control
The developer has not made plans to utilize chemicals
for pest control and has suggested that a condition
could be added to the CUP requiring approval by the
City of any proposed pest control program prior to its
implementation. Any program for pest control must, of
course, meet all requirements and standards adopted by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Approval by
the City would also give the City an opportunity to
place additional conditions on implementation of the
program.
3. Contacts With Individuals In Other Communities
On August 19, 1987 a conference call in which two
members of the Planning Commission and two city
Councilmembers participated was made to several
individuals. A report on the conference call will be
made orally at the public hearing.
DKW:cah
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Riverbend Music Center Tour/Conference Call
DATE: August 20, 1987
Introduction:
On July 30, 1987 a continued public hearing was held to
discuss the proposed Starwood Amphitheater development. At the
conclusion of that meeting and at the request of the citizens in
attendance, the Planning Commission moved to request the City
Council to send Planning Commission members to a rock concert
before acting on the Starwood Conditional Use Permit.
On August 9, 1987 at a regular meeting of the Shakopee City
Council, the City Council authorized sending a group to observe
the Riverbend Amphitheater and directed staff to include one or
more unbiased citizens.
Selecting our Amohitheater
Following the Planning Commission meeting of July 30, 1987,
I was assigned the responsibility of setting up this event. In
my research I contacted . ten amphitheaters throughout the United
States. Given the short time frame in which to set up a trip, I
had a difficult time finding any heavy metal bands or hard rock
groups that were playing. To my dismay, the hardest rock group
that I could find playing prior to the continued public hearing
date (August 20, 1987) was Kenny Loggins at the Riverbend Music
Center near Cincinnati. I would classify Kenny Loggins as a pop
rock artist. Because Kenny Loggins is not a hard rock performer,
I immediately knew that my selected concert would be open for
criticism on the part of those opposed to the Starwood Project.
As a sidelight, I was quite surprised to find that many of the
amphitheaters contacted do not book every available weekend date.
Additionally, I was quite pleased when I found out that the
Riverbend Amphitheater site is very similar to the Starwood site
in terms of highways, adjacent entertainment facilities, river
valley location and proximity to residential areas.
Selecting the Attendees
Two unbiased citizens were selected by City staff in
consultation with the Mayor and several members of the Council to
attend the concert at Riverbend, Marlene Larson and Bob Mayer.
The tour group also included Council member Jerry Wampach,
Planning Commission member Dave Czaja, Jeff Siegel representing
Scottland, Donna Hyatt representing the opponents, Bill Lepley
representing Shakopee Public Access, Betty Mayer and me. Total
travel expenses were less than $2000. Jeff Siegel and Betty
Mayer paid their own travel expenses.
Interviews in Cincinnati
During our stay in Cincinnati we were able to speak with Mr.
Harry Bodes, Deputy Sheriff for Hamilton County, Mr. Russell
Sparks, Zoning Administrator for Hamilton County and the Manager
of the Riverbend Amphitheater. We also spoke with a resident who
lived within a 1/2 mile of the facility.
The Shakopee Access Studio has produced a video tape of what
we observed on our trip to Riverbend. This tape has and will
continue to be shown on our local public access channel for the
next two weeks. The tape is also available to be checked out at
the local public library. The tape is unedited and primarily
focuses on our interviews with the Deputy Chief of Police, Zoning
Administrator and the Riverbend Manager.
Conference Call 8/19/87
At the request of Mr. Zak, on Wednesday evening (8/19/87) ,
representatives from the City, the opposition and the developers
held a conference call meeting to interview individuals
throughout the country who have been affected by proposed
amphitheaters. The individuals selected for the interview were
chosen by both the opposition and the City. Two Council members,
two Planning Commission members, Mr. Joe Zak, Jeff Siegel, Bruce
Malkerson, a representative from the Shakopee Valley News,
Shakopee Public Access and I were in attendance for the
conference call interviews.
Summary
In conclusion, I believe the City has done a reasonable job
in investigating issues that may arise as a result of the
proposed Starwood Amphitheater. The City is taking the following
investigative measures: 1) staff and independent agency review
of the developers EAA'; 2) based on concerns raised by staff and
residents the City developed and mailed surveys to the police,
planning, engineering, assessor and mayors offices to eight
communities that have amphitheaters; 3) tour of Riverbend Music
Center with representatives from Planning Commission, Council,
staff, opponents and proponent. Video tape was produced and is
available for review by the public; and 4) conference call
session held 8/19/87 .
Verbal reports from the unbiased citizens who accompanied us
on our trip will be given as part of the formal public testimony
later in the meeting. (Attached are the written comments that I
have received from Mr. Mayer and Ms. Larson) .
BAS:cah
Attachment
TO: Barry Stock
FROM: Robert Mayer
SUBJECT: Visit to Riverbend
I was contacted by John Anderson last week and asked if I
would be willing to go with a group from Shakopee to attend a
concert at Riverbend. The artist performing was Kenny Loggins.
My wife Betty also attended at my expense.
I participated as a neutral party. I was asked to approach
the visit with an open mind and I believe both Betty and I were
able to do so. The only prior knowledge we had of the project
proposed for Shakopee was obtained through articles in the
Shakopee Valley News, factual background material provided by
Barry Stock and a letter listing some objections to the choice of
the visitation site from Mr. Joseph Zak.
From the information that was available to us, we felt that
there were probably five main issues. These- are: 1) traffic, 2)
noise levels, 3) drug usp, 4) crowd behavior, and 5) property
devaluation for those living in the vicinity.
The facility itself is located on the Ohio River in a
township adjacent to Cincinnati. It is a very attractive site,
in a recreational area including a racetrack, and what seemed to
be a very nice community park. We visited with Mr. Harry Bodee,
Deputy Sheriff of Hamilton County. The amphitheater is under
their jurisdiction and they provide traffic control for events.
They also are on call if a policeman is needed at the facility.
We were given a tour of the facility by two _Tnloyees of
Riverbend, and then met with the General Manager of the facillty
and a promotion person who has been with Riverbend since its
beginning in 1984. Our final interview was with Russell Sparks
who is the Zoning Administrator for Hamilton County and who lives
about three miles from the facility. We then attended the
concert, moved around the grounds during the concert, observed
crowd behavior, and watched traffic movement out of the area
after the concert. We drove through some residential
neighborhoods prior to the concert and stopped and visited with a
home owner who lives on a bluff over looking the amphitheater.
What kinds of traffic problems exist? There apparently was
some problem the first year. However, the road leading to the
area was widened and some land designation lights were installed.
The county provides 10 officers for traffic control when a large
crowd is expected. The deputy sheriff, the general manager, and
the zoning administrator all stated that although traffic became
hairy at times they did not see it as a problem. It would seem
to me that our road system is far superior to that at Riverbend.
The performance we attended had about 8,000 spectators. The
parking lot was almost completely cleared one-half hour after the
conclusion of the concert. It was difficult to ascertain whether
the street leading to the park, racetrack, and amphitheater was
used much by residents in the area. For whatever the reason,
people did not indicate inconvenience for residents because of
traffic caused by Riverbend. The zoning administrator did say
that we should be concerned with traffic if the traffic generated
by an amphitheater would affect major traffic routes.
Is noise level a problem? We were told that one residential
area is approximately one-fourth mile from the amphitheater. The
sheriff ' s department received a few complaints about noise the
first year. Since that time there have been no complaints. Most
complaints received during the first year were due to the noise
level during the day time sound tests. Deputy Sheriff Bodee felt
that some adjustments have been made to hold down the noise level
during the day. Both the amphitheater general manager and the
county zoning administrator said noise was not a problem and that
they had received no complaints. We spoke to a resident who
lived quite close to the facility, and he did not find noise
generated by the amphitheater to be a problem. In fact he felt
that the racetrack was a greater problem.
What about drug and alcohol use? What problems are
associated with crowd behavior? Wine coolers, beer, mixed drinks
and cocktails are sold at the concerts. Mixed drinks and
cocktails are generally sold only when the crowd is made up of
older people. The police official stated emphatically that no
increase in crime has resulted from activities at the
amphitheater. No: one felt that alcohol use or drug use was a
problem. Persons caught using illegal drugs are arrested, and
apparently there have been very few arrests made.
The sale of alcoholic beverages is controlled to some
extent. You may purchase only two drinks at one time. Because
of lines most people do not wish to leave the performance to
stand in line for more beer or wine.. They quit selling alcoholic
beverages one-half hour before the conclusion of the performance.
Again, the persons with whom we visited seemed strong in their
belief that alcohol and drug use was not a greater problem at the
amphitheater than it is among the general population.
Crowd behavior was excellent at this performance. The band
was loud and the people enthusiastic, but only one incident
marred the whole evening. That occurred when people were leaving
at the conclusion of the concert. The two offenders were removed
to the parking lot very quickly. We were told that this is only
_ the second such altercation they have experienced this year.
Security is provided by the management of the amphitheater.
They have a large number of young men employed, apparently they
are very well trained.
The crowd at this concert was primarily the young set, but
there was a mixture. Some younger families brought their
children, and I think I may have spotted a few grandparents. The
People were dressed casually but were well dressed. Betty and I
were impressed by both the behavior and the appearance of the
people in attendance.
Will the value of surrounding pronerty decrease? The county
zoning administrator said sale value of property has not
decreased because of the amphitheater. He said there are more
housing starts in Anderson Township than in any other township in
the county. There are some very nice housing developments near
the amphitheater and more are being built.
In summary I would say that the Riverbend Amphitheater has
strong backing from a somewhat affluent community. The artists
brought in are carefully chosen, and yet there is a wide variety
of performances made available.
Kenny Loggins does not provide the kind of music I enjoy.
However, with ear plugs firmly in place, Betty and I truly
enjoyed the atmosphere afforded by Riverbend. I would love to
hear a pops concert in that same setting.
It would seem to me that the value of a facility such as
this in Shakopee will be determined by how it is managed. That
seems to be the case at Riverbend. Management of that facility
has tried to meet the needs of a supportive community, but at the
same time has met the profit needs of the organization.
Marlene Larson' s comments will be handed out at the meeting
�y
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director
RE: Continued Public Hearing on the Starwood Music Center
Conditional Use Permit
DATE: August 14, 1987
Introduction;
At the July 30, 1987 Special Planning Commission meeting
testimony was taken and information was presented on the proposed
Starwood Music Center Conditional Use Permit. At the conclusion
of that meeting the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to August 20, 1987.
Background:
On May 19, 1987 the Scottland Companies submitted an
application for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial
recreation - minor facility known as the Starwood Music Center.
The property is located in the I-2 zone and a Conditional Use
Permit is required for this type of facility to be located in the
I-2 zone.
Over the past three months the Planning Commission has
received a wealth of written information and verbal commentary on
this proposal. This memo will relate only to that information
received and those events which have occurred from the time of
the July 30 meeting to the present.
Since the July 30 meeting the City Council has issued a
negative declaration on the Starwood Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) . Several letters, both opposed to and in favor
of the project have been submitted, several persons from the
community have visited another outdoor amphitheater in
Cincinnati, Ohio, and the City Council directed the preparation
of an ordinance for the licensing of any entertainment center
serving more than 1,000 people at any one time within the City of
Shakopee. Following is a more detailed discussion of
aforementioned items.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
At the regular City Council meeting of August 4, 1987 the
City Council, acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU)
for the Starwood EAW made a negative declaration on the need for
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Starwood Music Center. The City Council also directed that
the findings of the EAW be incorporated in to the Conditional Use
Permit deliberations of the Planning Commission. This later
element is discussed at greater length in this memo.
Additional Correspondence Received
Attached to this memo is the correspondence received by the
City since the last Planning Commission meeting on Starwood on
July 30, 1987.
A Trip to River Bend Amphitheater
On Friday, August 14, a group of City representatives and
other residents traveled to the River Bend Amphitheater in
Cincinnati, Ohio and attended a rock music concert. The River
Bend facility has several physical attributes which are some what
comparable to the proposed Starwood facility. A report on this
visit will be presented to the Planning Commission at the
continued public hearing on August 20.
Licensing Ordinance
At the August 4 meeting the City Council directed that an
ordinance be prepared for facilities such as the Starwood Music
Center. The City Council is scheduled to consider this ordinance
at their meeting on August 18, 1987. - In that this memo has been
drafted prior to the time of the City Council meeting, the out
come of the Council action on this subject is not known at this
time. A report will be presented to the Planning Commission
during the August 20 continued public hearing.
City Council Commentary
The City Council, by motion on August 4, 1987, indicated
that when the Planning Commission considers the conditions for
the Conditional Use Permit (Section 11.04, Subd. 6 A) ,
consideration of condition #1 must include reference to the EAW
for the Starwood Music Center along with all the statements made
therein, and all of the mitigating measures stated therein to be
a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. In essence, what the
City Council is requesting is that the EAW, in it' s entirety, be
incorporated in to the findings made by the Planning Commission
on the requested Starwood Conditional Use Permit.
Copies of the EAW have been previously submitted to the
members of the Planning Commission and, therefore, because of the
length of the document they will not be photo copied and once
again submitted to the Planning Commission.
Alternatives•
1. The Planning Commission may approve the Conditional Use
Permit of the Scottland Companies for the Starwood Music
Center with conditions as deemed appropriate by the Planning
Commission.
2. The Planning Commission may disapprove the Conditional Use
Permit for the Starwood Music Center with specific reasoning
which relates to the standards contained in the Conditional
Use Permit Section of the Zoning ordinance.
Staff Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take
testimony at the continued public hearing and then conclude the
public hearing, take in to account of the written and verbal
information presented and make a decision on the Conditional Use
Permit request for the Starwood Music Center. The action by the
Planning Commission, whether it is negative or positive, should
utilize a systematic process whereby each of the conditions
contained in the applicable section of the City Code (Section
11. 04, Subd. 6 A) are addressed. Irrelevant sections of the City
Code are listed in the staff report of June 24, 1987 which was
submitted to the Planning Commission by the City Planner. A copy
of this report is included as a part of this memo in order to
facilitate the orderly and systematic action on this item by the
Planning Commission. In that additional written and verbal
information will be received by the Planning Commission at the
August 20 continued public hearing, that should also be taken in
to consideration by the Planning Commission as each of the
conditions contained in the ordinance are addressed.
Action Requested:
Move to approve or deny the Conditional Use Permit as
submitted by the Scottland Companies. As of the writing of this
memo the staff recommendation contained in the June 24, 1987 memo
has not changed. As indicated previously, however, the staff
does not, as of the writing of this memo have the benefit of
information which will be received as a result of the visit to
the River Bend Music Center in Cincinnati.
It is requested that the Planning Commission carefully
consider all the information submitted as a part of this
conditional use permit application process and render a decision
on the conditional use permit.
# S
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE : Starwood Music Center Conditional Use Permit
DATE: July 24, 1987
Introduction•
The Scottland Companies have applied for a Conditional Use
Permit to construct an outdoor music theater at the intersection
of Valley Park Road. and 12th Avenue. The proposed music center
will occupy 86 acres, have a seating capacity of 17 ,000 and
provide parking for 6 ,679 cars.
On June 4 , 1987 the Shakopee Planning Commission opened a
public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit request for the
Starwood Music Center. The public hearing was continued until
June 18, 1987. On June 18, 1987 the City Planning Commission
held a public hearing on the Starwood Music Center proposal and
moved to continue the hearing until July 30, 1987.
Major Concerns:
The Scottland Companies have prepared an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project . The EAW was
distributed for a thirty day comment period which ended on July
15, 1987. The report to the City Council on the EAW and comments
received is enclosed in the packet. The Council will act on the
EAW at their meeting on August 4, 1987.
After the June 18, 1987 hearing the City staff conducted a
survey of other cities which have outdoor music centers .
Questionnaires were distributed to receive input on the City' s
perceptions regarding the facility in their community, as well as
to enlighten us about potential problems that have existed else
where. Attached you will find the results of the survey.
The major concerns regarding this facility fall into three
primary areas: 1) Traffic Control and Traffic Management, 2)
Security, 3) Noise Generation and 4) Impact on Existing Property
Values and Uses.
1) Traffic - The developer has submitted a traffic management
plan. The management plan projects that an hour prior to
beginning of aneventand one hour after the conclusion of
an event there will be the potential for traffic congestion.
The traffic congestion for a capacity event of 17 ,000 people
would last up to one hour. The site for the facility is
served by four lane urban streets . It is impossible to
totally eliminate all traffic congestion from a facility of
this type . however through proper traffic control the
congestion can be minimized. Traffic control will include
the use of security personnel to direct traffic in to and
out of the facility. Traffic control can be regulated by
the Minnesota Polution Control Agency (MPGA) through their
Indirect Source Permit ( ISP) if needed.
Many of the other music centers surveyed did not have as
good a traffic access as the proposed facility in Shakopee.
As an example the Blossom Center in Ohio is served by a two
lane rural section road which has created traffic congestion
problems. The Blossom Center constructed a turn lane on
this road into their facility which has alleviated many of
the traffic problems.
2) Security - The need for both on-site and off-site security
changes depends on the type of program being presented and
the expected crowd capacity. Off-site security primarily
focuses on traffic control , on-site security focuses on
crowd control. The need for off-site security is minimized
by good traffic control and management. If the traffic is
kept moving and people waiting to get in to the facility are
not frustrated less potential problems will occur . The
developers have prepared a security manual which has been
reviewed by the Police Chief. The developers parking plans
call for free parking and the early opening of the parking
areas. The staff is also rcommending several conditions be
added to the approval of the permit addressing security
issues.
3) Noise Generation - Concerts will generate noise as a part of
the activity. The City must insure that noise problems are
not created for surrounding property owners. The immediate
surrounding land uses are industrial and commercial uses
which do not operate during the same hours that the concert
events would be occurring. Potential noise conflicts would
be with residences. The nearest residences are some 4400
feet (3/4 mile) from the facility and tests conducted by the
developer' s sound experts for the EAW indicate that sound at
these residences would comply with the requirements of City
and State codes. These residences are located behind the
stage south of the facility. Sound from a musical event
which faces north will be directed away from the homes.
Audience noise would be directed toward the homes .
Information provided from the developers sound expert
indicates that audience noise would travel far less than
noise from the musical event itself.
4) Impact on Existing Property Values and Uses - At the public
hearing on June 18, 1987 questions were raised about the
affect the center would have on the future use and property
values of the immediate vicinity. The survey conducted by
City staff questioned assessors in affected community' s on
the impact of this type of facility on surrounding property
values and city planners on the effect on surrunding
property uses. The results of the surveys indicate a
decrease in property values and negative effect on
residential development within one half mile of the
facility. The conclusions of the survey indicate no
negative affects on industrial or residential development
further than one half mile from the facility. The Starwood
Music Center will have no residential develoment within one
half mile.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Considerations•
The approval process for a Conditional Use Permit requires
that the City make 12 findings when applicable (Section 11.04,
Subd. 6 pp 283) . Based on the information that the City has
received from the developers, from citizens attending the public
hearing, from the EAW and comments received on the EAW, and from
the survey of other facilities conducted by City staff, the
following findings are made :
1 . "That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
for the purposes already permitted , nor substantially
diminish and impair property values within the immediate
vicinity. "
Our findings did not indicate that the facility would
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity . Results of questionnaire
indicate that the residential property use within 1/2
mile could have a potential decrease in property value.
Industrial and residential property further than 1/2
mile would not have a negative effect on property
values (see survey results) . It has been documented
that the closest residential site adjacent to the
Starwood site is 4400 feet away.
Based onthe results of the EAW (p. 20-28) - Traffic
generated by this facility will not be injurious
because of different operating times, then that of the
amphitheater.
Because the developer owns most of the property in the
immediate vicinity, it is our opinion that he would not
want to negatively impact the use and enjoyment of said
property.
2 . "That the establishment of the conditional use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the
area. "
Our survey findings indicate that the conditional use
will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding vacant property . This
conclusion is supported by results of questionnaire.
(See survey results) .
In addition, the developer owns most of the property in
the immediate vicinity and it is unlikely that the
developer would jeopordize future development.
We have received supporting letters from adjacent
industries stating they have no problem with the
proposed development.
3. "That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other
necessary facilities have been or are being provided. "
The site is already served by municipal facilities.
The EAW clearly substantiates that adequate utilities,
access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities
have been or will be in place (pages 11, 12. 20-28) .
4 . "That adequate measures have been or will be taken to
provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to
serve the proposed use. "
Conclusions drawn from review of the plans submitted by
the developer indicate adequate parking will be
provided. The parking lot plan providing for more than
one space per three patrons exceeds City Zoning
Ordinance standards for off-street parking which are
6 ,679 spaces for 17 ,000 patrons.
Adequate off-street loading will be provided according
to the plans submitted to the City.
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. "
Conclusions drawn from the studies conducted indicate
that adequate measures will be taken to prevent
nuisances from dust, noise, fumes, oder and lighting.
Offensive odors, fumes and dust will not emanate from
the project during operation. There will be a limited
amount of fugitive dust and noise associated with the
project construction . Further descriptions are
contained in the EAW (pages 12-18 & exh.l) .
A detailed acoustical study was carried out in
conjunction with the EAW. This study concluded that
acoustically amplified sound from musical performances
will not exceed State standards. If noise problems
arise, mitigation procedures will take place to change
sound mix on stage. The Indirect Source Permit (ISP)
will control noise generation from the project (page
23) .
Lighting will be constructed in a manner which will
control glare on neighboring properties. Lighting was
not a problem at any of the facilities surveyed (see
survey results) .
Signs constructed will conform to Shakopee Sign
Ordinance.
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. "
We have concluded that Starwood will not be
incompatible with adjacent land uses. The construction
of Starwood will add several million dollars to
Shakopee ' s real property tax base and will create
numerous additional jobs. Starwood will enhance the
communities recreational industry base and further
promote tourism in the area.
Letters of adjacent industries and the results of our
survey show that the facility will fit well with
existing land uses.
T. "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. "
We have concluded that the proposed Music Center is
consistent with the purposes of the I-2 zone. Minor
commercial/recreation is a conditionally permitted use
and major commercial recreation is a permitted use
within the I-2 zone (Section 11.33) . The site has a
full compliment of urban services such as water, sewer,
rail and highway transportation.
8. "The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of
the City. "
City staff has concluded that the Starwood Music Center
is consistent with the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan and
the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, specifically relating to
the I-2 zone . A minor commercial recreational
facility, as defined by the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance ,
is a conditionally permitted use in the I-2 zone
(Section 11.33) .
The Metropolitan Council is of the opinion that the
proposed amphitheater is inconsistent with the
industrial uses designated in the Shakopee
Comprehensive Plan. They further indicate that the EAW
should be revised to indicate the project will require
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. We do not believe they
are correct in their recommendation , and we are
reviewing this with them. The City may convince the
Met Council to change it' s recommendation after further
meetings . If not , the City can chose to make the
amendment now or when the whole Comprehensive Plan is
up-dated in 1988. In either case "Zoning Codes" have
procedents over "Comprehensive Plans", and the project
meets our Zoning Code as noted above.
9 . "The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. "
EAW
Based on the findings of the° and City staff traffic
created by the proposed facility will not pose undue
traffic congestion to the regional roadway network.
As a precaution in case of a unexpected traffic problem
the Metropolitan Council and Scottland Companies are
both developing traffic mitigation procedures, which
will be utilized when needed.
To further mitigate any traffic congestion problem, it
has been proposed that Starwood Music Center' s hours of
operation will be coordinated with other major traffic
generators in the area. The (ISP) further addresses
the hours of operation issue (page 8) .
It is anticipated that the proposed transportation
improvements including the T.H. 101 by-pass, 169 bridge
work, Hwy 18 Ferry Bridge construction and downtown
improvements will facilitate smoother flow of traffic
and reduce congestion by 1992 . For peak congestion
information, refer to the EAW (pages 20-28) .
10 . "Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected
because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by
intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. "
Conclusions drawn from the EAW and plans for the
facility indicate that surrounding businesses will not
be affected by noise, glare or unsightliness from the
facility . The EAW addresses noise impacts, (p. 18 &
exh 1 . ) the facility events which generate noise will
not be occuring during normal business hours. Plans
for the facility included with the CUP application
indicate the building will be an attractive asset to
the industrial park. Open space and wooded areas will
be preserved to provide an amenity for the facility and
surrounding industries.
11. "The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion
of the project. "
A time schedule has been submitted. Anticipated start
of project is Fall of 1987. Completion is scheduled
for Spring 1988. A more complete time schedule will be
submitted upon approval by required levels of
government.
12. "The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the
property to the Administrator. "
Current City and County records prove that the
developer does own the site in which the proposed
facility is to be located.
Staff Recommendation:
The staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
Resolution 8 492, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Negative declaration by the RGU (City of Shakopee) on the
EAW.
2. A written agreement between City and developer containing
the security requirements for the facility. Said agreement
shall include the following:
A. Licensed officers will be permitted within the site.
B. Number and type of security personnel required for each
type of event.
C. Starwood shall be responsible for all costs relating to
on and off site security and traffic control .
D. All ushers as well as security personnel must receive
training in security procedures and first aide.
E. The agreement must be approved by the Chief of Police.
F. The agreement can be amended at the request of either
Starwood or the City, with proper notification and
review.
3 . A qualified physician or paramedical personnel shall be in
attendance at all performances.
4 . No alcoholic beverages shall be brought into the facility by
patrons. No consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be
allowed within the parking lot or other areas of the site
outside the performance area. The facility operator shall
be responsible for enforcing these conditions.
5 . The Starwood Music Center shall only be allowed alcoholic
beverage licenses for the serving of beer and wine.
6 . Execution of a developers agreement for construction of
required improvements :
A. An eight foot bituminous trail along 12th Avenue and
Valley Park Drive shall be required.
B. Additional street lighting to be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager
and the City Engineer.
C. Water system improvements along 12th Avenue required to
complete a loop from Canterbury Road to Valley Park
Drive to be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the SPUC Manager.
D. Payment in lieu of park dedication as required by City
Code Section 12.07, Subd. 5.
7. Deferred assessments against the property shall be paid
prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Any plans for use of the portion of the site not included in
the project shall require platting of the entire parcel.
9. Overnight camping on any part of the property shall be
prohibited.
10. No event shall start prior to 8 :00 P.M. on Monday - Friday .
11. Approval by the City Engineer of final calculations for
storm drainage and detention area, and for peak sanitary
sewer flow form a major entertainment facility that would
have intermissions generating at a peak flow.
�4
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Starwood Music Center
DATE: June 11, 1987
Introduction•
The Scottland Companies have applied for a Conditional Use
Permit to construct an outdoor music theater at the intersection
of Valley Park Road and 12th Avenue. The proposed music center
will occupy 86 acres, have a seating capacity of 17,000 and
provide parking for 6679 cars. At the June 4, 1987 meeting the
Planning Commission opened the public hearing and continued it
until June 18, 1987.
Considerations:
1. Scottland Companies are preparing a EAW for the project.
The City of Shakopee will be the RGU for the .EAW. The City
should not take final action on the CUP until the EAW
process has been completed.
2. The following should be provided to the City prior to
issuance of the permit.
A. Calculations of the peak sanitary sewer flow for the
facility that would occur during intermissions of
maximum capacity events.
B. Storm drainage calculations and capacity of detention
area must be reevaluated and verified.
3. An additional watermain and fire hydrant will be necessary
to serve the site.
4. Because the facility will serve as a link between the
Canterbury Inn and Racetrack, and Valleyfair, a sidewalk or
trail and upgraded street lighting should be installed along
12th Ave. and Valley Park Road.
5. City Code Section 11. 04, Subd. 6A prohibits the creation of
a nuisance/disturbance to neighboring properties relating to
noise and vibration.
6. Deferred assessments against the property must be paid prior
to issuance of a building permit.
7. Any plans for use of the portion of the site not included in
the project will necessitate platting of the property.
8. The developer has submitted a traffic management plan.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends conducting the public hearing, discussion
of the project and resolving questions or concerns on June 18th.
Final action on the CUP should then be continued as outlined in
either option 1 or 2.
Option 1. Continue action on the Starwood Music Center until July
9th, taking action at that time pending a negative
declaration on the EAW and the commissions right to add
additional conditions to the CUP based on comments from
the EAW process.
option 2. Continue action on the Starwood Music Center until a
special meeting on July 30th, taking final action at
that time.
The staff recommends Option 1.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Starwood Music Center C.U.P. Conditions
DATE: September 16, 1987
INTRODUCTION•
At their August 20, 1987 meeting the Planning Commission
approved a conditional use permit for the Starwood Music Center
containing 26 conditions. Most of the conditions were offered by
Planning Commission members when the motion to approve the permit
was made. Because staff did not have the opportunity to comment
on these conditions prior to the meeting we would like to do so
now.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Following is a systematic review of each condition placed on
the Starwood Music Center by the Shakopee Planning Commission:
Condition #1 -
1. The EAW for the Starwood Music Center along with all the
statements made therein, and all of the mitigating measures
stated therein are hereby adopted as a condition of the
Conditional Use Permit.
Comment -
Please refer to the attached letter from Rod Krass,
Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Krass's letter states that the
City should identify specific mitigating measures identified
in the EAW, if there is a desire to do so.
Condition #2 -
2. A written agreement between City and developer containing
the security requirements for the facility. Said agreement
shall include the following:
A. Licensed officers will be permitted within the site.
B. Number and type of security personnel required for each
type of event.
C. Starwood shall be responsible for all costs relating to
on and off site security and traffic control.
D. All ushers as well as security personnel must receive
training in security procedures, first aid, and drug
abuse prevention/treatment.
E. The agreement must be approved by the Chief of Police.
F. The agreement can be amended at the request of either
Starwood or the City, with proper notification and
review.
G. Applicant and/or his agent will contract with the local
police department and county sheriff for traffic
control by on duty officers at all major county and
state roadway intersections within the City of
Shakopee.
Comment -
The City's Police Chief recommends this condition be
included as follows:
A written agreement between the City and the developer
containing the security requirements for the facility. Such
agreement shall include the following:
A. The number and types of security personnel
required for each type of event.
B. All ushers and security personnel shall receive
training prior to working at any public event or
performance. Such training shall address security
procedures, first aid and drug abuse/prevention
and treatment.
C. Licensed police officers will be permitted on the
amphitheater property during performances.
Condition 43 -
3. A qualified physician or paramedic team with ambulance shall
be in attendance at all performances. In addition a trained
drug crisis unit will be on site.
Comment -
Staff questions whether a drug crisis unit should be at all
performances (such as the Minnesota Symphony) . Staff
recommends this be determined on a case by case basis.
Condition 44-:8 -
4 . No alcoholic beverages shall be brought into the facility by
patrons. No consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be
allowed within the parking lot or other areas of the site
outside the performance area. The facility operator shall
be responsible for enforcing these conditions.
5. The Starwood Music Center shall only be allowed alcoholic
beverage licensed for the serving of beer and wine and only
two containers be sold at any one sale and the serving of
these beverages be terminated 1 hour prior to the end of the
event.
6. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of
required improvements:
A. An eight foot bituminous trail along 12th Avenue and
Valley Park Drive shall be required.
B. Additional street lighting to be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager
and the City Engineer.
C. Water system improvements along 12th Avenue required to
complete a loop from Canterbury Road to Valley Park
Drive to be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the SPUC Manager.
D. Payment in lieu of park dedication as required by City
Code Section 12.07, Subd. S.
7. Deferred assessments against the property shall be paid
prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Any plans for use of the portion of the site not included in
the project shall require platting of the entire parcel.
Comment -
Staff sees no problems with these conditions.
Condition 49 -
9. General security and off site management:
A. Overnight camping on any part of the property or within
the immediate vicinity shall be prohibited.
B. No parking shall be allowed outside the immediate
vicinity of the facility.
C. No loitering will be allowed on the facility or in the
immediate vicinity of the facility 12 hours prior to or
after an event.
Comment -
Please refer to the attached letter from Rod Krass,
Assistant City Attorney.
Condition 410-#11 -
10. No event shall start prior to 8:00 P.M. on Monday - Friday.
11. Approval by the City Engineer of final calculations for
storm drainage and detention area, and for peak sanitary
sewer flow form a major entertainment facility that would
have intermissions generating at a peak flow.
Comment -
Staff sees no problems with these conditions.
Condition #12 -
12. No event will be allowed that displays a history of causing
a disturbance. A citizen's group shall be formed to review
events as well as to promote communication between and among
the citizens and the applicant.
Comment -
Please refer to the attached letter from Rod Krass,
Assistant City Attorney.
Condition #13 -
13. Sound levels at the stage are limited to 100 decibels.
Sealed monitoring devices will be installed by the City at
the developer's expense, one at the stage and one or more
off site. Fines for sound levels in excess of 100 dba at
the stage and sound levels in excess of those identified in
the application will be established by City Ordinance.
Comment -
Please refer to the attached letter from Rod Krass,
Assistant City Attorney. In addition to Mr. Kress's
comments concerning fines, staff recommends placing the
sound monitoring device at the property line instead of at
the stage. The conditional use criteria and other city
codes relating to sound address the affects of sound on
neighboring property. Staff recommends that sound leaving
the site should be monitored to determine compliance with
City and State code requirements.
Condition 414-416 -
14. As a condition for granting this permit, Scottland and/or
its successors in land ownership will file a certified
statement of intent (moratorium) agreeing to refrain from
any rezoning requests and/or minor entertainment conditional
use permit requests on all properties zoned I-2 within 3,000
ft. of this application for a period of 7 years or until
commercial recreational uses are eliminated from the 1-2
zone.
15. Developer agrees to clean all litter on all adjacent
properties and on all feeding roadways within 24 hours after
a concert/event on the site. Said area shall be bordered on
the west by County Road 83, on the south by County Road 16,
on the east by the NSP substation road and on the north by
Highway 101.
16. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment be submitted and approved
prior to issuance of the Building Permit.
Comment -
Please refer to the attached letter from Rod Krass,
Assistant City Attorney.
condition 017-420 -
17. Ticket sales are to be limited to the stated capacity of the
facility which is 17,000.
18. No event shall last longer than 11:30 P.M.
19. Pest control measures will be in conformance with MPCA
requirements.
20. Lighting shall be designed such that no direct light be
emitted outside the facility.
Comments -
Staff sees no problems with these conditions.
Condition #21 -
21. Any change in use of this facility as stated in the
application must be approved by this body (Planning
Commission) .
Comment -
Staff agrees with this condition, but feels it is not
necessary. City Code requires any business or use in the
City which has a conditional use permit to apply for an
amendment to the CUP if any expansion or change will occur
in the operation. The only exception would be if . the City
Code was amended to make the use a permitted use.
Condition #22- #23
22. That the City receive advance notice of all events and the
anticipated attendance.
23. Helicopters will not be permitted except under emergency
conditions.
Comment -
Staff sees no problems with these conditions.
Condition #24 -
24. Beside off-site ticket sales, no event ticket sales will be
allowed in the immediate vicinity and prior to the parking
of the vehicles inside the facility.
Comment -
Staff has two comments regarding condition #24: (1) The term
"immediate vicinity" is used, the term does not clearly
define the area included; and (2) staff questions the
necessity for not allowing pre-sale of tickets from a box
office at the facility.
Condition 425 -
25. If traffic levels at Starwood exceeds the criteria as set
forth in this application, all activities must be curtailed
until resolutions are found.
Comment -
Please refer to the attached letter from Rod Krass,
Assistant City Attorney, and the attached memo from Ken
Ashfeld, City Engineer with suggested wording for this
condition.
Condition 426 -
26. City legal staff shall review this resolution and all
conditions contained within the resolution. The Planning
Commission reserves the right to amend the resolution and
it's conditions to comply with legal opinion.
Comment -
Please refer to the attached letter from Rod Krass,
Assistant City Attorney addressed to the City Planning
Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Resolution #CC-492 as attached.
LAW OFFICES
KRASS & MONROE
CHARTERM
Phillip R. Kms Marschall Road Business Cenmr
Dennis L.Monroe 327 Marschall Road
Barry K. Meyer
Trevor R.Walden P.O. Box 276
Elfrabeth B. Mclauah1h Shakopee,Minnesota 55379
Susan L. Estill Telephone 4455080
Diane M.Carbon
Lyndon P.1 bon
Kent A.Carlson,CPA
September 8, 1987
The Honorable Mayor and
City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Starwood Conditional Use Permit Application
Our File No. 1-1373-204
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Staff met on Friday, September 4, 1987, relative to the issues
raised by the various conditions included in Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 492. Specifically, our office was
asked to review those conditions and comment on the legal propriety and
enforcement of those conditions.
To begin with, you most keep in mind that it is not our function
to deal with the many policy issues raised by the various conditions in
that resolution. Those are for your consideration alone. We do have
comments of a legal nature with respect to some of the conditions and they
are as follows:
1. The very first condition of Resolution 492 attempts to
incorporate the EAW and all the mitigating measures as a
condition. In reviewing the EAW, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to determine with precision what is meant by such
an all-encompassing condition. It is, -therRfore,. our
recommendation that if there are some s 'mitigating
measures" in the EAW which are intended teo�eCiSme'a part of
the conditional use permit, they be specifically stated in
the Resolution. Incorporation of "statements" is too vague
and indefinite to be enforceable or helpful. .,
2. The 9th condition of the Resolution attempts to deal with
overnight camping, parking, and loitering. This paragraph
contains several phrases including "within the immediate
vicinity" and "loitering" which provide no clear standard
regarding the place or conduct. These terms are too
The Honorable Mayor
and City Council
Page -2-
September 8, 1987
subjective and indefinite. We would recommend that if you
choose to address this issue with a condition such as No. 9,
that you do so as follows:
(a) Prohibit overnight camping on any part of the property
itself and do not attempt to control conduct off the
site.
(b) Require that no parking be allowed outside designated
parking areas on the site. Again, do not attempt to
control conduct outside the site.
(c) We simply have not come up with a good way to deal with
"loitering." Loitering statutes have generally been
struck down as unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.
At this point we are recommending no attempt to deal
with that issue be placed in the conditional use permit.
We will obtain the Bloomington City Ordinance on
"tailgating" to see if that is helpful.
3. The 12th condition of the Planning Commission Resolution is
one fraught with considerable liability. It procludes any
event which displays "a history of causing a disturbance."
Once again there is simply no definition for this term. Is
the history intended to be at any facility or just at
Starwood? Is a disturbance one directly related to the
performance or does an unrelated altercation in the parking
lot count? -Does history mean more than one disturbance and
if so, how many and over what period of time? In addition to
the vagueness making such a condition virtually impossible to
enforce, liability questions arise. If the City determines
that an event cannot be held due to this condition and either
Starwood or the attraction itself commences an action against
the City, would we be liable it a judge determines that no
such history exists or can be connected to the event itself?
If the City approves an event and someone is injured at a
disturbance, has the City become a guarantor of the safety of
the event by allowing it? A reasonable analogy to this
proposal would be the type of school board censorship that
the courts have routinely struck down. You have all read and
heard news accounts relating to school boards removing
various books from a school or public libraries only to have
the courts require them to be returned. In those cases,
there are no actual provable damages, but in a situation
where the City requires the cancellation of an event which
would have drawn 15,000 people at $15.00 to $20.00 a piece,
The Honorable Mayor
and City Council
Page -3-
September 8, 1987
to say nothing of the detrimental effect such publicity would
have on the event and on Starwood, the potential for
liability is significant.
It is therefore our strong recommendation that the City does
not undertake any effort to review, approve or reject events
at Starwood. If Starwood chooses to establish a citizens
committee and give that committee some input in the events to
be scheduled, that would be an action unrelated to this
conditional use permit and one which would not involve the
City in potential liability. To require the formation and
input of such a group as a condition for this permit may,
however, subject the City to such liability.
4. Paragraph 13 sets sound levels to be allowed and that is for
the City Council to determine. The second sentence of the
proposed condition 13, however, sets fines for such sound
levels and our ordinance and state law already provide for
penalties for the failure to adhere to required sound levels.
If, therefore, condition 13 . is adopted in any form, we would
recommend the deletion of any reference to the establishment
of fines.
5. Condition 14 requires as a granting of the permit that the
applicant agree to refrain from any rezoning or conditional
use requests on its property located within 3,000 feet of
this site for a period of seven years. This condition
presents several significant problems. First of all, the
condition singles out this applicant and the land owned by
this applicant for such treatment. No other applicant having
received such rezoning or a conditional use permit in the I-2
zone was procluded from a similar use of other land it owned
or might acquire. The reason why the City ought to
discriminate thusly against Scottland is unclear but is
highly questionable. Secondly, it appears that this effort
to restrict "commercial recreational" uses in the I-2 zone
ought be addressed by a zoning amendment, not by a condition
of a CUP. Members of the Planning Commission, many citizens,
and perhaps some Council members may believe the City has
enough recreational facilities. If that is the case, this
issue should be dealt with as a zoning amendment.
6. Condition 15 requires the developer to clean all litter on
adjacent properties and roadways for an area which exceeds
significantly the site itself. It is difficult to find a
rationale for requiring this property owner to undertake such
The Honorable Mayor
and City Council
Page -4-
September 8, 1987
inactivity as opposed to any other property owner in the area
in question. This provision is too overly broad and is
discriminatory and cannot be enforced. If there is some
evidence that this or other property users in Shakopee are
creating significant problems with respect to litter, then
perhaps we ought to consider some ordinance which requires
all, not just one, property user to deal with this issue.
7. Condition 16 requires a comprehensive plan amendment be
submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building
permit for Starwood. Apparently there is some belief that
the comprehensive plan does not allow for this particular
use. However, this use is specifically a conditional use in
the I-2 zone and as you are aware under state law if there is
a conflict between the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive
plan, the zoning ordinance prevails. We are unaware of the
use of provisions such as this for any other conditional use
permit granted by the City and can devise no legal rationale
supporting such a provision and therefore recommend its
deletion.
8. Condition 25 of Resolution 492 deals with traffic and
indicates that if traffic levels exceed the criteria set
forth in the application, all activities must be curtailed
until resolutions are found.
This traffic issue is extremely difficult. What is a traffic
hazard and what is traffic congestion? Certainly Starwood or
any use of this 86 acres with parking facilities for almost
6,700 cars will cause an increase in traffic. A reasonable
reading of our ordinance therefore cannot, in our opinion,
proclude a conditional use permit from being granted simply
because traffic is going to be increased. However, we
believe there must be some way to handle this very important
item and consequently, the City Engineering staff is working
on language which will literally identify what we consider to
be "congestion" and to set forth specific actions which must
be undertaken should such congestion occur. Simply telling
the applicant that activities must be "curtailed" is not
helpful. We expect in very short order to have such language
available for your discussion and consideration.
9. We have advised the Planning Commission that .condition 26
requiring a legal review of Resolution 492 and reserving the
right of the Planning Commission to amend the Resolution is
ineffective since the issue of this conditional use permit
The Honorable Mayor
and City Council
Page -5-
September 8, 1987
has been appealed to the City Council. It is now in the
Council's hands and while additional input from the Planning
Commission may be helpful and certainly may be considered by
the Council, the Planning Commission no longer has any
statutory authority over this conditional use permit and it
is the Council that most consider this matter from the ground
up.
Very trul your ,
BRASS 8AAT8RED
i lip R. Brass
PRR:mlw
LAW OFFICES _
KRASS & MONROE
CHARTERED
Phillip R. Kress Marschall Road Business Center
Dennis L.Monroe
Barry K. Meyer 327 Marschall Road
Trevor R.Wakten P.O. Box 216
Elbabeth B. McLaughlin Shakopee.Minnesota 55379
Susan L. Estill
Dune M.Carlson Telephone 44550(10
LyrMon P.Nelson
Kent A.Carlson,CPA September 8, 1987
The Honorable Chairperson and Members
of the Shakopee Planning Commission
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Starwood
Our File No. 1-1373-204
Dear Chairperson
I have reviewed the August 21 Conditional Resolution No. 492 and
in particular Paragraph 26 which requests a reviewofthe legal staff of
the conditions in this Resolution and reserves the right of the Planning
Commission to amend their Resolution.
I am also informed that within the seven days subsequent to the
adoption of this Resolution both opponents and the applicant have appealed
the granting of the conditional use permit to the City Council.
It is, of course, the right of any aggrieved party to make that
appeal and so now the issue staff asked me address is the affect of the
appeal on Paragraph 26. It is my belief that once properly appealed, the
issues involved in the applied for conditional use permit are taken "de
novo," that is as a new issue, to the City Council and areremovedlegally
from the Planning Commission's hands. Thus, the Planning Commission will
not have an opportunity to amend or change its Resolution. Indeed, any
such change would be a legally futile action since the City Council is
required by law to consider this application as though no action had been
taken by the Planning Commission.
It is certainly acceptable for the Planning Commission to consider
whatever comments you wish to make of an advisory nature, but the actual
conditional use permit is now out of your hands. I have asked staff to
forward to you when it arrives a copy of the analysis we made of the issues
brought up in your conditional use resolution.
I hope this helps clarify for the Planning Commission its role in
this rather complicated situation.
Very trul our ,
BRAS 5 CHARTERED
9oQ.nl-. Dh__t_� tj. F^dee
XZMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Rod Krass, Assistant City Attorney
Dennis Kraft, Community Development Dir.
FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Starwood Conditional Use Permit
Modification of Condition 25
DATE: September 10, 1987
I recommend that Condition No. 25 as proposed in Conditional Use
Permit Resolution No. 492 be modified as follows.
25a. If queuing of facility incoming traffic occurs on public
roadways, the facility will be required to correct their
traffic management program to eliminate queuing.
Rationale : If a traffic management breakdown occurs on the
local streets adjacent to the site ( 12th Avenue and Valley
Park Drive) , traffic backed up on these roads will affect
intersection operations on the state highway system .-
Corrective action can consist of one or more of the
following:
1 . Additional stacking lanes on the site.
2. Free parking.
3. Prepaid parking with ticket price.
25b. If it becomes ao_parent that intersection operation is not
at the level of service projected in the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet, the facility will be responsible for
the cost of a joint City/MnDOT study to identify problems
and solutions and the facility will be responsible for the
cost of implementing solutions. Fcr the purpose of future
traffic growth and management, actual level of service
operations shall be based upon facility traffic and EAW
background traffic only.
KA/pmp
TRAFFIC
STAPP RECOMMENDATION
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. CC-492
WHEREAS, Scottland Companies having duly filed an
application for a Conditional Use Permit dated May 20, 1987 under
the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, Section 11.04,
Subd. 6, as follows: Conditional Use Permit to operate an
outdoor music center as a minor commercial recreation facility in
an I-2 zoned area; and
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made
is described as being located at the intersection of Valley Park
Road and 12th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, said proposed Conditional Use Permit request was
approved by the Shakopee Planning Commission of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota at their meeting held August 21, 1987 and
said Conditional Use Permit decision is herewith being appealed .
to the City Council; and -
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council on September 22, 1987
held a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the
Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that upon hearing the advice and
recommendations of the Shakopee Planning Commission and upon
considering the suggestions made by the applicant and the
suggestions and objections raised by the affected property
owners, within a radius of 350 feet thereof, in public hearings
duly held by the Shakopee Planning Commission and the Shakopee
City Council, that the aforementioned Conditional Use Permit be
and is hereby approved pursuant to the following:
1. (Specific mitigating measures to be determined by City
Council) .
2. A written agreement between City and developer containing
the security requirements for the facility. Said agreement
shall include the following:
A. The number and types of security personnel required for
each type of event.
B. All ushers and security personnel shall receive
training prior to working at any public event or
performance. Such training shall address security
procedures, first aid and drug abuse/prevention and
treatment.
C. Licensed police officers will be permitted on the
amphitheater property during performances.
3. A qualified physician or paramedic team with ambulance shall
be in attendance at all performances. In addition, the City
may require a trained drug crisis unit to be on site.
4 . No alcoholic beverages shall be brought into the facility by
patrons. No consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be
allowed within the parking lot or other areas of the site
outside the performance area. The facility operator shall
be responsible for enforcing these conditions.
5. The Starwood Music Center shall only be allowed alcoholic
beverage licensed for the serving of beer and wine and only
two containers be sold at any one sale and the serving of
these beverages be terminated 1 hour prior to the end of the
event.
6. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of
required improvements:
A. An eight foot bituminous trail along 12th Avenue and
Valley Park Drive shall be required.
B. Additional street lighting to be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the SPUC Manager
and the City Engineer.
C. Water system improvements along 12th Avenue required to
complete a loop from Canterbury Road to Valley Park
Drive to be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the SPUC Manager.
D. Payment in lieu of park dedication as required by City
Code Section 12.07, Subd. 5.
7. Deferred assessments against the property shall be paid
prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Any plans for use of the portion of the site not included in
the project shall require platting of the entire parcel.
9. General security and off site management:
A. Overnight camping on any part of the property shall be
prohibited.
B. No parking shall be allowed outside designated parking
areas on the site.
10. No event shall start prior to 8:00 P.M. on Monday through
Friday, and no event shall last longer than 11:30 P.M.
11. Approval by the City Engineer of final calculations for
storm drainage and detention area, and for peak sanitary
sewer flow form a major entertainment facility that would
have intermissions generating at a peak flow.
12. Sealed monitoring devices will be installed by the City at
the developer's expense, one or more at the property line
and one or more off site. Sound levels must comply with all
City and State requirements.
13 . Ticket sales are to be limited to the stated capacity of the
facility which is 17,000.
14. Pest control measures will be in conformance with MPCA
requirements.
15. Lighting shall be designed such that no direct light be
emitted outside the facility.
16. That the City receive advance notice of all events and the
anticipated attendance.
17. Helicopters will not be permitted except under emergency
conditions.
18. a. ) If queuing of facility incoming traffic occurs on
public roadways, the facility will be required to
correct their traffic management program to eliminate
queuing.
Tjat_ryn,�le.. TP � tmttl masarrpm +_ ht Mwsz—. •arr)=s, •.n.
the local streets adjacent to the site (12th Avenue and
Valley Park Drive) , traffic backed up on these roads
will affect intersection operations on the state
highway system. Corrective action can consist of one
or more of the following:
1. Additional stacking lanes on the site.
2. Free parking.
3. Prepaid parking with ticket price.
b. ) If it becomes apparent that intersection operation is
not at the level of service projected in the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet, the facility will
be responsible for the cost of a joint City/MnDOT study
to identify problems and solutions and the facility
will be responsible for the cost of implementing
solutions. For the purpose of future traffic growth
and management, actual level of service operations
shall be based upon facility traffic and EAW background
traffic only.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code,
Section 11. 04, Subd. 6C-12, if an approved Conditional Use Permit
is not utilized within one year from date herein approved or by
September 22, 1988, it shall become null and void.
Adopted in special session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 22st day of September, 1987.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1987 .
City Attorney
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 18 , 1987
Chairwoman Van Maldeghem called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
with Comm. Rockne , Czaja, Foudray, Pomerenke , and Schmitt
present. Also present were Doug Wise, City Planner; Cncl Clay ,
and Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director.
Schmitt/Foudray moved to approve the minutes of May 7th.
Changing the word concur to "occur" on page 4 , 3rd paragraph. 2nd
line. Motion carried with Van Maldeghem abstaining.
Czaja/Schmitt moved to approve the minutes of May 21st. Motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - To consider the application for a Conditional
Use Permit to operate an outdoor music center as a minor
commercial recreational facility upon 86 acres located N . of 12th
Avenue , West of Valley Park Drive. South of Valley Industrial
Blvd South and East of the K-Mart Distribution Center on County
Road 84 . Doug Wise introduced the proposed entertainment center
-
providing an overview of the project, Mr. Wise said the project
encompasses -86 acres, Has pavilion seating for 5 ,000 & a total
seating of 17,000 . Parking for 6 ,679 cars. The project requires
a conditional use permit in an industrial zone. An environmental
assessment worksheet has been prepared and published.
Bruce Malkerson, representing the Scottland Company, presented an
overview and presentation of the project.
Mr. Malkerson introduced the development team : Jeff Siegel ,
Project Manager ; John Mullen , responsible for traffic
presentation ; Al Purez , Northern Sound, analyzed the sound
characteristicx ; Bill Englehart, Municipal Engineer; and Davis
Sullegren, attorney, who will join them later.
Mr . Malkerson stated the 86 acres , north of 12th, west of
Valley Park Drive, serviced by County Road 83 and Highway 101 ,
north of projected bypass. The project has sewer and water to
the location. There would be parking for a little over 6 ,000
cars , 5 ,000 seats under cover with 12,000 seats on the lawn.
Food and beverages would be available as well as picinic areas.
There would be 3 ,000 paved parking and two access roads off of
12th Avenue. The facility would have a fence, concession stands,
rest rooms, undercover seating and bowl seating, and a stage.
The developer is also required to obtain an Indirect Source
Permit from the Pollution Control Agency.
If permits would be granted by the City and the PCA they would
start construction in the fall of 1987 and continue through the
spring of 1988. They would employ approximately 300. The season
j would run from late May through early September. Approximately
17 ,000 people could be attracted to the largest events. This
-,
wouldhappenapproximately 4 to 5 times a season. Pertinent
operating times would be 8/8 :30 p.m. to 11/11 :30 p.m.
Mr. Malkerson displayed sewer and water plan charts. Sanitary
sewage discharge would be 17 ,500 to 45 , 000 gallons of sewage
depending on the show size . A maximum crowd of 17 ,000 would
discharge 85 ,000 gallons per day. The project would discharge
less than the allocated amount for 86 acres - amount should be
below 1 ,000 gallons per day. A storm sewer plan was displayed.
The extising road system will work well. Times will be later in
the day and traffic should be in the opposite direction. The EAw
has a detailed traffic analysis. A traffic management plan has
been submitted.
On the environmental worksheet the sound analysis and distance
were checked. The closest neighborhood is 4 ,400 feet from the
facility. The next closest is 4,600 feet. The DBA would be 35
outside the nearest homes which complies with City and State
regulations. A letter from Northern Sound dated June 16th from
Alfonso Perez was read.
Mr. Malkerson displayed a map of underdeveloped industrial areas
showing several industrial areas providing a total of over 2,000
acres yet to be developed.
The music center will be used an average of 51 times a year. The
facility will not be generating traffic during other event times
in the area. Events will not be during rush hour traffic and the
facility will not be used during typical industrial use times.
The facility will cost 6 to 7 million dollars to build.
Approximately $300 .000 a year in real estate taxes would be paid
by the facility . The project is asking for no financial
assistance from the city. The facility would charge 25 cents per
person for Admission tax which would yeild approximately $100,000
a year to be used on construction of Hwy 18 bridge.
Mr. Malkerson said this would be a unique facility with a lot of
open space. There would be a lot of trees around which makes the
area look nice . The natural open space area is like a park.
There would be "spin-off" retail deevelopment from the center
which would be beneficial . The parking lot can be used for other
industrial uses during the day - possible joint usage. This
would possibly attract other industries who need parking.
General categories of music will be : Orchestra, middle of the
road classical & pop which would comprise 18% , Country and
related. 8% . Jazz, 81, off broadway 6% , and contemporary pop 50-
60% . The center would program with the community' s best interest
in mind.
Mr . Malkerson indicated the facility could be used for Special
.--1 Event such as: Graduations, community band concerts, theatre
productions, social and civic activities, fund raisers, etc. The
only charge would be for personnel needed for these activities.
Starwood could book shows and have students sell tickets and make
money (like pancake breakfasts) . Community groups could be
involved in various civic uses. Fundraiserscould
be done
oark o&
necessary items for the Fire Dept ,
Recreation, etc.
The number of ushers and off duty police officers is given in
detail in the handout. Also their duties are explained.
No questions were raised by the Planning Commission at this time.
Joseph Zak, Shakopee , passed out documents concerning the
amphitheater . He discussed possible problems : more road
congestion, weekend and after work traffic jams, residents will
have additional noise , more prople around, crime, drugs,
pollution, trash. Mr. Zak stated that if this turns out bad, we
have to live with it once it' s in. Mr. Zak stated the center
would deny Shakopee of decent, year round employment.
Mr. Zak mentioned other centers across the country which have had
problems. Other centers have had problems with vandalism, drug &
alcohol use, traffic and crowd control problems. He also stated
sound levels can be a problem. The Blossom Center has been
t around 18 years and has had many problems. The problems are hard
to correct once the center is there. There are many burdens on
the community. These centers have problems with tailgating and
neighbors fear their property value will be affected.
Mr . Zak said noise and sound is controlled by each individual
group with their own equipment. therefore the center operators
would be limited in their ability to control this.
Mr. Zak stated that in some areas drug counselors are needed at
the centers.
Dennis Paulson, Shakopee, is a police officer and is concerned
about off site problems - drugs, alcohol, crimes, etc. Traffic
is already bad enough now . Mr . Paulson questioned the
information provided and said there are no guarantees.
Jim Moriaty , 1051 Miller Street, Shakopee, had
o some
concerns:
off site problems & the hiring of off duty p em
en. The
citizens of Shakopee expect fresh, rested police officers in
their community - not tired moonlighters. There would be more
traffic which may hold up an emergency someday. Drug response
teams are a concern also.
Jim Pterzack, Deans Lake, mentioned that noise levels are loud
enough from Valleyfair already. Currently Bloomington does not
have enough manpower for the Met center and a lot happens there
in the parking lots. Kids will be camping out in the area and
seldom staying in motels. These kids will come from other states
and will "hit" local stores and eating places.
Kathy Geirlock, Shakopee, has purchased land near Deans Lake and
is concerned that her land may decrease in value.
Bob Burg. Shakopee, discussed the "happiness level " after the
Starwood Center would be put in? Presently many are not happy
with the track as it is. He re-emphasized the traffic problem.
Gail Burg, Shakopee, said that traffic i.a a problem.
Donna Hiatt, 1077 Swift Street, Shakopee, said we are choking to
death on all our "fun" here. We have too much non-resident
population. Our police departments, hospitals, etc. , are busy
with non-residents) We should think twice about this center.
Dennis Paulson, Shakopee, concerned with child protection, child
welfare issues, etc. , that need to be considered. Sixty percent
of the pop music will be for the kids. We will have to handle
domestics, abused kids, drugs & alcohol . These kids will become
the responsibility of the city (other community' s kids) and also
the county will have to provide more services. Lawsuits would
also be an issue to consider.
Charles Griffin, Deans Lake , is concerned with possible water
/ shortage problems.
Mr. Zak, stated that property value near other centers was found
to be low and not as valuable. He wonders how accurate the sound
tests/levels are? For example, what would the noise level be for
the group AC/DC (heavy metal) ?
Kevin Jornburg, is concerned with risks of getting out of the
music center parking lot - could be like a "demolition derby. "
Chrwm. VanMaldeghem read a letter from Virgil Hears into the
record favoring the development.
Comm. Czaja had several questions relating to the criteria for
issuing cup' s: How are off site problems going to be dandled?
Beverages - what kind? Noise - how will airplane noise affect
the performances? Would there be involvment of the community on
the board regarding programming? Are there enough off duty
policemen available? Would there be harm to property? Would
this be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the immediate
vicinity - is our city the immediate vicinity? How do these
problems relate to Shakopee? Lighting - what kind will be used
and what would the effects be to surrounding area? Analysis of
property values?
i Chrwm. Van Maldeghem asked what would the route of the
construction equipment be? Will this congest traffic?
Comm. Schmitt said he understands the concerns with the traffic.
— � He is also concerned regarding Exhibit F map, the southeast
corner is not a part of the Starwood proposal . Mr. Schmitt
expressed concern with the industrial park regarding CUP criteria
Number 2 - the establishment of the Conditional Use will not
impede the orderly and normal development and improvement of
surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area.
This site is not the average industrial site. What will this do
in the middle of the industrial park? Mr. Schmitt is not
convinced that this is the proper thing to put in, but is not
opposed to Starwood either. We need to look at this carefully
and consider the long term development.
Czaja/Schmitt moved to continue the hearing on July 30th. Motion
was passed unanimously.
Motion by Van Maldeghem/Schmitt to have a recess.
10:00 p.m. Motion was made to reconvene the meeting.
Foudray/Pomerenke moved to discuss the sign ordinance at 7 :30
p.m. on July 30th. Public hearings would be at 8:30 p.m.
g uest for final PUD approval for Stonebrooke. Mr Wise reviewed
the request and addressed the letter from the Dept. of Natural
Resources received 6/ 18/ 87 regarding approval of PUD by
Department of Natural Resources with it' s conditions.
Mr . Wise read the letter of June 15th from Al Frechette
indicating his concerns have been alleviated. Mr. Wise said the
council passed the resolution making a negative declaration on
the EAW at it' s meeting on June 16th, 1987• Mr. Wise reviewed
the concerns raised during the EAW process.
Comm. Schmitt raised a question regarding the metropolitan
councils comments on density.
Mr. Wise stated the City makes the decisions, policies and
requirements regarding approval of the development. A letter has
been sent to .Metropolitan Council responding to their comments,
they are aware of our policies, requirements and guidelines.
Discussion Followed.
Comm. Czaja asked if some lots are not adequate for sewage
treatment?
Mr. Wise said some lots are not, but there are alternatives shown
in the sewer plan for each lot.
Comm. Schmitt said the responsibility for each lot is with the
developer. He runs the risk of having a lot that cannot be built
upon.
Discussion continued regarding the conditions recommended in the
staff memo.
Comm. Schmitt suggested condition 2B be changed to read
"Development" instead of "lake watershed".
� 1
Schmitt/Czaja moved to apply the ordinance in the manner in which
it was intended and that the 1 acre lot & easement area be
compact and readily available. Motion Failed.
Discussion ensued regarding lot size requirements & arrangements
of easements.
Scmitt/Rockne moved to reconsider the previous motion. Motion
passed.
Foudray/Czaja moved to reaffirm the PUD ordinance amendments
recommended by the planning Commission requiring easements of
abutting/contigous lots containing at least one acre of combined
lot easement area. The intent being that the lots & easements
must form a rectangle or similar shape & not include flag shaped
easements. Motion carried with 1 abstaination.
12:45 motion for recession-moved/2nd/passed.
1 :00 a.m. the meeting was called back to order.
Discussion continued regarding conditions recommended by staff.
Schmitt/Foudray moved approval of the final PUD for Stonebrooke
1 subject to the following conditions.
J 1 . The developer shall be required to file and record a final
plat for the planned unit development prior to issuance of
any building permits. Said final plat must conform to the
final PUD plan approved by the City.
2 . Approval by the Department of Natural Resources of the
following:
A. The planned unit development.
B. The use of fertilizer, grading and landscaping
within the development.
C. Docking and lake access.
D. Alteration of wetlands in accordance with the
Department of natural Resources letter of June 17,
1987 Condition f5.
E. Ongoing testing of the lake.
3. The developer must submit a revised sewer plan which
shows a primary on-site sewage treatment system
location within each lot. Alternative on-site sewage
treatment sites maybe located within sewer easement
areas outside of the lot.
4. Septic system sites must be staked and roped off during
construction periods to prevent compaction of the soil
by construction equipment.
5. The homeowners association shall be responsible for the
annual inspection of all on-site sewage treatment
systems within the development. The assocaiation shall
provide a performance bond or a letter of credit to the
City which can be drawn upon to insure compliance with
this requirement. Annual inspection reports for each
on-site system within the development shall be provided
to the City by July 1st of each year.
6. The developers are hereby granted a variance from the
10 foot setback requirement for septic systems from the
rear lot lines of lots adjacent to sewer easements.
7. Execution of a developers agreement for construction of
required improvements.
A. Installation of a water system in accordance with
the requirements of the SPUC Manager.
B. Installation of a street lighting system in
accordance with the SPUC Manager.
C. Installation of a storm sewer water system in
accordance with the requirements of the City of
Shakopee.
- D. Construction of streets and street signs in
accordance with the design criteria and standard
specifications of the City of Shakopee.
E. In order to comply with the park land dedication
and/or fee the developer shall provide a trail
connecting Timber Trails Addition and O' Dowd Park
and payment in lieu of park dedication. Said
trail should meet plans and specifications as
approved by the City Engineer. Said trail should
be completed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the golf course club
house.
F. The City shall have the right to hire a consultant
or expert to do an in depth lot by lot study of
the suitability for on-site septic systems of each
lot within the development. The City may add a
surcharge to the permit fee for on-site sewage
treatment systems to cover the cost of such
consulting services.
G. The golf course shall carry sufficient insurance
to protect it from any liability resulting from
the play of golf over public land or water. Said
policy shall name the City as an additional
insured and shall provide the City with 10-day
notice prior to cancellation. The developer shall
also supply the City annually with a certificate
.-.l of insurance.
8. Approval of a title opinion by the City Attorney.
9 . Lots contained within PUD shall comply with the motion
and intent passed June 18 , 1987 by the Planning
Commission regarding lot and easement configuration.
Motion carried.
Mr. Wise introduced a letter from The Shieley Co, requesting to
extend to July 24th their conditional use permit for extended
hours. Discussion ensued regarding the need for a public hearing
on the request. Foudray moved to extend Shieley' s conditional
use permit from June 30th to July 24th for extended hours pending
legal concurrence. Discussion followed. Motion withdrawn.
Mr . Wise updated the commission on action by the city council
regarding their recommendations.
Foudray/Czaja moved to adjourn. Motion passed. The meeting
adjourned at 2:00 a.m.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 30, 1987
Chair VanMaldeghem called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. with Comm. Czaja,
Foudray, Rockne, Schwartz, Pomerenke and Schmitt present. Also present were
Cucl. Clay; John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Dennis Kraft, Community Development
Director; Douglas K. Wise, City Planner; Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer, with the
Asst City Attorney, Rod Kress, arriving at 8:30 p.m.
Czaja/Rockne moved to limit discussion of the sign ordinance to 8:20 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Foudray/Rockne moved to approve the minutes of June 18, 1987 as printed.
Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION - SIGN ORDINANCE
Discussion of the sign ordinance was initiated by the City Planner, who stated
there were no major changes to the definitions. Some minor additions were
made because of incorporating language from the Downtown Committee regarding
signage. The draft copy of the sign ordinance was reviewed, beginning with
the "Definitions" section.
Comm. Schmitt questioned the intent of the "Government Sign", stating he
thought it would put staff and City Council in the position of erecting signs
which aren't otherwise allowed, and without going through the Planning Commis-
sion. The Comm. Develop. Dir, explained it was the Chamber of Commerce which
originally expressed the inability to construct signage to direct traffic
towards major recreational facilities, especially upon observing a lot of
traffic going in the wrong area. He pointed out this section does require
the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and therefore, is not meant
to circumvent Planning Commission. Comm. Schmitt suggested it could be tied
together with the "Commercial Recreational Directional Signage" section.
Comm. Czaja recommended the addition of the word "fixed" as an alternative
to definition G "Canopy and Awning".
Discussion ensued regarding the addition of the announcement of public events
or information to Y Public Information Sign", to expand that definition.
O "Graphic Design Signs": Comm. Pomerenke auestioned differentiating between
art and signage. It was explained the Downtown Committee was in support of
this section.
GG "Window Sign": Comm. Czaja asked if a definition of window was needed,
because of the many buildings that are all glass. The City Planner said the
intent was transparent glass. A City intern suggested a limit on the size of
the sign to 15% of the window or 10 square feet, whichever is less.
The City Planner pointed out the portable "Renaissance Festival" sign is
larger than allowed in the definition, but they have a variance for that sign,
which is also available to any business which meets the criteria.
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 30, 1987
Page 2
B)3) "Temporary Signs": Comm. Schmitt suggested adding "or one year, which-
ever is less", because of some R4 neighborhoods. Comm. Czaja expressed con-
^_ cern about someone not able to sell their home. The City Planner stated
there is an exception for single family dwellings.
N "Public Information Signs": Definition to read as follows: Signs which
provide accurate time, temperature or stock market data, or public service
messages, shall constitute as part of the allowable signage provideiwithin the
various districts.
O "Commerical Recreational Informational Signs": The Com. Develop. Dir. said
this section deals with signage off-site, to enable traffic to go directly
to the facility. He pointed out this is for large facilities only, those
with at least 200,000 customers per year. The intention is to limit the
size and content, with the possibility of multiple names on one sign. Comm.
Schmitt expressed his concern that there would be a lot of garish signs all
over. He added directional signage is being done by the State. The Comm.
Develop. Dir. responded the State is doing it on a very limited basis.
Chair VanMaldeghem asked if there was anyone present who represented business
and was in favor of this section.
Marilyn Hageman, Chair of the Tourism Committee for the Chamber of Commerce,
explained they were thinking of a standardized, easily-recognizable directional
sign, not much larger than a street sign, which would direct traffic to large
recreational facilities off of major roads. Comm. Schmitt commented he didn't
think the City could erect signs within the State easements.
Schmitt/Rockne moved to direct "0) Commercial Recreation Informational Signs"
back to staff for further definition of size, purpose, intent and allowable
zones. Comm. Schmitt would like the RTD to be considered as an allowable zone.
Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Czaja moved to refer back to staff for possible consolidation sections
"H. Commercial Recreation Informational Signs","N. Government Sign", of Defi-
nitions and sections "N) Public Information Signs" and "0) Commercial Recrea-
tion Informational Signs" of Subd. 3. General Provisions Applicable To All
Districts section. Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Czaja moved for a five minute recess at 8:28 p.m. Potion carried
unanimously.
Chair VanMaldeghem called the meeting back to order at 8:41 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SCOTTLAND (STARWDOD)
Schmitt/Pomerenke moved to continue the public hearing regarding the conditional
use permit request to operate an outdoor music center as a minor commercial
recreational facility upon 86 acres on CR83. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner gave an overview of the information presented previously.
The music center (Starwood) proposes seating for 5,000 under cover, with an
additional 12,000 seating on a green area. He referred to a site plan layout,
which showed total parking for 6,679 vehicles. An Environmental Assessment
Worksheet was completed, and scheduled before the City Council Tuesday, at
which time it will be decided if it is sufficient and whether an Environmental
Impact Statement is needed. The recommendation of the report is that the EAW
Shakopee Planning Commission '
July 30, 1987
Page 3
is sufficient. No comments were received requesting an EIS. The hours of
the music center are proposed to be 8:00-8:30 to 11:00-11:30 p.m., with
scheduling to not conflict with heavy traffic during rush hour or during races
at Canterbury Downs. A traffic management plan was submitted, and an Indirect
Source Permit is required from PCA, which regulates the hours of operation,
with an aim towards minimizing pollution from automobile traffic, and which
also addresses the noise control issue. The developer indicates the sewer,
water and public utilities are available or will be hooked up to the facility
with no major extensions.
The City Planner continued that the developer has done a sound analysis which
indicates sound at the nearest residence to be 35 DBA, which is less than City
and State standards. The music center is proposed to cost $7 million to
build, and will generate $300,000 in real estate taxes, with an additional 25C
per ticket for the county.
The City Planner summarized the concerns voiced at the last public hearing as
follows: 1. traffic congestion; 2. security on- and off-site, encompassing
crime, drugs, alcohol, additional police work and trash and vandalism;
3. noise; and 4. values and use of property in the future. He summarized the
purpose of the continuation of this public hearing is to allow the public to
provide new information. He also referred to the written response by the
developer to the questions and concerns brought up at the last meeting. He
added that all the information provided to the City has been forwarded to the
Commissioners.
Bruce Malkerson, representing the developer Scottland, referred to the ques-
tions they have answered and the criteria they have met and the summarization
of the applicable legal criteria. Mr. Malkerson stated this music facility
is proposed for the middle of the industrial park, far away from residential
areas.
Because Blossom Music Center of Cleveland was mentioned at the last hearing,
Mr. Malkerson stated Blossom Music Center's (BMC) manager, Chris Phalman, was
contacted to explain the locational relationship of that facility and adjacent
homes. Mr. Malkerson showed the aerial maps of BMC which is served by a two-
lane road, along which more than 85 homes are located. Two private homes are
included in the EMC boundaries, with grass parking for BMC going around three
homes immediately adjacent to the center. He stated this is dramatically dif-
ferent from the layout for Starwood. They have a letter from the Mayor of
Cleveland stating there have been some problems, but they worked with the
neighbors and he thinks the BMC is a great asset to the City and loves having
it there. BMC's picture is shown on the phone book and on signs welcoming
people to the city. He added that 4 cities tried to annex the facility in
Cuyahga. Mr. Malkerson said at the last meeting it was stated that a music
facility proposed for Indianapolis was rejected, but upon investigation it
was found it was proposed for a residential area and rezoning and a variance
were requested, which were denied. Recently Indianapolis invited the center
to locate in the middle of an industrial center.
Mr. Malkerson said the County Assessor was asked if there has been any adverse
affect on property values close to Canterbury Downs, and the reply was "no".
Two Shakopee residential real estate brokers were asked if there had been any
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 30, 1987
Page 4
adverse affect on property values near Canterbury Downs, and both noted in
,--1 writing that there has been no adverse affect. Howard Shenehon, an outside
independent appraiser, was asked to analyze the potential affect on property
values, and he concluded there would be no adverse affect on any property
values as a result of Starwood.
Mr. Malkerson addressed a one-page handout which had been distributed in
Shakopee, in which the recipient was asked to say no to Starwood. He read
each statement from the handout and responded to it. (1) Traffic: The
maximum count of 7,000 vehicles will occur only 5-6 times a year. This
traffic is late in the evening when there is little background traffic. The
reviewing agencies have found the roadways sufficient. (2) Noise: Any traf-
fic generates some noise, but this traffic is primarily on Hwy. 101 and meets
all State standards. Any sound from the music center is far below the State
and City standards, and is far less than existing airplane noise.. (3) Crime:
A security plan has been reviewed by the Police Chief, and the developer has
agreed to modify anything deemed appropriate by the police. Anytime there
is a new facility there will be an increase in police incidents. However, after
a little while it does not continue to increase. (4) Taxes: The facility will
generate $300,000 in real estate taxes. This facility is not in a tax increment
-
district and they are not asking for any public contribution. They have
agreed to pay all on- and off-site security costs. The tax increase experi-
enced in Shakopee is attributable to cut-backs in State aid Federal funding
to the County and City, which had to be made up with additional local taxes,
and from changes mandated in assessment procedures. The County will receive
an additional 25C per ticket tax to help fund new CRIS. (5) Jobs: There
are quite a few people in Shakopee and Scott County who are employed on a
seasonal basis, and are quite happy to be employed. Retail businesses benefit
from the increased sales from tourists and workers. (6) Property values and
employment: There has been testimony that there will be no dimunition of
property values because of this facility. Greater employment promotes a greater
need for homes, values go up and with a larger tax base, taxes go down.
Mr. Malkerson concluded that we are governed by the State constitution, statutes,
and zoning and land-use ordinances, which allow people to build homes, churches,
shopping centers, etc. when there is opposition. He mentioned the numerous
letters of support on file with the City, and mentioned the names of individuals
and business which support this proposal. Mr. Malkerson stated they believe
there are many benefits to the City from this music center, and they believe
they have met the criteria in the ordinance and request approval of the condi-
tional use permit requested by Starwood.
Mr. Malkerson passed out a proposal for a volunteer citizens advisory board
which would review programming and problems for Starwood. They propose this
local advisory board would be made up of representatives from the Industrial
Commercial Commission, Chamber of Commerce, religious community, local residents,
facility owner and school district. They recommend this board would meet once
a month during the operating season and once a quarter during the off-season.
He said this board would be immediately formed once the permit is approved.
They understand this board could be influential in the revocation of the con-
ditional use permit if the facility was not operated in accordance with the
ordinance.
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 30, 1987
Page 5
Chair VanMaldeghem asked for comments from the audience relative to the
� 7 requested conditional use permit for Starwood.
Dr. Muralt, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke of the many benefits
Shakopee has received from the other recreational facilities in and around
Shakopee, because when any of these facilities makes money, the community
benefits. He thinks Starwood will help just as much.
Jim Gerlach, 637 4th Avenue East, said the people want more say in what goes
on in town. He thinks Shakopee is a laughing stock, where things are put
that other communities don't want. He asked for more time to gather evidence
and answer questions. He thinks this should maybe wait until the bypass is
in.
Lavonne Vannis, 1550 Eagle Creek Blvd., said she has attended the meetings,
but it never occurred to her to write a letter to the Planning Commission,
because she didn't think it would carry much weight. She trusts the Planning
Commission to just do what they think is right.
Virgil Mears. stated it is his understanding the reason there is a public hear-
ing on this proposal is because the developer changed their plans so the com-
munity would be better served. That indicates to him there is some honor in
the developers. He supports this development which will return something to
this community immediately because it is not financed by public funds. He
thinks this is a cultural addition that will enhance tourism in Shakopee. He
has reason to believe the youth in the public schools will have the opportunity
to use this facility and enhance their educational experience.
Al Conger, 2666 Hauer Trail, thinks that 35 DBA is an unacceptable level.
He thinks it should be remembered that the bypass is not in yet. He said
the people who support the project are those that would benefit by it. He
thinks the jobs it would provide are part-time and not the kind that will pro-
mote permanent residents. He doesn't know how the developer can make any kind
of assumption about the number of cars. He thinks the land value investment
of the developer is not much to lose, but the homeowners have the most to lose.
The homeowners are constantly fighting traffic, and he thinks crime will in-
crease. He believes rock groups breed crime and drugs and liquor violations.
Joseph Zak, 5371 Eagle Creek Blvd., stated he has a petition in oppostion to
Starwood, but he asks that its confidentiality be safeguarded, and wanted
assurances it would not be copied. The Asst City Attorney responded that once
something is placed into public record, the City has no authority to withhold
that information.
Mr. Zak then agreed to place the petition into public record and asked anyone
who signed it if they wanted to remove their signature at this time, and there
was no reply. Mr. Zak showed a computer print-out of the 1,016 names he claimed
were witnessed and verified in opposition to Starwood. He said they didn't have
the same money or time to fight the developer, but had just 10 people going
around getting signatures on this petition. He stated he has met with 102 senior
citizens and they are on his side. He claimed if the businesses get business
from Canterbury Downs, they support this development. He said the business
letters were solicited by the developers. He stated he has 150 letters against
the development.
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 30, 1987
Page 6
Mr. Zak criticized the Shakopee Valley News for giving more print to the
^) proposal than to his opposition. He said when the rock band Motley Crue
recently performed, there were 95 enforcement incidents. He said Ron Myers,
one of the builders of Blossom Music Center, told him people from the music
center urinated in his backyard. He said two people died at the AC-DC con-
cert, but all the developer talks about is the sweetness and light of this
thing. He said Cuyagha Falls is crime-ridden and Westfall Center was refused
by three towns. He said a lot of people think the outcome of this proposal
is predetermined. He submitted a letter to the editor to a representative
of the Shakopee Valley News.
Mr. Zak claimed taxes are up 38.96% because of Canterbury Downs. He questioned
comments from the Met Council which the City rejected. He questioned the
spraying for mosquito control at the music center and how that would impact
the ecology. Mr. Zak said he has a neighbor who has just lowered the price
of his home he has for sale because of Starwood coming in. Another neighbor
is trying to sell his house because of the uncertainty in the area. He be-
lieves all the real estate experts are just making assumptions that don't mean
anything more than his opinion. If the property value does diminish, what will
be done about it and how will it be proven? He said real estate people have
signed his petition in opposition to Starwood. He thinks industrial business
will be kept out by the squawking of bands tuning up in the daytime. He asked
how the crowds will be controlled when waiting for trains. He asked who he
could turn to hen there are sound problems. He admitted he likes to listen
to the sounds of some bands which he wouldn't want in his neighborhood. He
wondered about the lack of coverage of police personnel, ambulance and other
health and welfare problems. He said the police have cancelled vacation checks
- 3 and opening locked vehicles because of a lack of personnel because of Canterbury
Downs. He simply doesn't believe the sound will be 35 DCB. He said Riverfest
was 110 DBA. He thinks the $300,000 in taxes will go away real fast towar
police protection and related problems. He questioned the finances and ability
of this group to do what it proposes. He doesn't believe they won't book any
mega-concerts during the time the Renaissance Festival is on, and he doesn't
believe the sample music performers listed for booking. He said in the next
7 days he will have a lot more names on this petition against Starwood. He
thinks if he had the money, he could get experts to contradict the sound experts
the developer quoted.
Chair VanMaldeghem stated if this petition is entered into the public record
at this time, there are no assurances it will not be seen or copied by others.
However, the City does not sell names.
The Asst City Attorney gave his opinion that the computer list can be accepted
by Planning Commission as representing what Mr. Zak said it does; however, the
actual signature slips should also be submitted. He added the ending date for
the submi$ion of lists would be the last date the Planning Commission takes .
this under consideration before voting on it. However, any party aggrieved
by the decision of this body can appeal to City Council, which can also receive
more petitions. He further explained the reason the lists cannot be kept
private is because of various State and Federal regulations that control muni-
cipalities in open meetings.
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 30, 1987
Page 7
Curt Olson, 620 McDevitt Street, said he has the feeling the decision has
already been made. He said he was born and raised in Brainerd and lived 3
miles from the Brainerd International Speedway (formerly Donnybrook) . He
said they constantly had people urinating on their property during racetimes,
and across a lake they could hear car engines to the point where they couldn't
carry on a conversation, which is why they moved. He said they looked hard
for a community that had good things for their children. They moved here 15
years ago. He said he believes in growth, because they are in the 10 county
metro area. He spoke of an IDS training center being proposed for Chaska,
creating 500 jobs, with 1500 students per year living in the community, He
said that community was picked because of the serene quietness, something
which is too late for Shakopee. He understands Shakopee's old reputation was
for slot machines, booze and women and now its getting the same reputation.
He commented that Blaine is also having a public hearing for an outdoor music
facility. He mentioned a rock concert-.he attended where someone drunk fired
into the crowd, and another one where marijuana was thick in the air. He said
he loves rock and roll music, but not these concerts. He thinks a greater
number of hot rock stars will be booked than the developers are admitting.
Mr. Olson is also concerned about alcohol abuse. He contends that out of 3,000
cars, 1,500 drivers will be legally impaired.
Mr. Olson said listening to a police scanner before Canterbury Downs was bor-
ing, but now he can't keep up with it. He said there were 3 armed robberies
in the last week. He said that listening to a big boombox which is within the
legal limits for noise still can keep you up at night. He didn't used to be
scared in Shakopee, but since Canterbury Downs, he is. He said he is
consider-ing moving because of the traffic congestion. He has checked real estate prices
and finds he would have to pay about $30,000 more on the other side of the
river. He thinks the property values are retarded here because of the problems.
He said he is listing his house for sale immediately if this proposal goes
through. Mr. Olson proposes that if this music center is passed, they would
also have to pass a house of ill repute, based on not too much traffic, money
to the City and no noise. He contends that according to the developer, every-
body in town will make money, but they won't have safety in their homes.
Colleen Dusek said she has lived in Shakopee for 211 years, and she wants to
stay here. She thinks it is an insult to the younger people to say they are
all irresponsible and into drugs and drinking. She is under 30 years old and
is also a parent, and when they go out they have a designated driver. She said
she hasn't gone to a rock concert, but Starwood would be one place whe would
go to.
Carl Rageman, who doesn't live in Shakopee, but does work here. He said he is
a practicing musician and has spent time at the Carlton Celebrity Club. He
would like to be able to perform in places like Starwood. He said some of
the larger crowd-drawing stars were .Neil Diamond, Kenny Rogers, Madonna; with
Neil Diamond drawing more crowds than rock groups. He said he used to be one
of the seasonal minimum wage earners, but now Canterbury Inn has given him an
opportunity for management possibilities. He hopes Starwood goes through.
Jim Pietrzak, 5411 Eagle Creek Blvd., said he has been a resident for 14 years.
He thinks there is too much hurry. He said he deals with Christian entertainment
and studios are now being built in the midwest. He doesn't think enough research
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 30, 1987
Page 8
has been done into community benefits. He mentioned studies done by professors
at the University of Chicago regarding different kinds of musicandits effects
on the public. He asked where this many people would .be sheltered in a storm
like we had last week. He said he has given the decision to God and believes
He can handle it. He said he isn't against it, but thinks it shouldn't be rushed.
Bonnie Sharp, 2310 Horizon Circle, wondered how many of the business people
who support this proposal have to come home in the traffic congestion. Even
though Starwood will open later, the traffic will start early to get there.
They are seriously considering moving because of the traffic problems. Many
times the traffic has kept them from going places and doing things. They have
to place everything they do around the traffic from the racetrack.
Mike Jensen, 1054 Legion Street, asked why this has to be settled this week.
He thinks this town needs time to grow up. He believes progress precedes people,
but time heals a lot of factions. He asks this to be tabled for a. few months
or a year. He lives here and drives out of the community and the traffic is a
definite problem. They are talking .about a 5 month span of operation, 10
events a month, 3 a week, which will conflict with Canterbury Downs. He doesn't
think the $300,000 taxes generated is enough. The one benefit is it is a private
enterprise, and if they fail, we don't have to bail them out. The 250 tax is
for the ferry bridge which is needed anyway. He thinks an additional taxon
concessions, etc. be considered to help support the police department. He said
he moved here 7 years ago when Shakopee was growing at some kind of controlled
pace, but since then we have been inundated with tourists. Shakopee is not a
place he would move to today. He is tired of the stop lights, and he doesn't
believe his home value will increase. He would like to see some kind of guarantee
on his property value. He also thinks the decision has already been made, but
asks for a reconsideration and not to vote on it tonight. He said the opposition
is not a professional group, and they could present more information if they
had more time.
Pat Christensen, 1041 Shawmut, said she was born and raised here and she wants
her children to experience the hometown feeling that she had. She allows for
progress, but thinks this is out of hand, and moving too fast.
Stephanie Walker, 1910 East -llth Avenue, stated she is interested in morality,
and security for her family. She doesn't want to give up her house and low
monthly payments. She questioned the parking for Starwood. The City Planner
answered the parking shown is in excess of that required in the code. She
thinks it would be good for the Planning Commissioners to attend a concert to
see first-hand what goes on at a rock concert. She believes it is our job to
make life more secure for kids and .she doesn't think bringing in rock concerts
will add security.
Jerry Smith, 1031 Leisure Street, thought it would be nice if the public would
win once, and since there is asbestos in land filling, potential for pollution
in our aquifer, they might as well go ahead and put this piece of junk in too.
Beverly Koehuen asked about the 35 DBA, where they would be and the frequencies.
She is concerned for the vlaue of her home. She also asked for the names of
the local realtors cuoted by the developer.
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 30, 1987
Page 9
Sue VanEyll, 1975 Rilldale Drive, said they are just a small group of residents,
and people forget they are in the city limits. She said they can't even walk
on CR16 since Canterbury Downs came in. She would like this to wait until the
bypass comes in. She asked for bike paths along CR16 so they can use their land.
Paul Schmitz, 1401 Tyrone Drive, said they are right in the path of the race-
track. He was under the impression none of the racetrack traffic would be let
out on the backside. But during the last two weeks the back gate has been
opened. If this is an example of someone giving their word, why won't they do
this again. He said he lives on a dead-end road, and one night 10 cars drove
up and made a U-turn, driving more than 30 m.p.h. He said many children play
and ride their bikes on the road because it is dead-end. When the races are
over, they have a hard time crossing the street. He doesn't think Starwood
will be any different. All these additional cars will be added to the backed-
up traffic that exists now. He said there are people sleeping on picnic tables
in Memorial Park every night of the week, because the police don't now have
enough manpower. They can't handle the problems now, and he thinks more crime
will come to the City with Starwood.
Lois Bruce, 403 East Second Avenue, advised the Commissioners to not only go
to a rock concert, but also visit a treatment center or see akid in jail, or
see a kid try to come down after he is up on drugs.
Kathy Gerlach, 637 East Fourth, said she is one of the 10 people who ran around
and got signatures on the petition in oppostion to Starwood. She thought now
with a core group they could do some more analyzing and phone calls and get
some more hard facts, with some more time. She said in going door-to-door,
she heard from a lot of people who were considering leaving the community
because of the traffic and developments.
Schmitt/Rockne moved for a five minute recess at 11:18 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chair VanMaldeghem called the meeting back to order at 11:34 p.m.
Gail Burda, 1902 Valley View Road, asked the Commissioners to do some further
investigating. She thinks everyone has already made up their minds. She would
like them to go to a rock concert. She said she just went to Riverfest and
was appalled. She was actually afraid, and marijuana was thick in the air.
Bill Lepley, 1925 11th Avenue, asked if the developer has met the conditions
of the conditional use permit. The Asst City Attorney replied that they have
technically fulfilled the requirements of the application, and after this hear-
ing the Planning Commission will make its finding. If. the criteria are met,
there is nothing the Commission can do to deny it.
Chair VanMaldeghem asked if there were any further comments from the audience,
and there were none.
The Police Chief was asked to respond to questions. He said there has been a
general increase in crime in Shakopee and in other cities,which is a trend in
a large area. The statistics for 1986 show major crime did increase. There
was a significant increase in burglaries, but they were caused by local resi-
dents. In the past Shakopee has had a very low crime rate. This is a drug-
Shakopee Planning Commission
July 30, 1987
Page 10
oriented society, and they deal with it every day. He agrees d gs will be on-
site at Starwood, but they are also available in the community; same for alcohol.
The Police Chief clarified that the only police services that were eliminated
were lock-outs of vehicles and vacation checks. They used to get about 1,000
calls a year for lock-outs, which took about 1 minute. However, the liability
factor became too great when locking devices were damaged, so a waiver had to
be signed by the owner, which increased the call time from one to ten minutes,
which took up too much time. They also discontinued the house watches because
they didn't have time to do that well. He added those two decisions were made
by City Council.
The Police Chief said it was his understanding that Starwood would be hiring
off-duty police officers for their own security, and therefore active police
force will not be decreased. He compared this to the arrangement with Canter-
bury Downs, which has worked well. He clarified he approves all off-duty em-
ployment of the officers and they can only work a certain amount of hours off-
duty.
The Police Chief stated it is hard to determine the traffic impact, but if the
hours are as proposed, it shouldn't have a dramatic effect. Police officers
will be provided _for, trafficcontrol, for which the facility will pay. He is
comfortable with the traffic plan at this point, but it will probably have to
be adjusted over time. He said the other three entertainment facilities create
a much larger traffic problem than he anticipates from Starwood. At this time
they don't have the percentages to tell where the traffic is coming from. They
have noted a shift in traffic off First Avenue to Fourth and Tenth.
The Police Chief responded to a question regarding curfew for minors, which
he said is 10:00 p.m. for those under age 18. That curfew is generally only
enforced when there are problems. He said the total number of calls before
Canterbury Downs was 9,000 per year, and after Canterbury was 11,000.
Mr. Zak asked about the handling of drug users, based on information he received
from the Bloomington Police Dept. regarding the Met Center concerts. He thinks
the police are just spread too thin now, and doesn't know how additional inci-
dents can be handled. The Police Chief responded that although they don't
know just what they will run into with Starwood, they will simply supply enough
officers to deal with it. He said when Canterbury Downs was going through this
process, the same kind of horror stories were told, but they just have not
developed at Canterbury Downs. There was some further general discussion re-
garding dealing with youth crimes, and the Police Chief stated the policies
are in place with Human Services. - - -
The Police Chief explained the computer program used to determine the number
of officers needed, which is based somewhat on the number of calls and also the
type of calls. He added the final decision is made by City Council. He also
explained there is no charge per as to the City for anyone serving a jail sen-
tence or going to detox, other than the general tax base.
Mr. Malkerson asked some questions to clarify security at Canterbury Downs.
The Police Chief concurred that security personnel at Canterbury had the authority
to hold suspects and transport them, and it has been an effective procedure.
Those officers are paid directly by Canterbury, at no expense to the City. Mr.
Malkerson said they are proposing the same arrangement for Starwood, so they
would not be asking for an officer and a squad car for every incident.
Shakopee Planning Commission �}
July 30, 1987
Page 11
Mr. Malkerson clarified the concerts will be pre-sold, so there wouldn't be
people standing around waiting ro purchase tickets early.
The Police Chief stated that any off-duty Shakopee officer still has the
authority of a Shakopee police officer and can make arrests. He added that
any facility in the city has a plan for emergency procedures for storms, etc.
The City Engineer answered questions regarding the bypass, stating it is
proposed in three phases beginning in 1989, to be fully operational by 1991-92.
He said the traffic management plan submitted by the developer analyzed the
peak traffic event and combined that with the residual traffic, analyzed the
key intersections and came to the conclusion the level of service at those
intersections is such that it would not be considered congested by the defi-
nition of MnDOT in urban areas. He further explained various levels of service
which constituted free-flowing traffic. There was some further discussion of
traffic congestion in general.
Schmitt/Poudray moved to continue this public hearing to two weeks from tonight
at 7:30 p.m. Comm. Schmitt added the decision of the Planning Commission will
be made in accordance with the terms and conditions related in the ordinance.
At the next hearing all the discussion will relate specifically to the criteria.
He said a decision will not be made based on emotion and economics, but on facts.
Comm. Schmitt added the Planning Commission has been dealing with this proposal
for the last nine months, and it has been published for the last nine months.
He added that once this hearing is closed, the Planning Commission cannot, by
law, artificially delay a decision more than 60 days.
-� Mr. Malkerson said he would be out of town the week of August 17, and requested
another date. Decision was made to continue the hearing to August 20, 1987.
Motion carried unanimously.
A request was made again that the Planning Commissioners attend a rock concert
before acting on this proposal.
Czaja/VanMaldeghem moved to request City Council to fund the members of the
Planning Commission attending a rock concert. Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Pomerenke moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
Douglas R. Wise
City Planner
Diane S. Bauch
Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 20 , 1987
Chair VanMaldeghem called the meeting to order at 7: 40 P.M. with
Comm. Schwartz, Foudray and Czaja present. Also present were
Douglas K. Wise, City Planner, Dennis Kraft, Community
Development Director; Cncl. Clay; John K. Anderson, City Admr.
and Trevor walsten Asst. City Attorney. Comm. Rockne arrived
at 7: 50 o.m. Comm. Pomerenke arrived at 7: 58 p.m. and Comm.
Schmitt took his seat at 8: 00 p.m.
Chair VanMaldeghem referenced letters of opposition, stating the
writers ' name( s) and reason of onoosition, which will be entered
into the record and on file at City Hall.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT By SCOTTLAND
( STARWOOD)
Czaja/Foudray moved to continue the public hearing regarding the
conditional use Dermit reddest to operate an outdoor music
center as a minor commercial recreational facility upon 86
acres. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Wise, City- Planner, gave an overview of the information
presented at the previous hearings: a location at the
intersection of 12th Avenue and Valley Park; a pavilion with a
capacity of 5,000 people and another 12, 000 on a lawn area;
there is also to be a parking area for 6,679 cars.
-� A motion was made at the July 30 , 1987 Planning Commission
meeting to ask the City Council to authorize a trip to a music
center which is ^liar to that proposed and to hear - rock
band. One member c_ the Planning Co.:m.issior., one member of the
City Council, one stn" member and - number of citizens went on
such a --our an- w___ De _ _ __ c cn ___s _.
Barry Szock a--Ende� -:is =071ce=Z as_ n _mbar ^..f _t"- ar_d Was
-esoonsible - ' BECting -:_5 �e spoKEeva=ding the
.._rficLlty in `_ any heavy metal ..r hard rock group within
- D-week -ram_. R_SE_ .^.____ enter
.. -
_n_..._"a- =_C - chosen a_ w__ __=.alar to --'. Dee, and
O_un cc __-_n ..- _.._e _-- ..n_ __=CY. _ �_wa_t's __ ____ _.. ..Chose
_.-KDDe_ &=_ __. ______ __. - - -
.+_ theregue- Zak, a CCn ___ Cac> was a1ED _ I'Dvee_Erd=v " '-- ____
_c__� _n _....c___ c-_ ..___
M--. S=ock __v__w__ __... _hves_ica_lve "..__sees _aken as ____OW_.
a) Staff and independent agencies have reviewed the developers
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1967
Page 2
b) Surveys have been taken at eight amphitheaters throughout the
country, with specialized surveys to the Mayor, Assessor, Chief
Of Police, City Engineer and City Planner.
c) A tour of Riverbend Music Center in Cincinnati, Ohio was made.
d ) A conference call with several interested parties was held.
Chair VanMaldeghem requested at this time that all audience
commentary be made briefly and in an orderly manner.
Bruce Malkerson of Scottland Companies read a letter to the
Planning Commission stating that he believes that no facts or
evidence is supportive of a denial based on criteria of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Malkerson showed how traffic problems at Blossom Music
Center .cannot be compared to Starwood 's situation because the
roads do not go through residential areas in Shakopee tee way
they do at Blossom Music Center.
Mr. Malkerson referred to another music center which was denied
and pointed out that this was not an identical situation and had
very different facts and zoning.
-Be stated that he has reviewed the materials submitted by the
addressed.
opposition and floes not find any facts or questions not alreadv
Digressing from the written text cf his -- , M�
ass_rec anc Malkerson
consent o` the -`yosc__to _.,_.tr wo _ rea-_r- the writ
ten
Mr. Malkerson re=•_rued to the
any Undesirable p=rf crr„in -ext of the let= stating that
interests. _ _ _ g grouts would be adverse to S-arwood 's
the C_tv _ _n_.,,_ --cans-n7 cr,._.a_.__ wo� ld be ado?-ed by
CCL^.0 -
__f _o _ &=nere to any --n __..._
n .
=eVCk°= __...WS_ wc___ za_=e 5___ ____..e- tobe
::$_ Van_Maldeq^em ad44sedn
__ _ ___1enCe no get a CCpv
Lae baCK table Of the 22� '-- _ _
Cendat_onal Use t. - -r-a --_ COnsideraucn c_=- -a
Jpseoh Zak, 5371 BI, - _ _
_agle Creek C. addressed __ b_nf_
a=t_cle statin^ --__ f _ _ _ ___
were ac?`S__ L•5" _. - - "_-__� Sa}C C =tat _ _ __-y azns=s
^^ -lar_=_ed� ---= meaning was that more
help -Quid have been used _rpm city administrz-icn. _
°- =1pal expertise. - _.
Shakopee Planning Commission
Auaust 20, 1987
Page 3
Mr. Zak agreed with Bazry Stock regarding the Kenny Loggins
concert not being rock, but the time frame was difficult.
The neuative impact of music centers - traffic, Droner
compensation from taxes, downside cf business - all were the
same in other places where these music centers have been denied.
Mr. Zak snake on the real estate issue, pesticide issue, the
problem of finding experts who would work for nothing to support
the opponents position.
There are issues of trust between the city, the developer and
the citizens. He said it was difficult to find businesses
willing to go uD against the proposal.
The analvsis passed to the citizens and they had less clout.
Mr. Zak discussed the modeling technique used on computer in
relation to the traffic study. Be pointed out that in Shakopee
we are all customers and whether weare for or against this
music center, we want Drosperity and growth of residents.
Residential crowth figures for surrounding towns are much higher
than ShakoDee ' s. Mr. Zak expressed a concern for the police.
Other Dossible actions for this site would be a retractable
domed amphitheater with 10,000 seats. This would be much more
expensive with air conditioning and 'beating costs, but would
offer 'class' and give Shakopee a national reputation. Another
possibility would be a computer manufacturer.
Our kids will be getting lobs at the amphitheater as security
psoz e £cr other kid=_.
Mr. Zak + -ted as to the size cf the __-_ _ ;m i
- nc that
t' area ., -_ contain 1.5 time=_ _ _ noD'llatle_ _ _ C- `
,tv o
_naxcDee a 25 acre area. - _
�-= -ak auestioned w_.at measures ca=1d be taken d=ing a szcr::,
Cr _._7,g emerge"-j.
$lll Ebyn�_ be - =o -- -_
Sound _necks dLric_salated times ..f the dav?
than - _ode =,-- and encs tna- -t-= m -
to xeem - . w.__ -a_ alre=qy been _lsc__5__
c_ - _ d B c e - -
-----=a.
__. sc n _ :_ . ..
e aG_e...._ to _-__.._
cOmne.-,=sto tae Pla,-.ninc Ccmmissio:.
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 4
Jim Gerlach, 637 4th Avenue East, doesn't think he understands
criteria $9 that the amohitneater cannot cause traffic
congestion. Mr. Gerlach provided a video which snowed visual
facts of congestion in the areas where the proposed amphitheater
is going to create traffic problems. The Renaissance festival
will conflict with 16 days of Starwoods ' schedule.
The video showed the Bloomington Ferry Bridge Road on low
traffic days and it was pointed out that on race track days the
traffic congestion also spills over into Bloomington. Also
consideration should be given to spring roadblocks when the
traffic will then be diverted to Bighways 169 or 35W.
Also, Mr. Gerlach stated that the warm-up which will take place
4-6 hours before performance time may be unacceptable to Conklin
Company, a nearby business and they should be contacted to see
if this will bother them.
Mr. Gerlach quoted the noise ordinance relating to the
disruption Of peace and cuiet and comfort of any person between
the hours of i0 D.m. and 7 a.m. According totnis, concerts
must be over at 10 p.m. to be legal. ,
Ken Ashfield, City Engineer, reported the proposed traffic
changes with the traffic 1mprOvements which are under way now.
Information has been reviewed for the EAW in consideration of
trarflC.
Mr. Zak put zlot of time into this and it provides the drive for
staff review frOm a different nersoe Give.
Impact Traffic Studv - Mr. Zak cOMDlete _
_ _ d an aualV__s with 4
J_ - _ _
calculations^are nzsed c- --z-=- _ ' ' Cr - sign. M a n v
assumption.
M_. Ashfeld stated:
car. C�nsicaer_� n=
__rt c_rn '_ane w th the traffic sza�.K_�- ?ezne =r cme
Der =az
_r Was
��••� - c__ _ De= ve=1C1f
traffic, 9.___-. _ __ __ _ -
___ _ _..__
_O _,.ru_- ==_ -Oveme-t5 and ci_a_^cf _ne
as
` p _ _ a=t❑a_G D=ax arr
be between 7:30 and E:30 _ _ _ _ _____ ..___
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 5
Also, it is assumed that 308 of the traffic would arrive in the
hour before the peak traffic hour of the event. Before the main
oerformance, there is a back-up band and much of the traffic
would arrive during the back-up performance arriving for the
main attraction..
For the EAW we dealt with an 8:30 p.m. starting time.
Comments on findings of Mr. Zak's cover memo dated August 18,
1987:
The 9th paragraph eluded to problems which would result from
Bloomington Ferry Bridge or Shakopee bypass construction.
Roadway construction will take place with roads open. The
Bloomington Ferry Bridge will be constructed in a different
alignment so that the old bridge would stay in place until the
new one is built. The Shakopee Highway 101 bypass is in
undeveloped property so these roads also will not be closed. -
Perhaos some lanes will be closed, but not the entire- road
during the construction period.
42 -This was based on assumption of ? seconds/vehicle which is
the result of errors in the calculations. We believe the early
traffic will not be of the magnitude Mr. Zak' s report assumes.
The timing of the signals at Valley Park Drive and County Road
83, as stated, are in excess of 2 minutes. The actual cycle
time is a result of --=ff_c actualization loons in the
roadways. Traffic loon detectors actually adiust themselves
according to --ne traffic. The time between the ieft t,-rn arrows
would be reduced.
_3 - 'naccuracies In reporting early �r_vals has ___eadv been
noted.
Comments regarding the times ..f Starwood' s performances and
de7F^.__e des Of Ca_.e__. ry Downs .ave _ _ _Yed __ -..c
tWp times are not .._-r - .ng peak __'?e5, c ______ to Wes_
101 a.. pnVerg- nc ^ �__ ___ _wc ..._ -
-app-_= `SG
Of 10: �...__..cn_ .. . _z_.o.. _. e.
'.
The worst - wcult O__ t..e _ ==s=_ctica Or ' 2th Avenue and
Co - Roa ° -" -eav Or
patroluan wo::id _.__.. to be _ at _pg___p
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 6
:5 - This issue is confusing, and no comment is made at this
time.
,
#6 - Compounding is going to add to an already congested
roadway. Level of sevice resulting at intersections based on
EAW review o: affic movements included new traffic and
background trafficWith Valleyfair, the race track and
Renaissance traffic, the background traffic takes into account a
very high background -figure.
n8 Incorrect assumption of 9 seconds/vehicle.
°9 - Incorrect assumption of S seconds/vehicle.
Mr. Ashfeld stated:
The traffic study from Mr. Zak provided hasn't changed my
opinion as yet. Traffic is here, now. Short of improvements,
the traffic will not get better but it will not get worse.
John Anderson, City Admr. asked for clarification regarding peak
traffic. Starwood ' s traffic won't fall on present peak for
conanuzer traffic. _f development in the Industrial Park would
he this type of use, this would not add to the worst peak of
current traffic.
Discussion was held regarding the matter of whether truck or
emplovee traffic which would add to the present current Deak
times (5 - 7 p.m. ) and the trade c-ff of t_-ffic like than of
Starwood 's which would add extended hours onto the peak.
Mr. Zak responded to the assumption o' 308 early arrivals saying
' s Was __.. . _ _e4_l„`a__. Sta-- t--7.e_ pEi.^,C_ C'
__ a tlov t. oov__ __ .__ _ ,200 ars -
_ __ __ a.c _ 00
.__.. __ __ _ l' trowoed adway _no tai
get ani bc____ . _ __.__ SL=rF'p pd 's s---tG-� - -cs
DE--nomoves rocne ^cn order to meld a . aex-cdeccn5 ` - -
starwood. `-..cert aigats, 6,300 cars _ ceiDc tp -^.
_ ow vp
here. Tney wi_ come w'-net. - ev want a=.c _cave w_?e.-: _hey wa^L.
Sn aJCppe-'s _--1Zena are trv_nc to 'Live, cn=ute an6 sncD here..._
.. re D_ ===a 'p.=5 pf __e,_ __ Cars and, m.=re
1ffic a.75. _ _- are = c -__c` -. c - t. =-s
w-__ begin _p _o -___ t. oresldeGiia -areas.
a -_ - pkets, -_
__ — .- =-t_=D`_V Dor: lave ___�:atec the LDC _Deo
_icxe_ to the pC=-__ _
na_e _6_ - or __ ___D =1' Downs to act
as a .r--rare yvalve to _=ac_ ..._.
Safety valves _-_ c==e`= the _ t'_ through housing
develcpments and ..-- increase resident a: _ac__.
What abopt sccrecnc-c - =-_--_ - es -- as Savage, -
-__' -_- --- = e -' t- t e`-
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 7
A significant impact will be felt in these areas as well as in
Shakopee. Everyone will be caught in traffic and be angry about
it. The bypass is scheduled for 3-6 years. Are we willing to
out up with this for 6 summers?
Cliff Stafford, 2320 Eaqle Creek Blvd. , referred to the Memo
from Douglas Wise regarding the overall needs of the city and
existing land use. It is his opinion that more permanent type
of industry, not seasonal recreational industry is needed. This
includes permanent jobs and not additional seasonal positions.
He is concerned about the safety of the surrounding land -
traffic causing increased accidents, a rise in intoxicated
drivers, health problems due to increased litter, congregating
juveniles possibly along the roadways to hear ' something £or
nothing' .
Due to the overcrowded area, there is also more opportunity for
crime to be committed.
Traffic problems would be aggravated by what Starwood proposes.
Susan Hofmaster, 1028 Dakota St. , has a question about an
article in the newspaper last week about the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency approving an Indirect Source Permit. She also
questions the starting time of 8: 00 or E:30 p.m. PCA's
-� controlling interest in noise goes over the City' s jurisdiction.
The noise level from 7:00 to 10:00 Z.M. (i.50 ) cannot go over 55
decibels after 10 p.m. The City of Shakopee says that the
decibel leve in an industrial park cannot be over 55 after 10
also. If these concerts are going to s-=-- at 8: 30 p ,...
and cannct an over 55 decibel level, how can ti,at be done?
Jane Swenseen, 1091 Harrison St. , makes a - ivina at a seasonal
lob anc stated --'- --.2 z ==Et be made
ob_iectiveiv. She =eels a the a-__- .._c- sign must vc--e
in tavar Starwoca. Starwood nas answered cuestions and
ro._g2gnee e.._ the ccp =_t__ tr..,ia2d s=' --
2nce �_n ^r =r__ to tra:: sound, arugs, _rime ana the
-
Marlene Larsen, 1540 Blue here was .,r2 c= -- =Z-zasaC
_o went to " a-- .—.__ aa.-c
ti-ca ^
tEr. In ta11t::. t.. __r _P.e __C _-_ S,e____ ' �
C" ce, !!ana creme^.- f Riv=_rB=_nccreside s, no C C_
_ -t' Ct- - t_ -CD=r—j ..a3 note-. Tnev saw ns scn
____ nave to co to _ nnEapCl's r�r +t..r_ e.-__ .eve
=loci - - - _. _ _,? - - - -`
..L .. vee- �___.. .._.___ is we
-eaz. A wide Rive
Cf acres Were n ---endance. -The music
was -..n___..__ __. __._
_- wCn1C p2 an _Se_ _..W_.__4 __ _!12
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 8
Al Conger, 2666 Bauer Trail is not against cultural
entertainment here in Shakopee. Be enjoys the small town
atmosphere. No one enjoys commuting in this traffic. Be feels
that residents must control their lives around the entertainment
already here now. Extending peak traffic hours to last longer
is a detriment. People are trying to sell their houses are
having trouble because of the congestion already in Shakopee.
Chair VanMaldeahem asked if any local realtor was in the
audience who might comment.
Esther Rademacher, 619 Apgar, is with Edina Realty in Burnsville
and works with people who are interested in the whole area south
Of the river. She said that people don ' t want to come to
Shakopee due to the congestion and traffic. The future
valuation of Property is unknown until that time that a music
center is built and any problem is created. Savage is currently
more in demand than ShakoDee.
Czaja/Schwartz moved for a 5 minute recess at 5:45 D.O. Motion
carried unanimously.
Chair VanMaldeghem called the meeting back to order at 9:56 p.m.
Jim Burkhart, 820 Marshall Road, has been a realtor for more
than 2 years. Property values are net able to be forecast un-il
that time when a change is made. Yes, there are people coming
Into Shakopee school district, but most of these are recuiring 5
10 acre Parcels and that does not mean within the 'icy of
ShakoDee. `
BOb Mavec 952 5C. Clay is an 18 V_a_ __sideP.t Of SnakODee. Mr.
!laver we_- tO the concert 2_R_ve_..e^.�... s: C C£ae_ and Said that
__• s__- the hear _ _ _ The atC:.:theater is
aC______-_c a _Z.._� park w___.: used zO be an amusement Dark.
D__ _O___.^.y ZZO3D watched =e exlts _ _
war _ _ __ . -_ the
PC__ was - l.K n = Sher:.
D Jez =Me Jc
_:at seems to - crowd
The _a_____- is Ow=ed bV the Cinncinn&ti _QY==bc:j• . and the% _
_ =_g=_ beiae_„_ m__ ___ t _ __
Dart
support _rcr: - -- - - - _y_ Dacki n5. >_S:a `£
- c
s Ow eC •••_G ^^C_-:2L= 5}-.DhC^V _F::1£' 25keu 2DCC`t 2
drug^ prCbles„Jthe _response' Gf Management
IDe Vol-, .'2Ve M gement was 'no more than any
a a i2rQe - _ pe__t_ - - -ucb
'.; tie schools ' ..--p;aaaaementthandles incident= well
and they seer. to 'ave - - nt -
`- - c__. ..,__ age...__._ -' st_
I
Shakooee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 9
Donna Hyatt, 1077 Swift Street, also attended theniverbend Concert
and called it an informative venture. She said the concert was
lovely. Absolutely nothing about Cinncinnati paralleled
Shakopee. This could only be classed as a sales pitch.
Cinncinnati has 1 million residents; Shakopee has 11,200.
Hamilton County has 730 sworn officers, 179 are patrol units;
Shakopee has 17 sworn officers, 11 patrol units.
in River Bend, 10 officers are used to direct traffic. Sworn
personnel are not used in the theatre. River Bend 'hires its own
security . When the facility was new there were terrible traffic
problems. The ten traffic officers has heloed that. Sometimes
there is marijuana, but not aiot of other drug problems.
Cinncinnati is very clannish and very conservative. They just
don' t have the problems other places do.
None of the highway traffic surrounding River Bend was commuter
traffic. Even so, they experiencetraffic problems when there
is a large concert.
Comparison was also made to the Met Center which uses 8
Bloomington police officers to clear their narking lots. Yield
narking, with no stripes or assigned spot=_ will be used at
Starwood and this causes havoc.
} Met Center hires one officer for each security person who is
working to control crowds. Thev also hire Farmhouse Drug
Treatment for most concerts. Problems are minors drinking,
people coming to concerts to partvr cr to Cause fichts. Rock is
not 'cut ' but the crow
as are a __t =r_ ...__low. Cinncl-Matl has
a Conservative crowd and vocnC neoolE.
Addres_inc the p=_t-t_,.. spect, it was ars done in person and
by
ask-.-,q - - ev w�l,. like to __cn a pe- tion ac' nst
rwo d. . CaC -f no One >:a5 ncme was _ r=.Lver
_i
_ u
___ lbct vO
si
"hat'res were received .n the bnttp
C the -1VEr5. :Ll
slgn__s were ad__ _s and homeowners B__. _Oe __. __.__ -Coarct .
ThiscT.J�_ne___ _s nct __ 4.__h v____
_ _ e
__a_ .,ts= _t. _ ._ _
Bcb _ -ekr 731 t:. :_ s- - -- - _
_ _ .,a. -.- pees _.__ _ eve
--be _rcven - - - _ - -csal`.,r Stacuccd meets^thE 12
cr_t_r_a fc= '=rov2: C- z
L _ -t Avs. r _ _ _hasCn_e es-dent and
r,c_..__ C_ _w. __ = Snok_ Ct __ ______ _ __ __
Can___ as a
Shakopee Planning Commission
Auqust 20, 1987
Page 10
Gale Pink, 2330 Berg Drive, addressed traffic problems and
stated that there is no need for paperwork to show that crime
and traffic is up and property values are down. He said he is
convinced this is going throuch due to increased pressure by
Starwood. Mr. rink has been here since 1969 and is concerned
for the police of the area and commented on the fact that money
seems to be a concern here, not living conditions.
Bob Schaefer, 13700 Canterbury Road is a realtor with Edina
Realty. His first concern is what impact this will have on
surrounding towns.
Be also is concerned about the 12,000 people on the lawn, which
is called festival seating. At a Who concert with festival
seating, 3 people were killed. Without reserved seating, there
is a push to the best spot. People also arrive very early to
net the best seating.
Traffic is already a problem here. From a realtors ' point of
view, Shakopee has a good location. Traffic is a deterrent for
some people, however, there is a good school system and close
enouch location to a lot of good things. People will either
accent the traffic or move out. unless you are a teacher or a
realtor, you will have to commute across the river. This
amphitheater is a good thing to have here but some big problems
need to be worked out. A covered domed theatre is a good
suggestion, but it is probably not cos-_ er _..cove.
Richard Soderberg, 1098 Tyler, was concerned about the
ince—uptien of traffic causing more problems into the downtown
areas. To conduct business in -- _ _ -`' vc_cn to
-=k _t ta. - opening day -.___.,__c -nJ 0'v:n5?� scent 'Oy o=+
3 hOcrs _ - '-- -roto ake =eL with eve' the
J'
snak0tes. V Cons=—_c__ _6 whichw - scne_led =c 9Ke 6 Vea=s ' could
last as long as ' 2 years before - _t_,:. is already
lcc
cost to the tarnavers = oto Sc;-- _.,_r- :. Services c`
"-. Som=_rberg es-'rated ---t - e --ine= �c _t
'- _ _ _ ne=sons
every - whO a .pa :.-e _- __ is
_.g OU_ _c`=s Der W==... _ ___ -.__ _ 15cz
concern to - c.. He - _ __ _ -
and
ZZE
V
en .SDor other -rugs -- -._t - - retry __- t =_r _==` ___t=en.
=r=ceof Scottuand CosDany stated =nat urouan
- s 9 .ncnt-, ess they have endeavcrec to =-cv=ce all
o; r__ev_nt ___ __c__ _ssaes and s_b-it those to the c-, tv and
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 11
have on public file. The EAW process reouires this done and
this was analyzed by staff, opponents, others and state
agencies.
Questions have been raised tonight that have not been answered
before. One is why did the race track start using the nate on
County Road 16. The reason is that after patrons requested to
use this exit, the new manager complied with their requests
without contacting me. After I found out about it, I informed
him of the restrictions called for in the Environmental Impact
Statement and this exit will not be used except under peak
daytime events as called for in that document.
Jeff Siegel will address the issue of soundchecks.
In the EAW process there was ample opportunity for other
surrounding communities to comment on this. We gave a
presentation to the City of Prior Lake early in the process and
offered to do the same for Savaue and they declined. When the
EAW was _placed on file, statutory notice had to go to all state -
agencies and surrounding communities and was recorded in local
and regional gapers.
A question was asked 'now the PCA viewed the sound analysis.
When you file a EAW with a sound analysis, the PCA is one of the
agencies who reviews that EAW and retorts whether or notthere
- are any problems or whether they feel an EIS is required. The
Minnesota PCA on July S, 1967 sent a letter to the City that the
noise does not appear to be a problem witb the project due to
the lack of sen=sitive receptors in the immediate project area.
The nearest residence is 41 ,400 fest away at t e- Canterbury Inn
Hotel. Acco_ucal calculations lndlca=e t:at t.._ noise
Standards w___ be r_t --
tho
_._-_ are _ v -=
_tn c eiclaticns, the no=se evELs can De
___ _P. __lst--- -_.,. in t--, s case, that ___ _ n„__C
De _ncludec _ _- Scu-ce ?�_ = r the _ro�ect. Eve_
...__t abtain and are in t.._ process of obtaining an Indirect
- 7e -___-- _ - re=ar----n= real eSta-e. --.e-e ars
c=, e_eb DyS�gN�ggaDle _=__tors an C` _ '_
.ev wc __ no- De -- 25
_--V were E aWe nave ° stuzy A_-e r
^__eirte^e _ .gtnd
. pD=2 __ has been stm
_hap
_.______ ._ cn g_
:ariDD=E
_n _.v,=y, in c
to cra— is
presses a cr .. ev,J�we -ave ^ -- ane y_ -E--_.v sc ceeaea --
zlways s_atinc=sots, h red indeoendeht
., Der--s and asked them
tanan'ze the cvosedproject and and _-'-^ L
- - to
vou. We have ;a8 to su
gbmit aict c` fi=_mil •becase _t was
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 12
necessary. We are sure that we will only receive a Conditional
Use Permit because we have met the criteria you set forth. We
have offered lengthy lists of benefits to Shakopee of this music
center.
Jeff Siegel, Project Manager for Starwood discussed the sound
check issue. Only 50$ of the time in contemporary shows do
groups use a sound check. Grouts have been rehearsed on tour.
There is a rehearsal studio in Chanhassen. Rarely do any groups
open in the midwest.
What is done is a mike check and a line check, which can be done
without the sneakers on with electronic devices. On occasion
after 4:00 p.m. a sound check is done, being 5 - 15 minutes in
length, not consistent, but an on and off situation during that
time. They also have a goal of not allowing soundcheck to
become a nuisance or an entertainment.
Conklin Comoany' s manager .called and stated that his opinion has
not changed retarding this. A letter F_itten previously sated
that they welcomed the music center and look forward to its
opening. He said that he stood by that letter.
A motion was made by Poudray/Schmitt to close the public
hearing.
Based on legal cocnsel, Chair VanMaidechem declared the motion
to close the public bearing out or order due to a possible need
for f..rther _-`crmz-ion.
^-c=. skeC - _ ) now would _.._ - ns be
-rctecte5 -_ t _ _:.reacz d - a s _cr cc -- ing storm-__2 ) Ki_-
ez-- z doe= =ort.`.V== .rave on tier-.raft tie are=-? 3 )
is tr= r- -ie_-e of ..mEci< vicinity? = )
t' �:' _ - - -_ave to ' berfcrm£r or crowd at - -
acility? _d 5 ) -,-a sotnd _.- ava__able_ wn_ch gives ___
____E area, n..t
I_. ._c_S£__-_ _ deadrc __-_. -_ =e c-__ _ as
1; Plans forEvacna_ -- - e-- -- e_
-
- = to road _a be r -- n
n and a=nrovec by ' .. 0^--_ or _ C - _ _nakoDee. - -- r.._rV
Downs _ _ ___ WE2thE= aE=C' C� or rEDCrt1n= -^-,d
Sta=noDd -ns to nave E COMDany prat^_g£ deed.._ dead_ d2-_2 t0
Disc n was _e_ln ___ reaazd t.. cs^__- a7 ' �n= n= e wcL" d go
_nos_ n_--_ .L _' =lii..kerson Sa _ - _ bean
r
sim=lato _.___ __ --:1t£r�L'r_V Va^� -a_C v. ,
._ch )s
ss
_ -..
Covered space^_.__ Starwood _..o r___ b_ _nF__tzen -'O_m
and approved DV _ _ P_ ..-
-_a=:. __ n ___ _.. __
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1967
Page 13
area would include commuters from the residential aspect and
there is ample capacity after Starwood for future developers
that may be using the traffic system during that time period.
3 ) Legal Counsel addressed this by advising the Planning
Commission of the clause in Conditional Use Permits which
provides conditions if the proposed activity would adversely
affect the surrounding area or the community at large. Each
applicant must be taken on a case by case basis and the area can
extend into the community at large and could protect the welfare
of any part of it.
Mr. Malkerson indicated that he disagreed with this. Also,
related to that in consideration for Conditional Use Permit
criteria ;,1 referring to "diminish or impair property values
within the immediate vicinity" there has been no testimony that
any diminution exists.
4 ) Discussion was held regarding the liability of performers or
crowd. Mr. Malkerson assured the City that they would not be
held liable or responsible. This is in the hands of management
and private indus-`ry. Someone may try to sue the City as well.
The developer has proposed to name the city as additional
insured under their liability policy.
Legal Counsel agreed that the City would not be responsible.
5) Mr. Malkerson said that to his knowledge a sound chart has
not been made of the whole area. Any analysis the Jaffe report
made is available.
'a-� . cG_ - Eked erre .K anEB.2 C.^.EC a5 2 r = _ = bV
dEnl_'1nC t-, cCcnd_ __On_l Use - t these prosper ve b vers
.._ - the: decide to ...J.__ to _hakopee. Rademacher stated --at
peOple 2..E __c tart - ccme
to ShaxcDee due to tele
at somihincshoL'ld DeC ne about she tr2£` bE£er=_= it is
adder t... _ E " t E __akCDe beCa__=
_nE C= _.C':
a.__e now, and to c _refer _O move __EEKhErE.
3OEn.= L___i ---=_D — KJ shad sur -- ..___ _e --
Lne --=ecuenci_s __ed - - ` _`_c and _ne -' _--" ..__...
Msc=nA =te .. .. 0
_wo1, . _ = -c--s
ExD'_ nc _n=_t EOuenc Es^ .. _m 2^ - 20, C0 2 - t -_
5 zz .
adopted Dv agencies w..^.o meas___
Cor-,. Czaja asked =..r an Exp_a.a___On of
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 14
Mr. Perez read into the record his letter to Mr. Malkerson and
Mr. Siegel, responding to this matter as follows:
A ouestion has been raised about the possibility of sound from
Starwood leaving the area and showing up at more distant areas
at high intensities. Lona distance propagation of sound is
affected by both wind and temperature conditions in the
atmosphere. These effects result mainly from changes mainly to
the soeed of sound (the higher the temperature, the higher the
Sneed of sound) and wind components add or subtract to the sound
wave. To illustrate this effect, I am attaching a series of
graphs showing various atmospheric possibilities and the
resulting behavior of the soundwave. (This is on the back -
Typical atmospheric conditions that would result in unique
long-distance propagations of sound) .
In my 24 years in noise control, the only time I had to concern
myself with the above phenomena was during my work with NASA as
t related to static tests of Saturn rockets. Needless to say,
the 214 decibel of power level of the Saturn 5 could not be
compared to the sound emanating from Starwood. Furthermore,
I
hese phenomena are of concern great distances away from the
source. In the immediate vicinity o' the sound source other
less exotic, that is vegetation and barriers, considered in the
Jaffe report, are of much greater importance than the described
atmospheric condition.
In my evaluation of anis issue_, it is my conclusion that even in
the rare case where some focusing may occur many rales away `rpm
Starwood, the resulting sound levels would be well within the
State standards.
_ _+.- was heir w regard to tn__ cue
area, the Galles. ___ anaiysLS ccne bV Jc_-e acp_s___s
most 51r_�f1CZra p�amE�e�s . er..p=_.a_t_2 ..__ tc _he _
Callev conditions was not __-S__dsrefl _ ___t__.-_e
_--'
0. Sound was no_ considered __. the Jaffe rencrt. Inu_ _ ___e
ocC_""rence, tnere .._11 not be &.v vlclatiCn c- standards.
t.._ s,-,=o to
toe `.H nC a`e_ 21C_ t---_-__�. _ zoe- no- wart
-c-vev _. _ w`
_ ays apt c..L . - t_ -2 criteria L_.
t Tne nctice _G t =r Ji. - es-__pe_ as
w-
250 ____ r.__c c..__._____.
Cc=-.. SCn..._tt asne.. _r sc wOoz _-a_ __ _or ?arKinc on.
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1967
Page 15
Mr. Malkerson said they do not intend to charge for parking, but
in the event they would, the pickup points -need to be moved to
the interior of the site.
Comm. Schmitt noted a descrepancy in two documents. One
indicates there will be no parking fees and another one says
there will be fees charged.
Schmitt/Pomerenke moved to close the public hearing . Motion
carried unanimously.
A five minute recess was called at 11:27 p.m.
Chair VanMaldeghem called the meeting back to order at 11: 42
p.m.
Chair VanMaldeghem requested Dennis Kraft, Community Develooment
Director, to comment on the status of the Indirect Source Permit
and the noise issue. Mr. Kraft confirmed that an Indirect
Source Permit has not been issued, but must be issued before
this project can begin.
He also clarified the standards the Pollution Control Agency
will be using and which will be included as part of the Indirect
Source Permit.
A motion by Schmitt/Pomerenke for approval of the Conditional
Use Permit Resolution =492 , subject to Conditions 1 through 2.5
` of the Conditions below.
Czaja/Schmitt moved to add 'the Conditions 16 through 26.
-plet_cn ..r =ne
1. The ZAW ___ the St =
stated _ n__e'v _ as a gont__zc_. cf __._
2. :- 4,•____e at=ee?ent between City at! develcDe_
__ ___y - __ _s _._ _2G1^t_
the r..—owing
_.. _____—_ M__S be _ —____
-
B. ._ _Poe cf ______y pe___r._.__ __c
event.
C. SzarwcOdShall be resnonslble for all costs relating to
Cz an.. cff __t_ c_.-..r_=V and traffic ccr..=rg1.
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 16
D. All ushers as well as security personnel must receive
training in security procedures, first aid and drug
abuse prevention/treatment.
... The agreement must be approved by the Chief of Police.
F. The aareement can be amended at the request of either
Starwood or the City , with proper notification and
review.
G. Applicant and/or his agent will contract with the local
police department and county sheriff for traffic control
by on duty officers at all major county and state
roadway intersections within the City of Shakopee.
3. A qualified physician or paramedic team with ambulance shall
be in attendance at all performances. In addition,. a drug
crisis unit and trained teamwill be on the site for all
concerts as directed by the City Police Chief .
S. No alcoholic beverages shall be brouaht into the facility by
patrons. No consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be
allowed within the parking lot or other areas of the site
outside the performance area. The facility operator shall
be responsible for enforcing these conditions.
�. The Sta_wood Music Center sra'_1 only be allowed alcoholic
beveraae licenses £cr the serving of bee= and wine and only
two containers be sold at any one sale and the serving of
t____ neve=aces be '__ _:atEp 1 nou= -_ to =-._ =--d^d the
_ - dev- --==s at_r ..
eemezz r _
_ rrovemeres: -
Ap �
- -- -V - n_tc.--n__' tra'i'l _.
_2tb Avecue a _
Val= yPark rive a-.=----
De __ _=_rec.
- ne __ c____ __ -
_ng_ne__.
S'i2.er sys=em _'=rroV=_-.EC S alcn- avenue -e==-=ec to
_r.•u=_= to be� stn_=_- ---_- etc_=ca .;c=' =n_
rEa2___ _ _s C_ _ _ _-,.. .._nage=.
D. Payment in lieu of _park dedication as r_ _____,. by City
Cone Sec=io- 12. 07,
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 17
7. Deferred assessments aa_ainst the property shall be paid
prior to inssuance of a building permit.
S. Any plans for use of the portion of the site not included in
the project shall require platting of the entire parcel.
9. General security and off site management:
A. Overniaht camping on any part of the property or within
the immediate vicinity shall be prohibited.
B. No parking shall be allowed outside the immediate
vicinity of the facility.
C. No loitering will be allowed on the facility or in the
immediate vicinity of .the facility 12 hours prior to or
after an event.
10. No event shall start orior to 8:00 p.m. on Monday - Friday.
11. Approval by the City Engineer of final calculations for
storm drainage and detention area, and for peak sanitary
sewer flow from a major entertainment facility that would
3 have intermi=ssions generating at a peak flow.
12. No event will be allowed that displays a history of causing
a disturbance. A citizens ' zrcuo shall be formed to review
events as well as to promote communication between and among
_.__ __tczen_ ___ =_.e
1-3. Son_nd levels - =azezo 100 decibel=_.
b= --_s=
=he deveIo=e=sI expense, one- az - _ge and one or . __
_ff the size. -- _^-__az
n excess cf 100 _ _-
Mne ave ane s_ --vets - - excess - =sesnMzfiec
CrCLnance.
any rezc- _c____ __ _ ^../cr «._:_- e:LEC=- nmen' Cpr^ -1Cnfil
use per-MM =aMs - _=epe===es zcccz -2�wiz--n 2, 000
c.,«-er__a_ re=rea=__.a_ uses ___=.ares the --2
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 18
15. Developeragrees to clean all litter on all adjacent
properties and on all feeding roadways within 24 hours after
a concert/event on the site. Said area shall be bordered
on the west by County Road 83, on the south by County Road
16, on the east by the NSP substation road and on the north
by Highway 101.
16 . A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of the Building Permit.
17 . Ticket sales are to be limited to the state caoacity of the
facility, which is 17 , 000.
18. No event shall last lonoer than 11:30 p.m.
19 . No pest control measures shall be taken that will have a
detrimental effect on the environment.
20. Liahting shall be designed such that no direct light be
emitted outside the facility.
21. Any chance in use of this facility as stated in the
application must be approved by this body (Planning
Commission) .
22. Tha: the City receive advance notice of all everts and the
anticipated attendance.
23. Helicopters will not be permitted except under emergency
conditions.
24 , Beside `£r---_- =-cke_ sales, no eve--
alloWe d -
c- the venlcl _
es _.. t---
2- '
pEc -
1c- -- $-__MOCd eY.Cee=Td _Ae ______la as set
__ _ _ _ _ _ e
ZE
_C_
resClu-Sons arc
_eF
_tsa---
C=clzicns to co.-
zznwar�
s
Cc WT. Rockne
No__.
Shakopee Planning Commission
August 20, 1987
Page 19
Chair vanMaldeghem advised the applicant and the audience of the
7 day appeal process.
Czaja/Schmitt moved to recommend to City CDuncil that a special
study be initiated to evaluate and recommend solutions to the
problems created by our changing environment, mainly, but not
limited to, the recreational entertainment facilities within and
surrounding our City. This study should be focused on, but not
limited to, issues such as increased traffic, noise, crime, etc.
Motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Motion by Czaja/Schmitt to table the approval of the July 30,
1987 minutes of the Planning Commission until the next meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
Foudray/Czaja moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 a.m.
Douglas K. Wise
City Piannsz
Swar=er
rtEccrnc SEcretary
MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Jon G. Glennie, Planning Intern
RE: Summary of and Conclusions Reached on Starwood
Questionnaire
DATE: July 24 , 1987
Introduction•
This summary will address those areas of concern which apply
to the Starwood proposal . This summary was mailed to cities
throughout the United States , which have outdoor facilities
similar to the Starwood proposal.
As of Thursday July 23, most of the surveys had been
returned. The results did not reveal any unanticipated
concerns/problems.
The following contains a summary and conclusions reached
from that summary of the areas contained in the questionnaire
which will be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit process.
Traffi
The survey showed that traffic generation problems closely
reflected what was forecasted (arrival times and volumes) from
the traffic management plans of the facilities and that the level
of service of the roadways were not adversely affected by the
development of the facility .
The conclusion reached is that appropriate steps must be
taken and will be adapted to address the traffic question.
security
The questionnaire did reach a consensus that off=site
security problems such as drug and alcohol use, disorderly
conduct , litter and vandalism were present and that these
problems are more intense in the vicinity of the facilities.
The answer to the security question has by no means been
found. The level of security staffing for the Starwood facility
has been addressed in a production and security manual produced
by Scotland :=_=ries. T_heClli e£ o£ Police has reviewed th'_s -
manual and has indicated that it appears to be a reasonable way
to address this problem and that subsequent to the opening of the
amphitheaterthere .may be a need to make a modification if
conditions so dictate.
The conclusion reached is that adequate steps have been
taken and procedures will be in place, prior to the opening, that -will ensure professional and responsible measures.
prop r vmatter by showing that all
do not have their normal and orderly
The questionnaire addressed this
types of proper a facility such as this.
development impeded by eacimpairment will
of the property to the facility
The conclusion rhed is that the degree of
depend on the proximity
questionnaire analysis revealed that a proposed facility
such The as Starwood will make a sit ion will icant contribution
lon theformof
I community . The amount of contribution
tax that is required.
suggests _thatcOWo se sIDuSta rwoodnities swilla Pay Property
The conclusion sugH or ll P unty Road
{ available to them for taxing P P .
tax and also a ticket tax, which is earmarked f
18 bridge over the Minnesota River.
Program of ( i P , City Boardl
instance, the response the response to this
In every these answers were not
when considering a city board
Question was negative . Reasons for does have
vestions arise If the City
supplied. Legal q ro perform,
a liability question
which controls or commen willnnot serf orm, persons' ability
input into who will or certain P persons'
in terms of whether denial Of adenial of that p
arises, certain constitutional
to perform at Sa Tries also raises pression.
civil liberties . to freedom of soeech and ex_ an agency
erformance by If
Questions relating for the city.
Endorsement of a Parti cuate performer or p
of rd or
the city may also create additional liability
pursue the subject o£ a city review Attorney
there is a desire to P should be referred to the City
commission, the matter
for review and comment.
SWQ'L'S;
PT ANNTNr, nFopRTwrNT
INTRODUCTION :
The construction of an outdoor music center/amphitheater has
been proposed for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. This facility
will have a seating capacity of 17 ,000 persons, including 5000
seats under a pavilion and 12,000 lawn seats. As part of the
review process preceding the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
the City of Shakopee is gathering and analyzing data on both the
proposed facility and on other similar facilities located
elsewhere in the United States.
We are requesting your participation in this endeavor by
answering the attached questions. Your response should only
require a few minutes of your time and will be greatly
appreciated by the City of Shakopee. We have also enclosed a
stamped addressed envelope for the return of the questionnaire.
If you have any questions please contact either Dennis Kraft or
Douglas Wise at (612) 445-3650. ( City of Shakopee)
Separate questionaires have been sent to the Mayor, Planning
Department, Police Department, City Engineer and Assessor' s
Office. You need only to cover your area of expertise.
Thank you for your cooperation.
QUESTIONS:
1. What type of land uses surround the facility; and in your
opinion has the amphitheater impeded the normal and orderly
development of the surrounding vacant property?
Type of Impeded
Land UseNorma' Growth
Ye s N_Q Yes H2
within 1/4 mile
Commercial
Industrial L Z 7-
Residential
Residential -7
Open Soace I/ �
1/4 to 1/2 mile -
Commercia_ 3 / / 3
Industria' _� — 3
Residential H i 7—
Open Space I/ _ 7�—
- Over-
Iype of Impeded
Land Use Normal Growth
1.0 Ns IU U
112 to 1 mile y
Commercial
Industrial L 7—
Residential
Residential 1 3
Open Space 5 Z
2. Was an attempt made to buffer the facility from surrounding
land uses to reduce noise problems?
Yes Z No 73 Not Sure
3. Was the buffering successful in reducing noise problems?
Yes 7` No Not Sure
If no, please comment:
If people complain about the noise, about how far away are
they located?
4 . Have the concert hours from 8 : 00 p.m. to 10:30 or 11 :00 p.m.
created a problem as concert goers look for restaurants ,
etc. that would be open, but were closed, after the concert
let out?
Yes No r Not Sure
Has this resulted in any problems for the community?
Yes _ No Al Not Sure 0—
I£ yes, please describe :
5. Can the community site specific benefits or damages to
immediately adjacent land uses (res_dentzal , commercial or
industrial) caused by either crowds, traffic, noise, etc. ? - -
Benefits? Yes y No
Damages? Yes y No �.
If yes, please describe:
6 . Do any of the facilities have problems with on-site lighting
affecting off-site property owners?
Yes _ No t1) Not Sure
If yes, please describe :
7 . Did the community experience any problems , nuisances or
inconvenience during the construction of the facility due to
construction traffic?
Yes _ No �5 Not Sure
If yes, please describe :
6 . What types of beverages and beverage licenses ( liquor
licenses) have the various facilities made available?
Are any particular types of beverage licenses more or less
detrimental to the operation or community?
Is there a problem with attendees bringing in alcoholic
beverages or drugs?
Yes Z No _ Not Sure
9. Has the community created a lay board to review the annual
concert schedule with the power to recommend deletion of
certain types of unacceptable concerts?
Yes No L Not Sure _L
If yes, can the lay board .actually prohibit certain
_ . performances?
10 . Have religious performing groups boycotted certain
facilities because the facility' s program hard rock groups
that may include satanic music in their repertoire?
Yes _ No :3 Not Sure . 7-
11 .
11 . Has the amphitheater facility made a significant financial
contribution to the community in the form of property or
sales tax? ''JJ
Property Tax: Yes / No Not Sure
Sales Tax: Yes No Not Sure /
Other Taxes:
-Over-
12. In retrospect, if the facility were now coming into your
community what would you do differently, or what additional
requirements would you impose?
13. Please comment on the major assets and liabilities of the
facility as relates to the community.
Assets•
Liabilities:
Name
Phone Number
POLICE DPPAFTM^ NT
INTRODUCTTON:
The construction of an outdoor music center/amphitheater has
been proposed for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. This facility
will have a seating capacity of 17 ,000 persons, including 5000
seats under a pavilion and 12 ,000 lawn seats. As part of the
review process preceding the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
the City of Shakopee is gathering and analyzing data on both the
proposed facility and on other similar facilities located
elsewhere in the United States.
We are requesting your participation in this endeavor by
answering the attached questions. Your response should only
require a few minutes of your time and will be greatly
appreciated by the City of Shakopee. We have also enclosed a
stamped addressed envelope for the return of the questionnaire.
If you have any questions please contact either Dennis Kraft or
Douglas Wise at (612) 445-3650. ( City of Shakopee)
Separate questionaires have been sent to the. Mayor, Planning
Department, Police Department, City Engineer and Assessor' s
Office. You need only to cover your area of expertise.
Thank you for your cooperation.
OUESTIONS:
1. Do public law enforcement personnel have free access to the
entire facility and do they regularly patrol the facility
during music events?
Yes 3 No -3
If no, please explain:
2. Has the City or its Police Department had problems with "off
site .security issues"? This could include drugs and alcohol
usage along with disorderly behavior, litter and vandalism
to private property.
Yes y NoZ-
If yes, is the problem here greater than elsewhere in the
community? �.
Yes 3 No I
Comments:
-Over-
3. Has the amphitheater required that drug health teams be in
attendance at certain concerts, (e.g. rock concerts) ?
Yes Z No 5
4 . Have you had problems with concert goers camping out either
on the facility site or on adjacent property prior to
certain concerts?
Yes 41 No Z
If yes, what kinds of problems have you experienced?
If yes, can it be controlled with on-site security?
5. Have the concert hours from 8: 00 p.m. to 10 :30 or 11 :00
p.m. created a problem as concert goers look for restaurants
etc. that would be open, but were closed, after the concert
let out?
Yes No 0
If yes, please describe :
6 . Has there been any impact on child protection agencies?
More specifically, have children been left unattended during
or after concerts thus requiring child protection agencies
to pick-up and care for the children?
Yes _ No 5
7 . What types of beverages and beverage licenses (liquor
licenses) have the various facilities made available?
8. Are any particular types of beverage licenses more or less
detrimental to the operation or community?
9. Can the community list specific benefits or damages to
immediately adjacent land uses (residential , commercial or
industrial) caused by either crowds, traffic or ncise?
Benefits? Yes 7 No Z
Damages? Yes 41 No
If v=s, please describe :
10. How many off—duty police officers are required for each type
of concert (not including theater security personnel) ? This
information should be provided on a officer per patron ratio
for the full range of offerings from a symphony orchestra to
a hard rock band.
11 . In retrospect, if the facility were now coming into your
community what would you do differently, or what additional
requirements would you impose?
Name
Phone
A - OF' OFFI .F
INTRODUCTION :
The construction of an outdoor music center/amphitheater has
been proposed for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. This facility
will have a seating capacity of 17 ,000 persons, including 5000
seats under a pavilion and 12,000 lawn seats. As part of the
review process preceding the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
the City of Shakopee is gathering and analyzing data on both the
proposed facility and on other similar facilities located
elsewhere in the United States.
We are requesting your participation in this endeavor by
answering the attached questions. Your response should only
require a few minutes of your time and will be greatly
appreciated by the City of Shakopee. We have also enclosed a
stamped addressed envelope for the return of the questionnaire.
if you have any questions please contact either Dennis Kraft or
Douglas Wise at (612) 445-3650. ( City of Shakopee)
Separate questionaires have been sent to the Mayor, Planning
Department, Police Department, City Engineer and Assessor' s
Office. You need only to cover your area of expertise.
Thank you for your cooperation.
OU-STIONS :
1. Has the amphitheater facility made a significant financial
contribution to the community in the form of property or
sales tax?
Property Tax : Yes 3 No �_ Not Sure
Sales Tax : Yes Z No Not Sure
Other Taxes:
2. Can the community state with some expertise or 'proven sales
records that property values have benefitted or been damaged
by the music center?
Commercial 3 3
_ndustiral _L
Residential
Open, Space
Damage
Commercial _
lndustiral
Residential 1_
Open Space
-Over-
within 1 /? mile 1 /2 to 1 mile l mile plus
No Affect
Commercial /
Industiral 7—
Residential 2 Z '7—
Open
Open Space Z
3. Has there been any spin off development in your community
that can be attributed to the amphitheater?
Yes _ No 45� Not Sure
If yes, please describe:
Name
Phone
CIT`_' ENGINEER
TNT RODUCT ION :
The construction of an outdoor music center/amphitheater has
been proposed for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. This facility
will have a seating capacity of 17 ,000 persons, including 5000
seats under a pavilion and 12,000 lawn seats. As part of the
review process preceding the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
the City of Shakopee is gathering and analyzing data on both the
proposed facility and on other similar facilities located
elsewhere in the United States.
We are requesting your participation in this endeavor by
answering the attached questions. Your response should only
require a few minutes of your time and will be greatly .
appreciated by the City of Shakopee. We have also enclosed a
stamped addressed envelope for the return of the questionnaire.
If you have any questions please contact either Dennis Kraft or
Douglas Wise at (612) 445-3650. ( City of Shakopee)
Separate questionaires have been sent- to- the Mayor, Planning
Department, Police Department, City Engineer and Assessor ' s
Office. You need only to cover your area of expertise.
Thank you for your cooperation.
OUESTION'S:
1. If there were no roadway improvements to provide access to
facility, what was the level of service of the roadway
before the facility opened ( either technical rating or
subjective rating)?
Level of service : A _ B y C 2 D _ F _
And what was the level of service of the roadway `2f— the
facility opened (either technical rating or subjective
rating)?
Level of service: A _ B Z C / D Z- F _
2. After the facility opened, did traffic generation oatterns
reflect what was forecasted (arrival times & volumes) from
the traffic management plan for the facility?
Yes /11/ No
-Over-
3. Describe the nature of the traffic problems that have been
experienced, if any , and what was ( could be ) done to
alleviate them?
Name
Phone
MAYOR
INTRODUCTION:
The construction of an outdoor music center/amphitheater has
been proposed for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. This facility
will have a seating capacity of 17 ,000 persons, including 5000
seats under a pavilion and 12 ,000 lawn seats. As part of the
review process preceding the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit
the City of Shakopee is gathering and analyzing data on both the
proposed facility and on other similar facilities located
elsewhere in the United States.
We are requesting your participation in this endeavor by
answering the attached questions. Your response should only
require a few minutes of your time and will be greatly
appreciated by the City of Shakopee. We have also enclosed a
stamped addressed envelope for the return of the questionnaire.
If you have any questions please contact either Dennis Kraft or
Douglas Wise at (612) 445-3650. ( City of Shakopee)
Separate questionaires have been sent to the Mayor, Planning
Department, Police Department , City Engineer and Assessor ' s
Office. You needonly to cover your area of expertise.
Thank you foryourcooperation.
OUESTIONS , _
1 . Has the facility made an overall positive or negative
contribution to the community - would you consider it to be
a strong community asset?
Positive Negative Not Sure
Comment:
2. . What is the general public' s perception of the facility?
a) It creates major problems in terms of noise, litter,
etc. in the area immediately surrounding the facility.
Yes Z No Z
If yes, please describe :
-Over-
,3• Has the community created a lay board to review the annual
concert schedule?
Yes N o �_ A&1/SriP
If yes , can the lay board actually prohibit certain
performances?
4 . Do any of the facilities have problems with on-site lighting
affecting off-site property owners?
Yes _ No `/ Not Sure
5. Would you or the city choose to have an amphitheater in your
city again?
Yes / No Yes, if properly located
Please describe preferred location requirements:
6 . Please feel free to make any other comments you feel will
help us in our review of the proposed amphitheater.
Name
Phone
Comments On Questions
CITY ENGINEERS
Blossom Music Center - Cuyahga Falls, Ohio
Question 93 - "Traffic exceeded expectations resulting in traffic
congestion at entrance & street intersections. "
Starwood Amphitheatre - Nashville. TN
Question 93 - "There have been no traffic delays. Normal flow of
traffic resumes in a reasonable time. ,,
Met Center - Bloomington, MN
Question 93 - "Traffic direction required for peak events .
Congestion for 1 hour before and after peak events. "
Poplar Creek - Hoffman Estates, IL
Question 93 - "Extreme capacity problems when emptying lots. In
addition, area development since theatre opened was added to
overall traffic. However, when you dump 13-15 ,000cars out on 2-
Four lane roads, there' s bound to be problems. "
Pin Knob Music Center - Clarkston, MI
Question 93 - "The evening rush hour traffic coincided with
traffic for music center. To alleviate some of the traffic a
schedule would have to be kept to work around high peak traffic
times. "
Meriweather Post Pavilion - Columbia, MD
Question 93 - "The corporation owning the facility has :
A. Provided security and parking lot attendants to channelize and
direct traffic entering or exiting the site.
B. Funded additional county police for traffic control of major
roadways leading to site. Control and restricted public roadway
movements during peak arrival and departure times are provided by
cones, flares, and uniformed police officers.
C . When facility is hosting a capacity crowd, surrounding road
system/traffic signals experience severe congestion. This will
be essentially alleviated when interchange at major
highway( currently under design by Maryland State Highway
Administration) provides high capacity access to facility.
D' ANNING DEPARTMENT
Blossom Music Center - Cuyahaga Falls, Ohio
Question 93 - "Fairly close proximity"
Question 95 - "Benefits: Economic; Damages: Traffic Congestion,
Litter. "
Question 98 - "All types for on premises purchase & comsumption"
"Carry-out is out of the question"
Question 912 - "Nothing/None"
Question 913 - "Assets ; Contribution to community culture and
entertainment, stimulus to local economy through tourism.
Liabilities ; Temporary traffic congestions, litter, and other
problems attendant to large gatherings . NOTE : Assets far
outweigh liabilities. "
Shoreline Amphitheatre - Montain View, CA
Question 63 - Buffers, orientation, etc. larely mitigate (nearby)
sound complaints. However, we have been suprised to find that
certain weather conditions (ie, low inversion layer) can bounce
sound several miles away, leaving "quiet" areas in between.
Complaints from 4 to 5 miles away.
Question 65 - Asset ; cultural activities, City identity ,
proximate entertainment, local jobs, etc.
Liabilities ; unpredictable noise complaints from several miles
away.
Question 68 - all types / No
Question 611 - Other taxes - % of gross to City which is
landlord.
Question 612 - None that I can think of at the moment that would
neccessarily be relevant to a Minnesota Site.
Starwood Amphitheatre - Nashville, TN
Question 63 - Facility is at outskirts of Built-up area, with
substantial open land (not open space which can be assured) in
the general vicinity. Space was "used" as a buffer.
Question 67 - Nothing unusual
Question 68 - .Beer Only / Liquor is percieved as detrimental
Question 612 - Perhaps closer accessibility scrutiny.
Question 613 - Only open air facility with large capacity
designed for concerts.
Met Center - Bloomington, MN
Question 63 - Sometimes up to one mile away.
Question 65 - Asset: Quality Hotel & Resturant Development.
Liability : Parking Problems, Traffic Congestion
Question 68 - Ligour, Wine & Beer
Question 611 - Other Taxes: Admissions tax
Question 612 - Require Free parking to eliminate queing on public
streets to get to gates.
Question 613 - Asset: Supports other local business
Liabilities: Creates admininstrative burdens.
Poplar Creek - Hoffman Estates, IL
No Comments
Meriweather Post Pavilion - Columbia, MD
Question 63 - Facility was designed for entertainment in the late
1960 ' s. Present entertainment noise level is much higher than
the facility is designed for. More residential units have been
built adjacent to this facility. People complain for about 1
mile.
Question 65 - Benefits merchants in immediate area of mall.
Creates problems with noise and cleanliness of the mall area.
Question 68 - Class D Beer & ligh Wine 7 day on-sale license.
Question 612 - Provide better sound buffer and better road
access; more parking facilities.
Question #13 - Assets; brings cultural activities, good tourist
business, community recognition, increases tax base
Liabilities; Noise, Traffic, parking issues.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Blossom Music Center - Cuyahaga Falls, Ohio
county
Question
deputy Private
sheriffs security Rock handles performerssite
don' t patrols along
likpolice
around.
Question #2 - We set up a specific enforcement team that patrols
surrounding roadways when concert crowd is over 10 ,000. During
11 concerts this year, this team has made 468 criminal arrests,
mostly alcohol related offenses. We usually issue a summons.
Question #7 - Sales of alcohol for on premises consumption only.
Question #8 - NO
Question #9 - ur
Orchestra" Damagesu facility h
only theproblemsmentioned in question e "House of the gp and
Question #10 - Seven
Questionla , £ , Bure you can get the
Traffic in & out, keepit moving bothin & out.
Starwood Amphittheatre - Nashville, TN
Question #2 - Problems with all music events where drugs and
alcohol exist - usually with young people. Certain types of
music bring more of these problems than others.
Question #3 - Medical units are at all concerts (Paramedics)
Question #7 - Beer
Question #8 - NO
Question #10 - Depends on type of concert & Budget
Question #11 - None not with police authority.
Met Center - Bloomington, MN
Question #1 -except possibly Only
the watch officersassigned
ofd to the event are present
the shift
Question #2 - Large numbers of young people concentrated in a
small area, using alcohol & drugs generate problems.
Question # 4 - Fights , Sexual assult , thefts , vehicle
accidents/injuries. Only control police security.
Question #7 - Metropolitan arena has a liqour license in a
private club. Beer available to adults almost all events.
Question #9 - Benefits are economical to resturants, Motels,
Bars. Damages - physical damage insignificant.
Question # 10 - Assignments are made based on type of event as
well as expected attendance. E .G. Neil Diamond concert 12
officers, Motley Crue 20 - 25 Officers. Both events about
15 ,000. Disney on ice 4 officers £or 8 ,000 patrons.
Question #11 - Ordinance regulating use of accural at rock
concerts which was just recently enacted in bloomington . A
written agreement detailing how the events will be policed and at
whose expense.
Poplar Creek - Hoffman Estates, IL
Question #3 - Minimum of 2 paramedics at all concerts
Question #4 - Only for Grateful Dead concert in 1984. They will
not be allowed back.
Question # 7 -Soft Drinks, Beer, Wine, Liqour
Question #8 - NO
Question # 10 - Uniformed traffic ; under 5 , 000 patrons - 5
officers, 5-14 ,000 - 7 officers, 14-24,000 - 10 officers
Non-uniformed - Minimum of two up to nine depending on type of
performance.
Question # 11 - None. Facility was well planned and managed well
and well staffed out by Village prior to opening.
Pin Knob Music Center - Clarkston, MI
Question #2 - Usually within a one mile surrounding area , Also
traffic congestion.
Questions #4 - Tresspassing & disorderly partys / usually
controlled by full time police.
Question #9 - Vandelism, Larcenies, Drunk Drivers, reckless
driving.
Question #10 - Uniforms at major traffic points. 4-8 Symphony 20-
30 Hard rock.
Question #11 - Engineering to move traffic in & out smoothly.
Meriweather Post Pavilion - Columbia, MD
See Attachments they sent.
ASSESSOR' S OFFICE
Shoreline Amphitheater - Mountain View, CA
Question #3 - However, a conference center & hotel are in the
foundation stage.
Met Center - Bloomington, MN
Question #1 - Other Taxes - Entertainment, Payable to the State
Question #3 - NO • Most of the development in the area is benefit
from the airport.
Poplar Creek - Hoffman Estates, IL
Question #1 - Other taxes; admissions Tax 65,000 per year
MAYOR'S
Poplar Creek - Hoffman Estates,
Question #6 - Management at Poplar Creek has been very supportive
of the community and has made a concerted effort to avoid or
correct any problems that arise. An amphitheatre can be a real
asset if properly managed.
Starwood Amphitheatre - Nashville, TN
Question #5 - Direct arterial access ; separation buffering
(distance and regulatory) from residential areas.
Question #6 - Realistic , plausible market study in support of
facility.
Pin Knob Music Center - Clarkston, MI
Question #1 - Not a strong Asset
Question #2 - Litter along roads , Noise from amplifiers ,
tresspassing on property around theatre.
Question # 5 - Must have major highway to allow flow of traffic
other than local two lane road.
Question #6 - Type of concerts to be held make a big difference
in problems created by theatre goers.
Meriweather Post Pavilion - Columbia, MD
Question #2 - Residential areas which grew up after the pavilion
was in place have complained about excessive noise.
THE
7 SCOTTLAND
COMPANIES
September 18, 1987
City of Shakopee
Mayor Reinke and Councilmembers
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Starwood Music Center
Dear Mayor Reinke and Councilmembers:
We commenced the review process for Starwoods in November, 1986.
Since then we have submitted a great deal of information to you in the
form of the application, EAW, reports from traffic, sound, engineering
and real estate valuation experts.
There have been numerous meetings before the Planning Commission
concerning the conditional use permit application and several meetings
before the Council on the proposed licensing ordinance. During this
time period we have also responded orally and in writing to comments
made by others.
The conditional use permit is now before the Council and the Assistant
City Attorney has opined that the review by you is "de novo" which
requires all interested parties to start again in his/her presentation
of the information.
We understand from City Staff that copies of all prior information
submitted to the City has been forwarded to you.
Given this situation, we are not sure how detailed a presentation you
want us to give next week. We would need at least two hours to give
our complete presentation, starting with fact "one" . We are sure the
opponents would also use a considerable amount of time to start at
fact "one" from their perspective. However, we assume that such a
procedure would not be the best. use of everyone's time since the
record is so complete at this time.
Therefore, unless someone on the Council asks us to give the full
presentation next week, we will provide only a quick overview of the
project and respond to any questions. We ask that all prior
information submitted be made a part of the record before the City
Council, so all of it need not be repeated by us or others unless you
want us or others to do so.
In order to expedite our presentation next week, we wanted to
summarize the information submitted to date as we did for the Planning
Commission in our letters of July 23 , 1987 and August 20, 1987.
Instead of restating that summary and because we do not know of any
new information of consequence submitted after these letters, we
present them (attached to this letter) to you as our summary
P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road .Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612]445-3242
concerning the present status of our application and for you
convenience.
Needless to say, there is considerable interest in the Starwood
application locally (and regionally) . Because of that fact and
because we do not know what questions or concerns the Council may have
on Tuesday night (some of which we may not be able to answer then) and
because the licensing ordinance is still being reviewed by the
Council, we ask you to consider the taking of testimony etc. on
Tuesday, then continue the review of the application to another
meeting so all parties have an opportunity to respond in writing to
those questions.
In closing, we ask you to consider the following concerning the
questions most frequently asked during this process:
Will the transportation system work adeguately?
Yes. We operate in off peak hours, never during rush hour.
Minnesota Department of Transportation has approved the traffic
analysis in the EAW. Staff has recommended some precautionary
conditions for the permit. The MPCA and the City will have
continuing control over traffic through the Indirect Source
Permit.
Will off site sound be adequately controlled?
Yes, The EAW analysis shows how and why. We will meet City and
state standards. The City and the MPCA will have continuing
control over sound through the Indirect Source Permit, City
ordinances, the conditional use permit and state standards.
Will there be an unacceptable level of problems related to
patrons on the site or coming and going Prom the site?
No. The site is in the middle of a 2,000 acre mixed use park.
The roads to the site do not pass through residential areas (as
they do at some facilities) . We will not book performers who
tend to attract patrons some of whom may be undesirable. We have
a great security program and will modify it as requested by the
City or Chief of Police.
Very truly yours,
�'v-- v
Bruce D. Malkerson
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
THE SCOTTLAND COMPANIES
BDM:jhl
cc John Anderson
Dennis Kraft
Doug Wise
Julius Collar
Rod Kress
THE
Or,V
SCOTTLAND
COMPANIES
July 23, 1987
Chairwoman Sane Van Maldeghem
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Starwood Music Center
Dear Chairwoman Van Maldeghem
and Members of the Planning Commission:
I. Overview
As you know we gave a detailed presentation to the
Planning Commission on June 18, 1987 concerning
Starwood Music Center. Several questions were asked by
Planning Commission members and we said we would
respond to them in writing before or at the
continuation of the public hearing on July 30, 1987.
This letter will answer those questions and provide
some additional information on other aspects of the -
project.
II. Ouestions Asked By Planning Commission Members On June
18 , 1987
A. How does the project meet the criteria for a
Conditional Use Permit in the City's zoning code?
Ordinance:
"A. Criteria for Granting Use Permits. In granting a
conditional use permit, the Planning Commission
shall consider 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
following findings where applicable: "
Response: The word "surrounding "or surround" is
defined in Webster's Dictionary as follows: "to cause
to be encircled on all or nearly all sides; enclose. "
We or other industrial users own all of the land
surrounding the project for at least 3/4 mile. There
has been no testimony that there is any adverse effect
on the occupants of these surroundinglands. In fact,
we have numerous letters of support from the owners
and occupants of the land within 3/4 mile of the
project which are attached as Exhibits Al-6.
P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612]445-3242
ordinance:
111. That the conditional use will not be injurious to
the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity. "
Response: The word "immediate" is defined in Webster's
Dictionary as "not separated in space; in direct
contact; closest; nearest adjoining. " The word
"vicinity" is defined as "being near or close by. " The
word substantial as "considerable, ample, large. " In
this case we are surrounded by industrial, recreational
and commercial uses for at least 3/4 mile. There are
numerous letters in the record of property owners in
that area in support of the project. There is no
testimony to the contrary. In fact, the City' s
Industrial Commerce Commission has endorsed the project
unanimously. There is no testimony of adverse effect
on present, future uses or property values. In fact
several owner's have stated in writing that the
existence of Canterbury Downs in the industrial
district has been helpful to their businesses and
Starwoods likewise would be helpful.
There has been a suggestion that the project may have
an adverse effect on the ability to sell a home 3/4
mile away or that a specific potential buyer (out of
hundreds of potential buyers looking in the market) may
have stated that he/she would not want to buy a home if
the project is approved. That may be true. Similar
statements are made when a school, church, hospital, or
other homes are planned to be built by an existing home
for sale. That doesn't mean the use can or should be
denied. Nor does it mean that property values are
Substantially reduced. We do not believe that the
analysis of property values 3/4 mile away is relevant
under the zoning code. Even if it were relevant, there
is no appraisal testimony and analysis to that effect
and in fact, there has never been any similar argument
in regard to the impact of the racetrack which is
closer to homes. I have heard similar statements
raised by opponents to projects in my 14 years as a
land use attorney, but I have never seen a professional
unbiased analysis to support such a statement. Quite
frankly, it is usually possible to convince some
realtor to say something on the subject, pro or con -
but an independent appraiser who is trained to do such
an analysis rarely can conclude there is a substantial
adverse effect.
2
In this case, I think everyone agrees that the
adverse effect of noise from the Bypass which will be
55 dBA inside the homes may have an adverse effect on
property values, but our projected sound is
dramatically less at all times.
ordinance:
"2. That the establishment of the conditional use will
not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding vacant property for
uses predominant in the area. '-
Response:
rea. "Response: There are letters of support from the owners
of vacant and developed property in Canterbury Park.
(Exhibit Al-6) . There is a letter from John Shardlow,
an independent expert planner, stating that there is
no adverse impact and the use is compatible.
(Exhibit C) .
Moreover, as owners of 1, 000 acres of vacant land and
400 acres of developed land around the project, we
would not allow a use which was adverse to its present
or future development.
The compatability of our project with present and
future business and industrial uses can also be seen by
the decision of Curt Carlson to establish a 3, 000 seat
anphitheater at his world headquarters building in the
midst of his new 300 acre, 600 million dollar business
park in the City of Minnetonka. (See Exhibit D) .
ordinance:
113. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage,
and other necessary facilities have been or are
being provided. "
Response: The EAW, reviewing state agencies and city
staff have found that the project will be serviced
adequately in all these areas. In fact, the project
will discharge less sewer than the typical industrial -
users. The roads will be used in non-peak hours.
Ordinance:
1-4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken
to provide sufficient off-street parking and
loading space to serve the proposed use. "
Response: All reviewing agencies and city staff have
not objected to our plans in this regard.
3
ordnance:
"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. "
Response: All reviewing agencies and city staff have
not objected to the project in this regard. The only
question raised by some people concerns the possibility
of sound being heard by people who live in the city.
Two independent sound experts have analyzed the off
site sound in great detail and have concluded that the
sound off site would be limited and when the loudest
performers were performing (which is at a limited
number of events each year) the sound level for a
limited period of time may reach 35 dBA outside
homes at Dean's Lake in comparison with:
a) 50-52 dBA outside from the auto racetrack
b) 60-65 dBA outside from airplane overflights
c) 55 dBA inside home from the Bypass
d) 40-45 dBA normal background sound before the
construction of the Bypass.
Our project will always be well within state and city
guidelines which are the guidelines which must be
applied in the analysis of our application.
Ordinance:
116. The use, in the opinion of the Council, is
reasonably related to the overall needs of the
city and to the existing land use. '-
Response:
se. "Response: This condition relates by its terms only to
Council action, however our project easily meets this
test. The City Council and Planning Commission have
repeatedly over the years found appropriate and
approved an ordinance which allows this use as a
permitted, and recently a permitted or conditional use.
So there should be no debate about the appropriateness
generally of this use in this district. Moreover,
there are numerous benefits to the City fromthisuse
which are stated elsewhere in this letter.
4
Ordinance:
117. 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. "
Response: As stated previously, the City Council and
Planning Commission have repeatedly over the years
found and approved commercial recreation uses as a
permitted, and now a permitted or conditional use in
this zoning district.
Ordinance:
118. The useis not in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City. "
Response: Commercial recreational uses have been a
permitted use under the zoning code for this district
for years before, during and after the review and
adoption of the City's comprehensive plan by the City
and as part of the review of the City's Comprehensive
Plan by the Metropolitan Council in 1981.
Commercial recreation uses were also reviewed again by
the City as part of the rereview of the Comprehensive
Plan after the racetrack was approved and during the
racetrack district study.
The planner for the Metropolitan Council has expressed
a desire for an amendment from their perspective which
is not required by law but perhaps should be considered
further if the City approves the Conditional use
Permit.
Ordinance:
"9 . The use will not cause traffic hazard or
congestion. '-
Response:
ongestion. "Response: The EAW analysis shows that the project will
meet all City, State and Federal guidelines in regards
to traffic. Moreover, we still must obtain an Indirect
Sorce Permit (ISP) from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency ( MPCA) and must abide by any conditions related
to traffic.
In addition, we have provided a traffic management. plan
to the City and if necessary, we will modify it from
time to time as the City may request. MN DOT has
stated there will be no traffic problems.
(See Exhibits 1 and 2)
5
Ordinance:
1110. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely
affected because of curtailment of customer trade
brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness. "
Response: There is no testimony of an adverse effect
on existing businesses nearby and there is ample
testimony in letters from businesses and the ICC
endorsement in support of the project.
Ordinance:
I'll. The developer shall submit a time schedule for
completion of the project. "
Response: We have submitted a time schedule. We hope
that the Planning Commission will approve the
Conditional Use Permit on July 30, 1987, subject to
approval of the EAW by the City Council, that the
Council will approve the EAW in August, that the
MPCA will approve the ISP in late August, so
we can commence grading in September, construction in
October through May, with an opening in June, 1988.
Ordinance:
1112. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of
the property to the Administrator. "
Response: We have done so.
Miscellaneous:
In addition to the quick summary of facts in support of
each of the above, we incorporate by reference all of
the detailed studies, memoranda and letters of support
on file with the City.
We believe we meet the criteria of the ordinance in
all respects. If there is some criteria which the
Planning Commission believes we do not address, we
would appreciate learning specifically what it is and
what isrequiredfrom us to meet that criteria so we
can see if it is possible.
We have mentioned before that if this use were on a 150
acre site instead of an 86 acre site, it would be a
permitted use where no criteria are applied so it is
hard to see how we can not meet these criteria since we
see no reason why an 86 acre project in this case does
not have all of the same characteristics as a 150 acre
site which is a permitted use.
6
In addition, as City Staff has pointed out before, a
conditional use is a permitted use except that
compliance with reasonable and necessary conditions may
be required from the applicant before the project may
be built.
III. Ouestions Asked By Planning Commission Members
Ouestion•
How do you support the findings for a conditional use
permit?
Response:
See II and III above.
Ouestion:
How will off-site problems be handled? -
Response:
(1) Within 12 hours of every performance we will pick
up litter, if any, along the roads in Canterbury
Park.
(2) We will have off-site traffic personnel as
needed.
(3) If there is any off-site disturbance or
trespassing reported to us, we will immediately
inform the Police or do whatever else the Chief
of Police requires of us.
(4) If there is any other program you want us to
consider, please inform us.
Ouestion•
What sort of beverages will you serve?
Response:
Beer, wine, soft drinks.
Ouestion• -
How will airplane noise affect their performances?
7
Response:
Based on our discussions with others who have similar
overflights, we do not believe there will be an adverse
effect.
Question:
Are there enough off duty police officers available to
provide the security suggested?
Response: ,
Yes. There is a large pool of off duty police officers
in the region available. We will implement whatever
program the City Chief of Police requests in this
regard. (See Exhibit H) .
Ouestion•
Will the lighting cause problems?
Response:
We stated in our conditional use permit application
that we would have 1 foot candle within the enclosed
area and 1/2 foot candle in the parking lot and all
lights would focus to the ground similar to those at
Canterbury Inn. The site is surrounded on two sides by
forest. The light will not be seen off site.
Ouestion•
Will residential property values be affected?
Response:
No. For all of the reasons stated above. In addition,
the site is separated from residential areas by 3/4
mile, industrial zoned areas, and a Bypass highway.
Traffic to and from the project does not pass
throuthe
residential areas. The City has recently approved
platting and development of hundreds of residential
lots so._it is clear that recreational activities are
not adversely affecting residentialvalues or
not spend
development otherwise property owners
the money to develop their land for residential
purposes.
Ouestion:
Can the conditional use permit be revoked if the user
violates the terms of the permit?
8
Response:
Yes. The ordinance clearly so provides. The Indirect
Source Permit to be issued by the State will also so
provide. The City's nuisance and noise level
ordinances also allow the City to enjoin the use if
not operated properly.
Ouestion•
Will the construction activity cause problems?
Response:
No. Construction will involve grading by several earth
movers, construction of several small buildings similar
to Canterbury Retail Center and the Pavillion. The
magnitude of construction is less than the Canterbury
Inn with far fewer construction workers needed. All
soil needed is on site.
Ouestion•
What will the future use be for the 10 acres to the
southeast portion of the site?
Response:
That property is zoned industrial and can only be
developed in conformance with the zoning code. We have
no present plans for that site. (A question was raised
if that 10 acre .site was adequately delineated as not
being part of the project. The property line shown in
the exhibits submitted does exclude it although it may
be hard to read on the reduced copies. )
Ouestion•
Will the project adversely affect the development of
the remainder of Canterbury Park?
Response:
No. We. previously stated the reasons why we did not
believe there would be an adverse effect (See Exhibit
I) . Subsequently, we reviewed this question with a
well known land use planner who represents numerous
cities and he agreed with us (See Exhibit C) .
Recently, Curt Carlson announced the ground breaking
and construction of a 3 , 000 seat amphitheater in the
middle of a 300 acre, 600 million dollar development
(See Exhibit D) .
9
Our industrial neighbors agree there is no adverse
effect and some feel it is beneficial
(See Exhibits Al-6) . The City's Industrial -
commerce Commission has endorsed the project. (See
Exhibit G) .
Ouestion:
The Metropolitan Council has control over the MUSA line
so not all of the presently industrial zoned land can
be serviced by municipal sewer.
Response:
That is true. However, there are approximately 1, 000
acres of vacant industrial land presently with the MUSA
line. The Metropolitan Council has historically
extended the MUSA line prior to the depletion of the
supply of available served area. This occurred last
year in. Canterbury Park and in Shakopee residential
areas. Moreover, many dry industries are allowed to
develop in large lots without municipal sewer.
Ouestion•
Are there examples of amphitheaters, or similar uses in
the middle of Industrial Parks?
Response:
Yes. We have given similar examples previously. No
fact situation is exactly the same. Other examples
recently learned of include Curt Carlson's development
and the new Music Center proposed for the middle of an
industrial area in Indianapolis (See Exhibits J) .
Ouestion•
How will a 25 cents per patron admission tax raising
$100,000 each year beneficially impact the funding of
County Road 18 Bridge?
Response:
Our $100,000 a year allows the County, if it so
chooses, to sell a bond of a much greater amount, fund
the bridge and pay off that bond from further admission
tax revenues. The same is true for admission tax from
Canterbury Downs, Renaissance Festival and Valley Fair.
Moreover, although the cost of the bridge is $40
million, 2 .4 million dollars must be funded by Scott
County.
10
IV. Benefits To Communitv
We think it is important to repeat a portion of our
letter to you of June 1, 1987. These benefits to the
City are real, substantial and not controverted.
A question has been asked "what benefit is this
facility to the City of Shakopee" . I£ this were a 150
acre site, the project would be a permitted use and
there would be no review by the City. We have reduced
the project size to 86 acres so it would be a
conditional use permit. Neither the City ordinance,
Minnesota Statutes, or the courts require such a
statement of benefit.
However, we are prepared to respond to any inquiry
about the project. We believe the project has numerous
benefits to the City which include the following. We
realize that not everyone will agree as to the amount
of the benefit for each factor and some may believe
that a specific factor is not a benefit.
1. The project will create additional real estate
taxes in each year on a facility which will cost
$6 to $8 million to construct.
The project is not in a tax increment financing
district so all of the new taxes are allocated to
the City, County and School District each year.
We will pay for any off-site police traffic
personnel, as needed, just as Canterbury Downs
does presently. So there is little or no cost to
the City.
2. Assuming the County Board passes the $.25 per
patron admission tax, the County will collect
approximately $100, 000 each year to be used
solely for the construction of the Highway 18
Bridge to improve access to the City, especially
needed during rush hour.
3 . Upon development of the site, the project will
pay to the City. deferred assessments on roads
previously built and paid for by the City.
4. The facility will result in increased awareness
of the location of the industrial park, leading
to additional commercial and industrial. tax base
and jobs.
11
5. The patrons coming and going to and from the
facility will purchase retail goods and services,
meals and lodging within the City, similar to the
increased sales from other attractions.
6. There will be up to 20 full-time jobs and 300
seasonal jobs. A high percent of the Racetrack
seasonal workers live in Shakopee; a higher
percentage live in Scott County. The same will
be true with Starwood. The seasonal jobs are a
boon to all ages of those unemployed or
underemployed in the area. Many of the jobs are
second jobs for those underemployed and are.
summer jobs for high school and college students.
The wage rates will vary from $4 .00 to $10.00 per
hour.
7. The facility may be used by others in the City
for:
a) special events
b) town meetings
c) cultural events
d) fairs
e) religious services
f) other uses where you need a stage and
pavilion.
S. The facility will offer a variety of musical
entertainment for the citizens and ability
to raise money for local charities.
9 . The facility and its employees will purchase
goods and services from local merchants.
V. Summary
We announced last November that we would chart a slow
and deliberative course of development. We have done so
over the last nine months (in fact the racetrack development
was reviewed and approved by the City in approximately 4
months) . We have hired the best independent experts in the
state to analyze all aspects of the project. You have
received..their studies and conclusions. The reviewing
agencies of the state have essentially agreed with them. We
believe we have met or exceeded all ordinance requirements
of the City. (See letters previously provided and Exhibit
K1-4. ) But, .most importantly, we and many leading citizens,
companies, and groups in Shakopee have endorsed the project
and agree that it .will be beneficial to the City. We hope
we have answered all of your questions and that you will
12
vote to approve the conditional use permit on July 30, 1987
so we can proceed to the City council and through the final
state permitting procedures.
If you have any questions or desire any additional
information prior to the July 30th meeting, please call.
Very truly yours,
THE SCOTTLAMD COMES
_ e
Bruce D. Malkerson
Executive Vice President
�
Jeffrge
Project Manager
DBM:jhl
cc: Mayor and City Council
John Anderson
Dennis Kraft
Doug Wise
13
_-Y EXHIBIT A-1 -
L W1�LL a PO's as„ROPES. 612/ 45.2020
° 6121446 Wn
C O R P O R A T I G rJ 8001328-6441
June 26, 1987
SCOTTLAND,,-INC - - -
P- o-'Box 50-, _1244 Canterbury Road _
Shakopee,.MN - 55379 -
ATTENTION:. Mr. ..Jeff Siegel
Dear- Jeff :
"'"`-In response to' your inquiry'as"to' what impact, if' any, Canterbury -.
-._ Downs.,has- had ;ona-our .-i ndus tri_al.operations, I am very,:happy tol..:M_ , _
z. . comment that . the- impacts. we have experienced are favorable .. _
The hours of . operation at Canterbury: have made traffic, problems
,. unnoticable. we -. have-_had no instances _of . any other-:.;type of.
�,- problems. In contrast,' the influx -of entertainment industry has
=shad the following positive impact.
•^ Created :motel accomodationssorely needed for our out-of-town
_. ......
guests .
The ownership of Club House season tickets has provided us with
an excellent sales promotion; wherein, we offer the use of our
tickets to our customers provided they stop at our facilities to
<-pick-up the pass. - ...
You also inquired as to what impact the proposed open air theater
might- haveon--us. -- As the intended useage is evening and
-
weekends, -we do not feelthere would- be any more negative impact
rthan -we have experienced by Canterbury Downs, Valley Fair,. or- the
::
Canterbury.. Inn , _:which has been. . nil .. Wewouldview. . the _
Tentertainment provided'.by such a 'complex "as anadditionalsales
� :-.and marketingtoolthatwouldlikely be used by our company.
- I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions
rely, -
C114 Nolan, -
President
RJN:gh
A-2
The Toro Company
6 Valley moustrial &vd.,Stakopee,Minnesota 553]9
612/937-330
July B, 1987
Mr. Jeff Siegel
The Scotland Companies
1244 Canterbury. Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Jeff:
What effect did having an entertainment facility such as Canterbury
Downs have in making our decision to move to the Industrial Park here
in Shakopee?
The decision to move the metal components manufacturing facility to
the Industrial Park in Shakopee was based largely on two factors; the
first was due to the fact that we already owned property and had art
unused building here in the Park and, therefore, was the most
preferable from a cost standpoint. Secondly, the demographics of the
existing employment population showed this to be the best location for
the most employees if we, in fact, had to make a move from the
Bloomington location.
The traffic issue was discussed as a potential negative but
discussions with other Park residents led us to believe that such
problems were minimal and, in fact, did riot then serve as any kind of
potential deterrent.
We prefer being part of a community who strives for ways to keep the
area fiscally strong. We feel that the integration of recreational
facilities such as Valley Fair, Canterbury Downs and the proposed
Music Center with equally clean and attractive industrial facilities
such as Toro and others, provides no basis for conflict so long as all
of the businesses are managed prudently and .with respect for each
other.
Sincerely,
Stanle ey
Personnel Ma ager
2009sn
A-3
4700 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL BLVD . SO -
SHAKOPEE , MN . 55379
PHONE : 612 - 445 - 8600
- - CABLE : PDESIGN TELEX : 29 - 0839
poullot.deAgn/
June 25, 1987
Mr. Jeffrey L. Siegel
The Scottland Companies
P. 0. Box 509 _
1244 Canterbury Road
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Siegel:
Pouliot Designs is very satisfied with our location in
Canterbury Park. We are in favor of all of the attractions
which have developed in the Shakopee area and are particularly
thrilled to hear about the new Starwood project.
An entertainment complex such as Starwood will be an added
feature for our employees, as well as add to the local tax base. This
is particularly important, in that one of our major needs in this
area is for the new bridge to cross the Minnesota River. Any project
which will help in that development will be a great asset to this
community.
Very truly yours,
POULIOT DESIGNS CORR,POORAA�TION
Ted Pouliot
TAP/mjs
1'flt/ORRI Oi
T/ THOm4s
pI StRl6-Rf.
A-4
June 10, 1967
Mr. Douglas E. Wise
Shakopee City Planner
129 H First Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379 -
Re: Starwood Music Center
Dear Mr. Wise,
We had the distinct pleasure today of meeting with Jeff
Siegel, Project Manager for Scottland on the Starwood
Development.
It is quite obvious that everyone associated with this
undertaking is keenly aware of its impact on the area and is
committed to making Starwood a genuine asset to the community.
Raving had the opportunity to review our concerns over security
with Mr. Siegel, we welcome the project and look forward
enthusiqstically to opening night.
Please accept our thanks for providing a forum at which to
express our feelings and our assurance of continued support.
Best Regards,_
U, ,�,(1/)
Al Schafer
Manager Production and Facilities
Conklin Company,Inc.
Manufacturing Facililyand
Oistnimlion Center -
551uaneyParvO'M - cc: Jsmes D. Leonard
P.O.Box 155
Shakooea.MN 55379 Jeffrey Siegel, Scottland Companies
6:2id5-o'010
Ag Chemicals
Alcakoland end Planl
Claanemand Home Care
LuddOM S and COndltmogm
Hoofing Syslems _
5peca1lycoalmos
A-5
K. W. "O'BO'BRIEN
President
Denny's CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Bus:612-4454143 3549 Eagle Creek Blvd.- P.O. Box 11
Shakopee, Minn. 55379
July 20, 1987
Mr. Jeffrey Siegel
Starwood Project Manager
The Scottland Companies
P. 0. Box 509
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Starwood Music Center
Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Siegel :
Danny's Construction Company is very interested in being a
part of the construction of another major facility in the Shakopee
area. We are a steel erection contractor founded in Shakopee in
1970 and are interested in the promotion of this area. Enclosed
please find a brochure that depicts some of the construction
projects we have been involved in. Please contact us when bid -
drawings and documents are available.
Very truly yours,
DANNY'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
By
A. Wilson
Vice President
Enclosure
1 .3.27
LAW/cfs
A-6
,sa���yZuU--ae
Murphy's Landing
MiendoL Valley Auloretieu lua Aval�ee of 1940-]960
2167 E. Highway 101 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
(912) 445 6900
July 17, 1967
Mr. Jeffrey Siegel
P.O. Box 509
1244 Canterbury Road
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Siegel:
We have followed the proposed Starwood Music Center project
with great interest.
Shakopee has a wide spectrum of outdoor recreational attractions
that cannot be equaled in the Midwest. The addition of this
fine facility offering a wide range of musical and theatrical
events would complete the overall needs of all those visiting
our community.
Looking at the concern you have shown regarding the environmental
issues; aesthetic design; employment opportunities; and movement
of traffic; I feel you have addressed all the major issues
surrounding any new development. Best yet, the tax revenues
generated to the City of Shakopee without any city investment
is a real plus.
Murphy' s Landing prides itself on being a rich educational
interpretation of the Minnesota River Valley, which nourishes
the mind and provides fun and relaxation for the visitor. I
see Starwood Music Center providing fine musical events that will
impactallour lives in a positive manner.
Regards, :
ja.�4r;,L1 1 71 LuC9L
Marjorie R./ Henderson
Pre ident/Director
MRH:rae
EXHIBIT B --- ---__I
; y .
; I
s 1
a
:.
40-
SS
WCRS7 CASE MU$ICdCENTER
°3_ , u3E�OE VEL
� _ 9
•goa,ZN 9G�.
R � O p
�EE� •- 8
cp C
vs
:� 9
EXHIBIT C
JUL 231987
( 1 BAN The Scottland Companies
CONSULTING PLANNERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH
SUITE 210
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
6123393300
22 July 1987
Bruce D. Malkerson
Executive Vice President
Jeffrey Singel
Project Manager, Starwood Music Center
Scottland Companies
P.O. Box 509
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Discussion of the Issue of the Compatibility of Large Scale Recreational
Facilities With Industrial Parks
Dear Bruce and Jeff:
I am writing in response to your request for my comments regarding the issue
of the relative compatibility of large scale recreational and cultural facilities
with industrial parks. I understand that you are not only interested in my
general opinions on this topic, but also my expectations regarding the
compatibility of the proposed Starwood Music Center and the existing
Canterbury Park.
It is somewhat ironic that you should ask me this question now. Over the
past several weeks I have been preparing a review of the Urban Land
Institutes' Mixed-Use Development Handbook for publication in the fall issue of
Common Ground, the National Journal of the Community Associates Institute.
As a result, I have nearly completed a rather intensive analysis, both of the
general concept of mixed use development and several particular mixed use
developments .throughout the country.
Without launching into a jargon filled, esoteric history of mixed use
development, suffice it to say that the practice of combining different land
uses in a single place is virtually as old as the history of human settlement.
It was really just with the wide spread acceptance of the concept of zoning
(the separation of land uses into districts) that the development patterns in
our cities moved away from mixed uses.
The logic behind the concept of zoning is that the best way to achieve
compatibility between different uses is through physical separation. Today
there is a wide and growing acceptance of the fact that different uses can
exist in close proximity to each other. Successful mixed use development
begins with a sophisticated and complete analysis of the ways in which the
MalkersWSiegel, 22 July 1987 Page 2
proposed uses will actually function and, therefore, the actual off-site impacts
associated with these uses. The regulations to govern these developments
must also be flexible enough to include specific performance standards related
to actual impacts as opposed to any arbitrarily established standards.
One of the principal advantages in mixed use developments isthe fact that
different uses experience their most intensive use periods (peak periods) at
different times. Traffic and parking are two of the most frequent areas in
which this fact can be used to its greatest advantage. By combining uses
with different peak periods in the same development, it provides the
opportunity to intensify the overall use of the area without making it
necessary to add substantially to the size and capacity of streets and parking
areas.
From the material that I have reviewed regarding this proposal it is clear
that the peak use periods for this facility will not correspond with those
associated with the vast majority of the businesses in the park. I also know
enough from my research and experience to conclude that there are some very
good reasons to locate recreational and cultural facilities in industrial areas,
as opposed to residential, or even general commercial areas. These facilities
are most actively used at times when the surrounding industrial businesses are
either not using the area roadways, or are using them to a very limited
extent.
I might also add that I have always felt that the opening of the T.H. 169
bypass is the key to the future success of this portion of Shakopee. I am
very encouraged by the progress that is being made toward that end.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that large and small scaled recreational and
cultural facilities have and will continue to be successfully integrated into
industrial areas. There is no logical basis for a conclusion that there is
anything fundamentally incompatible about these uses. I have reviewed the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet covering this proposal, as well as
numerous letters from industrial business owners within Canterbury Park.
There is nothing in this material that would lead me to conclude that the
proposed Starwood Music Center could not be successfully integrated into
Canterbury Park. The City of Shakopee should be able to adequately address
any remaining concerns through its conditional use permitting process.
Sincerely,
DAHLGREN, SH�ARRDLOW, AND�UUBBANN, INC.
John Shardlow, AICP
Vi resident
SELECTED CLIENT AND REFERENCE LIST
City of Burnsville Minnesota Racetrack Inc.
Minnesota Shakopee, Minnesota
Linda Barton, City Director Bruce Malkerson, Attorney
City of. Mendota Heights New Horizon Homes, Inc.
Minnesota Plymouth, Minnesota
Orvil Johnson, City Administrator Robert Burger, President
City of Monticello Northland Development Co.
Minnesota Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
Gary Wieber, City Administrator James Stuebner, President
City of Roseville - Order of St. Benedict
Minnesota St. Joseph, Minnesota
Frank Rog, Parks Director Sister Kathleen Kalinowski
Dodge Nature Center - United Properties
West St. Paul, Minnesota Bloomington, Minnesota
James M. Malkowski Ken Stensby, President
Executive Director
Fine Associates, Inc. Amoco Oil Company
Minneapolis, Minnesota Mandan, North Dakota
Bill Fine, President W. A. Burns, Manager
Freshwater-Foundation- First Bank System
Navarre, Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota
Joe Rosillon (St. Anthony Falls)
Scott Hutton, Vice President
Good Value Homes Franklin National Bank
Blaine, Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota
Don Hardie, President Thomas Allen, President
General Mills American National Bank
St. Paul, Minnesota and Trust Company
John Schevenius St. Paul, Minnesota
David M. Hyduke, Sr. Vice Pres.
Hiner Properties, Inc. Briggs and Morgan
Arden Hills, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota
Gary Hiner, President Michael Galvin, Attorney
Jesco, Inc. Grossman, Karlin, Seigel & Brill
Edina, Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota
Chet Sazenski, President Josiah Brill, Jr., Attorney
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly &
Health Central Corp. Lindgren Ltd.
Golden Valley, Minnesota Bloomington, Minnesota
Peter Van Hauer, General Counsel Robert Hoffman, Attorney
MEPC American Properties, Inc. BWBR Architects
Minneapolis, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota
John Graham, Regional Manager Fritz Rohkohl, President
Metram Properties Company Robins, Zelle, Larson & Kaplan
Edina, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota
Vasco Bernardi, President Solly Robins, Attorney
Korsunky, Krank, Erickson Architects Strgar—Roscoe, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota Wayzata, Minnesota -
Ron Krank, President Frank Strgar, President
Pope Associates, Inc. Suburban Engineering, Inc.
St. Paul, Minnesota Fridley, Minnesota
Robert L. Pope, President William Jensen, President
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc. Wooddale Church
Roseville, Minnesota Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Otto Bonestroo, President Gordy Pearson, Ground Supervisor
Page 10,S.yway News,Tuesaay,July 14, 1967
Today's Business
vow
EXHIBIT D
.tom
t,qulnl
Fancy dig
Carlson breaks
soil for center
By Patrick Boulay
No one can deny that local business
mogul Curt Carlson hasvision and .
patience.
Last Saturday's ground breaking at
the mammoth-. .300-acre Carlson.
Center may not'seem like much. It
was only a ground-breaking-
ceremony,although
round-breakingceremony,although fancier than most
(700had accepted invitations at press
time) But Carlson haswaitedsince
1959 for the chance to lift a shovelful
of dirt to mark the beginnings of
mnstrucdon `for Carlson Cos'..new,
world headquarters. _
As development piolecta go, this is
oneof the more ambitious m the Twm
Cities,- according to industry: ob-
servem.Scheduled in phases over the
next decade at a co=t estimated at
near $600 million, construction.calls
for 4 million square feet of space in a
mixof buildings that include office,
residential;.retail, office/warehouse,
and hotel ,
All these buildings will be surrounded
by landscaping that includes a 22-acre
man-made lake.a 3,000-seat outdoor
amphitheater, jogging and walking
paths, and other amenities yet to be
s_,:sea
EXHIBIT E-1r
o0"ANESOrgy
JL1S ,
° Minnesota Department of Transportation C4,--.v ( 19eI
OF
� K
a
Pl
�¢ Transportation Building, St. Paul,MN 6545ii.,' op
hr 0 _
OF TRPS
July 13, 1987 Phone 296-1652''
Dennis Kraft
Community Development Director
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Starwood Music Center
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
District 5 (Shakopee, Scott Co. )
Dear Mr. Kraft:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has completed a
review of the above-referenced EAW. We anticipate that the proposed
project will cause little adverse impact to our transportation
facilities.
I£ you require additional information from Mn/DoT,-please contact
Carl Hoffstedt, Transportation Analysis Engineer at our District
Office in Golden Valley, phone number (612) 593-8540.
Sincerely, -
C- ""7'
Cheryl Heide, Environmental Coordinator
Environmental Services Section
An Equal Opp oreuni,,EmVlover
E-2
$F0.N6L5 <:661
DEPARTMENT : Mn/DOT — Operations Division STATE OF MINNESOTA
Golden Valley — District 5
Office Memorandum
DATE : July 6, 1987
TO : Leonard W. Levine
Commissioner
i
L�
FROM W.M. Crawford.'
District Engineer
PHONE : 593-8403
SUBJECT : Scott County Transportation Coalition
I am sending you copies of- letters from the Scott County Transportation
Coalition endorsing highway improvements in the northern Scott County area.
I believe you have already received one of the attached letters from the
Coalition in support of three important projects to the area as follows:
1. T.H. 101 Shakopee Bypass
2. T.A. 169 Bridge Replacement
3. CSAR 18 Bloomington Ferry Bridge Replacement
I support the above projects in the order stated and the trunk highway projects
should be.retained in Mn/DOT's work program for continued project development
and implementation as currently scheduled.
The coalition has been very active in pursuing funding for transportation and
specific projects in the area and I am sure they will continue to cooperate
with Mn/DOT in achieving mutual goals.
Attachments: (2) Scott County Transportation Coalition letters
cc: Mark Sttomwell, Scott Co. Commissioner
D.E. Differt
R.D. Borson
L.F. McNamara
D.E. Durgin
S.T. Povich
C.J. Hoffstedt
Central File
File (2) .
WMC:jj
(CJH)
EXHIBIT F
JUL 8 1987
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421
F� TO: The Scottland Conpanies
FROM: Barton-Asctman Associates, Inc.
ATE: July 8, 1967
SUB=: STA16=D TRAFFIC MANAGEMERr PLAN
As requested, Barton-Aschman has prepared a traffic management plan for the
Starwood Music Center to be located in the City of Shakopee_ As you review
this plan, please be advised that actual field conditions may vary and
undoubtedly, adjustments will be necessary or advisable as the Starwood
Music Center becomes more established and fans as well as staff become more
aware of the roadway network and site operations.
Our analysis was based on the assumption that during a peak year of
operation, a total of 51 events will be held. The expected attendance will
be as follow., :
Project Events
Expected Number of Total
Attendance Annual Events Attendance
17,000 5 - 85,000
9,000 8 72,000
7,000 11 77,000
5,000 7 35,000
3,500 20 70,000
TOTAL 51 339,000
Except for the five largest events (17,000 attendance), minimal congestion
will occur. For those 46 events, traffic control personnel may be required
during entering and exiting haus at the intersection of Canty Road 83 and
Twelfth Avenue. The only other assistance required will be directly related
to the site. .The remainder of this memorandum deals with those five major
annual events which are anticipated to attract an audience of 17,000 people.
When there is amajor audience of 17,000, peak hour arrivals will occur
between 7:30 and 8:30 P.M. Off-duty patrolmen may be required at the
itY'ersec-tion of CR 18 and TH 101 if the inbound Starwood traffic en=nYtes
the tail end of Canterbury Down exiting traffic Otherwise, traffic will
not pose a serious problem to the regional roadway network.
O
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
July 8, 1987 '
Page 2
Pattolmen will be sired at the CR 83 intersection with Twelfth Avenue for
a major performance. Traffic control personnel will also be required to
direct traffic into the facilities at the `our entrances (two off of Valley
Park Drive and two off of Twelfth Avenue). As traffic enters the site,
sufficient storage distance (a minimum of 600 feet for a major audience) has
to be provided to prevent backup onto Twelfth Avenue or Valley Park Drive.
To assist with dispersions of any potential backup problems, additional
parking at ticket salespersons (i.e. se=ity personnel) will be activated
to cover surges for incoming attendees.
Additional steps to be considered to assist with handling of inbound
atrende will include:
o Parking tickets will be presold to group ticket buyers, box seat
holders,. star card holders, etc.
o The use of parking coupon books will be investigated for frequent
repeat attendees. .
o Buses arriving at the site will be allaaed free parking.
Figure 1, attached, indicates measures to be employed for controlling
bound traffic at the site. Items to be used will include temporary barriers
similar to those currently being used at Canterbury to assure sufficient
storage for arriving traffic, traffic control personnel at all gates, and
on-site personnel as needed to direct parkers to their respective parking
spots.
Exiting traffic will require traffic control personnel at all exits from the
site. The north exit to Valley Industrial Bavevard South will be opened if
needed to assist with exiting traffic. However, traffic exiting from this
northern exit will be required to turn west at Valley industrial Boulevard
South.
As indicated in Figure 2, cones will be used to delineate traffic lanes
during peak events. In addition, signs will be provided as traffic
approaches CR 83 indicating that left lane traffic must turn left and right
lane traffic must turn right. Traffic control personnel will be provided as
needed at the following intersections:
o CR 83 aril Twelfth Avenue
o CR 83 and TH 101
o Valley Park Drive and Zi 101
0 CR 18 and TH 101
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
July 8, 1967 ,
Page 3
It is anticipated that the parking lot will be cleared within one hour after
a peak weekend event. However, should congestion occur it is the intention
of Starwood operators to meter traffic out of the site so as to alleviate
any congestion on regional roadways.
7kc
v kr
to Y �i
i
TFF
z D tFf
o - -
�
iY
A i i
S
Gt �
q' � 8r4
t ¢r �
i
i t
N
D
f I
O
O
YYY s
3
, a
^• o � � m _
ifq i —
D z
_ O
D O g
3 3 E 3
3 i i
I t 7 F
1
l
O • .0
O ' f -- -- -- ------ i � .
o —.J-j---- -__ o . ,
o .y I i I - \\ a s
I � - � � � �.
>• � � I I ° I � j �z �
y° i I I� ° / .. /c ;.
`\ //�/ . t 111
' I x E
'I• __— I
. - pial: —
.o I
' ;I: � ° \
�� a;� ', � 9 �,
_ ;: � ,�
_ i � o i
� m9 _�_ _ _ Bpi
' - I II IIL
-�i � -- ;,
I c � m i �
° J � I! w
��S' I. - ^�' �I I
�� = i �!
�_ � , I
I� `' ''
I I!
.. I —�' �� tii �
EXHIBIT G
RESOLUTION
SHAKOPEE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Industrial Commerce commission does
encourage and support the development of commercial,
industrial and recreational industries in the Shakopee area;
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Industrial Commerce Commission
recognizes the emergence of tourism as a growth industry for
the City of Shakopee;
WHEREAS, the proposed Starwood Music Center will enhance the
community and create additional tax base and employment
opportunities for the City and citizens of Shakopee.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Shakopee Industrial
Commerce Commission does hereby support and endorse the
proposed Starwood Music Center.
Dated this 22- day of July, 1987
im
by
eane
K
its Chair
by O Z 4-t; -
Al Furrie
itsViceChair
EXHIBIT H
City of Shakopee
r
POLICE DEPARTMENT
lr s
✓�'< z ,.. 076 South Goemm Street ----
SHAKOPEE, NHNNESOTA 55379
r l
Tel. "5-6666
July 9, 1987
Mr. Jeffrey Siegel
Project Manager -
Starwood Music Center
1244 Canterbury Road
Shakopee,. MN 55379 _
Dear Mr. Siegel:
I have reviewed the Production and Security Manual, and as you
know consulted with Starwood Management regarding security
procedures at the proposed facility. I believe a safe
environment will be provided. for those persons attending the
various events. You can be assured that all local ordinances and
State laws will be strictly enforced on-site and within the City
of Shakopee.
As we discussed, officers from several jurisdictions are employed
by the various entertainment centers to provide traffic control
and security duties, so that manpower resources are not solely
the responsibility of the Shakopee Police Department.
I will not permit a lesser number of officers to be employed by
the facilities than I feel are required to maintain a safe
environment for aspecific event.
I appreciate Starwood managements willingness to respond to our
mutual security concerns and assurance that a cooperative spirit
will prevail in the future should the Center become a reality.
Sincerely,
Thomas Brownell
Chief of Police
TB:cah
OrTHE EXHIBIT I
7, SCOTTLAND
COMPANIES
June 18, 1987
Chairwoman Jane Van Maldeghem and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
129- E. First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379-
RE: Starwood Music Center
Dear Chairwoman Van Maldeghem and
Planning Commission Members:
Based upon the Planning Commission's desire to further
understand how an outdoormusiccenter works in relationship
to various commercial and industrial developments within
Canterbury Park, we reviewed several outdoor music centers
and found that many of them were in or near to comparable
industrial, office and commercial development.
Fiddler's Green, Inglewood, Colorado: Fiddler' s Green
was built to be part of the Greenwood Plaza Business
Park. It was developed to be an amenity of the
business park by the park developer. It has been an
attraction to bring interest to the business park to
help further the future development of that property.
There is a multi-family residential development 1,000
feet from Fiddler's Green. Light industrial is within
one-half mile. It was County Property Zoned-planned
unit development and developed as part of the park.
Poplar Creek, Hoffman Estates, Illinois: The property .
for this outdoor theatre was planned to be a business
district by the County, rezoned to 0-2
(Office/Research) . Although they have not seen a
significant amount of industrial development under
current market conditions, there is some 67 acres of
industrial development near the music center.
Southern Star Amphitheatre, Houston, Texas: Houston
has no zoning. The property that Southern Star
occupies is surrounded by a combination of other
recreational developments such as an amusement park and
a sports stadium, also industrial use, commercial use
such as auto dealerships, and some open land. There is
a small residential area approximately one mile away.
P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (612)445-3242
City of Shakopee
June 18, 1987
Page 2
Starwood Amphitheatre, Antioch, Tennessee: The
property was originally zoned agricultural, with a
long-term plan that would eventually be developed as
commercial. It is on the fringe of what they refer to
as a transport/warehouse development area.
Shoreline Amphitheatre, Mountainview, California:
Shoreline Amphitheatre was built on two parcels of
land; one of which was zoned residential surrounded by
a major park, the other was unzoned being a former
landfill. Other uses in the vicinity are approximately
308 business uses within a half mile.
Merriweather Post Pavilion, Columbia, Maryland: This
was developed under a concept called New Town Zoning,
one of the HUD new towns developed in the 1970's. It .
consisted of phased plans and the Merriweather Post
Pavilion was built near the center of the community as
- a cultural showpiece for Columbia. Nearby uses are
commercial and residential. The nearest industrial is
two to three miles from the music center.
Mud Island Amphitheatre, Memphis, Tennessee: The
property is actually a city-owned facility/park. The
land was created and acquired by the City through
siltation of the Mississippi River. The land was
unused with the exception of a small airport and an
industrial plant on the north end. The zoning was part
agricultural/industrial. The park was built on the
agricultural property and a portion of the site has
been rezoned PUD residential/office mixed use.
Other outdoor music centers such as the Saratoga
Performing Arts Center., the Blossom Music Center,
Ravinia, and the Garden State Center for the Arts are
located- in or adjacent to public parks and typically
have industrial use in the vicinity of one to four
miles of the project.
In the Twin Cities, the Met Center and the former Twins
and Vikings old stadium in Bloomington were developed
in an office, commercial, recreational and light
industrial park.
The Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis is located in an
area developed for office, commercial and industrial
uses.
City of Shakopee
June 18, 1987 _
Page 3
The St. Pau} Civic Center has industrial uses nearby.
Valleyfair developed across the street from heavy
industrial uses and is adjacent to grain terminals.
The State Fairgrounds are adjacent to industrial,
-
commercial and residential uses.
The Racetrack Was built in the middle of an industrial,
commercial and recreational park.
If you look at the stadiums across the country, you
will find many of them to be similarly situated.
We hope that this information is helpful to your overview of
how the Starwood .Music Center does fit and compliment the
industrial park.
Very truly yours, _
THE SCOTTLAND COMPANIES
Bruce D. Malkerson
Executive Vice Presiden
�-reyifel `
, Project Manager V
BDM:ap
C.C. Shakopee city Council
John Anderson
Dennis Kraft
Doug Wise
Rea Ashfeld
T
1, tonin
The City has previously determined that minor and major
recreational facilities are a conditional and permitted use
for property zoned industrial. That determination made
sense before, now and in the future for many reasons
discussed hereinafter. In reliance upon that prior
determination, the music facility has been planned, the
property was sold to the developer (Scottland and PACE) by
valley Industrial Development Company (a partnership of The
Scottland Companies and North American Life and Casualty
Company) , the company that previously owned it.
2 . Utilities '
a) Sewer
The Music Center will operate on average 51 days
each year and will discharge 1, 695, 000 gallons_of sewer
each year. If the 86 acres were developed for a
typical industrial use which is wet, the discharge
could beat least 1,000 gallons per acres per day
(g.p.d. ) x 365 x 86 acres = 3 ,139, 000 gallons per year.
Thus there is a savings of 1,444 ,000 gallons to be used
elsewhere for wetter industrial or other uses. A wet
industrial use could discharge up to 2 , 000 d. and
would likely be prohibited in the Park since the City' s
guidelines suggest a 11000 g.p.d. discharge. However,
by having less wet industries develop such as the Music
Center, there is the possibility that someday a wetter
use would be allowed. This situation has proven to be
true in regard to the racetrack.
b) Water
Similarly, the Music Center will use far less
water than a wet use.
3 . Roads Ili
The road system is already in place. No additional
road improvements are required to accommodate this use. The
Music Center would enable the payment of a major portion of
the deferred special assessments for those roads. The roads
would be used only 51 times each year, and then in the
evening hours when there is minimal or no traffic in the
industrial park now, or in the future. Few industries
create truck traffic in those evening hours. If this 86
acres were developed for industrial uses, , it would add
traffic during the morning and afternoon rush hours and much
of that traffic would be trucks which have a much greater
adverse impact on City roads. In addition, a statewide
facility such as Starwood in Shakopee would lend
Page 2
support to the need to ensure better roads in the future for
this area, for the benefit of everyone in the State visiting
the facility.
4. Taxes
The project will cost $6 to $7 million to build and
could contribute up to $300, 000 each year in taxes which is
equivalent to the taxes from 150 to 200 homes. This tax
base would be added without creating additional demand on
the school system. 'At such a tax level, the Music Center
would be one of the highest paying uses in the Park. (The
racetrack is by far the highest taxpayer over all other
uses. )_
The Music Center would also be subject to a $.25 per _
patron admission tax ($100, 000 per year approximately) which
would be used for the Highway is Bridge. This tax would be
unique to this type of industry and would promote not only
industrial development in the Park, but also commercial and
residential development in the entire City. _
5. There is Ample Land Available for Future Industrial
Development.
It is estimated that to date approximately 1,025 acres
of Canterbury Park has been developed for commercial,
recreational and industrial uses. There remains in excess
of 1,000 acres still owned by VIDCO (a partnership of The
Scottland Companies and North American Life and Casualty
Company) . In addition to this land are hundreds of acres
more of vacant industrial property in and adjacent to
Canterbury Park owned by, among others, the Koskovich's,
Standard Development Company, Kawasaki, Shiely Company.
(See attached map. )
On the eastern edge of the City is an additional 530
vacant acres owned by Wickes and is zoned industrial.
In the past five years, in Canterbury Park, few new
traditional industrial uses have been developed because of
several reasons:
a) There are numerous other industrial parks with
vacant land.
b) Because of fiscal disparities, the real estate
taxes are very high in Shakopee.
Page 3
c) The tax reform act has eliminated the incentives
for businesses to build and own buildings.
d) The Twin Cityareahas not developed as a
manufacturing/industrial area.
e) Labor rates are too high in the Twin City area for
many industrial uses. ,
Even if you assume higher absorption rates than the
City has ever experienced, at 20 acres per year, the City
has at least 40 years of industrial zoned land available in
Canterbury Park; at 40 acres per year, the City has at least
20 years of land available in Canterbury Park. In addition
there is approximately another 1,200 acres of vacant
industrial property owned by others which could extend the.
supply for another 20 to 40 years.
Additionally, when you look at a zoning map of the
City, one sees in fact several different industrial park
areas, all of which can and will develop separate from each
- 'y other. Each of the following industrial areas are
distinctly different from the other areas because of road
access, present uses, etc. :
a) Area west of County Road 83 .
b) Area east of County Road 83 and north of the
Bypass.
C) Area south of the Bypass and east of County Road
83 .
d) Area south/west of the Bypass and intersection of
County Road 89 (Wickes property) .
e) Area north/west of the Bypass and intersection of
County Road 89.
Normally, industrial parks are sized from 20 to 60
acres. Rarely are there parks larger. In this case, each
of the above areas represent 300 to 400 acres. Even within
each future park, there will be sub-areas in each area.
Again, if you look at stadiums and other recreational
facilities across the country, you will frequently find them
located in, adjacent or near to such a park or areas within
the park.
Page 4
6. Other Potential Benefits to the Park from Starwood
a) Name Recognition
Without doubt, the racetrack (like Valleyfair) has
attracted and will attract millions of potential buyers
of land to the area for the first time. Starwood will
do likewise.
b) Joint Use- of Parking Lot.
At some future time, it may be possible to attract
industrial users who could use the Starwood parking lot
during the day all year, when it will not be used by
Starwood, thus saving millions of dollars of future
expense, thus attracting industrial users that
otherwise could not afford to develop here.
c) Open Space
Starwood will be hidden behind trees from the rest
of the Park developmentsoit will not appear to be
part of the Park. It will provide needed open space
years from now when the rest of the Park is developed
around it.
d) Spin Off Development
Without doubt, the racetrack, Murphy's Landing
and Valleyfair have had a tremendous beneficial impact
on the retail service businesses throughout the City,
thus increasing jobs and tax base. Starwood will do
likewise.
A major industrial park needs commercial
facilities such as restaurants and hotels to attract
industrial users to the area and provide services to
them. Starwood will promote the commercial growth and
stability and thus industrial development.
e) Employment
Starwood will employ up to 300 people seasonally.
Approximately 418 of the racetrack' s employees live in
Scott County (410) and 258 live in Shakopee (246) .
Employment at Starwood should be similar resulting in
123 jobs in Scott County, and 75 jobs in the City of j
Shakopee. Although most of these jobs are seasonal,
they provide needed jobs for the unemployed and
underemployed young adults and adults in the area. In
Page 5
addition, jobs are created in the spin-off retail
businesses.
7 . It is not Unicue to Find Recreational Uses in and
Adjacent to a Commercial/Industrial Park.
For the reasons noted herein, kt is not unique to find
recreational uses in and adjacent to a commercial/industrial
park. This Park has always been planned and zoned for such
uses.
In the Twin Cities, the Met Center and the former Twins
and Vikings old stadium in Bloomington were developed in an
office, commercial, recreational and light industrial park.
The Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis is located in an
area developed for office, commercial and industrial uses.
The St. Paul Civic Center has industrial uses nearby.
j - Valleyfair developed across the street from heavy
industrial uses and is adjacent to grain terminals.
The State Fairgrounds are adjacent to industrial,
commercial and residential uses.
The Racetrack was built in the middle of an industrial,
commercial and recreational park.
If you look at stadiums across the country, you will
find many of them to be similarly situated.
B. Conclusion
Finally, the developers of Canterbury Park (VIDCO, a
partnership of .The Scottland Companies and North American
Life and casualty Company) still have 900 acres of
commercial (140 acres) and industrial (760 acres) in the
Park to develop and would never introduce a use into the
Park which would adversely affect that future development.
They have reviewed that conclusion that Starwood would be -
beneficial to the Park with industrial brokers and planners
who concur with that analysis. They believe that Starwood
would be a desirable tenant for the Park and would help
develop this Park into a more successful park in the future.
APP6 4D(,x A
l
1. 2onina
The City has previously determined that minor and major
recreational facilities are a conditional and permitted use
for property zoned industrial. That determination made
sense before, now and in the future for many reasons
discussed hereinafter. In reliance upon that prior
determination, the music facility has been planned, the
property was sold to the developer (Scottland and PACE) by
Valley Industrial Development Company (a partnership of The
Scottland Companies and North American Life and Casualty
Company) , the company that previously owned it.
2. Utilities
a) Sewer
The Music Center will operate on average 51 days
each year and will discharge 1, 695, 000 gallons of sewer
each year. If the 86 acres were developed for a
typical industrial use which is wet, the discharge
could be at least 1, 000 gallons per acres per day
(g.p.d. ) x 365 x 86 acres = 3,139, 000 gallons per year. _
Thus there is a savings of 1,444 , 000 gallons to be used
elsewhere for wetter industrial or other uses. A wet
industrial use could discharge up to 2, 000 g.p.d. and
would likely be prohibited in the Park since the City- s
guidelines suggest a 1, 000 g.p.d. discharge. however,
by having less wet industries develop such as the Music
Center, there is the possibility that someday a wetter
use would be allowed. This situation has proven to be
true in regard to the racetrack.
b) water
Similarly, the Music Center will use _`ar less
water than a wet use.
3 . Roads
The road system is already in place. No additional
road improvements are required to accommodate this use. The
Music Center would enable the payment of a major portion of
the deferred special assessments for those roads. The roads
would be used only 51 times each year, and then in .the
evening hours when there is minimal or no traffic in the
industrial park now, or in the future. Few industries
create truck traffic in those evening hours. ' this 86
acres were developed for industrial uses, it would -addd
traffic during the morning and afternoon rush hours and much
of that traffic would be trucks which have a much greater
adverse impact on City roads. In addition, a statewide
facility such as Starwood in Shakopee would lend
1
Page 2
support to the need to ensure better roads in the future for
this area, for the benefit of everyone in the State visiting
the facility.
4 . Taxes
The project will cost $6 to $7 million to build and
could contribute up to $300, 000 each year in taxes which is
equivalent to the taxes from 150 to 200 homes. This tax
base would be added -without creating additional demand on
the school system. At such a tax level, the Music Center
would be one of the highest paying uses in the Park. (The
racetrack is by far the highest taxpayer over all other
uses. )
The Music Center would also be subject to a $ .25 per
patron admission tax ($100, 000 per year approximately) which
would be used for the Highway 18 Bridge. This tax would be
unique to this type of industry and would promote not only
industrial development in the Park, but also commercial and
residential development in the entire City.
S. There is Ample Land Available for Future Industrial
Development.
Zt is estimated that to date approximately 1, 025 acres
of Canterbury Park has been developed for commercial,
recreational and industrial uses. There remains in excess
Of 1,000 acres still owned by VIDCO (a partnership of The
Scottland Companies and North American Life and Casualty
Company) . In addition to this land are hundreds of acres
more of vacant industrial property in and adjacent to
Canterbury Park owned by, among others, the Koskovich's,
Standard Development Company, Kawasaki, Shiely Company.
(See attached man. )
On the eastern edge of the City is an additional 530
vacant acres owned by Wickes and is zoned industrial.
In the past five years, in Canterbury Park, few new
traditional industrial uses have been develomed because of
several reasons:
a) There are numerous other industrial parks with
vacant land.
b) Because of fiscal disparities, the real estate
taxes are very high in Shakopee.
Page 3
C) The tax reform act has eliminated the incentives
for businesses to build and own buildings.
d) The Twin City area has not developed as a
manufacturing/industrial area.
e) Labor rates are too high in the Twin City area for
many industrial uses.
Even if you assume higher absorption rates than the
City has ever experienced, at 20 acres per year, the City
has at least 40 years of industrial zoned land available in
Canterbury Park; at 40 acres per year, the City has at least
20 years of land available in Canterbury Park. In addition
- there is approximately another 1,200 acres of vacant
industrial property owned by others which could extend the
supply for another 20 to 40 years.
Additionally, when you look at a zoning map of the
City, one sees in fact several different industrial park
areas, all of which can and will develop separate from each
1 other. Each of the following industrial areas are
distinctly different from the other areas because of road
access, present uses, etc. :
a) Area west of County Road 83 .
b) Area east of County Road 83 and north of the
Bypass.
C) Area south of the Bypass and east of County Road
83.
d) Area south/west of the Bypass and intersection of
County Road 89 (Wickes property) .
e) Area north/west of the Bypass and intersection of
County Road 89.
Normally, . industrial parks are sized from 20 to 60
acres. Rarely are there parks larger. In this case, each
of the above areas represent 300 to 400 acres. Even within
each future park, there will be sub-areas in each area.
Again-, if you look at stadiums and other recreational
facilities across the country, you will frequently find them
located in, adjacent or near to such a park or areas within
the park.
1
Page 4
6. Other Potential Benefits to the Park from Starwood
a) Name Recognition
Without doubt, the racetrack (like Valleyfair) has
attracted and will attract millions of potential buyers
of land to the area for the first time. Starwood will
do likewise.
b) Joint Use -of Park+na Lot.
At some future time, it may be possible to attract
industrial users who could use the Starwood parking lot
during the day all year, when it will not be used by
Starwood, thus saving millions of dollars of future --
expense, thus attracting industrial users that
otherwise could not afford to develop here.
c) Open Space
Starwood will be hidden behind trees from the rest
of the Park development so it will not appear to be
part of the Park. It will provide needed open space
years from now when the rest of the Park is developed
around it.
d) Spin Off Develomnen`
Without doubt, the racetrack, Murphy' s Landing
and Valleyfair have had a tremendous beneficial impact
on the retail service businesses throughout the City,
thus increasing jobs and tax base. Starwood will do
likewise.
A major industrial park needs commercial
facilities such as restaurants and hotels to attract
industrial users to the area and provide services to
them. Starwood will promote the commercial growth and
stability and thus industrial development.
e) Emnlovment
Starwood will employ un to 300 neonle seasonally.
Approximately 41% of the racetrack's employees live in
Scott County (410) and 25% live in Shakopee (246) .
Employment at Starwood should be similar resulting in
123 jobs in Scott County, and 75 jobs in the City of
Shakonee. Although most of these jobs are seasonal,
they provide needed lobs for the unemployed and
underemployed young adults and adults in the area. In
Page 5
addition, jobs are created in the spin-off retail
businesses.
7. It is not Unique to Find Recreational Uses in and
Adjacent to a Commercial/Industrial Park.
For the reasons noted herein, it is not unique to find
recreational uses in and adjacent to'a commercial/industrial
park. This Park has always been planned and zoned for such
uses.
In the Twin Cities, the Met Center and the former Twins
and Vikings old stadium in Bloomington were developed in an
office, commercial, recreational and light industrial park.
The Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis is located in an
area developed for office, commercial and industrial uses.
The St. Paul Civic Center has industrial uses nearby.
Valleyfair developed across the street from heavy
industrial uses and is adjacent to grain terminals.
The State Fairgrounds are adjacent to industrial,
commercial and residential uses.
The Racetrack wasbuilt in the middle of an industrial,
commercial and recreational park.
If you look at stadiums across the country, you will
find many of them to be similarly situated.
S. Conclusion
Finally, the developers of Canterbury Park (VIDCO, a
- partnership of The Scottland Companies and North American
Life and Casualty. Company) still have 900 acres of
commercial (140 acres) and industrial (760 acres) in the
Park to develop and would never introduce a use into the
Park which would adversely affect that future development.
They have reviewed that conclusion that Starwood would be
beneficial to the Park with industrial brokers and planners
who concur with that analysis. They believe that Starwood
would be a desirable tenantforthe Park and would 'help
develop this Park into a more successful park in the future.
m It
moi : -_l
fn
JL
It
'.- 1 . :p•.�i_'.C _ �._ . . _ Y - - � I __. :�I f'GI llJ{ V -
! p F x6 -tS
15 Gip
J lTHE
SCOTTLAND
COMPANIES
June 18, 1987
Mr. Paul Sieber
County Planner
Arapahoe County
334 South Price
Littleton, Colorado 80120
Dear Mr. Sieber:
I appreciated the opportunity to hear about the 18, 000 seat Fiddler's
Green outdoor amphitheatre located in the Greenwood Plaza Business
Park in Arapahoe County.
My understanding is that the Greenwood Plaza Business Park is a
planned unit development including office, commercial, and
residential. Additionally, you have some industrial property one-half
mile away.
It was particularly interesting to hear about the County' s experience
with the development of Fiddler' s Green. You expressed that you have .
} residents approximately 1, 000 feet from the site and that they raised
concern with the potential for sound and traffic problems during
discussion of the development proposal. It was reassuring to hear
that now having three years of operation of the facility you have
never had a complaint filed.
As I explained to you, we are working on a_proposal for an outdoor
music center of 17, 000 seats to be built in a planned, mixed use
business park in Shakopee, Minnesota. In our research, we have
discovered that many outdoor music centers have been built with
proximity to adjacent residential areas such as. yours. We feel most
fortunate that our facility has many advantages due to its location in
our business park, one of which being that it is surroundedby
industrial, commercial, and road system use with no residential
properties adjacent. Therefore, we do not anticipate an impact
similar to those facilities which we studied that have residential
areas directly adjacent.
I very much appreciated the time you took to tell me about Fiddler' s
Green and would- appreciates hearing any more information about the
County's experience with their acceptance of the project.
Sincerely,
J'- s_. _
Je rey Siegel
Project Manager
JS:ap
P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612]445-3242
EXHIBIT J
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Dennis Kraft, Douglas Wise, City of Shakopee
FROM: Jeffrey Siegel
RE: Deer Creek Center - Indianapolis
DATE: July 21, 1987
Based upon questions raised at the June 18th public hearing
with reference to a proposed outdoor music center in the
Indianapolis suburb of Westfield (Deer Creek Center) we
contacted the developer to further understand the
circumstances of that facility.
Steve Sybesma, Vice-President of Sunshine Promotions, Inc. ,
expressed to me that the Westfield Planning Commission
indicated that they would be unfavorable to a zoning change.
However the metro community did not reject the opportunity.
Sunshine Promotions has found a new site for the outdoor
music center in the middle of an industrial park and is
receiving tremendous support in the Indianapolis community.
The State of Indiana is building a $200 million, 250 acre
State Park which will be located in downtown Indianapolis
across the street from the Indiana Convention Center and the
Hoosier Dome (Sports Arena) . The site currently houses
industrial and small business. The park will include a new
zoo (64 acres) , sports practice fields, and the outdoor
amphitheater.
Therefore the statement that the community of Indianapolis
is opposed to an outdoor music center, as a generality, is
incorrect. The source of the original rejection had to do
with a request for rezoning and the producers have since
moved to an industrial area that is in the heart of the City
of Indianapolis.
JS:jhl
EXHIBIT IC-T- Minnesota
Becky Kelso House of
District 36A - --.-- Representatives
Scott and Carver Counties �;"�^^
committees: -- �,
Education `�)� - Fred C. Norton, Speaker
Health and Human Services,Vice Chair
Economic Development and Housing
Business Finance Subcommittee,
Vice Chair
Future and Technology
Long Term Health Care Commission
July 13, 1987
Jeffrey Segal
Starwood Productions
Scottland companies ,
1244 Canterbury Rd.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Segal,
In response to your question regarding the effect of the proposed
Starwood amphitheater on our community's tax base, it is my
belief that it will make a very substantial contribution.
Although it is not possible for me to have exact figures at
this time, it is my understanding that the proposed project
will pay approximately $300,000 a year in local property taxes.
In a community our size that is definately a significant figure.
Because the.-theater will undoubtedly sell more than ten thousand
admission tickets a day it will also be required to pay a 254
per ticket admissions tax. The theater's projected contribution
to this particular fund will be approximately $100, 000 a year.
The Scott county admissions tax will be used only for the construction
of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge and will sunset after the bridge
is completed.
The addition of the Starwood theater to the list of attractions
to which this tax will apply will obviously hasten the greatly
needed road improvements and will offset the local property
tax burden for the construction of the bridge.
I look forward to the day when the Scott county admissions
tax will no longer be in effect, but in the meantime this tax
revenue will assure the local match for the federal dollars
needed to finance this project.
Reply to: ❑ 329 State Office Building,St.Paul.Minnesota 55155 Gill.:(612)296-1072
0 151 S.Shannon Drive.Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 Home:(612)445-6658
Page 2
The patrons of the Starwood amphitheater will clearly add to
the community' s ability to finance local improvement projects
and the fact that tax increment financing is not a part of
this particular development the revenues will be realized immediately.
I hope I have sufficiently answered your question. If not,
please don' t hesitate to call again.
Sincerely,
Becky Kelso
State Representative
BK/ph
K-2
July 21 , 1987
Chairwoman Jane Van Maldeghem
Shakopee Planning Commission
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Chairwoman Van Maldeghem:
I am writing to express my wholehearted support of the Starwood Music
Center!
The Scottland Companies, developer of this project, have made various
pertinent documents available for the perusal of interested parties. These
materials address all of the major items of concern surrounding Starwood.
Following a careful review, I'm thoroughly convinced that the concept of
the Starwood Music Center is an expertly organized and researched
undertaking well-deserving of our total support.
Were I to begin listing the countless reasons favoring Starwood, I would
only be reiterating already well-known facts. For fear of being redundant,
let it suffice to say that our only criticism should be that it didn't happen
sooner!
The Starwood Music Center is an exciting opportunity whose time has come.
Give our community something to take pride in.
Please support the Starwood Music Center!
Sincerely,
Peggy A. Kohl
714 South Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
cc: Jeffrey Siegel, The Scottland Companies
K-3 Letter to Editor July 22 , 1987
Well , here we go again. When Valleyfair was coming to town reports
were that all that trash that used to hang around the Excelsior
park would come to Shakopee. There is no way any resident of
Shakopee could be prouder of Valleyfair. My granddaughter, who
is now thirteen, has for the last three year, gone to ValleyFair
at 10:00 a.m. and stayed with her friends until 8:00 or 10:00 P.M.
without concern on the part of her parents.
ti.
Then came the Renaissance Festival . Yes, those people are all t,,.
on drugs was the report. Have you been there? Who goes there?
Respectable people from Iowa, North and South Dakota, Wisconsin
and Canada. I 'm sorry I did not get a lot of flack on the Bingo
Palace. Of course, that wasn't coming into Shakopee. Then the
Race Track. Yes, all the big gamtlers will move in and the Mafia
and such. Crime will increase and the people who attend we don't
want in Shakopee. I guess the crime rate is up and the track gets
the blame. It's up all. over the state. Let's blame the Dome in
Minneapolis, the Zoo - and a few other respectable places for part
of it. It makes just about as much sense.
Yes, here we go again! Starwood Amphitheater. We' re going to
have thousands of drug pushers and users at the concerts. All
this rock trash will be here. I'm sure that many Rock Concerts
have been put on throughout the U.S. in the amphitheater that have
never attracted any publicity but one does and this is what some
of our local residents pick up to try to eliminate Starwood from
Shakopee. This edifice is so far out of the Shakopee residential
area that I can't see what the big complaint is.
Friends, I love music and I just don't like going into Minneapolis
at night to go to concerts. Because of this amphitheater and the
seating capacity it will have, many, many high class entertaining
groups and national stars will be presenting concerts that you
and I will love. The traffic problem, if any, will all be cleared
up in the future.
The permit that the city council will be issuing them will be a
conditional use permit so the council can control who does come
to the theater.
I have lived in Shakopee for thirty six years. Many times different
undesirable businesses have moved in but they have been moved out
by the City because of the nature of the business. I do have
confidence that this Starwood will be controlled.
Of course, there are those who want Shakopee to be a small , relaxing,
country town. Folks, it's just too late for that and I trust I
have been one of the driving forces that has helped change it.
When I arrived in town it was a community of beer parlors. Shakopee
must be doing things right to have all these good things happen.
Dr. W. Adair Muralt
The K-a
V Minnesota
Minnesota Orchestral
Orchestra Association
Waan
Association MuacDrecw
1111 Nicoliel Mall Minneapolis,MN 55403 Phone:(612)371-5600 Cable-.MINNORCR Telex:29-0233
July 20, 1987
Mr. Jeffrey Seigel
The Scotland Company
P.O. Box 509
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Jeffrey:
Congratulations to you, Starwood Music Center, and Canterbury Downs, for a suc-
cessful concert at the track. For many people, a Symphony for the Cities con-
cert is their introduction to the Minnesota Orchestra. Now that they've met,
let's bring them back together next summer at Starwood.
As I mentioned at the concert, we enjoyed the media campaign. I have written
Pat Dawson in that regard. Thank you for your help and advance work to insure
that the concert was a success.
Thanks again for your generous support and-help. Here's to next summer!
Sincerely,
.U�Lw& r
Julie Haight
Marketing Assistant
JH:dw
MinreapWssympno�yOrq xFounded 1903 Omiantl 1931-1936
Musc Dxbiisy EmAOberboXer 19034922 Henri VerbrugoM1en 1923193E Eugene Y
bri M'Ilropduloa 19374949'Antal Doran 19441960-sun�slaw SWowa¢ewsk 196419]9'Srt Neville Martinet 14/91986
Chi eo ge H.
Dixon Riichaard M.Cisek Dxnt V.a i Amax
the Rard and GeneralManao¢t
rTHE
? SCOTTLAND
COMPANIES
'August 20, 1987
Chairperson Jane Van Maldeghem and Members of the Commission
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Chairperson Van Maldeghem and Commissioners:
I. overview.
At the planning commission meeting on July 30, 1987 , the hour was
too late to be given a chance to respond to some of the
statements made by others after my summary statement at the
outset of the meeting.
In order to insure an accurate record of the proceedings, I have
reduced my response to writing.
Prior to the continued public hearing on July 30, 1987, we
addressed in writing all questions not previously answered and
showed how our application met the criteria for a conditional use
permit. At the hearing I presented additional information in
writing and orally. Thereafter, testimony was presented by
citizens in support and in opposition to the music center.
A question was raised about the status of the SAW. Since that
meeting, the City Council approved the adequacy of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. A question was raised about
visiting a similar facility. There has been a public official,
staff, citizen tour to the Riverbend music center. I can find
nothing in the record related to these matters which is not
supportive of our application.
I have reviewed the detailed and lengthy minutes of the planning
commission hearing on July 30, 1987 and I similarly can find no
factual evidence which would support a denial of the application,
or unanswered questions, but more importantly I find only factual
information in support of the criteria as outlined in the City's
ordinances.
Therefore, I do not believe there is a need to repeat all of the
facts in support of the application.
II. what facts are there that can Is itimatel support a denial of
the application?
I think we have all been involved in numerous applications where
there are uncontroverted facts which clearly demand a denial of
an application. However, I respectfully submit that the facts
are not here to support such findings. It may be that those
opposing the project will submit first or second hand information
related to one or more of the 30 outdoor music centers in
P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612)445-3242
existence or an application for a music center in another city
which was denied which in some one person's judgment may tend to
support a specific finding to deny. However, that isn't the
relevant test. This sort of hearsay information concerning a
project not before you, or a project which was not built, would
need to be overwhelmingly clear and virtually uncontradictable in
order to support a denial because in order to deny a conditional
use permit, the proven facts must be many times stronger than
those required to deny a variance or a rezoning. Moreover, the
fact situation must be virtually identical.
For example, we have all heard an applicant for a rezoning,
variance, or conditional use permit say that such an application
was approved for a Mr. or Ms. X at some prior time and since the
applicant's situation is exactly like that of Mr. or Ms. X, the
application should be approved. Similarly, we hear that in the
case of those who oppose an application who state a similar one
was denied previously.
However, when you actually pull your files of those prior
applications or investigate the facts further, if the facts are
available to you, you find that rarely, if ever, are the
situations sufficiently similar so that any meaningful comparison
can be made.
As an illustration, the opponents have stated that the problems
expressed by some neighbors near Blossom Music Center justify a
denial of our application.
At the last meeting I showed you an aerial of the Blossom Music
Center and showed how all of the traffic comes and goes on a 5
mile 2 lane road which is surrounded by 85+ homes. Several of
the homes are surrounded on 3 sides by the parking lot. I have
recently learned that because of the 2 lane road, at large
events, the traffic on the residential street is backed up for 2-
3 hours. Of course there will be problems of noise, litter, some
drinking in cars while backed up and traffic in such a situation.
Of course, therefore there will be citations and some arrests.
We are not in such a situation as we have shown time after time.
We are serviced by several 4 lane roads, a divided highway; we
are in the middle of a 2 , 000+ acre mixed use industrial/business
park. our traffic does not travel on residential streets. We
are over 2/3 mile from the closest residence. There are numerous
present and future generators of sound in the area which are far
greater than any sound we will generate.
We heard statements about the denial of an application for as
music center in the Indianapolis area. Just because a music
center was denied somewhere else, that does not support a denial
of a different center. If the fact situation of both and the
- zoning situation were identical, it might be relevant. However,
there has been no testimony to that effect. The facts are as
stated before that the other music center was in the middle of an
ag/residential zone and required rezoning and a variance. We
have recently learned that in that city, there was no municipal
sewer or water to the site. Roads were inadequate. The closest
residential neighbors were 1,000 feet away. The music was to be
projected in their direction. The population of the large
geographical area was only 4,000 people with very limited
municipal services. There were 1 to 2 deputies on duty at night
to cover the 120 square mile county. Because of the inadequate
roads, the opponents believed it would take 2 1/2 hours to clear
the site.
Our situation is again totally different.
I have reviewed the material recently submitted by Mr. Zak and do
not find any facts or questions raised which have not already
been addressed by City staff, the results of the City's survey of
other outdoor music centers, the review of the EAW by state
agencies and others and the analysis by the independent experts.
III. What are the remaining concerns?
It seems that the real concern is that there are a few performing
groups across the nation that no one wants to perform at
Starwood. We agree. We will not book those groups. We have
told you how it would be adverse to our interests to have such
groups perform. In order to insure that, the City Council has
stated they will adopt an annual licensing ordinance which
requires us each year before we will be licensed to show who may
perform and that those performers are not the type to create
problems, to insure that those groups do not perform here.
Moreover, if we fail to adhere to the conditions, our license
will be revoked. Therefore, we believe that this question has
also been answered.
IV. conclusion.
If you need any other information, please let us know. As we
stated previously, we believe a conditional use permit should be
issued and ask that it be approved with whatever legal and
reasonable conditions are needed from your perspective in order
for it to be passed.
Thank you,
Bruce D. Malkerson
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
The Scottland Companies _
BDM:jhl
lTHE
SCOTTLAND
COMPANIES
September 18, 1987
City of Shakopee
Mayor Reinke and Councilmembers
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: Starwood Music Center
Dear Mayor Reinke and Councilmembers:
In order to facilitate the review of the conditional use permit
adopted by the Planning Commission and so that you have an opportunity
to review our comments related thereto prior to the meeting on
September 22, 1987, we offer the following for your consideration.
Condition Number 5 provides that the serving of beer and wine be
terminated 1 hour prior to the end of the event. It was stated by a
Planning Commission member that at the Riverbend Amphitheater in
cincinatti, the management voluntarily ceases to serve beer and wine
1/2 hour prior to the end of the event. we believe that such a
restriction is not needed, and if there is to be such a restriction it
should be 1/2 hour. We know of no other similar facility in the
country which is so restricted. In Shakopee, for businesses which
sell beer and wine, including large centers such as ValleyFair and
Canterbury Downs, the only restriction is that set by state law and
incorporated into city ordinances which is 1:00 A.M. There has been
no information submitted which would indicate any restriction is
necessary.
Condition 6A requires that we build a bituminous trail along 12th
Avenue and Valley Park Drive. We are unclear as to the length of the
trail. Since we will not allow off site parking, and the Planning
Commission has stated it does not want off site parking, with which we
agree, we do not see why a trail is desirable since it would only
serve off site parking.
Condition 13 restricts sound levels of the stage to 100 decibels.
There was no information submitted which supports such a requirement.
The state statute sets limits of sound permissible off site and the
City's ordinance adopted the same limits. There are no limits as to
the sound on site. The concern of the City and the state is that
sound from a site not be so loud that it exceeds the state and City
standards off site. The EAW analysis confirms that we will not exceed
these off site limits. We have no choice. We must limit the sound on
site so that we meet those off site standards. As a practical matter,
100 dba on the stage is frequently too low a level for the normal
P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612)445-3242
presentation by some performers for some songs. In fact the Minnesota
Orchestra has informed us that many of their standard classical
performances will exceed 100 dba at the stage. We know of no
permanent facility built for music with such a restriction. In lieu
of a sealed sound monitoring device for off site or on site as
proposed, we believe that the City is better served by having a
portable hand carried sound meter so that if there are any complaints
about sound, the appropriate City official can use the sound meter at
the location of the complaint. Moreover, a portable sound meter can
be used elsewhere in the City to monitor other sound producing
activities if there is a need to do so. We would pay for such a meter
if requested to do so.
since the Assistant City Attorney has rendered a legal opinion
concerning Conditions 1, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 25, we see no need to
comment on those conditions unless the Council desires to adopt them
"as is" or with modification. Once we know the Council 's intent, we
would appreciate a chance to comment further if necessary.
Regardless of whether or not the City Council ever adopts a
conditional use permit with a condition of having a citizen's
committee, we will form such a committee to review and comment upon
the performers we book, the manner in which we manage, and how
Starwood can benefit the community to the greatest extent possible.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on these matters.
Very truly
yours,
er _ l (_() s,
N
Bruce D. Malkerson
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
THE SCOTTLAND COMPANIES
BDM:JS:jhl
cc John Anderson
Dennis Kraft
Doug Wise
Julius Collar
Rod Kraas
P" The
Minnesota
Minre-gota Orchestral
Edo Is Waart
orchestra Association M..0a.
1111 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis,MN 55403 Phone:(612)3715600 Cable:MINNORCH Telex:29-0233
September 17, 1987
Jeffrey L. Siegel
The Scotland Company
P.O. Box 509 -
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Siegel:
I am writing to express my concern regarding the sound level restric-
tions being proposed for the Starwood Music Center because of the
effect such restrictions would have on the participation of the Minne-
sota Orchestra in the programming at the Center.
The nature of symphonic repertoire is such that most of the major
orchestral works of the late 19th and early 20th centuries have many
passages of varying lengths in which the sound level exceeds 100 deci-
bels. For example, the work with which Maestro de Waart opened the
Orchestra's season last night, the Mahler Seventh Symphony, has many
passages including the finale the would register above the proposed
limit. This would also be true of the works of many of the most pop-
ular composers for orchestra including Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff and
Strauss.
The effect of such a restriction would be to put severe limitations
on the works that the Minnesota Orchestra could perform at the Starwood
Music Center. In fact, many of the works that could not be programmed
would be the very ones that would be most appealing to both our regular
audiences and to the people wanting to become more familiar with sym-
phonic music in the comfortable and informal surroundings of an outdoor
music festival. Accordingly, I wish to encourage you in your efforts
to remove or modify the restriction as it now stands.
Sincerely,
David M. Wax
DMW/js
Minneapdissyrrivinrty "ema nwnded 1903
Mrxk;Diremxa,Emn ODed r19031922-Henri*rbru ghen19231931-Bu3ereOrme ylg31-1936
Dimiln MM1mpouloa 193)19x9 ArYal Dorali 19091960 Srani9aw
1619601979 Sn Nenlle Maturer 19191966
George H.Dixon Richard M.Cisek David M.Wax
cleaimanW President Vire Prevdert
Ne Boyd d General Manager
To: CITY COUNCIL, SHAK.OPEE,MINNESOTA REG�tVpU.
From: JOSEPHIF. ZAV SLtp2 ] INs
Oryo
SUBS: CONDITIONAL USAGE PERMIT FOR STARWOOD AMPHITHEATER Y�F`.$F
:=IZEN RESPONSE TO CONDITIONAL USAGE PERMIT RESTRICTION #9�IY�
THE USE WILL NOT CAUSE UNDUE -RAFFIC HAZARD OR EDINGESTION" .
DATE: SEP Z0, 1987
REFERENCES: IMPACT TRAFFIC STUDY -- STARWOOD AMPHITHEATER , 8/16/87
SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE
PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 20, 1987 CONDITIONAL USAGE PERMIT MEETING.
HONORABLE COUNCIL MEMBERS,
The referenced study in your po=ssession and a. second study conducted
after the Auoust 20, meeting should have been reviewed and evaluated at this
time. Based on that information and addition.. data obtained from MINNDOT, I
submit the third and final document of this series. Based on the numbers and
the law of physics, I would submit that the Condition #9 cited in our
provisions for granting of this permit HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED Since this
traffic study has not beery given the credence it deserves, I will state +his
and other objection, as follows:
1 The developer as stated in his EAW and Project Plan HAS NOT AND
WILL NOT SATISFY THE PROVISIONS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USAGE PERMIT . . . BY ANY
DEFINITION OF CONGESTION OR HAZARD. (condition #9)
,FROM the study of Auoust 16, 1987 conducted by the citizens o for to the
August 20, 1987 CUP hearing.
"THIS TRAFFIC STUDY used DEVELOPER criteria and MINNDOT AND SCOTT COUNTY
a. r.,r data. REASONABLE ASSUMPTION'S were made -phi c!: were PLAINLY STATED.
TO KEEP THIS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, I GAVE EVERY POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION TO
71—. SE AND STILL COULD NOT COME UP TO A REASONABLE -RAFFIC SITUATION.
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO ACTUALLY READ THIS MATERIAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THE DEVELOPER'S AND THE CITY ENGINEER'S NUMBERS DO NOT AT ALL QUALIFY THIS
DEVELOPEMENT.
FACTS: FOR A VEHICLE TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ONTO VALLEY PARK DRIVE OR CR83 AT
2.9 SECONDS WOULD REQUIRE A CONSTANT SPEED OF 12 MPH. (THAT IS THERE
WOULD BE NO ACCELERATION OR A START FROM A STANDING POSITION)
FACT: THE REACTION TIME FOR THE LAST MOTORIST IN A LINE IS 2. 1 SECONDS AND
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT OF THE VEHICLE, JUST THE
REALIZATION THAT EITHER/Oft THE LIGHT HAS CHANGED AND THE COR IN FRONT
IS MOVING. -
//THIS COMES FROM MINNDOT AND IS A STANDARD REACTION TIME//
FACT: THE REACTION TIME AND THE OF'TG-INAL CTT-ZEN TIME OF 4 SECONDS FOR THE _
- TURN = 6. 1 SECONDS AND MAY S-ILL BE TOO FAST FOR SAFETY.
FACT: BASIC PH;'EICS AND COMMON SENSE WOULD STATE THAT THE SLIGHTEST TAP
ON THE BRAP.E OR SLOWDOWN WILL GEOMETRICALLY DELAY THE ENTIRE LINE.
FACT: TO CLEAR OUT 2 LINES OF 10 CARS IN 40 SECONDS WOULD REQUIRE A SPEED
OF 20 MILES PER HOUR. THIS WOULD BE A HAZARDOUS CONDITION.
FACT: WEEKDAYS. .BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED AMPHITHEATER, SHAKOPEE WILL
EXPERIENCE THE IMPACT OF AN ADDITIONAL =33 CARS IN THE 6:00 TO 8:00
P.M TIME PERIOD.7HIS WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THIS NORMALLY CONGESTED
PERIOD OF THE DAY.
BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF TURNING ON VALLEY PARK AND CR83 FOR
CONCERTGOERS COMING ON 101 WEST, THE AREA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
PHYSICALLY CLEAR THE TRAFFIC IN THE 7:00 TO 8:00 P.M. PERIOD.THIS WILL
EFFECTIVELY CAUSE TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK.
72.6 MINUTES OF TRAFFIC IN A 60 MINUTE PERIOD ON EITHER LEFT TURN.
FACT: WEEKENDS. .BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED AMPHITHEATER. SHAKOPEE WILL .
EXPERIENCE THE IMPACT OF AN ADDITONAL 6296 CARS IN THE 6:00 TO 8:00
P.M. TIME PERIOD. THIS WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THIS NORMALLY CONGESTED
PERIOD OF THE WEEKEND.
BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF TURNING ON VALLEY PARE: AND CRB3 FOR
CONCERTGOERS COMING ON 101 WEST, THE AREA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
PHYSICALLY CLEAR THE TRAFFIC IN NOT ONLY THE 6:00 TO 7:00
P.M. TIME PERIOD, BUT THE TRAFFIC COMING IN THE 7:00 TO 8:00 P.M.
PERIOD WILL BE BACKED UP AGAINST THE EARLIER TRAFFIC.
THIS WILL EFFECTIVELY CAUSE TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK.
158.6 MINUTES OF TRAFFIC IN A 60 MINUTE PERIOD ON EITHER LEFT TURN. -
FACT: ALL OTHER POSSIBLE TRAFFIC WAS EXCLUDED FROM THESE NUMBERS SO ANY
REVISED NUMBERS COULD BE MUCH GREATER.
FACT: 57,ARWOOD WILL PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONGESTION WHICH VIOLATES CRITERIA #9
"DOES NOT CAUSE UNDUE TRAFFIC HAZARD OR CONGESTION. "
IF THIS PROJECT CANNOT PROVE OTHERWISE, IT IS YOUR OBLIGATION TO
DEFEND THE CRITERIA OF THE CONDITIONAL USAGE PERMIT AND VOTE DOWN THE
PERMIT. 7 J/
F. 7 7
CITIZENS AGAINST STARWOOD
AMPHITHEATER
ATTACHMENT 1 - REVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC TOTALS FROM THE STUDY OF 8/178/87
WEEKDAYS ONLY
ATTACHMENT 2 - REVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC TOTALS FROM THE STUDY OF S118167
WFFIEFNnc ONLY
- ATTACHMENT _ - FORMULA FOR COMPUTING SPEED OF LEFT TURN _
ATTACHMENT 4 - IMPACT TRAFFIC STUDY - STARWOOD AMPHITHEATER REVISED
ATTACHMENT 1. A REVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC TOTALS FROM THE STUDY OF 8/18/B7.
WEEKDAYS ONLY
ICttfLt These are the developer's own numbers)];;)))
A. weekdays - the arrival of 1000 cars in the early arrival time, will begin
in the 6-7 p.m. period. the racetrack departs between 7: 30 and 8:30 P.M.
(THE RACETRACK DEPARTURE AND START TIMES MAY HE CHANGED IF THE RACETRACK
CHANGES OWNERSHIP OR MANAGEMENT. AS OF THE TIME OF THIS STUDY, SCOTTLAND CAN
STILL INFLUENCE THE DEPARTURE TIME. )
The early arrivals will come in on the back, end of the commuter rush or at
least be delayed by it.
B. weekdays - the arrival of 2333 cars in the peak arrival time will begin at
7:00 p.m. and cease at 8:00 p.m. when all but a few people will not have
arrived .The peak arrivals will come in as the initial rush of Canterbury
traffic is letting out.
The incoming traffic breakout by route per Barton-Aschman study:
/USING MINNDOT AND SCOTT CTY TRAFFIC COUNTS/
PLEASE NOTE: THE CITIZENS STUDY USES THESE SAME NUMBERS (JUST AS GOOD AS THE
DEVELOPERS NUMBERS)
INCOMING EARLY - 6:00 - 7:00 F.M.
FROM THE SOUTH COUNTY RD 42 TO COUNTY ROAD 83 290 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKDAYS 495 VEHICLES
THIS TIME OF DAY
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD - 785 VEHICLES
PERCENTAGE 37% INCREASE TRAFFIC THIS ROAD
INCOMING LATE - 7:00 - 8:00 P.M.
COUNTY RD 42 TO COUNTY ROAD 83 677 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKDAYS 441 VEHICLES
THIS TIME OF DAY
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD 111B VEHICLE
PERCENTAGE 61% INCREASE TRAFFIC THIS ROAD
CONCLUSION THIS ROUTE: AN ADDITIONAL 967 CARS THIS ROAD OR A 1007. INCREASE FOR
THIS PERIOD
INCOMING EARLY- 6:00 - 7:00 PM.
FROM .THE WEST TH 101 AND 169 E. 240 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKDAYS 1236. VEHICLES
THIS TIME OF DAY
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD 1576 VEHICLES
PERCENTAGE 15% INCREASE TRAFFIC THIS ROAD `
INCOMING LATE - 7:00 - B:00 P.M.
TH 101 AND 169 E. 560 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKDAYS 1043 VEHICLES
THIS TIME OF DAY
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD 1603 VEHICLES
PERCENTAGE 35% INCREASE TRAFFIC THIS ROAD
CONCLUSION THIS ROUTE: AN ADDITIONAL BOO CARS THIS ROAD OR A 25% INCREASE IN
TRAFFIC THIS PERIOD.
INCOMING EARLY - 6:00 - 7:00 P.M.
FROM THE EAST TH 101 WEST 460 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKDAYS 841 VEHICLES
THIS TIME OF DAY
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD 1301 VEHICLES
PERCENTAGE 35% INCREASE TRAFFIC THIS ROAD
INCOMING LATE - 7:00 - 8:00 P.M. _
TH 101 WEST 1073 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKDAYS B57 VEHICLES
THIS TIME OF DAY
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD 1930 VEHICLES
PERCENTAGE 56% INCREASE TRAFFIC THIS ROAD
CONCLUSION THIS ROUTE: AN ADDITIONAL 1533 CARS THIS ROAD OR A 90% INCREASE IN
TRAFFIC THIS PERIOD.
THIS I5 A 66% INCREASE IN THE NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW PERCENTAGES FOR THE OVERALL
PERIOD OF 6:00 TO 8:00 P.M. ON THE THREE INCOMING ROADS. -
ATTACHMENT 2. A REVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC TOTALS FROM THE STUDY OF 8118/87
WEEKENDS ONLY
WEEKENDS - THESE PRESENT A SPECIAL PROBLEM BECAUSE OF CANTERBURY, VALLEY FAIR,
MURPHY'S LANDING, BIG SIX BINGO AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE RENAISSANCE FESTIVAL
W. OF TOWN.
A. weekends - the arrival of 1889 cars in the early arrival time, will begin
in the 6-7 p.m. period. the racetrack departs between 7:30 and 8:30 p.m.
(THE RACETRACK DEPARTURE AND START TIMES MAY BE CHANGED IF THE RACETRACK
CHANGES OWNERSHIP OR MANAGEMENT. AS OF THE TIME OF THIS STUDY, SCOTTLAND CAN
STILL INFLUENCE THE DEPARTURE TIME.
B. weekends - the arrival of 4047 cars in the peak arrival time will begin at
7:00 p.m. and cease at B:00 p.m. when all but a few people will not have
arrived .The peak arrivals will come in as the initial rush of Canterbury
traffic is letting out.
The incoming traffic breakout by route per Barton-Aschman study:
PLEASE NOTE: THE NORMAL TRAFFIC TOTALS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BUT THEY WOULD HAVE
TO BE ADDED IN TO THESE NUMBERS PLUS VALLEY FAIR ETC.
THIS PORTION OF THE STUDY "ONLY" INCLUDES THE STARWOOD TRAFFIC. IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY INBOUND TRAFFIC OR OUTBOUND TRAFFIC FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE.
A ROUGH ESTIMATE HAS BEEN MADE FOR RENAISSANCE TRAFFIC OUTBOUND BUT IT DOES
NOT READILY IMPACT THE FINAL RESULTS.
INCOMING EARLY - 6:00 - 7:00 P.M. //STARWOOD ONLY//
FROM THE SOUTH COUNTY RD 42 TO COUNTY ROAD 83 567 VEHICLES
INCOMING LATE - 7:00 - 8:00 P.M.
COUNTY RD 42 TO COUNTY ROAD 63 1322 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKENDS / UNKNOWN BUT
ENORMOUS/
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD //STARWOOD ONLY// 1689 VEHICLES
INCOMING EARLY- 6:00 - 7:00 PM.
FROM THE EAST TH 101 AND 169 E. - 453 VEHICLES
INCOMING LATE - 7:00 - 8:00 P.M.
TH 101 AND 169 E. 1058 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKENDS / UNKNOWN BUT
ENORMOUS/
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD//STARWOOD ONLY// 1511 VEHICLES
INCOMING EARLY- 6:00 - 7e00 P.M. '
FROM THE EAST TH 101 EAST 869 VEHICLES
ATT-.CHMEN- 2 (CONTINUED) _ j
INCOMING LATE - 7:00 - 8:00 P.M.
TH 101 EAST 2027 VEHICLES
NORMAL TRAFFIC THIS ROAD WEEKENDS /UNKNOWN BUT
ENORMOUS/
TOTAL VEHICLE LOAD // STARWOOD ONLY// 2896 VEHICLES
CONCLUSION THIS ROUTE: AN ADDITIONAL 6296 CARS THIS ROAD IN THE 6:00 TO 8:00
P.M. TIME PERIOD.
NOTE: AT THE AVERAGE AUTO SIZE, THIS IS ABOUT 19. 1 MILES OF "ADDITIONAL"
TRAFFIC IN THIS PERIOD! ! . . . . . . . AND THERE ARE 2896 CARS WAITING TO MAKE
A LEFT TURN FROM 101 TO VALLEY PARK AND CR 83. APPROXIMATELY 8.78 MILES OF
!* THIS DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY OTHER NORMAL OR INCOMING TRAFFIC*X
i
f
ATTACHMENT 3
FORMULA FOR COMPUTING SPEED OF
LEFT TURN ONTO VALLEY FAIR DRIVE
AND COUNTY ROAD 83
OVERVIEW: AT THE AUGUST 20, 1987 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A TRAFFIC
STUDY WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION TO REFUTE AND SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF
THE CITIZEN'S GROUP THAT THE STARWOOD AMPHITHEATER WOULD VIOLATE THE INTENT
AND PROVISIONS OF CONDITION #4 "WOULD NOT CAUSE TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR HAZARD".
INASMUCH AS ALL OF THE TRAFFIC DATA ,PROJECTED CROWD ARRIVAL TIMES, AND CROWD
SIZE WERE TAKEN INTACT FROM DEVELOPERS OWN STUDIES, THE SINGLE POINT OF
REBUTTAL WAS THE TURNING TIME NECESSARY TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ONTO VALLEY PARK
DRIVE AND/OR CR B3 AND THEN INTO THE PROPOSED STARWOOD COMPLEX.
1. THE LEFT TURNS ARE EACH DOUBLE TURN LANES .
2. EACH TURN LANE WAS ASSUMED TO HOLD A QUEUE OF 10 AUTOMOBILES.
3. THE GREEN ARROW WAS TIMED AT 40 SECONDS (IN THE MOST CONGESTED TRAFFIC
PERIOD TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST TIME)
4. THE RED LIGHT WAS TIMED AT 1:30 MINUTES (IN THE MOST CONGESTED TRAFFIC
PERIOD TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST TIME)
5. MINNDOT HAS STATED THAT :
a. A TRAFFIC LANE WOULD MEASURE 12 FEET IN WIDTH.
B. A TRAFFIC ISLAND WOULD MEASURE 14 FEET IN WIDTH.
C. A SHOULDER WOULD MEASURE 12-14 FEET IN WIDTH.
THEREFORE:
OUR FORMULA WILL .TAKE A VEHICLE ACROSS THE WIDTH OF
2 TRAFFIC LANES 2 X 12 FEET = 24 FEET
1 TRAFFIC ISLAND 1 X 14 FEET = 14 FEET
1 TRAFFIC SHOULDER i X 12 FEET = 12 FEET
TOTAL DISTANCE TO TRAVEL 50 FEET.
*** THIS GIVES US A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET TO TRAVEL FROM THE STOPPING POINT IN
THE LANE , THROUGH THE 50 FEET, AND ONTO THE ROAD TO STARWOOD AND AN EVENING'S
ENTERTAINMENT.****
6. SPEED- THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME TIMES TO CROSS A STRAIGHTAWAY 50 FEET
(WITHOUT THE TURN - THIS IS DISCUSSED IN #7)
DISTANCE - ALWAYS 50 FEET
TIME DISTANCE TRAVELLED SPEED NECESSARY TO TRAVEL
.57 SECONDS 50 FEET 60 MILES PER HOUR
,64 SECONDS 50 MILES PER HOUR
.86 SECONDS 40 MILES PER HOUR
_. .
I
1. 13 SECONDS 30 MILES PER HOUR
1.7 SECONDS 20 MILES PER HOUR -
1.89 SECONDS 18 MILES PER HOUR
2. 13 SECONDS 16 MILES PER HOUR
2.44 SECONDS 14 MILES PER HOUR
2.84 SECONDS 12 MILES PER HOUR
*4t* kmN4 THIS IS THE AREA CITED IN THE REBUTTAL AS BEING A COMMON TURNING
SPEED.
AT 12 MPH, A STANDARD SHIFT AUTOMOBILE WOULD BE IN SECOND GEAR, AN AUTOMATIC
WOULD HAVE MADE ITS FIRST SHIFT.
DOES ANYONE THINK THAT MAYBE THAT WOULD BE TOO FAST?"??
THE CITIZENS STUDY USED A TOTAL OF 4 SECONDS AS THE ELAPSED TIME TO
MAKE THIS TURN. THIS WOULD OCCUR AT 8.5 MPH WHICH WOULD ALSO BE A RECKLESS
SPEED FOR THE TURN.
SINCE THEN HOWEVER: MINNDOT HAS CITED A 2. 1 SECOND REACTION TIME FOR THE
TENTH CAR IN A TEN CAR QUEUE! -
THIS. MEANS THAT THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CITIZENS STUDY MUST BE ADDED TO IN -
2. 1 SECOND INCREMENTS TO ADD REACTION TIME.
TO HELP THE DEVELOPER WE WILL PRETEND THATALL CARS IN THE LINE HAVE
A 2. 1 SECOND REACTION TIME.
SINCE THEN HOWEVER: MINNDOT HAS CITED THAT A RATIONAL SAFE TURNING SPEED
WOULD BE IN THE AREA OF 5MPH THIS WOULD BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 7.3 SECONDS
PLUS THE 2. 1 SECOND REACTION TIME WOULD PUT THIS AT A 9.4 SECOND TOTAL ELAPSED
TIME AND CERTAINLY NOT HAZARDOUS.
IF WE ARE TO MEET THE CONDITIONAL USAGE CRITERIA OF HAZARDOUS TRAFFIC, TURNING
CARS AT 12 MPH (CONSTANT SUSTAINED SPEED)?
DOES ANYONE NOTICE THAT BESIDES CONGESTION, WE ARE ASKING ORDINARY DRIVERS TO
PERFORM IMPOSSIBLE AUTO MANUEVERS77.
WE HAVE ENHANCED THE FORMER TRAFFIC STUDY WITH THE REVISED TRAFFIC FIGURES AND
SUBMIT IT AS EVIDENCE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND HAZARD.
IMPACT TRAFFIC STUDY STARWOOD AMPHITHEATER
THIS IS A REVISED STUDY BASED ON NEW INFORMATION
ALL REVISED AREAS WILL BE SHOWN WITH ASTERICES***
THE INFORMATION USED TO COMPILE TRAFFIC STATISTICS WAS OBTAINED FROM THE SCOTT "
COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT AND MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.ALL OF
THE NECESSARY DATA TO ESTABLISH TRAFFIC PERCENTAGE CRITERIA AND HOUSEHOLD
DISTRIBUTION HAS BEEN TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE BARTON-ASCHMAN TRAFFIC STUDY
IN THE DEVELOPERS EAW AND OTHER ASSORTED MATERIALS.
TO FURTHER SIMPLIFY THIS STUDY WE HAVE INTERPRETED THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS
SATURATION COUNT AT KEY INTERSECTIONS AND CONVERTED IT TO A SIMPLER AND
MORE EASILY UNDERSTOOD # OF CARS SCENARIO.
THE TIME NECESSARY TO TURN AT THESE INTERSECTIONS WAS TAKEN AT PEAK WEEKEND
TRAVEL TIMING (NOON SATURDAY) TO PROVIDE THE FAIREST POSSIBLE TIME FOR ANY
COMPUTERIZED TRAFFIC LIGHTS.
IN ALL CASES THE DEVELOPERS MATERIAL WAS USED AS THE LAST WORD.
ASSUMPTIONS: 1. THAT THE AVERAGE AUTOMOBILE IS 16 FEET LONG
2. THAT THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS IN EACH CAR WILL BE 2.7
PEOPLE
X*# 3. THAT THE AVERAGE TIME TO TURN ON A LIGHT OR STOP SIGN IS 4
SECONDS PER CAR. (THIS IS 8.5 MPH OFCONSTANTSPEED AND WOULD
BE UNSAFE OR AT LEAST RECKLESS)
NOTE: THE 2.9 SECONDS CITED AS A REBUTTAL WOULD REQUIRE A
CONSTANT SPEED OF 12 MILES PER HOUR! !
THIS WOULD BE UNSAFE AND IMPOSSIBLE
### 4. THAT A REACTION TIME BE FIGURED INTO THE EQUATION OF 2. 1
SECONDS FOR A DRIVER TO REACT.
5. ADDING #3 + q4 = A 6. 1 SECOND TURNING TIME FOR EACH CAR
THIS FIGURE (6. 1 SECONDS) PER CAR IS USED THROUGHOUT THE
STUDY FROM THIS POINT.
STARWOOD 6. THAT THE PEAK. ATTENDANCE ONWEEKDAYSWILL BE 9000 PEOPLE
(FROM PAGE 22 OF THE STARWOOD MATERIAL EAW TRIP GENERATION
ASSUMPTIONS USED BY DEVELOPERS)
THIS WILL GENERATE 3733 CARS.
THAT THE PEAK ATTENDANCE ON WEEKENDS WILL BE 17000 PEOPLE
(FROM PAGE 22 OF STARWOOD MATERIAL EAW TRIP GENERATION
ASSUMPTIONS USED BY DEVELOPERS)
THIS WILL GENERATE 6296 CARS.
7. THAT PEAK ARRIVAL WILL BE IN THE 7:00 TO 8:00 P.M. PERIOD .
THAT 2333 CARS WILL ARRIVE IN THE 7:00 TO 8:00 P.M. PERIOD
(70%)ON WEEKDAYS.
THAT PEAR: ARRIVAL WILL BE IN THE 7:00 TO 2:00 P.M. PERIOD .
THAT 4407 CARS WILL ARRIVE IN THE 7:00 TO 8:00 P.M. PERIOD
(70&%) ON WEEKENDS.
B. THAT ALL OTHER ARRIVALS WILL COME EARLY IN THE 6:00 TO 7:00 _
TIME PERIOD (307. OR 1000 CARS ON WEEKDAYS)
THAT ALL OTHER ARRIVALS WILL COME EARLY IN THE 6:00 TO 7:00
TIME PERIOD (30% OR 1889 CARS ON WEEKENDS. )
9. THAT THE AVERAGE START TIME AT STARWOOD WILL BE AT 8:00 P.M.
ON ALL DAYS.
RACETRACK 10. THAT THE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE ON WEEKDAYS AT CANTERBURY DOWNS
WILL BE 10700 PEOPLE.
(FROM PAGE 25 OF THE STARWOOD MATERIAL EAW)
THIS WILL BE 3963 CARS.
11. THAT CANTERBURY WILL DEPART AT 7:30 TO 8:30 P.M.
VALLEYFAIR 12. THAT VALLEYFAIR TRAFFIC AT THIS TIME WILL BE TAKEN
FROM THE SCOTT COUNTY FIGURES. (ASSUME AVERAGE DAILY
ATTENDANCE OF 5000 PEOPLE (1850 CAPS) SKEWED TO LEAVE FROM
9:00 TO 12:00 (ASSUME 70% LEAVE IN THESE HOURS)
MURPHY'S LDG WILL BE ASSUMED TO BE IN THE SCOTT COUNTY
TRAFFIC. FIGURES.
WEEKDAYS: THE ARRIVAL OF 1000 CARS IN THE EARLY ARRIVAL TIME. (SEE #5) '
WILL BEGIN IN THE 6:00 P.M. PERIOD TO 7:00 P.M. THE RACETRACK
DEPARTS BETWEEN 7:30 AND 8:30 P.M. IN USING THE WORST CASE
SCENARIO AS USED BY THE DEVELOPER EAW. THE EARLY ARRIVALS
WILL COME IN ON THE BACK END OF THE COMMUTER RUSH OR AT
LEAST BE DELAYED BY IT.
CR 42 TO 83 BASED ON THE BARTON-A.SCHMAN HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION OF THESE
FIRST ARRIVAL VEHICLES APPROXIMATELY 29'%.(290 CARS) WILL BE
GOING W. ON RT 42 FROM SAVAGE JOINING ONLY 10 CARS FROM PRIOR
LAKE AND THEN PROCEEDING UP E37 TO STARWOOD.
THE TRAFFIC COUNT ON CR 42 AT THIS TIME AVERAGES 495 CARS
BETWEEN 6:00 AND 7:00 PER WEEKDAY ACCORDING TO SCOTT CTY
HIGHWAY FIGURES.SO THE ADDITIONAL 290 CARS WILL ADD A MINIMAL
IMPACT TO THIS AMOUNT (NOW 785) CAPS. WE ASSUME THIS IS
BURNSVILLE OR LAKEVILLE TRAFFIC SINCE THE 29% ON TH101 IS
COMING OUT OF 35 W.AND IS PROBABELY MINNEAPOLIS AND EAGAN
TRAFFIC AND IS FIGURED IN THE TOTALS FOR TH 101 W.
THE LIGHT IN PRIOR LAKE 42/13 AVERAGES 1:30 MINUTES OF .RED.
AND APPROXIMATELY 20 SECONDS OF GREEN.
ASSUMING A LIBERAL CAR PER- SECOND (20 CARS) WILL GET THROUGH
ON THE LIGHT AND WAIT FOR 1:30 MINUTES FOR THE RED IT WILL
TAKE APPROXIMATELY 39 GREEN LIGHTS TO RELEASE ALL CARS
HEADING FOR STARWOOD. ALSO THE WAIT TIME FOR 39 RED LIGHTS
WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL 51 MINUTES PLUS 13 MINUTES FOR THE
GREEN LIGHTS. WE CAN SAFELY ASSUME THAT IT WILL TAKE MOST OF
THIS TIME TO TRAVERSE THE AREA TO GET TO THE CR97 TURNOFF AT
PRIOR LAKE N. ON 83 TO STARWOOD. THE 10 CARS FROM PRIOR LANE _
SHOULD NOT ANTICIPATE ANY DELAY OR PROBLEMS
TH 101 & 169E BASED ON THE BARTON ASCHMAN STUDY OF HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION
OF THESE FIRST ARRIVAL VEHICLES, THERE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY
240 VEHICLES HEADING EAST ON 101 TO STARWOOD.THESE VEHICLES
WILL JOIN THE NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW OF 1336 CARS AVERAGE
AT THIS TIME. BASED ON THE RIGHT TURN RATE OF 1 CAR EVERY 4
SECONDS THIS GROUP SHOULD BE CLEAR OF 101 IN ABOUT 20 MINUTES
UNLESS THERE IS OTHER OF THE TRAFFIC (1336 CARS) ALSO
TURNING. BASED ON THE DEVELOPERS STUDY AND BARTON ASCHMAN
APPROXIMATELY SO% OF THE TRAFFIC WILL BE G UP 83
HEADING SOUTH.THIS SEEMS HIGH SO WE WILL ASSUME THAT ONLY
20% OF THIS TRAFFIC WILL TURN ON T14I5 ROAD HEADING SOUTH TO
CR 42. (267 CARS WILL MAKE THIS TURN) AT 4 SECONDS PER
TURN, THIS WILL TAKE AN ADDITIONAL 18 MINUTES.THERE ARE NO
STOP' SIGNS UNTIL CR42 AND LITTLE TRAFFIC EXCEPT SOME RESIDUAL
TRAFFIC FROM RT 16. OR TRAFFIC TURNING SOUTH FROM THE
RACETRACK WHICH COULD SLOW THIS DOWN AND IMPEDE THE LEFT TURN
TO 13TH AVE.
***NOTE: SINCE THIS IS A TURNING, NO STOP SITUATION, WE HAVE MADE
NO ALLOWANCE FOR REACTION TIME SINCE THESE DRIVERS ARE
ALREADY AT A TRAVELING SPEED. THE 4 SECOND TURN TIME
HAS BEEN RETAINED
TH 101 WEST BASED ON THE BARTON ASCHMAN STUDY OF HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION
OF THESE FIRST ARRIVAL VEHICLES,THERE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY
460 VEHICLES HEADING WEST ON 101 TO STARWOOD. THESE VEHICLES
WILL JOIN THE NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW OF 841 VEHICLES HEADING
W.ON 101 .THIS WILL TOTAL 1301 VEHICLES. IF 10 % OF THIS
NORMAL TRAFFIC DECIDES TO TURN ON THE LEFT TO VALLEY
PARK DRIVE (84) CARS AND THE 460 VEHICLES GOING TO STARWOOD.
THIS LIGHT (LEFT ON GREEN) TAKES 40 SECONDS. ASSUME 2 CARS -
M4 EVERY 6. 1 SECONDS /APPROX 14 CARS PER LIGHT/IT WOULD TAKE
APPROXIMATELY 39 GREEN ARROWS TO PHYSICALLY MOVE THE TRAFFIC
ONTO VALLEY PARK DRIVE. (AN ELAPSED TIME OF 26 MINUTES TO
PHYSICALLY TURN) THE ADDITION OF THE 1 MINUTE AND 30 SECOND
WAIT PERIOD FOR EACH RED LIGHT WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL 49.4
MINUTES TO THE ELAPSED TIME AT THIS LISHT. (APPROXIMATELY
75 MINUTES OF ELAPSED TIME TO CLEAR THIS TRAFFIC)
THIS IS UNREASONABLE SO SOME OF THIS TRAFFIC MAY MOVE ON TO 83
AND TURN LEFT THERE. ASSUME 50% OF THESE VEHICLES (272)GO ON
DOWN TO THE NEXT LIGHT AND TURN LEFT AND THE TIMING OF THE
LIGHT IS THE SAME THIS WOULD CUT IT DOWN TO ABOUT 38 MINUTES
OF ELAPSED TIME AT EACH LIGHT.
OTHER SINCE THESE ARE THE EARLYARRIVALSAND ARE ON THE BACK END OF THE
COMMUTER TRAFFIC AND RIGHT BEFORE CANTERBURY LETS OUT. SHOULD THERE BE ANY _
VARIATION IN THE SCHEDULING THESE VEHICLES COULD COME INTO THIS AREA AND MAY
CONFLICT WITH THE CANTERBURY TRAFFIC OR BE AFFECTED BY VALLEY FAIR OR OTHER
COMMUTER ACTIVITY.
THE BLOOMINGTON FERRY BRIDGE TRAFFIC IN THE 6:00 TO 7:00 TIME PERIOD HANDLES
- --APPROXIMATELY 1051 CARS AND THIS MAY DELAY SOME-OF THE TRAFFIC COMING IN. -- -
THIS MAY NECESSITATE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO GET THESE PATRONS IN.
ACCORDING TO THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD, THERE ARE NO SET SCHEDULES
FOR TRAIN SWITCHING OR PREDICTABILITY FOR TRAINS PASSING THROUGH AS THEY WORK
A 24 HOUR PER DAY SCHEDULE. ANY TRAIN PASSING THROUGH WILL HOLD UP ANY LEFT
TURNS ONTO VALLEY PARK DRIVE OR 83 AND PUSH THESE DELAY TIMES UP CONSIDERABLY.
WEEKDAYS: THE ARRIVAL OF 2333 CARS IN THE PEAK ARRIVAL TIME, (SEE #3)
WILL BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M. AND CEASE AT 8:00 P.M. WHEN ALL
BUT A FEW PEOPLE WILL HAVE NOT YET ARRIVED.
IN USING THE WORST CASE SCENARIO OF THE DEVELOPER EAW AND THE
BARTON ASCHMAN STUDY, THE PEAK. ARRIVALS WILL COME
IN AS THE INITIAL RUSH OF CANTERBURY TRAFFIC IS LETTING OUT.
CR 42 TO 83 BASED ON THE BARTON-ASCHMAN HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION OF THESE
PEAK ARRIVAL VEHICLES APPROXIMATELY 29'!.(677 CARS) WILL BE
GOING W ON RT 42 FROM SAVAGE JOINING ONLY 23 CARS FROM PRIOR
LAKE AND THEN PROCEEDING UP 83 TO STARWOOD.
THE TRAFFIC COUNT ON CR 42 AT THIS TIME AVERAGES 441 CARS
BETWEEN 7:00 AND 8:00 PER WEEKDAY ACCORDING TO SCOTT CTY
HIGHWAY FIGURES. SO THE ADDITIONAL 677 CARS WILL ADD UP TO
1118 CARS. WE ASSUME THIS IS BURNSVILLE OR LAKEVILLE TRAFFIC
SINCE THE 29% ON TH101 IS COMING OUT OF 35W AND IS PROBABELY
MINNEAPOLIS AND EAGAN TRAFFIC AND I5 FIGURED IN THE TOTALS
FOR TH101 W. THE LIGHT IN PRIOR LAKE 42/13 AVERAGES 1:30
MINUTES OF RED AND APPROXIMATELY 20 SECONDS OF GREEN DURING
RUSH HOUR.
ASSUMING A LIBERAL CAR PER SECOND(20 CARS) WILL GET THROUGH
ON THE LIGHT AND WAIT FOR 1:30 MINUTES FOR THE RED IT WILL
TAKE APPROXIMATELY 56 GREEN LIGHTS TO RELEASE ALL CARS
HEADING FOR STARWOOD. ALSO THE WAIT TIME FOR 56 RED LIGHTS
WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL 73 MINUTES PLUS 18.6 MINUTES FOR THE
GREEN LIGHTS. WE CAN SAFELY ASSUME THAT IT WILL TAKE MOST OF
THIS TIME TO TRAVERSE THE AREA TO GET TO THE CR83 TURNOFF AT
PRIOR LAKE N. ON 83 TO STARWOOD. THE 23 CARS FROM PRIOR LAKE
SHOULD NOT ANTICIPATE ANY DELAY OR PROBLEMS.
OUR STUDY DID NOT PERMIT ANY DEVIATION TO THE N. TO 101 AND
THEN LEFT TO VALLEY PARK DRIVE SO AS NOT TO TAINT THE
BARTON-ASCHMAN NUMBERS.
THE ARRIVAL OF THESE VEHICLES AT THE STARWOOD FACILITY SHOULD
BE IN THE MIDST OF OR PRIOR TO THE LETTING OUT OF CANTERBURY.
THESE CARS COULD BE HELD UP AT THE RIGHT TURN TO 12TH
AVENUE. SINCE THE CANTERBURY TRAFFIC HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY.
IT MAY DELAY THE INCOMING STARWOOD TRAFFIC FROM THE RIGHT
TURN . AS THIS IS LIKELY TO BE 1118 CARS (NOT ALL AT THE SAME
TIME,OF COURSE! ) BUT IT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT ENOUGH
TO BACK UP 1/2 MILE TO 16 IF ONLY 165 CARS HAD TO WAIT TO
MAKE THE TURN. -
THE NEARER TO CONCERT TIME(8:00) THE MORE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS
PROBLEM. AS TRAFFIC FROM CANTERBURY WILL BEGIN BACKING UP AS
BASED ON THE BARTON-ASCHMAN STUDY OF HOUSEHOLDS AND THE
AVERAGE CANTERBURY TRAFFIC HEADING+ TO A RIGHT TURN ONTO 101
E. WOULD NUMBER 1823 VEHICLES. SINCE 12TH STREET FROM
THE CANTERBURY ENTRANCE TO THE TH101 E.RIGHT TURN IS ABOUT
2.5 MILES THE CANTERBURY TRAFFIC COVERS 2.76 MILES (2
LANES) TO THE EXIT (A RIGHT TURN INTO TRAFFIC EVERY 4
SECONDS UTILIZING BOTH LANES/ RIGHT ON RED AND NORMAL RED
--'--- -' - LIGHT) ONTO TH101 WOULD EMPTY OUT THE LANES IN LESS THAN 1
HOUR. BUT THIS TRAFFIC WOULD HAVE TO MERGE INTO THE NORMAL
TRAFFIC FLOW COMING FROM TH101 EASTBOUND WHICH IS 1043
CARS. ALSO WOULD HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THE TRAFFIC COMING
WESTBOUND AND TURNING LEFT ONTO VALLEY PAR". DRIVE. (AT THE
RATE OF 2 CARS EVERY 6. 1 SECONDS (SEE TH101 W PARAGRAPH NEXT
STUDY FOR NUMBERS) THIS INCOMING STARWOOD TRAFFIC WOULD
KEEP THE SECURITY PEOPLE FROM CANTERBURY FROM OPENING UP THE
OTHER LANES TO PUT 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC ONTO 12TH AVENUE TO
SPEED UP THE EGRESS OF CANTERBURY TRAFFIC.ALSO THE SINGLE
RIGHT TURN ON RED AND SPECIAL UTILIZATION OF THE RED LIGHT
KEEPSTHISA 2 CAR EVERY 6. 1 SECONDS SITUATION. THE TRAFFIC
EGRESS FROM RT 83 COULD CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS ALSO IN THIS AREA.
TH101 & 169E BASED ON THE BARTON A5CHMAN STUDY OF HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION
OF THESE PEAL: ARRIVAL VEHICLES. THERE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY
29% OR 560 CARS GOING E. ON TH101 &169 E. TO STARWOOD.THESE
VEHICLES WILL JOIN THE NORMAL 1043 CARS OF THE NORMAL TRAFFIC
PATTERN.TURNING RIGHT ON ROUTE 63 TO STARWOOD.ASSUME ABOUT
20% OF THIS TRAFFIC WILL WANT TO TURN RIGHT (209 CAPS) AND
THE 560 AUTOS HEADING TO STARWOOD A RIGHT TURN ONTO 83 AT 1
CAR EVERY 4 SECONDS WILL SHOULD TIE UP THIS AREA FOR 51
MINUTES. PEOPLE WILL DISCOVER OTHER WAYS IN,OF COUP.SE,MAINLY
THROUGH THE TOWN AND RT 16.
IN ANY EVENT THIS TRAFFIC WILL ENCOUNTER CANTERBURY TRAFFIC
GOING DIRECTLY INTO 12TH STREET AND WILL HAVE TO WAIT TO TURN
LEFT. ANY TRAFFIC TAKING ANOTHER ROUTE (16^) WILL ENCOUNTER
THE GROUP FROM RT 42 AND WAIT IN THAT LINE FOR A RIGHT TURN.
TH 101 WEST BASED ON THE BARTON ASCHMAN STUDY OF HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION
OF THESE PEAK. ARRIVAL VEHICLES,THERE. WILL BE APPROXIMATELY
46% OR 1073 VEHICLES HEADING W. ON TH101 &169 TO STARWOOD.
THESE VEHICLES WILL JOIN THE NORMAL AVERAGE TRAFFIC FLOW OF 657
CARS COMING W. ON 101. THIS WILL TOTAL 1930
VEHICLES,THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE STARWOOD TRAFFIC. IF 10%
OF THIS NORMAL TRAFFIC DECIDES TO TURN LEFT ON VALLEY PARK
(85 CARS) AND THE 1073 VEHICLES GOING TO STARWOOD, WE WOULD
HAVE 1158 VEHICLES TRYING TO TURN LEFT. NOW THEY WON'T ALL
ARRIVE AT THE SAME TIME BUT THE LEFT TURN LIGHT TAKES
### 40 SECONDS. ASSUME 2 CARS EVERY 6. 1 SECONDS, IT WOULD TAKE
B3 LIGHTS (OR 55 MINUTES OF THE HOUR) TO CLEAR ALL OF THIS
TRAFFIC THROUGH ONTO VALLEY. WAITING FOR THE RED LIGHT WILL
ADD 1:30 MINUTES WAIT TIME PER GREEN ARROW TO EITHER TURN.
(AN ADDITIONAL 1.8 HOURS OF WAIT TIME) TO CLEAR THIS TURN.
UNLESS THE EAST BOUND TRAFFIC IS HALTED (834 CARS OF NORMAL
TRAFFIC) THERE WILL BE NO WAY -;, MOVE THIS TRAFFIC INTO
STARWOOD( UNLESS IT STARTS EARLIER) BUT THEN YOU HAVE
THE COMMUTER TRAFFIC.
(SEE EARLIER ACTIVITIES IN NON-PEAK. TIME)
THIS IS UNREASONABLE, SO SOME OF THIS TRAFFIC MAY MOVE DOWN
101 AND DOWN TO THE NEXT LIGHT AND TURN LEFT.SINCE THE TIMING
OF THE LIGHT ON 83 IS THE SAME .. THE 579 CARS WILL TURN LEFT
IN THE TIME OF 27.6 MINUTES ON EACH LIGHT. HOWEVER THE LIGHT
ITSELF TAKES 1 MINUTE AND 35 SECONDS SO THIS WOULD ALSO HAVE
TO BE AN ADDITIONAL 45 MINUTES OF WAIT TIME.
THIS WOULD BE (5F2 I DL_C3QK SINCE THE TRAFFIC WOULD "E3-r
BE ABLE TO CLEAR THE TURNS IN A LESS THAN AN HOUR.
THIS OF COURSE FITS INTO CONDITION #9 AS TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND
- IS- TOTALLY- UNREASONABLE-ASA -TRAFFIC-SOLUTION. ---
IT IS FURTHER UNLIKELY THAT ':HIS TRAFFIC WILLBEABLE TO
TURN AS RAPIDLY BECAUSE OF THE OUTGOING CANTERBURY TRAFFIC
### TURNING RIGHT AND LEFT AT BOTH OF THESE LIGHTS.
WEEKENDS: THESE PRESENT A SPECIAL PROBLEM BECAUSE OF CANTERBURY,VALLEY
FAIR, MURPHYS LANDING, BIG SIX BINGO AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE
RENAISSANCE FESTIVAL W. OF TOWN.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE WEEKEND. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT
CROWDS OF 17000 PEOPLE WOULD OCCUR ONLY 4 TIMES PER YEAR BUT
THE TRAFFIC STUDY DID NOT SPECIFY ANY SPECIFIC WEEKENDS.
SO USING THE BARTON A.SCHMAN STUDY, AND THE FEELING THAT WE DO
NOT WANT LESSER CROWDS LIKE CANTERBURY DOWNS IS EXPERIENCING,
WE ASSUMED THAT THE WORST CASE SCENARIO WOULD APPLY BECAUSE
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES THAT A NEIL DIAMOND OR KENNY LOGGINS
WOULD WANT TO BE RESTRICTED TO A CERTAIN DAY OF THE WEEK.WE
HAVE ASSUMED THAT STARWOOD WOULD WANT TO RUN TO CAPACITY AS
GOOD BUSINESSMEN WOULD. IF THIS IS WRONG THEN FIGURE IT WITH
THE 9000 WEEKDAY CROWD AND SEE IF IT GETS ANY BETTER.
RENAISSANCE WEEKENDS ONLY FROM AUG i5 THRU SEPTEMBER 27 (9:00 A.M. TO
7:00 P.M. )
7 WEEKENDSat 300,000 visitors. (shakopee valley news) -
15 DAYS OF SATURDAY, SUNDAYS, AND LABOR. DAY.
ASSUME 20,000 VISITORS DAILY DIVIDED BY 2.7 PEOPLE PER CAR IS
AN ADDITIONAL 7407 CARS PER WEEKEND DAY SKEWED TO LEAVE FROM
5:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M. (ASSUME 50% LEAVE IN THE 6:00 TO 7:00
F.M. PERIOD.NEAR QUITTING TIME)ACCORDING TO THE BARTON ASCHMAN
HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION , WE CAN ASSUME THAT 5% OR 185 CARS
HEAD N. ON 41 AND 19% OR 704 CARS HEAD N. ON HWY 101/169
THE REMAINING CARS (2815) HEAD E. ON 101. FROM THIS 17% OR
(479) CARS HEAD ON TO THE BLOOMINGTON FERRY BRIDGE AND 29%
(916) CARS HEAD ON 101E TO 35 W ETC.
THE REMAINDER OF THE CARS (1520) ARE HEADING TO RT 42 VIA 17 -
AND CR 83 OR VALLEY VIEW DRIVE. ASSUME 30% KNOW THE WAY OR
ARE FROM SHAkKOPEE AND WE LOSE ANOTHER (456) CARS /CAN'T GET
MORE LIBERAL THAN THIS/ WE HAVE 1064 CARS WITH A DESIRE TO
TURN RIGHT ON VALLEY DRIVE.AT 1 CAR PER 4 SECOND PERIOD ON A
RIGHT TURN WITH RED THIS WOULD TAKE AN ELAPSED TIME OF 71 _
MINUTES.THIS WILL CONFLICT WITH THE STARWOOD TRAFFIC COMING
IN FOR THE CONCERT EARLY AND LATE. (AT 9000 THIS WOULD BE
AN ADDITIONAL 200 CARS WITH THE NEED TO TURN RIGHT ON VALLEY
DRIVE OR AN ADDITIONAL 53 MINUTES OF ELAPSED TIME TO MAKE THE
TURN. DEPENDING ON THE RACE TRACK TIME, THESE PEOPLE COULD
CONFLICT WITH CANTERBURY TRAFFIC OR IF THEY WENT UP 16 AND
BACK ONTO 83 N. THEY WOULD MEET WITH THE 1000 CARS ENTERING
S.FROM 42.
IF THEY TRAVEL E. ON 101 THEY WOULD THEN ENCOUNTER THE NORMAL
WEEKEND TRAFFIC OF RESIDENTS,VALLEY FAIR, ETC.
WEEKENDS: ASSUME THAT STARWOOD CONCERT ON A WEEKEND WITH 17000
ATTENDEES (CAPACITY CROWD)
HEADING TOWARD SHAKOPEE IN THE 6:00 TO 8:00 P.M. PERIOD
WILL BE 6296 VEHICLES DISTRIBUTED THUSLY:
- i8B9 COMING UP CR 83 N. TO STARWOOD FROM RT 42
OF THESE VEHICLES 567 WILL ARRIVE IN THE 6:00 - 7-.00 PM.
TIME PERIOD.
OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES, 1322 WILL ARRIVE IN THE PEAK
ARRIVAL TIME OF 7:00 TO 8:00 P.M.
t THE FIGURES OF NORMAL TRAFFIC WERE NOT AVAILABLE BUT
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED IN TO THESE NUMBERS PLUS
VALLEY FAIR, ETC. THIS WOULD MAKE IT A BIT SLOWER TO
CLEAR.
2896 COMING UP TH101 W. TO STARWOOD
OF THESE VEHICLE 869 WILL ARRIVE IN THE 6:00 - 7:00 PM.
TIME PERIOD.
OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES, 2027 WILL ARRIVE IN THE PEAU
ARRIVAL TIME OF 7:00 TO 8:00 P.M.
t THE FIGURES OF NORMAL TRAFFIC WERE NOT AVAILABLE BUT
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED IN TO THESE NUMBERS PLUS
VALLEY FAIR, ETC. THIS WOULD MAKE IT A BIT SLOWER TO
CLEAR.
1511 COMING UP TH101 E TO STARWOOD
OF THESE VEHICLES 453 WILL ARRIVE IN THE 6:00 - 7:00 PM.
TIME PERIOD.
OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES, 1058 WILL ARRIVE IN THE PEAK
ARRIVAL TIME OF 7:00 TO 8:00 P.M.
t THE FIGURES OF NORMAL TRAFFIC WERE NOT AVAILAH E BUT
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDED IN TO THESE NUMBERS PLUS
VALLEY FAIR, ETC. THIS WOULD MAKE IT A BIT SLOWER TO
CLEAR.
42 TO 83 THE 567 VEHICLES COMING N. FROM 42 IN THE EARLY TIME WILL
HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THE SHAKOPEE RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC,
VALLEYFAIR, MURPHYS LANDING ETC. BUT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE TO
TURN RIGHT AGAINST THE OUTGOING TRAFFIC. PROBABELY
LESS OF A PROBLEM THAN THE LARGER CROWD COMING AT 7:00 -
8:00. 1322 CARS WILL DEFINITELY CONTEND WITH THE RACETRACK
LETTING OUT AND A GREAT PORTION OF RENAISSANCE TRAFFIC.
BUT IN THIS PERIOD DESPITE THE ACTIVITY 1889 CARS WILL HAVE
TO MAKE THE RIGHT TURN ONTO 12TH AVENUE AND ONTO THE
STARWOOD GROL'NDS.DURING THE RACE TRACK DEPARTURE THIS WILL
BACK UP TRAFFIC MILES UP 42. ALSO THE RENAISSANCE TRAFFIC
TURNING RIGHT ON 83 AND HEADING SOUTH TO 42 WILL BE HELD UP
WHILE THE TRAFFIC MOVES OUT OF CANTERBURY.
THE REMAINING VEHICLES COMING N. FROM 42 IN THE PEAK ARRIVAL
GROUP WILL QUEUE IN LINE FOR A RIGHT TURN ONTO 12TH AVENUE.
TH101 & 169 E. THE 453 VEHICLES COMING E. ON 101 FROM THE W. IN THE EARLY
TIME WILL HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THE SHAK.OPEE RESIDENTIAL
TRAFFIC,VALLEYFAIR, MURPHYS LANDING ETC. AND THE 1064 CARS
TURNING ONTO RT 03 FROM 101. THE ELAPSED TIME FOR ALL OF
THESE TURNS AT 1 PER 4 SECOND PERIOD IS 1.7 HOURS SO SOME OF i
THIS TRAFFIC MAY FIND AN ALTERNATE ROUTE.
i
(WE ALREADY PUT 30% AWAY BECAUSE OF THE LOCAL AND
KNOWLEDGEABLE DRIVER) . _- -
GRIDLOCK THESE VEHICLES GOING 5.83 TO 42 WILL CONTEND WITH ONLY THE
MINOR PORTION OF CANTERBURY TRAFFIC. HOWEVER THE LARGER CROWD
COMING AT THE PEAK ARRIVAL TIME 1058 CARS WILL DEFINITELY
CONTEND WITH RACETRACK LETTING OUT AND A GREAT PORTION OF
RENAISSANCE TRAFFIC. IN THIS HOUR DESPITE THE ACTIVITY 105B+
CARS PLUS THE RESIDUAL TRAFFIC FROM THE OTHER ATTRACTIONS
WILL HAVE TO MAKE THE RIGHT TURN ONTO VALLEY.THE ELAPSED TIME
FOR THESE TURNS ALONE AT i PER 4 SECONDS IS ABOUT 70 MINUTES
OR 1. 18 HOURS. (COULD BE MORE BASED ON UNCOUNTED NORMAL
TRAFFIC. SINCE CANTERBURY WILL BE LETTING OUT, THESE CARS MAY
BE DELAYED EVEN MORE AS THE 3963 CARS LEAVE ON TO 12TH AVENUE
THE LEFT TURN NECESSARY TO GET ONTO 12TH AVENUE AND INTO
STARWOOD WOULD BEGIN BACKING UP.
TH101 &. WEST THE 869 VEHICLES COMING W. ON 101 IN THE EARLY TIME WILL HAVE
TO CONTEND WITH SHAKOPEE RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC,VALLEYFAIR,
MURPHYS LANDING,ETC. AND THE EASTBOUND TRAFFIC FROM
RENAISSANCE. TURNING LEFT AGAINST THE LIGHT WITH THE
LARGE FLOW OF TRAFFIC FROM RENAISSANCE (2815) CARS
WOULD TAKE SOME TIME.THIS LIGHT (LEFT ON GREEN ARROW) TAKES
w#* 40 SECONDS. ASSUME 2 CARS EVERY 6. 1 SECONDS IT WOULD TAKE
APPROXIMATELY 41.4 MINUTES OF ELAPSED TIME TO TURN LEFT ONTO
VALLEY DRIVE PLUS THE RED LIGHTS AT 1.5 MINUTES PER STOP.
(93. 1 MINUTES) THIS WOULD BE OVER 2 HOURS ELAPSED TIME
GRIDLOCK
THIS INTERSECTION WOULD NOT CLEAR IN TIME TO RELIEVE THE
ADDITIONAL 2027 VEHICLES COMING AT 7:00 TO 8:00 WHICH WILL
TAKE UP BEHIND THEM THE EARLY TRAFFIC. IF BOTH LEFT TURNS WERE
UTILIZED THEN THE DELAY WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 67.3 MINUTES
OF ELAPSED TIME PER LIGHT. (VALLEY PARK AND 83)
ADDITIONALLY THIS TRAFFIC WOULD ALSO INTERSECT WITH THE
OUTGOING CANTERBURY TRAFFIC . THIS TRAFFIC WOULD CAUSE
PROBLEMS WITH THE EASTBOUND RENAISSANCE TRAFFIC BUT NOT
IMPEDE THE TURN.
THE 2027 VEHICLES COMING AS A RESULT OF THE BARTON-ASCHMAN
STUDY WILL TAKE 96.5 MINUTES ELAPSED TIME JUST TO PHYSICALLY
MAKE THE TURN ON THE LEFT. UTILIZING BOTH THE VALLEY PARE: AND
83 TURN WOULD REDUCE THE PHYSICAL TIME FOR EACH LIGHT TO OVER
48.3 MINUTES OF ELAPSED TIME PER GREEN LIGHT WITHOUT INCLUDING
ELAPSED TIME OF THE RED LIGHTS (1.81 HOURS PER LIGHT TO MAKE
THESE TURNS FEASIBLE WITHOUT DISTURBING ALL OTHER TRAFFIC AND
GOING AGAINST CANTERBURY OUTGOING TRAFFIC.
THIS WOULD BE TRAFFIC C6F2IDL0C11-.
DO NOT SEE THIS AS AN EASY THING TO SOLVE.
THIS IS EVEN A PROBLEM DURING THE WEEKDAYS.
LEAVING THE - IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE THEATER WILL START AT 8:00 AND END
AMPHITHEATER - PERFORMANCES AT ABOUT 11:00.
THERE ARE TWO EXITS PROPOSED FOR THE PROPOSED STARWOOD
THEATER. BOTH ARE DOUBLE LANES AND EXIT OUT ONTO 12TH AVENUE
VALLEY DRIVE RESPECTIVELY.
IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO OF 17000 ATTENDEES(6296 CARS) .
54%(3400 CARS)OF THIS TRAFFIC WILL HEAD WEST TO THE STOP SIGN
AT THE END OF 12TH AVE. IT IS A.PPROX.IMATELY .6 MILES TO THIS
STOP SIGN FROM THE 12TH AVE. EXIT. IT IS AN ADDITIONAL MILE
TO THE LIGHT AT 101. AT THE STOP SIGN, 30% OR 1SB9 CAPS WILL
HEAD SOUTH TO RT 42 AND POINTS SOUTH. (ALL AT THE SAME TIME)
AT THE STOP SIGN, 24 7. OR 1511 CARS WILL BE WAVED ON TO THE
LIGHT FOR THE LEFT TURN TO HIGHWAY 101/169 AND POINTS WEST.
IF 30X. OF THESE CARS KNOW A SHORT CUT THEN ONLY 1058 CARS
WILL NEED TO TURN LEFT AND ONTO 101 OR FIRST AVENUE
IN SHAKOPEE.
IT IS 1.6 MILES TO THE LIGHT FROM THE 12TH AVENUE EXIT.
IF ALL THE TRAFFIC IS ABLE TO MAKE IT TO THE STOP SIGN AND
TURN RIGHT AND CONTINUE ON TO THE LIGHT. THERE WILL BE A
SOLID BLOCK OF TRAFFIC BACKED UP TO THE EXIT OF STARWCOD.
THIS TRAFFIC WILL BE A DOUBLE LINE OF 1.6 MILES IN LENGTH.
THE LIGHT WILL PERMIT APPROXIMATELY 20 CARS TO THE LEFT EACH
GREEN LIGHT SO IT WILL TAKE 52.9 LIGHTS TO PASS THROUGH THIS
TRAFFIC.OR 1.5 MINUTES PER LIGHT AND 20 SECONDS PER GREEN.
APPROXIMATELY 1 HOUR OR MORE TO CLEAR THE TRAFFIC. IF TRAFFIC
IS RUSHED THROUGH ONTO 101 W. THESE VEHICLES WILL THEN JAM UP
IN TOWN AT THE FIRST LIGHT AT THE FORD DEALERSHIP.THIS COULD
WIND UP AS TWO LANES OF 1.6 MILES OF TRAFFIC PASSING THROUGH -
DOWNTOWN AT 11:00 TO 12:00 AT NIGHT.
IT IS .5 MILES TO THE LIGHT AT VALLEY PARK DRIVE AND 101.
IF ALL TRAFFIC IS ABLE TO MAKE IT OUT TO THE LIGHT AND BEGIN
THE RIGHT ON RED SCENARIO AT 2 CARS EVERY 4 SECONDS. (REMEMBER
VALLEY FAIR TRAFFIC ETC. ) SINCE THERE WILL BE 46% OR 2896
CARS LEAVING FROM THIS EXIT (DOUBLE LANE) . WITH ONLY
5 MILES TO THE LIGHT, A DOUBLE LANE WILL HOLD 165 CARS IN
THE LANE (AND 165 CARS IN THE SECOND LANE) THE ADDITIONAL . .
2566 CARS WILL REMAIN ON THE GROUNDS AWAITING EGRESS OUT ,
OF THE STARWOOD COMPLEX. AS THE TWO LANES EGRESS WE CAN
ASSUME THAT IT WILL PERMIT 2 CARS EVERY 4 SECONDS TO EMPTY
OUT (ON TWO LANES) ONTO 101 AND HEAD EAST.
(VALLEY FAIR GETS OUT ABOUT THIS TIME AND THERE COULD BE SOME
CONFLICT AND SLOWDOWN) IT WILL TAKE AT THE VERY LEAST, AN HOUR.
12896 VEHICLES INTO 2 RIGHT TURN LANES AT 4 SECONDS PER TURN
EQUALS 96 MINUTES IF ALL OTHER 101 EASTBOUND TRAFFIC IS
HALTED TO LET THESE VEHICLES THROUGH. )
MOVING THIS VALLEY PARE: DRIVE TRAFFIC IN THE OTHER DIRECTION
TO TURN OFF OF 83 ONTO 101 E. WOULD CAUSE MORE PP.OBLEMS AS IT
ADDS TO THE RT 83 DRIVE TRAFFIC LEAVING . THE PROBLEM IS
OBVIOUSLY CAUSED BY THE SHORT DISTANCE TO THE LIGHT
FROM THE VALLEY PARK DRIVE EXIT.
OTHER: THE TRAIN COULD MEASUREABLY SLOW DOWN THE EGRESS OF
TRAFFIC ONTO 101 E.
ANY BROKEN DOWN VEHICLES OR ACCIDENTS WOULD LENGTHEN THESE
NUMBERS AND STRETCH OUT THE TOTAL DISBURSEMENT OF ALL
TRAFFIC.
THE 1511 VEHICLES 12:00 HEADING INTO TOWN WILL PROBABELY CAUSE
A DELAY IN THE LATE TRAFFIC.COMBINED WITH VALLEY FAIR CLOSING
FOR THE NIGHT AND THE NORMAL RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC.