HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1987 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: October 15, 1987
1. The Shakopee Area Catholic Schools are applying again, for
1988, for a raffle license. They meet the requirements -of_. _
the City Code for charitable gambling.
2 . The City received a surcharge rebate for building permits in
the amount of $10,251.96 or about 43.25% of the amount
collected and sent to the State.
3. Attached is a memo from Ken Ashfeld regarding thepermanent
effects of traffic volumes on T.H. 101 in Shakopee as a
result of the flooding that closed I-494 in Bloomington this
spring.
4. Attached is a communication from Representative Arlan
Strangeland regarding legislation he has sponsored for
comprehensive welfare reform.
5. Attached is a News Release from the Minnesota Department of
Revenue regarding Levy Limit Appeals.
6. Attached are the quarterly bills from Krass and Monroe.
7. Attached are the minutes of the October 1, 1987 meeting of
the Shakopee Coalition.
8. Attached are the minutes of the August 31, 1987 meeting of
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
9. Attached are the minutes of the September 24, 1987 meeting
of the Energy and Transportation Committee.
10. Attached are the minutes of the September 9, 1987 meeting of
the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee.
11. Attached is the agenda for the October 22, 1987 meeting of
the Planning Commission.
12. Attached is the Revenue and Expenditure Report as of
September 30, 1987.
13. Attached is the Program Costs by Department as of October
14, 1987.
14. The Scott County Auditor will be conducting a public
accuracy test, required by law, on the AIS optical scanner
for the upcoming election. The test will take place at 8:00
p.m. on October 27th in the office of the County Auditor.
This is open to the public. You are invited to attend if
you desire.
15. Attached is a memorandum from Ken Ashfeld along with the
consultant' s report on the traffic study done for the
Starwood EAW. Please call Ken with if you have questions.
This will be discussed at the Council meeting tentatively
set for October 27th.
SKA/jms
-71
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer)o '
SUBJECT: T.H. 101 Traffic Volumes
DATE: October 6, 1987
Some time ago, you asked me to check into the possibility of long
term or permanent effects to traffic volumes on T.H . 101 in
Shakopee as a result of the closing of I-494 in Bloomington
during the floods . I have asked Mn/DOT to look into this
possibility . Joel Katz , District 5 Mn/DOT Traffic Engineer,
responded today indicating that they felt there was no change as
a result of the freeway closing.
KA/pmp
TRAFFIC
AFLAN STANGELAND o,xcss.
rrx°ismmn..xxersor. xx.s w.euw xo"ss nxcs ewwi.s
o""ir.sss w.,sxwsmx��.s
ixozi zzs-z,es
�NS�"ATION° congress of the United tater " D,� w
" me,nrem,
Uouse of `gresenratines
�Leww
6i LLWO.
Vashington, BE 105 5
October 7, 1987 RECEIVED
Dear Friend, OCT1 31991
There is a general feeling across the nation that t1Tj,axfleAK0PEE
welfare system in this country is not performing as orginal y
intended. I have sponsored legislation, H.R. 916, aimed at
comprehensively reforming a welfare system that has grown
bloated and abused.
HE 916 would require physically able welfare recipients to
perform community service work in exchange for their welfare
checks. This program, normally referred to as "workfare, "
would exempt people under age 16 and over 65, the disabled,
people already working and people with small children. Almost
everyone else would be required to work for their welfare
benefits.
my legislation has the support of seventy House members from
both political parties. They, like me, realize that the
average American is concerned that too many people have become
dependent upon welfare programs and appear to be comfortable on
the .public welfare rolls with little apparent incentive to
change. A variety of studies of the "workfare concept" have
indicated increased employment and earnings, as well as higher
self-esteem, to be among the results of "workfare" programs
adopted by some states.
Even so, the Leadership of the House of Representatives does
not appear intent on pursuing a bill that includes the
"workfare" provisions I have discussed. Instead, they have
drafted a bill that generally concentrates on allocating more
public monies than are disbursed currently. According to the
non-partisan Congressional Budget office, this bill would cost
taxpayers $5.3 billion over five years. To me, this is simply
more welfare , and not true welfare reform.
History teaches us, over-generous welfare payments do nothing
but discourage productivity, create dependence and place undue
tax burdens on the employed. - While it is important that we
adequately provide for the disadvantaged, it is equally
important that we foster economic opportunity and freedom.
"Workfare" allows the opportunity of a meaningful and rewarding
work experience . I will continue to work for the passage of HE
916 , for the good of the country.
I
rely,
rlaland, M.C.
News Release
Minnesota Department of Revenue
658 Cedar St.
RECEIVEDSt. Paul, MN 55145
OCT 1 5199] Contact: Alice Pepin
Date: October 1 (612) 296.1942
For Immediate Release
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Revenue Department Grants 115 Levy Limit Appeals
St.Paul--Final decisions were announced today by the Minnesota Department of Revenue
on 160 requests by cities and counties that they be allowed to raise their 1988 property tax levies
above the three percent limit set by the 1987 Minnesota Legislature.
The department authorized 81 cities to increase their property taxes by$18 million and 34
counties to increase their levies by$55 million, according to Revenue Commissioner Tom Triplett.
The authorization represents a three-percent increase in total state-wide city levies of$600 trillion
and a six percent increase in total county levies of$930 million.The department denied requests
from 38 cities and seven counties.
Triplett said many of the cities and counties are not expected to levy the full amount
authorized by the department because they had not determined thew 1988 budgets by August 21
when the appeals were due,and requested additional levy authority to use only if it is needed,he
said.
The Legislature adopted the stricter levy limits and the appeal process only for 1988.
Beginning in 1989,the normal levy limits used in Minnesota since 1971 will apply. These limits
provide more local discretion and no appeal process.
However,Triplett said state-imposed levy limits are not acceptable ways of controlling
spending by local governments. The process underscores the need for major reform of the
property tax and local aids system,which would make levy]'amts unnecessary in the future,he
said.
"Local governments should be accountable to their electorate for their spending decisions,"
Triplettsaid. "That approach is really the basis for overall property tax and local aids reform."
Triplett said that the major reason for approving levy limit appeals was that many local
governments and counties had depleted their reserve funds in 1987 and would have to levy taxes in
1988 in order to provide the same services.
The second reason for approvals was the increased costs of state-mandated programs in
1988 compared to 1987. The most frequent case was that of"comparable worth," a 1984 state law
requiring local government review of employee salaries and compliance by Aug. 1, 1987. Other
cases involved state mandates for more judges,new jails and 911 emergency phone service,
Triplett said.
Appeals based on the loss of federal revenue-sharing funds were rejected, since the
Legislature specifically repealed this exception from levy limits,he said. Appeals based on locally
defined needs or changing local situations,without a state mandate,were also rejected.
There are 855 cities and 87 counties in Minnesota.
Summary of Levy Limit Appeals*
Cities & Counties
Cities. Counties Tstal
Total Applied 119 41 160.
Total Approval 24 15 39
Partial Approval 57 19 76
Total Denied 38 7 45
Amount Requested $29,118,729 $81,413:640 $110,5321369
Amount Granted $17,902,261 $54,870,176 $72,772,437
Amount Denied $11,216,468 $26,543,464 $37,759,932
* Prepared by Local Government Aids&Analysis,Minnesota Department of Revenue
Questions on the appeals procedure should be directed to:
Richard Gardner,Local Government Aids and Analysis Division, (612) 296-2286
KRAES & MONROE CHARTERED
- 327 South Marschall Road =V=!,1-D
Shakopee, MN 55379 -r._
JUL3 11901
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 07-30-87
129 1st Ave. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s) --
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
18-11373002-1 General
$133.90 $775.60 $133.90 -- - $775.60-- -
18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist
$46.50 $50.00 $46.50 $50.00
18-11373137-1 Downtown Redevelopment
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
19-11373157-1 Racetrack Tax Increment District
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373158-1 Racetrack bond issue
$0.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00
18-11373161-1 Shakopee Recreation TIF
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
19-11373164-1 101 Frontage Acquisition
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373177-1 Mining CUP
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1B-11373194-1 condemn for rd to PH Addn (BILL APP)
$212.00 $124.50 $212.00 x124.50
DO YOU HAVE A WILL?
445-5090
PAGE. 2
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 07-30-87
. 129 1st Ave. E. -
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- ------- -------- -------
18-11373185-1 Alltech Engineering Corp.
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373187-1 101 Bypass
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373188-1 NSP Dispute over poles
$0.00 - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1B-11373189-1 Merchants Hotel Renovation
$0.00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 -
18-11373192-1 Meyer Suit
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373195-1 City Hail Bonds
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373196-1 Sewer Capacity Issues
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373197-1 Annexation - Vierling
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-31373198-1 Downtown Redevelopment
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0_00 -
18-11373199-1 City Hall Bond issue
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1B-11373200-1 Eminent Domain
(Perry - BILL PROJECT)
$30.00 $285.00 $30.00 $285.00
PAGE 3
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 07-30-87
129 1st Ave. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings - Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
18-11373201-1 Minnesota Valley Restoration
Project
$372.00 $474.50 $372.00 $474.50
I8-11373202-1 Brambilla Purchase
$62.00 $0.00 $62.00 $0.00
18-11373203-1 Schesso Boat Complaint
$186.00 $0.00 $186.00 $0.00
18-11373204-1 Starwood
$31 .00 $15.50 $31 .00 $15.50
18-11373205-1 L&D Trucking
$0.00 $725.00 $0.00 $725.00
18-1373177A-1 Scott Cty. Lumber
$25.00 $50.00 $25.00 $50.00
18-1373177B-1 Shakopee Lumber Co. Appeal
$12.50 $0.00 $12.50 $0.00
18-51373002-1 General
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-51373144-1 Chard
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-51373153-1 Hardrives Suit
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-71373191-1 Purchase from Delores Hoy
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
PAGE 4
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 07-30-87
129 1st Ave. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
19-81373011-1 Prosecutions
_ $874.50 $1 ,612.00 - $874.50 $1 ,612.00
----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL _--- --- $1-,985.40 - $4, 112. 10 $1 ,985.40 $4, 112. 10
KRASS & r':ONRDS CHARTERED /•
327 South Marscnail Road RC^=11/ -
Snakopee, MN 5579 .._. • ED
SEPO 11987
C'TY OF SHAKOPee
City Oi Shakopee BILLING DATE 06-29-S7-
129 1st rive. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
16-11373002-1 General
$775.60 $334.50 $775.60 $334.50
16-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist
550.00 $12.50 $50.00 $12.50
IB-11373137-1 Downtown Redevelopment
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
16-11373157-1 Racetrack Tax Increment District
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00
16-11373156-1 Racetrack bond issue
$0.00 $0.00 50.00 50.00
.D-11373161-1 Shakopee Recreation TIF
$0.00 50.00 $0.00 50.00
15-11373164-1 101 Frontage Acquisition
$0.00 $0.00 50.00 50.00
-8-11373177-1 Mining CUP
$0.00 $0.00 50.00 s0.00
.6-11373183-1 Toro Bonds
$0.00 $20.46 50.00 $20.46
MMM:eMMMMMM%MMMM%MMMMM%MMMMna'%M%MMMMMMMMM%MMMxMMMMMMMMM%MMM%M•:
PLEASG INCL, cv bli•H PAYMENT .
MM%MMM%M%MMMMr.%M%MMMMMM" ♦ ou H>"%%Mk %M%M%%%%%MMMM'M%%M%
PAGE
�- City Of Shakopee
129 1sst Ave. E. BILLING DATE 09-26-67
Shakopee, MN 55379
C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
i
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous IJew Payment Current
Balance Billings Received
-------- Balance
ie-31373184-1 condemn T'or rd to PH Adon (BILL APP)
$124.50 -579. 42 $124.502
$578.4_
i2-11373125-1 Alltech Engineering Corp.
50.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00
12-11373197-1 101 Bypass
$0.00 $0. 00 - $0.00
i $0.00
19-11373.182-1 NSP Dispute over poles
$0.00 - $0.00 $0.00
$0.00
16-11373189-1 Merchants Hotel Renovation
90.00 50.00 $0.00
$0.00
_E^11373192-1 Meyer Suit
$0.00 $O.UO $0.00
90.00
' S-11373195-1 City Hall Bonds
- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00
- 9-11373196-1 Sewer Capacity Issues
$0.00 $0.00 $O.OU
50.00
-2-11373197-1 Annexation - Vieriing
50.00 $0.00
50. 00 50.00
11373196-1 - Downtown Reoeveiopment
sO.OG $0.00 $0.00
$p.OG
6-11373199-1 City Hall Bono Issue
$0.00 sO.OU 50. 00
$0.00
6-11373200-1 Eminent Domain
(Perry . - BILL PROJECT)
i
s2S5.00 $419.00
$295.00 7,419.00 '
• PAGE . .
City o4 Snakopee 9ILLING DATE 06-26-67
129 1st Ave. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Numoer RE Line( s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
1B-111-7Z201-1 Minnesota Valley Restoration
Project
$474.50 $613.92 $474 .50 $613.92
18-11373202-1 Brambilla Purchase
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373203-1 Schesso Boat Complaint
50.00 $62.00 $0.00 1,62.00
1B-11373204-1 Starwood
$15.50 $443.92 $15.50 $443.92
16-11373205-1 L&D Trucking
$725.00 $750.98 $725.00 $750.98
:8-11573206-1 Ferguson Torrens
$0.00 $15.50 $0.00 515.50
16-1373177A-1 Scott Cty. Lumoer
$50.00 50.00 $50.00 $(). 00
:6-1373177B-1 Shakopee camber Co. Appeal
50.uu $12.50 $0.00 $12.50
t8-51373002-1 General
50.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00
.8-5;«73144-1 Chard
50.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00
:8-51373153-1 Narprives Suit
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
• PAu-n 4
City of Shakopee
129 1st Ave. E. BILLING DATE 08-26-87
Shakopee, MN 55579. -
C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Linels)
Previous New
t
Balance Payment Current
Billings Received -- -----
19-83373011-1 Prosecutions
$1 ,612.00 $1 ,714 .0() 51 ,632.00
$1 , 714.00
TOTAL -------------
$4, 112. 30 $4,976. 70 $4, 112. 10
$4 ,976.70
KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED
327 South Marscnall Roa, P
Shakopee, MN 55379
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 09-30-87
129 1st Ave. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line(s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billinqs Received Balance
18-11373002-1 General
$334.50 $302.00 $334.50 $302.00
18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist
$12.50 $12.50 $12.50 $12.50
18-11373137-1 Downtown Redevelopment
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373157-1 Racetrack Tax Increment District
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373158-1 Racetrack bond issue
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1B-11373161-1 Shakopee Recreation TIF
$0.00 $31 .00 $0.00 531 .00
IB-11373164-1 101 Frontage Acquisition
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
.9-11373177-1 Mining CUP
$0.00 $152.00 $0.00 $152.00
:8-11373183-1 Toro Bonds
$20.46 $0.00 $20.46 $0.00
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMMM>
PLEASE INCLUDE COPY WITH PAYMENT.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMTHANK POLI: MMMMMMMMMMXMMMMMMMMM*MMM
PAGE 2
City of. Shakopee BILLING DATE 09-30-87
129 1stAve. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line( s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billings Received Balance
--------
18-11373184-1 condemn for rd to PH Addn(BILL APP)
4578. 42 $115.00 4578.42 $115.00
1B-11373185-1 Alltech Engineering Corp.
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
IB-11373187-1 101 Bypass
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00
18-11373188-1 NSP Dispute over poles
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-11373189-1 Merchants Hotel Renovation
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00
18-11373192-1 Meyer Suit
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
80.00
16-11373195-1 City Hall Bonds
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
I9-11373196-1 Sewer Capacity Issues
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00
80.00
1S-11373197-1 Annexation - Vierling
$0.00 80.00 $0.00
$0.00
18-11373196-1 Downtown Redevelopment
50.00 $0.00 a0.00 50.00
1E-,11373199-1 City Hail Bond Issue
$0.00 $0.00 x0.00 50.00
18-11373200-1 Eminent Domain
(Perry - BILL PROJECT)
$418.00 $109. 00 $418.00 $109.00
PAGE 3
City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 09-30-87
129 1st Ave. E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y
Account Number RE Line( s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance Billinos Received Balance
-------- -------- -------- -------
18-11373201-1 Minnesota Valley Restoration
Project
$613.92 $46.50 $613.92 $46.50
1B-11373202-1 Brambilla Purchase
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -
IB-11373203-1 Schesso Boat Complaint
$62.00 $0.00 $62.00 $0.00
18-11373204-1 Starwood
$443.92 $2,383.90 $443.92 $2,383. 90
18-11373205-1 L&D Trucking
$750.98 $199.00 $750.98 $199.00
16-11373206-1 Ferguson Torrens
$15.50 $39.00 $15.50 $39.00
18-11373207-1 Fiscal Disparities Tax Increment
$0.00 $31 .00 $0.00 $31 .00
18-11373206-1 Fire Dept. Fox Dismissal
$0.00 $46.50 $0.00 $46.50
18-1373177A-1 Scott Cty. Lumber
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
18-13731778-1 Shakopee Lumber Co. Appeal
$12.50 $2,005.00 $12. 50 $2,005.00
IB-51373.144-1 Chard
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
PAGE 4
City ofShaBILLING DATE 09-30-87
129 1stst Ave.Ave. E.E.
Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U MM- A R V
Account Number RE Line( s)
Previous New Payment Current
Balance- Billings Received Balance
-------- ________
1B-51373153-1 Hardrives Suit
%0.00 $0.00 $0.00
60.00
19-81373011-1 Prosecutions
-$1 ,714.00 $1 ,644.30 $1 ,714 .00 $1 ,644.30
________
TOTAL $4,976.70
$7, 116.70-----$4,976 70-----_-$7, 116.70
7
SHAKOPEE COALITION
MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 1, 1987
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Brian Norris at 7:00 AM in the
Citizens State Bank Community Room.
Members Present: David Hart (ExtensionService), Debra Bates, (Community
Education, Brian Norris (Citizens State Bank), Joan Salter (Food Shelf),Jerry
Knutson (Minnesota Correctional Facility-Shakopee), (Claude Kolb)Lions Club, Barb
Richardson (St. Francis Regional Medical Center), George Muenchow (Shakopee
Community Recreation).
Debra Bates was welcomed into the organization. She briefly shared that she
was the new Community Education Director for Shakopee Schools being responsible
for many lifelong educational programs sponsored by the school that formerly had
been delegated to Shakopee Community Services. Her office is in the School
District Office.
Joan Salter reported on the Food Shelf: In September:
1. In the two counties 231 families served
2. In Scott County 157 families served
3. In Scott County 531 individuals served
4. In Shakopee 171 individuals served
5. In Shakopee 58 households served
The Food Shelf is now located at 1257 Marschall Road. An Open House is scheduled
for October 6 from 1:00-8:00 PM.
Looking ahead there will be an opportunity to nominate officers for 1988 at the
next meeting.
Barb Richardson reported that St Francis Health Care Foundation and St. Francis
Auxiliary are sponsoring a "Festival Of Trees" fund raiser at Hazeltine Golf
Club November 20-22. Activities to include viewing and selling 25 professionally
designed Christmas Trees, Gift Boutique, Food 6 Entertainment, Door Prize Raffles,
and more. Tickets are $2 at the door with a lesser fee for Sr Citizens and groups
of 20 or more. Proceeds to be applied to the Emergency Care Program which provides
vital life support services to people living in the area (and beyond). Chairman
Norris announced that Barbara Weckman has been designated as the recipient of the
"Volunteer Of The Month" award and will be presented her certificate next month.
Barbara is a volunteer leader in the Scott County 4-H Program.
Items "on hold" include the Crisis Numbers Newspaper Directory and the condensed
Organization Directory.
There will be a Benefit Bingo at Little Six on October 30 at noon with proceeds
to go to the County R.S.V.P. Program.
The Chamber of Commerce will celebrate the opening of their new office/tourism
center building on October 7 at noon.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 AM.
Respectfully submitted,
�q�{— -.vim �g
George F. Huencbow, Secty.
g
MINUTES
OF THE
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on
August 31, 1987 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kephart and Kirchmeier. Also Manager Van Bout,
Secretary Menden and Liaison Wampach. Commissioner Cook was absent.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the minutes of the August 3,1987
regular meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried.
BILLS READ:
City of Shakopee 20,032.00
American Freight System, Inc. 48.60
A T and T _ 18.57
Auto Central Supply 26.43
Border States Electric Supply 414.30
Burmeister Electric supply 1,858.50
C & N.W. Trans. Co. 180.00
C.H. Carpenter Lumber 26.25
City of Shakopee 866.04
City of Shakopee 269.47
Clay's Printing Service 174.20
Computerland 7,681.00
The Dickson Company 26.71
Ditch Witch of Minn. , Inc. 162.32
Excel Office Products 144.86
Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. 1,429.62
Glenwood Inglewood 8.96
Graybar Electric Co. , Inc. 6,429.04
H & C Electric Supply 720.17
Hance Cable Testing 550.60
KAR Products 88.37
Leef Bros. , Inc. 20.00
Link Print 159.75
M/A Associates, Inc. 108.78
Minn. Valley Testing Lab., Inc. 27.40
Ted Neisen 378.45
Northern States Power Co. 332.32
Northern States Power Co. 917.75
Northern States Power Co. 435.853.11
Pitney Bowes 87.75
Revnolds Welding Supply - 6.82
Rockwell International 66.12
Schoell and Madson, Inc. 4,333.15
Dean Smith Trenching 472.50
Southwest Suburban Publishing, Inc. 79.04
Suel Business Equipment 10.71
Starks Cleaning_ Service 53.40
T & R Service 140.00
Total Tool 134.69
United Compucred Collections, Inc. 118.80
Utilities Telecommunications Council 55.00
Louis Van Hout 45.80
Louis Van HOut 90.00
Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. 8,632.98
Wild Iris, Inc. 25.00
Woodhill Business Products 944.80
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 125.75
Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier that the bills be allowed and ordered
paid. Motion carried.
A communication from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency regarding stuffing a
promotional stuffer advertising low interest loans was acknowledged.
Liaison Wampach gave a report regarding the current street scape project in the
downtown area.
Manager Van Hout informed the Commission of a meeting with Ken Ashfeld and
John Anderson regarding the current status of poles in the downtown area. A future
plan was discussed for burying wire in some of the downtown area.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to authorize the Engineers to put
specifications together to remodel the interior of Pumphouse #2 and advertise for
bids. Motion carried.
Manager Van Hout presented the five year capital improvement plan. Recommendations
were made. The recommendations will be implemented and the draft retyped for
presentation at the next meeting.
A cost estimate for the 13th Avenue Trunk watermain project from County Road
16 to the West end of the Hauers 4th Addition was presented by the Consulting Engineers
by letter dated August 17, 1987.
Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to accept the preliminary cost estimate
for the watermain oversizing for the 13th Avenue trunk watermain from County Road 16
to the west end of Hauers 4th Addition for the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
Motion carried.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to offer Resolution #319 A Resolution
Amending Resolution #276 To Establish A Power Adjustment Charge. Ayes: Commissioners
Kephart and Kirchmeier. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried.
Information about Public Power Week will be put in the paper and cost estimates
for advertising are being gathered.
Motion by Kephart, seconded by Kirchmeier to authorize the Manager to advertise
and accept bids for the driveway work for Pumphouse #2 and #3. Motion carried.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart to accept Payment Request #2 from
Midwest Protective Coatings/Currie State Bank in the amount of $29,046.25 as
recommended by Schoell and Madson, Inc. and to extend the time period for this project
until September 15, 1987. Motion carried.
g
Manager Van Hout informed the Commission on the Fall M.M.U.A. meeting on
October 21, 1987.
One new plat was presented called Heritage Plat for water service.
There were no lost time accidents for August, 1987.
The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be
held on October -5, 1987.
Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Kephart that the meeting be adjourned. Motion
carried.
B rbara MerUen, CommTsslion
9
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Regular Session Shakopee, MN September 24, 1987
Chairman Ziegler called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with
Commissioners Schmidt, Spiotta and Ziegler. Commissioners Weeks
and Allen were absent. Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
was also present.
Schmidt/Spiotta moved to approve the minutes of August 20, 1987
meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that at previous meetings the Committee has
discussed the possibility of expanding our Dial-A-Ride program to
the City of Chaska. Currently the City of Chaska has a Dial-A-
Ride program operated through the Southwest Area Transit
Commission (SWMTC) . The Southwest Area Transit Commission has
contacted the MTC and has worked out an arrangement which will
allow them to break their existing Dial-A-Ride contract.
On September 17, 1987 the SWMTC met to consider contracting with
the City of Shakopee for the provision of Dial-A-Ride service in
the City of Chaska via our existing Dial-A-Ride service contract.
At that time they formally requested the Shakopee City Council to
consider entering into an agreement with the SWMTC for the
provision of Dial-A-Ride service in Chaska. Mr. Stock reported
that our current Dial-A-Ride provider has been involved in the
discussions regarding this issue and is enthused about expanding
to the City of Chaska.
Mr. Stock stated that he is recommending that the Energy and
Transportation committee make a recommendation to the City
Council to enter into an agreement with the Southwest Area
Transit Commission for the provision of Dial-A-Ride Service in
the City of Chaska for the following reasons: 1) The proposed
service expansion and working agreement between opt-out
communities will serve as an example for other communities
considering initiating alternative forms of transit. 2) The
proposed service expansion will provide another transit
alternative for Shakopee residents as well as offering Chaska
residents the opportunity to get to Shakopee. 3) The proposed
service expansion will provide the City of Shakopee with a 5%
management fee that can be used to help off-set the costs
associated with running our existing Dial-A-Ride program.
Mr. Stock then reviewed the proposed agreement between the City
of Shakopee and the SWMTC. He stated that the agreement spells
out the duties and responsibilities of both the SWMTC and the
City of Shakopee. He also stated that the City of Shakopee's
existing Dial-A-Ride contract will be attached as an exhibit to
the proposed agreement. Mr. Stock stated that our Dial-A-Ride
contractor will keep separate statistics of the Chaska and
Shakopee Dial-A-Ride program. He will submit a separate monthly
report to the City of Shakopee for the Chaska Dial-A-Ride program
and the Shakopee Dial-A-Ride program. Revenues derived from the
program will be the property of the system that generates the
fare box revenues. Rare Kabs monthly invoice to the City of
Shakopee will separate the actual cost for the Shakopee Dial-A-
Ride program and the actual cost for the Chaska Dial-A-Ride
program. The City will in turn bill the SWMTC for the actual
cost of the Chaska Dial-A-Ride service plus a 5% management fee.
The City of Shakopee will be responsible for submitting the
monthly reports and request for reimbursement forms to the
Regional Transit Board for both the Shakopee and Chaska Dial-A-
Ride systems. Mr. Stock noted that the 5% management fee to be
collected from Chaska should be more than enough to off-set
Shakopee City staff time associated with administering this
project. Mr. Stock also stated that the proposed agreement has
been reviewed by our City Attorney and approved as to form.
Discussion ensued on the proposed contract.
Commission Schmidt stated that it might be more appropriate to
change the name of the management fee to administrative fee. She
suggested this change because the SWMTC will actually be managing
the Chaska Dial-A-Ride system and the City of Shakopee will be
handling the administrative duties associated with the project.
Chairman Ziegler questioned the logic behind only operating one
Dial-A-Ride vehicle in Chaska. Mr. Stock stated that the SWMTC
felt that ridership demand at this time only warrants the
provision of one vehicle. Mr. Stock noted that there is a
provision built within the contract which will allow us to add
additional vehicles to the Chaska Dial-A-Ride program as needed.
Chairman Ziegler then questioned if the Shakopee Dial-A-Ride
vehicles would be utilized to carry passengers in the City of
Chaska. Mr. Stock noted that the Shakopee Dial-A-Ride vehicles
are dedicated to the City of Shakopee and will only be carrying
passengers within the Shakopee city limits at this time.
Likewise, the Chaska Dial-A-Ride will only be carrying passengershe
within tChaska city limits at this time. Should ridership
demands in Chaska warrant the addition of another vehicle, Rare
Kabs has informed me that they can have another vehicle in
operation within 15 days of our request. Mr. Stock noted that in
the future we will be providing intercity trips between the City
of Chaska and the City of Shakopee. Our ridership records have
revealed that there are certain time periods within the week
where ridership is not at peak levels. During these times, we
will be scheduling intercity trips to and from Chaska. For
example, on Tuesday and Thursday between the hours of 10:00 a.m.
and 2:00 p.m. we are experiencing dead time. During these days
and on a regular basis trips to and from Chaska will be
coordinated and advertised. The Commission then discussed
several small language changes to the contract.
Spiotta/Schmidt then moved to recommend to City Council that the
City of Shakopee enter into an agreement with the Southwest Area
Metropolitan Transit Commission for the provision of Dial-A-Ride
Service within the City of Chaska. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that if the City Council decides to pursue the
agreement with the SWMTC, it would be appropriate for the Energy
and Transportation Committee to also make a recommendation
regarding an amendment to our existing Dial-A-Ride contract. The
Dial-A-Ride amendment simply specifies that the contractor will
keep separate records of the Shakopee and Chaska Dial-A-Ride
services and will submit separate monthly reports to the City of
Shakopee. The actual cost in revenues for each service will also
be kept separate. The Dial-A-Ride amendment also specifies that
the contractor will provide a separate telephone number for the
Chaska system. Maximum and minimum ridership levels will also be
kept separate for the two programs. Finally the workmans
compensation and insurance sections of the existing Dial-A-Ride
contract are in need of amendment to include the SWMTC. Mr.
Stock noted that the Chaska Dial-A-Ride would function under all
the conditions as established in our existing Dial-A-Ride
contract. The SWMTC Transit Administrator would be responsible
for marketing the Chaska program.
Schmidt/Spiotta moved to recommend to City Council the approval
of Shakopee Dial-A-Ride contract amendment #4 contingent upon
Council's approval of the SWMTC/City of Shakopee Transit
Agreement. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated that it has been brought to his attention that
members of Shakopee City commissions and committees must be
residents of the City of Shakopee. Mr. Stock also noted that
when the City applies for energy grants the following groups need
to represented by our Energy and Transportation Committee: 1)
Low and Moderate Income, 2) Senior Citizens and 3) Small
Business. In light of these issues staff is recommending that
the enabling resolution be amended to include the aforementioned
three groups and a clause calling for the appointment of one
member to serve on the Energy and Transportation Committee who is
a rider on the Shakopee Van Pool Program and who may not be a
resident of the City of Shakopee. Mr. Stock noted that this
would be a voting member appointment.
Spiotta/Schmidt moved to recommend to City Council the approval
of a resolution amending the Energy and Transportation
Committee's Enabling Resolution to provide for the representation
of the following interest groups on the Committee: 1) Low and
Moderate Income, 2) Senior Citizens, 3) Small Businesses and that
one member be allowed to serve on the Energy and Transportation
Committee who is a rider of the Shakopee Van Pool program and who
may not be a resident of the City of Shakopee. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Stock stated that it has been brought to his attention that a
Shakopee resident is interested in utilizing both the Dial-A-Ride
and Van Pool programs. The resident has inquired as to whether
or not the City has a transfer reciprocity policy between the
Dial-A-Ride and Van Pool programs. Mr. Stock explained how a
transfer reciprocity agreement between the Dial-A-Ride and Van
Pool program would operate. He went on to state that setting up
a transfer reciprocity policy between the Dial-A-Ride and Van
Pool programs would be complicated because the Dial-A-Ride fare
is based on how much advance notice is given for the ride and the
van pool program fares are based on whether or not you are a
regular or occasional rider. Additionally, the policy could
become further complicated if an individual who utilized both the
Dial-A-Ride and Van Pool program would also need to transfer to a
MTC bus. In essence, given our current fare structure a person
utilizing all three services would generate a deficit fare
situation for our program. Chairman Ziegler stated that he did
not feel it was appropriate at this time to have a transfer
reciprocity policy between the Dial-A-Ride and Van Pool programs.
He went on to state that when the City of Shakopee was serviced
by the MTC, residents had to get to one of the MTC pick-up
points. He felt that this type of policy should be utilized for
people wishing to use the Van Pool program. Commissioner Spiotta
questioned whether or not the City had a transfer reciprocity
policy with the MTC. Mr. Stock stated that the RTB has assured
him that we will be soon having a transfer reciprocity with the
MTC. Ms. Spiotta stated that she did not think it was
appropriate to act on this policy until the City had a transfer
reciprocity agreement with the MTC. Commissioner Schmidt stated
that if only one individual was requesting the service, she did
not think it was necessary to adopt this very complicated policy
at this time.
Schmidt/Spiotta moved not to adopt a Dial-A-Ride/Van Pool Policy
at this time but to reconsider the policy when demand warrants it
or an MTC transfer agreement has been finalized. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Stock then reviewed the home energy check-up marketing
program with the Commissioners. Commissioner Schmidt questioned
whether or not a flyer could be inserted with the Minnegasco
bills. Mr. Stock stated that he would check with Minnegasco in
regard to Ms. Schmidt's suggestion. Commissioner Schmidt also
suggested that the flyer be inserted in both the Mint and the
Shakopee Valley News. Mr. Stock questioned the Committee
regarding holding a raffle and giving a cash prize away to
encourage participation in the program. Commissioner Spiotta
questioned whether or not State funds could be used for this type
of activity. Mr. Stock stated that it was not an eligible State
expense but that it was an eligible Minnegasco marketing expense.
It was a consensus of the Committee that participation in the
program be monitored following the initiation of our marketing
program. If we find that participation in the project is less
than expected then proceed with the raffle concept.
Mr. Stock then briefly discussed the reverse van pool marketing
program with the Committee. He stated that he will be meeting
directly with the major employers in Shakopee and speaking with
the personnel directors. He felt that the personnel directors
were better equipped to give suggestions regarding marketing a
reverse van pool program within their company. Mr. Stock stated
that he hoped to have a reverse van pool in operation before the
end of the year.
Mr. Stock then presented the Dial-A-Ride and Van Pool monthly
reports for the Committees review. Mr. Stock then reported that
ridership during the Dial-A-Ride evening hours in the month of
August paralleled the month of July. However, in the month of
September we are seeing a significant increase in the evening
hour ridership. Mr. Stock also reported that during the month of
August the Dial-A-Ride provider fell below the minimum threshold
level the first time in this contract period.
Commissioner Spiotta questioned whether or not staff could gather
some information on the container deposit legislation. She
stated that she would like to have a better understanding of both
the opponents and proponents position regarding this bill. Mr.
Stock stated that he thought he could get some information on
this issue for the Committee's review. Mr. Stock then noted that
the next meeting will be held on October 15, 1987 at 7:00 P.M.
Spiotta/Schmidt moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Barry S. Stock
Recording Secretary
J6
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE
Regular Session
City Council Chambers
September 9, 1987
Chairman Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. with
the following members present: Gary Laurent, Jim Stillman, Bill
Wermerskirchen, Terry Forbord, Melanie Kahleck, Harry Kohler, and
Tim Keane. Members absent: Pete Sames and Jerry Wampach. Also
present were Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant, John
Anderson, City Administrator and Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer.
Stillman/Kohler moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
Stillman/Forbord moved to approve the minutes of the August 26,
1987 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock reported that at several meetings in the past the
Committee has discussed Mr. Hennen's request to amend the
assessment formula utilized in the Downtown Project. Mr. Stock
reported that staff has done a comparison of the current 70 front
foot/30 sq. foot assessment formula vs. a straight square footage
assessment formula. Mr. Stock reported that results of this
comparison were some what surprising in that only a few parcels
experience a large increase in their assessment. These parcels
are primarily properties that have on site parking.
Mr. Stock commented that in researching the Downtown Committee's
past actions regarding the current assessment formula, he
discovered that the 70 front foot/30 square foot formula was not
the policy utilized in the 1967 parking lot assessment.
Additionally, Mr. Stock stated that he could not find any
supporting evidence to show that the Downtown Committee ever
looked strictly at a straight square footage assessment formula.
He did find several references where a straight square footage
assessment formula was addressed but to what degree could not be
determined from past memos or minutes.
Mr. Hennen stated that with the current parking situation
downtown, he did not think it was appropriate for properties with
parking lots to be given special consideration. He went on to
state that the property owners with parking lots chose to have
parking lots and it is a benefit to their business to have a
parking lot. Mr. Forbord stated that he agreed with Mr. Hennen
to a point, but stated that property owners that have parking
lots in the downtown are also benefitting the entire downtown
area in that they are providing their own parking spaces which in
turn opens up other parking spaces in the downtown area. Mr.
Forbord went on to state that some of the privately owned parking
lots are utilized to a great extent by persons not actually doing
business in the business that is providing the parking.
Chairman Laurent asked Mr. Stock what his recommendation was on
this issue. Mr. Stock stated that he is recommending a change in
the current assessment policy and the adoption of a square
footage assessment policy. He went on to state that he did not
think it was appropriate to give a credit to parking lots
primarily due to the difficulty in defining what constitutes a
parking lot. Additionally, Mr. Stock stated that he did not
think a credit would be appropriate because the assessments are
already very low and the proposed change in assessment policies
does not increase any parcel to a very significant extent.
Chairman Laurent stated that in his opinion if the adoption of a
straight square footage assessment policy does not change the
assessments to any great extent, he could not see the merit in
trying to develop an assessment credit for properties with
parking lots. Additionally, he went on to state that if a credit
is given to parking lots, there is nothing that can stop the
property owner from turning that parking lot into a business at a
later date. if this situation occurs, it would be very difficult
if not impossible to collect an additional assessment from these
property owners. on the other hand, Mr. Laurent stated that
property owners providing parking spaces in the downtown area are
servicing the parking needs of the entire downtown area.
Mr. Anderson stated that one way of looking at this problem is
simply to put the two assessment policies along side each other
and simply decide which one creates the least inequities.
Discussion ensued on the lay out of Mr. Hennen's parcel in
comparison with the lot in which he sits vs. other parcels in the
downtown.
Mr. Forbord stated that when an individual decides to subdivide a
parcel, taxes usually increase on each parcel within the
subdivision as compared to the parcel before it was subdivided.
Mr. Hennen stated that we aren't talking about taxes in this
case, we are talking about assessments.
Ms. Kahleck questioned how the City normally determines what is
an appropriate assessment policy. Mr. Laurent stated that the
City usually sits down and discusses which type of assessment
formula is appropriate on a case by case basis. Mr. Anderson
stated that usually assessment policies begin with a straight
front footage assessment. Modifications are then made depending
on the uniqueness of each individual project.
Mr. Anderson then suggested another alternative for the
Committee's consideration. He suggested that in each case where
a typical lot is split up into several parcels, assess that
a typical lot the regular cost of approximately $3500 and spread
the difference out over the rest of the parcels within the
district.
Mr. Stock stated that in this opinion the current 70ff/30 sq. ft.
assessment formula is very complicated and difficult to
understand for the typical resident. Mr. Anderson's suggestion
would only complicate an already complicated policy. Mr. Stock
strongly suggested that the Committee consider simplify the
yrs¢ ry'ti:
assessment policy. He went on to state that the proposed square
footage assessment policy has very few inequities in it and can
be easily understood by the general public.
Mr. Ashfeld stated that in an effort to make the assessment
formula easier to understand and in an effort not to just pick
out certain parcels in the downtown area and give special
consideration to them, he suggested that the Committee consider
an adjusted front foot assessment method. By utilizing this
approach we would end up with a nice clean assessment method.
Chairman Laurent then suggested that staff investigate the three
alternatives that were discussed including the 1. adjusted front
foot method, 2. square footage assessment policy with a parking
lot credit and 3 . Mr. Anderson's suggestion which would take
typical lots that have been subdivided and treat them as typical
lots with the cost differential spread over the rest of the
parcels in the downtown area. Chairman Laurent then polled the
Committee to determine if this was an appropriate course of
action. Ms. Kahleck questioned whether or not discussing this
issue would cause a problem with our project time line. Mr.
Stock stated that it would not and that the assessment policy did
not have to be finalized until the assessment hearing which will
take place some time next year. Mr. Kohler stated that he agreed
with Mr. Stock and Mr. Ashfeld and wanted to keep the assessment
policy simple. It was the consensus of the Committee to proceed
with Mr. Laurent's suggestion.
Mr. Forbord stated that he appreciated Mr. Hennen's interest in
this issue and bringing the discrepancy to the attention to the
Downtown Committee. Chairman Laurent also stated that he
appreciated the professionalism which Mr. Hennen displayed in
bringing this issue to the attention of the Downtown Committee.
Discussion then ensued on an alternative bench design that has
been proposed by the contractor. Mr. Ashfeld stated that staff
is not recommending a change in the bench design. It was the
consensus of the Committee to stick with the bench design that we
have utilized along the Second Avenue Parking Lot.
Discussion then ensued as to whether or not a sign could be
constructed to advertise the downtown redevelopment project. Mr.
Stock stated that he would investigate the cost involved with the
placement of several signs in the downtown area and would report
back to the Committee by our next meeting.
Kohler/Forbord moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 a.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
Barry A. Stock
Recording Secretary
TENTATIVE AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Adjourned Regular Session Shakopee, MN October 22, 1987
Chairwoman VanMaldeghem Presiding
1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
2. Approval of Agenda
3. 7:30 P.M. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a
request for a preliminary and final planned unit development
project for the property located on approximately 29. 6 acres
on the Northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 101
and County Road 17. The proposed project includes the
existing Shakopee Valley Motel and a proposed campground and
restaurant.
Applicant: Wally Bakken
Action: Recommendation to City Council
4. Discussion: Revised Sign Ordinance
5. Discussion: Amendments to Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance.
6. Other Business
7. Adjourn
Douglas Wise
City Planner
NOTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
1. If you have any questions or need additional information on
any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday
or Tuesday prior to the meeting.
2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the
Planning Department prior to the meeting.
UV4U4UUVW VWWU 4WYW` UV=YYVVJWWWWWY WoW 14.
-
NNNNNN000 VVVWWYUWYW e o DC b � �
aYN mJP aO .IP NAYN�O a - oOYW 4W4 +- f 4I ! NN Z J I
0y NaVNNaVN-M Nh m
9wD mT�+D< Dn3nw99xr r 303yTmC39m9nmmny w ww Dr C O
na rzzzoa z no o..y0000� .- - rmmmrc o.. m.+a 9 9 o m yo
sr oFr cm<arrxna mm�c-n c..o nzmos x l � z -
ymm; .. mz-..~-.. msy m mrxzrranacn r� °� mi
w wi zaim '.a yr r,mmnwrm z "yea mo o pz ..a w -a oI
�, ownnmm.. c n nKm m~ - 9i..-ym ra a as zrr mwn o
amxxam<wm a ox imno w nm -wa-zzsy P- m rn In m m 9
m
To
spot ~ axmCywaoa mNonl nnmy nra
Nozno^rz A�+ T mOao9yayoys a Cxa rmDmys ,Dn' N DO .n9m w
ooy r,mzcaa z 3maa z o- mi-a-r99m znz w aw
zn nmy aomNDi~ y n� 2 yy mm rxwmn w w 1, 9D F
<cw+im m aw cw9- ammaaar..mmzz m mm yr
xmmmwm< xo- m.-.- mAma m^^�nrmm- m ww 2 - o
amnmmmZ nm- mw w .a-c o+i
ay� az a - ma .. x b i �v .19 wm z mi ya zc m
i. <09 r " o �, r m wzwn m m a z m
~ y .. y9ya wm z y mm a
y I
m p I
I I
m
I
� � m
I <
z
I
-
ii
ry a i a a to m m
- N a ubaro - ro �z
- a m w roroumrob IP <
o0o uee .Ne e.e X1. N c m
om Ooo PO o000 Oe m
I I I I a l m
WWroNroONAo aN aoY N -oro -No aNN 0 NW ~
I
eeroo0 - ONNo aJ N Y eJ
NON N Oro m
N a O cl
N ON <
m
ole. 0o eoo N ................P W oN m
marouror , me ' u u a em mu m -oro uba mum I y _a nu a
SAW it
ro w -prom - PNONow N10o yVl -
NI - a ayb a UNNNNNOP a PNN m-1
0 YUeeO-0NN mVY NII N oN ~O O
yNe Oae 0 Wo mwo N o40o eWl y 10bN C 9
oOOVo c m0000moo J ooPONN00-1e oNo oe - a .
V N y 1
-N-NNON 1 00 0 PNm+ N NWl N;HH-TH's
9 i
D
YNNbweeooPP Z
oboNo 4 oNNo oNo 0 00 - D
i die i i - m
m
ed-N-V '' N m , YPA 0N0b0oroP0 VN PN
ororom roo y m -ro mom rvro
ab-PVo Ne m a W a Veb , a NUoPWWPaP Oil
X
'I' � 4Y 4YWW .. IJ 4 Y Y Y W W 4414 YYYWW T -
m0 NNNNNNNNNNNNmNNN DC i
I o NN 04N NWNNNyYNN No Zm m
I y y Y N n
m Ai DwLT9 Tm3LTmA l� C n
mai o �o i coma-oo A-mczm-. ye
! 'i D nD Zry CIC a Tw-ZDyAC2 wmm0_yf y
2 Z nymm Aly A mn3 -m mm2 -mnmy v- \
wl m m A n . aNma mm zm
FT +i Pp r om m z n wnypnnmm" yn o
is 's s TN = I .T.. (4. Tz- aDT me m T
y I oonoyrrm�-.a A. ycxoT nz
1 T wly z z n Z '. Z T O i, zn-rmoZmxy9rtr owwNvs- a<Tm -A x
I ! m m c y OO Im A mism � nswzsam ya a
= m o w m aa � my ewrm r, s
w DZNOJ '. T A0 pT
1 I OI ly AT m OOw 0To mOT
A f0_2rF y- mmm ZG
0 9 D2r I^D2 I Z m
O 2m Ay m
M.
I T
I I m
I
1 I m
Lz
_ m
I i I
ry a m
wn
W N Y ON o � 0 N of N4NYN0 - n G
A oo 1p p o p p P Nj 0iro00y000o000o D m
e I r 3 z
I I o c
M
y
a m
Az v
m o
I ( A
I I j I I n y
! I
Y I I
m irl OJW m N Y 00N ~
i, N = N N pooeN N oW AI
mI
K
a o O y y 0 P J N -WNOYmm - A
I R o c,o d NNNW 4 W a JCJNN me y' N O oo C� T
WOJo ro N 11 No Y 4
j a uN N_ 4JmJp m J
' W 0 0o N NNNN N PN J�oVOoya ro4 rooYl p
P NOMP
' W 4 N 40W-A
e oo P oNV P P p NeoYNOoeNOoo Novo oo e0 Z s
' io; o , 0 00 N NooJW>o O
ro m N P mm J -omN-oJ u �^
N m y 00 J J N PNONOJP N '��
N - y m NN Y y l - N -NNP- ryN O T �
1 N
: e a • ea eaa aee aeea as a a da ac T - '
• • J NN n�WWWyYYWWWyY .VpNNN
• m f J NeNobP O.d YW N W+ DL
• N • � N' NNONN N Y N O J
O y D 9 O 00 3n30 AC y9VrLmmm2 . CLS T O C '
' O T D m > D CCmCOT Z AfOATaTOCOCC ZOTmmm yo
Z 23 % _ 9 2"9 0 Am22 NOOODC� 'P D A $Z9 Tr y
'. -1 m 3 Ar TYrC2<Ty3 rrrOT9 ' 9xr00DDaa \ � K
1 N D y y r ' T I TN+ A-Ip9 T ^ADr 31++ r O
rzawa yarrx y rmxoo =-- mn r 111
rrz m .+ z2 om T 3�Tmm sON 20b �mT Nm
�, m m , z y xi
i T N ' n omz mnarz
z N m ANrcn Pm m Z >
j n N x o o- m Nmm o- 3ra r.rxn i nn ..A 3 �
K p m oc O Omm00 m Wnz-+1^m-i m .. .. + CC Va a
vm�a imrr-r �� o
r MZII" my a m9~c 0. , 9zzv Iro�� zC
m
m c M n n ..i
A A P m moo wz a cc mm
m m No n m AA
N r zm m a
I I� I m o nN i
a
I
I i I I c
mm Y m m eo-rolV A a
e ni- JNOy- ' J Pu ro rom � Nb+ �" m
M J bWObbNOJ JbPNmWm p Nb+yoPm D Z
o o e o 0 0 oobooW O N PNe00oPbroJp+ ed N Jm b ep C~ O
N oN PNm+Niao -NNP O PWPiP W �_
1
r r
" W Y y b _ +NaJbro PYOydrob M Pp +JNb 9 '
'' ro p + d+ Y+m' b JN++Yoop+by +p+WOONp AI
O
" N N ro p J '. +NNObPobOb+JroWmOPNmma -mrob-P p '
0 o O O O O rol WWeaJNNNmooPooNPOW oPp0MNe1 '
NI oNoeoNNONNO00000000 Nooe000N r
D
y
o o O 00 oee o o O '.
u u m � omm ebummem- -ro-PP A
w u u m u � u -rmamunow-o-o�moa-gym _ JuocH�a-y
'. ro N N W eW Nm PNYmbab bNOaPabNP oyNbeoWrN >y N
', 0 0 NN +p+oPPO omYPPM+Wb '
J J y +yeNe.eNPbooeWm�le Np C T
P N N 0 0 oN bP bPNYJWPmNOOWPINPd m ooON pNWp D
m m m ro ' -roo pJup--a N roWNur'o m
ro m ', a u Y WI - uebebuJ NO eNaee �
ro J m m_ m 00 P ~oPOb�lPPPNOOpJNWOPJP mONONJPamm A
m OW 0 OJJNNbmYNm+NY0J0bYW+ W oJPPWromPN
T a m m P P N Po+mPbpdOOWOboPP+pNaN P NJPWWPW Z
m m ry p N oN lol++dNWWYaNNooJaPNeP ry oNNaOmYm
i m n
J WbNaPeaOPmm+JdNWNNp uNWPPPdP m '
P d J J JopJ+�+�Nb�rvYN- JNPb
9
N N a l W W N d ro p ePYY+NmYaPe+WNNOW+N 0 0dyamomm
y
� Ii I � I - - - _ - � a _ �__; .-++��
I � I � � I I �i i ', � I �i� .I �'� o m _
1 � � I , I I I oom
I � � jos
_I I r I I 1 I I mn o
i m m +�
I oz
i I r 'r � I � Z VD D
i i � I O yC F
i � I � I r I I o . is m
I i i z m
� � I I � i 9
i w r '
i l a ,
Ii i ! � a '
i
j i � ; = 1
i =�
a
m
� � a � _
N D O
l � I i �3
o .
i , i � _
I a
I. ', 9x m
� I i I I a a
r I I � i I ��' m l o
.� a
I II iii I
y
� j i � � � j i I � 9 '�
I I I a
I � j I I j � � I � al
' j � I Irjl i , � � � _ ;
D
I � I � , � _ .
I _:
' i I '� j I i i ' � N m
� I ! � I � � � i I N ,
I � � � � I I
D1 W
- i I �o
r � I �', I I ' = - ' u
i
i y
I � � I i Q A '
I I I
I ! �, I N 9
i
D
i ' m m I
N
_ W
P N Y N Z a
C
Z
f Z K K y A D m
y n y [t y D y a o
y O H m y m O 3 K p 3r
mz d
r a is m
a r r J
y
O T
A _C
O
b.NNNNNNN bOyWyWyY bONNN
NY+ 0YN+0mwN1YNr 0Yro.mJN1WN+ WN-OyN+ e+
r90 09Dm39D0 OOnOrmO OWnD x
Dam KmWC-DOm ymOT-rm COO K
LOZ Sa%O%Kn2 Z<LTOm2 20C3
mm mmmo aom ommz-mnm moz- o ma aoWm oca arnnzya ayn� a
ns z%J rza roo..-m-a
ycr 9zx rJr 9 ra-or 9 rm a 9
Wy amm - am rzz a a
..r Krz zx KAo- o%x K o-a n o
o m y W a W o s a O n
Zn % Z DO 2 n„ C A
O1� a omc n mo z ?
m az3 m zz
m x
m3 a �
m m mnz m a
z m%ym y m
� 9
z a
� y o
9
n
m a
x
PWma N
+11P +byWNW +Ne +0P- +d bPIW yPo CZ y0
0aJ0 +WwwNWP
. . . . . . . . . . . 0P+ . . .
eeoe W0d00oJOJ00NN �o00NONPeeNo WONPOONb _0_ WW T%
m
A %K
< 2
DO
Fm
om
m roro+KWaeNW+ - -ro J ro--+a JN- r ma
WNN+PNrNWNNbP m-+0N W+NNpJ ONOPOOOP 0b0 r0 mK
Pa�NoOPOP+mO J+POW+NOyNNr ypPbNOdw wN DO 3
P NroNN+PdWO JwNNYPW+JyWo NaOb+yPW b0 �� �
0000 BNyNaopW0NN0y bPWNWJ+NONYO NPJOJaPN o0o W y
IPNN NbdW W P '� VP b
00ob W roW YbNO 0 W W mA
NOroW W0000eONOJdJO J0000000ee0b boo00eob
eoo
+W d W Ny N N d-p
b NP J NN+Jya+JOP ro +ro NN N N+++aP WNJ y
PNN WpN+PNPPye+NN W++ON W-NrowN dNOP000W 0b0 NyO
wN0NO J�Ne+oOJ+NN -aOL+NWNN00 OawbNody ObN
meb pNJN+WyOJ PNNWPb+NYWM 0b-JPp br
IM
. bJ PJ_0b00ro0PW0 OPWbNNJMyJwo � JOJdw1
NONW JN+NwONWmroPwy P WJ+NON+b w eoo
nK
m N
N w o yPPJmNN w WWw+JN � WJP _ 9
J J NdNJJN + WeJdON N 0J0 � D
O e NwWbN-d J ++N0P0 N oJb m
NNONOON N eNNNO N NO
Z
0000 e00000eoo0o00 O0000000eeoo 00000000 000 O
_ D
wYPdmaw >0 a NNW ➢ W
J W N m
-000 Noo000NNmJNmN w000c00robe-o moo00bW+
_ V
• Z OPFP-P0000000 FlPPm000oF NPOFNNOPOOOOeO�
m�Pae-a � nw � ee F-ram-
K -NN-P NM1YM1 NN tlNNPPO-- F
O a
W OONNNNee ON POP00 O ee NON000000
V 6 -FNPbNo - O FM1 NN00-NNo-
1 O 00FaPb1 N aYNP Y PP b NFbYY
06 d N M- Y PPPNY
r< -
i
naaa m.Floweo u.No ne Q1�nm nmmmNF�.eo Ne neamumi-�uim na.Fomo�
Jm
<F NPmm00FPNOFl0Y0 NPPNONbNN Pp00oP-NN-NPNbY
Y-0 N--NNFPO-PNMNN -FFlMPN^N 00bO�YPPNPYPF
FO MFNYOYYMNYbmFlN -nF 00bM bb mObPFlMFONYFO aP
V Y--M1N - --- -0 0M - a PP bP MbY FFlPPY Y0
--
NM F
Nb0-pOY0000eON NMmN0000N mm 00FlMeOPFlOeeOeoP
M1MOONOY0o0oeen aYwN000oP NYFaeOrPOeeeeeM
WY 0 m m0 PI'1FW N �m-0 -P
20 PM YMN P FF FOPP FN Y
Fo w wr a ab m
F m bNNbWONbFlaNN FlN Otm�INF-YF PP FMPNN-oOPFlPVd'OM
2 F0
W 0¢ oOOMOP NOFlmbe -0 oabNO as ON-awNbY
F 06 M--NPFe PNMNO FFlPN^b FOFOAO NpPNPYP-
FW UJ WFNbPYM1 NYY0M0 0 OWbF YaOMFl 0NYF0 aP
¢W J --- ^0 PW P - N Mn VFMYY YMPPY
V
as
x >
rm ¢
m w
W m
O N-OOONNO000Fm- NNONOO-N- NN - - OMNO-Pm
F J0
Q¢ MaNPF- aaPNF M0 Pb- -- oMPaNN N NMPYo
01- 27 0P0-NNP NNFOP bN NOFO 00 OPFOPP NP- oa
00 wP m- -^ ^N PN P a^ NN NPFl-FlM F NNP
--
LV - n
< w
u n
O J
WF
> 3F w
¢ SV pa Y V VU
o <¢ovw wz < < F w<z¢
O LO- V¢T WWT 2 L 6m S�+60T
LL002 ZW6 J ¢N< VW�+J¢LL6
6 J2r26 -26 <Y U.,a J �+JF Z6
QW>-¢ JW S¢ 6 6JF- JUW
WWGZV TWW JVW W W¢WW¢O-WW
zmm<zumLx rmu 'x z zr»>x¢ox
WOJJOVWOF �+6¢F W Ung^OUr�OM1
VVm6Jti¢20 VJW00 U VmLLVO
^aMPNbOPm-NM0 -NFlPO-NM - -NFlPNYmpm-NMFO
FFFFFFFFPPPPP 0000pPP PP N --------OPPPPP
^^^----- ---- N MFlMnMnMMPPPPPP
O S <
J
O W
F J J x
m < w z
W m V
iF o
J J J J J
6 < J< < < Q
^ W F
O L O <O O
OQ F � F SF H M1 V F
6 F W
£ 6 > O J 6
O O O W O W O W
U O U 0 V 0 + p O
Z
J
¢ Zm h 0 N N Fl
P W V W O
N W N 2 A
C_
y y < y a m a
i a 4 m p
m r 4 n 4 ae n
m o o v o 4 0
-
D ➢ T 4 O D TP
I i r m � z r z m �
s of m 4 m
m r
� v s
o r N
9 T
r c
x z
m o
NNNNNNNNNNNdAd\\d\IAAA W WWWyYyY Y
b6P\WWWWNNOo----OO0000N mbOWWWWWWy N
NbJdroN-PeOd-obOJPN42 - 0WN-00JPAWN+
m-1pdm32C<OT9000m309Ym O O Oa0<9m9nO
DeZ4+D09wywrmOw4vwDAr m m 4D�DrCrm m
O-SOxOArTLSrD2x4Dm4<DO 2 Z 2n4rS�D2 Z
r mF3m m+4m3K4nKm+0 m mmKrOrZm m
m� DD£mmAmAZ Aw mm 3Z' A mn0 A A
CZ+«D-IW D OAD43 rnmw9 DD Dm K' wAD a
O4ommr <Z� mr4DDrOZZm r r 9DOT Zmr r 9
Om+ FmmD r3 < m9�DC40A DO�DPO< a
a
Oa 9T 4Yr4v w3m002ZKFrr w3 3 O
mmar n' raa mW mna a s vax-ma m
amKAro rmao Lz -o...A 4 z z 4zLz i
mniFxzraKK< aP xcrm W s a i om s s a
x4TroW34 P zm m v m n v n o x
a-aza4vmvm mm I Nm m m m wm m m
moWomaAAAm xv Aa r z 3 o zy x x
r m ma o v< v m m m
4m r-m za 4 ..a m z z 4 i z
1°a o4 mza 40 - m4 4 .K mo -� 4
O D 0 pZ A
L m0 Om YO 2 4W
9
m a
x
_ NN SW
ro -Nry J -W-- -N WONP 00
JW+OV-mOm+.O+-0+\Jn\ bWJPe WAWbVYW CZ 40
yyroroPWOdWJPdOroWdN\NWOJ WNroop JJbANON \l AD KW
Wr
NNNOOONNNONboJNNNONOoo Oo 0o PNWONOOeeNeeO ++ 00
W T
m m
A WK
< S
DO
n Fm
_ om ov
+ro -ro\WN .i
.4;;.- aro-roro- bm viN r1° ma
J bNPJWyPmNONroybdNm N+-+bAJbOWOMb WW r0 m1
\droroP+\WPAOWNNbdbYWWJN 00e\00mbpeWbA DO 3
PNW+OA-NONb-000NWbNN bNWJNNJOOWAN Am m
W4 Z
bmNNNyrooeNm+bJWA0A00 .ONNOPbOWebp
o00\bPPeOPPNOJbNYo-ProN e0 Oo omyYJJ-WJWdNb
\\ n0
Pw 01
V Yy N N m2
N J NN 4m
ro J o0 Ad WA
-nee oro
eOm000000 eo em eo eom eo ee ee ee JNeo PP AU Au boee0000Omeeb e\e\
N
+_N +rodYP 0 NAN-- dro+Np+ JP00 04
bVPJYVOVNbroNWbOJNO JJ yW lJbmWOJN JJ 00
A\pNP+\WPAWWNb�O\bVbPJp NN" PP m00d000bryoWbA m-I
PNy+O\+NNNCObeoNA-NN d\ OONWJroNJOOWA+ 1D
.emromm uroe-m.
-NONb. .iunoomm nn mso.n rvoe..eow e.o in mm
mr
o00dbPPOOPNVOOrryN PP Vy mmWWJJ+WJWANO NN
DK
_ _ roro V4
N roN-ro 90
0o y +YW_WNIANWW WW J mJW 9
oW N OWW\PO NrobPb D
+0 0 POPobPPNWN JJ JJ bNYOro 9
oNo00 ONO NN ONeNN m
Z
0000000eee000000000000 00 00 ooeeoe000000e ee 9 O
W\ yV NNNN+
AN A NbOYmYONWJ AA PWNb --
m u
0000inee-eene�.�aom-euNu mm wu ueeeeeeoo.im cro uu z
W
�' PFlFlFnbM1Nobegoeom NowPn-mDoe
L b
P � '" mP menNn-nFna mu� .oe
¢ e^„g M1 mwFlFlNNNF f o neNmnbw
w -
p d o eo eooee oe OO ee a ego0 ee eo eo ee eoe e0
2 0
W � O ONNONON00000 � Ng -
gFl b�PemNO-OPOO n NOooFlN
� b N NONN-oN N m b NnPm
1�-b�POUP-Oo n -nFl-
LL
OQ
PYONaP00PFlNP000gnbP bD-NOPNPOPNPPbNbP PPodOnn-OP
NYONP--OPdFNNbPDo� -OPNPNaNP0PFF0-n 0dN0oanPdb
FH PdbOPeNbPnoN-ONPDnO -dPPNPNonDbPbaNn� nMPNFlPPM1-Fb
m -NPPPOnmPnFNPeNFNb- N-wNN^NFNnDbQIDPPb o PNObOFPP
00 NPNP� Fl0bD0-M1OPPM1 n nFPOVFlOnnNNOPPbPn NNbnbPNM1PN
FV -NNo -P N-nFln- N PFNNdb�Flb��- n N h 0bN
0
ee mee ee r�lea=maeo eeeeeo fm
wr oae d M1 _ a
Fm � 'nPN b n N
PPONOPODCnnPDOooFlb- UO-oO-FlFl�ONPPbNbN 000N0Mn-o0
'^ W NPONP--DP�FNdbPmON n-DNOPbmPFDPM1M1D-N 0dN00PnPNb
y2j q¢ PNboFONbPnFlN^oNPOnN oNPPFD0N0NbPbPNnN -nNnPaF-M1b
£ uG -NPPbDnDPnPNfoNM1NbN P-N bDNNFOPbNbNOaP- DPPNobDhPP
W J NPNP- nDb00-FePPM1 - M1 nwf.-O PnOPeuPf NbnbPNM1CN
66 WO NNo F-P d-nnn- N Fl=NM1nPDFlP�-- n N N 0bd
WY V
06
2 >
YW ¢
W
DO W gNNN000PONON00000No FlN�OFlbNFlgFlfngFlewPd Nn-7OPdP00
m} 6¢ NbnNn00YFb0Fl0 oOFPP -NnbFNPONPF PFNFO 00bM1Nf-w^e0
pF 2� o�a� NO�bPOF NN ON�N�Pm-FPD -m-Fn FlFPFn-NPP
00 wP-F . d-d Fld- F nNPNPbNNb Fnn m wP-
VV
6 W
6
U
ZOW L ¢W G ¢ h 600F6
d p0}� VVW F6 2 6ZG F Z m6¢Q"fb
2FPh¢ZWhTm2 WJ 6WFL W W 11 111
VO-W-r¢6 1 LW W WT „Y^
Z J�WWOJJbW W\<'} ¢V Y
£ WO7¢�+W WW 6J-V QM1 W Z W VOQG66¢6
6 J "sU}0060W- G GJ W- JW 6r666¢66
¢ �nyl J ¢WF¢>Z¢J Z02£J 6 6¢ ZZWWWWWW
h60WUQOZ JWWUW6 JFZeGOF W 6 2�+bbroYe
> W606>ZZU6 J JW OZD V6 Jti
WW0 W2¢hV 6JM¢ ¢ W LhW 6 FF'>FFFh
DJ 2YFJZm2J¢tiW WWOtiWJOZ230_W _ ZZZ£2Z
YJ aY-¢b.+3¢}JW¢2 ZWW7¢Ghr�VO ¢ r^�^^
j Vn6 60Go�+rWF WpFW�+G�+26} W66_G_Q_6_G_¢_
F --53¢OS^Y>SO UF3WW[006WmD0 VL
-NPNM1maO�NnPm-Nn0 -NPbM1OaO�NnO-Nn0 -NFlPNbM1D^N
NNN NNNNNI(NbbbbbOaaPP NNNNNNNnn nl'iO PPPa PPPPPPfaP
NNNNNNNNNNNNPPaPP PCOPPPPPPOYPPPaP PPPP<PPf PP
O F
Z Z
J ^
LL =
J
W
P W
e UW G G Q
^F O p O
W gG p
Q Q O
O p 2
p D m
¢ P
p P
Z
o m a m c m m m m o 0
m 9 s
W x s
y y y n y
K y y n y Z y 30
D D D
r r r A f I 2m
O O Z
o r
r a
s m
r J
T
L_
O
aNN bbbbOWWWWYNNNNNNNNN OP+--++++ P N bb
W- 0WN+0dWN+ObOJPNIWNr OwJPNIWN- 0W
rn OyWA9999wyDD99n OL399nrrP L S
O+m yaZ+DDD 0Z.1DDm .DD000m+m m D
232 Sm02aAaL C223aA Z Sy�GG30T2 m
Tom mmLFFFF rZr rFFm mmZrrnO0. O Z
m a a\ w mr�mm a TT 00
m00a y
a9D ya OWmW<0..3SD mOD02CD w m
m-r 9 mxmrora oar 9Wza-WWar z D 9
a
zn axxa9oconnnL+ araWo- A w A
nsx Kwo-y n..nwo zx K-zxwo ox 9 z o
mia <z 9 cTTo-ya on- z ws n m n
R.
n
wcz 9symx Srarr2 mm w z a
9a .+r\os3soyoo9 a m a a
n n s-y an
Pm sr O�+Z-z 3335+ m m o
M x ioz9yzyxaoaxnx x z
oam cyW \y\DS+L+ om m
cmz 9\yxn4
n-z\z zz z 9
xy L aonozy9y wy y
a
m a
a 3
Np ++Nm WiPJ+ eJbJ p NJdyN+Ab YY 00 +n
PN Ao N eoby N!-0! ddN+PJNp NN Cat O
PNtlO- OJNNJNWobJPN+P OYJOWe+b NN Np wD KW
OJJ WdOOboNoo00YONOJoobN JOAJin sr. o0 00 WWN 00
m m
wK
< S
a0
Fm
om o9
dp N++NA+ IWObN IPWJ Wd+N N-P YY d r mD
Y peJdNrP .J N0oP0r0olP- W+ WOJbYWN Y0+ rn pyy mNPYJ+oJNNOJUY1PbWo NONPbN+JN+ ++ J0 DAO m S
JONOVOeeYJlJ0W+0NNOP OONNNtl00NA WW dA pW0 W m
tlpe PPo-boNNJNpNbP-WdWOb W�PntlbONNp JJ WO YO W0N wW y
Nd P NPoobNOd+pbOblJNNb 0J00o0 NN +dA
O
N WW J W0 p Jp a w2
N ym
W ! d0A O O bVpl o PN J N Wa
PNOooboJOWb W0 eoy0oo-oOw PP
ooJ d0000000d0WONOboNOJP wOOdoeb NN o0 +oo
OW +riA- dP+b! bPPN tl oP+NJN+o WY y
d oMJ N-P+00bb10Y00AbY o-PJwJeWY+ ap Y0+ 000
PJO Nopoboo00a0JbWN0aNON 0o00NNw0NN OYo yD
0r
�NJ O�NNNlNOP+MNY-b JbWJbbeNN- eO YWo Y0N
N+ oPNPoo pNpAN-000NNbN - 0Jp0oJ o NA!
DK
0J b +NNbroOe+NIWWN-o N pO+PNlbb 0 a 9
Nbe P 00-ObJNpoWOlJJ y PWJNNbp ,OoO A
oNO WO ANN0W00boNMNO PON0000N W
N NNONNOe000000N N N0000000 N m
eoo 00oo0o0ee000000eeeoo Doo 000eeoo Oe o0 00o O
9
m
NdA WJNNIP-+OPJN WlION++o A
NNb W POtloANNbJbPOJA - YeNObI! ++ m N
WWW -00000JtlNeYOlOWJ+NOb doMWNNPNJd pp oo Joo Z
W
• i rnN NN cc r
m w
mgr wa ui�n
rc a rr -- m
w
o a
z
W NNe P
V 6 Nrm
< O NNN n
6 rm mm NN
ma N
-- NN
Ya n
NPV PP nn
Jm
61- NNP NN NN
Fm NN N
00 �F mm
f V r N
as mm m
__ n
mV PP nn
Km mn NN NN m
WF Na -- o
zo _ mm r
ou as mm mN
m avaP. n
z rm
w ma ww�n _
£ OQ PON
FW UJ �r
¢W J V
a6 m0
60 WO
WY V
ma
x >
Y m 6'
m w
LL N
m0
!- J m
mY 6¢ nrr N
V~ 00 N n
m2
£V 2 m
< w
u a
0
a
z
w
L
W
£ u
a a
z o
6 W
O £ �-
K VV 6
6 2= J V
< o
£F J
£Z W J
..a z a
CJ W Z
1-6 V J
Nm
NN N
e.o r c
m
z
� z
LL o
J H
m < V
\ m W
W J J
ZF J O 6
\ WZ J O J W J
V W 6 V Q F- Q O
- _£ a r
O O V O
f V � O F 0
W m< J 2
J J
< 6 LL
O O W a Z W
_ O V O p O
J
K N
m r a
/5
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director
FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Starwood Music Center
Traffic Study Review (EAW)
DATE: October 14, 1987
INTRODUCTION:
At their September 22, 1987 public hearing of the Starwood Music
Center proposal, Council directed staff to solicit proposals for
an independent review of the EAW traffic analvpis. At their
September 29, 1987 meeting, Council hired Howard-Needles-Tammen a
Bergendof£ (HNTB) to accomplish the review. Attached is the HNTB
report dated October 9 , 1987 .
BACKGROUND:
The HNTB report is relatively self-explanatory but I wish to make
the following comments relative to their findings and
conclusions.
Finding No. 4 . The EAW reported the level of service (LOS) for
the various affected signalized intersections for
the peak weekend event and the weekday event. The
EAW indicated that the LOS for any intersection
would not create an average delay to cause a
condition worse than IAS D, i.e. , average delays
would be 40 seconds or less. The EAW failed to
identify the .LOS for the specific critical
intersection approach, in the case of Valley Park
Drive 5 T.H. 101 would be the westbound T.H. 101
approach.
The HNTB report states that unacceptable delays
would occur on the critical approach of Valley
Park Drive 6 T.H. 101 for peak weekend events. It
further goes onto recommend the requirement of
traffic control personnel at this intersection for
peak weekend events. I believe this requirement
does not cover all situations where an
unacceptable LOS would exist because major events
could also occur during a weekday. Even with the
removal of the "worst case " background traffic on
a weekday, problems may arise on a portion of the
critical approach.
I have asked HNTB to expand their study on this
critical approach to answer the following question
with the following assumptions.
Starwood Music Center
October 14, 1987
Page 2
Question: what level of attendance at Starwood
Music Center would cause any portion of the
critical approach to Valley Park Drive or C.R. 83
to cause the LOS to fall below LOS D (average
delays in excess of 40 seconds)
Assumptions: All other conditions should remain
constant for that particular attendance such as;
a. passengers per vehicle
b. background traffic
C. direction of approach
d. etc.
The purpose of this analysis is to determine a
traffic management plan based upon the traffic
generated by the event and not solely on the time
of the event. The results of this analysis is
that events generating attendance of 12,000 or
less would not cause unacceptable average delays .
Finding No. 5 The EAW provided information relative to
anticipated traffic volumes assigned to directions
of approach. The HNTB report indicates concern
over intersection operations if the traffic
assignments are wrong. In addition to the three
recommendations within the HNTB report, conditions
can be placed on the CUP to control problems
associated with this finding as well as Finding
No. 4.
RECOMMENDATION:
The HNTB report has three recommendations. Recommendation No. 1
is somewhat subjective as to degree of conformance afforded by
the applicant and/or future operators. As a follow-up to the
HNTB Recommendation No. 1, I recommend a condition be added to
the CUP that requires the approval of the Starwood marketing
program so that C.R. 42 is properly identified as an access
route.
Recommendation No. 2 for the most part is already covered in the
traffic management plan. In an effort to provide a condition to
the facility operator that can be readily related to, as a
follow-up to the HNTB Recommendation No . 2, I recommend the
following condition be added to the CUP:
Starwood Music Center
October 14 , 1987
Page 3
For any event that the attendance is anticipated to be 12,000 or
greater (weekday or weekend) , the traffic management plan shall
include traffic control personnel at the following intersections.
a. at Valley Park Drive s T.H. 101 for arriving traffic
b. at C.R. 83 6 C.R. 42 for departing traffic
C. at C.R. 83 6 T.H. 101 for arriving traffic
d. at C.R. 83 s 12th Avenue for arriving & departing
traffic
Since there is a concern (Finding No. 5) regarding the traffic
operations dependence on the anticipated direction of approach, I
also recommend the following condition:
If it becomes apparent that intersection operation is creating an
unacceptable average delay (excess of 40 seconds) , the facility
operator will be responsible for the cost of a joint City/MnDOT
study to identify the actual direction of approach and/or other
problems and determine solutions. If this study determines a
different attendance figure, as aforestated, that would establish
the requirement for traffic control personnel, the facility
operator shall abide by the new figure. If the study identifies
other problems and solutions, the facility operator will be
responsible for the cost of implementing those solutions.
I concur with Recommendation No. 3 of the HNTB report. I further
recommend that the cost of this improvement be borne by the
applicant and be properly address in the developer ' s agreement.
%A/pmp
CENTER
MpN/GFO NEEOL£5 T4MMEN 6 BEGGENOO FC
6700 trance avenue soutn, mmneaooiis. mmnesota 6t2.r920-4666
MEMORANDUM
To: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer October 9, 1987
From: Larry Dallam, HNTB and Professor Matthew Huber, Univ. of Minnesota
Subject: Traffic Impacts of Proposed Starwood Music Center
ADuroach
The following documents were reviewed and evaiiiated:
- Environmental Assessment Worksheet-(EAW) for Starwood Music Center,-
June, 1987
- Final Environmental Imoact Statement (FEIS) for the Shakopee
Racetrack, May 7, 1987
- Memorandum to the City Council of Shakopee from Joseph F. Zak,
September 20, 1967
- Four-page handout of graphics and in and out times for Racetrack,
Valleyfair, Starwood and Renaissance, by John Schmitt, Planning
Commissioner
The Starwood EAW was reviewed for reasonableness in approach, assumptions
and methodology. Particular attention was given to the direction of
approach to the proposed site to determine the demand or load upon the
roadway network and the affected intersections in the vicinity of the site.
Independent analvses o' the traffic volumes for the peak weekend events
("worst case") were performed at the intersections of T.H. 101 with Valley
Park Drive and County Road 63. One analysis used the assumptions and
conditions stated in the EAR -- and a second analvsfs used the assumed
direction of approach for traffic stated in the F-IS for peak events.
Findines and Conclusions
_. 7ne methodology for determining traffic impacts in the Starwood _AW and
Racetrack F'EIS is consistent with recommended traffic engineering
I
-- and the calculations at the critical intersections are
accurate for the EAW peak weekend events.
2. The assumptions used to determine the number of vehicles (4407) arriving
in the peak hour for the worst case used in the Starwood EAW are
reasonable.
3. The background traffic used in the Starwood RAW impact analysis is
conservative (greater than normal) because it was counted when
Canterbury Downs, Valleyfair and Renaissance were experiencing a peak
day -- and then increased by 58 for future growth. The RAW reasonably
takes into account the interactions of this background traffic with the
projected Starwood traffic pattern.
4. The critical intersection for arriving traffic for peak eekend events
is the Valley Park Drive and TH 101 intersection. The RAW accurately
states that the level of service would be "D" for this intersection.
This is an average of the level of service for each of the four
approaches to the intersection. The level of service for westbound
traffic will be "E" at this intersection for the arrival peak hour. Any
significant disturbance to the traffic flow or error in the design
westbound traffic volume on TH 101 would result in level of service "F"
and unacceptable delays. (This finding is applicable only to the peak
weekend events and not to peak weekday events.)
5. The critical assumption in the Starwood EAW is the "direction of
approach" of arriving traffic from the east on TH 101 and CR 42/CR 63.
Tne EAW assumes 466 of the patrons will use TH 101 and 298 CR 42. These
percentages are based upon recent counts of traffic entering Canterbury
Downs. The Canterbury Downs Final RIS document assumed 578 on TH 101
and 198 on CR 42 (based upon the distribution of households in the
region) . The change in percentages is believed to be due to a
combination of 1) the completion of 1-35E, 2) notice to patrons of the
CR 42 alternative, and 3) familiarity of repeat patrons with the road
network and traffic conditions.
The Valley Park Drive intersection with TH 101 (Valley Park Drive) would
be overloaded (IAS F) for arriving westbound traffic if the EIS value of
578 is realized on peak weekend events instead of the 468 used -- which
demonstrates the importance of CR 42 until the Shakopee Bypass is
operational.
6. Capacity problems are anticipated at the intersection of CR 63 and CR 42
on peak weekend events for departing traffic, because of the high
turning volume included in the EAW.
� r1;- arrival Starwood traffic when combined with departing Canterbury
traffic creates the need for widening of CR 63 from Gate 2 to 12th
Avenue.
B. The Joseph Zak September 20, 1967 memorandum helped define
the issues while containing several misconceptions about traffic flow
and the operation of signalized intersections -- which resulted in a
Significant understatement of the number of cars that can be
accommodated per hour. The signal cycles that are proposed in the
Starwood EAW are different from those currently in operation -- and the
calculations for the number of cars accommodated per second of green
time should be based upon the queue of cars, rather than a single car
(all cars are moving during almost aL of the green time) .
-2-
9. The John Schmitt handout was helpful in understanding arrival and
departure times for the various activities.
Recommendations
Eased upon the findings and conclusions, it is recommended:
1. That the Starwood Music Center, as part of its Traffic Management Plan,
include notification (in writing and on map) to its patrons of the -
importance of using CR 42 to avoid excessive traffic delays in arriving
and departing the center.
_. That the Traffic Management Plan include the requirement, that
sufficient traffic control personnel will be provided for peak weekend
events at the following intersections and times until proven otherwise:
a) at Valley Park Drive and TH 101 for a-riving traffic
b 42 for deterring traffic
at CR E3 and CRg
m -
c) at CR 63 and TH 101 for arriving traffic
d) at CR 83 and 12th Avenue for arriving traffic
3. That CR E3 be widened to four lanes between Gate 2 of Canterbury Downs
and 12th Avenue (extend 4-lane section south to 12th Avenue) .
LND/dhs/PC3
-o-
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA OCTOBER 20, 1987
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M.
21 Reading by Mayor Reinke of City' s Non-Discrimination Policy
3] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
4] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS
5] Approval of Consent Business %- (All items listed with an asterisk are
considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted
by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will
be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the agenda. )
*63 Approval of the Minutes of September 29, 1987 and October 14, 1987
7] Communications:
a] David Riegger, Rock Spring Supper Club re : amphitheater
b]
i
8] Public Hearings:
a] 7:00 P.M. - Consideration of whether or not to permit the sale
of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises
in conjunction with the sale of food between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on Sundays for Class
C license holders (Hotel/motel , Restaurant/lounge)
b] 7:30 P.M. - Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals approval
of a 31 foot setback variance for an accessory farm
building for property located at 3374 South Marschall Rd.
c] 7:45 P.M. - Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals denial of
a 25 foot setback variance from the lakeshore for
property located in Weinandt Acres - West of
Marschall Road and County Road 42
d] 8:00 P.M. - Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals approval of
setback variances for property located at 630 East 1st
for Breckenridge Development Corp .
9] Boards and Commissions:
Board of Adjustment and Appeals:
a] Issuance of Building Permits to Property Not Abutting Public
Right-O£-Way
Downtown Committee:
'b] Downtown Design Standards for New and Infill Construction
TENTATIVE AGENDA
October 20, 1987
Page -2-
10] Reports. From Staff: (Council will take a 10 minute break around 9:00)
a] R. Hanover Inc . - Liquor Liability Insurance
*b] Releasing Current Air Pack Specifications for Bid
c] Award Bids for Snowblower and Flusher _ memo on table
*d] Chaska Rental Agreement for Shakopee Sewer Cleaning Equipment
*e] Scott County Computer Agreement to Access County Computer
*f] Senate File 1084/House File 1163 (Street access charge impact
fee enabling legislation)
*g] Transfer of Property to CertainTeed Corp.
*h] 1988/1989 Garbage Contract
i] Damage Claim - Ralph Ferry
j] Muhlenhardt Road Turnback
*k] Naumkeag Street Railroad Crossings
1] Approve Bills in Amount of $ 817, 785. 19
*m] Travel Reimbursement to John K. Anderson
n] Mini-Bypass & T.H. 169 Project Final Design Consultant
11] Resolutions and Ordinances:
*a] Res. No. 2821, Accepting Work on Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation
Project 1985-2
*b] Res. No. 2822, Accepting Work on Valley Park Drive North
Project 1986-11
c] Res. No. 2820, Appreciation to David Pomerenke
12] Other Business :
*a] Appoint Judith S . Cox Acting City Administrator from October 23 ,
1987 until November 3, 1987
b]
C]
d]
131 Adjourn to Tuesday, October 27, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. at the Scott
County Courthouse, Room 318
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 14, 1987
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. with Cncl.
Clay, Wampach, Leroux, Vierling and Lebens present. Also present
were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Julius A. Coller, II,
City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Barry A. Stock,
Administrative Assistant.
Lebens/Leroux moved to accept the call for a Special Council
Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Jack Boarman of Boarman Architects passed out a memorandum
summarizing the results of a recent telephone survey regarding
the referendum for a new City Hall which has been placed on the
ballot for November 3 , 1987. He reported on the results of the
survey and recommended that the Council postpone the referendum
on a new City Hall until September of 1988.
Mr. _ Virgil Mears, Co-Chairman, Citizens for a New City Hall,
-- explained six reasons why the Committee concurs with the
recommendation of Mr. Boarman and recommends that the referendum
on a new City Hall be postponed until September of 1988. 1) The
current tax situation - total taxes raised significantly this
past year, 2) the dispute . over the site, 3) the timing is
complicated because it is in conjunction with the election of
City officials, 4) a lack of consensus among the candidates on
what to spend for a new City Hall, 5) the negative results of the
survey presented by the Architect, and 6) because of the City
election the Committee could not get sufficient people to work on
the Committee promoting a new City Hall.
Mr. Mears recommended that the site problem be eliminated and
that the referendum be delayed until September of 1988.
Discussion ensued as to whether or not to leave the advisory
question on the ballot regarding the two sites for a new City
Hall. Cncl. Wampach said he felt the site issue should be
removed from the ballot too, and that he couldn't support
removing only the money issue. Cncl. Lebens agreed it should be
all or nothing.
Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2823, A Resolution Withdrawing
from the Special Election to be held in the City of Shakopee on
November 3, 1987 the Proposition of Voting on Whether the City of
Shakopee Should Issue and Sell its General Obligation Bonds in an
Amount not to Exceed $1,400,000 for the Purpose of Acquiring Land
and Constructing Thereon a New City Hall, and moved its adoption.
Roll Call: Ayes; Cncl. Vierling, Clay, Leroux, Mayor Reinke
Noes; Cncl. Lebens, Wampach
Motion carried.
City Council
October 14, 1987
Page Two
Clay/Leroux moved to put in to the Mint an ad (sample ballot)
approximately three columns by seven inchs or thereabouts.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous
Noes; None
Motion carried. - - - - -
Leroux/Clay moved to adjourn at 7 :25 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk - --
Recording Secretary
6
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 29, 1987
Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Cncl.
Wampach, Clay, Vierling and Leroux present. Cncl. Lebens was
absent. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator;
Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director and
Julius Coller, II, City Attorney.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished
to speak on any items not on the agenda. There was no response.
Leroux/Clay moved to approve consent business.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None
Motion carried. -
Leroux/Clay moved to approve the minutes of September 8th and
15th, 1987 as printed. (Approved under consent business) .
Leroux/Clay moved to authorize the expenditure of funds from the
contingency fund in the amount of $816.75 for the acquisition and
installation of three Star City signs. (Approved under consent
business) .
The City Administrator reviewed the final plans for the Minnesota
Street Housing Project recognition event.
Leroux/Clay moved to authorize the Public Works Department to
advertise for bids for a new tank/flusher unit for the Street
Division. (Approved under consent business) .
Leroux/Clay moved to authorize the Public Works Department to
advertise for bids for a new snowblower with a bid letting date
set at Monday, October 19, 1987. (Approved under consent
business) .
The City Engineer reviewed the traffic study proposals as
submitted by each of the potential consultants. Discussion was
held regarding the requirement that the consultant firm has not
had previous experience in Shakopee.
Mrs. Zak requested that the Citizen's traffic study be made a
part of this independent traffic study. The City Engineer noted
that all pertinent information, including the Citizen's study and
Mr. Schmitt's study along with other data will be made a part of
the consultant's package.
The City Administrator noted that a copy of the revised
conditions of the Starwood Conditional Use Permit cross
referenced to the criteria has been given to the Councilmembers.
City Council
September 29, 1987
Page 2
Wampach/Vierling moved to receive and file correspondence from
Mr. Zak, Citizens Against Starwood Amphitheatre, dated September
27, 1987. Motion carried unanimously.
Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the proper officials to select
Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff for the traffic study for
the Starwood Amphitheatre.
Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous
Noes: None
Motion carried.
Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2806, A Resolution Accepting
Bid on 13th Avenue Street Improvements M.S.A.P. 166-112-01,
Project No. 1987-12 and moved its adoption. (Approved under
consent business) .
Leroux/Clay moved to appoint John K. Anderson Acting City Clerk
from September 29, 1987 until October 7, 1987. (Approved under
consent business) .
Cncl. Wampach asked for a clarification of reporting procedures
regarding 208 occupancy in apartments that received City
Industrial Development Bonds. The City Administrator stated the
information was received on a regular basis and is on file in the
Community Development Director's office.
The City Engineer noted that Mn/DOT will begin right turn
construction on the city-owned lot on lst Avenue. The City will
be capping a water service and some minor expenses may be
involved.
The City Engineer also reviewed the free emblazonment of a logo
on trash receptacles for the Downtown Project. Discussion was
held with general agreement that "Welcome to Shakopee" should be
used.
Mayor Reinke notified the Councilmembers of a farewell reception
for Sister Agnes who is leaving St. Francis Hospital.
Wampach/Vierling moved Resolution No. 2812 commending Sister
Agnes for years of service to St. Francis and the City of
Shakopee and requested that it be drafted by staff prior to 2:00
p.m. on September 30, 1987. Motion carried unanimously.
Cool. Leroux brought up an issue relating to weed growth in the
City. This was discussed in regards to zero lot lines on
twinhomes and individuals being cited for detracting from the
appearance of the neighborhood. The City Administrator said City
staff was gathering information to provide Council with
alternative ways to address the problem.
City Council
September 29, 1987
Page 3
Cncl. Leroux also asked to discuss the Assessor' s valuation
processes used for 4-plexes that resulted in equalling 90% of
market value. He questioned how this compared to other Scott
County communities. The City Administrator will ask the County
Assessor to respond by listing what methods are being used in
determining assessors valuations on multi-family dwellings and
report back to the Council.
wampach/vierling moved to continue the Budget Worksession at 7:50
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Two representatives were present from Jackson Township to discuss
the City' s proposed budget for the Fire Department for 1988.
Norbert Theis asked several questions about equipment to be
purchased, building maintenance, annual fire hose replacement,
and new building construction to determine the appropriateness of
the township paying a prorata share of those costs. Gregg
Voxland, the Finance Director, responded to Mr. Theis' questions
and explained how certain items were included in the City' s
standby fee charged to the townships.
The City Council and township representatives then discussed a
number of non-budget issues relating to the construction of the
Highway 101 By-pass and its affect on property access, storm
water drainage, sanitary sewer access, the relocation of County
Road 69, and its affect on the plans for the Shakopee Basin WMO.
It was agreed that it would be useful for the City Council and
the township to meet with the appropriate staff from Mn/DOT to
discuss the project and its affect on the above mentioned items.
Mr. Theis suggested that the agenda also include a discussion
about re-establishing the Joint 7-man Planning Committee. It was
the general consensus that a joint meeting should be held by
November.
The Mayor then opened discussion on the proposed 1988 Budget.
The Mayor asked Councilmembers if they had any specific questions
or suggestions regarding the proposed budget.
Cncl. Clay stated that he would like to see the budget include
money for one additional licensed police officer. He said a
possible trade off might be the reduction of money for the
Pavement Preservation Program. He felt the additional officer
might assist in having some affect on First Avenue and Tenth
Avenue traffic problems. Cncl. Wampach responded that he would
like to see more specific information about how the current staff
is scheduled and how operations are managed before making a
decision to add an additional officer.
Cncl. Vierling indicated that she was interested in financing the
City Engineer' s proposed sidewalk repair program for health and
safety reasons. She also suggested the possibility of some
City Council
September 29, 1987
Page 9
traffic management study or capability within the City to manage
traffic throughout the City and northern part of the County as it
affected Shakopee.
The Mayor and Cncl. Leroux then discussed the use of Community
Service Officers (CSO) and the possible functions that they might
perform. Cncl. Leroux reminded members that this subject had
been discussed during last year' s budget process and dropped.
Cncl. Wampach asked about the use of reserves for traffic
management and parking enforcement.
Cncl. vierling also asked about the need for additional personnel
in the Street Department as requested by the Public Works
Superintendent. Cncl. Leroux responded that he felt more staff
may be needed.
Mayor Reinke asked whether or not the City could require builders
to clean up the City streets near new subdivisions to eliminate
additional work placed on City crews. He said that one option
might be to bill builders for the extra street cleaning required.
Cncl. Leroux indicated that he preferred to add one additional
person in Public Works, the 1/2 time Police Clerk, no additional
licensed Police Officers, and to consider making some contingency
monies available for a CSO who might be hired full time instead
of hiring a 1/2 Clerk Typist. Cncl. Leroux suggested that the
CSO might take some of the work load off officers and still be
able to do some of the clerical work that would be assigned to
the 1/2 Clerk Typist. There was considerable discussion about
how this might work and whether or not it would fit the needs of
the department as outlined by the Chief.
Council discussed the level of building permits currently being
issued and the need for a full time assistant Building Inspector.
The City Administrator indicated that the City had approved or
was approving approximately 650 lots which might generate
significantly more activity in 1988. He also indicated that the
Residential Energy Conservation Program would be run by the
Assistant Building Inspector and that we were to receive grant
monies for his services for that project.
Cncl. Leroux discussed the option of drawing down on the General
Fund fund balance which was exceeding our target of 30%. It was
agreed that the changes in the homestead credit law for 1988
might make it more appropriate to look at this option for 1989.
Cncl. Leroux then brought up the topic of the State Homestead
Credit listed in the Finance Director' s memo. There was a
lengthy discussion about how Shakopee was caught with its "levy
down" when the Minnesota Miracle was initiated in the early
City Council
September 29, 1987
Page 5
1970 ' s. The City Administrator read to Councilmembers a section
of the House Research Department' s report dated September 9, 1987
on property taxes payable in 1988. He quoted a section of the
report entitled "A Side Effect" in which House staffers reported
that there was, "a one-time incentive to levy a large amount in
this last year (1988) under the old system since the amount of
the homestead credit received in 1988 becomes the base for
determining the amount of homestead credit replacement aid for
all years into the future".
The City Administrator then asked Councilmembers if they felt
comfortable increasing the City' s levy as a portion of the total
tax levy for 1988. It was noted that the City had a lower tax
rate compared to comparable cities and that the school may lower
its levy for 1988. There was a general discussion about whether
the City should try to hold its mill levy down or take advantage
of this one time opportunity created by the change in the State
law. Consensus was that the City should rase the mill rate in
order to capture more State aid now and in the future.
The City Administrator then reviewed the evening' s discussion to
clarify the changes Council desired in the proposed budget and
get consensus on those changes. It was agreed that the City
would keep a Planning Intern rather than filling the Planner I
slot and use the money saved to hire an entry level Public Works
employee beginning in April of 1988. It was agreed to budget for
a permanent half time Police Clerk and to offer the Chief the
option of creating a CSO position or equivalent on a full time
basis by amending the contingency budget when and if a CSO was
hired. It was the consensus to maintain the HRA $200,000
revolving loan program as budgeted. It was the consensus to drop
the request for $50,000 in street lighting at Memorial Park, but
to review the Council policy of dedicating 60% of the park
dedication fees to land acquisition and only 40% for park
improvements. It was the consensus to include $2,000 in the 1988
budget for a sidewalk replacement program. It was the consensus
to make the changes to the proposed 1988 budget as outlined in
Item No. 2 of the Finance Director' s memo dated September 28,
1987. (Doc. No. CC-142)
The Council decided it would like to review with department heads
or study several items during 1988: (1) % review scheduling and
staffing of patrol operations in the Police Department, (2)
investigate the possibility of a traffic management program, (3)
investigate the creation of a program that would require
contractors to clean streets in the area of new home construction
by billing them for sweeping done by the City, (4) study the cost
benefit of contractual cleaning/janitorial services, and (5)
provide Council with a copy of the most recent waiting list for
seniors trying to get into the Highrise to determine how
aggressively the City should seek a second seniors housing
project.
City Council
September 29, 1987
Page 6
Council discussed the possibility of hiring someone to do a park
maintenance study as outlined in the Kerr-Thorson Company
proposal introduced by the City Administrator. It was decided
that this would not be pursued in 1987, but that staff might
obtain similar information by requesting it from large park
districts like the Scott-Hennepin Park Reserve.
The Finance Director asked Council if it was their desire in
preparing the 1988 tax levy to maximize the portion of the levy
under the general levy rather than various special levies.
Council agreed that this should be done.
Leroux/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10: 58 p.m.
John K. Anderson
Acting City Clerk
Peggy Swagger
Recording Secretary
�J ROCK SPRING SUPPER CLUB
1561 E. 1st Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Phone 612-445-3103
October 7, 1987
The Honorable Mayor Eldon Reinke,
City of Shakopee,
129 East First Avenue,
Shakopee, Mn 55379
Dear Mayor:
Our first reaction upon learning of the proposal to build an
amphitheater in Shakopee, one which could attract 17 ,000 persons and
more, was to oppose this addition to the city for the reason that the
traffic problems for moving in and through Shakopee had already spiraled
to where it not onlywascausing problems to our establishment but to
other business operations in Shakopee including attendance at Canterbury
Downs.
You were a part of a group having dinner at Rock Spring on a recent
Friday evening. I 'm sure that you may have noticed that there were
tables vacant during the course of the evening. I 'm sure that you will
also recall being a guest in Rock Spring on other week-end evenings during
the winter months when there were no tables vacantand possibly there was
some waiting time before accommodations were available. The patronage
which we have enjoyed over the past years from our neighboring suburbs
has diminished during the Canterbury Downs Racing meet, and the reason
being that a great vhare of these customers do not relish coping with the
increased traffic on highways leading into Shakopee.
The enclosed copy of our Letter to the Editor, Shakopee Valley News ,
reflects our opinion at that time. The Tuesday meeting at the courthouse
held recently, coupled with subsequent inquiries into other such comparable
entertainment facilities in other locations, prompts us to further oppose
this proposed amphitheater for reasons that pose far more serious, grave
and sober consequences than the traffic situation. This is illustrated
by the enclosed article, "Punk rock fans trash Seattle ferry" as appeared
in the Monday October 5, 1987 issue of the Star Tribune.
The development of the amphitheater here in Shakopee could mean that
Rock Spring would either be planning closing hours to co-inside with the
Closing time of the amphitheater (would also mean loss of revenue" and jobs)
and/or Rock Spring would be requesting additional help from the city to
cope with the type of persons that this attraction would attract.
We urge that you, Eldon, as mayor, would urge your council members
to give this proposal th it most careful scrutiny so as to make determination
as to best ser t&ir' ciPzens of Shakopee. ,
SincIr
grely, y� i / /-
Roc Sk pr in 'Supper C
David C. Riegger
Lou M. Mutsch
LMM/ms
ROCK SPRING SUPPER CLUB
1561 E. 1st Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Phone 612.445.3103
Star Tribune
On
Y
Dabber 5„987. � 3A .-
sa9atays*y(sz wnrsjna3fcanry Strikes wntmue at Elizabeth, NJ., Luremeets,hesaid
w1a¢lmug fie TwinGws mu M10120mn,a11aJOpar,152 eaemnq ylsmall districts inennsy
d two ll drsttPIva-
wwksl m tM belalaa of MrtmnOle vb ell
OVwl a41n.MBY aWaceplKKis:$ulgey S$$
°t.min. "e S"°M'"t=-b m Punk rock fans trash Seattle ferry
.t.min. 3peGial ales fw wCacripwluna
nLamN,u.s.poeaezaens an0 iwegn a
ca V. oeusm raezmrenuesl.5ecww Associated Press son, a spokeswoman for Washington
rlaza ppzege wo w Minmamlrs Mnn., Sate Ferries,said a man chopped up
ficaMD noolnory&MfiLLING oFF�cE. Seattlq Wash. seats and tables with an ax.
y S.TMASIEnsem moven clangesto A u of fans returning S.ir4ule.a25 pmum n..,MnIWgYis. group g from a
T.0 sssee cancan by a British punk rock bead The punk tans were returning from a .
T.ylaawaalm nen a emalm cacwaweto knocked rl state ferry out of commis- Friday night wnan in Bremerton; t'
mlepubsnwycallewa pimm.n me siomearly Saturday when they Wash., by the British group GBH,
chopped tables and chairs with an ax which reportedly stands for Griev-
epwr.MaW.eMlwlr and ripped tiles from the ceiling, au- ow Bodily Harm. Members of that - —
JmnesMaa,18d1953Fmmm thorities said. band were not aboard the ferry m
Seattle but GBH lead singer Jimmy
s aog.r.val.al E.aweve vre ne.mpl Police arrested.five people. Wren, told of the micas, said Satur-
M " M2 No one was injured, but Pat Patter- day that he was"quietly proud.” dK
J
- w
Letter to the editor-.
We are n_ .
_ _ ._ nr against the deve:cpmerrt the her,
..._ateY.
prgpgsed�tc be erected just adjacent to the Canterbury Downs Race
BU-, t
Having seen traficc beer:-ed up to 'the east on highways 1')1 and 1=
to Insterstate 8 , and north on highway 169 to and beyond the Flying
Cloud Airport during the week , but especially on the weekends, I would
think that the Shakopee Planning Commission would not issue ary
permits for the building of any type of facility that would be
attracting the numbers as mentioned in the proposal a+ the Scottiand
onoa.n
The_:develonsr- as _ -Zrtna, an a . e: .ace Trac.-- s'!aui.d recognize
'2'f5at..SnCreaSEC ,ruff l- r. 't!Ye p •:•Y ads is "�G _'_ to ha r10 tr:E
acterdan. e. .ai. arttares.�. - uc ns. r'f at were possible - or
.Canterbu , ::Downs. to .-vR E sc.ry G. '.pe- ns who, live to attend
. _the -races�rrea-uec.tly, : bur Oc -no_ .always attend as Tuch .s thev
wpuiG .ke, hir.k 'th _hey would rind -that as because these
persons do not enjoy fightipg the traf+ic.
As pronerty owners and business ope,�tvrs here
_.. _.._.,.._ ee, we are
not oo cse,; to a prose o s -..-d growing Shakone.- tp encourage
this type .-r deveiopmen as _-coosed bythe -_y_ .._ �pirioanies w _
not be self-serving to to citizens of Gn .I.opeet --is time and o 1 ,
at such tl. o- in the +_ -_ _ the transportation oroblem, to and throi_in_;
the town of Shakopee has been resolved.
We c000se this _eveic_m•emt of the amohatheater _= thinkwould think tnat the
managament or .anterbury Downs Race T•-acr wouidiikewise OPOQse this
development for the same reasons as set forth in this letter.
Owners of =:oc :: _.,rine_ Supper Club.
Sh-k,pee. Mn
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Admi4listrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Lr_
RE: On Sale Sunday Liquor Sales� Prior to 12:00 noon
DATE: September 16, 1987
INTRODUCTION:
On September 1, 1987 Council set a public hearing for
October 20, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. to consider whether or not to
permit the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the
premises in conjunction with the sale of food between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on Sundays for Class C license
holders (Hotel/Motel, Resturant/Lounge) .
BACKGROUND:
On June 15, 1987 the City received a letter from Mr. Stan
Ockwig, General Manager, Canterbury Inn requesting Council to
consider allowing the sale of liquor on Sunday starting at 10:00
a.m. on Sundays. On July 21, 1987 Mr. Ockwig appeared before
Council explaining his request to permit the sale of liquor on
Sunday starting at 10:00 a.m.
On September 1, 1987 Council received an opinion from the
City Attorney, at Council' s request, stating that in his opinion
permitting the sale of liquor in conjunction with the sale of
food between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight to Class C licenses
would be a valid exercise of the City's police power as well as
its control over the liquor licenses.
All on-sale liquor licensees have received a copy of the
public hearing notice which was published October 7, 1987.
ALTERNATIVES:
a) Permit sales before noon on Sunday for class
C Licenses.
b) Do not permit sales before noon on Sunday for
Class C licenses.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Hold the public hearing and then advise Staff whether or not
to prepare an ordinance permitting Class C license holders to
sell intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises in
conjunction with the sale of food between the hours of 10:00 a.m.
and 12:00 midnight on Sundays, providing that the license is in
conformance with the Minnesota Clean Air Act.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
To Whom It May Concern:
Notice is hereby given that the Shakopee City Council will
hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 20, 1987 at 7: 00 p.m. ,
or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City hall at 129 East
First Avenue to consider whether or not to permit a licensee
holding a Class C on-sale liquor license (Hotel/Motel,
Resturant/Lounge) , to sell intoxicating liquor for consumption on
the premises in conjunction with the sale of food between the
hours of 10: 00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on Sundays, provided that
the licensee is in conformance with the Minnesota Clean Air Act.
All persons interested, in this matter will be given an
opportunity to be heard at this public hearing.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 1987.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
City of Shakopee
Publish: October 7, 1987
Mail copies to 8 on-saleliquor licensees on 10/5/87
CANTfOURYINN
tn. Homi d Gnmrw+ry P.,x
CL-
June 2, 1927
Darlene Schesso
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
129 1st Avenue East
Shakooae, MN 55379
Dear Darlene:
This letter is a request for the City Council to consider cranting
approval of a provision that will allow Sunday liquor licenses holders
to serve liouor starting at 10:00 an Sundays. Presently we are not
permitted to serve licuor on Sundays until 12 Noon.
The reason for the request stems from customer demand. we receive
numerous recuest from groups (corporate and association) for Sunday
morning champagne brunches. The inability to fulf_1 the customers
reoues_ has mrom=ed some of them to co to other hotels, where this is
available. T:nis is a concern 12 months of the year. Our inability to
offer this service could affect our room occupancy as well ; due to a
convention or meeting booking into another hotel. Lost room revenue
means lost room tax, which means less money for the area to market
self.
We also have many of our present- Sunday brunch customers ask for
champagne, bloody mar_ys or mimosas with their brunch. These request are
due to our competition being able to offer this service. : am sure tnat
nne average individual customer probably does not want a drink before
noon; however when that service is available in one area and not
another, tt can affect one's deci=_ion where to dine.
7=spectfu2.ly,
n Ocxwrg
C£h�-, MANAc=R cvcr Yr-D
SD/bk
JUN 1 5 L°87
OWY OF SHAKOFcc
1244 Canterbury Road- Snal<opee, Minnesota 55379 612-445-36=4
CFiNTcRBURYINN q a-
July 21, 1987
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Presently the City ordinances do not allow the sale of liquor before noon on
Sunday. State law allows a city by ordinance to allow liquor sales commencing
at 10:00 a.m. on Sundays. We have asked the City Council to adopt such an
ordinance. We believe that such an ordinance would be beneficial to the City
for the reasons noted herein.
We and other retail businesses in the City are trying to convince people to
spend their business and recreational dollars in the City.
Related thereto, we are trying to attract business groups to book their
meetings (and hotel rooms) in the City. Many of these groups meet on Sunday
and have as part of their decision making as to where to hold the meetings,
requested the availability of liquor before noon on Sunday. We have not been
able to accommodate these request.
We just completed a telephone survey of 50 groups which booked business with
us last year and asked them if they would be more apt to rebook with us if
liquor were available from 10:00 a.m. to noon on Sunday, 48 of 50 groups said
yes. We and other retail businesses in town are competing with cities which
allow Sunday liquor sales from 10:00 a.m. to Noon on Sunday including, among
others, the City of Bloomington, City of Minneapolis and City of St. Paul. We
would be better able to compete with them by being able to serve liquor before
noon.
We do not expect the volume of liquor sales to be in excess of $100.00 per-
Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to noon. So we do not seek this change for thatreason. .13;,,,y
We need the change to enable us to convince the meeting planners -for small, .F-
medium and large groups that if they desire the service, it is at leas[ M" rye
available for morning banquet meetings, brunches, etc. Hopefully, they will
have booked rooms with us or elsewhere in town for one or more nights. In
fact, we do not plan to open the facility for liquor sales to the public
generally because of the high costs of staffing the bar for such limited sale3
potential.
Based on my experiences elsewhere, this sale of liquor during these limited
hours cause no problems of any nature.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
Sta',
GENERAL MANAGER
124d CT^r?rbut9 Rna.l 5hal<nnap, MinnEcnra ceg7Q C,I2_A4S-36A4
JU`IUS A. CODER.II
- w
A=08 dr 1dM az ..s- z�
�e sa mw SH KOPEE. MSNNESOrd
53379 /� A
MEND TO: SBAKOpic CITY COUNCIL
Jul
FROM: Julius A. Collar, II
DATE: August 28, 1987
1N RE; Authorizing the sale of intoxicating liquor on Sundays -between
10 AM and 12 o'clock midnight limited to Class C license holders
BACKGRODND: I have been asked for a written opinion on whether or not the
City can authorize the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption
on the premises in conjunction with the sale of food between the
hours of 10 AM and 12 midnight on Sundays, providing this is limited
to Class C On–Sale liquor licenses.
ANSWER; Based upon an investigation and full consideration of the matter
and the finding that the possibility of abuses and public nuisances
arising from the additional hours of permitted sale pf liquor in
conjunction with thesale — of of food between the hours of 10 AM
and 12 o'clock midnight as limited by the conditions and restrictions
attaching to Class C licehses.would not be apt to occur, it is my
opinion that granting the additional hours of sale would be a valid
exercise of the City's police power as well as its control over
the liquor licenses, and assuming that the Council desires to make
such concessions, a public hearing must be set on the proposition and
thereafter, if it wished to proceed further, the Council would pass
an ordinance permitting Class C holders to sell intoxicating liquor
for consumption onthe premises in conjunction with the sale of food
between the hours of 10 AM and 12 midnight on Sundays, providing
that the licensee is in conformance with the Minnesota Clean tis Act.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Appeal of Variance granted to Robert Novotny for
setback from property line for a accessory farm
structure.
DATE: October 14, 1987
.INTRODUCTION•
Mr. Robert Novotny requested from the City of Shakopee a
variance from Section 11.25 Subd. 5 C to allow a 6' setback
instead of the required 100' setback for an accessory farm
building upon the property located at 3374 South Marschall Road.
At their meeting on September 17, 1987 the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals granted a 31' variance to Mr. Novotny allowing him to
construct his accessory farm structure 69' from the property line
instead of the required 1001 . Mr. Novotny has appealed the
variance granted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to the
City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The attached information provides the background for the
appeal, included are:
1. Staff report to Board of Adjustment and Appeals
2. Site plan
3 . Minutes of the September 17, 1987 meeting.
4. Letter of Appeal from Mr. Novotny
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-506
approving of a 31' variance.
2. Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-506 and
move for denial of the variance.
3. Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-506 and
move for approval granting a setback variance different than
approved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
ACTION REOUESTED•
Offer . Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-506 and
move for approval or denial as outlined in either alternative 1,
2 or 3 above. -
MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals D b
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Variance Request by Robert Novotny
DATE: August 27, 1987
Description of Request: A 94 foot variance from the required 100
foot for an accessory farm structure.
Location: 3374 S. Marschall Road
Parcel No: 27-930004-1
Owner: Robert Novotny
Property Use: Residential/Agricultural
Applicable Code Provisions: Section 11.25 Subd. 5 C
Considerations:
City staff has concluded .that the following are applicable
considerations:
1. Section 11.25 Subd. 5C
"Accessory farm buildings shall not be erected within 100
feet of a neighboring property. "
Non-farm accessory buildings are only required to be 5 feet
from the property line. The building permit application
submitted by Mr. Novotny states the use of the structure
will include storage of agricultural equipment.
2. Section 11.30 Subd. 6 Accessory Buildings.
"No detached garage or other accessory building shall be
located nearer the front lot line than the principal
building on the lot."
3. Review of the site plan indicates that the structure could
be placed on the east or north side of the existing storage
building, or on the north side of the house and still comply
with the required setback.
Findinas:
Criteria: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply
to the property which do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result
from lot size or shape, topography, or other =.
circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of this Chapter have had no control.
Finding: 1. Size and arrangement of property and location of
old existing foundations, with the exception of
existing storage building, were done prior to purchase
of property or enactment of this chapter. The location
gb
of the existing storage building was determined by the
applicant after enactment of this chapter and is a
self-imposed limitation on the future location of the
proposed storage structure.
Criteria: 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of
this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Chapter.
Finding: 2. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this
Chapter limit the location alternatives for this
structure. It is staff' s conclusion that within these
limitations, alternatives do exist that would comply
with the provisions set£orth in this Chapter.
Criteria: 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do
not result from the actions of the applicant.
Finding: 3 . Major limitations for the locating of this
structure were created by the applicants past actions.
(ie. location of existing storage building) .
Criteria: 4. That granting of the variance requested will not
confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this Chapter to owners of other lands,
structures or buildings in the same district.
Finding: 4. Granting of this variance will confer on this
applicant a special use of property denied to other
property owners within the same district (ie. locating
a farm accessory building within 100 feet of the
property line) .
Criteria: 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
Finding: 5. Staff concludes that other options exist that
would comply with code provisions or would comply with
a variance of a lesser magnitude.
Criteria: 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental
to the purposes of this Chapter, or to property in the
same zone.
Finding: 6. It is staff' s conclusion that granting of a
variance would not be detrimental to the purpose of
this Chapter or to property in the same zone.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of Variance Resolution #506 allowing
a farm accessory building to be located 6 feet from the property
line. Staff' s recommendation is based on the conclusion that
alternative locations for this structure exist that would comply
with the code.
Because these alternatives are limited, if proof can be
- - sited that construction of an accessory building on these
locations is not practical or feasible, staff would not be
opposed to the granting of the minimum variance necessary to
allow construction of the accessory farm building.
gh
_ 7Z - m
AE
o
a
o
V
Board of Adjustments 6 Appeals QA
September 17 , 1987 O
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE REQUEST NO. 506 - ROBERT NOVOTNY
Foudray/Schwartz moved to open the public hearing to consider
an application for a variance to allow a 6 foot setback instead
of the required 100 foot setback for an accessory farm building
at 3374 S. Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner gave background on the reauest noting that
--- farm equipment.
_ the-
the would be used to - - -
Robert Novotny, 3374 S. Marschall Road, stated that a tornado
took down a barn and the footings are buried, causing
difficulty in building in other areas. The proposed building
I will be a pole-type building.
Discussion was held relating to other building -locations on
the property.
Rich Loceais, 3364 Marschall Road, owns property directly to
the Nest asked for clarification of the 100' setback for farm
buildings within the City of Shakopee. Be feels that having
the buildings in one area on the Novotny property would be most
convenient.
Schwartz/Foudray moved to close the public hearing. Motion
I carried unanimously. `
Foudray/Scbwartz moved to grant Variance Resolution -.-506,
subject to the proposed building be located on the Property a
'I a location where its Westerly edge would nave at .e=_s= a 69 '
Isetback.. Motion carried unanimously.
L Chair vanMaldeahem advised the azolicant of the 7 day appeal
Droce=_s.
�PLBLIC HEAF,ING - VP.RIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 507 - E.L. WEINANDT
Schwartz/Cza ja moved to open the Dublic hearing to consider an
anD'-ication I= variances to allow a 75 foot setback from the
lakeshore (w-ch exists on -three sides cf the proper=Y) instead
of the required 100 foot setback to construct a dwelling on
Block 1, Lot 10, Weinandt lst Addition. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Citv Planner reviewed the request and Dointed out that
.2�--
acre requirement. Commen=s from the D.R.R. on the variance
request were negative to granting the variance.
E.L. Weinandt, 2984 S. Marschall Road, spoke about the
uniqueness of the Denirsula with a view of the lake from 3
sides. He has assurances that =septic system will be adequate.
� 6
September 22, 1987 21987
Mr. Douglas Wise CITY OF SH"rOPEE
Shakopee City Planner ..
Shakopee City Hall
Shakopee, MN. 55379
-- - RE: Requested Variance
Dear Mr. Wise:
--- - - On September 17, 1987, I appeared before the city planning
board to request a six (6) foot variance for a proposed building
on my property located at 3374 S. Marschall Road, in the city of
Shakopee. The proposed use of this building is agriculture storage.
This request was denied.
I am now requesting further review of this matter based upon
existing need.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Novot
3374 S. Marsch Road
Shakopee, M. 55379
Telephone: 445-2000
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Appeal of Variance Denied to H.L. Weinandt for setback
from the Lakeshore
DATE: October 14 , 1987
INTRODUCTION•
Mr. H.L. Weinandt requested from the City of Shakopee a
variance from Section 11.35, Subd. 6 to construct a dwelling 75'
from the lakeshore (which exists on three sides of his property)
instead of the required 100' setback from the lakeshore upon the
property located on Block 1, Lot 10, Weinandt lst Addition. At
their meeting on September 17, 1987 the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals denied Mr. Weinandt's variance request. Mr. Weinandt has
appealed the denial of the variance to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The attached information provides the background for the
appeal, included are:
1. Staff report to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
2. Site Plan
3 , Minutes from the September 17, 1987 meeting.
4. Letter of Appeal from Mr. Weinandt
ACTION REOUESTED:
Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-507 and
move for approval or denial.
�C,
MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, city Planner
RE: Variance Request by H.L. Weinandt
DATE: August 27, 1987
Description of Request: A 25 oot
building osetback ot lance from he 100 f
requirementwithinthe
Shoreland Zoning District.
Location: Block 1, Lot 10, weinandt 1st Addition
- Parcel No: 27-098010-0 - -
Owner: H.L. weinandt
Property Use: Platted Single Family Residential
Applicable Code Provisions: Section 11.35 Subd. 6 Building
setback from highwater mark on Recreational Development
Waters is 1001 .
Considerations:
Upon discussion and review of the site plan, staff concludes the
following are the main considerations identified by staff:
1. Alternative locations do exist on the site for placement of
the dwelling in compliance with code provisions.
2. The proposed building location requires setback variances on
three sides.
3. The applicant proposes to locate the septic system on the
peninsula with the dwelling. Staff questions whether
adequate space exists on the peninsula for location of the
dwelling and utilities.
4. The granting of this variance may create a precedent as to
the location of future residential development on O'Dowd
Lake.
5. Attached is a letter from the DNR supporting staff' s
findings.
Findings-
Criteria: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply
to the property which do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result
from lot size or shape, topography, or other
circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of this Chapter have had no control.
Finding: 1. No exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
exist. The said lot is the same if not larger than
surrounding lots, which all provide adequate area to
construct a dwelling in compliance with City Code
provisions. Topography does not preclude construction
in compliance with City Code. The owner platted and
controls this lot and adjacent lots.
Criteria: 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of
this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Chapter.
Finding: 2. The literal interpretation of this Chapter would
_ not deny this applicant the rights to construct a
dwelling on the property.
Criteria: 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do
. not result from the actions of the applicant.
Finding: 3. The applicant platted and controls this lot and
the adjoining lot. The location of the dwelling on
these parcels is within their control.
Criteria: 4. That granting of the variance requested will not
confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this Chapter to owners of other lands,
structures or buildings in the same district.
Finding: 4. Granting of this variance would confer upon this
property owner a special privilege to utilize land for
the construction of this dwelling closer to the
shoreline, which other property owners would not be
able to utilize.
Criteria: 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
Finding: 5. The property owner. can construct a dwelling on the
lot according to code provisions, therefore a hardship
does not exist.
Criteria: 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental
to the purposes of this Chapter, or to property in the
same zone.
Finding: 6. The granting of this variance would be detrimental
to the intent and purpose of this Chapter by not
maintaining the necessary control over Shoreland
development within the City.
Staff Recommendation -_
City staff recommends denial of Variance Resolution #507
allowing a 25 foot variance from the .required 100 foot setback as
required within the Shoreland District.
STATE OF
L ,
tDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONE N0.
612/296-7523 1200 Warner Rd., St. Paul, MN. 55106 =L_ NO
August 25, 1987
71981
Mr. Doug Wise, Planner -
City of Shakopee
'17'y OF S
129 East First Avenue FlA KOPEc
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 a _
Dear Mr. Wise:
RE: H.L. WEINANDT VARIANCE REQUEST, O'DOWD LAKE
Please enter the following comments into the record at any hearings
concerning Mr. Weinandt's request for a variance at Lot 10, Block 1,
Weinandt's First Addition. Based on my review of this request and
previous knowledge of the area, I recommend denial of this variance.
I previously met at this site on April 2, 1987 with Mr. Weinandt.
Unfortunately, my observations from the inspection do not coincide
with the survey submitted with the variance request. During the field
review, Mr. Weinandt and I looked at some stakes he had set at the
setback line. The stakes were about one foot or so apart. Thus the
peninsula (but not the lot) is undevelopable under existing shoreland
standards.
Moreover, I don't believe the Ordinary High Water mark (OHW) is
accurately depicted on the survey. My recollection is that there is a
much narrower "neck" of land at the eastern end of the peninsula which
closely approximates the 946 contour. If you were to stand at a point
on the south lot line (the 330' long lot line) roughly 250 feet
easterly of the lake, I believe the OHW mark would be considerably
closer than shown on the survey. There was quite extensive standing
water north and south of this point in April of last year (1986).
I am also unclear with the reference to a "new lot line" which was
shown as a lot line 157 feet long. Is this a proposed eastern lot
line? If it is, I believe most of it is in the lakebed. I also
believe this would mean a variance from the standards for lot sizes
and for subdivision in the City's ordinance. In my reading of the
City's ordinance, the applicant must show that enforcement of the
ordinance imposes undue hardships to the owner. I do not believe
there is such a showing in this instance, because the existing lot is
developable under current setback requirements. Therefore, the
literal interpretation of the ordinance does not deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the subdivision.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
c�
City of Shakopee
August 25, 1987
Page Two
In addition, the special conditions of the lot do in fact result from
the actions of the applicant. This is the same person who subdivided
the land and created the lot with its' obvious physical limitations
imposed by a -steep sided, narrow peninsula. Now, though the lot is -
developable, the applicant finds the setback requirements aren't good
enough.
Finally, granting of this variance would confer a special privilege to
the owner of this lot that hasn't been given to owners of other
shoreline properties. In the other recent development on O'Dowd Lake
(the golf course) the setbacks were adhered to on the riparian lots,
even though the existing platted lots were less than 20,000 square
feet in size.
In short, the applicant clearly does not meet three of the criteria
for granting variances, as described in the City's ordinance. For
this reason, the variance must be denied.
If I may be of further assistance please feel free to call me at
296-7523. Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
Sincerely,
Mike Muel at
Area Hydrologist
METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS
MM12/lkr
O'DOWD LAKE
NORMAL WATER ELEV. 943.5
HIGH WATER MARK 945.0 /
75• moo' �
� l
—
� Y
s
B r i
° r -
Board of Adjustments 5 Appeals
VC�
Seotember 17, 1957
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE REQUEST NO. 506 - ROBERT NOVOTNY
Foudray/Schwartz moved to oven the public hearing to consider
an application for a variance to allow a 6 foot setback instead
of the required 100 foot setback for an accessory farm building
at 3374 S. Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner gave background on the request noting that
the building would be used to store farm equipment.
Robert Novotny, 3374 S. Marschall Road, stated that a tornado
took down a barn and the footings are buried, causing
difficulty in building in other areas. The prODosed building
will be a pole-type building.
Discussion was held relating to other building locations on
the property.
Rich Logeais, 3364 Marschall Road, owns property directly to
the west asked for clarification of the 100r setback for farm
buildings within the City of Shakopee. He s that having
the buildings in one area on the Novotny property would be most
convenient.
Schwartz/Foudray moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Foudray/Schwartzmoved to grant Variance Resolution 1506,
subject to the proposed building be located on the property at
a location where its westerly edge would have at _east a 69 '
setback. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair VanMalaeghem advised the applicant of the 7 day appeal
roc_ss.
�pUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE RESOL U' TON NO. 507 - E.L. wEINANDT
Schwartz/Czaia moved to open the public hearing to consider - an
application for. variances to allow a 75 foot setback `rpm the
Lakeshore (which exists on t_ sides of the property) nstead
of the required- 100 foot setback to construct a dwe'---ing on
Block . 1, Lot 10, Weinandt 1st Addition. Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Planner reviewed the.. request and pointed out that .
the-lct-s�_l=, tho-res-u= .r-2-Da c=" woufd=m=_et-the -2..
acres requirement. Comments from the D.N.R. on the variant
request were negative to granting the variance.
H.L. Weinandt, 2964 S. Marschall Road, spoke about_ the
uniqueness of the peninsula with a view Of the lake from 3
Sides. He has assurances that septic system will be adequate.
Board of Adjustments & Appeals
September 17, 1967
Page 9
Czaja/Schwartz moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Issues were discussed relating to high water levels, the
uniqueness of a peninsula and the setting of a precedent for
Other variances.
-- - Foudray/Schmitt moved- to approve variance- Resolution 4507
allowing a 25 foot variance from the required 100 foot setback
as required within the Shoreland District. Motion £ailed with
Comm. Schwartz, Schmitt, Czaja and Vanmaldeghem opposed.
Chair VanMaledghem advised the applicant of the 7 day appeal
process.
:he City Planner advised the Board members that the Schmitt
variance which was denied by this body was appealed and denied
by the City Council. .
Czaja/Schwartz moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9: 16 p.m.
Douglas R. Wise
City Planner
Peaav Swaq_ger -
Recording Secretary
gC�
September 24, 1987
City of Shakopee
City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
RE: VARIANCE RESOLUTION 8 507--H.L. WEINANDT
Honorable Council Members;
Pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Shakopee please consider this letter
to be an appeal to the action taken by the City of Shakopee Planning Commission
- . on the 17th of September, 1987. I have received a copy of the denial of my request
on the 22 of September, 1987.
I feel that based on the presentation of the request the variance, should have
been granted. I don't believe that the Planning Commission Members truly consid-
ered the UNIQUENESS of this piece of property. I am sure that after viewing the
property and the sketches that were submitted your honors will see what I am
talking about. This piece of property is a Peninsula. There is probably no
other pieces of property like this around the area.
The requested variance will therefore not set any precedent since as far as
I am able to determine there are no other pieces of property that are even remotely
close to this one. The variance that has been requested is only a variance of 25%
from the existing setback.
All items regarding such items of functional capacity have beendealt with and have
been adequately addressed. The position of the proposed home would satisfy all of
your requirements.
At this point I must advise the Council that there was absolutely NO OPPOSITION
from any of my neighbors, in fact a signature type petition form was presented to
the Planning Commission in favor of the proposed variance request.
Next The Department Of Natural Resources Letter submitted by Mike Mueller dated
August 25, 1987 seems to rely completely on his recollections and not based on the
factual data submitted in the forms of surveys and topographical information. My
understanding is that the variance that I have requested falls completely within
the regulations of the Department of Natural Resources.
Perhaps if the Council would care to I will personally take you on a tour of
the site so that you are better able to appreciate the beauty and uniqueness of
this property.
ladies and Gentlemen of the Council, I am asking you to please grant this appeal
and allow the property to be used to its best use and please grant my request for
avariance.
Sincerely Yours;
Harry and Lillian Weinandt. --
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Appeal of Variance granted to Breckenridge Development
Corporation for front yard setbacks
DATE: October 14, 1987
INTRODUCTION:
The Breckenridge Development Corporation has requested a
variance from City Code Provisions outlined in Section 11. 05,
Subd. 3 E 6 a. and Section 11.03 , Subd. 11, for the property
located at 630 First Avenue East, to allow the following:
1. A 40' front yard setback instead of the required 50'
setback.
2. A 5' parking lot setback instead of the required 15'
setback.
At their meeting on September 17, 1987 the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals approved the variance requests of
Breckenridge Development Corp. to allow a 40' front yard setback
and a 5' parking lot setback. The Board of Adjustment and
Appeals also passed a motion to not alter it's previous decision
regarding a variance allowing 34 parking spaces instead of the
required 40 parking spaces for the property. The variance
decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has been appealed
by Ms. Beverly Koehnen to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Breckenridge Development Corp. had previously requested a
variance of 6 parking spaces from the required 40 parking spaces
for the Kennedy Transmission Shop building and the proposed
addition. The variance allowing 34 parking spaces in lieu of the
required 40 parking spaces was approved by the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals on June 4 , 1987. This decision of the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals was appealed to the City Council
by Ms. Beverly Koehnen. At their meeting on July 7, 1987 the
City Council referred the issue back to the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals after the question of possible setback variances was
raised. After it was determined that setback variances would be
necessary for the construction of the addition as proposed,
Breckenridge Development Corp. requested a 10' variance from
their required 50' front yard setback and a 10' variance from the
required 15' parking lot setback. At their meeting on September
17, 1987 the Board of Adjustment and Appeals granted the variance
as requested by Breckenridge Development Corp. The Board of
Adjustment and Appeals also passed a motion to not alter their
previous decision regarding the variance for the number of
parking spaces.
The attached information provides additional background for
the appeal, included are:
1. Staff reports to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
2. Site plan.
3 . Minutes of the August 6, 1987 and September 17, 1987
Board of Adjustment and Appeals meetings.
4 . Letter of Appeal from Ms. Beverly Roehnen.
5. Minutes from the July 7, 1987 City Council meeting.
6. Information packet distributed to City Council prior to
July 7 , 1987 meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-504 and
move for approval or denial.
2. Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-493 and
move for approval or denial.
MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, city Planner
RE: Variance - Breckenridge Development Corporation
DATE: August 27 , 1967
Introduction•
At their regular meeting on August 6, 1987 the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals continued the hearing on a variance
request by Breckenridge Development Corporation for the property
located at 630 First Ave. East. The proposed variance request is
for the 10 ' variance from the required 50 ' front yard setback and
a 10 ' variance from the required 15 ' parking lot setback for an
addition to the building which presently houses Kennedy
Transmission Shop.
Background•
For background information please find attached; a copy of
the staff memo dated July 31, 1987 and a new drawing with
dimensions showing the proposed site. At the last public hearing
held on August 6th, Ms. Beverly Koehnen raised several concerns
regarding the proposed variance request which resulted in the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals continuing the hearing to this
date. The concerns raised by Ms. Koehnen include: 1)
reconsiderations of the previously granted parking variance and
it' s relationship to this request, 2) questions concerning the
existence of a possible alley adjacent to this property in the
rear, 3) a concern regarding whether this property in it' s
initial development complied with the requirements of the City
Code regarding the parking lot setback and landscaping, and 9)
the applicants ability to split this property in the future.
City staff' s response to these concerns are as follows:
1. After reviewing the information previously submitted and
files, including the files concerning the request for a
variance from the number of parking spaces required, it is
the Staff' s conclusion that previous variances for this
property should be taken into account by the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals during it' s deliberations on whether
or not to grant a variance from the City' s setback
requirements. In particular, if the granting of a variance
from the codes parking space requirements has an impact on
the applicants ability to meet setback requirements, this
should be taken into consideration. -
After reviewing the minutes from the July 7, 1987 City
Council meeting where a hearing was held on the appeal of
the parking variance granted by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals, staff recommends that following action on the
setback variance request, the Planning Commission should
indicate to the City Council whether or not the Planning
Commission has altered it' s position regarding the parking
variance.
2. At a previous hearing conducted by the City concerning this
property, the City Engineer stated that we have no record of
a alley existing adjacent to this property. Ms. Koehnen
indicated that there is an 8' strip of land on which an
alley was to be constructed and that is not contained within
the legal description for her property adjacent to the
property of the applicant. The applicant' s property
- description contains a depth of 150' which would include
their half of the alley if one did exist. Because the
property owner applying for this variance owns clear title
to the described property the issue of the alley is not
pertinent to this variance. If Ms. Koehnen' s legal
description does not contain this 8 ' of property, staff
suggests that she pursue through legal means having her
property description changed to include this property.
3. The current requirements for parking lot setback and
landscaping became effective on January 31, 1985. The
building permit for the existing building which includes
Kennedy Transmission Shop was approved in December of 1984
prior to the effective date of these changes. Therefore the
setbacks and landscaping requirements for the original
building were not required to Comply with the requirements
now in effect. With the exception of the setback from the
front property line, if a variance is granted, the new
parking lot will comply with current City Code requirements.
4. The property on which the existing building is located and
the lot being added must be joined together as one "parcel"
in order for the addition to be constructed. Any future
splitting of this parcel must conform to the requirements of
the City' s subdivision ordinance. A future lot split or
subdivision of this property could not be approved by the
City because the new lots would not meet the requirements
for setbacks and parking.
Findinas and Recommendations:
1. The staff findings and recommendations regarding the setback
variance application are the same as found in the attached
memo dated July 31, 1987.
2. Staff recommends the Planning Commission not alter it' s
previous action on a variance allowing 34 parking spaces
instead of the required 40. The enclosed site plan shows 37
spaces, staff recommends the 3 spaces closet to First Ave.
and next to the entrance be eliminated to allow for better
Traffic circulation within the parking lot.
MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: variance - Breckenridge Development Corporation
DATE: July 31, 1987
Introduction•
Breckenridge Development Corporation which owns the Kennedy
Transmission Shop on Highway 101 is planning to add to the
building for additional auto services. Current front yard and
parking setbacks for the existing building do not meet City Code
requirements. A variance was previously granted for the front
yard setback on the existing building. The addition will need a
10 foot variance from the front yard setback and a 10 foot
variance from the required parking lot setback. The parcel is
located in a B-1 District.
Considerations:
1. The developer must comply with all landscaping requirements
as listed in City Code Section 11.29, Subd. 6 C. This
consideration shall apply to the existing lot also.
2. The proposed addition is the minimum required to accc-. modate
the proposed use, which is a permitted use in the B-1
District. The developer has explored alternative
arrangements for the addition on the site. The variances
requested are the minimum necessary to allow for
construction of the addition on the site.
3. Parking circulation on the proposed addition may not be
adequate. Redesign from diagonal to parallel parking will
alleviate this.
Findings-
Criteria: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply
to the property which do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result
from lot size or shape, topography, or other
circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of this Chapter have had no control.
Finding: 1. The size of the lot given the proposed use is such
that it could not be constructed without a variance.
This does not generally apply to properties in the same
zone.
Criteria: 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of
this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Chapter.
Finding: 2. The use requested is a permitted use within the B-
1 District, therefore other property owners commonly
enjoy the right to develop their property for the same
use. A literal interpretation of the code would
deprive the owner of this right.
Criteria: 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do
not result from the actions of the applicant.
Finding: 3. The lot size was platted prior to the owners
obtaining the property. . The size and shape limits the
owners options to where he can place the new structure.
Criteria: 4. That granting of the variance requested will not
confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this Chapter to owners of other lands,
structures or buildings in the same district.
Finding: 4. The use is permitted in the district and the
privilege to utilize property in this manner applies to
all land owners in the same district. Other buildings
in the same district are located as close if not
closer, to the highway, as this proposed building would
be.
Criteria: 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
Finding: 5. The building size requirements for this use have
been established and cannot be decreased without
damaging the operation of the business, therefore in
order for the use to be located on this property a
variance must be granted. The developer has explored
alternative locations for the structure and it has been
concluded that the variance requested is the minimum to
alleviate the hardship.
Criteria: 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental
to the purposes of this Chapter, or to property in the
same zone.
Finding: 6. Given the existing setbacks of other building in
the same zone, this building would have a equal or
greater setback. Failure to grant the variance would
be detrimental to the property by: 1) not allowing
sufficient building size to safely carry out the use
and 2) denying adequate traffic circulation for safe
entry and exists.
Recommendations:
The staff recommends approval of Variance Resolution #504
allowing a 40 ' building setback from the front property line and
a five foot parking lot setback from the front property line.
I
c
z �^
fn P
dZ �
s � C �e
a i
J
LII
O I}
S
r� iw.c:cT sT�EET
r
G_
r
MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Variance - Breckenridge Development Corporation
DATE: July 31, 1987
Introduction:
Breckenridge Development Corporation which owns the Kennedy
Transmission Shop on Highway 101 is planning to add to the
building for additional auto services. Current front yard and
parking setbacks for the existing building do not meet City Code
requirements. A variance was previously granted for the front
yard setback on the existing building. The addition will need a
10 foot variance from the front yard setback and a 10 foot
variance from the required parking lot setback. The parcel is
located in a B-1 District.
Considerations:
1. The developer must comply with all landscaping requirements
as listed in City Code Section 11.29, Subd. 6 C. This
consideration shall apply to the existing lot also.
2. The proposed addition is the minimum required to accommodate
the proposed use, which is a permitted use in the B-1
District. The developer has explored alternative
arrangements for the addition on the site. The variances
requested are the minimum necessary to allow for
construction of the addition on the site.
3. Parking circulation on the proposed addition may not be
adeauate. Redesign from diagonal to parallel parking will
alleviate this.
Findinas
Criteria: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply
to the property which do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result
from lot size or shape, topograrny, or other
circumstances over which -_he owners of property since
enactment of this Chapter have had no control..
Finding: 1. The size of the lot given the proposed use is such
that it could not be constructed without a variance.
This does not generally apply to properties in the same
zone.
Criteria: 2. The literal interpretation of theprovisions of
this Chapter would deprive the applicant of riahts
commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
district under the terms of this Chapter.
Finding: 2. The use requested is a permitted use within the B-
1 District, therefore other property owners commonly
enjoy the right to develop their property for the same
use. A literal interpretation of the code would
deprive the owner of this right.
Criteria: 3 . That the special conditions or circumstances do
not result from the actions of the applicant.
Finding: 3. The lot size was platted prior to the owners
obtaining the property. The size and shape limits the
owners options to where he can place the new structure.
Criteria: 4. That granting of the variance requested will not
confer on the applicant any special privilege that is -
denied
s -denied by this Chapter to owners of other lands,
structures or buildings in the same district.
Finding: 4. The use is permitted in the district and the
privilege to utilize property in this manner applies to
all land owners in the same district. other buildings
in the same district are located as close if not
closer, to the highway, as this proposed building would
be.
Criteria: Z. The variance requested is the minimum variance
which would alleviate the hardship.
Finding: 5. The building size requirements for this use have
been established and cannot be decreased without
damaging the operation of the business, therefore in
order for the use to be located on this property a
.variance must be granted. The developer has explored
alternative locations for the structure and it has been
concluded that the variance requested is the minimum to
alleviate the haresnip.
Criteria: 6. The variance would not be materially detrimental
to the purposes of this Chapter, or to property in the
same zone.
Finding: 6. Civen the existing setbacks of other building in
the same zone, this building would have a equal or
greater setback. Failure to grant the variance would
be detrimental to the property by: 1) not allowing
sufficient building size to safely carry out the use
and 2) denying adequate traffic circulation for safe
entry and exists.
Recommendations:
The staff recommends approval of Variance Resolution -:504
allowing a 40 ' building setback from the front property line and
a five foot parking lot setback from the front property line.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD 0-, ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 17 , 1987
Chairwoman VanMaldeghem called
ea he meeting
eoudrayoporder
at Also
P.m. with Comm. Schwartz, CityPlanner and Dennis
present were Douglas K. Wise,
Kraft, Community Development Director.
Czaja/Foudray moved to approve the posted agenda. Motion
carried unanimously.
Czaja/Foudray moved to approve the minutes Of the August 6,
1987 meeting as printed. Motion carried with Chairwoman
VanMaldeghem abstaining because of her absence at that
- - meeting.
Foudray/Czaja moved to approve the minutes of the September
3, 1987 meeting as printed. Motion carried unanimously._
I CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE REQUEST N0. SOS
L BRECKENRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Czaja/Foudray moved to continue the public hearing to
consider an application for variances to allow a 40 foot
front yard setback instead of the required 50 foot setback
and a 5 foot parking lot setback instead of the required 15
foot setback for the proposed a6dition to the
enue East.eXM tion
Aamco Transmission Shop at 630 r
carried unanimously.
The City Planner went over the background and
considerations of the request, pointing out that the name
of the business has been changed to Kennedy T ams ission on -
The City Council 'held a hearing on July 7,
anneal of the parking variance granted by the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals and would like a decision by the
Planning Commission whether its Dosition has been altered
regarding the parking variance.
Jim Bartlett, representing Breckenridge Development, asked
that the Board carefully consider only the items pertinent
to ':his matter. He stated that no other adjoining
property owners have indicated an opposition.
Beverly— Koehnen-,--2036—.Capterbur-v—Road outlined--her —
concerns related to the project, including potential sale
of a Dart of the building, a future alley, yard and
landscaping and, most importantly, Darking. Ms. Koehnen
noted that there are 5 office spaces and wondered if any of
these would be rented out separately of the automotive
businesses.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 17, 1987
Page 2
Discussion was held on the matter of the lots being
combined and what subdivision procedures would be necessary
in the future. Possible benefits of diagonal versus
parallel parking were explored.
Mr. Czaja asked Mrs. Roehnen how she felt her property
value would be reduced. She responded that she felt 40
parking spaces would be - acceptable and that she was
concerned about future uses of this facility.
Mr. Bartlett indicated that any illegal parking could be
handled through a complaint with the Police, and his
feeling was that there would be no reduction of property
values.
Comm. Schmitt took his seat at 8:15 p.m.
Cletus Link, 12831 Link Dr. , feels the zoning requirement
and 20 foot side setbacks is too restrictive and he has
asked that the Planning Commission review this.
Bob Novotny, 3374 S. Marschall Road, asked if there were
any railroad tracks on the property. There are not.
Foudray/Schwartz moved to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
The minimum requirements for side setbacks were discussed.
It was questioned why there is a 1 ' narking lot setback on one
side of this property. The building permit will he
reviewed and this will be investigated.
Foudray/Schwartz moved to approve variance Resolution #504
allowing a 40 ' building setback from the front property line
and a five foot narking lot setback from the front property
line and not to alter the previous action on a variance
allowing 34 parking spaces instead of the required 40 . A
condition of this motion is to include language to be formed
which states that this shall remainone legal parcel of record.
Motion carried with Comm. Czaja opposed and Comm. Schmitt
abstaining..
Chair vanMaldeghem advised the applicant c'_ the 7 day appeal
process.
Board of Adjustment 6 Appeals
_ August 6 , 1967
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance Recuest William Nevin
Foudray/Rockne moved to open the public hearing to consider an
application for a five foot variance from the required ten foot
side yard setback to construct an addition to the existing
dwelling at 612 East 7th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
The city ants
three-seasonnnporch er viewed
athconcrete csl b already in t inexistence.
the zoning is R-2.
There were no comments from the audience.
Foudray/Rockne moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Rockne/Schwartz moved to approve the Variance Resolution No. 503
allowing a five foot variance from the required ten foot side
yard setback to construct an addition to the existing dwelling
located at 612 East 7th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously.
CPUBLIC HEARING - Variance recuest No. 504 Breckenridge
Development
Foudray/Schwartz moved to open the Dublic hearing to consider an
es t0 allow a 40 foot front yard setback
application for varianc
instead of the required 50 foot setback and a 5 foot parking lot
setback instead of the required 15 foot setback for the proposed
addition to the existing Aamco Transmission Shop at 630 First
Avenue East. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner reviewed the background of this recuest- He
said the setback requirement is 50 feet since it is located on an
arterial street.
Jim Bartlett, 100 SE10th Street, said that at the time it was
built the building was in compliance with the ordinances, since
then the ordinances have been changed.
Clete Link, Geln Ellyn Park, Shakopee, said the original permit
for the building was pulled in December of 1984 and at the time
it was in compliance with the ordinance. The hardships are that
the property is zoned B-1 but the setbacks are not the same as in
the downtown area and if all the setbacks were to be met then no
building could be built on this land at all.
Beverly Koehnen, 2036 Canterbury Road stated she has a number of
concerns regarding the setback variances on this property. Her
first concern regarding the six stall building and the parking
variance are mentioned in her memo dated June 26th, 1987 which
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
August 6, 1967
Page 3
she presented to the Board. Her second concern was whether this
building could be sold off in pieces. Third concern was that of
the alley. The City must decide if this alley exists or not.
She had no personal feelings either way but would like an answer
on whether it exists or not.
The City Planner read into the record a letter from Mr. LaTour
stating his opposition to this variance request.
Rockne/Schwartz moved to enter LaTours letter of opposition into
the records. Motion carried unanimously.
Shwas the concensus of the Commission to table this item until
opinion from the City Attorney could be obtained.
Foudray/Rockne moved to continue the public hearing to September
3rd meeting and direct Staff and City Attorney to investigate and
.advise the Commissioners as to pertinence of the items raised.
Motion carried with Comm. Rockne opposed.
Foudray/Schwartz moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
_.� Douglas Wise
City Planner
Carol Schultz -
Recording Secretary _
I�.
I
1
4
-= t
Beverlj T ec: .cn
20°.6 Ca_tcrb=y Road
Shahopee, --iw:. 55:74
Sete_ber 24, 10,87
yor Wildon Rcinhe
!,;9 Enc � First Avenue
5h_•1:o_nee, y]?i�:. 55?74
_tt: Dou^l as `J i se
Der Sir,
s <ro j '_azow: .n,.. a non! of the Do-rO- o: ?.djustment 1110 ,Pre^.ls
a.nnroval of a Parking v ria_ce will soon be brought back for jour
-'final decision. . This variance is recuested by Drechenridse Develop
=ent Cornoretion to reduce the number of pari=_in;^ stalls recuired
I the ^ronosed c.dd.ition to the ?esco Trensmdssion buildin^.
The Fly^ing Co^=ission voted to uphold their crevious an_roval
of a reduction from 40 to - stalls..
8. K.
I still an very concerned not only by *he reduction in the
nuroer of stalls, but also that the narallel parking allip-_ent of
the stelis v;ill create even less. narking. That is, people do not
like to n rallel park and they rill not use some of the proposed
sne.ces.
In order to alloy pity Council the same fleyibility the
Plenning Co^�+ission had to reaesign the nc.rkir_g, I will also
anile Vari:=nce -Resolution #504. In this variance, 'Planning
Co=JE£ion granted annroval of Breckenridge Development Cornorc ion' s
recuest for a variance from the rec_.uired yard setbacks 1zd from
recr_ired parking lot setbacks.
I do eggree ':rith the condition 'r1:-'"_ g Co =issien Placed on
Variance Resolution '504 which =as c.__ _fie to nrevent Dreckerrid_e
Development Corporation from selling Part of the building to
senar^cte Omer.
you for your consideration of this =atter.
Sincerely,
Bev I.oehnen
t
Shakopee City Council
Page Six
July 7 , 1987
The city Planner explained that the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals has approved a variance from the required 40 parking
stalls to 34 and Ms. Koehnen has appealed that decision.
Discussion ensued on whether or not an additional variance is
required for the setbacks from the property line.
Beverly Koehnen, adjacent property owner, stated that if the
variance request for the 34 parking stalls is approved now, that
would be pre-prejudicing a second variance request. She also
questioned whether or not the plantings required by the new
parking requirements were in the City boulevard instead of on the
applicant' s property.
Jim Bartlett, representing the developer, stated that it was
unlikely that they would need the 34 stalls and that parking is
the main issue; they will come back later if setback variances
are necessary.
Clete Link explained that when the City was first approached for
setback variances it was because there was no way to get a
building on the property. He recommended looking at the setback
requirements in the B-1 zone. Some cities don't require
setbacks.
Beverly Koehnen suggested that the City look and see if an alley
is desirable in this location.
Cncl. Leroux stated that it looks like two potential variances
are necessary, one from the parking requirements and one from the
setback requirements, and that he would prefer them both to be
considered at the same time.
Mayor Reinke asked if there was additional questions. There was
no response.
Clay/Leroux moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Leroux/Wampach moved to refer the variance request by
Breckenridge Development (Aamco Transmission Shop) back to the
Planning Commission for further study as regards notonly
nfront yard
stall requirements but potential side, rear, o
setback requirements. Motion carried unanimously.
After the nominees for the vacancy on the Planning Commission
were given an opportunity to respond to questions by the Council,
the following balloting took place:
�n
I'MMC TO: John K. Anderson, City Adranistratcr b
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Appeal of Parking Variance Granted to Breckenridge
Development for Aamco Transmission Shop and Addition
DATE: July 1, 1987
Introduction.:
At their June 4 , 1987 meeting the Board of Adjustment and _
Appeals granted a variance to Breckenridge Development for the
Aamco Transmission Shop Building and proposed addition to allow
34 parking spaces in lieu of the required 40 spaces. The
granting of this variance has been appealed by Ms. Beverly
Koehnen.
Ba^kcround:
The attached information provides the background for the
appeal, included are: 1) staff report to the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals, 2) site plan for proposed development, 3 ) minutes of
the June 4, 1987 meeting, 4) letter of appeal from Beverly
Koehnen and - 5) memo to Douglas Wise from Beverly Koehnen dated
June 26, 1987 .
Staff con=mOn`s:
The following is a brief comment on the concerns expressed
by Ms. Koehnen in her memo dated June 26, 1987 (attached) which
were not discussed am the -public hearing before the Board cf
Adjustment and Appeals:
1) Breckenridge Development has been informed that if they wish
o construct their addition closer to rhe rear property 'line
than required by City Code they must come back before the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals for another variance_.
2) The Planning Commission did very briefly discuss the
condition recommended by city staff and came to the
conclusion that it was nct necessary.
3) The property Dwnsr is not allowed to occupy r _ —e^- parsing
spaceswith
srs. city .. ae __r_ _- --ash storage
which isvisible from the street to be screened. The City
Code does not require individual dummsters for each
business.
4 ) The current development does meet the City Code regarding
the number of parking spaces required. The attached staff
memo is incorrect in stating that the curre.z development
does not meet City Code regarding required parking, the
staff memo was based on as_te plan included in the f___
showing 19 spaces instead of the required 24.
5) The purpose of the variance is to determine whether the
parking for the individual development is adequate. The
City does not need to consider surrounding land uses or
zoning in determining whether to grant the variance or not.
Acticn Recuested:
Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council CC-493 and
move for approval or denial.
FMO TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals
FROM: Douglas R. Wise, City Planner
R:: Breckenridge Deveicpment Variance Request
DATE: May 28, 1987
introduction:
Breckenridue Develonment Ccrp. which owns the Aamco
Transmission Shcp on Highway 9101 is planning to add to the
building for additional auto services. Current narking on the
site does not meet City Code requirements. The addition will
enable more .parking to be added, however, parking will still be 6
spaces short of the code requirement.
Ccnsideraticns:
1. The developer will be providing the maximum number of spaces
possible on the site given lot and building constraints.
2. The parking provided now cn site is a lesser percentage of
code requirements than after the addition. The developer
indicates that the present parking lot is rarely filled to
cavac=-v. .
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recommends approval of Variance Resolution =493
subject to the following condition:
i. The developer must -obtain an agreement Por additional
parking off site to accommodate pcs=__bie overrlow parking.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
VARIANCE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. CC- 493
WHEREAS , Breckenridge Develcpmert Ccrp. having first
filed an application to the board of Adjustment and ADnez s dated
, for a variance from the strict
application of the provisions or the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance ,
Section to-wit :
F. variance to reduce the rev_uired parting stall requirements from
40 to 34 =cr the proposed addition : and
WHEREAS , the property upon which the request is being made is
described as : 630 First Ave. East
and
WHEREAS , said proposed variance reauest was annroved
by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals at their meet;ng of Jcn= 4 '_987
and this decision has been appealed to the City Council ; and
WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council on July 7 . 1987 held
a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, chat upon hearing the advice and recommenda-
tions of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and upon considering the
suggestions made by the applicant and suggestions and obiections raised
by the affected property owners , within a radius of 350 feet thereof,
in public hearings duly held by the Shakopee Board of Adjustment and
Appeals and the Shakopee City Council that the aforementioned variance
be and is hereby : as follows :
BF. IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code 11. 04 ,
Subd. 5 B-5 , if an approved variance is not utilized within one year
f rcm date herein approved_ or by 7 988 it shall become
null and void. -
BUILDING SOUARE
FooTAC-=s :
7ENANT f 1 2924 d.
SHARED SPACE 56 &L
•c \ _
__SHARED SPACE cn
_TMTAL'. . 2-536--l.
�-NAN-i3 .1.292 af.
SHARED SPACE Se s1,
TOTAL: 1.348.et.
6OP_DP1G TCTA_ . 6,664 :,.
TOTAL PARKING 34 cars
_I
T=NAYi-rt2
t
I
aI' PLAN
h �
U
�Tev %r1�r� . S :3 7 y
/�f P
_ 0i
cc��ls2e�� TV .�-�o i✓z'✓u.a..� t...`.-� /�t�r,�ct i
/,�, ./2wrrw>'-1 C��f.�r..c/� %��U ✓� �/�-4.a� /1LG���
G�7ii7/Lc1/7 G-=L�_ �� //✓..�Gtm.- va�•a� _c -tn-ye..c� .'^'--... .----V- -
_u.
tC ' CC
- 2
^ ° ,
o e c c 1 . e c- uc
; ci 7011r _^ed . c o :e
_Cmc_ - u e"
c^-,`n- - p_.c___ sh7.� _-ocC on_ so nenc__� _ _ =_uses
-- ;,, h-ve so cd co
-Dc-_Ore •:__e_ mec-___; 1 � , _^i." CGlInCiJ.` O
_^_510.., c CCLOOBr 4,-1
o` - --- omee _lease -- duds - se _n Council' s
.;o, =-;11 ^__ve :os be' cele o V-_md :?,"m C'--y -
-mac__= __ _
- ^.Cgy.
___Vcocr 4 , 1954on me �i_�.
_) _ -cr_ance '.•cs Cr =_ CacL•s, a.o: '
2 =--_e� :h_ a-oiicc�icca ^_- _ __sn-ed she build, -s one
_sh shr=e- ssal1= -- :hey have the rc^•,:_red zar'_i_'ig for-z =-
_,
D'`1dir.r7 1: mos, .ray weren` s they reruired to revues
- ?- vrri:-aces -� ^_e �res�� "- .
Jo she .^,_fig is - „dam
the mer, CB E' r`T'' .-..--
°- -1- er? -_
.IIT.es C, as
l._ :T __
j.Ove_^.De_ C, 1j�4 �^,-_-- CO'�'_C-i1 -'-n.-.e..o•I eft up Ln -the
1) SeeM-=k-=_s =cr _esues - -
_
0. --_ CIIE `�:_• CO X10._
_ _..C—_e__ _ "ar_ 10+ .._+_
aced
nee_ .__re .- - �-r.., -- _ - ^11 she
--_- °= -Co - --s the-., do os use- -
'r„ _ss
ce C . --- Ie v vo1�- _--_-
-oCs c� - -e_ u0 0 - , L" a V�
- �' - _se_. .o was
-- _
lac-1 c , _ l cr �o -
is
ci
rest
o _C a -
_ ve ,.o___ clCo - , lc- . e )�Cayc,yec_ c c ) G -s
w C- -_ - J
= -
- -- --
-
Celligan/Leroux moved in direct Or to research Ordinance he. 351 and
to explore any funding available In financially help tfurpny's Landing
now and in ore future. Be". carried unanimously.
landech/Leroux moved in --bait the -ame, of Dr. Thomas E. Curb be Scott
County as a candidate to a Chun" health Officer In meeting
the County's public Oealth needs.in'
tion carried unanimusly.
Culligan/Viezling moved to Open the public hearing regarding the appeal
I/ from cine SOALOPCC board of ACiu-tmnts and Appeals' approval of avariance
free aerback requirements [ ested by Cletus Lank for Lots 6 6 ], Black
-, Last spas-pee. notion tarried wanimusly.
The City Planner presented the background informs Lion regarding the appeal.
along with additional information a bmir[ed by the applicant for the
variants since appeal vas filed• This additional information v
nt knownby n
thepp
Board pf Adjustments and Appeals when the approval av
granted. as
Discussion followed regarding whether or
nor this information changes
the Scope Of application a ough te send
it back to the Appeal board, or
whoa Options Council has is cpnsme..
Clete Link siatad that nothing has changed; the building will be Eh- same
sate and placed in be ...a location on the lot. he said at the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals hearing, there s s A misunderstanding about the
numbs[ of miry-eace bays, it was though[ there mold be 3 Pays, but there
will be six service bays, which act essataces more parking spaces, which
they kill provide.
Bev goehnen, -PPOLI nt, -[aced her main thatere as the adequacy of narking
for disabled vehicles. as she d sthem parked on her adjoining
property. She said there is alsoa question o nether or not there is an
alley between this property and hers. See applicant new has a curb cur
permit from the Stare to access the property from Dwy. 181, which alleviates
Erie Problem of parking spaces.
eL-. Link responded rhat doer- Semi and nenslim, behind his pre-
perry. The City Engineer added he finds no records ot an alley being a -
dicared or vacated in that blit:. he doesn't know where the utility rignc-
of-my is.
Leroux/Lebens moved to coincime the public hearing to November 20, 1984
-- slid' int further research on he application and ziSrir-oi ways.
._ Link said los Inc is 150 feet deep, which goes back to when the rail-
oad fud Property cases, and he doesn't want an
alley. because of the
sg.
ace, it i urgent they ger the project goinBe said all they are ask-
ing far is
approval of the variance already approved by Erie board Of Adjust-
Points and Appeals. a building is gne same as presented, and Lnev will
meet wnacover parking spaces are required.
Discussion followed, with the City Attorney advising that the Only issue
to a and i this Public hearing is the appeal of the variance, and the
-Ince issues a e part Of the building permit process.
.allot. :.11eJ _ . Lebens,bes, Leroux and Reinke in favor and Cncl. U n.
part. C:.!L;:un one F'cc!1nL cppccd.
CcAiga/Reach moved to cmcp: t zh and or Ad,tecmencs and Anneals'
cornmeal Or the variance in setback requirements, Variance Be-oluridn No.
CC-380.
"' Link enplaaned that with the setback r oulrements for b-1, any average
lot will vn o ..we v g granted goparany building o As
suggested d consideration c inS of the setbacks for D-1 t Me
the ono a -
sume as b-3 no zliw.aevei-pmmt.of_chose lots-uionb.evct.�l__-. --- -..- -
NOvclpar 0, _,p.
` Page 3Motion carried with Cud. Leroux and favor kefnke opposed. (f
The Adr1n. lncem Fay. some N.E111ouod on the efforts of the Energy and D
Iun.per E..... Committee to ov caln a beck-up vehicle for the van pool
antl dial-e ride programs.
Leroux/Nampach Expand c amend the Dial-A-Ride contract dated September
to
as Adachum
o.
,at contract d(aslisted w thenmcommot fromthe poem. Intern N
..ledO¢obco
30, 1964). Mp tieo cotta ew
Roll Call: Ave.; Unanimous Nae'; N.".
Lo1liFan/Leroux moved co adopt the transit policies submitted by the
Bourg, a Transporrmtion Committee as formal Shakopee Area Ic.nsit 'bolicy.
Roll "li; Ayes; Unanimous Noe.; None nation Carried.
Celli.../Leroux mewed to cent., with the recommanfornsno-1 ,,a eSIakoal pee
Gble Co..".. Commission and support too
vision lniotmation Center in their challenge of the FCC's Nevada decision
which Sncluees ellmfhanng local rate regulations for cable television.
Hall Call: Aves; Unapimoue Noes; None Eerie. carried.
Co131Fan/Leroux moved to concur with the recommendation of the Shakopee
"his Lo®unicatiotts Coamissioo and decline the invitation co Join the
Sacro Area Interconnect Co®iasiw at this time, 'o at reserving the right
0 loin at a future date. Nation carried.
Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None
Co11,gab/Nampace offered Resolution No. 2341, A Resolution Sewing Public
Fearing be 1985 Single Family Revenue bond Program, and moved iia adoption.
Cmnmenaus was to have staff contact developers to determine their interest
In this program.
Motion carried unanimously.
Colli6an/Vierlin6 moved to dercmine the HRA is co administer this program.
la cion carried m+.cuslY.
Leroux/Vierlin6 moved to authorize zee appzopriacr-City Officials t ad-
vertise for bids fora new front end leader based upon total cost o rouse
plan wish bids to be received
e n November 26, 1984 and tee award on Decem-
ber 4, 1964. Nation carriedumalmousiy.
Nawach/Lebens moved to waive, for the position of Cirl Mechanic, the City's
practice of reviewLn6 only candidates than have filed by the printed ad-
rdsement deadline 'because it is a minor nxocedural practice not prohi-
bited by keaolucion No. 1911. Nation carried wammowly.
Leroux/Nampach moved to approve the hiring of Begone Jeurissen for tee
position of Mechanic I at step three of tee pay plan with a two r and
six month service credit-, effective November 26, 1981.
Rall Call: Ayes; Mnaplmovs Moet: None notion carried.
Lollx;an/Leroux moved to authorize pbvment in the following amounts ns
emept in the Shop and.DID Drive Right-of-wav Condemnation proceedings;
.. Christian and Loren Cross. S15.600; hart Fftuncial Corp. and
.97, CC; MZTsr -tnecraon, ha:.. ...,.+a.n .3-. "
n SiuAves;
Roll Lill: Ayes; lnaniwc. rices Pon, 'S•[i on rarrird.
Collipan/Leroux moved to authorize staff to use one investment services of
Peabody and Smith bamey. ` Nation ca-tied.
Roll Call: AV.s; Unanimous Noes; None
Co13iFan/Vielin6 moved to approve one hiring yf Doralee Rosckes for an taxon
Petition of accounting ac scop two of the say plwith a one _
credit -naME.. ..tied.
Roll call: Ave.; Unanimous Noes; None
Collip../Vieriing moved teat the 'bills in to. snow[ of $52,570.41 Fe a--
loved and oroered yaid. Hotton c
Roll Call: Av.D; Unanimous Noes; None artiew.
B3AA
October 4, 1584 p j/
Page 2 0
Discussion followed regarding the necessity cf amending the conditional
use De:...it to allow storage around the building, or if that would just
'oe an interpretation. The City Planner pointed out that to amend the
conditional use pe Wit there would be a 5100 fee, and it would oe treated
the same as a new conditional use pe—it.
Char. stDlzzu.an asked if there was anvone else in the audience who *.fished
to corm.hent on this matte-, and there was no response.
Var aldeghem/noehnen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Vanmalde€hem/Roehnen offered Resolution No. 378 and moved for its denial
based on Shakopee City Lode Sec. 11.31, which does not allow for open
sales or storage. Motion carried with Co—. Rockne opposed.
Var_aldeghem/Roehnen moved that if applicant desires open storage in the
B-3 Zone, it is suggested he come in for an amendment of his conddzional
use perait.
Mr. Kenney said he thought there was a difference between storage and ad-
vertising. The City Planner stated the sign ordinance deals with advertising.
Motion carried unanimously.
Six Petroleum station manager, asked if they are aliowec to keep
outside storage around the 'building. Tne Ccry Planner explained roar in
the vast businesses have been cited for violation of this ordinance only
when they have stored large shipments of materials in Moe sight line, wnicn
causes a safety hazard. She said if there is no complaint about the storage
around the building and it does not represent a safety hazard, he v'_l not
oe cited.
PL SIC F - BROOK'S SL??.a'— .
Va_aidegnem/Koe^nen move? to open the D-s`_'_ic hearing regarcing the request
for a variance from the =rim••-. lot size.
Tha City Planner said the applicant has requested a later hearing time be-
cause of a conflict at —is time, and he is recueszing it be heard in con-
junction crib the public hearing Be- fer P'_ar.:ing Cc—fission lar:.
Motion carried unanimously.
Faz aidegnem/Czaja moved to continue this Duolic hezring to 9:15 p.z:., to
be heard in conjunction —:th the Planning Co_fission public hearing regard-
_ e gasoline facilities. ?lotion carried u-.znimousiy.
FU-3'-IC 4R'_;:C, - LINK
a;a/Va�aidegnem moved to oven the public nearins regarding the request
Z07 a variance from the setback rea Liremenzs to construct a 40' x 100'
October 4, 198= L�
Page 3
Co—. Koehnen irfcrmed the Co- ission that she has been notified as an
affected properry owner on this issue and she 1 ne abstaining from the
voting and her comments vi 1 be as a prcperry owner, not a Co^issioner.
Motion carried with Camm. Aoehnen abstaining.
The City Planner went over the background of :his request and the coe-
siderations. She stated staff recommends approval of the variance with
conditions.
Comm.. Sc'nmitt arrived and took his seat at 8:17 p.m.
Discussion followed regarding the developer using one of the adjacent lots
he owes to avoid the variances. Clete Link, the developer, stated it would
be an economic hardship to have to purchase another ict and would make the
land cost too high for the. 'puilding.
Mr. Link said that Amoco Transmission is an international company, which
has one plan they work with and all of their buildings are 40' x 100' .
The interior is all the same and all the equipment is designed to fit into
this 4D' x 100' budiag. -
The City Planner ncinted out the extra deep setbacks this property has to
meet because of on the corner of an arterial and a collector street. She
said thn, site Dim.meets the landscaping and parking setbacks of the new
der_gn standards. She also pointed out that she hasn't received a reply
from�ion its review Of the curb cuts.
C; Srolt yen asked if anyone from the audience wished to comment.
Ps. -noehnen said she owns the DroDerry on the south of this vier, and she
reels this building is a very intensive use of the property. She said
there is no alley and only a 10 foot setback from her Property, which she
feels is detrimental_ to net properry. She is concerned with rhe amount of
fct. She asks the Lc—issiop to deny the
pa.-king needed and provided
avv icatior..
_S. Link responded that they pian no outdocr storage of vehicles. Amoco
has -=ruled nim chat ncr•.al—. there is at the most 5 cars that would De
sitting in the parking lot awaiting se^lice. in the winter there -might be
mors. -e added that there is nothing around the -'-c-, as rhe chole block
is vacant exaevt for one cause.
Ms. KDahnen asked it the one parking space would be rigit up to toe properry
line. ?ne City Planner replied coat there is a 3 foot setback 'between rhe
property line and one parking stall. She said tnat :tits the 3 service stalls,
they are r_. iced to have 1C panting spares, and there are 19 oar-ing spaces
incctzted on the pian. !!=. Link said zney v an a ma:-iznm cf 3 er.?ioyees.
_-. Link suggested in the future the Plan_hg Co--ission .^..i€nt caar to look
at semoack ree:crements in the n-1 area, 'Decause there are still a lot Of
single fa_ly residential lots of First Avenue. he would assume that even-
tually the City would like to turn tcose lots to commer wiz'_. -.,ie said that
richt now, with rue setback reau-remenrs, a act eraial p _ _tt cannot be
buclt on one ___. he irar the sidevard is _ ._____c. Co_..
1__- -- cc—enter cnar the serbacks are for -- `fic fl- - and variance
T-czez---7= is the __ ._
__r ve icla r_r ma _c_ ..w a..esfcr --r_ii ia- _ ars.
Page -
1 8
:5. Koehnen stated that the reason many c',tne ether properties do not meet
the srtback is because they were there before the highway came and took
cart of their property.
C n.. Scntlitt thought this is a better utilization of the land with 4CC
more in-house parking than the other stations in the area.
_r. Link explained the drainage plan suggested by the City Engineer.
Ch=. Stolizman asked if there were any more questions from the audience,
and there was no response.
Var aldeghem/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried with
Comm. Koehnen abstaining.
Scnmitt/Can. ldeghem offered Variance Resolution No. 380, granting a 10
foot front yard, a ten foot side yard and a twenty foot rear card variance
in order to construct a 40'. x 100' commercial 'building, with the following
conditions:
1. Submittal of a drainage report prior to approval of a
building Detroit.
2. The defective sidewalk along Bwy. 101 must be replaced.
!lotion car_ied z th C=. Koehnen abstaining because of a conflict of in-
terest and Cox. Scirmitt abstaining because he was not nresem: for all of
the hearing.
Ch=. Stolizman said there is a 7 day appeal period.
Czaja/Va=-.aldeghem moved to adjourn at E:52 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Rozkne/Sroltzman moved to re-open the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
meeting at 10:24 D.m. Motion carried u-.atimousiy.
BRODI!'S S7=ZR - CAT.<r:C-
RO=kne/SCh0.di moved to open the public hearing regarding the reeues: by
Brook's Scperezte for a variance from the =_.+mum jot size -ecuirements.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner said the applicant is doing tais to have a doz=e= on
t_- indicating rheir lot site is legal.
Vice-Chair Czala asked _ there Gere any c=l=eats Ct_= the audience, and
there were none.
Sz: tt/Vantfaideghem moved to close the put tic hearing. Motion carried
wrimousiy.
Sc::.it:/Stolizman moved to approve Variance Resolution No. 379 granting
a variance from the minimum lo: size in the 1-2 District. Motion carried
unahimousiy.
Sc^=i:t/Koehnen moved to adiourn the meat_.g at 10:28 p.m. Motion carried
L'nallmously.
J nC1 -'..ac I.--ane S. Be,,-.n
Circ Plaoner - :cern!'_'-ng Secretary
---I- --- _- ...- • _- -- ---- -
_.^,ar.imo -sly. -
=ala/Schm - ,. offered Re scl ::_-, on No . 495 sustaining staff -
acministrative ruling tn at temporary construction building cues
not include living quzr-ers. Motion carried unanimously.
-t.: ,-
-_-_ _ _ _•.C-- =C-e -- qyc--i LES - ' p ..me -
Czaia/Schmitt moved to oven the public hearing to consider a
request for a variance to reduce the required narking stall
rep uiremer.ts from 40 to 34 for the proposed addition to the Aamco
_ransmission Shop on Highway 101 . There are currently 24 parking
spots on the lot . Jim Bartlett, applicant,_ said _it_.has. .been .
their experience that they do not need four per stall . Comr.
Czaja asked if the addition would be strictly automotive repair
or office space .. The applicant answered it will be used for
automotive repair only . Chairwoman vanMaldeghem asked i there
was anyone from the audience who wished to address this issue.
Bev Koehnen, 2036 Canterbury Road, stated she recalled when they
-rst made application the Planning Commission approved a 3 stall
building, during the 7-cay appeal period it was discovered that
it was a 6 stall building, sne appealed the decision of the
?fanning Commission to the City Council and they granted the
variance .
Foudray/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing . Motion
carried uranimously-
?oudray/Schmi't moved to approve the variance resolution No. 493
w--nowt any conditions. Motion carried unanimously .
Schritt/=oudray moved to direct staff to ensure that their files
properly record the location of the parking stills as they axis- .
.lotion carried unanimously.
=oudray/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unarimonsly.
Meeting adjourned at .9: 10 p.m.
Douglas Wise
City Planner
Carol Schultz
Recording Secretary
A. ___-a for Grant_ng `.aria.^.ges. A variance
to the provisions of r..e �oninq C:n ter ma_ ne _zsued _o provide
. relief to the landowner in those zones where tae Chapter is.noses
undue hardships or practical difficulties to the property owner
in the use of this land. No use variances may be issued. A
variance may be granted only in the event that tae following cir-
cumstances exist:
1. exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
apply to the property whizz do not apply generally to other prcp-
erties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners
of. property since enactment of this Chapter have had no contrc_.
® 2. The literal interpretation of the provi-
sions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights com-
monly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the
terms of this Chapter .
3 . That the special conditions or circum-
stances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
4. That granting of the variance r Guested
will not confer on the applicant any special privilege Gnat is
denied by this Chapter to owners of ether lands, structures or
buildings in the same district.
5. The variance requested is the minimum
variance which would alleviate the hardship.
6. The variance would not be materially detri-
mental to the purposes of this Chapter , or to property in the same
zone .
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Issuance of Building Permits to Property Not Abutting
Public Right-o£-way
DATE: October 15, 1987
INTRODUCTION•
At their meeting on October 8, 1987 the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals passed a motion requesting the City Council to review
and propose a course of action in dealing with private roadways
within the City of Shakopee.
BACKGROUND• -
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals received a variance
request from Q Carriers to construct a warehouse building on
property located adjacent to a private road off of 13th Avenue in
the far eastern portion of Shakopee. Because the building is not
located on a public right-of-way the issue of whether the City
could legally issue a building permit to the property came up
during review of the request. Section 11. 05, Subd. 3.I. of the
City Zoning Code states "No building permit shall be issued for
any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. "
Although the City has issued building permits in the past to
property located on this private roadway and other private
roadways within the City, when this issue was brought to the
attention of the City Attorney his response was that the City
could not legally issue a building permit to any property not
abutting a public street.
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals at it' s October 8th
meeting took action on the variance request granting a setback
variance for the warehouse building and also in the same motion
granted Q Carriers a variance to the provision regarding issuance
of a building permit subject to a legal opinion from the City
Attorney. The City Attorney has ruled that the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals can not legally grant a variance from the
provision requiring property to abut a dedicated public street in
order to receive a building permit (Copy attached) . After acting
on the variance request the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
passed a second motion requesting the City Council to review and
propose a course of action in dealing with private roadways.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. The City Council may take no action to amend Section 11. 05,
Subd. 3.I. and, therefore, prohibit the issuing of building
permits on private roadways until the roadways have been
dedicated or acquired by the City.
2. The City may amend Section 11. 05, Subd. 3.I. to allow the
issuing of building permits to property located on private
roadways which have been recognized by the City and meet
c
certain criteria.
3. The City may amend Section 11. 05, Subd. 3. by deleting
Provision I, thereby allowing the issuance of building
permits to property with no access requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 2. It is staff' s
recommendation that the following changes be made to the City' s
Zoning Ordinance:
1. That Section 11. 05, Subd. 3.I. be amended to read, "No
building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which
does not abut a dedicated public street or approved way. "
2. That the following definition be added to the Definition
Section of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. "Approved way - a
private roadway constructed within a PUD approved by the
City of Shakopee or a private roadway located on private
roadway easements constructed prior to the enactment of this
Chapter and officially recognized by the City of Shakopee. "
Because one property owner is currently waiting for a
building permit on a private roadway and other property owners
have expressed interest in doing building on private roadways the
City staff recommends that action proceed on this issue
immediately. The City staff also recommends that the City
Council direct the City Engineer to prepare a procedure for
officially recognizing private roadways not located in approved
PUD' s. This procedure should allow the City to place conditions
on requiring improvement of a particular roadway and/or
requirements for future public ownership and improvement of the
roadway to specified standards.
Staff is not recommending alternatives I and 3 for the
following reasons :
Option 1 - The option would place a moratorium on the
improvement of property and expansion of business located on
private roadways. Because most of the existing private roadways
serve a number of properties, conveyance of easements to the City
could be a lengthy process. - Some property owners will resist
transfer of the road to avoid assessments for improvement of the
road while other property owners are waiting for a permit to
improve their property.
Option 3 - This option ignores potential problems by not
giving the City control over access to private property.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Offer and pass a motion referring the proposed changes to
the City Zoning Ordinance regarding issuance of building
permits to property not abutting a dedicated public street
to the City Planning Commission for review and a public
hearing.
2. Offer and pass a motion directing the City Engineer to
prepare a procedure and requirements for officially
recognizing private roadways within the City.
JULi IIs A. COLLER. II Fic Ctll�E
u[w ATTORNEY AT LAM az s iz.w
/1T1
SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA OC 41.7
55=9 CITY
V OF SHAKO?EE
Memo to: Douglas Wise, City Planner
From: Julius A. Coller, II
RE: A. Variance of Rear Yard Setback requirement
H. Variance to allow deviation from requirements of City Code
Date: October 13, 1987
You advise that application had been made for two variances for property
described as 8951 - 13th Avenue East in the City of Shakopee as follows:
1. Variance of rear yard set back and - - -
2. Variance of Code Provision against issuing a building permit for
property not abutting a dedicated public street.
ANSWER:
1. Variance of setback may be granted pursuant to the authority so to
do as contained in the Code and hence the variance granted by
Resolution 508 is valid.
2. There is no authority to grant a variance of basic Code provisions
that would allow the granting of a building permit for property not
abutting a public street as long as the Code contains the prohibition
against granting of such building permit. Any attempt to do-so would
be invalid.
Respectfully submitted,
MEMO TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Downtown Design Standards for New and Infill
Construction - Resolution No. 2824
DATE: October 14, 1987
Introduction:
On September 1, 1987 the Shakopee City Council approved
Resolution #2784 adopting a set of design standards for the
rehabilitation of existing structures in the downtown area as
recommended by the Downtown Committee. On October 14, 1987 the
Downtown Committee moved to recommend to City Council that a set
of design standards for new construction in the downtown area
also be adopted.
Background:
The design standards that were approved by the City Council
will be applied to all buildings receiving assistance through a
City incentive program and within the B-3 District. The Downtown
Committee felt it was important to develop a set of design
guidelines for new and infill construction to preserve the
historical integrity of Downtown Shakopee. Shown in attachment
#1 is a set of design standards for new and infill construction.
These guidelines were drafted based on similar standards that are
followed in the community of Hastings. In addition to these
recommended design standards, developers will also be required to
follow existing guidelines as set forth in the Shakopee Zoning
Ordinance.
The design guidelines as attached simply encourage the
developer to maintain the design integrity of the surrounding
properties if at all possible. If the Council concurs with the
Downtown Committee, it would be appropriate at this time to
approve Resolution # 2824, Downtown Design Standards for New and
Infill Construction and incorporating them into all City
incentive programs that may be developed for use in the downtown
area.
Alternatives
1. Move to adopt Resolution No. 2824.
2. Suggest changes and/or additions to the proposed standards
and recommend Council approval of the amended design
standards by adopting Resolution No. 2824 as amended.
3. Do not adopt Resolution No. 2824.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends alternative ttl.
Action Reougsted:
offer Resolution # 2824, a Resolution adopting Downtown
Design Standards for New and infill Construction in the Downtown
Area with the help of City incentive programs.
Attachment #1
DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR NEW AND INFILL CONSTRUCTION
New construction means totally new structures, moved-in
structures and new additions to existing structure undergoing
restoration and rehabilitation.
1. Generally, any new construction should be consistent with
neighboring buildings and the character of downtown.
a. The important elements of the character of downtown are
defined by the following guidelines.
b. The reproduction of historic design is recommended only
for infill on a small scale or for additions to
original buildings.
C. Contemporary design for new construction is not
discouraged. These guidelines focus on general rather
than specific design elements in order to encourage new
design compatible with the character of downtown.
2. The height and width of the facade should reflect the
average proportions of the older downtown buildings.
a. Buildings should be two or three stories high but no
more than forty five feet.
b. Infill should fill the entire width of the lot.
c. Horizontally, the building facade should be massed in
increments to approximate those of the surrounding
area.
3. The new facade should be flush with the sidewalk, or if
adjacent buildings are not, then flush to its neighbors.
4 . The exterior material should be brick or stone masonry,
similar in color or texture to the older downtown buildings.
5. Infill buildings should reflect some of the detailing of
neighboring buildings in window shapes, cornice lines and
brick work.
6. The amount of solid wall to window and door openings on the
facade should be proportional to that of the older downtown
buildings.
a. The ground floor should be a transparent store front
style, with window size and height similar to that of
neighboring buildings.
b. The upper stories should have windows of the same
general spacing and height to width proportion as those
of neighboring buildings.
7. The cornice or roof line should be flat.
8. The use of glass should be proportional to the older
buildings located near the development.
9. There should be a clear distinction between first floors and
upper floors.
10. The use of recessed building entrances should be continued.
Exhibit A r4
RESOLUTION NO. 2824
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR NEW AND INFILL CONSTRUCTION IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA WITH THE HELP OF INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Shakopee City Council to
offer incentive programs to property owners in the downtown area
(B-3) to encourage the development and construction of new
buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Committee has developed a set of
design standards that will promote a respect for the historical
integrity, and improvement of Shakopee's downtown image and
potential physical attractiveness; and
WHEREAS, in adopting a set of design standards, it is with
the understanding that the application of the standards should be
flexible, realizing that a standard which does not reasonably
address or "fit" a particular building design should not be
considered binding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the Downtown Design Standards,
outlined in Attachment #1, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hereby adopted with the explicit purpose of
incorporating them into all of the City incentive programs that
may be used for the construction and expansion of buildings in
the downtown area.
Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1987.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this _
day of , 1987.
City Attorney
/D0_
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
(
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk C- _
RE: R. Hanover, Inc. - Liquor Liability Insurance
DATE: October 16, 1987
Introduction
On October 6, 1987, Council asked that Mr. Richard Hanover of R.
Hanover, Inc. appear before the Council and show cause why he had
not filed with the City the liquor liability insurance policy
which is requirement of the On-sale Liquor License which he
holds.
Background
According the the Shakopee City Code all liquor and beer
licensees shall file with the City within 90 days after the
effective date of their license their liquor liability insurance
policy. As of October 1, 1987 the City had not yet received the
liquor liability insurance policy for R. Hanover, Inc. On
October 6, 1987 Council asked that Mr. Hanover appear before the
Council and show cause why he had not filed the insurance policy
with the City.
As of this date the insurance policy has been filed with the
City; however, the insurance policy is not in order. The
insurance policy is not in the correct name (R. Hanover, Inc. ) ,
nor does it show the amount of insurance coverage. In addition
it does not contain the required 10 day notice of cancellation.
On October 13th the insurance agency for the licensee advised me
that he had ordered the necessary endorsements from the insurance
company to cover these three missing items.
Mr. Hanover has been invited to attend the Council meeting on
October 20th.
JSC/jms
dh
To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
From:Shakopee Fire Department
Re: Releasing Current Air Pack Specifications for bid
Copy:Shakopee City Councilmembers
Date: 10/2/87
Introduction:
The Air Pack or Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) is
utilized for every fire or hazardous material response by the
Shakopee Fire Department. SCBA may also be required at a grass
fire or during a rescue depending on the atmospheric hazards or
fire threat encountered.
The SCBA protects the firefighter when he must approach and
enter a location which has been made hazardous due to smoke or
dangerous fumes. This includes virtually every fire response
when an interior attack is made.
The Shakopee Fire Department has the purchase of new SCBA as
a budgeted item for 1987 .
Background:
Most of the present SCBA' s have been in service for over 15
years. Numerous repairs have been performed on these units in
this time due to extremely heavy use. The older SCBA units which
we have in service only provide the firefighter with 30 minutes
of air. Under interior firefighting conditions involving extreme
physical exertion the average time a SCBA bottle will last is
reduced to 20 minutes. After the firefighter exhausts his air
supply in his SCBA he/she must back out of the hazardous area and
exchange the empty bottle for -a full one. This can take 3 or 4
minutes. During this time, the fire attack has been interrupted
and the fire can gain ground. In the instance of a hazardous
material response , SCBA are used in conjunction with hazardous
material response suits . These suits are completely self
contained in order to allow the firefighter to enter an
atmosphere that is too dangerous to enter with typical
firefighting turnout gear (e .g. acid vapor) . In these situations
20 - to 30 minutes is far too short a time between necessary SCBA
bottle changes because the entire suit must also be removed in
order to change the bottle. The bottle changing time in these
situations can be on the order of 5 to 8 minutes.
We have over the last few years purchased several new SCBAs
with an air supply time of 45 to 60 minutes. In actual
firefighting conditions, these last from 30 to 50 minutes. This
allows the firefighter to remain in the hazardous area fighting
the fire or working with the hazardous material for a much longer
period of time before he/she needs to back out for a SCBA bottle
exchange. This time is critical in order to secure the hazard as
quickly as possible without interruptions while providing the
firefighter with maximum personal safety.
The new designs utilized in most SCBA allow each firefighter
to have a matched face piece insuring a safer better fit and seal
as required by OSHA.
OSHA has formulated requirements regarding the rate of
airflow to the firefighter' s face piece which the older SCBA we
have in service will not meet. This becomes an issue when the
firefighter is under extreme physical stress and begins to breath
faster than the SCBA can deliver. This can become a dangerous
situation.
Requests/ Recommendations :
The Shakopee Fire Department SCBA purchase committee
requests that the Shakopee City Council allow the present SCBA
specifications as attached be released for bid. Selection of new
SCBA will be dependent upon bid price and meeting of
specification requirements.
Action Requested
Approve the specifications and authorize ad for bids for a self contained
breathing apparatus for the Fire Department.
. PUBLIC NOTICE 76 2�-
City of Snakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, Mn. 55379
Notice for Bids:
Sealed Bids will be received by the City of Shakopee for the furnishing of New
Self Contained Breathing Apparatus used for Fire fighting and other emergency
responses.
Bids must be filled with the city clerk, at 129 East First avenue, Prior to
1 :00 P.M. on At which time they will be publicly opened in
the council chambers of the Shakopee City Hall .
Specifications may be obtained from the City clerks office. Bids must be filed
in accordance with the specifications of the city. In the bid, a copy of the
following specification will acompany the bid perposal and in the right hand
colum a notation will be made by the bidder if they comply with that paragraph_
The City is subjected to appropate state and federal taxes.
The City of Shakopee will furnish the successful bidder with any applicable tax
exemptions certificates.
Bids must be submitted in a sealed envelope marked "BIDS FOR SELF CONTAINED
BREATHING APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT" and the name and address of the Bidder.
The City of Shakopee reserves the right to alter or change specifications and
to reject any or all bids received or waiver any informality in the bidding.
All contacts with city officials from the time this bid is let until a bid is
awarded shall be through Captain Mark Huge (SCBA committee chairman) . No
exceptions to this will be tolerated.
CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS SPECIFICATIONS
SHAKOPEE FIRE DEPARTMENT
1. NIOSH OSHA
The newly constructed breathing apparatus shall be in
compliance with all Federal , State ,local and any other
regulations which govern self contained breathing apparatus
or their use.
2. . SERVICE MANUALS
Four bound (4) , complete service and parts manuals, to
include complete diagrams of the complete breathing
apparatus and any purchased or necessary accessories, must
be furnished upon delivery.
3. . ACCEPTANCE TESTS
Acceptance tests, on behalf of the Shakopee Fire
Department, shall be as prescribed in NFPA Pamphlet 1901 ,
and be conducted prior to delivery or within (10) days
after delivery, by the manufactures in the presence of the
member (s) of the Shakopee Fire Department's SCBA committee
or designated Officer.
4. . Changes to meet new standards
The successful bidders product shall meet the most current
NFPA standard 1961 for SCBA. Any item of equipment on the
SCBA that does not meet this standard shall be listed on
the bid response. Also any material changes and updates
made by the manufacture within one year from purchase, to
update the accepted Pak to the present 1981 standards, will
be furnished to the Shakopee Fire Department at no charge.
5. . FINAL DELIVERY
Final delivery of the completed breathing apparatus and
other equipment is to be made F.O.B . Shakopee Minnesota,
Shakopee Fire Department within 90 days from the time the
contract is signed.
6. . TRAINING AND INSTRUCTION
The successful bidder shall provide a trained factory
representative to provide training and instruction to
selected Fire Department personal in the operation and
maintenance of the SCBA. NOTE: also see section 13 of this
specification.*
7. . WARRANTY
Bidders shall include as part of the proposal , a certified
Copy of the Warranty signed by an Officer of the bidder's
company for the complete breathing apparatus. The warranty
shall be good for the parts and labor of each Pak for one
(1) year from time of acceptance.
1 of 5
/V V
B. . REGULATION
The regulator system must be a two (2) stage, positive
pressure demand type. The regulator system must have a
emergency bypass system to use upon regulator failure.
The face piece regulator must have a method of "temporarily
turning off air to the face piece to prevent the lose of
air when the regulator is disconnected from the face lens.
The air shall again be supplied to the face piece by
breathing.
The face piece regulator shall be capable of quick
disconnecting from the face lens with out the removal of
the face lens from the wearer. The face piece regulator
shall attach to the face lens by means of inserting and
turning the regulator with a positive lock. Metal clips and
threaded tubes that hold the regulator to the face lens
will not be allowed.
The system must have a pressure gauge which indicates the
pressure in the air supply tank and easily readable while
the pak is being worn.
The system must have a audible and physically noticeable
low air warning device that will sound and vibrate when
approximately 25% of the air supply remains in the supply
cylinder.
The regulator must be designed to have a working pressure
of no less than 4500 psi. but also be capable of utilizing
a lessor pressure and volume air supply tank. (note that
using a lower pressure and volume supply tank will render
the low air warning device inaccurate. )
The SCBA system will have no less than 135 psi of air
pressure to the face mask regulator. (note: in these
specifications the hose from the first stage regulator to
the face mask regulator will be referred to as a "high
pressure hose" ) .
The "high pressure hose" to the second stage regulator face
piece will have a quick disconnect push together type
connector designed for the disconnecting and quick change
of the second stage face mask regulator.
The purchased SCBA units will have provisions to accept and
utilize a remote air supply hose. This fitting shall also
be a quick disconnecting push together connection like
specified for the connection between the first and second
regulator stages.
2 of 5
The SCBA first stage regulator will also have an additional
outlet for a the propose of suppling two (2) face masks at
required capacity at the same time,
9. . AIR CYLINDERS
Each self contained breathing apparatus shall be supplied
with one (1) complete compressed air supply cylinder of
light weight wound fiberglass/aluminum construction,
Each air supply cylinder will be capable of safely holding
no less than 89 cubic feet of free air at 4500 psi,
The air supply cylinders supplied must be approved for use
in the accepted bidders SCBA and approved for fire fighting
use.
Any additionally purchased or supplied air supply cylinders
must be the same as those supplied with the accepted SCBA
units.
All air supply cylinders supplied must meet any and all
applicable D_O.T. requirements for compressed air vessels
of their type.
10. . BACK PAK
The harness and cylinder carrier assembly must be of
modular design, and evenly distribute the units weight
around the hips of the wearer.
The back Pak shall have two (2) shoulder straps and on (1)
waist strap that are easily adjustable. The straps of the
back Pak shall be constructed of Kevlar or or other similar
fire resistive material approved by the Shakopee Fire
Department,
All straps must be securely attached to the back oak and
all components must be easily field replaceable by bolt and
nut fastener. Riveting and or stitching is not acceptable-
ll . . FACE MASK
The face mask system will be designed for fire service use
with a full vision and distortion free lens. The face mask
will be supplied complete with nose cup to help prevent
fogging and a neck strap for easy carrying.
The SCBA manufacture shall have available at least 3
different size face pieces to insure proper fit of many
shaped faces.
Each unit will be supplied with a manufactured approved
anti-fogging agent for use on the supplied face mask-
3 of 5
The face mask will be capable of utilizing a system for
vision correcting lens, which may be required by the wearer
of that face mask. This system must also me approved by
OSHA and NIOSH/MSHA.
The successful bidder will preform a face piece fit test on
each MEMBER of the SHAKOPEE FIRE DEPARTMENT , at which time
the bidders representor will fit test and identify the
proper size face piece for the individual fire fighter and
determine each member which requires corrective lens.
For those members requiring corrective lens, the proper
face mask with the above mentioned hardware with proper
corrective lens will be supplied to the members
The prescription vision corrective lens supplied within the
mask will correct the fire fighters vision to 20-20 at the
time of fitting.
At the preesent time there are 16 Shakopee Fire Fighters
that require corrective lens.
At the time of SCBA delivery each mask will be labeled
according to size and each face piece with special lens
will identified with the name of the Shakopee Fire Fighter
who it was specially constructed for.
12. NUMBER OF UNITS
The City of Shakopee may elect to purchase up to 45
complete SCBA units and from 25 to 45 spare air supply
cylinders. Bidders must bid the total price for 25, 30 and
35 SCBA units and the price per spare air supply cylinders
on their proposal/bid.
The bid shall also state if the bidder is willing to trade
in Shakopee present SCBA which consist of 22 Scott IIAS and
11 Scott 4.5 SCBAs. If willing to trade in the bid shall
state the trade in value.
13. PARTS AVAILABILITY
A written guarantee stating the "availability and suppling
of spare parts and maintenance " shall be sent in with the
bid.
4 of 5
MAINTENANCE
NO less than 6 designated persons of the SHAKOPEE FIRE
DEPARTMENT shall RECEIVE TRAINING and become a certified
repair person. To include all parts and systems of the
SCBA. This training shall be given at the SHAKOPEE FIRE
STATION by a certified factory service representative
within six (6) months after delivery of the first new SCBA
unit. This certification/training will authorize the above
6 designated members of the SHAKOPEE FIRE DEPARTMENT to
repair and / replace any and all parts and or systems of
the SCBA systems
The proposal / bid shall also include the price for all the
necessary equipment for servicing and checking the SCBA
units. This will include but not limited to such equipment
as flow and pressure gauges, special tools for assembly
and disassembly, charts for pressure and flow requirements,
lubricants and adaptors.
As a certified repair station the Shakopee Fire Department
will receive all factory technical bulletins which pertain
to the SCBA purchased.
There must be a recommended written procedure supplied with
the SCBA systems for sanitizing the face mask regulator
with out disassembly. This procedure is to be used for
sanitizing and removing moisture.
The bid must also include a list of maintenance parts most
commonly used for the pack and a price list from which an
office from the Shakopee Fire Department will chose a
supply of parts to be included with the purchase.
The bid must also include cleaning/sanitizing material.
Enough to make 100 gals of finished cleaning/solution.
5 of 5
MEMO
TO: JOHN ANDERSON - ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JIM KARKANEN - PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: CHASKA RENTAL AGREEMENT
DATE: OCT. 14 , 1987
INTRODUCTION:
The City of Shakopee has a rental agreement with the City of
Chaska for the rental of the Shakopee sewer cleaning equipment. .,
This agreement was initiated in January of 1984 by the request of
the City of Chaska.
BACKGROUND:
The 1984 agreement with Chaska provides for the rate to be
adjusted annually by Shakopee, who is to notify Chaska, in
writing, of the newly established annual rate on or before
January of the new calender year, Chaska has been notified, in
writing, of our intention to raise the hourly rate from
$25.00/hour, to $35 .00 per hour. This rate increase was
implemented because of the deterioration of the equipment due to
normal use. Because of the age the equipment, we can anticipate
more repairs to the equipment in the near future. This rate
increase will reflect Chaska's contribution toward the
anticipated repairs and deterioration of the equipment. The
agreement also calls for Chaska to reimburse Shakopee for any
repair costs incurred while they are using the equipment,
especially due to misuse, neglect, or accidents .
Because this amendment needs Council action, we are
submitting this proposal for approval and authorizing the
proper signatures for the agreement change.
ALTERNATIVES :
1 . Authorize the sewer equipment rental agreement with
Chaska.
2 . Do not change the rental agreement.
3 . Change the per hour rental rate to other than $35/hour.
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative 4 1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Public Works Dept. to enter into an agreement
with the City of Chaska for amending the agreement for rental of
sewer cleaning equipment at $35 per hour, and authorize the
proper signatures for the document.
SEWER TELEVISING/SEWER JETTING
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHASKA
AND THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
This agreement made and entered into this 1st day of January
1988, by and between the City of Chaska, a municipal corporation
in Carver County, Minnesota, (hereinafter called "Chaska" ) and
the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation in Scott County,
Minnesota (hereinafter called "Shakopee" ) ,
WHEREAS, Chaska is desirous of contracting for sewer televising
and sewer jetting services, and
WHEREAS, Shakopee presently has equipment to undertake such
services, and manpower to train Chaska's personnel how to utilize
said equipment properly, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed mutually beneficial to both communities to
cooperate in the provision of these services, and
WHEREAS, Chaska and Shakopee are authorized under Minnesota
Statutes to enter into joint powers agreements for the provision
of municipal services,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS ;
1 . Shakopee shall provide to Chaska on an as-needed basis, not
to interfere with Shakopee's needs and work schedule, sewer
televising equipment and sewer jetting equipment.
2 . Shakopee shall also provide the manpower necessary to train
Chaska's personnel the proper use of said equipment. The
cost to this will be borne by Chaska and billed to Chaska at
regular manhour rates as is consistent with Shakopee's
personnel billing policy.
3. The hourly rate for the use of the above stated equipment
will be established annually by Shakopee who shall notify
Chaska in writing, of the established rate on or before
January 1st of each calendar year.
The hourly rates for 1988 are established as follows:
Sewer Televising Equipment - $35.00
Sewer Jetting Equipment - $35.00
Sewer Vacuum Inductor - $35 .00
4 . Chaska shall also reimburse Shakopee for any repair costs,
other than normal maintenance , arising from Chaska' s use of
above mentioned equipment.
5 . Chaska shall reimburse Shakopee for aforementioned services
provided within 30 days of receipt of an invoice preferably
on a monthly basis.
6 . Chaska agrees that it will indemnify and hold Shakopee and
it's agents and employees harmless from any and all claims
for damage or injury caused by negligence of Chaska or it's
agents or employees or Shakopee or any of it's agents or
employees in the course of the provision of services under
this agreement.
7. Except as otherwise specified herein, Chaska shall not be
obligated to or responsible for or liable for the
compensation or indemnity of any Shakopee employee
performing services to Chaska under this agreement for
injury or sickness arising out of his employment and
Shakopee agrees to hold harmless Chaska against any such
claim.
8. It is understood that the above mentioned equipment is
vehicular in nature and that Shakopee shall provide and
carry the proper vehicular insurance on this equipment as is
consistent with Minnesota State Statute.
9 . This agreement shall become effective upon completion of the
signing of this document by both parties below and shall
continue for an indefinite term unless rescinded or
terminated in accordance with it's terms. Either City may
terminate this agreement by giving the other City 60 days
written notice of it's intention to terminate the agreement.
This agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual
resolution of the City Councils of the respective cities .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Chaska has caused this agreement
to be signed by its Mayor and attested by its City Administrator
and the City of Shakopee has caused this agreement to be signed
by its Mayor and attested to by its City Administrator all
pursuant to prior authorization by the respective City Councils.
CHASKA
BY
Robert P. Roepke, Mayor
AND
David Pokorney, Administrator
SHAKOPEE
BY
Eldon Reinke, Mayor
AND
John Anderson, Administrator
AND
Judy Cox, City Clerk
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers
FROM: Tom Brownell, Chief of Police
RE: Scott County Computer Agreement
DATE: October 14, 1907
INTRODUCTION
The Shakopee Police and Fire Departments request Council to
Authorize the appropriate city officials to enter into an
agreement with Scott County to access the county computer for
criminal justice and emergency services data.
BACKGROUND
Since 1904, the emergency service providers in Scott County have
been planning a program involving the use of the county computer
to enhance our ability to provide services by using computerized
data.
The Scott County Board of Commissioners have approved the program
and a standard agreement signed by the agencies accessing the
county computer is required.
The Scott County Criminal Justice Computer Committee has been
established to formulate guidelines, review and decide what
information is to be available, and submit program requests for
use by the subscribers. Charles Ries will represent the Fire
Services on the committee, I will represent the police services.
Important aspects of the agreement are as follows:
1. Subscribers will be responsible for the cost of access
equipment such as interface modem, $500 . , and a phone line
which already exists.
2. A subscriber will bear the cost of any special programing
which would be used solely by the individual agency.
3. All other costs will be offset in their entirety in the
form of city subscriber credits for in-kind contributions
to the program.
The city attorney has reviewed the agreement.
Pg. -2- (Scott County Computer Agreement)
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the appropriate city officials to enter into an
agreement with Scott County allowing access to the computer
mainframe by the police and fire services.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize the appropriate city officials to enter into an
agreement with Scott County allowing access to the computer
mainframe by the police and fire services.
. . S C 0 T T C 0 U N T Y, M I N N E S O T A
6
REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION /
Agenda
Board Date: September 29, 1987 * n ginating partment:
Flexibilit : * Administration
ervtce Ject resen er:
* Count Administrator
Administration; Intergovernmental *Es!stimated ime:
* 5 Minutes
BOMO ACTION REQUESTED:
RESOLUTION NO. 87072; AUTHORIZING ON-LINE ACCESS TO THE SCOTT COUNTY COMPUTER
MAINFRAME BY POLICE, FIRE AND MEDICAL SERVICES WITHIN SCOTT COUNTY FOR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE COMPUTER PROGRAM PURPOSES.
BACKGROUND:
Background outlined in resolution.
Appointment of the County Attorney and the Data Processing Manager to the Criminal
Justice computer Program Committee of the Scott County Emergency Communications
Board was endorsed by the Data Processing Users Group on September 14, 1987.
Supporting Documents:
Attached: X None:
ignat re Date: y-lf-lr *Distri ution/Date: Brandt Richardson, * onsent Agenda?
*Jim Terwedo, Jim Berg, Larry McMahon *
*Cliff McCann, Emergency Comm.'s Board, * _ Yes X No
*Data Processing User's Group
*Files
mistrator s outs:
Agreements will be subject to individual approval by the County Board.
Signature/Date: � ��•c.�.�
* DistributiZU(cGodistribution)
instructions:
0 Approved as requested ,� * 9'i/'-i7
A * Same as asult files
R Denied * for ELB a
D Tabled *
Other 0
� ���h
* � : .tom/
C ' ^ �
T R
I
0 Rec. Secretary
N Date 9 'd 9 -k7
*
RBA
N :
8�s s .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SCOTT COUNTY,MINNESOTA
DAN INsdullon No.
Motion by Commissional._ Sacondsd by Commissiomer.
RESOLUTION NO. 87072: AUTHORIZING ON-LINE ACCESS TO THE
SCOTT COUNTY COMPUTER MAINFRAME BY POLICE, FIRE AND MEDICAL
SERVICES WITHIN SCOTT COUNTY FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PURPOSES
WHEREAS, on April 4, 1984, the Fiscal Management Committee hosted a
presentation by Chief Tom Brownell, Shakopee Police Department, on behalf
of the Scott County Emergency Communications Board which proposed direct
access to the county's Criminal Justice Program in the computer mainframe
by police, fire and ambulance emergeny units serying the cities of Belle
Plaine, Prior Lake, Jordan, New Prague, Savage and Shakopee on the basis
that the county would provide program design and computer access Services
to the municipalities and the cities would bear all equipment and
connection charges, and
WHEREAS, this concept was approved by the Fiscal Management Committee
and subsequently by the Committee of the Whole, however, was not advanced
for County Board approval at that time.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners goes on
record herewith approving the provision of the aforementioned Criminal
Justice Computer Program services to all emergency service units serving
Scott County with the following conditions:
1. That all emergency units subscribing to the Criminal Justice
Computer Program are subject to the approval of the Scott County Emergency
Communications Board and the County Administrator.
2. That all computer hardware, hookup and telephone line charges and
recurring costs shall be borne by the Subscribing jurisdiction. All costs
for specialized programming requested by a subscriber are to be borne
solely by the requesting jurisdiction.
3. That the subscribing jurisdiction shall be granted programming
services for and input/inquiry access to the Criminal Justice Computer
Program and subscriber fees therefore shall be subject to the proposed
data processing fee schedule upon its adoption but shall be offset in
their entirety in the form of subscriber credits for in-kind contributions
to the program.
4. That all programming requests and data processing services on the
part of the Scott County Emergency Communications Board shall be subject
to Prioritization by the Scott County Data Processing Users Group purusant
to its operating guidelines.
YES NO
Konluekl Konlerakl
Bohnsack Bohnsack
Mems Mertz
Sunbalwail &mmwall
CNeY Casey
SUN el MimmNate / sa
C4n1Y M 8aa11 1
I,Jexpli F.Nhl,pulY eMo-nl ep,Nulll iep eM ec"gyp Ceunh apminlelnlw Ip IN CWnry d$cO11.4hh d MMMo1L po M,epY
1w111Y 11Y11MR COTw,eelM lwepwngcegole_ wlm lM o-lP^•I minulee ellM p,Mxellpa dlM BMNeI
County Co-^mesldy,e.5cotl CWn,MinMeoh.el IMn xeegn MM pn me�MY01 1m�Imv pn nh m mY
d14e.M]MR IouM IM Yme IoM a Irw MN cw,Kl cWY IMrpl.
WpMee mYMM eM el...... tlelW OMe.Nin Meph,IMe ary el
OI01p-1001 c...n..�.•..�
q r�.n.�ionw
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <
SCOTT COUNTY,M /
INNESOTA / V
Date R...Waon
Motion by Gommbelonar S•coM•C oy CAmmlfflonar
S. That the County Attorney and the County's Data Processing Manager
be appointed to the Criminal Justice Computer Program Committee of the
Scott County Emergency Communications established on September 14, 1987 as
voting members and that said committee remain active throughout the
duration of the Criminal Justice Computer Program.
6. That this policy becomes effective upon the execution of a written
agreement between the county and each subscribing jurisdiction
indemnifying the county for any damages incurred as a result of the use of
this program by a respective subscriber or the County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be furnished
members of the Scott County Emergency Communications Board and the
county's Data Processing Users' Group as well as the appropriate county
staff officials contributing to this program.
YES NO
Konlarakl Konlarakl
Bohnsack Bchnaacit
Martz Martz
stnwnwMl slmmwall
Casey C•°•Y
Stale OI Mlnn.toM } u.
CWnh NB[o1
1.JOMpe F.PnY.W IY�V Wlnnp.oWlllya aN illnp Counh nemm�lnlw Ia IM Ldnry q Scelt$Yhd MlnMeen.ao MrWY
Wm1y1M11Mw canWee lM lwpwnp[opyd• alalM delWl mlMIM ollM wecwfxmcw lM aMn101
Cwn1Y CnnmlploWn.5cg1 CWnly.Mlnr�wn.N ll,ur en.M Mn M IMS WY d�lam nvw Cn IIh h my
OIIIW.NIa M.lIWM IM.ameIO McI,W wtl cw,NlcWY1MaO1.
WIIW.�mYNMaM Clncnleu1tl 5N4OWL MnM.OIa,IMe WYOI
cwnr�.n,w
01010-2001
THE OFFICE OF THE .
SCOTT COUNTY ATTORNEY
COURTHOUSE 206
SHAKOPEE, MN.55379.1380 (612)-937-6240
JAMES A.TERWEDO
County Attorney
October 12, 1987
Shakopee City Council
Shakopee City Hall
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear City Council:
The Scott County Emergency Communications Board has proposed
allowing direct access to the County's Criminal Justice Program
in the Scott County computer mainframe to be limited to by
police, fire, ambulance and hospital emergency units serving the
cities of Belle Plaine, Prior Lake, Jordan, New Prague, Savage
and Shakopee.
The basis of the agreement is that the County would provide
hardware hookups and special projects assistance for program
design and computer access services to the cities and they, in
turn, would bear all of the associated costs. This proposal has
been given prelimiary approved by the Scott County Board of
Commissioners. The enclosed agreement has been drafted for your
consideration so that, upon execution, the direct access program
may be implemented.
Please feel free to contact this office if there are any further
questions regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
JAMES A.
SCOTTUNO TYATTORNEY
T A. Terwedo
Scott County Attorney
JAT/jkf
encl.
Criminal Div. Civil Div. Human Services Div.
Thomas J.Harbinson. Clifford G.McCann Peggy A.Flaig
First Assistant Susan K.McNellis
Bruce Hiller
Neil G.Nelson
Kathryn A.Santelmann aures
W.R.Glasser.
Special Assistant
An Equal Opportunity-Employer
COUNTY-CITY ON-LINE ACCESS TO THE
SCOTT COUNTY COMPUTER MAINFRAME AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made and entered into by and between the
Scott County Board of Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as
"Scott County" and the City of , hereinafter
referred to as "City Subscriber".
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, Scott County and the City Subscriber agree that
direct access to the County's Criminal Justice Computer Program
by the City Subscriber in the Scott County computer mainframe by
police, fire, ambulance and hospital emergency units serving the
City would be beneficial to both the City and Scott County, and
WHEREAS, this concept and agreements to implement same has
been approved by the Scott County Board of Commissioners, now,
therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. That all emergency units subscribing to the Criminal Justice
Computer Program shall be subject to the written approval of
the Scott County Emergency Communications Board and
certification thereof to the County Administrator prior to
hookup.
2. That all computer hardware, hookup and telephone line
charges and recurring direct and indirect costs shall be
borne by the City Subscriber. All costs for specialized
programing requested by the City Subscriber shall be borne
solely by the City Subscriber.
3. That the City Subscriber shall be granted programing
services for an input-inquiry access to the Criminal Justice
Computer and City Subscriber fees therefore shall be subject
to the proposed data processing fee schedule upon its
adoption but shall be offset in their entirety in the form
of City Subscriber credits for in-kind contributions to the
program.
4. That all programing requests on the part -of the Scott County
Emergency Communications Board shall be prioritized at the
sole discretion of the Scott County Data Processing Users
Group.
5. That the City Subscriber agrees, within five days of receipt
of an invoice from Scott County, to indemnify Scott County
for any and all damage done to compter data, software or
hardware as a result of the use of that data, software or
hardware by the City Subscriber.
6. That the City Subscriber shall be solely responsible for the
accuracy of all data which it inputs into the Criminal
Justice Computer and agrees to indemnify, defend and save
harmless Scott County from any and all causes of action,
demands or other proceedings of any nature or kind by reason
of or arising out of the data input by the City Subscriber.
7. That the City Subscriber agrees to indemnify, defend and
save harmless Scott County from any and all causes of
action, demands or other proceedings of any nature or kind
by reason of or arising out of Scott County's providing of
program design and computer access services to City
Subscriber.
8. That the City Subscriber agrees that it shall be billed for
any hardware hookup costs incurred by Scott County in
facilitating City Subscriber's access to the Criminal
Justice Computer Program, any special projects assistance
provided by Scott County which inures exclusively to the
benefit of City Subscriber, and that City Subscriber shall
pay such billings within 20 days of receipt of such bill.
If the City Subscriber shall fail to pay as provided herein,
the outstanding unpaid balance shall accrue interest at the
rate of nine percent simple interest. In addition, if said
balance remains unpaid sixty (60) days from the date of the
initial billing Scott County may undertake collection
activities, and the City Subscriber specifically agrees to
pay the reasonable attorney fees, costs and disbursements of
such collection activities to Scott County.
Memo to: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
From: Dennis R. Kraft,Community Development Director
Subject: Senate File 1084/House File 1163 (Street access charge
impact fee enabling legislation)
Date: October 15,1987
Introduction:
As a part of the budget process the City Council discussed
the need to identify alternative revenue sources.
Additionally,one City Council member recently suggested that the
City evaluate the imposition of an impact fee for the
construction of a traffic signal in conjunction with the proposed
Starwood Music Center. The City of Lakeville introduced a bill
in the last session of the Minnesota Legislature which would
allow for the imposition of an impact fee (known as a street
access charge or road access charge) . There are both positive and
negative ramifications associated with this legislation. The
City of Lakeville has asked for support on this state enabling
legislation.
Background:
The purpose of this proposed state enabling legislation is
to give cities the authority to levy street access charges on new
-- development based upon a calculation of the number of vehicular
trips a new development is expected to generate. The legislation
provides for the fee to be assessed at the time that a building
permit is issued, however there would be an opportunity to pay
the fee over a multi-year period. The payment would be treated
in the same manner as real estate taxes, and would be subject to
the same interest penalties as real estate taxes.
In order to satisfy the requirements of the proposed law the
rational nexus test must be applied. This test, in essence,
requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the
exaction and the public needs attributable to the proposed
development. The municipality has the burden of proving a
relationship between the exaction and the public needs generated
to the development. While there is some flexibility in this
relationship, if the rational nexus test is disregarded it is
very possible that a court might consider this to be a taking and
require that compensation be paid.
For purposes of clarification the terms impact fee and
exaction are to be considered synonymous; a road access charge,
as referred to in Senate File (SF) 1084 is a type of exaction or
impact fee.
Attached please find copies of House File 1163 -and the
proposed Lakeville road access charge ordinance.
Following are some of my comments on S.F. 1084:
1.Use of this proposed statute would be permissive
rather than mandatory, therefore even if enacted by the
Legislature Shakopee could choose to not adopt a local impact fee
ordinance.
2.If the city would decide to use this device
additional work would be required in classifying all city streets
and in adopting a transportation plan and a 5 year CIP with
accurate cost estimates.
3 .The city would need to prepare a 5 year projection of
residential, commercial and industrial growth.
4 .The city would need to establish an escrow account
and accurately charge the cost of improvements against the
account.
5.Accurate cost of construction figures would have to
be calculated in order to assess the impact fees.
6.The imposition of impact fees would tend to increase
both rental rates and the cost of construction. This could result
in higher costs for residential home buyers and possibly put
Shakopee at a competitive disadvantage with other communities
which have not adopted an impact fee law, e.g.financing the cost
of impact fees through a home mortgage at say 11% interest would
cost more than financing that same improvement through the lower
rate affixed to a municipal bond say 8
In summary positive action by the Minnesota legislature of
this proposed legislation would probably be of benefit and would
not be significantly detrimental to the City of Shakopee.
Alternatives:
(1) Provide support to state impact fee enabling legislation.
(2) Indicate that the City of Shakopee is not interested in
supporting this type of legislation at this time.
(3) Actively oppose state impact fee enabling legislation.
Recommendation:
Alternative number 1 is recommended.
Action Requested:
Move to support the position of the City of Lakeville on the
enactment of state enabling legislation to allow the imposition
of street access charges by a municipality.
'Lnw OEmas /v
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRIIl & KNUTSON
DAVID L.GRANNIS- 18)4-1%1 P.O 10NAL ASfOCIAM- TELECOPIER.
DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR.- 191U-1980 PG O,NGE Box 57 (612)435-1359
DAvw L. HARmF
VANCE B.GRANNIS 403 Nmwm BANK BONDING
M. CMUA RAY
V MCE B.GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTX CgNCORD EXCHANGE EWOTI B- KNEN.X
PATRIOT A.EARREIL MICHAEL J.MAYER
DAvID L.GRANNIS,III SOU ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 53075
RwEA N. KNIfISON TELEPHONE:(612)455-1661
July 27, 1987
JUL1987
RECEIVED a
Mr. Patrick E. McGarvey r, CI71' Of
City of Lakeville LgKEVILLE
8747 - 208th Street West `-
P.O. Box 957
Lakeville, Minnesota 55044
RE: H.F. 1163 - Street Access Charge
Dear Pat:
Enclosed please find revised bill to amend H.F. 1163
concerning street access charges. At your request I inserted the
word "all" in paragraph (2 ) of Subdivision 3 ; I did not, however,
add "and special assessments" under Subdivision 5 because I don't
want to confuse road access charges with special assessments.
Please call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL
aKNLU N, P.A.BN. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosures
cc: Daryl 2uelke
David Licht
Jim Robinette
Dennis Feller
moves to amend H.F. 1163 as follows:
Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:
Section 1. [471.573] [STREET ACCESS CHARGE. ]
Subdivision 1. [STREET ACCESS CHARGE AUTHORIZED. ]
A home rule or statutory city may by ordinance impose street
access charges. The ordinance shall provide that the funds generated by
the street_ access charge be used for arterial and collector street and
highway capital improvement projects.
Subdivision 2. [PLANNING REQUIREMENTS. ] Before adopting an
ordinance under subdivision 1 a city must:
(1) Adopt a transportation plan which:
(a) functionally classifies all streets and 'highways as
arterial, collector, or local routes, using a classification system based
on guidelines and criteria of the federal highway administration, United
States department of transportation; and
(b) contains a five-year street and highway capital
improvement plan which provides for capital improvements to arterial and
collector streets and highways within the city, including cost estimates.
- ' (2). Prepare a projection of its anticipated residential,
commercial, and industrial growth over the five-year period covered in
the street an_f highway capital improvement plan.
Subdivision 3. [ORDINANCE RESTRICTIONS. ] (a) An ordinance
under subdivision 1 must:
(1) Spread the cost of the five-year street and highway capital
improvement cost of arterial and collector streets against new land
development activity generating traffic in the city. The cost shall be
spread based upon the average weekday trip rate generated by the new
development as set forth in the Institute of Transportation Engineers
Informational Report, Trip Generation, Third Edition 1952.
(2) A city may not impose street access charges in an amount
which would exceed, over any five-year period, more than 508 0£ the
city's projected cost of completing all capital improvements to arterial
and collector streets and highways as determined by the capital
improvement plan adopted for that five-year period.
(3) A street access charge may not exceed $75.00 for each
average weekday trip generated by the use as set forth in the Institute
of Transportation Engineers Informational Report, Trip Generation, Third
Edition 1952.
Subdivision 4 . [EXEMPTIONS AND CREDITS. ] The following shall
be exempted from payment of street access charges:
(1) Alterations or expansion of an existing dwelling unit where
no additional units are created and the use is not changed.
(2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures which
will not increase the traffic counts associated with the principal
building or of the land.
(3) The replacement on the same land of a destroyed or partially
destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the
same size and use. If the new construction generates more trips than the
-2-
destroyed building or structure generated, then the road access charge
shall be calculated based only before the additional trips generated.
(4) Any construction that does not generate trips.
(5) Property that is exempt from real property taxation.
Subdivision 5. [PAYMENT. ] The city may collect the street
access charge at the time it issues a building permit. The city may also
provide that the street access charge may be paid over a period of years,
together with interest on the unpaid balance, at the same time and in the
same manner as taxes on the real property for which the building permit
was issued. Payment of a charge which is made over a period of time is
subject to the same penalties as taxes on real property.
Subdivision 6. [HEARING. ] Before a city adopts a street access
charge ordinance, the city must conduct a public hearing preceded by at
least ten (10) days published notice.
Subdivision 7. [COURT REVIEW. ] A person aggrieved by an
ordinance, rule, regulation, decision, or order of a city acting under
this section may have the ordinance, rule, regulation, decision, or order
reviewed by certiorari in district court.
-3-
1
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE CITY CODE
BY ADOPTING A COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL
ROAD ACCESS CHARGE
The Lakeville City Council ordains:
Section 1. Title 9 of the Lakeville City Code is amended by
adding Chapter 3 to read as follows:
9-3-1 Road Access Charge. There is hereby imposed a road access
charge on all buildings constructed in the City.
9-3-2 Use of Money Collected. The charges shall be deposited in a
fund and used exclusively for capital improvements to arterial
and collector streets and highways within the City in accordance
with the City's adopted Transportation Plan.
9-3-3 Amount of Charge. The road access charge for a single family
detached dwelling is $ . The charge for all other uses
is $ for each average weekday trip generated by the
use. The number of trips generated by the use shall be
determined by reference to the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Information Report, Trip Generation, Third Edition
1982.
9-3-4 Collection of Charges. The charge shall be collected before a
building permit is issued for the use. In the alternate, an
agreement may be entered into spreading the charge over a ten
(10) year period to be collected at the same time and in the
same manner as taxes on the real property for which the building
permit was issued. Payment of a charge which is made over a
period of time is subject to the same penalties as taxes on real
property, as well as interest of eight percent (8$) per year on
the unpaid balance.
9-3-5 Exemptions and Credits. The following shall be exempted from
payment of street access charges:
(1) Alterations or expansion of an existing dwelling unit
where no additional units are created and the use is not
changed.
(2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures
which will not increase the traffic counts associated with the
principal building or of the land.
(3) The replacement on the same land of a destroyed or
partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or
structure of the same size and use. if the new construction
generates more trips than the destroyed building or structure
generated, then the road access charge shall be calculated based
only before the additional trips generated. _
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon
its passage and publication.
Adopted by the Lakeville City Council this day of
1987 .
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
BY:
Duane R. 2aun, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patrick E. McGarvey, Clerk
ROAD ACCESS CHARGE
The road access charge shall be directly related to the projected
costs for arterial and collector street and highway improvements
as demonstrated in a 5-year capital improvement schedule for
streets such that:
* The total access charges for street and highway
improvements may not exceed 50% of the City's projected
cost of said improvements for that 5-year period.
* .The access charges will be equitably distributed against
new land development activity generating traffic.
* A street access charge for a single family detached
dwelling shall not exceed $750.00
* The funds collected by reason of establishment of the
road access charge in accordance with this ordinance
shall be used solely for the purpose of acquisition,
-expansion and development of the arterial and collector
streets, highways and bridges determined to be needed to
serve new development, including, but not limited to:
* Preparation of construction plans and
specifications.
* Right-of-way acquisition.
* Construction of new through lanes.
* Construction of new turn lanes.
* Construction of new bridges.
* Construction of new drainage facilities in
conjunction with new roadway construction.
* Purchase and installation of traffic signalization.
* Construction of new curbs, medians and shoulders.
* Relocation of utilities to accommodate new roadway
construction.
CALCULATIONS OF EQUIVALENT TRIP GENERATION UNITS (ETGU)
Calculations of Equivalent Trip Generation Units for determining
the base road assessment shall be based upon the ITE trip
generation manual. For the purpose of this ordinance, a single
family detached dwelling shall correspond to 1 Equivalent Trip
Generation Unit. The ETGU's for all other land uses shall be
computed by the dividing their average weekday trip ge..aeration
rates by the average weekday trip generation rate for a single
family detached dwelling. The following table displays the
ETGU's for the corresponding land uses.
Land Use ETGU Maximum R.A.C. *
Single Family Residential 1.0 $750.00
Multi-Family 0.56 420.00
Mobile Home 0.48 360.00
office**
less than 100,000 sq. ft. 1.77 $132,750.00
100,000 to 199,999 sq. ft. 1.43 $214,500.00
over 200,000 sq. ft. 1.09 ------
Retail**
less than 50,000 sq. ft. 11.79 $442,125.00
50,000 to 99,999 sq. ft. 8.20 615,000.00
100,000 to 199,999 sq. ft. 6.67 1,000,500.00 ,
200,000 to 299,999 sq. ft. 5.06 1,138,500.00
300,000 to 399,999 sq. ft. 4.19 1,257,000.00
400,000 to 499, 999 sq. ft. 4.97 1,863,750.00
500,000 to 999,999 sq. ft. - 3.72 2,790,000.00
1,000,000 to 1,250,000 sq. ft. 3.71 3,478,125.00
over 1,250,000 sq. ft. 3.41
Medical - Clinic** 2.38 _
Industrial** 0.54
Manufacturing** 0.39
Warehousing** 0.49
Hotel - Motel (per room) 1.03
Restaurant** 11.97 -
Bank** 7.40 ----
R.A.C. = Road Access Charge
** per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area.
Total G.L.A. x ETGO x 750.00 = MAX. R.A.C1
11000
In the event that an applicant for a building permit contends
that the land use for which the building permit is proposed is
not within the above categories or fits within a category
different from that determined by the Building Department, the
City Administrator or his designee shall make a determination as
to the appropriate land use designation. Such determination may
be appealed to the City Council.
T/M/BZ2
Taal . _ a .,:4,
5432da&S e4r9 *?.��
ata- 2i B.Ca:¢ t .<" a? _ c 9: 1 ,.:•r-S„ o? ^>;3t¢rj�C^ , C
'tag '=,
as •2q� 3 qs �a a fsi_`.tt#P .a3 W b"k-Ao,
s-•a� ., :7;.�A,..c.t s� 1 +o .c a s a e�oiAg
y-d jai .a-fs s ,8's6afts
� rsxaisz�s3s6 s - >a r-yda 2arnp�ca-, v _o =�'as�a-3,,
iII ��i.,ttsiasa:so r4.-.. .:.3ra�§raatxa� yz. E'xxS as Y _ 440
.S_0..,�_ , •_a sS3 9l
LAW OFFICES
KRASS &MONROE VYYYY a
CHARTERED
RECEIVED
Phillip R. Krays
Dennis L.Monroe Marschall Road Business Censer
Ban,K.Meyer OCT O 61987 327 Niamhall Road
Tmvm R.Walsten P.O. Box 216
Elisabeth B.Mclaughlm Shakopee,Minnesma 55379
SusM.Carlson
Dasa L. Estill CITY OF SHAKOPEE Telephone 4455080
Diane
Lynton P.Nelson
Kent A.Carlson,CPA October 6, 1987
Ms. Judy Cox
City Clerk
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: CertainTeed
Our File No. 1-1373-
Dear Judy:
I have had several conservations over the past few months with
attorneys for CertainTeed and for Norwest Bank, holders of a 1973
CertainTeed Industrial Revenue Bond Issue. That bond issue has been paid
off and CertainTeed wishes to have transferred to it the property which
served as security for the bonds. To accomplish this, they will need, and
I deliver to you, a Bill of Sale and a Quit Claim Deed. I have reviewed
these and the other documents involved and they are appropriate and proper
and I would recommend that the Council authorize appropriate officials to
_ execute both. Upon their execution and notarization, please return them to
me.
Thank you.
o
ERED
PRK:mlw -
Enclosure
Action Recommended
Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a Bill of
Sale and Quit Claim Deed transferring property to CertainTeed
which property served as security for the 1973 CertainTeed
Industrial Revenue Bond Issue.
Na. 101— QW,Oil.Deed.M.I,ik A."—Ild—ill, 1ndiid.A 10 lild-idlial ill, 0-11 Milli Co.,
ro
xaicthis......._...._..........._. day of.......__._._....._............_......_.
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and.. _e..ighty.-.52'.Ve.n................................_.' betuvan
the City of Shakopee, a political subdivision in the State of Minnesota
of the County of ....Scott and State of...Minnesota..._ _- PartY._... of the first part
and ....CertainTeed...Corporation, a' MarVland Corporation,
..........
of the .... . ...... xwW State of Maryland, party.... ...of the second part.
WhW900, That the said Part Y. - of the first,part,in consideration of the sum,of..Ona
Hundred and N01100 Dollars ($100. 00) and other good and valuab
const eraE on s-u.-fri-c-Te...in. cy of which -is acknowledled her*ei
............ ..................._......_in hand paid by W said party.........of the second part, he ricedict �'Lrcaf is harchy
a6knoul do es.hemby Grant, Bargain, Sell, Remise, Release, Quit-Claim and Convey unto the
said part y......of the second .....................Acirs and assigns, Forever, all the......._........._...._......................
......................................................................
.........fallowing tract........or parcel of land lying and being in the
County of.. ... ...._$S.Qt.t.............................................and State of............Mj=esata............. .....................described
ae foZzinn, to-wit:
The property described on Exhibit A, attached hereto.
QUA Jbabe anb to Aporb, The Quit-Claimed premises, together with all the hereditaments and
appurienaneis,thereunto belonging m m anywise appertaining, to the said pa7t..Y............of the second part,
...........its............... .................................._Heirs and 1selym, FOREVER.
N Wes;ftanp Nbertef, The said parii the first part ha A Jzeri set_ ih.s............
hand.........and seal ..the day and the year above written.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, a political Sub-
division in the State fo Minnesota
BY:
Its
EXHIBIT A
Parcel I :
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying Southerly of the
Southerly right of way line of the Chicago St. Paul, Minneapolis
& Omaha Railroad and lying Easterly of the following described
line: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Northeast
Quarter of Section 5, said point being 572 .50 feet Westerly from
the Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of Section 5, as
measured along said South line of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 5; thence Northerly parallel with the East line of said
Section 5 to said Southerly right of way line of the Chicago,
St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad and there terminating .
Parcel II :
That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4 , Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of
Section 4, said corner also being a point on the centerline of
old County Road No. 82; thence North 89° 03 ' 48" East along
said centerline of County Road No. 82 as now traveled a distance
of 1475.00 feet to a point; thence North 20 11 ' 58" West
parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter of Section
4 a distance of 492 . 00 feet to a point; thence South 89° 03 '
48" West parallel with the centerline of old County Road No. 82
a distance of 338.00 feet; thence North 2" 11 ' 58" West
parallel with said West line of the Northwest Quarter of Section
4 to a point on the Southerly right-of-way of the Chicago, St .
Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad; thence North 74" 54 ' 47"
West along said Southerly right-of-way of the Chicago, St. Paul,
Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad a distance of 1190.50 feet to a
point on said West line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4;
thence South 2° 11. 58" East along said West line of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 4 a distance of 1438 .30 feet to the
point of beginning.
16C�
BILL OF SALE
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, That the City of Shakopee, a
political subdivision in the State of Minnesota, party of the
first part, for good and valuable consideration to it in hand
paid by CertainTeed Corporation, a Maryland corporation, party
of the second part, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is
hereby acknowledged, does hereby Grant, Bargain, Sell and Convey
unto the party of the second part, its successors and assigns,
forever, the following Goods, Chattels and Personal Property,
described on Exhibit A, attached hereto,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, unto the said party of the
second part, its successors and assigns, forever. And the said
party of the first part, for itself, and its successors and
assigns, does hereby covenant and agree to and with the said
Party of the second part, its successors and assigns that it is
the lawful owner of said Goods, Chattels and Personal Property,
and has good right to sell the same as aforesaid; that the same
are free from all incumbrances and the said party of the first
part will warrant and defend the sale of said Goods, Chattels,
and Personal Property hereby made unto the said party of the
second part, its successors and assigns, against all and every
person and persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the
same, subject to incumbrances, if any, hereinbefore mentioned,
and agrees to execute, at its expense, any document necessary to
free said Goods, Chattels and Personal Property from encumbrance.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The said City of Shakopee has caused
these presents to be executed in its corporate name by
its and its
and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this day
of A.D. 19_
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By
CORPORATE SEAL Its
Its
Signed, Sealed and Delivered
in Presence of
-2-
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of A.D. 19 before me,
a within and for said County,
personally appeared
and to me personally
known, who being by me each duly sworn, did say that they are
respectively the and
the - of the City of Shakopee, a
political subdivision in the State of Minnesota, the entity named
in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said
instrument is the corporate seal of said City of Shakopee and that
said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said City of
Shakopee by authority of and
said
and acknowledged the
said instrument to be the free act and deed of said City of
Shakopee.
My commission expires 19
-3-
EXHIBIT A
All personal property and fixtures now located upon the
premises described on Exhibit B attached hereto, including, but
no limited to, the following described equipment and machinery,
and any replacement thereof :
Roofing Machine Proper (all in buildings No. 20, 21, 22) ,
consisting of the following components:
A. Dry felt end - sub job #1515100.
Roll unwind stand, splicing table, dry felt
accumulator and pull rolls.
B. Saturating and drying in section - sub job #1515200 .
18 dipped saturator, drying-in drums, floating
asphalt felt accumulator and pull rolls .
C. Coating mixing system - sub job #1515400.
Coater and coating and limestone mixer.
D. Surfacing, cooling and finished product looper - sub
job #1515500 .
Slate blender, slate and talc applicator section,
7 cooling drums, tape and sealant applicators,
press roll section and 100 ft. finished product
looper.
E. Winder, shingle cutters and entire packaging layout -
sub job #1515700 .
Roll winder and automatic roll wrapping machine,
two shingle cutters complete with automatic
shingle catchers, automatic palletizers, automatic
kraft wrapper and associated conveyors .
F. Limestone dust heating system - Job order #9 .
A 30 ton limestone storage bin, automatic hot oil
heating system, conveyors and dust collectors.
G. Complete Woodtex section consisting of slate supply
conveyor, rotary slate selector, slate bins, slating
section, asphalt piping, press section, drive, dust and
fume collectors & supporting steel (Job Order #2) .
H. Complete Hallmark assembly machine, dust and fume
collectors, noise suppression, electrical and drive
(Job Order #2) .
I . Complete hood enclosing saturator and coater equipment,
plus Ansul dry chemical fire protection system.
J. A D.C. variable speed electric drive for entire rooling
machine complete with D.C. motors, generators and
control stations .
-2-
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT SITE
Parcel I :
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying Southerly of the
Southerly right of way line of the Chicago St . Paul, Minneapolis
& Omaha Railroad and lying Easterly of the following described
line: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Northeast
Quarter of Section 5, said point being 572 . 50 feet Westerly from
the Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of Section 5, as
measured along said South line of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 5; thence Northerly parallel with the East line of said
Section 5 to said Southerly right of way line of the Chicago,
St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad and there terminating.
Parcel II:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows :
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of
Section 4, said corner also being a point on the centerline of
old County Road No. 82; thence North 89" 03 ' 48" East along
said centerline of County Road No . 82 as now traveled a distance
of 1475.00 feet to a point; thence North 20 11 ' 58" West
parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter of Section
4 a distance of 492 .00 feet to a point; thence South 890 03 '
48" West parallel with the .centerline of old County Road No. 82
a distance of 338. 00 feet; thence North 2" 11 ' 58" West
parallel with said West line of the Northwest Quarter of Section
4 to a point on the Southerly right-of-way of the Chicago, St.
Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad; thence North 74" 54 ' 47"
West along said Southerly right-of-way of the Chicago, St. Paul,
Minneapolis & Omaha Railroad a distance of 1190. 50 feet to a
i- point on said West line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4;
thence South 2° 11. 58" East along said West line of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 4 a distance of 1438.30 feet to the
point of beginning.
/I//nn11 l
TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1988/89 Garbage Contract
DATE: October 12, 1987
Introduction
The current refuse collection contract expires in the middle of January
1988.
Back r� ound
Past practice for the last eight years has been to bid the garbage
contract every fourth year and to renegotiate at the two year point between the
bidding process. The contract is for two years.
The current contract has a very favorable rate. Most cities are at about
$10.00 per month versus our $6.64. Service has been good and there have not
been a large number of complaints received here at City Hall.
Alternatives
1. Rebid.
2. Negotiate renewal.
Recommendation
Alternative number 2. If negotiations do not prove reasonable to the
City, we can then pursue rebidding.
Action Reouested
Move to authorize staff to renegotiate the refuse contract with Waste
Management for 1988/89 and to bring it back to Council for approval.
/U.(b
MEMO TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Damage Claim - Ralph Ferry
DATE: October 15, 1987
INTRODUCTION:
The City of Shakopee received a damage claim from Ralph Ferry,
8234 Eagle Creek Blvd. , Shakopee, Minnesota in the amount of
$1,833.60. The claim is for damage that occurred to Mr. Ferry's
driveway during the heavy rain storms this past summer.
BACKGROUND:
The Claims -Committee consisting of Council members Clay,
Vierling, & Wampach met on October 13 , 1987 to consider the
claim.- Also present was Ralph .Ferry, Ray .Hoffman, a co-owner of
- the-driveway, - and myself. Mr. Ferry's contention is that there
is- a two fold problem. - -
1. The damage that occurred from the heavy rain and runoff
is the result of the Horizon Heights development at .the_
top of the hill (refer to the attached location map) .
2. As a result of the development runoff, even during
small rain storm events, there is continuous erosion Of
the bluff occurring which creates siltation &
sedimentation problems on his property.
Although the 1987 storms were extreme, Mr. Ferry stated that the
ongoing erosion problem plugged his culverts thereby diverting
runoff -down his driveway versus that of the normal drainage-
course. Hestated thattheCity is 'negligent due to
procrastination because this problem was brought to the City' s
attention many years ago.
It was the consensus of the Claims Committee to recommend to the
full Council to take the following actions.
1. In the interest of erosion control and soil
conservation, undertake an engineering study to provide
solutions to the continuous erosion problems.
2. Since there has been considerable damage in many forms
as a result of the heavy storms, the committee deferred
action on the claim to determine what other cities are
doing in similar situations . Basically, it was
undesirable to claim negligence for the approval of the
Horizon Heights development and the precedence it would
set.
Damage Claim
October 15, 1967
Page 2
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct the City Engineer to undertake an engineering
study to correct erosion control problems in the Horizon Heights
area.
RA/pmp
CLAIM
-- ---
_— /4
T
� � -
� I
]
/ E
10 7�4" ' V 11�r/r t ' I:O
r
3
Is ! -
16
� / 1 n �
2—
.a_.��— �lr�N—�
25
2.
G % /4c
27 _
3D P' —3U
M 31
32
35 {
37 37
36 _3`
—
39
i
CL . 0
COUNTY O �wER nn LVERSEx u-E4rx"�.P�Sx
az
62
Dtpv[wa I W
I•--
WTIO - - -
R P.R. '
a„e
RD
14
13
oI
2 _ '.
j PIvE
�( 6 -31
t I
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer Aw—
SUBJECT: Muhlenhardt Road Turnback
DATE: October 16, 1987
INTRODUCTION i BACKGROUND:
The Scott County Highway Department is planning on turning back
Muhlenhardt Road from C.R. 21 to C.R. 16 to the City (see Brad
Larson ' s July 31 , 1987 letter) . Apparently this intended
turnback has been discussed for quite some time. Attached is a
May 23, 1985 correspondence that summarizes initial meetings.
I asked Brad to respond to concerns of consistency of turnbacks
throughout the County, both present and future, Attached is
Brad' s response dated September 22, - 1987.
As I understand the law, the City does not have the authority to
refuse the turnback , although typically, turnbacks are
accomplished through mutual agreement of the agencies.
From a traffic engineering perspective, it seems logical that
Muhlenhardt Road should be a local street and not a county road.
Unfortunately, this segment of road is not easily maintained.
The work proposed by the Engineering Department and agreed to by
Scott County will help in providing a better roadway. The
resulting turnback condition will still be deficient of City
standards as our standards would be a paved surface and full
drainage facilities. Providing such an improvement is not
acceptable to the County.
The position of Public Works is that it would be beneficial to
the City if the turnback did not occur at this time of year.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that Council concur that the proposed work is
acceptable as a condition of turnback. I further recommend that
the City communicate to Scott County that the City is willing to
accept the turnback when the work is acceptable, including turf
establishment, on June 1, 1988 at the earliest.
Muhlenhardt Road
October 16, 1987
Page 2
REQUESTED ACTION:
Move to direct staff to notify Scott County that the proposed
turnback of Muhlenhardt Road from C. R. 16 to C. R. 21 is
acceptable withthefollowing conditions: -
1. All work addressed in the July 31, 1987 correspondence
from Brad Larson be completed and accepted by the City,
and;
2. The turnback will become effective on June 1, 1988 if
all work is accepted.
RA/pmp
ROAD
F_ SCOTT COUNTY `
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
r L
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (612)937-6346
BRADLEY J.LARSON
Highway Engineer
DANIEL M.JOBE
Aest.Highway Engineer
September 22, 1967
Ren Ashfeld, P.E.
Shakopee City Engineer
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Muhlenhardt Road
Dear Ren:
Responding to your request for additional information on
County Road turnbacks as it relates to Cities and Townships,
the following data is provided:
* Since 1984 Scott County has turned back segments on
two roadways. The first turnback was in Helena
Township with the old county roadway being vacated
back to the property owners. Scott County performed
minimal work in obliterating the roadbed as needed.
The second turnback was of a County State Aid Highway
in Prior Lake. The existing highway, rated in fair
condition, was turned back to the City with no
improvements performed by the County.
* The Highway Department is presently preparing a
recommendation to the County Board to turnback 8
sections of County Highways - 4 within Townships, 2
within a City (One being Muhlenhardt Road) and 2 that
fall in both a City and Township.
The proposal is to turn back these segments as is,
except for the Muhlenhardt Road turnback and a segment
of CSAR 12 in Prior Lake. Construction of new CSAR 21
requires shifting a portion of CSAH 12 to provide an
adequate boulevard between the two roads.
An Egaa!Opponanity Empioyer
Muhlenhardt Road
9-22-87
Page 2
• The Muhlenhardt Road turnback is somewhat different
from the others in that the County acquired the road
in exchange for McKenna Road. It is my understanding
that Muhlenhardt road would be turned back to the City
upon completion of the realignment of CSAR 21. We
feel that the County's obligation in this situation is
to turn back the roadway in the same condition as the
County received it from the City.
• The turnback procedures are proposed to be as
consistent from City to City and City to Township as
possible. With variables such as State Aid or County
Road designation and new construction or alignment
impacts, turnbacks will vary, but the goal is to have
as much uniformity as practical.
Hopefully, this information will aid the Council in reviewing
this proposed turnback. If you have any questions, please
call. - _ -
�Sincerely,
Bradley J. Larson, P.E.
County Highway Engineer
BJL/kmg
CC: Commissioner Mertz
Joe Ries, County Administrator
., SCOTT COUNTY roJ
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST
JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (612)937-6346
July 31, 1987 d
BRADLEY J.LARSON
Highway Engineer RECEIpEL
F -
DANIEL Highway
AUG 198 ,
Asst.HlpNwaY Engineer Gir or s 9
M-K0"
Ken Ashfeld, P.E. ��• E^-•-...:.o Derr.
City Engineer
129 East First Avenue . i
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Muhlenhardt Road
Dear Ken:
We have developed a cost estimate for equipment and material
required to repair Muhlenhardt Road to a condition similar to
when Scott County took over responsibility of the roadway from
Shakopee in 1977. It is the Highway Department's recommendation
to turnback Muhlenhardt Road to the City. As discussed, a
stipulation of the City in accepting the turnback is that the
following items be performed:
1. Clean ditches along the roadway south of Swiggum's
driveway and restore by seeding.
2. Clean and riprap the ditches north of Swiggum's driveway
and along CSAH 16 to the centerline culverts.
3. Place 5 inches of Class 5 material on roadbed between
McGuire Circle and CSAH 16 and 3 inches south of McGuire
Circle.
The estimated cost is $3,500 for equipment and $6,500 for
material. As discussed, should the City desire to reconstruct
and realign Muhlenhardt Road, the County would consider payment
of the estimated material and equipment costs in lieu of
restoring the existing roadway.
It is our desire to turnback Muhlenhardt Road by this Fall.
Your assistance in meeting that timetable would be greatly
appreciated.
Bradley J. Larson, P.E.
County Highway Engineer
BJL/miv
cc: Commissioner Mertz
Commissioner Stromwall
Joe Ries, County Administrator
Joe Kane, Maintenance Foreman
Ars Equal Opportunity employer
C S T Y O F S H A K O P E E
INCORPORATED 1870
« ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
129 E. 1st Iveoue - Shakopee, linoesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650
May 23, 1985
Brad Larson, County Highway Engineer
Scott County Highway Department
Court House A1O6
428 South Holmes - -
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE- County Road 21/Muhlenhardt Road Turnback
Dear Brad :
I have drafted this letter pursuant to our meeting on October
119 1984, when James Karkanen and I met you and your superinten-
dent, Joe Kane, to discuss the work necessary for the turnback
of Muhlenhardt Road_
I will premise this by reiterating the -City' s objective to
work with the County to eliminate duplication of City and- County
services. This objective is spelled out in the attachedcopyof the City' s Goals and Objectives, where an action item for
this states that the City will work with the County Engineer
to effect the turnback of some of the 100 miles of County Road
that duplicates existing service by the County. I have attached
a copy of that Section.
When we discussed the turnback of Muhlenhardt Road on October
11, 1984, I viewed it more in the context of a road temporarily
maintained by the County. It was to be maintained until perman-
ent facilities were constructed east of Muhlenhardt Road.
These facilities connect County Road 89 with County Road 42.
In the context of that discussion, it is difficult to consider
this roadway a conventional turnback.
I have since learned that in every sense it is a turnback.
The road is the remnant of a trade that occurred, November
9, 1977, where the City traded 1. 13 miles of the McKenna Road,
Formerly County Road 21 for . 73 miles of Muhlenhardt Road.
In that trade the City picked up the maintenance responsibility
for an additional . 40 miles of unimproved rural gravel roadway.
Now the County is in effect turning back the balance of the
�16 J
Turnbacks
May 23, 1985
Page 2
McKenna Road or an additional . 73 miles of roadway. This brings
the total County Road 21 turnback to 1. 13 miles.
Except for repairing some of the erosion damage caused by ambi-
tious road maintenance there is very little else being done
to improve Muhlenhardt Road before its turnback. If the Shako-
pee experience with Muhlenhardt Road sets the pattern and prece-
dence for the turnbacks in the rest of the County we will be
satisfied with the work you have agreed to undertake on Muhlen-
hardt Road. On the other hand, if the County makes a future
commitment to do more than make routine repairs of the existing
surface before turning back other roads in the County, I say
Shakopee is being treated unfairly and deserves additional
consideration.
As far as the improvements made to Muhlenhardt Road, the improv-
ements are primarily routine maintenance improvements, which
by no means solve the future maintenance problems the City
will have with this roadway. The improvements you agreed to
make do mean that the City will have no extraordinary main-
tenance in the next two or three years.
The items are as follows:
1. The binder and fines have been washed out into the
road ditches along County Road 16. This material will
be removed and the ditches will be restored by reseeding
the ditch area.
2. The roadside ditches along Muhlenhardt Road, north
of Swiggum' s Driveway will be paved or ripraPPed.
3. Five (5) inches of Class 5 will be placed between
Swiggum' s Drive and Mc6uires Circle, then three inches
of Class 5 will be placed on the roadway south of Mc6uires
Circle.
4. The shoulder south of Swiggum' s Driveway will be re-
sodded.
5. Stable, erosion-resistant turnouts will be constructed
south of Swiggum' s Driveway to remove surface water flow
from the roadway.
S. The sediment in the flow check structures on the east
side of the road will be cleaned out.
r
Turnbacks
May 23, 1965
Page 3
I realize this letter covers much more than our discussion
and it adds the City' s philosophy. The City wants the County
to be aware that we expect to see the County pursue other turn-
backs during the next calendar year and we expect the County
to treat those turnbacks as they have treated the County Road
21 turnback.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter or if you
need any formal motion by the Shakopee City Council please
let me know.
ICLX,"ncereI y, -
H. R. Sp ier
City Eng. eer
HRS/pmp
CTYRD21
CC. Mayor and City Council
John K. Anderson
James Karkanen
1 M+ -r
) OK
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer fj -
SUBJECT: Naumkeag Street Railroad Crossings
DATE: October 13, 1987
INTRODUCTION S BACKGROUND:
At a recent City Council meeting, I was directed to review the
conditions of the railroad crossing at Naumkeag Street. I wish
to make the following report.
1. All advance warning signs are proper and in place.
2. All grade crossing signs are proper and in place.
3. There is no history of accidents at this intersection.
4. There are no pavement markings at this crossing.
Pavement markings are required where the prevailing
speed of traffic is 40 m.p.h. or greater or engineering
studies indicate significant potential conflicts
between vehicles and trains. Nothing would indicate
this is the case based upon history of accidents.
5. The sight distance is relatively poor for vehicles
approaching the crossing. Due to the location of
buildings and the grade of terrain, it would be very
expensive to correct this situation . Based upon
economic feasibility and the proximity of the Marschall
Road crossing, I recommend against this action.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend no action at this time.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Move to receive and file this report of the Naumkeag Street
railroad crossing.
KA/pmp
CROSSING
- - ----- - - -
N NNNNNmNNN 0 0�0 ON NpNNNNNN NmN mp p m p
0000000000 0 0000 00y 000 m
JtiJJJJJJ J Jr rJ v J 1�
wbb�bmbbbm N olo uu U0 a 41 v;•
bb w x t cc + mmmmmwrll + amq • p a t
V�IYVJ+OrJ JJ NJ 'i J JJJJJJ J+IJ J J
WWbaNbNN�u- ww '. �mw I NNwwNm I wN 1,
Nm=w cm 0 ' N W 0 -0J bN � I oa
w0 W -N NN o e ma o0o JOmu i Wu oo ' wN
0m00m00m - m 1 0m nn � DODDYDDD> j D D F ''D
cweNNcccccc " a as wwmpmwm y_'c•y w m r o
- AK 00000amo o00 0 ' m
zmmmmmmmm a mm I nnnnnnnn n s Im
mmm a i m
mwmmmmmmwm c rr n mmm.....
cizzz m m m
o 000000000 , r an iisssxxx aaa mI r m -1
c cccyyyyyy 99 00 aaa of ' y w
zz onn.n nnn rrr, a i
rm�rrTr '. oo 000000mo w v o
zzzzzzzz we 9 z
�.ryyyyy-yiy -~ r y ccc
--asasa-
....999999 Co nn r u KKr
. w0mmmw0wmm
I I
9ww mmmm m � wa i nm mmmmmmmm i mmm j ml � p 1
m99ccccccc o y
vv m000.m..oo rr r r . o0o a a 'a
a I aao I > 0 0
y999999999 99 j nwnnnnnw i � T < T I T
rrrrr==r= 9 r -9 999 D m
nxxxsxsxx r w
«mwmvmmmmm x mm _.�>����� x _ I m '�,. m m
nz
x�
-��-ry SIJ zzz a I I
I i i m j
I I
I
i
I
inrinro rI ee 41r I1 I1 ± I i e
.......... V NN ro ........ NNy ro '. W u W
w00000eo0o W O W
ro
-- -u=rorm- row - Nro-mmmmm I acro ro - '. � o
t -rm mmm prom I m - 1 - w
ro mw j I
j a
j
n n
z x z F s z z
w w w w w w i m
1 I
I j
a
0 N
N e
v
N 1 1 1 1 n
-
m
-
�
m i I
S I W > i I li d I
J 6 C ' IJ 00 H 6 O Ji
w W W i O W m i 6 i W 0J m I Q
0 6 V I ¢ 0w0 -jl i. O JJ O
V 0 2 O V -
K W 1 Z r d J
w O ,, Q < a
S I 6 S F I i I Y Y 2 w V '. F
I I � I � I •
•I i, wiv I. -on ' NPa oe �_ I au I
O dN nn NN
aal 0mI NN P dN: N dl a bP _ FM I PP o
PP; i NN P I NNN. „N i d o Fw' NN
-
I
I JJ I
0 0
NN I N
m m
• w • a l of • a ♦ a Nw N N a a a m mm • m
Na a
ag a r;
a
roroNro -,: m ro rof NroNro N ro roro ror roNrororo YNJ -
mmmm m m m m mmmm y � mmmm mmy a i m
NNNN � J m
as 4 w OOoo F
f P N ♦ W e JJJJ N 00000 �' � '
O T
I JJJJ y 0 yJOm w 0 ', J0000000m a
JJ J J JJJJJJJJ M m
� I I
I _
NN ` I 00 'NN W
0N"0VI NNI . NYmmo NN _ _ X04 - NN ,
PNPba NN ONS NN al wmJmm o0 00 oNN4NmmNam PP
0-AJ1lJaooN
ixcx w w m T mmmm m '. m '. 00000mmmm o
' aaaa o o y r asaa m a ''i ccccccccc c
c x yymw zzzzzzzzz m
zmmNz m a T m aass o T ����zzzzz a m
w r r zzzz awwoow m z
1" ommw ,�. v wmmwmwmmw m
~ 9 9aaa Z w 000 A
0000 D F
' cccc y - cccc ^ c mmmmmm m
mmmm m i^^^ w mmmmmmmmm ', m
� m z
I I I =
i
'.. bww p '. m '. y 0 mwww m '. mm0mm0wwb N
i CCCC O a C CCCC C : OI OOrrCCCCC 9
9999 C C D 9999 a CI CCOm99999 m
' 9 � < 9 T � u0w99999 9 3
E Em 9 9 m rrrr a ' 'OTSzw�[[� r o
r
' mmmm x i mmmm m xl xxaammmmm m m
mwmw n o- w mmww I � as--^mmmm w w
w 9
y
2
Illol el el 1 la 11 1 la of llllel 1 C^+
ISI aaa a o
_moaro . u am ro'm m; io ro vm'ro+m lirrorororo ro c
_
-- N ro � ro roroe000eee O J
' P��e P 1 1 1111 a 1 P11111 I p
uww i u J Na u_u a ��-nnna- z
yro�r y _ N N OYYNrJ O
'SWI m i ilii > o Ila�own>-
J aauu
mro-W ro ro - N a NAn romrororo-J �
ro W I
I o e
1
m
t J
m 9
ri i i i i i m OR
m w m F m m 'rl
w l
b 0 N N y Y 0 N I
V V
V I i V O p i
W t y
n
w
L �
F Y i
0 i p
W I
0 N I
P n \PPPP n-nnnP .
L b a W JmPao d IIIINI i11P1 'PI Tila
Z f N n P\NNN nnnf ^;ON WIIi e O
' OI V UI 00000 a 1 1 1 1 11 I I
i n aNNada ee ee
r Nnnnnn � n _
J a c . m WWWWW n aPaNNNI, Pnnnnn n a I
O P P \PP\P P ♦PPf \PPPf P .' \
'O 1 O - IP 11111 111 1 1 'I 1
6 O i OO.bb _ ..... .000� � �WbN N
Q J
W 2 L WWWWW LLESLL21 ¢¢¢¢ VN
p WWWWW Y mmWWWW IW I
¢nnn46 NNNN J ,•
LLLLLLLLLL = O�rrrr '
w J r o ooarcc FJOJOJ ' 000000 < ''. a
h h oopppo :W O W 6666 J LWWWWW 46nn66 I h � 0 I
V I � '.i i OOOOFO
Q � 2 UVUUU QOOOO
t6<6QQ
V I' ^ 000001 WWWWWW 6 '
b ywu�� F.Q66Q ¢¢_¢_¢¢_¢_ h J
V U 0 ¢ � hhhl Z 2 LL 0
O r VI W 00bWW I W 000NNN 000000 �
SL££LS
WO h N FWWWW 0 0_N_N_NNN Y O,
= ¢ Ihhhh 6 2221 by b b by
Y WW_W_W_W_W_ j Y 0
W 2 ^ F . .. - YNN0000
2 hhhh W 1 NNNWNN Z Y
Z 2 = NN0N0 ¢ WWWWWWI 6666Q6 Z y
i W �� a 00000p ,
I Y YYYYYYi YYYYYY O J I
am I _nPtl . oe mo o� ;
j ul eerW NN ae - eom alu j
' 00 1 NON bnNWNb nn onbllinbn bneOwPW ^
_ i aN . odPP.-F . N n F Penn-oo aN \fl'..
J 0
I
j I
I
W r M1 M1 rmM1M1r F r rM1FFrF
0 ' 0 0 w\000 0 A
101,
000000 0
Q - P P "PPP i P P PPS \\ A\aP I Y
W O e e0000 o \eeoo 0000ee I
N \ \
� O I
V Y - N 0000 FFn
V o W b M1M1 r O00000
r W N N N NrFrr F NM1FFM1M1 rNM1rNN N a
0 2 F r
P U 0 0 0 00000 P 00006 000060 0 0
_ N . N • N i NNNNN f NNNNNN i NNNNNN e N tN
NNNIL+ NNNp N NN 0 0y m m 0f6 N -
00m0 yyym J yy Y Y J JJ J 2 0
WWHJ 4n\L W �W p W4 W J • WW • - N
O
m
MYJJ \ Vy i y 00 i Y YJ Y J m
i
I m
IP _ ui +.a � b.o u ro Np 'Imine Pd J mbb u� '.
0W bW N0Y PP. -04N NN NN oW `�
YN-A\Y i o-_-NN b IOW ': 00 mNe m\ NlN NN
YW I '.. NN i Jd Np I b
xxx^ xxx x �.v s - xs s r rr r
.. j izzz
mm A mx
z mzz «« m c m r m
mom as o ro'e '. z Az m ^
n err
NDasi rr w ss i ww m 1 . '. za c z
e
K.K-. ym y zz m m l Icy o
0000 z
mm i o i i oo c_ 1 z
' rmr
r A
i I I m i i a n z � w
l I m
A
Y I m mm m ' I c
90 19
I m Y
CC CCCC
C H
00 O YI AC � Im
P1YY -iY=^ = DD O r� ti I 9 F m
rrrr
mmwai maam i > mI Izm
m
zz
mm
ww m
_ m o0000 bee - eti
W W W W W W W W p 4 W p N N N W WN N y
YJ JJee m `�o o mm m '�
N_N�- NNpm 4 T
P11_ NpYi 1 Pa u P ' 1
W 1W
Y
P i I
y � u
0
i J
x
m a
m n
o x w z m m w
m m w m J
m m m m m
Y V y m m
w I V V U Y V
W 6 I
m x •
w
L
M1
0 I
e O
1.,
1 6
Ooe
Z NNP p d N O_Nnm^ 0^Nn0_NPn
a n nnnnef_N .
111 : 1 1 1 1111111111 1 III 111 PIP
o am r_ n � . a e=anm"_m^anm^aa n"I I'nam
111 pea n n nnnnea_N '
10 to 1111111 111111 oep wp
Z I �nn IN,I - PNNaNNNaNNNNNNN O p
o rNN ^ a mnnnnnnnnnnn nncan nnn
V lea e P P
nIa111 eleaaeae a of
U _ IIIIIP 1 111
t l o o non
oi0o00 __ O mF :.
O p b
F I �
e i
w ass w zzzzzzzzzzzzzz .
o m o 000m o_o_o_o_o_oo_o_o m_ www www I
W a m mmm
L y�� W J 6666666666661 JJLL '
w ¢oo o J a u'w¢w wwwwwwwwwwww
_ X00 �WJJJJJJJJJJJJ
rJ 660 000
mWW w WwWWWWWWWWWWW
LI-Fhi-1-hFFrFFFFmm6 666
O I V
UW
m m J ¢ LL ( I 666 ¢}¢
hF V ¢ )
Z alb D 6 .W..n
J '. 3 JJJJJJJ JjJJJJJ hFh V
> ¢¢¢ ¢ VII O WWWJWW JJ JJJ Z22 VU
000 W U � WWWWWWI m000 mmm
00000m 00m0000i ¢¢ 111
ZLz ¢ _
2 ZZ 222 GOO
0
0P Nee ! Wn * Na oel oNmePooew x x
a a b ea maOFhePPn_obFFO PNIF- ".
:. nnPF FN m0 VNb nFnNnbwaPFbbbP o0 .
F FM P,. mm ^ n nNmOn_u'-_e nb nm= ,.. .
4
ymom m � m0mm\ \ [Omm;O`mm0 mm mmm
mI SEE o \ eo\ \ OOOo \ o Pop Ooo
> O
1- $
V y b'• N m FF ...FM1FFFFFFFF NN NNa
0 = nMn b m mm6mmmmmmm -
e M1 n M1nIm�IM nnnnnnnnnnn SPP
U mmm m m m FFhhhFFFFM1FFF rM1F FFF
- x NNa x x • • mammmmmmmmmmmmm mmm mmm
N N N NNNaNaNNNNaNaNN x NNN x aNa '
NNNN NN NNNNNNN mmmNN NNN N NNm m
00P0 00 0PP00m0 0y0 Pyo 0 mP2 O
JJJJ -�J JJJJNJJ JJ a J T J
P Tmw WN oeooeoo e0000 eeo b O
Oeo O' 00 t bbbbbbb P0000 t NNN t T _- ., T'
I 2 <
1 I I
u + O T
r'- a> aasaaas aaa`s aaa +! � 'I o
00P0 W0 0000PPP W0P0W 00m yyP Iv I
JJM JJ JJJJJJJ JJJMJ JJJ i I. T
I =
10 mPP P0W WWPPP NN NWP N ". WNNw P NNW eo
WTPo 000 NOOOW WNINO! w bo � 000 !! '
O WleP� O 'mW! ± W P � JJ
I t
LPyWW W W_w_w_0__w_W_ WWPWW _W_0 T T m
< yy 00000 < O I li-
aaay as saaa ccccc Fna zzz a
SwPW 99 SFFFFFF EEE <
000000 22322 m
w DD 99V9T99 LLCCC 99
nn mmmmmmm mmmmm mmm ' n Pvv W v
mmmmmmm Wmwww mmm www z P
IrIr -..
WwPwWPyr-ly< K mmm w
DDDD ww W mmm T Y 9
9mmTmmm wwmWw Oy 00
mm «««< mmmmm toe In
ccccc P non ... F
0wP600 99999 A
zs mw mw mmmmm mmmmm l o l m
mm wwmmm aaaa
vv zzzzz ',,
9 i w
m Y y
L
rmfm - 99 yyCCCCC L99V9 mM.M. TCC m
J..~� �00^^O SCC 9
0000 00 r� +99 9 2
. 000 TT ------- 1y0yy 999 z 9fr
9 Pw P 223 amm W
mmmmmmm .lz
Z.Z.y< « wwwPwww mwwmw Yy Jw
I w
I�
I
Peep eo e__eoee 'msc�_ _e oe a ��� i c
asaa as ailssas ala» laa ' > m=N 'm c_
NWWW WW WWWWWWW WWWWW NNN W _ N
JJJJJ Pr mr roNN T ~
elll 11 110111e11 11111 1!W - -
u aWu--_ a-rrr !m n o
moot T laWJ JN-N _ P
qa II I allll 1 !W
mmto - N- rororo-wmm - !uJ !ro <
i
N u
t J
m 9
N N m y N W W m W
Y Y Y Y u Y Y Y
W i V V V
V I I 1 1
6 m # #
6 W
r s
m
0 0
n
1 1
� n m
mmn01uumP
m to Ilse I lee j ^ I a ' a o I
J N N nnnnnnnn NN � Im'1 '. A f e N
� e e '. aesvveev aa ,. to a I a
In n
6 I ' � o Oo00oo0 0
1
I
Z I F
I
�u=JJJ=y 60. H LL ` W y V
W J 6 2 O
F m N � � IFFFFfhFF �J o � c � J
i W h mi JJJJJJJO rmN J m
w i j l i l i
nn ' u
Y Fi WWWWWWWW UOI ^ F
2 66646666 VI 1 ¢
WI 00000000 WWi H - IW
i V J S YYYYYYYY JJ N ! V S
W Y < 6«6<6¢ G OO 6 d I V
m O U 21 2222ZSZS 00 Z W 6 jZ V
0 W O O WmWNNWNm Fh ., F
S W N LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 2Y n Z V
� � Ni 00000000 00 T y LL
m ��. I ruuuuuuu l aai m � -I h l �
n' NN nNPPOFnVN NI' N NN m
I � NN n0 e0 nW nn r
2 P OP NOOootlNnm NYiN mm nn FF NP
II
m � m: IPOmmmmmm. 0m
m r a el Poeoo Ise c o o
z I
V u
W N NNNNNNNN NN Ih yl
V r F r FrvFry r h tl V
_ • N # N . N # NNNNNNNN • VN t m # m # N t m ♦ m
N N N N
6`
ro ro ro mrororo ro ro ro ro ro ro m ro a N ry -
y m 0 000 y 0 m 0 y 0 y 0 6 0 O N -
J
m m m000 m '0 0 O 0 0 00 m e P 0
N o i o e ♦ m F y
N m +
m m , mmmm m m m m m m � m o
D
0m Nro I C_
Im mm NOe Y•P�r _a\ Np mN PP �� J '
NN mN0 e0 mN 0 00 Y4 Y \a iy
'N omNro as N0 �-- WW NN 00 mN Ky p
Jy Ooo oe a0 yJ WY �� 0
eo Nm Ooo 0o a as 44 00 O o 00 N
. '" I ♦ ', , i I III ♦ ISI
D 0 r v000 � 1 O O 1 O Z 1 m O A G
1 C TTTT O O S_ S Z 3 A D Z
A K r ffrr m 9 1 2 9 O N r r a
DDDD 9 9 O D D ^
« an mmm z n
1
a
y N 9999 O O 9 O 9 ', O O M O
C m I AAAA O C A 1 . A C C m C
a 000v '. z m o a i ' i m y
m a m m m mo m _ m
«« Z I C < 9 G 9 C <
O < < < 2
y
a m
I
y I N
W \ m m a O
N N b WYYY Y m W m m ro Y ro ro C
4 \ m I Z
m ro ro 1
1 I 1 OI I I I 1 I I I I I 1
Y W b NNOm a p ry O
w � ro m r p ro m
i I 1 uui e I i i i i �
N W ro inromm - a .o e a o ' N N i
y J N y y y
J i
0
u
i
m
i J
i
Z
m 9
m D
sO
m
v
i m
z z
N
_ �
V
W m I
6 q ;
n
f
N
1
O O
1 G
e s
a
m m _ '�.
m Q1
1 , I 1 N I I.
2 ' N N e N '
H O P m P 1 i I
2
J P b N N ,
U 1 V j P P _
6 I O W i b m p , ' _
2 ! ' � - i j
, _ _ _ I
H � Cs 2FF ' �
6 > � > > � � ,
6 � K C V _ V £ Q G% _ ' I
W W wZi � V U <ry ��' I '
o _ zE�o '
a .� 4F
+:36 r�ZE4
F n Z GC]¢ v JYSFVm Fm„(¢u £¢ ; I�
Zy66 ¢SU m QQ
', fO O O '. O U I VWFSVNP6P�n �Fq
V i �
W '
y I Z i I '..
o i � Q _ i
W ¢ V � _ FF{QV� pFp pFp Fpp pNp ofp pEppp CFp p� F
V O _ N V " RFEFFF�I'IFFE FFE{
W ��pp
C_ V W i m S 2 .y'InNNNvO�L�ti[m--� �.
� P a __GZ=OCG � oN=p¢
> W C W 6 V '. 4W4.l�cGfv�44 (v G.s WF
Z O 12 ! I '.
V 6 - C J Y I
O S
iC 2 ',_ J i W u I � ,"',.
O hN NN e ` NmNO nl in vv
m�b�O 1-00 mNNP
O'.,. NN NN Pa o P �^ NOPby � �OO6 N0r^p�
f N do 6m Nm , PV�m mP1Nv� _..;gyp ' ,
2
J mw _ ab 0 �.� NO �p�G
� I N N I,.. � ���yyy
a
W
w r r r r r
o m ' m m m m
� � �
Q P P
y O
V2
U � � _ _
P _ 0 N
V N , d
N N N N N
m OHIO N-J m o m < m m O\ 00 0 00000000000 N W� mm P 00
Fw Y rr r rF o w w w rrrrrrr rr Yrrr c.o+rww w rr �> ,
W F W WF W WW O. F F' F' FtFFFFt'FFFFFF <c.FWwW F FF i. - -
r �n m mF Y rY Vi VI Vi WWWWWWWWWWWW NNW� O\mm V� WW
w 0 �O wr w ww o 0 0 �10WWrr�ww O �0
r O W Y r N r �1 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 N . . . r N r N Or l a
o �n ooN o 00 �n v� .n mYwww <r rnF'rnmNw rn.n vioo0
O V f o 0 r O OS
N �n V Y m N�n r N m N N N N N�n N V w 0 0 0 V i �n�n c* I O
O F O OY O OF' F F rNrrrYYO�-iN mrr NCO X0000 F mm
00 F000 F Yr O
O N O OY O 00 YmNVIY WmN NN� Y000 Y
K
m m O m 0m < m m D\ 00000000000000N mm m 00 O
C W r r r t r F
Y r r Y r r
WH 6 Y Y Y r Y Y r r r Y r r r r Y r r r Y r Y Y Y Y r
0 0 0 00 O 00 0 0 0 0000000000000000000 O 00 >
Y r Y Y r r Y Y Y Y r r Y Y Y r r Y r r Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r r Y r Y
O O O 00 O 00 O O O 0000000000000000000 O 00 n;> p
� R
R
N
N 0\ F
F�V�ppI W W N D
O ----O m mO O O �� Ormmp FjO O r O O O O MNl 0� 00w 0
0rw00000 � 00N0 000 0 0 0 0 0� mNWOO1
-
n
C
�p13
G I`
o K N
01 o a K O c a t at cr K 3 N 3 ^
µ N 3 wUi30 N W R^ F
a
0�0 N C W b 0�9 O O K ✓ 3 N N 0 O N N N
�0+. N M m < K O � 'O'f m M O m
tr 0 % 0 0 I�
0 0 0 00
0 00
0 0 0 0 000000000000000000 V1 Vi VI VI VV1 VoI V1 V1 VI VI VI VN VI VI VI 0 -F
p N w N 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O 00 0 00 0 0 00 b m w a
= 0 0
x r K o m m o w ti
o K � � ❑ K m p z Ia
M m n m mY o m m < d
N 0
r N r m O
{4 F
Y
N �
F Y —1 F N r r r r W a3T
O O rm N O N O 0 0 0
d
a o o o r rn o
0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 m Y 0
i
O M O H W O O W oto
P aJ > O O O N
m N O� OH O\
O
rl rl M
Y � N
v v
N m
0 4
Y Y
ro ro
r t
S 0 3 d Y W Y
i. L O Z O U Z
_ O W O 0 E 6 UJ
G
O O Z M m O a g W m
> H _ - U H d H
O
Z O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0
Y V� IIS Ili V� U\lhN I(� V� V� Ili Ih
W
W
'm m or o l o o o -
di W O O m NOS HSOtnN
O C�1�1 O N
.0 b H O ti.S�D o0 t-In
7 Y v N M O NM(�O�M MInO
= W
MN
N O) Hin
m m W
ro +1 .� .fl +i .i
c � O 4 E E E E E E E E E
r C ro W m w v d W N W O
G U U = a C4 LK C a a C IG fG
v O M O 0 O N OO m
N X O O O N E q
N M
d W
N01
E M N H �O �O V�H T H H H O >
c O` O m V� 1 !- M H In N E > Y
H M o ro v m m
N C v > 7
MI
[cam 0 CE F
L d �
o o o o 000 o o o o 0z 3O
O N Q`• O �+ vo
H H H H H H H H F v 0 H U1 d W
0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 g l l l l l l l
H H .i 4
W O O N N o0 m W CO ro q W O N T [--00 N c0
N
NDQ
O m 000
JOOY 1Nw0O.i OMN0 1NQ0OI-\ aO[N0Y-\ OOHM0 1
O O N N O O
0 0 000 OO 0 08
0 0 0 0 0
O O O O
N N
NNN
MY\
1` LZI N
0 0 o) t0 a)of OJ OJ N o� OJ