Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/21/1992
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: January 17, 1992 1. Attached are the December 2nd, and 23rd, 1991 minutes of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission meetings. 2 . Attached is a memorandum from the Public Works Director regarding wetlands regulations. 3 . Attached are the November 20, 1991 minutes of the Scott County Economic Development Coalition meeting. 4 . Attached are the December 16, 1991 minutes of the Shakopee Park and Recreation Board meeting. 5. Attached are the January 9, 1992 minutes of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment & Appeals meetings. 6. Attached are the November 20, 1991 minutes of the Shakopee Energy and Transportation Committee meeting. 7. Attached is the February calendar of Upcoming Meetings. 8. Attached is a memorandum from the City Planner regarding preliminary comments from the Metropolitan Council CSAH 18 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 9. Attached is correspondence from Dorsey & Whitney regarding Proposed Tax Increment Expenditures. 10. Attached is a memorandum from the City Administrator regarding dining facilities at 200 Levee Drive. 11. Attached are the December 18, 1991 unapproved minutes of the Shakopee Community Development Commission meeting. 12 . Attached are the December 11, 1991 unapproved minutes of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee meeting. Al • MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on December 2, 1991 at 4 : 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cook, Kirchmeier and O'Toole. Also Liaison Wampach , Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden. Motion by O'Toole, seconded by Kirchmeier that the minutes of the November 4, 1991 regular meeting be approved as kept . Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032 . 00 A T & T 91 . 54 ARA/Cory Refreshment 104 . 00 American Water Works Association 66 . 00 R.W. Beck 1 ,241 . 52 Berens Market 764 . 43 Border States Electric Supply 1,351 . 25 Burmeister Electric Company 179 .00 City of Shakopee 1 ,408. 34 City of Shakopee 228. 26 Communications Auditors 123 . 15 Cooperative Power 42,056 . 23 Davies Water 1 ,090 .02 Feed-Rite Controls , Inc . 80.00 General Office Products Co . 13 .80 Glenwood Inglewood 7 . 95 Gopher State One-Call , Inc . 411 . 00 Graybar Electric Company, Inc. 1 ,398 . 95 HDR 7 ,844 . 34 Hennens ICO 25 .00 Horton Sales Company, Inc . 18 . 32 JMG Contracting, Inc . 7,980. 00 F . F. Jedlicki 402. 50 Jerry' s Lawn Service 790 . 00 Krass and Monroe Chartered Law Office 120 . 00 Leef Bros . , Inc . 22.64 Ray LeMieux 78 . 72 MVA Company 45.02 • MV Gas Company 8. 25 McGrann Shea Franzen 'Carnival Straughn' 47 . 04 Minnegasco 47 . 20 Minn . Dept . of Public Service 31 . 85 Minn . Municipal Utilities Association 225 . 00 Minn. Valley Electric Coop 36 , 391 . 00 Minn . Valley laboratories, Inc . 30 . 00 NAPA Auto Parts 7 .88 Northern Sanitary Supply Co. , Inc . 165 . 80 Northern States Power Co. 368, 610 .07 Northern States Power Co. 332 . 32 Northern States Power Co. 785 .31 Parkside Printing, Inc . 341 . 28 Pitney Bowes 111 . 00 Plehal Blacktopping 295 . 00 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 4 . 34 Rick' s Auto and Radiator Repair 49 . 00 Road Machinery and Supplies Co. 644 . 44 Schilz Ornamental Iron 30 . 00 Schoell and Madson , Inc . 2 ,415 . 19 Shakopee Public Utilities Comm. 277 . 89 Shakopee Services , Inc . 43 . 67 Al Smith Excavating 2 ,146 . 50 Southwest Suburban Publishing 99 . 28 Starks Cleaning Services, Inc . 68 . 00 Dean Struck 72 . 24 T & R Service 51 . 00 U. S . West Communications 158 . 64 United Compucred Collections, Inc . 225 . 00 Lou Van Hout 62 .25 Van 0 Lite , Inc . 523 . 50 Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. 3,024 . 00 Yarusso ' s Hardware Co . 69 . 32 Bentz Construction, Inc . 2 ,880 . 00 Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by O'Toole that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried . A communication from the Chamber of Commerce extending their sincere gratitude for the efforts of the Shakopee Public Utilities crews with putting the banners up in a timely manner during the past tourism season was acknowledged . A communication from the Minnesota Department of Health extending a favorable report on the municipal water system for the Shakopee Public Utilities was acknowledged and placed on file. A communication dated October 11 , 1991 from the River Electric Association • with an update on issues facing the Association in the near future was acknowledged. The budget for 1992 was given to the Commission by Manager Van Hout . An explanation of the budget was also given by Manager Van Hout . Motion by O'Toole, seconded by Kirchmeier to offer Resolution #377 A Resolution Adopting Salaries for 1991. Ayes : Commissioners O'Toole, Cook and Kirchmeier. Nayes : none . Resolution passed. Motion carried. There were no new plats for November, 1991 . There were three fire calls for a total man hours of 2 and one half hours for the month of November, 1991 . There were no lost time accidents for November, 1991 . There will be a special meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to be held on December 16, 1991 at 4 : 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be held on January 6 , 1991 in the Utilities meeting room. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook that the meeting be adjourned . Motion carried . Barbara Menden, Commission Secretary MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in special session on December 23 , 1991 at 4 : 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Cook, Kirchmeier and O'Toole. Also Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden. Motion by O' Toole, seconded by Kirchmeier to approve the 1992 budget as presented by Manager Van Hout . Motion carried . The job description for the Administrative Assistant was given to the Commission by Manager Van Hout . Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by O'Toole to adjourn to executive session for contract discussions . Motion carried . Motion by Cook, seconded by O'Toole to adjourn from executive session. Motion carried . Motion by Cook, seconded by Kirchmeier To offer Resolution #378 A Resolution Regulating Salary and Contract Terms . Ayes : Commissioners O' Toole, Cook and Kirchmeier. Nayes : none Resolution passes . Motion carried . Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by O'Toole that the meeting be adjourned . Motion carried . Barbara Menden , Comiission Sec . MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director I SUBJECT: Wetlands Regulations DATE: January 13 , 1992 NON-AGENDA INFORMATIONAL ITEM FOR COUNCIL The City Council has briefly discussed the new Wetlands Regulations Act and its impacts on local governments and has directed staff to bring this item back to the Council at the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff would like to inform the Council that a meeting has been scheduled for 2 : 00 P.M. , Friday, January 24th by the Scott County Soil and Water Conservation District to discuss the new Wetlands Regulations. The meeting is open for all City officials, township representatives, WMO's, watershed districts, etc. I will be attending this meeting and will subsequently present the City Council with the information on the Wetlands Regulations at the next scheduled Committee of the Whole meeting. DH/pmp SCOTT COUNTY . PLANNING, INSPECTIONS& ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COURTHOUSE A102 428 S. HOLMES ST. - - SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1393 (612)496-8353 I 'IORANDU.M: TO: County Board Members Township, City and Watershed District Officials FROM: Jon Westlake, Planning, Inspections, Environmental Health Director DATE: January 14, 1992 SUBJECT: Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 A meeting has been scheduled for Friday, January 24, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in the Assembly Roan of the Scott`County Courthouse to discuss the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. In providing you with sane background on the issue the following is noted. This spring, the Bush administration is expected to issue a revised manual for delineating wetlands based on a considerably narrower definition than is used now. The spirited defense of the orginal manual by environmentalists and the drive by its opponents to restrain regulation of wetlands develorment reflect a clash of deeply rooted American values, For most of our nation's first two centuries, swamps were considered little more than breeding grounds for disease, hares to dangerous animals, or merely obstacles to progress. The nation was also founded on a strong belief in the right to own and develop private property. Now, scientific evidence, and environmental ethic that endorses restraints on property rights, and a rising public awareness of environmental degradation are challenging those traditional beliefs. The shift in public opinion is extremely recent. Draining or other conversion of wetlands to human use was quite common until just a few years ago. The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates that over half of the 100 million acres of wetlands in the 48 contiguous states have been lost, and many others have been degraded seriously. Despite the fact that wetlands are now recognized as valuable sources of clean groundwater, as floodwater storage areas, and as habitat for a huge variety of plants and wildlife, over 290,000 acres continue to be lost annually. The Wetland Conservation Act will take place in two phases. The first phase is an interim program prohibiting wetland alteration aun January 1, 1992 to July 1, 1993. After July 1, 1993 a permanent program will begin. Beginning now, local groverment units (IOmJ) must decide which IGU will administer the interim provisions of the Act. If no LGU takes responsibility for the program, landowners with nonexempt wetlands are prohibited frau any altering them. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer AGENDA January 24, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. Assembly Room, Scott County Courthouse I. Explanation of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 by the Representatives from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources II. Interim Program for the Wetland Conservation Act III. Discussion of what governmental agency should be the interim LGU SCOTT COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COALITION MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 1991 Members in Attendance: Barry Stock, Colleen Jones, Randy Kruger, John Heald, John Albinson, Kay Schmudlach, John Breitbach, Bill Jaffa, Kevin Haugen, and John Westlake Others Present: Nat Wisser The seventh meeting of the SCEDC was called to order at 8 : 00 a.m. on November 20, 1991 in the Prior Lake City Hall Community Room. I . Approve Minutes of the October 16, 1991 SCEDC Meeting MOTION BY JOHN HEALD, SECONDED BY JOHN ALBINSON, TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 16, 1991 MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. II . Treasurer's Report Kay reported that the checking account balance is now $4 , 931. 25. III . Update on Joint Powers Agreement Approval The cities of Shakopee, New Prague, Prior Lake, Savage, and Scott County have received approval from their respective Councils regarding the amended Joint Powers Agreement. No word has been received from Belle Plaine, Jordan and the Scott County HRA. The cities are encouraged to complete their approval process as soon as possible. Each city is asked to have 9 original copies of the signature page completed so that they can be circulated at the next meeting. The format should be fairly standard with 2 signatures from the Mayor or the official signature of the representative body and the administrator, either the Clerk or City Manager. IV. Progress on One Year Work Program A. Marketing Committee Barry Stock reported that the Marketing Committee has made progress on their assignment. 1 Press Release The committee representative working on this is Jim Parsons who was not at the meeting to report. Barry will be taking over and releasing a press release as soon as possible. Marketing Lists John Albinson reported that he had researched a company who provides lists of businesses in the Scott County area according to zip code and the SIC coding. John reported that a list of approximately 300 names for a cost of about $400. 00 could be prepared. What they provide is a list of the businesses plus 3 sets of labels that you could use for mailing. Barry reported that this is an alternative, although identifying businesses within our communities is also an alternative. The community will be putting together a work program for identifying how many mailings will be going out to each business. A report at the next meeting will be expected. Community Profile Barry reported that they had met with Connie Vladmis of U. S. Impressions Inc. who is the coordinator for the Community Profile. The subcommittee was impressed with their credentials, their work in other cities and recommended to the whole coalition that we pursue this opportunity. Following an in-depth discussion of advertising costs and the process, the committee voted. MOTION BY JOHN ALBINSON, SECONDED BY JOHN HEALD, TO APPROVE THE COMMUNITY PROFILE CONCEPT CONTINGENT UPON POSITIVE REFERENCE CHECK WITH AT LEAST TWO REFERENCES. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Barry will be doing the reference check. We'll be initiating this project as soon as possible and anticipate completion next fall. Kay suggested that we try to complete the Community Profile in time for our Fall Business Exposition that we have anticipated doing in 1992 . Barry reported that once we sign a contract with this organization, they will send us a package that will be forwarded to all the respective organizations so that they can sign off saying that they support this activity. B. Business Retention Committee The Business Retention Committee reported that they are ready to go with the Business Retention brochure and are waiting for a logo at this time. Once the logo is completed they will be processing brochures to be distributed to businesses. What we also do with the brochures is to try to encourage SBA activity and assisting with that process. 2 Colleen Jones reported that her and Ken were working on two things; a client data sheet and a land and building inventory sheet. The client data sheet has been prepared but needs some fine tuning, and the land and building inventory is to be completed by Ken Anderson. Once these sheets are available, the client data sheet will be ours to use for our own reference when people call up. It will give us an idea of the questions which we should be asking. The land and building inventory is something that we will be updating each month with each other, and then those sheets will be on file with the president. If a business calls up and we need information on other cities, we will reference that business to Barry Stock at this time so that he can process or keep the inventory current. V. Code of Ethics Barry mentioned that a draft of the Code of Ethics had been prepared and is distributed. The draft is similar to the Dakota County Economic Development Coalition Code of Ethics. The committee reviewed it and made some changes. MOTION BY KAY SCHMUDLACH, SECONDED BY BILL JAFFA TO APPROVE THE CODE OF ETHICS AS AMENDED. THE CODE OF ETHICS IS NOW PART OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL BYLAWS AND SHOULD BE REVIEWED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR UPDATE. VI. Other Business Kay reported that Scott County Extension Agent, Kay Lewis had been contacted and asked if she would like to be a ex-officio on our committee. Kay Schmudlach reported that Kay Lewis would be more than happy to participate with our committee activities. Unfortunately Kay Lewis was unable to make this meeting but will be attending in the future. Kevin Haugen reported that Savage had processed a SBA loan with the value of $100, 000. The committee was encouraged by this activity and anticipates money going toward our membership fee of approximately $400. 00. Community Venture Network. Colleen Jones reported that the New Prague EDA will be looking into the Community Venture Network. Colleen will be bringing information to the Coalition at the next meeting so that we can 3 review it and consider membership through the Scott County Economic Development Coalition. The committee discussed the December meeting. Since it falls on December 25 the committee decided to waive the December meeting. The next meeting will be January 15, 1992 . VII . Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9 : 30 a.m. 4 SHAKOPEE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION Monday, December 16, 1991 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: Chairperson Rislund, Larson, Lebens, Teneyck, Tomczik, Johnson, Seifert• MEMBERS PRESENT: Rislund, Larson, Lebens, Teneyck, Tomczik, Seifert MEMBERS ABSENT: Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Mark McQuillan, Program Sup. Sharon Storholm, Rec . Sec 'y Dave Hutton I . CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chairperson Rislund called the meeting to order at 7 P.M. and roll call was taken as noted above . II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Seifert moved that the Board approve the agenda as submitted. Lebens seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. III . MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 25 , 1991 MEETING MOTION: Teneyck moved that the Board approve the minutes of of November 25th meeting as submitted. Larson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with Lebens abstaining. IV. DIRECTORS REPORT A. Recreation Activity Report McQuillan noted that there had not been much change from the last report . Broom ball is scheduled to start in 12 weeks . At present , they are short one team and may allow Prior Lake or Chaska to bring in a team. The ski trip went well and there were no injuries . The fall activities are over and the winter activities have started. The Community Education brochure is scheduled to be mailed on December 30th. B. Shakopee Coalition Meeting Minutes McQuillan noted that the minutes of the last meeting of the Shakopee Coalition were included in the packet for the information of the Board members. 2 C. Recreation fee survey compiled by the City of Savage McQuillan noted that a copy of the survey complied by the City of Savage was included in the packet . It may enable us to determine if Shakopee in is line with the fees charged. Seifert noted that Burnsville is raising adult fees by 20%. McQuillan answered that many cities have youth and adult activities independent of the city. No services are provided and no city fee is charged. There is only a fee to the athletic association. For some cities, fees are new this year. Rislund felt that a false sense of reality may be given considering the fact that each city operates differently. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Pool Repair Report-Hutton/Norton (OSM) McQuillan said that the concerns on the pool should be addressed to Dave Hutton and the rep from the engineering company that was in attendance at this meeting. Hutton said that the Council did authorize staff to design and look at the necessary repairs for the pool . Three main items need to be considered: liner, filtration system, and diving area. Once the cost estimates are received, he will go back to Council and then the Park and Rec Board. The preliminary designs are done. He had received the specifications late Friday. A representative from the engineering company came forward and said that they had investigated the pool area late last summer. He had understood that the pool was to be rehabilitated and no structural changes were to be made. They had copied the original drawings from the 1960' s. It was determined that the liner was deteriorated and not serving the purpose . At that time, over 75 ,000 gallons of water a day were being lost . The proposal is to take off the existing sand and stockpile it for reuse. The old liner is a 6 mil polyethylene liner. It is not very heavy and could have even been torn in installation years ago. This old liner will be removed and under it is a 12 ' clay and bentonite base . This base will be inspected to make sure it is in tact . To replace the old liner, he proposed a layer of hypelon--a durable, penetrant resistant liner. He displayed a sample for the Board to inspect. This product has been used in the past in resoviors and has worked well . It comes in widths of 110 ' and will have two seams. The temperature must be over 50 degrees to get a good splice . After this hypelon is laid in place , the sand will be replaced. The liner will be held in place by aluminum channels on a 'concrete curbing. Butyl caulk will be used in that area to prevent water seepage. The integrity of the drain cannot be verified. 3 McQuillan said he felt there was sand in the drain area. Larson noted that a company he knew of used 40 mil polyethylene and• used heat bonding. The engineer answered that they had looked at this and felt it was not as puncture resistant. Poly is cheaper, but not much. They are still open to other information and options. Hutton said the main protection is the base of clay and bentonite. This layer probably has cracks as the loss of water is significant . The engineer noted that in the diving area, there have been some injuries when swimmers dive off the high board and come up and scrape against the wall. There is a possibility of moving the concrete wall to the north to eliminate this danger. Another possibility is to remove the three meter board. He would ask for the Board ' s input on preventing these accidents. McQuillan suggested that the wall could be extended to protrude above the water line. The engineer answered that it could be done and this would make the wall visible when diving. At present, a diver only sees the ropes. Such a wall could provide a climbing place for kids. An alternative plan would be to pad the wall. McQuillan said that there had been only 3-4 instances of injury and all had involved adults. Usage is probably half adults and half kids. Hutton suggested that each option be considered as well as the increased protection from liability through each method. The engineer said that the filtration system was a gravity system. The distributors on the nozzles were not there when he had inspected the pool . These would be replaced and the filter would be replaced also. The automatic operation should be investigated. It is time for this to be replaced. The cost estimate for the three areas (liner replacement, diving area rehabilitation, and filtration system) is a little over $107 ,000. This is only a preliminary estimate and a more accurate figure will be given later after all the information is provided. New pumps or valves are not included. The largest time line would involve the liner. It should take about one month if the preliminary work is done first. If work begins April 15 , the pool should be ready by the end of May. This could be put in the contract . Many contractors could be working at the same time. One or more contractors could be used. Larson felt it would be good to get it done in the spring. Hutton said he had only been authorized to design the rennovation of the pool and will still need Council go-ahead after the final cost estimate had been received. The bid process takes 2-4 weeks. He will try to bring a final design back to the Board at the next' 4 meeting along with cost estimates and recommendations. B, Preliminary Goal Setting * Tomczik left the meeting at 7:40 P.M. McQuillan said the Board had agreed previously to develop a preliminary list of goals and objectives at the November meeting. There may be a special goal setting meeting with the Council. 1 . Programming a. Activity evaluation should be priority in 1992. b. Fall softball generates the greatest amount of income for the fall activities. c. Puppet Wagon program-Should this be brought back? Funding will be needed to repair the puppet wagon. 2. Facilities a. Needs Assessment Survey--Land Use : This is a task force decision. b. Storage of athletic equipment : This is a problem as the available space is maxed out now. Possibly the present Park and Rec Board building or the public works building could be utilized. c. American Disabilities Act : What impact will this have on the park facilities? Are the needs of the handicapped being met? This needs to be considered when planning parks. d. Eastside park: Should be renamed and a process should be established and criteria for naming parks should be established. A grand opening ceremony should be held. The old JEJ committee has about $250.00 left in their account which could be used towards a picnic to rename the park. 3. Other a. Communications * Training: Part time staff should be receiving more training. * A session should be held to involve all Board and Commission members to assure quality output. Roles should be examined on liability, trends , etc. Teneyck felt that use could be made of the Park Tour that had been held and possibly another could be held in the spring. A close look should be taken at each park to assess current needs. Lebens felt that the puppet wagon was a good idea. McQuillan noted that a special person was needed on staff to make the puppet program work. Possibly the J.C. ' s or the Lions Club will finance the restoration of the puppet wagon. It could be taken out to the townships too. Seifert felt that volunteer recognition should be scheduled. 5 Hutton said he could attend the Park and Rec meeting on a regular basis if needed. Rislund felt that every other meeting would be sufficient. McQuillan noted that Tomczik had concerns with the fees regarding the hockey association. Possibly this could be made more equitable. He added that the City Attorney and Planner will probably come to the February meeting to discuss park dedication and trail fees--these need to be established. Rislund suggested the CIP process to be extended to a 10 year plan with regard to facilities. Larson felt it should be coordinated with the population growth. McQuillan said he is trying to get the most current report on facilities for the handicapped to determine if Shakopee meets standards. Seifert asked if Council will be reappointing a new liaison for the Board. McQuillan said that would happen after the first of the year. Rislund said that a systematic method needs to be implemented in order to look at the playground equipment and to evaluate the safety. Hutton said a regular safety inspection will be started next summer and reports will be documented on these inspections. McQuillan said that the type of base for the equipment should be a consideration--pea rock has been used up to now. VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. COMMUNITY EDUCATION REPORT--RISLUND Rislund said that there had been no meetings since the last one. The next one will be January 21. IX. OTHER BUSINESS Larson asked if there was anything new on the reorganization of the City Departments. 6 McQuillan said there would be no decision until the new Council meets. Rislund noted that Phase II of the task force will meet next week for the first time. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lebens moved that the Board adjourn. Larson seconded the motion an it passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:22 P. M. -#-s PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 9, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Joos, Spurrier, Lynch, Allen, Mars MEMBERS ABSENT: Christensen, Kahleck STAFF PRESENT : Lindberg Ekola, City Planner Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant Planner Karen Marty, City Attorney Jane VanMaldeghem, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL Chrmn. Joos called the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to order at 7 : 30 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 5, 1991 MEETING MINUTES The meeting minutes were approved as presented. IV. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Chrmn. Joos recognized anyone present in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. V. OTHER BUSINESS No other business came before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals adjourned at 7 : 35 p.m. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 9, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Joos, Lynch, Spurrier, Mars, Allen ARRIVING LATE Christensen MEMBERS ABSENT : Kahleck STAFF PRESENT Lindberg Ekola, City Planner Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant Planner Dave Hutton, City Engineer Karen Marty, City Attorney Jane VanMaldeghem, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL Vice Chrmn. Joos called the meeting of the Shakopee Planning Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. - - II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES The meeting minutes of December 5, 1991 and December 12 , 1991 were approved as presented. IV. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Vice Chrmn. Joos recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. V. PUBLIC HEARING: CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit to allow a ready mix concrete plant at 6896 Highway 101. The Ass 't Planner gave the report stating this location is on the J.L. Shiely property. Comm. Christensen arrived at 7 :40 p.m. Minutes of the Page - 2 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 Comm. Spurrier questioned if any traffic study had been conducted and if it had included all the uses within the area. The City Planner stated that no in-depth traffic study had been conducted. Discussion took place on the process of issuing concrete waste disposal licenses for operations similar in nature. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. Tim Becken, 2025 Center Point Blvd. , Mendota Heights, was present to address the waste concrete issue stating they plan to recycle concrete into small chunks to accumulate over time and then it 's crushed. He added that used concrete is commonly used by asphalt plants and as the base for concrete roads. He stated there would be no large chunks left behind. He added that no aggregate would be processed. Mark Duncan, J.L. Shiely, 2915 Waters Road, Eagan, was present and discussed several other issues with the Commissioners. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for further comments from the audience. There was no response. Motion: Lynch/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Spurrier suggested all truck traffic be handled through the intersection having traffic control signals (Valley Park Drive) . Comm. Spurrier/Allen moved to approve the conditional use permit with the nine conditions recommended by staff, with two conditions added: No stock piling or accumulation of waste concrete form more than six months. All trucks delivering raw materials and hauling product use the service road running along the railroad tracks to Valley Park Drive. Comm. Christensen questioned how the hauling would affect the traffic when Valleyfair and Canterbury Downs are in operation. The City Engineer responded that routing to the traffic signal would definitely be a better access point. Vice Chrmn. Joos gave his opinion that the applicant should be allowed to use either access, but during peak traffic hours, would prefer their using the controlled intersection. Minutes of the Page - 3 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 Comm. Christensen stated she did not know if the Planning Commission was in a position to dictate the access decisions. Mr. Becken stated his two concerns: 1) Trucks heading to the east should be allowed to use Highway 101 access but the trucks heading to the west could use the Valley Drive access; 2) The stock piling of concrete for only six months is too restrictive due to the various projects in which they will be involved; such as the Highway 101 Bypass. Motion: Spurrier/Allen moved to amend two of the conditions to address Mr. Becken's concerns. No more than 100, 000 cubic yards of waste concrete shall be stock piled on the site before it is crushed and disposed. All west bound traffic from this site must use Valley Park Drive north to Highway 101 to the signal-controlled intersection. Vote on the Amendment: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Spurrier/Allen offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 628 and moved for its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. The J. L. Shiely Company will provide the City with a copy of their access agreement for use of the NSP easement and a copy of the lease for the ten acre site which states that Cemstone Products Company has permission to use their haul road and the NSP easement for access to the site. 2 . Westbound traffic from the site must use Valley Park Drive north to Hwy. 101. 3 . If both the Cemstone and Hardrives, Inc. operations occur on the ten acre site, Cemstone must complete a traffic analysis study. Any traffic improvements recommended through the analysis will be required prior to a review of the permit. 4. Permits for well drilling must be obtained from the State of Minnesota and other appropriate governmental agencies and copies provided to the City prior to the release of the conditional use permit. 5. The applicants shall control dust on the site and on the access road as approved by the City Engineer. Minutes of the Page - 4 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 6. The operation must not adversely affect the underground facilities utilized by Shakopee Public Utilities. 7 . Flammable liquids on the site must be stored in accordance with fire codes. A copy of the safety data sheets and a list of emergency contact telephone numbers shall be provided to the Shakopee Fire Department. 8. No more than 100, 000 cubic yards of waste concrete may be stockpiled before crushing. 9. The operation must comply with environmental requirements as per Scott County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 10. The permit shall expire five years from the date of approval, but may be renewed at that time. 11. The City Administrator has the authority to review the permit if complaints are received. - - Vote on the main motion: Motion carried unanimously. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: RAHR MALTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Vice Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an application for a conditional use permit to construct an industrial waste treatment plant at 800 West 1st Avenue. Motion: Christensen/Lynch moved that the public hearing regarding this application be continued until April 1992 to allow time for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Environmental Worksheet, and all state and federal permits to be completed. Vice Chrmn. asked for comments from the audience. There was no response. Vote: Motion carried unanimously VII. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS Vice Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow industrial wastewater treatment plants. The City Planner stated the purpose of the public hearing is to consider the addition of several policies to the sanitary Minutes of the Page - Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 sewer element of the 1980 Shakopee Comprehensive Plan, which would allow the Rahr Malting Company to construct a private wastewater treatment facility. He stated that Rahr Malting is in the process of making major operational changes in an effort to remain competitive in the malting industry, and to be more competitive, the applicant believes that a private wastewater treatment facility is needed. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. Curt Sparks, HDR Engineering, representing Rahr Malting stated the Metro Waste Control Commission is concerned about private treatment plants because it could promote the type of growth they do not wish to have in communities and, therefore has set up regulations. These guidelines were addressed. Mr. Sparks added that there would be no sanitary sewer discharged to this facility. He stated an EAW is being prepared, which is to be submitted to the Metro Pollution Control Commission January 10, 1992 . Comm. Mars expressed his concern with Rahr Malting being so close to residential districts, and questioned who would be reviewing the impacts to these districts. City Planner responded that these issues would be addressed in the EAW. Paul Kramer, Rahr Malting, stated all the treatment systems they have checked into have been proven designs with successful operations. Comm. Mars requested that Mr. Kramer supply the Planning Commission with information on the process they will be using with comments from users that have used the system for a period of years. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for further comments from the audience. John Alsip, President of Rahr Malting, explained what Rahr is doing. He stated they are at a disadvantage by having to discharge to the Blue Lake Treatment Plant, and if they had a treatment plant on site it would be a competitive move. He added that this action would not create additional pollutants to the river. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. There was no response. Motion: Spurrier/Lynch moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Christensen/Allen moved to recommend to the City Minutes of the Page - 6 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which would allow private wastewater treatment facilities, with restrictions. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Spurrier/Lynch moved to amend the policies to include all private wastewater treatment systems will use proven treatment processes (language subject to review by the City Attorney) . Vote: Motion carried unanimously. VIII.PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY ORDINANCE/OUTDOOR STORAGE IN AN RTD DISTRICT Vice Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an amendment to the City Ordinance, allowing outdoor storage in the Racetrack District. The City Planner stated that this public hearing is to consider the amendment of Section 11.36, Subd. 4 (D) , regarding outside storage in the RTD. The current ordinance states that, "The storage of all materials: semifinished, or finished products; trucks, business vehicles and equipment, and waste products shall be within a completely enclosed building. " He added that this is more restrictive than in other zones, and does not appear to be workable. The City Planner stated that staff is of the opinion that outdoor storage within the RTD should be allowed, but should be regulated by performance standards, which would include the following: A. No outdoor storage will be permitted in front of the principal building or within the required front or street side yard setback. B. A 15-foot height limitation for all outdoor storage. C. All outdoor storage must be screened to a height of 6 feet on the entire perimeter by opaque fencing, berms, and/or continuous vegetation as approved by the Planning Commission. D. Only company vehicles, equipment, machinery, and production materials will be permitted to be stored outdoors. E. All outdoor storage uses must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in the PUD approval process. Minutes of the Page - 7 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 The City Planner stated the guidelines, as proposed, would give staff ways to regulate outside storage. Comm. Christensen questioned why the RTD had been more restrictive and added that she doesn't want to overly restrict businesses in the RTD but doesn't believe it's to the City's advantage to create parcels that are ill kept. She suggested the City institute a series of fines for individuals in non-compliance. She requested some assurance that people will be responsible with their outside storage or that the Planning Commission be allowed to review all outside storage being proposed. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. Don Link stated he is the one who made the request for this amendment. He added they will meet all the requirements as set forth by the City. He stated that High Five Construction is proposing to locate in this area, and they believe they will be able to meet the new requirements as recommended by the Planning Department. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for further comments from the audience. There was no response. Motion: Lynch/Mars moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Christensen questioned if the changes would mean that an applicant would have to come before the Planning Commission for specific review of their proposed outside storage. The City Planner responded by stating that, if an applicant were proposing to build in the RTD, they would need approval through the Planned Unit Development process, and the Planning Commission wOulu rzview proposals for outdoor storage at that time. Comm. Christensen added she still wants research done on fining individuals who are in non-compliance. Discussion was held on the quality of fencing materials for screening, the definition of "waste products" , the percentage degree of opaque fencing, and how to enforce the code with those in non-compliance. The City Attorney stated that the existing uses are not grandfathered because they are illegal and that something could be added to the ordinance giving these individuals a time period in which they must comply. Minutes of the Page - 8 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 The City Planner stated that items B, C and D of the Staff Report ' s recommended guidelines proposed, be changed to read: B. A 15 foot height limitation for all approved or conforming outside storage. C. All outdoor storage must be screened to a height of 6 feet on the entire perimeter by 100 percent opaque fencing, berms, and/or continuous vegetation as approved by the Planning Commission. D. Only semifinished or finished products: trucks, business vehicles and equipment will be permitted to be stored outdoors in the RTD area. Motion: Mars/Christensen moved to recommend to the City Council the adoption of an ordinance amending Section 11. 36, Subd. 4 , Performance Standards, Item D, to allow outdoor storage within the Racetrack District (in text set forth by the City Attorney) when regulated by Performance Standards, and to consider those property owners currently in non- compliance. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. IX. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont. ) ; REZONING OF A PARCEL ON CR 83 FROM RTD TO I-1 Vice Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an application for the rezoning of a parcel on County Road 83 (formerly the Velodrome) from Racetrack District to Light Indus`vial . The City Planner stated the applicants had requested the continuance of the public hearing to allow them an opportunity to amend their application to include the properties to the south and west of the subject site. Howetse property owners do not wish to nave their parce_s rezoned. The City Planner added that, in conjunction with this rezoning request, the Planning-- Commission had requested a study on outside storage in the RTD, which had been done, and just considered previously. He added that this particular parcel, consisting of 3 . 54 acres, has not been platted and lies within a platted subdivision, and is not a full parcel as recognized by the City. The City Planner stated that staff is recommending denial of the rezoning request based on different issues. He added that staff recognizes the apparent difficulty in developing the Racetrack District properties and is recommending the RTD be restudied. Minutes of the Page - 9 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. Don Link, applicant, stated that he had visited with the adjacent property owners regarding the rezoning of their parcels, but they are not ready to develop their areas and have no interest in rezoning. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for further comments from the audience. There was no response. Motion: Lynch/Mars moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion:. Mars/Christensen moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the rezoning request of the East 466. 69 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Behringer's 1st Addition from the Racetrack District to Light Industrial, based on the following reasons: 1. It is contrary to the Racetrack District Land Use Study approved by the City Council in 1986 and the draft Comprehensive Plan. 2 . Rezoning is being requested for a small parcel (3 . 54 acres) and piecemeal development could occur. 3 . The types of permitted and conditional uses in the Light Industrial zone are not compatible with those in the RTD. 4 . The parcel is located near the entrance to the racetrack. 5. The area of the lot proposed for rezoning does not follow the lot lines of the platted lot. Vote: Motion carried with Comm. Allen voting "no" . X. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF MINNESOTA VALLEY 6TH ADDITION Vice Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an applicati= for a preliminary and final plat for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. Vice Chrmn. Joos stated he had received the notice of public hearing due to the location of his property being near the proposed site. The City Planner stated that Randy Laurent of Laurent Builders, Inc. , has submitted an application for concurrent preliminary and final plat approval for this plat located at the intersection of Vierling Drive and Presidential Lane. The City Planner added that the development is 2 . 3758 acrc's in size, and contains three single family lots and two outi.ots, which is currently zoned R-2 , Urban Residential. Minutes of the Page -10 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 The City Planner added that Presidential Lane is intended to go through to the south as that area develops. He added the existing cul-de-sac (Presidential Lane) will encroach onto the proposed lots until such time the street is constructed, and as a result, larger setbacks should be required for the proposed lots affected. He added that staff is recommending denial. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. Randy Laurent, 128 South Fuller, stated that Roger Anderson, engineer from Anderson & Associates, was present for discussion of the issues with the Planning Commission. Roger Anderson, 7415 Wayzata Blvd. , Minneapolis, stated that at the time this area was developed, only a specified number of hookups could be completed due to sewer availability. He added that the problem with overtaxing this line has since been cleared up, and is no longer an issue, but added the sewer grades are not up to City standards. He said this is not easily seen as a problem to the residents and the homes are constructed according to the specific sewer depth. Roger Anderson added that the problem with the cul-de-sac can be resolved by utilizing different setbacks for each home constructed. The issue with the depth of the sanitary sewer could be resolved in the interim by placing the homes in an elevation that would blend in with the adjacent properties. Comm. Spurrier questioned the grade of the sewer system as to whether it was 2 percent or 1 percent. Mr. Anderson responded that the building code allows for a 1 percent grade, which he has never had a problem with, and added that this area does not have the luxury of additional sanitary sewer depth. Comm. Mars questioned why the outlots weren't being developed first. Mr. Anderson responded net there was no practical way to serve the outlot sites unless there was a lift station. Comm. Spurrier questioned what would happen when frost sets in and there is only a 1 percent grade. He then suggested the use of a pump rather than a shallow sanitary sewer system. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. The City Eng. stated that the developer is proposing the sanitary sewer depth to be temporary until a deeper design comes in, which means that problems exist. He voiced his concern over who would pay for the re-connection in the future. Minutes of the Page -11 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1.332 Vice Chrmn, Joos asked for further comments from the audience. There was no response. Motion: Christensen/Mars moved to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Christensen questioned the alternatives available to the developer if this request is denied. The City Planner responded stating there are various options open to him and with re-looking at this area, it could be developed. Motion: Allen/Christensen moved to recommend to the City Council denial of the preliminary and final plat of Minnesota Valley . 6th Addition, with the exception of Lot 1, Block 2, based on: 1. There is inadequate sewer depth to provide city sewer services to the proposed lots. Section 3 . 12, Subd. 1 of the Shakopee City Code includes the adopted standard specifications. These specifications require a 9 foot depth of the service line at the property line and that the services shall be at right angles to the main. Neither one of these conditions can be met. Services are only about 3 . 5 feet to 4 feet deep at the property lines. 2 . The larger setbacks will result in an irregular pattern of residential development. The increased setbacks will reduce the back yard space for these residences. Administration of these unique setbacks would be difficult. Vote: Motion carried with Comm. Mars voting "no" . XI. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PUD/BECKRICH PARK ESTATES Vice Chrmn. Joos opened the public hearing to consider an application for a preliminary planned unit development for Beckrich Park Estates on County Road 79, south of Hillwood Estates. The Ass't Planner stated that Mr. Dale Dahlke, developer, has submitted an application for preliminary approval of a residential planned unit development located at the northeast corner of County Road 78/County Road 79, approximately one mile south of the Shakopee Bypass. She added that this site covers 86. 87 acres and is zoned Rural Residential. There are 35 lots in the proposed development with lots varying in size from 1. 02 acres to 4 . 2 acres. She added that because PUDs tend to be more complicated, staff is suggesting the project Minutes of the Page -12 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 be brought before the Planning Commission in at least two separate meetings. She added that staff is requesting the Planning Commission take action in February. The Ass 't Planner stated that staff is requesting the applicant provide the following additional information: 1. Grading plan identifying proposed topography lines and showing all preliminary building pad sites. 2 . Street design plans identifying whether streets will be public or private, providing information on street, curb, and gutter designs. 3 . Soils report providing information on soil types, percolation rates and bearing capacities. 4. Water and sewer plan showing two on-site septic systems for each proposed lot and showing the location of all water lines for the development's water system. 5. Stormwater management plan showing all surface water flow patterns and providing runoff calculations. 6. Parks and open space plan providing a plan illustrating all parks and open spaces within the development and identifying which areas are to be public and those which will be private, and also identifying maintenance responsibilities for all private or common areas. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for comments from the audience. Dale Dahlke, 1279 Limestone, Shakopee, stated this development is large and complicated and would like comments from the Planning Commission as to whether or not he is meeting all the necessary requirements. Discussion was held. Comm. Spurrier questioned if this plat was located in any major city drainageway. The City Planner will research this issue. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for further comments from the audience. Janet Labarre, 13030 Townline Avenue, asked if Mr. Dahlke was aware of an agricultural drain tile that is protecting her property, as well as the property of Faith Lutheran Church. She added that she didn't want construction to damage the drain tile in this area since she has put a lot of work into her property. Minutes of the Page -13 Shakopee Planning Commission January 9, 1992 Mr. Dahlke stated he was not aware of this particular drain tile, but is aware of others, and this is the reason for the placement of the park lands and ponding areas. Vice Chrmn. Joos asked for further comments from the audience. There was no response. Motion: Christensen/Lynch moved to continue the public hearing on the PUD for Beckrich Park Estates until the February 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. XII. OTHER BUSINESS: PEDESTRIAN/BIKE STUDY The City Planner stated that staff is continuing to gather information on the project. He requested the Planning Commission assist the Planning Department with providing additional data; specifically, on problem areas and places where they see people walking on streets due to lack of a sidewalk. Comm. Spurrier requested that school walkways be designated. Comm. Allen questioned the financing of the sidewalks. OTHER BUSINESS: 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM The City Planner stated the Planning Department is in the process of reviewing the worksheets submitted by the Commissioners relative to the projects that are either designated as "needed" or those designated as "desired" . OTHER BUSINESS: MISCELLANEOUS The City Planner stated that Joe Kelly and Joe Zak have applied for positions on the Planning Commission. Farewells were said to Comm. Allen and Comm. Lynch. XIII.ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Planning Commission adjourned at 11: 15 p.m. MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Regular Session November 20, 1991 Chairperson Drees called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. with Commissioners Otto, Stolarcek, Case, Drees, Ward and Kelly present. Commissioners Roman, Mars and Reinke were absent. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator, John Mathews, Joe Morley and Dennis Ridley were also present. Stolarcek/Otto moved to approve the minutes of the October 16, 1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that the Dial-A-Ride contract with National School Bus expires on April 15, 1992. At the last Energy and Transportation Committee meeting, it was suggested to invite officials from National School Bus to our meeting to answer some questions regarding Dial-A-Ride service. Mr. Stock noted that Dennis Ridley, John Mathews and Joe Morley, representing National School Bus were in the audience to answer questions. Discussion ensued on dispatching problems that we are experiencing with Dial-A-Ride. Mr. John Mathews stated that National School Bus is in the process of putting in place a computerized dispatching program that will hopefully resolve some of the dispatching problems that we have been experiencing. Mr. Stock questioned an exact time frame for its implementation. Mr. Mathews stated. ihc<t. the computerized dispatching program would be in place by January. Mr. Stock questioned why the cost for service is going up from $19 . 50 per hour to $22 . 12 per hour, especially since the City will not be receiving any new Dial-A-Ride vehicles. Mr. Morley stated that the present rate for service has been in place for three years with no increase. The cost for salaries and related administrative cost have increased over the past three years. In terms of the Dial-A-Ride vehicles, he noted that National has a six year depreciation schedule for most of its vehicles. Mr. Morley stated that Shakopee' s vehicles still have relatively low miles in comparison to other Dial-A-Ride vehicles that they are operating within the metropolitan area. He did note that if a vehicle is in need of major maintenance that it can be retired prior to the six year amortization date. Mr. Stock questioned whether the proposed rate of $22 . 12 per hour would be fixed for a three year period, if a three year extension was granted. Mr. Morley responded in the affirmative. Discussion ensued regarding persons who might be dropped off at a wrong location. Mr. Stock questioned how this could occur. Mr. Ridley stated that generally problems such as this occur because a person calls after they have booked a regular appointment and Minutes of the Page - 2 Energy and Transportation Committee November 20, 1991 requests a change at midday. Mr. Ridley stated that the new computer system should help to resolve change of service request problems. However, when changes are made at midstream it is generally more difficult to correct problems. There were no other questions for National School Bus. "Mr. Morley stated that this past summer, Ms. Rhiger, one of Shakopee's Dial-A- Ride drivers came in first place at the Minnesota State Bus Rodeo in the Para Transit Division this past summer. Mr. Morley presented to Mr. Stock a jacket that he would like the City to present to Ms. Rhiger. Discussion ensued on the extension of the Dial-A-Ride contract. Ms. Stolarcek stated that she felt that if the rate of $22 . 12 per hour can be fixed for the duration of the contract extension that the contract should be extended for a 36 month period. Mr. Stock stated that he originally recommended a one year contract with a two year extension provision. However, in light of the fact that the $22 . 12 per hour rate would be fixed for three years, he also felt that a 36 month extension would be appropriate. Mr. Stock stated that the contract could also include a provision for a 90 or 120 day unilateral cancellation at the option of the City. This would allow the City of Shakopee to get out of the Dial-A-Ride contract for whatever reason deemed appropriate, in the event that a cheaper alternative for Dial-A-Ride service becomes available. Ward/Stolarcek moved to recommend to City Council that the Dial-A- Ride contract with National School Bus be extended for a 36 month period, at a rate of $22. 12 per hour. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that the Vanpool contract with Vanpool Services Inc. expires on April 16, 1992 . The last contract extension provided in the contract was executed last year. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Energy and Transportation Committee to recommend to City Council that the appropriate City officials be authorized to solicit Vanpool requests for proposals. Mr. Drees questioned how many Vanpool providers might submit proposals. Mr. Stock stated that he does not expect more than two or three proposals. Commissioner Stolarcek questioned whether or not we could acquire our own vehicles. Mr. Stock stated that the Regional Transit Board has not determined whether or not opt-out communities can use their opt-out funds for capital equipment purchases. Mr. Stock stated that he hoped to have this issue resolved by the Regional Transit Board sometime next year. The other issue of concern regarding the outright purchase of vehicles is the insurance factor. Mr. Stock stated that Shakopee's transit system is relatively small and the cost for the insurance might be prohibitive. Mr. Stock stated that he has had discussions with the Southwest Metro Transit administrator and the Minnesota Valley Transit administrator regarding the acquisition of vehicles. They Minutes of the Page - 3 Energy and Transportation Committee November 20, 1991 are also interested in acquiring vehicles. They also have the financial means and fleet size to be able to obtain insurance at a reasonable rate. They have tentatively agreed to the concept of potentially leasing vehicles to the City of Shakopee for both Dial- A-Ride and Vanpool services. Mr. Stock stated that if this arrangement can be made, we should be able to see a reduction in our Dial-A-Ride and Vanpool costs. However, until such time that the capital funding issue can be resolved, it would be appropriate to maintain the status quo in terms of our Vanpool contracting arrangement. Ward/Stolarcek moved to recommend to City Council that the appropriate City officials be authorized to solicit request for proposals for Vanpool services for the City of Shakopee. Mr. Stock stated that the refuse/recycling request for proposal deadline was November 18, 1991. Mr. Stock stated that the City received six proposals for refuse/recycling collection service. Mr. Stock stated that the current refuse/recycling contract with Waste Management Inc. expires on February 15, 1992 . Mr. Stock stated that prior to receiving the request for proposals, he drafted an evaluation criteria checklist. The checklist was comprised of six different components that relate to the refuse/recycling program in Shakopee. Each component was weighted according to its significance. Mr. Stock noted that none of the refuse/recycling providers were aware of the evaluation criteria identified by staff. Upon receiving the proposals, Mr. Stock noted that he and the Public Works Director independently ranked each proposal based on the criteria identified in the ranking system. Since there were six proposals, the company with the best proposal in relation to each evaluation category was ranked on a scale from one to six, with one being the best proposal. Upon assigning a ranking to each of the evaluation criteria, the ranking was applied to the weighted score to determine the assigned liability point for each criteria. The assigned liability points were then added for each evaluation category for an overall composite liability score. The company with the lowest liability score, based on all the evaluation criteria, is the company with the most complete and comprehensive proposal for refuse/recycling services. Upon independently ranking each proposal, Mr. Hutton and Mr. Stock combined their ranking to establish an overall ranking of the proposals. In each case, Waste Management came out on top as the best overall proposal, followed by Knutson. Mr. Stock stated that the purpose of the request for proposal is to obtain a service level that best accommodates the needs of the residents and the City of Shakopee. Cost is not the main determining factor in selecting a provider. Mr. Stock stated that in reviewing the proposals, he felt it was important to obtain a service level that maintained the provision of refuse collection Minutes of the Page - 4 Energy and Transportation Committee November 20, 1991 carts by the hauler. Discussion ensued on this issue. Ms. Case stated that she felt the refuse carts were fantastic and should be maintained. Commissioner Ward concurred and stated that under the previous system, Shakopee residents had to obtain their own refuse containers and that they had to be replaced on a regular basis. She stated that the former system was also not very pleasing from an aesthetic stand point. Mr. Stock stated that the refuse containers also provided a consistent system that reduced the potential for rodents. Mr. Drees also stated that the current containers were aesthetically pleasing and generally kept garbage from blowing all over the neighborhoods. Commissioner Case questioned the extra container rate proposed by Waste Management. She stated that the cost for the second container should be equivalent to the cost of the first container. Mr. Stock stated that if this was the desire of the committee that the contract could be worded in such a fashion to provide a second container at a cost equal to the first container with the difference between Waste Management's rate and the City's rate to be retained by the City of Shakopee. Commissioner Stolarcek concurred that the extra container rate should be comparable to the rate of the first container. Commissioner Kelly stated that Aagard's rate for service was approximately $1.50 per month less than Waste Managements. Mr. Stock stated that while Mr. Kelly was correct, Aagard's proposal was weak in every other respect. Mr. Stock stated that the proposal was extremely vague. Additionally, Mr. Stock stated that two providers, Aagard and Randy's Sanitation did not submit the required financial security. Mr. Kelly questioned whether or not the proposal specifications clearly stated the need for a financial security to be submitted. Mr. Stock read that section of the request for proposals, requiring that a $25, 000 performance bond, letter of credit, cashiers check or some other form of financial security acceptable to the City of Shakopee be submitted with the proposals specifications. Mr. Kelly stated that since Aagard and Randy' s Sanitation did not see fit to submit the required financial security that their proposals should be eliminated from consideration. Mr. Stock stated that the purpose of the financial security was to insure that the provider selected will follow through on their proposal and enter into a contract, if selected to perform the work. The financial security section of the proposal also stated that the security would be returned to all unsuccessful contractors within 15 days after the selection a contractor. Discussion ensued on the possibility of going to contracted billing. Mr. Stock stated that, at the present time, billing is handled through Shakopee Public Utilities. Mr. Stock stated that this has presented some problems in the past. However, he did not feel it was worth an extra $1. 00 per month to Shakopee residents to have the billing changed from its current system to contractor Minutes of the Page - 5 Energy and Transportation Committee November 20, 1991 billing. Commissioner Ward questioned whether or not the City of Shakopee is incurring cost as a result of handling the billing system. Mr. Stock stated that, yes the City is incurring cost but that it is being offset by the 15¢ per month administrative fee, tacked on to each resident's monthly bill. Mr. Stock also stated that the City retains approximately 15¢ for each extra refuse service coupon sold. Discussion ensued on moving toward a closed refuse collection system. Mr. Stock stated that, in his opinion, this request for proposal process verified once again the need to move towards a closed refuse collection system. He stated that he felt the refuse collection cost quoted by the providers were somewhat inflated, including Waste Management's, due to the fact that we cannot guarantee a certain number of customers. Mr. Stock stated that if Waste Management is not awarded the contract, the company that is awarded the contract has no guaranteed access to the customers presently served by Waste Management. Technically, the City of Shakopee has no means at this time to require that Waste Management remove all their refuse containers from Shakopee residents homes, currently under contract. This would place the contractor, who was awarded the bid, in a very difficult situation. Mr. Stock stated that under our current open system, the transition to another provider could be very difficult and confusing for Shakopee residents. Commissioner Ward stated that she also felt that, in order to have an effective refuse/recycling collection program that we need to go to a closed refuse collection program for at least the urban area. Mr. Stock stated that if we ever do move towards a closed refuse collection system, that he would propose to contract the City out in two service zones, urban and rural. Commissioner Stolarcek questioned why we did not proceed with a closed refuse collection program prior to the solicitation of bids. Commissioner Ward stated that it was discussed but that the City Attorney felt that the question of a taking might be raised by some of the existing refuse haulers. Commissioner Stolarcek questioned whether or not other communities within the metropolitan area had closed refuse collection programs. Mr. Stock responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Kelly suggested that the contract for refuse/recycling collection service include a unilateral 90 or 120 day cancellation provision. This would allow the City of Shakopee to get out of the refuse contract if indeed we move towards a closed refuse collecticn system in the future and feel that it might be beneficial to re-bid the urban service area prior to the completion of the three year extension. Mr. Kelly questioned whether or not the City will be licensing refusing collection haulers in 1992 . Mr. Stock responded in the affirmative. Mr. Stock stated that if the Energy and Transportation Committee wishes to address the closed refuse collection concept in 1992 that Minutes of the Page - 6 Energy and Transportation Committee November 20, 1991 it be discussed at their next meeting, when their work plan for 1992 is developed. Stolarcek/Otto moved to recommend to City Council that the appropriate City officials be authorized to execute a 3 year contract with a 3 year extension provision for refuse/recycling collection with Waste Management Inc. Motion carried with Commissioner Kelly opposed. Kelly/Case moved to recommend that the refuse/recycling contract include a 120 day unilateral cancellation provision at the option of the City. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that, in response to the 1990 Transit Audit Report that was completed by the Regional Transit Report, staff would like to propose several transit policy amendments at this time. Staff is proposing that the additional driver mileage - Policy No. 11 and the reimbursement for car pool cost policy - Policy No. 15 be amended, increasing the mileage reimbursement rate to 27.5¢. This figure corresponds with the IRS reimbursement rate. Ward/Stolarcek moved to recommend to City Council approval of the amendments to Vanpool Policy No. 11 and No. 15, increasing the mileage reimbursement rate to 27. 5¢ per mile. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that he has received a number of complaints from parents of children who are age 5 and under who have been utilizing the Dial-A-Ride program. Mr. Stock stated that most of the complaints stem from the fact that on occasion, Dial-A-Ride dispatching errors are made and occasionally children are transported to the wrong destination point or not in a timely manner. Mr. Stock suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for the Committee to consider a policy limiting the minimum ridership age for children who are not accompanied by a responsible adult. Mr. Stock stated that due to the increasing number of kidnapping cases lately and the trauma that a child would incur as a result of being dropped off at a wrong location, the City may be in an undesirable liability situation. Commissioner Ward stated that she felt there should be a policy setting a minimum Dial-A-Rile ridership age for kids not accompanied by a responsible adult. Commissioner Case and Stolarcek concurred. Mr. Drees stated that he felt that children who are age 5 are generally responsible enough to ride Dial-A-Ride. He questioned whether a cross the board sweeping policy for children 5 and under should be adopted. Mr. Drees suggested that perhaps we could gather input from daycare providers who are utilizing Dial-A-Ride service to get their input on the establishment of such a policy. Mr. Drees also questioned the number of children, age 5 and under, who are utilizing the Dial-A- Minutes of the Page - 7 Energy and Transportation Committee November 20, 1991 Ride service. He questioned whether or not we were talking about a few isolated cases. Commissioner Ward suggested that National School Bus officials be contacted to determine their company position on carrying children ages 5 and under who are unaccompanied by an adult. It was the consensus of the Committee that perhaps it would be appropriate to schedule a public hearing to solicit input from daycare providers and other parents who are utilizing the Dial-A-Ride service. Mr. Stock stated that he would place this item on the January agenda for further discussion, prior to the establishment of a formal public hearing date. Mr. Stock then reviewed the recycling and transit monthly reports. Mr. Stock stated that at the last meeting, the possibility of entering into a cost share arrangement with Minnesota Valley Transit for persons who are living outside the Shakopee City limits and utilizing our Vanpool program was discussed. Minnesota Valley Transit position is that they are not interested in a cost share arrangement since they are aware of several Shakopee persons who are utilizing the transit services offered in the Minnesota Valley Transit system. They feel that it would simply be better for everyone to simply adopt ridership reciprocity. Mr. Stock stated that the fall yard waste collection day went well, considering the fact that it was one week after the Halloween blizzard. Mr. Stock stated that the approximate cost for the disposal of the yard waste collected will be approximately $1, 000. 00. Cost for advertising the program was approximately $700. 00. Originally $4, 500.00 was set aside for this program as part of the Scott County grant agreement. Mr. Stock stated that he is proposing to use the remaining funds to offset costs associated with the annual Christmas tree disposal program. Mr. Stock questioned if the Committee felt this was a reasonable approach. Mr. Kelly questioned whether or not the funds had to be expended in 1991. Mr. Stock stated that he thought the funds had to be expended in 1991. He stated that he would contact the county to determine if the agreement could be amended with the funds being carried over into 1992 . If the agreement cannot be amended, Mr. Stock suggested implementing the reduced cost Christmas tree disposal program as previously discussed. It was the consensus of the Committee to have staff contact the county to determine if the funds can be carried over into 1992 and whether or not they can be used to offset the cost of the Christmas tree disposal program. Stolarcek/Ward moved to adjourn the meeting at 8 : 55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 47 February UPCOMING MEETINGS SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4:30pm Public 7:00pm City 7:30pm Planning Utilities Council Commission Meeting 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7:45am Downtown Valentine's Day Committee 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 President's Day 7:00pm City 5:30pm - City Hall Council Community Closed Meeting Development Commission 7:00pm Energy & Transportation 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 7:00pm Park & 7:00pm Rec. Board Municipal Facilities January March SMTW T F S SMTW T F S 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Preliminary Comments from Metropolitan Council CSAH 18 Comprehensive Plan Amendment DATE: January 16, 1991 NON-AGENDA INFORMATION ITEM: Attached is a copy of the preliminary comments from Metropolitan Council staff on the proposed CSAH 18 Comprehensive Plan amendment. City staff will be meeting with Met Council staff to review their concerns in detail prior to the submittal of the joint comprehensive plan amendment for the CSAH 18 issue. Staff is continuing to work with Prior Lake staff and Scott County staff to prepare the joint submittal. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612 291-6359 TDD 612 291-0904 DATE: December 17, 1991 TO: Bob Mazanec / FROM: Bob Davis, Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Preliminary Shakopee comments on the CSAH issue ,• I have read the preliminary materials sent to you by the Ci f S ko or informal review and comment. My reaction is that the conditions offered are not sufficient to control development that the urban highway interchange off CSAH 18 will promote in the rural area. Based upon the conditions submitted staff cannot rescind its objections to the proposed rural area interchange and recommend that the Council change its earlier decision objecting to the interchange. When staff first talked with Shakopee staff the primary issue over the "denial of access to property owners" was brought up. We agreed that landlocked properties could not be denied • access to CSAH 18 if no other street or roadway was available. We were made aware that Shakopee officials also were reluctant to adopt our rural area policy. We did not realize that the city does not appear to understand our policy. Shakopee has responded to the access issue on page six of the submitted materials. In brief the city has agreed to restrict direct property access (driveways) to CSAH 18 and to prohibit the construction of additional street intersections to CSAH 18 (unless the construction of 18 would result in the denial of roadway access to properties). The recommendation does not propose that the city change its rural area standard to be consistent with the Council's rural area policy. After reading the text explanation for the proposed changes I have reached the following conclusions: 1. The exception for landlocked parcels having no possible access to any other street or roadway except CSAH 18 must be allowed, but it should be an exception for a private driveway not as an exception to build a public street which could provide access to numerous other subsequent subdivided parcels and uses which would generate more traffic in the rural area. The property owner in the rural area needs personal access, but not premature urban streets or roadways which would generate more traffic as well as demand for other urban services. Tnis is exactly what the Metropolitan Council policy seeks to avoid in the rural area. 2. Comments regarding rural area density requirements (page 7) indicates a misunderstanding of Council policy. Council policy does not require ten (10) acre lots. Council residential policy sets a maximum density of 1 unit per 10 acres computed on the basis of 640 acre parcels (one square mile). The Council policy encourages clustering of residential development to increase efficiency (which would allow the 2-112 acre lots that Shakopee discusses or even smaller ones). The basic impact of Council policy would be to restrict the number of lots (residences) and thereby keep the density low (rural) which is what both the City of Shakopee states that it wants to achieve (according to the submitted comments as well as those contained in the previously submitted Comprehensive Plan) and what the Council policy calls for in the Rural Service Area. In summary the combination of allowing new public streets to be built and connected to CSAH 18 for landlocked parcels (which subsequently could be subdivided into unspecified numbers of 2412 acre lots) is exactly what the Council policy seeks to avoid in the Rural Service Area. I suggest the following changes to make the policies acceptable: Page 6, (reword 8. and 9. to read): 8. Prohibit the construction of additional direct property access (driveways) to CSAH 18 until the area becomes part of MUSA expansions approved by the Metropolitan Council or unless the construction of CSAH IS would result in the denial of any roadway access to e:dsting properties. If landlocked parcels are created by CSAH 18 a private access (driveway) to the parcel would be allowed. 9. Prohibit the construction of additional city street intersections to CSAH 18 unless they are a result of staged development tied to an urban service area (MUSA) expansion approved by the Metropolitan Council. • In addition: • The City of Shakopee should reexamine the Council's rural area policy, which would appear to accomplish what they desire in the rural area. It would allow efficient clustering of smaller lots capable of encouraging middle priced housing. At the same time it would control the total number of lots allowed thereby limiting rural density to prevent the demand for other urban services, which is what the Shakopee plan seeks to achieve for the area. DORSEY & WHITNEY A Pasrrxsuseir INOLOaxxo Paorzsszoxsi Cosronrcoxs 350 PARK AVENUE 2200 FIRST BANE PLACE EAST 201 FIRST AVENUE,S.W.,SUITE 340 NEW YORK,NEW YORK 10022 ROCHESTER,MINNESOTA 55902 (212)415-9200 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 (507)288-3156 1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE,N.W. (612) 340-2600 WASHINGTON,D.C.20036 TELEX 29-0605 1200 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER (202)857-0700 PAX(612)340-2868 BILLINGS,MONTANA 59103 3 GRACECHURCH STREET (406)252-3800 LONDON EC3V OAT,ENGLAND - 44-71-929-3334 'moms 8.HAY (812)343-7985 201 DAVIDSON BUILDING 36,RUE TRONCHET GREAT PALLS,MONTANA 59401 75009 PARIS,PRANCE (406)727-3832 33-1-42-66-59-49 45,RUE DE TR EVES 127 EAST FRONT STREET B-1040 BRUSSELS,BELGIUM MISSOULA,MONTANA 59802 32-2-238-78-Il January 13, 1992 ` "21-6025 Ms . Karen Marty City Attorney City Hall 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55402-1498 Re : Proposed Tax Increment Expenditures Dear Ms. Marty: Enclosed herewith is a Memorandum dated January 10, 1992 which answers the questions posed by your memorandum which we met and discussed on November 26, 1991, concerning certain tax increment expenditures to be made from increments derived from TIF Districts in the Minnesota River Valley Housing & Redevelopment Project No. 1 . I hope the Memorandum and the answers it provides are satisfactory. After you have had a chance to study it perhaps we should discuss it before distributing it or its conclusions to the City Council . Very truly yours, Thomas S. Ha TSH/sd Enclosure ccs-Mr. Barry Stock Mr. Dennis Kraft MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas S. Hay FROM: Verlane L. Endorf DATE: January 10, 1992 RE: Amendments to Project Area and Tax Increment Districts City of Shakopee, Minnesota The City of Shakopee has created, prior to 1986, certain tax increment districts (the "TIF Districts") within Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Project Area") in the City. City staff has now advised us that the City Council would like to use tax increment revenues generated by the TIF Districts to acquire land for its recreation program and to construct a community center (the "Additional Projects") . The Additional Projects would be located outside of the boundaries of the Project Area as it now exists . The City does not want to finance the Additional Projects from tax increment revenues if doing so would subject the TIF Districts to the fiscal disparities contribution or the dollar-for-dollar reduction in state aid provisions of the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469 . 174 through 469. 179 (the "Act") . I think that the City's objectives can be accomplished by amending the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the TIF Districts to increase the size of the Project Area to include the Additional Projects and to include the costs of the Additional Projects in the costs to be financed from tax increment revenue from the TIF Districts . I have assumed for the purposes of this memorandum that the area in which the Additional Projects are located is within the City limits, or is to be annexed before it is included in the Project Area, and that the area qualifies as a "project" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469 .002, Subdiv. 12 . It is critical that no amendment be made to increase the size of the TIF Districts, and that no new TIF Districts be created, since the restrictions that the City must avoid, the dollar for dollar reduction in state aid and the "anti-pooling" provisions, apply to districts for which certification is requested after the effective date of the legislation. If more than five years have elapsed from the date of original certification of the TIF Districts, the City would be prohibited from increasing the size thereof in any event, by the provisions of Section 469. 175, Subdiv. 4 (b) . As I understand it, the City intends to pay for the Additional Projects with tax increment revenue generated by the existing TIF Districts, so this limitation should not be a problem. In order to amend the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plans, the City must go through the notice, discussion, public hearing and findings procedure required for the original approval of the Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing Plans (see Section 469 . 175, Subdiv. 2 through 4 of the Act and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029, Subdiv. 6) . The amended Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plans must be filed with the Commissioner of Revenue. Once this has been accomplished, the Additional Projects may be undertaken and the costs thereof paid from the tax increment revenues from the TIF Districts . The provisions of the Act relating to fiscal disparities treatment state that the City's election with respect to fiscal disparities continues for the duration of each TIF District, and may be changed by affirmative action of the City. Since the City is not proposing to change the TIF Districts, there should be no change in fiscal disparities treatment . Even if the City were changing the TIF Districts, the statute does not appear to mandate a change in fiscal disparities treatment . The costs of the Additional Projects to be paid out of tax increment revenues may include land costs, the costs of constructing, equipping and furnishing the community center (City staff has represented that the community center will not be used for the conduct of the City's business) , the costs of extending utility services to and constructing streets, sidewalks and parking lots in connection with the community center. The costs of public improvements may be paid from tax increment revenues notwithstanding that those costs could be specially assessed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or other law. The City has also asked whether an improvement, like an ice arena, could be constructed with tax increment revenue and leased out for other purposes on a lease-purchase . Presumably, they mean a lease to a private party, rather than another local government entity (leases to other governmental entities would presumably be governed by and subject to the limitations of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471 . 16 through 471 . 1911) . If the issuance of tax-exempt bonds was contemplated, the private party would have to be a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit, and the steps necessary to qualify the bonds as qualified 501 (c) (3) bonds followed. For any other type of private party, either taxable bonds or a pay-as-you-go arrangement would be required, and I think that rentals from the lease-purchase would have to be used to offset tax increments . Finally, the City has asked whether an individual TIF District can be kept open after all bonds issued with respect thereto have been retired. The TIF District can be kept open until all eligible costs identified in the Tax Increment Financing Plan have been paid, including the retirement of bonds . Since, as noted above, the anti-pooling provisions of the Act do not apply to the TIF Districts, so long as there are eligible costs within -2- the Project Area which are identified in the Tax Increment Financing Plan, or an amendment thereto, remaining to be paid or reimbursed, the TIF District may remain open . Of course, no TIF District may exceed the durational limits provided in the Act . It was suggested by the City staff that the City should seek an Attorney General 's Opinion with regard to some of the matters discussed in this memorandum. An Attorney General 's Opinion would be in order if there were substantial doubt as to the proper interpretation of the statute as to any of these matters . However, I believe that the statute is quite clear on the subjects discussed above, and I do not think that it is necessary or advisable to seek an Attorney General's Opinion with respect thereto . -3- MEMO TO: The Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Dining Facilities at 200 Levee Drive (Info Item) DATE: January 15, 1992 A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by Judson Kenyon, the Director of the Scott-Carver-Dakota Community Action Program. This is the agency that sponsors the nutrition program for seniors at the elderly highrise structure at 200 Levee Drive. In 1991 and previous years the City Council budgeted an amount of approximately $7 , 000 for staff salaries of custodians to provide cleaning of the dining room at the senior center. At the recommendation of the Building Official for 1992 the City Council eliminated those custodial services. The contracted cleaning of the congregate dining facility in the amount of $600. 00 was retained in the budget. During the time this was being considered by the City Council in October, the City Administrator sent a letter to Mr. Kenyon telling him that the City Council was contemplating such action and that Mr. Kenyon should contact him if he had any questions. No contact was initiated by Mr. Kenyon at that time. As indicated earlier, the first contact occurred during the last week of December. By that time the City Council had adopted the 1992 Budget. The rational given by the Building Official for reducing this amount was that this was not a contractual obligation of the City and in that we were cutting back on services this was an area in which he recommended that a cutback be made. Mr. Houser was specifically referring to a lease agreement which was entered into between 200 Levee Associates, the owner of the building and the City of Shakopee as the lessee of the dining facility. This lease agreement has a date of December 18, 1979 . The rational for Mr. Houser ' s recommendation was included in paragraph four which is found on page 2 of the lease. This section indicates that the lessee (the City) indicates that the lessee (the City) shall be entitled to the non-exclusive use of the premises for the purposes of providing a meeting center, arts and crafts center, dining facility and other uses. This section of the lease also indicates that any group or organization using the premises will be required to be responsible for the clean-up of the premises after each use and will be responsible for breakage of any equipment used or any excessive wear and tear. From my discussions with Mr. Houser it is my opinion that he believed that the Scott Carver Dakota CAP was such an agency as described in paragraph four of the contract. In my discussion with Mr. Kenyon he indicated to me that the City, as lessee is required to maintain and repair the premises and keep it in a neat, clean and orderly condition. Mr. Kenyon specifically referred to Section 8 of this contract which is entitled Responsibility for Maintenance and Repair of the Premises. This section also indicates that the lessee is responsible for and shall pay for all costs of trash removal, extermination service, maintenance repair and replacement of equipment, restrooms, heating and ventilating equipment, light fixtures, light bulbs, etc. Mr. Kenyon was of the opinion that in that if the City was the lessee the City had the responsibility for cleaning the building. In my earlier discussion with Mr. Kenyon he did not make any mention of the information contained in Section 4 which indicated the City would hold any organization using the premises responsible for cleaning it up after each use. Upon further examination of this contract it became apparent to me that this contract is between 200 Levee Drive Associates and the City of Shakopee and that the Scott Carver Dakota CAP was not a party to this two party contract. I therefore seriously question whether this contract has any impact on the legal relationship between the Scott Carver Dakota CAP and the City of Shakopee. In another discussion with Mr. Kenyon today he indicated that the CAP was receiving complaints from users of the facility because of the physical condition of the dining room. Consistent with the adopted 1992 Budget the City has withdrawn custodial services as of January 1, 1992 . Mr. Kenyon has indicated that he believes it is necessary to discuss this matter with all parties involved and I have agreed with him without giving any commitment as to the position of the City. From my perspective contractually the City has no obligation to clean the facility, however we have done so in the past. A thorough review of the City' s files has not disclosed any contract between the City and the CAP or any other governmental entity providing services for senior citizens in the facility at 200 Levee Drive. The City Clerk has indicated that she was not aware of any such contract and she was employed by the City at the time the contract was executed. Mr. Kenyon also indicated that he was unaware of any contract between the City and the CAP for the cleaning of this facility. Subsequent to a meeting with the various effective parties I will further inform the City Council of the results of that meeting. No action is needed at this time this is being sent to the City Council for information purposes only. iii Shakopee Community Development Commission City Council Chambers December 18, 1991 Chairperson Mars called the meeting to order at 5 : 35 p.m. with the following members present: Mike Beard, Jon Albinson, Bill Mars, Jane DuBois and Charles Brandmire. Commissioners Miller and Pennington were absent. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator was also present. Albinson/Beard moved to approve the minutes of the November 23, 1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Beard and DuBois submitted their resignations with regret to Chairperson Mars. Mr. Stock noted that in November the Shakopee HRA approved a Rehab Grant application that was submitted by Mr. John Larson, owner of the Tole Bridge building. The grant application request was for roof and window repairs. Mr. Stock stated that the HRA requested the Downtown Committee and the Community Development Commission to review the Rehab Grant Program guidelines and determine if normal and customary maintenance items should be included for program financing. Mr. Stock stated that the Downtown Committee has reviewed this issue and is recommending that new language be included in the program guidelines, which states that improvements for customary and normal maintenance, including but not limited to roof and window replacement, shall not be eligible for program financing. Mr. Stock stated that the Downtown Committee did recognize that on occasion window and roof repairs co>>l d materially alter a building and improve its aesthetic appearance. Therefore, the Committee is also recommending that a Rehab Grant Policy be adopted which could clearly detail what are eligible program expenses. The proposed policy would allow for window and roof redesign that materially affect the aesthetic appearance of a structure. Mr. Mars questioned whether or not Mr. Larson' s grant application request was approved. Mr. Stock responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Albinson stated that often times window improvements can have a tremendous aesthetic impact on a building's appearance. He concurred with the Downtown Committee's recommendation. Brandmire/Beard moved to recommend to the Shakopee HRA that the Rehab Grant Program guidelines be amended to exclude customary maintenance items and further recommended the adoption of a Rehab Grant Policy No. 7, which further clarifies what constiutes customary maintenance in regard to building repairs. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Page - 2 Community Development Commission December 18, 1991 Mr. Stock stated that the Rehab Grant Program was initially established as a one year program in 1990. In 1990 the HRA received and approved eight Rehab Grant application. Originally $16, 000 of the initial allocation was awarded to potential projects. However, of the original eight grant program applications approved, only four were completed. The total amount of grant proceeds allocated for 1990 projects equated to $4,252. In 1991 only one Rehab Grant application was approved. This application had grant proceeds in the amount of $1,706. Therefore, total grant proceeds allocated in conjunction with the Rehab Grant Program have only equated to $5, 958. The Downtown Committee is recommending that the Rehab Grant Program be continued with funding allocated from the HRA fund balance in the amount of $44, 000. The Committee is recommending that the funding be maintained until it is all allocated. In the past, the Committee has had to go back on an annual basis to request an allocation. Chairman Mars questioned why some of the original grant applications were not completed. Mr. Stock stated that one of the applications was for Wampach's restaurant. Mr. Chuck Mensing, owner of the property, decided to wait on making the improvements on his building until after the mini bypass project was completed. He was concerned over the possibility of losing one of his main entrances and was concerned about the potential impact on his business. A second major project was also withdrawn for the shoe shop building, across the street from the Marquette Bank building because the closing on the sale of the property fell apart at the last minute. Discussion ensued on whether or not the grant program should be continued. It was the consensus of those in attendance that the grant program has stimulated several property owners into improving their buildings. Those projects that have been completed have been beneficial in improving the appearance of the properties in the downtown area. Mr. Beard stated that perhaps the downtown mini bypass conceptual image proposal might also stimulate property owners into improving their properties and taking advantage of the Rehab Grant Program. Many property owners are also concerned about the overall impact the mini bypass might have on the business activity in the downtown area and therefore are taking a very conservative approach to improving their buildings until they can actually measure the bypass's impact. Albinson/Beard moved to recommend to the Shakopee HRA that the Rehab Grant Program be continued until all grant proceeds are expended, with $44, 000 to be allocated from the HRA fund balance. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Page - 3 Community Development Commission December 18, 1991 Mr. Stock stated that on December 11 , 1991, the Downtown Committee continued their discussion on the future direction of the Downtown Committee. It was the consensus of the Downtown Committee that they wanted to take no official position on their future standing. It was the consensus of the Committee that there are still many things that need to be addressed in stimulating the economic activity in the downtown area. Commissioner Brandmire stated that he felt the activities of the Downtown Committee were merely a duplication of effort for staff. He felt the Community Development Commission could adequately address the issues in the downtown area. Commissioner Beard stated that if several of the Downtown Committee members could be appointed to the Community Development Commission, that he believed the interests of the downtown area would be served. Mr. Beard stated that, with several members of the Community Development Commission currently resigning, it might be the appropriate time to merge the two bodies. With his resignation, Jane DuBois ' and Mr. Pennington's change of residence, that there will be at least three openings on the Committee. Mr. Beard stated that Melanie Kahleck recently resigned from the Downtown Committee and has requested possible appointment to the Community Development Commission. Mr. Beard questioned whether any of the current Downtown Committee members were interested in possibly moving to the Community Development Commission. Mr. Stock stated that Mr. Cole VanHorn originally applied for the Community Development Commission, but that all seats were filled and that he was subsequently appointed to the Downtown Committee. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that Mr. VanHorn would be interested in serving on the Community Development Commission. Mr. Stock stated that Mike Phillips has also expressed possible interest in serving on the Community Development Commission. It was the consensus of the Committee that the Downtown Committee should be merged with the Community Development Commission. It was also the consensus that a subcommittee of the Community Development Commission could be created at a later date for specific issues that may arise in regard to downtown redevelopment. Beard/Albinson moved to recommend to City Council that the Downtown Committee be merged with the Community Development Commission at this time and also that the City Ordinance be amended, expanding the Community Development Commission to nine members. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock noted that on December 11, 1991, the Downtown Committee reviewed several informal proposals for a conceptual image study for the two blocks located north of 1st Ave. , adjacent to the mini bypass. The Downtown Committee is looking at the possibility of utilizing a consultant to complete the image study in an effort to stimulate discussion on redevelopment possibilities. The Committee Minutes of the Page - 4 Community Development Commission December 18, 1991 feels that generally there is a lack of understanding on the part of the community and the downtown business owners regarding the design for the mini bypass and its potential impact on the downtown area. Mr. Stock shared with the Commission briefly the information presented in the three proposals. Generally, each of the proposals contained the same information on what will be completed as a part of the study. The cost for the services range between $3,900 and $7, 000. Mr. Stock stated that of the three proposals submitted, he was particularly impressed with the proposal submitted by SEH. Mr. Stock stated that Mr. C. J. Lilly, landscape architect for SEH, was the only architect who actually took the initiative to contact MN/DOT regarding when the plans for the mini bypass would be actually available. Mr. Lilly discovered that the plans could be available as early as January 1, 1992 but no later than five weeks before the bid letting date of April 24, 1992. The plans are essential in completing the conceptual image study. Mr. Stock stated that the study would include six drawings. The drawings would be from three different points, looking into and out of the downtown area. One set of drawings would simply illustrate the bridge, as it relates to the existing structures. The second set of plans would be drawn to illustrate what the visual impact would be if certain building renovations were pursued. Mr. Brandmire stated that he would like the study to include a drawing of what the aesthetic view might look like with a new municipal structure, located at the bridge head. Mr. Brandmire stated that the possibility of developing a three-level structure at this site would significantly enhance the visual appearance of the downtown area and provide a focal point for economic activity that will stimulate downtown redevelopment. Mr. Brandmire stated that he recognized that the cost for this type of development would be significant. However, he stated that he did not feel that a developer on their own initiative would come into the community and develop the property into new commercial space. Mr. Stock stated that if this is something that the Committee wished to pursue that they could do it as an add-on to the project. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that initially a simple drawing of the existing conditions and possible simple renovations would be adequate to stimulate discussion on what other alternatives might be appropriate. Commissioner DuBois stated that perhaps the conceptual image study should be expanded to a broader, more comprehensive plan of the entire downtown area. Mr. Mars stated that he was also concerned about the potential development for Huber Park. He stated that it would be nice to have a conceptual plan of the park prepared, in addition to the mini bypass. Due to the cost factors involved, Mr. Stock stated that he was not sure whether or not Council would be willing to undertake a major comprehensive plan at this time. He stated that it is an alternative that could be presented to the Council. It was the consensus of the Committee that something Minutes of the Page - 5 Community Development Commission December 18, 1991 needs to be done to stimulate the discussion of downtown redevelopment possibilities. DuBois/Albinson moved to recommend to the City Council that City Council authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement with SEH to complete a conceptual image study of the downtown mini bypass area, at a cost not to exceed $7, 000, with funding to be allocated from the general fund balance. Motion carried unanimously. Albinson/DuBois moved to table the One and Five Year Work Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that at the next meeting he will prepare a more thorough One and Five Year Work Plan for the Committee's review, discussion and approval. Mr. Brandmire questioned whether or not the Shakopee Public Utility Commission has discussed the under-grounding service connection policy for the downtown alleys. Mr. Albinson stated that they have discussed it in the past but he is not aware of what they are going to propose in terms of cost allocation. Mr. Brandmire stated that he would like the Community Development Commission liaison to bring up the possibility of a plat fee payment system for each business affected by the under-grounding. Mr. Brandmire recognized that there might have to be a tiered flat fee schedule since some services are more complicated that others but that generally it would probably be better accepted than having each individual business owner having to handle their cost of their own service. Mr. Albinson stated that he would share Mr. Brandmire's thoughts with the Utility Commission at their next meeting. Albinson/Brandmire moved to adjourn the meeting at 7 : 00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Council Chambers December 11, 1991 Chairperson Keen called the meeting to order at 7:55 a.m. with Commissioners D. Wermerskirchen, B. Wermerskirchen, Kahleck and Keen present. Commissioner Fonder, VanHorn and Phillips were absent. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator, was also present. B. Wermerskirchen/D. Wermerskirchen moved to approve the minutes of the November 13, 1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that last month Mr. John Larson, owner of the Tole Bridge building, submitted a grant application for roof and window repairs. Mr. Stock noted that the HRA did approve Mr. Larson' s grant application. However, they requested the Downtown Committee and Community Development Commission to review the Rehab Grant Programs and amend them to exclude normal customary building maintenance expenses as eligible program costs. Mr. Stock noted that he has taken the liberty of excluding window repairs from the Rehab Grant Program Guidelines and included new language that would exclude customary and normal maintenance from the program as eligible financing items. Mr. Stock noted that he is also recommending the approval of a new policy that relates to administrating the Rehab Grant Program. The policy would specifically address what type of improvements are eligible project expenses. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that generally he concurred that normal customary maintenance items should not be eligible for grant reimbursement. However, he felt that sometimes window repairs and roof repairs actually could improve the aesthetic appearance of the buildings. Mr. Stock stated that he concurred and that the policy has been drafted to allow for window and roof repairs that materially change the aesthetic view of the structure. Discussion ensued. B. Wermerskirchen/D. Wermerskirchen moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the Rehab Grant Program guidelines be amended to exclude customary maintenance items and recommended adoption of Rehab Grant Program Policy No. 7, which further clarifies what constitutes customary maintenance in regard to building repairs. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that the Rehab Grant Program was initially established as a one year program in 1990. The Shakopee ERA subsequently continued the program in 1991, utilizing the remaining $34 , 000 of the initial $50, 000 allocation. Mr. Stock noted that in 1990, eight Rehab Grant Program applications were approved. However, of the original eight grant applications approved, only Minutes of the Page - 2 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee December 11, 1991 four were completed. The grant proceeds distributed from the HRA fund balance for the completed projects equated to approximately $4, 252 . In 1991, the HRA approved one Rehab Grant application with the grant amount equating to $1,706. Assuming that the 1991 grant application is completed, the total amount that will have been allocated from the HRA fund balance to the Rehab Grant Program will equate to $5,558. Mr. Stock requested that the Committee discuss whether or not the program should be continued in 1992 in its present form and what level of appropriation should be dedicated to the program if it is continued. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt the program has been successful. He stated that he believed the lack of interest in 1991 could be attributed to the rather poor economy. He felt the program has been beneficial and it encouraged property owners to improve their buildings. He also noted that several other downtown property owners did pursue improvements on their own that may have been stimulated by improvements adjacent to their property that, in fact, did receive grant funding. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that he also thought the program was valuable. He stated that he did feel that the grant percentage amount should be increased but that the Downtown Committee has been unsuccessful in the past in having it increased. He stated that perhaps at a later date, it might be appropriate to pursue an increase in the percentage amount. Chairman Keen questioned whether or not it would appropriate to have the HRA set aside a specific allotment in perpetuity for the Rehab Grant Program, rather than each year discussing whether or not it should be continued and at what level. Mr. Stock stated that this would be up to the HRA to decide. Discussion ensued on the level of funding that should be allocated to the Rehab Grant Program. Chairman Keen stated that since the original allotment for the program was $50, 000, and only $6, 000 of that has been allocated, that she would feel comfortable in recommending to the HRA that $44, 000 be allocated to the program in perpetuity until it is depleted. D. Wermerskirchen/Kahleck moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the Rehab Grant Program be continued in 1992 with $44, 000 to be allocated in perpetuity from the HRA fund balance. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the informal proposals solicited by staff for a conceptual image study of the bypass area. Mr. Stock noted that the cost for the services range between $3 , 900 and $6, 950. Mr. Stock shared with the Committee several examples of what the conceptual image study would entail. Mr. Stock noted that for the most part, the proposals were identical in terms of the scape of Minutes of the Page - 3 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee December 11, 1991 services offered. Mr. Stock noted that he was particularly impressed by the amount of time devoted by SEH in completing their proposal. Mr. Stock also noted that SEH's cost was the lowest of the three proposals submitted. Commissioner Kahleck stated that she was familiar with Mr. Lilly who completed the proposal for SEH. She stated that Mr. Lilly has had experience in river communities, such as Stillwater and Red Wing. She felt that his keen interest in river communities would enhance the project. Discussion ensued on the amount of money to be allocated for the project. Mr. Stock stated that he believed the proceeds from the sale of the parking lots, north of 1st Ave. , have been deposed to the general fund balance. Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt that the mini bypass and the visual approach into the community, off of the bypass, was more than just a downtown issue. He stated that he felt that each of the entry points into the community were community wide issues. Just because the 169 bridge happens to come into our community as our downtown, he did not feel that this was solely a downtown issue. Commissioner Kahleck concurred. She felt that the aesthetic improvement of this major entry point into the community was crucial for the community's overall image. She felt that this should be one of the community's number one objectives. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen concurred and stated that the first impression of Shakopee as you come across the new bridge, needs to be a positive. The first impression you get today tends to be negative and reflects poorly on the whole community. Kahleck/D. Wermerskirchen moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the appropriate City o=-'; r be authorized to enter into an agreement with SEH to complete a conceptual image study of the downtown area, at a cost not to exceed $7, 000 with funding to be allocated from the general fund balance. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the future direction of the Downtown Committee. Mr. Stock stated that basically there are four options for the Downtown Committee to consider, including the following: Maintaining the status quo, Formalize as an official advisory committee, disband the committee, and do nothing. Chairperson Keen asked if there Committee had any other pros or cons that they would like added to the list created by Mr. Stock. Commissioner Kahleck stated that a pro for maintaining the status quo is that the Downtown Committee has been successful in the past. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that another positive was the fact that the Committee structure provides for a free flow of ideas while maintaining a focus and direction. Commissioner Kahleck stated that one of the cons for maintaining the Committee is that sometimes the work that the Committee Minutes of the Page - 4 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee December 11, 1991 completes is for naught because the Community Development Commission could, in fact, over rule the Downtown Committee. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt that we may be about six months ahead of ourselves in discussing the fate of the Downtown Committee. He stated that if City Council proceeds with the conceptual image study that the Downtown Committee will have work to complete in 1992 . He also stated that he felt that the property north of 1st Ave. was a critical linchpin in determining whether or not the Committee should be continued in its present form. Until City Council makes a decision on what they plan to do with the north side of 1st Ave. , and Phase II of the Redevelopment Project, Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt the Committee should be continued. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen concurred. He did state however that if the Downtown Committee cannot have its members all occur on a regular basis, that he felt the Committee should be eliminated. Commissioner Keen stated that rather than take a position that the Committee should be continued or disband, perhaps the concept of merging the Downtown Committee with the Community Development Commission should be discussed. Commissioner Kahleck stated that the merger concept did not sound quite as negative as disbanding. She felt that there were pros to the possible merger of the two committees. It was the consensus of the Committee that the Committee should be preserved in its present form. The Committee did recognize the fact that the City Council has the authority to determine what is in the best interest of the community and that might include the possible reorganization of all City committees. Discussion ensued on the January meeting. It was the consensus of the Committee to cancel the January meeting. Mr. Stock stated that he would sent each of the Downtown Committee members a notice of the meeting cancellation and also inform them of when the issue of the conceptual image study would be presented. Kahleck/D. Wermerskirchen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 00 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Council Chambers December 11, 1991 Chairperson Keen called the meeting to order at 7:55 a.m. with Commissioners D. Wermerskirchen, B. Wermerskirchen, Kahleck and Keen present. Commissioner Fonder, VanHorn and Phillips were absent. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator, was also present. B. Wermerskirchen/D. Wermerskirchen moved to approve the minutes of the November 13, 1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that last month Mr. John Larson, owner of the Tole Bridge building, submitted a grant application for roof and window repairs. Mr. Stock noted that the HRA did approve Mr. Larson's grant application. However, they requested the Downtown Committee and Community Development Commission to review the Rehab Grant Programs and amend them to exclude normal customary building maintenance expenses as eligible program costs. Mr. Stock noted that he has taken the liberty of excluding; window repairs from the Rehab Grant Program Guidelines and included new language that would exclude customary and normal maintenan 'e from the program as eligible financing items. Mr. Stock noted that he is also recommending the approval of a new policy that relates to administrating the Rehab Grant Program. The policy would specifically address what type of improvements are eligible ;;roject expenses. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that generally he concurred that normal customary maintenance items should not be eligible for grant reimbursement. However, he felt that sometimes window repairs and roof repairs actually could improve the aesthetic appearance of the buildings. Mr. Stock stated that he concurred and that the policy has been drafted to allow for window and roof repairs that materially change the aesthetic view of the structure. Discussion ensued. B. Wermerskirchen/D. Wermerskirchen moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the Rehab Grant Program guidelines be amended to exclude customary maintenance items and recommended adoption of Rehab Grant Program Policy No. 7, which further clarifies what constitutes customary maintenance in regard to building repairs. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that the Rehab Grant Program was initallly established as a one year program in 1990. The Shakopee HRA subsequently continued the program in 1991, utilizing the remaining $34 , 000 of the initial $50, 000 allocation. Mr. Stock noted that in 1990, eight Rehab Grant Program applications were approved. However, of the original eight grant applications approved, only Minutes of the Page - 2 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee December 11, 1991 four were completed. The grant proceeds distributed from the HRA fund balance for the completed projects equated to approximately $4,252 . In 1991, the HRA approved one Rehab Grant application with the grant amount equating to $1,706. Assuming that the 1991 grant application is completed, the total amount that will have been allocated from the HRA fund balance to the Rehab Grant Program will equate to $5,558. Mr. Stock requested that the Committee discuss whether or not the program should be continued in 1992 in its present form and what level of appropriation should be dedicated to the program if it is continued. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt the program has been successful. He stated that he believed the lack of interest in 1991 could be attributed to the rather poor economy. He felt the program has been beneficial and it encouraged property owners to improve their buildings. He also noted that several other downtown property owners did pursue improvements on their own that may have been stimulated by improvements adjacent to their property that, in fact, did receive grant funding. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that he also thought the program was valuable. He stated that he did feel that the grant percentage amount should be increased but that the Downtown Committee has been unsuccessful in the past in having it increased. He stated that perhaps at a later date, it might be appropriate to pursue an increase in the percentage amount. Chairman Keen questioned whether or not it would appropriate to have the HRA set aside a specific allotment in perpetuity for the Rehab Grant Program, rather than each year discussing whether or not it should be continued and at what level. Mr. Stock stated that this would be up to the HRA to decide. Discussion ensued on the level of funding that should be allocated to the Rehab Grant Program. Chairman Keen stated that since the original allotment for the program was $50, 000, and only $6, 000 of that has been allocated, that she would feel comfortable in recommending to the HRA that $44 , 000 be allocated to the program in perpetuity until it is depleted. D. Wermerskirchen/Kahleck moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the Rehab Grant Program be continued in 1992 with $44 , 000 to be allocated in perpetuity from the HRA fund balance. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the informal proposals solicited by staff for a conceptual image study of the bypass area. Mr. Stock noted that the cost for the services range between $3 , 900 and $6, 950. Mr. Stock shared with the Committee several examples of what the conceptual image study would entail. Mr. Stock noted that for the most part, the proposals were identical in terms of the scape of Minutes of the Page - 3 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee December 11, 1991 services offered. Mr. Stock noted that he was particularly impressed by the amount of time devoted by SEH in completing their proposal. Mr. Stock also noted that SEH's cost was the lowest of the three proposals submitted. Commissioner Kahleck stated that she was familiar with Mr. Lilly who completed the proposal for SEH. She stated that Mr. Lilly has had experience in river communities, such as Stillwater and Red Wing. She felt that his keen interest in river communities would enhance the project. Discussion ensued on the amount of money to be allocated for the project. Mr. Stock stated that he believed the proceeds from the sale of the parking lots, north of 1st Ave. , have been deposed to the general fund balance. Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt that the mini bypass and the visual approach into the community, off of the bypass, was more than just a downtown issue. He stated that he felt that each of the entry points into the community were community wide issues. Just because the 169 bridge happens to come into our community as our downtown, he did not feel that this was solely a downtown issue. Commissioner Kahleck concurred. She felt that the aesthetic improvement of this major entry point into the community was crucial for the community's overall image. She felt that this should be one of the community's number one objectives. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen concurred and stated that the first impression of Shakopee as you come across the new bridge, needs to be a positive. The first impression you get today tends to be negative and reflects poorly on the whole community. Kahleck/D. Wermerskirchen moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the appropriate City offi-' rc be authorized to enter into an agreement with SEH to complete a conceptual image study of the downtown area, at a cost not to exceed $7, 000 with funding to be allocated from the general fund balance. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the future direction of the Downtown Committee. Mr. Stock stated that basically there are four options for the Downtown Committee to consider, including the following: Maintaining the status quo, Formalize as an official advisory committee, disband the committee, and do nothing. Chairperson Keen asked if there Committee had any other pros or cons that they would like added to the list created by Mr. Stock. Commissioner Kahleck stated that a pro for maintaining the status quo is that the Downtown Committee has been successful in the past. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that another positive was the fact that the Committee structure provides for a free flow of ideas while maintaining a focus and direction. Commissioner Kahleck stated that one of the cons for maintaining the Committee is that sometimes the work that the Committee Minutes of the Page - 4 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee December 11, 1991 completes is for naught because the Community Development Commission could, in fact, over rule the Downtown Committee. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt that we may be about six months ahead of ourselves in discussing the fate of the Downtown Committee. He stated that if City Council proceeds with the conceptual image study that the Downtown Committee will have work to complete in 1992 . He also stated that he felt that the property north of 1st Ave. was a critical linchpin in determining whether or not the Committee should be continued in its present form. Until City Council makes a decision on what they plan to do with the north side of 1st Ave. , and Phase II of the Redevelopment Project, Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt the Committee should be continued. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen concurred. He did state however that if the Downtown Committee cannot have its members all occur on a regular basis, that he felt the Committee should be eliminated. Commissioner Keen stated that rather than take a position that the Committee should be continued or disband, perhaps the concept of merging the Downtown Committee with the Community Development Commission should be discussed. Commissioner Kahleck stated that the merger concept did not sound quite as negative as disbanding. She felt that there were pros to the possible merger of the two committees. It was the consensus of the Committee that the Committee should be preserved in its present form. The Committee did recognize the fact that the City Council has the authority to determine what is in the best interest of the community and that might include the possible reorganization of all City committees. Discussion ensued on the January meeting. It was the consensus of the Committee to cancel the January meeting. Mr. Stock stated that he would sent each of the Downtown Committee members a notice of the meeting cancellation and also inform them of when the issue of the conceptual image study would be presented. Kahleck/D. Wermerskirchen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 00 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 21, 1992 Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2] Reading by Mayor Laurent of City's Non-Discrimination Policy 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] Mayor's Report 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 7] 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. ) *8] Approval of Minutes of January 21, 1992 9] Communications: a] Carol Friendshuh, regarding BACM *b] Robert F. Vierling, regarding injury in 1986 *c] Robert F. Vierling, regarding occurrences over the years 10] PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 11] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission: a] Rezoning of a parcel on CR-83 (formerly the Velodrome) from RTD to I-1 (light industrial) - Ord. No. 329 b] Amending Zoning Regulations To Allow Outdoor Storage In The Racetrack District - Ord. No. 328 c] Preliminary and Final Plat of Minnesota Valley 6th Addition, lying North of Vierling Dr. and East of Presidential Lane - Res. No. 3529 d] Amendment To Comprehensive Development Plan To Allow Industrial Waste Water Plants - Res. No. 3530 TENTATIVE AGENDA January 21, 1992 Page -2- 12] Reports from Staff: a] Vacant Police Sergeancy *b] Purchase of Squad Cars c] Moratorium Appraisal Report d] Police Officer Request for Use of Sick Leave *e] Consultant Agreements f] Changing March 3rd Meeting Date *g] Approve Bills In The Amount of $2, 085, 091. 10 (of this amount $1,812, 647.87 is debt service) h] Appointments to Boards and Commissions *i] Computer Equipment Purchase - Police 13] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 3526 - Ordering Preparation of Assessments for Jackson/Harrison, Project No. 1991-2 *b] Res. No. 3527 - Amending Res. No. 3517, Ordering Report on Improvements to Apgar from 1st to 6th *c] Res. No. 3528 - Receiving A Report and Setting A Public Hearing on Improvements to Muhlenhardt Road, Project No. 1992-2 *d] Res. No. 3531 - Approving Contract With The Regional Transit Board for 1992 *e] Res. No. 3524 - Approving One-Day Off-Site Gambling Permit for All Saints Catholic Church *f] Res. No. 3533 - Merger of CDC and Downtown Committees 14] Other Business: a] b] c] d] 15] Adjourn to Tuesday, January 28, 1992 at 7 : 00 P.M. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator REMINDER: January 28, 1992 Committee of the Whole meeting! OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 7, 1992 The City Clerk administered the oath of office to re-elected Mayor Gary Laurent and newly-elected Councilmembers Michael Beard and Joan Lynch. Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7: 00 p.m. , with Cncl. Beard, Lynch, Sweeney and Vierling present. Also present: City Administrator, Dennis Kraft; Assistant City Administrator, Barry Stock; City Clerk, Judith Cox; City Attorney, Karen Marty; City Engineer, Dave Hutton; and City Planner, Lindberg Ekola. Vierling/Lynch moved to endorse the City Council meeting objectives and procedures as outlined. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Vierling offered Resolution No. 3519, A Resolution Approving the Appointment of Commissioners for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Beard moved to approve the City Council meeting agenda with the following additions under "Other Business" : Resolutions of appreciation, collective bargaining discussion, and Resolution No. 3520. Motion carried unanimously. The City Council meeting recessed for the meeting of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The meeting of the City Council was reconvened at 7:40 p.m. Liaison reports were given from Cncl. Vierling and Sweeney. Mayor Laurent stated he had attended the Transportation Coalition meeting on December 20th, where funding of the County Road 18 bridge had been discussed. Large funds have been received from the Federal government for this project. Mayor Laurent also attended a meeting for Murphy's Landing, where they are in the process of looking for a new director due to the resignation of Marge Henderson. Mayor Laurent asked for comments from anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Resolution No. 3517 , Resolution No. 3518, and Resolution No. 3520 were added to consent business. Vierling/Lynch moved to approve the consent business. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Sweeney moved to approve the December 17 , 1991 City Council meeting minutes. (Motion approved under consent business) . Official Proceedings of the January 7, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Vierling/Sweeney moved to accept the resignation of Michael Beard from the Community Development Commission, with regrets. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Sweeney moved to accept the resignation of Joan Lynch from the Planning Commission, effective January 15, 1992, with regrets. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Sweeney moved to accept the resignation of Jane DuBois from the Community Development Commission, with regrets. (Motion approved under consent business) . Kristen L. Converse, Executive Director, Shakopee Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau was present for the presentation of their annual report. She stated they had joined the Twin Cities Attraction Group with focus on Japan, Germany, and the United States for tourism. They are involved in various activities, such as: Early Bird coupons for October through May for further tourism; sales calls are being made to group tour organizations; in 1991 they prepared an extensive list of travel information and established a data base with inquiries for mailing of activities; they are attending trade shows in Des Moines, Iowa; and noted other activities of the Bureau. She stated the income in 1991 was $83 ,400, which was an increase over 1990, with an income of $70, 800. Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on amending the city code relating to the sale of on-sale liquor on Sunday. City Clerk stated that Mr. Gary Turtle of Turtle' s Bar & Grill, Inc. , had submitted a letter requesting the City amend the On-sale Sunday Liquor regulations. She explained that Council had directed staff to advertise for the public hearing stating that the Council would consider permitting all establishments to be able to serve liquor at 10: 00 a.m. , or that all establishments not be allowed to serve liquor prior to 12 : 00 Noon. Mayor Laurent asked for comments from the audience. Gary Turtle, Turtle ' s Bar & Grill, stated he is requesting his establishment be allowed to sell liquor at 10: 00 a.m. , as is permitted in other establishments "down the road". He stated he is not necessarily requesting that all establishments be able to sell at 10: 00 a.m. He stated this is only fair competition, and that the existing law regulating opening hours by square footage is clearly against the "little guy" and questions the legality of such a regulation. Mayor Laurent asked for further comments from the audience. There was no response. Official Proceedings of the January 7, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mayor Laurent closed the public hearing. The City Attorney stated that a class distinction can be maintained for different hours of operation. Mr. Turtle stated his area is over 4,000 square feet, 3 ,500 square feet is customer service area. He stated he serves food and pays the same fees for a liquor license as the rest of the establishments. He stated he does not operate a downtown local bar, but a family-type facility. The City Clerk stated that there are different fees for liquor licenses depending upon the customer used floor area of an establishment, but that all Sunday On-sale Liquor Licenses are charged the same. Mayor Laurent stated communications have been received from Canterbury Downs and Dangerfield's (the two establishments permitted to sell on-sale Sunday liquor at 10: 00 a.m. because of larger customer used floor area) . Neither facility has a strong recommendation on the time frame for selling on-sale Sunday liquor. They have stated their preference as being allowed to sell at 10: 00 a.m. , but they are supportive of whatever the Council decides. Mayor Laurent stated he favors the 10: 00 a.m. hour as a means of separating church and state. He also agrees with the business competition issue, as indicated by Gary Turtle. The City Clerk stated that State law does not allow on-sale Sunday liquor prior to 10 : 00 a.m. Cncl. Vierling stated she is not in favor of 12 : 00 Noon but is willing to look at 11: 00 a.m. Cncl. Beard stated he does not see this as a church and state issue, but rather as allowing neighborhood quietness on a Sunday morning. He stated there must have been a reason for the square foot distinction guideline. He cautioned the Council on being too quick to amend, but added his concern for fair business competition. He suggested all establishments with on-sale Sunday liquor licenses be allowed to sell liquor at 11: 00 a.m. Cncl. Sweeney questioned if anyone had done a survey of neighboring communities as to their guidelines. Mr. Turtle responded that he had called surrounding communities and that 10: 00 a.m. was the common time frame. He again stated he should be able to compete with other communities. He wants his establishment considered as a sports bar and with that in mind, needs to be able to serve liquor on Sundays at 10: 00 a.m. , prior to commencement of televised games. Official Proceedings of the January 7, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Cncl. Sweeney stated that perhaps an establishment should be allowed to purchase the privilege to sell on Sunday by 10: 00 a.m. , and pay the same fee as those establishments with 4, 000 plus customer used floor area, which have been permitted to sell at 10: 00 a.m. He stated the City should offer the opportunity for all Class A establishments to be allowed the right and privileges of a Class B establishment. Vierling/Beard moved that all classes be allowed to sell on-sale Sunday liquor at 11: 00 a.m. The City Clerk requested the motion to read in reference to a drafted ordinance. Cncl. Vierling and Cncl. Beard withdrew their motion. Vierling/Beard offered Ordinance No. 327, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 5, Liquor, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulation, By Repealing Section 5. 34, Sunday Sales, and Adopting One New Section in Lieu Thereof Relating to the Same Subject (allowing for 11: 00 a.m. Sunday On-Sale Liquor) , and moved its adoption. Motion carried with Cncl. Sweeney voting "no" . Vierling/Lynch moved to direct staff to draft a resolution to facilitate the merger of the Downtown Committee and the CDC and further acknowledged the accomplishments of the Downtown Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Vierling moved to nominate Mike Phillips and Cole Van Horn as candidates to the CDC. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was held on a conceptual image study of the downtown mini-bypass area. The Assistant City Administrator recommended that funding for this project come from the proceeds of the sale of the parking lots. Cncl. Sweeney voiced his opposition of funding this project from the general fund and suggested a service organization may be willing to take on the funding. Vierling/Beard moved to table and refer the issue of a conceptual image study to the Committee of the Whole. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch moved to authorize the purchase of 10 dual tone and 24 single tone Motorola Monitor II (SV) pagers from Motorola for the price of $14, 854 . (Motion carried under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch moved to authorize the Chief of Police to assign to Gerald Poole the duties of Deputy Chief of the Shakopee Police Official Proceedings of the January 7, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Department effective January 6, 1992 and to move Deputy Chief Poole to exempt employee status and to compensate him at Step 6 of the pay plan which called for $44, 016 in 1991 with the appropriate adjustment in 1992 . Cncl. Sweeney stated that a review of the Policy Department organization should first be established prior to appointing a Deputy Chief of Police. Vierling/Lynch moved to amend the motion to include the word "acting" (Chief of Police) . Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate city officials to execute the billing agreement dated 11-27-91 from the Scott County Human Services providing for payment of $50 a trip for transportation of detoxed persons to Dakota County Receiving Center in Hastings, MN. Motion carried unanimously. Staff to research any "recoup" of charges for the transportation of persons to Dakota County Receiving Center in Hastings. Discussion was held on fees for zoning ordinance amendments. Suggested fees: Text amendments, $250; map amendments for 2 . 5 acres, $250; map amendments for areas greater than 2 . 5 acres, $500. Vierling/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 3515, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 3507, Setting Fees for City Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and moved for its adoption subject to the deletion of text amendment fees. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Vierling moved to authorize the selection of the consulting firms of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. , and William Engelhardt & Associates as additional alternatives to Orr-Schelen-Mayeron, and directed city staff to prepare the necessary contracts for Council approval. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Beard moved to authorize the purchase of a 1992 Ford Ranger from Grossman Chevrolet in the amount of $8 , 339, under the Hennepin County Contract, for the Engineering Department. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch moved to approve the bills in the amount of $262 , 634 . 25. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch moved to authorize the placement of Eileen Klimek, Accounting Clerk, to full time status effective January 13 , 1992 . (Motion approved under consent business) . Sweeney/Vierling moved to accept the following 1992 liaison appointments, as made by the Mayor: Vice Mayor, Gloria Vierling; Official Proceedings of the January 7, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Shakopee Public Utilities, Robert Sweeney; Shakopee Valley Convention/Visitors Bureau, Joan Lynch; Murphy's Landing, Joan Lynch; Scott County Board, Robert Sweeney; School Board, Mike Beard; AMM - Delegate, Gloria Vierling; AMM - Alternate, Gary Laurent; Suburban Rate Authority Director, Gloria Vierling; Suburban Rate Authority Alternate, Dennis Kraft; and service clubs, Mike Beard. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch moved to nominate Nancy Christensen, Joe Zak and Joseph Kelly to the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals; Melanie Kahleck and Elmer Otto to the Community Development Commission; and Elmer Otto to the Energy and Transportation Committee; Bill Anderson to the Cable Communication Advisory Commission and the Community Access Corp. Board of Directors; Randy Laurent to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board and to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals; Jim Cook to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission; Marcia Spagnolo and Terrence Born to the Police Civil Service Commission; Steve Johnson and Robert Tomczik to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board; and Eldon Reinke to the Board of Review. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch moved to designate the Shakopee Valley News as the official newspaper for the city of Shakopee for the year 1992 . (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch moved to approve bonds submitted by the City Clerk and the City Treasurer and directed that they be placed on file with the City Clerk. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3517, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to Apgar Street, between 6th Avenue and 1st Avenue, and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3518, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to the Downtown Alleys between 1st Avenue and 2nd Avenue, from Spencer Street to Atwood Street, and moved its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3500, A Resolution Authorizing Delivery of a Deed to Extinguish an Easement, and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3513 , A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for the 6th Avenue Street Light Project, between Jackson Street and VanBuren Street, Project No. 1991-9, and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) . Official Proceedings of the January 7, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3514, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on Improvements to an Unnamed Street, from Valley Park Drive East to Serve the Bergquist Property, Project No. 1992-1, and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) . Sweeney/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3512 , A Resolution Designating Gloria Vierling as Suburban Rate Authority Director and Dennis Kraft as Suburban Rate Authority Alternate, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3516, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 3499 Apportioning Assessment, and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3520, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Specifying that Certain Compensation is for Services Performed for the City, and moved for its adoption. (Motion approved under consent business) . Committee of the Whole will meet at 4 : 30 p.m. on January 28 , 1992 to discuss the downtown conceptual image study and the Stans proposal. A City Council Executive Session is scheduled for 7: 00 p.m. , January 16, 1992 to discuss pay equity. Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3521, A Resolution of Appreciation to Leroy Houser, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lynch offered Resolution No. 3522 , A Resolution of Appreciation to John DuBois, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. City Council recessed at 10: 00 p.m. to the HRA Executive Session to discuss offers for property transactions. The City Council meeting was re-convened at 10 : 40 p.m. The Mayor recessed the meeting at 10: 40 p.m. for an Executive Session to discuss collective bargaining. The City Council meeting was re-convened at 11: 05 p.m. No action was taken during the Executive Session. Official Proceedings of the January 7, 1992 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting to Thursday, January 16, 1992 at 7 : 00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 11: 06 p.m. qC/LiAk -g • 0/\1- dith S. Cox City Clerk Jane VanMaldeghem Recording Secretary q a- MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: January 21, 1992 Agenda Item DATE: January 10, 1992 I received a call today from Carol Friendshuh, Back America's Courageous Military (BACM) . Carol asked that she be put on the next City Council agenda. She wishes to speak to the City Council about BACM's planning for another parade, this year. CONSENT PECF!VED ?b JAN PM Robert F. Vierling 1 1/11/92 221 E. Fourth Avenue Shakopee, Mn. 55379a 4 - �= v=`,.2:<= City Council and Mayor Re: Failure-"to Handle Injury Claim 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, Mn. 55379 Dear Council and Mayor: During the reconstruction of Fourth Avenue, I sustained permanent injury to my neck, back, and right leg, when I tripped in my yard over a root that was very carelessly left exposed as a result of this project. The City of Shakopee and the sub-contractor that had the dirt and sod con- tract for the boulevard on Fourth Avenue, are both to blame since the job was not finished off properly. The sub-contractor left roots sticking up, large clumps of dirt, deep ruts, rock, and other debris. Both boulevard and yard were left in total disarray and dangerous disrepair. We took pic- tures of this total disrepair that was left up and down the entire street tho 1986 was a mild Winter, and the sub-contractor could (and should have) finished those repairs. He left no place on the boulevard for people to even cross from their yards to their street or their cars. Since this contractor was under hire from the City of Shakopee, I contend that the City must accept responsibility in this. When I notified the City of this injury, I was informed (by mail) to go to the Dr. and they would take care of the bill with their insurance company. Strangely enough, after the City learned of my injury, the sub-contractor I appeared immediately with a bobcat and leveled off all the boulevards on Fourth Avenue. After going to the Dr. for about one month to receive extensive therapy to the injured leg, back, and neck, the City of Shakopee changed their mind and turned the claim over to two other insurance companies who immediately began bouncing this claim back and forth. As a result, my bill went unpaid and the Hospital refused further therapy. The Hospital's discontinuation of therapy not only left permanent physical damage but was terribly humi- liating as well. They told me they could no longer proceed because of non- payment of this bill that the City first acknowledged, then rejected. I will expect the City of Shakopee to take care of this matter promptly and notify me of their progress. I expect the City of Shakopee to accept full responsibility of this outstanding Hospital bill, and will expect re- muneration for permanent injuries sustained. Sincerely, Z2/1 ‘. 41-teet ( ,e.e, At.- Robe F. Vierling P. S. I do have all pictures, Dr. 's reports, letters, and documents from the City of Shakopee regarding the above claim. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive the correspondence from Robert F. Vierling dated Jan. 11, 1992, regarding a 1986 injury, and forward it to the City Attorney for apprpriate action. . ~ ' _� � 0 Al e. ,��° x-y �� C. , City Council and Mayor AN 1 3 1992 /10/92 City of Shakopee ^ 129 E. First Street Shakopee, Mn' 55379 cm( o- ~WOWEIE. Re: Years of deliberate assessment overages, Dear Sirs: fraud\Li.wt .charges,-mnd-trgfba'ssments. I will try to take these in order of occurrence over the years, though the city is in violation on so many issues, they may not be in the proper ord- er, nor are they even all listed' These are just a few: 1 . Alleyway between 3rd and 4th Streets, Block 50. This alley was shoddy workmanship and planning frnm the first, Slant, etc. (This lack of workmanship has been covered in previous letter‹) . After several complaints to the Council, it was observed by Council- man Wampach and Mayor Reinke that it indeed did have to be fixed. The alley was "fixed" but only the first 120` on the West end of the alley but the part which was cambered and drained wrong behind my house was not touched. It was left in the same disrepair as before, though I was the one who had ccmplained and iniated this repair work! Isn't it strange the repair stopped just at my property line? This alley cost me $1200.00, and I ' ll expect that amnunt and the like amount in inter- est for the accumulated years and for the punitive damages caused by your failure to follow through! This makes a total of $3,000.00 by my estimation. You may call this oversight or coincidence - - 1 call it harassment. 2. Trees on Fourth Avenue On Fourth Avenue, after the great reconstruction, everyone that had had their boulevard removed and redone, was given trees by the City. I received none for my 180' , but I note that my neighbor, with his 120` feet had four of them put in! According to my calculations, l should have received 5 trees for my boulevard' Considering the going price of trees, the years of growth that my undelivered trees missed, I expect $3500.00. I called Barry Stock on this matter and asked him since I hadn't received any trees, if I could at least plant my own if I paid for them myself. He promised to call me back about what al- ternative I may have. He didn't. I called three more times leaving a message regarding these trees. I assume after 1 1/2 years that he's not going to call back! Just another of lifes little oversights? I call it just another form of harassment! 3. Holmes Street Storm Drain According to State Law (which Shakopee cannot supersede) , one need not pay for a storm drain unless one receives direct benefit from it ! Even stretching the imagination, it would take a 5' lift to get any storm water from my address to go down 4th Avenue to Holmes Street! You wrongly charged me $1 ,064.00 on this non-beneficial drain. (At the outset, the great Anderson, City Administrator, had intended to charge me $1,400.00, He finally admitted to that mistake but would not cancel the assessment) . On this little oversight, I ' ll expect my $1 ,400.00 back. I don't benefit, and I shouldn' t have had to pay! Is this just another little "unintentional" mistake? It's amazing how many of them there have been over the years that somehow ended up in my lap! You may assume rightly that I consider this just another lit- tle one of Shakopee's harassments! Recommended Action: 8eoeive and file the correspondence from Robert F. Vierling dated Jan. 10 , 1992 regarding occurrences over the years. ~~ , 2 ^ ' 4. Trees on Sommerville Street • For some unknown reason, I was only given three trees for my half a block when everyone else around me received four ! Also, while we're ' at it, my boulevard on my side of the street is far narrower than the ' one across the street` and I had to buy a weed-eater to cut the area i between the trees and the curb because my mower won' t fit! Now why do you suppose that occurred? (Go measure it if you doubt it! ) That will be $700.00 thank you! I know - it wasn' t really harassment at i all . Right?? it was just a little mistake in measurements! 5. Anti-slip Pad on Corner of 4th and Sommerville I know you're going to say that someone just forgot, but isn' t it strange that I 'm the only one in the neighborhood that didn't get a slip pad for the handicapped street corner that was installed? Of course, if someone slipped, I could be held responsible, but I 'm go- ing to hold the City of Shakopee responsible due to the deliberate neglect. Just what does that City Engineer do for the City of Shako- pee' Nothing? Forgetfulness? I doubt it! I 'd bet it's just another little turn of the harassment screw! 6. Assessments on Fourth Avenue-Gutter, Curb, Sidewalk I was deliberately overcharged over $2,500'0O on this street assess- ment! Everyone else with only 71 ` on their corner was charged only 71 ' for Fourth Avenue. My neighbor, who has 120' on Fourth Avenue and 71 ` on the corner was charged $1,780.00. I had 180' , and, at that time, I only had 71 ' on the corner as he did, but I was charged a sum of $4,365.65! Mr. Anderson, the great City Administrator, (and I have a letter to this effect) said he "made a mistake and the assessment would be corrected on the Sommerville Street improvement." Need I tell you that this adjustment was never made? This "oversight" on your part amounts to an overcharge of $2,585.65, plus interest, which now adds up to approximately $3,300.00. I 'm sure you can come up with still another reason for this delay in assessment adjustment, but I just . consider still another in a long line of harassments! 7. Sewer and Water on Lot 5, Block 50 The City (without my knowledge or authorization) deliberately allowed Hentges and the City of Shakopee to park trucks and heavy equipment on my property, destroying the sod, ripping up my sewer and water on that lot, breaking up my sidewalks, and for nine months, leaving a very hazardous mountain of dirt, large cement chunks, pieces of steel , and t This mountain became a draw for neighborhood garbage on my property. kirk,: and was what is legally termed at an "attactive nuisance" ! This put me in danger of a lawsuit once again since so many kids played on this mountain of debris. Isn' t it strange that old Eagle-Eye, Howard Jones could see one storm window leaning against the back of my house,` but couldn' t see this mountain of debris for nine months?? (I will go further into this business of Jones later! ) . For me to re- place the sewer and water, and inconvenience, I ' ll want - $4,000.00! Oversight to fail to ask permission? To fail to see a mountain? To fail to see what could be occasioned a traffic hazard, or potential injury sight? I doubt it! I don't know what you call it; I call it harassment! ' � ` ' 3. � ` 8, Restoration and Replacement of Sod and Levelinp of Lot 5, Block 50 . Hentges Construction was supposed to replace and level the lot back to its` original condition. (There was a 9 hole putting green on that lot, as can be proven by people who have played golf with me there) . Hentges came in (only after many threats of a lawsuit) , and sewed pure weed seed, including a lovely little crop of marijuana, and left it in such rough condition that I broke my riding mower three times trying to cut it! ( I have copies of repair bills! ) I finally had to go rent a Jeri Mower for heavy industrial use for approximately $80.00. Yes, I do have a copy of the rental contract! For resodding, tractor repairs, labor, and rental , that will be approximately $3,800.00! Yes, yes, I know you really didn' t intend to get me arrested for growing a nice little marijuana crop - or did you! I wonder why all this feels more and more like harassment as years go by, and coincidences pile up! 9. Rent for 9 Mn[dhs Ti , -..-.al Use-Lot 5, Block 50 by Hentqes and Shakopee I requested the City of Shakopee and Hentges Construction to kindly remove the mountain of debris, dirt, and concrete on my corner prop- erty, but no one could seem to get around to this until 9 months later, long after construction was done. As I mentioned before, old Eagle Eye Jones missed it, and the Shakopee Police Department also could not see this traffic hazard blocking off the corner. We also have pictures of the debris and heavy equipment on said property' I estimate that at $250.00 per month for 9 months comes to a round figure of $$2,250'00 plus interest. Cr, $3,800.00' If you left for three days and came back to find heavy equipment, broken concrete, etc. on your yard and couldn' t get it removed for 9 months, would you just call it an "oops"? I call it another incidence of planned har- assment! 10. Attorney Fees for My Counsel The City of Shakopee embarrassed me by bringing me into Court for having what they considered useless items on my porch. However, their case was dismissed. Therefore, ShaknpeP lost. This forced removal of items from my porch cost me approximately $1 `200.00 worth of stored appliances, etc. , plus $1 ,001 .75 in Attorney's fees to represent me, and $110.00 in costs for Schmidt's Services (I have the bill) to haul these items away. Strangely, this could all have been avoided if I had been allowed to build a garage on my three lots but a permit to build had been denied. This case was odd, when you consider that in the very next block (I have pictures) , there's a person who has a porch within 6' of the sidewalk that`s stacked just full of numerous items packed clear to the ceiling. He tells me he's never been approached by Eagle-Eye Jones! I wonder - do you suppose this could be just one more harassment? By the way, in case you`re adding, the above bill comes to $2,311 .75! 11. Mr. Jones - False Accusations in ICR In one report, Mr. Jones cites that I was driving someone else's car (which was none of his business) . Being naturally snoopy, and no dnubt wishing to catch me up in something suspicious, he had a report run on me, by impersonating a police officer to get this information. He also put in the report that he gave me a "warning" at that time! ' 11. Mr. Jones-False Accusations in ICR-Continued 4' What the hell was he referring to? What was he supposed to be "warn- ' ing" me about? He's no police officer and never will be! He embarrass- . the persons whos' car I was driving. Both have driver's licenses and insurance. Since her job dictates that she always be aboveboard in behavior, the knowledge that this ICR had been run was a humiliation to her! We both felt that our privacy had been invaded simply out of nosiness, by someone who had no authorization to call for an ICR. I did nothing illegal in using this car, and did nothing to merit this , report. (Of which I do have a copy. ) The copy was given to me by the Attorney the City had hired to harass me in Court! Mr. Jones may be brought to answer for his impersonating an officer. This is such an obvious harassment as to be ridiculous! . 12. Bill Schulz-Harassment and Impersonating an Officer Another loudmouthed person Shakopee hired in Jones place to only check garbage in alleys, etc. who took it upon himself to start har- assing me about my car. I did not know who he was and when I asked him to get out of his car and come over and talk to me, he told me he was a Police Officer and then took off like a scared rabbit! I of course took down the license number and immediately called the Shako- pee Police Department and talked to Ass' t. Chief John DuBois. I gave him a description of the man and the car. I 'm fairly certain even at that stage that Mr. DuBois knew who I was talking about, but he told me he would call me back later. He did later inform me as to the fact that the person was Bill Schulz and that he was not a Police Officer and had no right to pass himself off as such. Mr. DuBois informed me and I quote, "I told Schulz to keep to his housecleaning only, and nothing else! " I could also file a criminal charge against Mr. Schulz which I may just do! Another obvious and embarrassing harassment! 13. LeRoy Hauser-Alleged City Housing Inspector/Pollution Control Agency . Mr. Hauser had the gall and stupidity to anonymously call (Mrs. Henry revealed) the Pollution Control Agency to tell them I had an in-ground tank on Lot 5, Block 50. I immediately called the Mn. Pollution Con- trol Agency upon receipt of their letter informing me l must remove this ( imaginary) tank. I explained to Mrs. Henry that that tank had been taken out of the ground 58 years before. I explained that after my Father went out of business, he gave the tank and metal pre-fab bldg. to the Mr. Walt Duffy farm family. Mr, Hauser knew *#%)+ well that there was nn tank or fill-pipe there, but what was there was the soil pipe and water supply pipe for that lot (which the City of Shako- pee and Hentges ripped out without my permission later) . I guess, in retrospect, it doesn' t surprise me after all that he can't tell the difference between a fill-pipe or a soil pipe plus fittings! it's the calibre of the type we hire to run this town! Also, Ass't. Chief Du- Bois (and I have a letter to this effect from Hauser) seconded the notion that there was a fill-pipe on the property, thereby showing that he is as unknowledgable and dense as Hauser. The monetary amount fnr this harassment will be decided by punitive damages in a Court action. Every time word of something like this incident spreads, you reduce the chances of my selling my property and you know it! Yet, you continue this type of ceaseless accusation and harassment, even tho it be totally unfounded! / i � ' 13 LeRoy Hauser-AIleqed City Housinq Inspector-Cnntinued 5. � --- i . While we're at it, I 'm wondering why Hauser was allowed to obtain a | liquor license from the City. How can he own a business that's in | direct conflict of interest with his position for the City? Also, how � does he rate full benefits, high in retirment, based on his continued | service to the City, when he was gone from Shakopee for a considerable time and then came back? Everyone in Shakopee doesn' t have the short memory you'd like us to have! As I recall , when he left Shakopee for another position, he swore that he would never come back to this *^&+% *&%$# village of Shakopee! Isn' t it funny that we always hire this calibre of person over and over to bleed the taxpayers twice over? I did not appreciate this harassment by Hauser which led to many let- ters and phone calls back and forth between me and the Pollution Cnn- trol Agency. Of course, this was not really just another in the long line of harassments, was it! 14. Police Harassment I was backing out of my driveway when I saw the mailman coming toward my house with mail . I stopped my car which was across the sidewalk and got the mail from the mailman. As I got back into my idling car, a Police Officer stopped and warned me that I could not "park, across the sidewalk. He could readily see that I had just stopped for that moment for the mailman, and that the cars motor was running. Isn' t it very odd that down just the next block from me, the Nicolai 's have had 2 cars that have been constantly parked across the sidewalk so that people must continually walk around them, no matter what the weather? And, isn't it Just an oversight that though they live right across from the Courthouse and Police see this daily, that the Nicolai 's have been doing this for the past 15 years? I wonder why the police don' t make an issue of this?! Could it be that Shakopee just has certain people on their harassment list? 15. Trash from the Apartment House at 218 E. Third Avenue How many times and years did I call politely and ask the Police or the Council to please do something about the trash blowing or being WhenthePolice did dragged across my yard from that Apt. complex? show up, they did nothing, sometimes not even bothering to take down notes or write a report. Amazing how Jones could see with his Eagle- Eye my storm window leaning against my back porch, but he or Schulz could never see the 4 or 5 overturned garbage containers and trash through other peoples yards and up and down that alley! I sent the man who owns the Apt. dwelling a certified letter with a bill for $300.00 for picking up garbage in my yard for 5 years. He has never responded or offered to pay this bill. Now, seeing that the City of Shakopee illegally spot-zoned that as commercial property, I ' ll ex- pect the City to be responsible for the $300.00, and you can collect from him, since he is apparently on your "untouchables" list! Just 1 another little bit of harassment! Or, could it possibly be discrimi- nation only against certain citizens? You can bet that if my dogs were to somehow drag even oneL piece of garbage around the neighbor- hood, you'd be at my door like a shot, wouldn' t you! Or, if I were to pile up trash in and around my garbage container that could blow all about, you'd be there fast enough with pen and citation in hand" ' " I wonder why?! f i`: Failitre to_ -a s .e __i i s ds i Permit For v c - 3ge With i , thrCe large _ %am fotrq why, after all these years, WAS I not allowed to build _ garage on _ _ '_:et. My Atty. was with Tc the last tire that I applied for a permit and submitted _ building plans. After again not hearing from the City, I called to see what had become nf my was told t r e y tojust come up and up 'y applications .� simply �-' S i pick ?! plans if I still wanted them, and that was th._ end of that. Shat else would you call this but harassment and discrimination when all around me people have been given variances for double or even triple garagPs, storage buildings, et-- for only single or double lots. I 'm sure you have another dozen excuses and explanations for this tri ! 1_ r� /. Mr. Kraft-City Administrator with Foot in Mouth _iseaase iL i t.o Mr. Kraft's --ice while he l went with a realtor - ��` 1. `deal __ 1+.:ai _ 5 uT. _ , discussed zoning, property e, etc. . Mr: Kraft, apparently not know- ing property theuse, neo ofthe property on Fourth Ave- nuewho I was and that I was owner V ?. nu.e being discussed; sat in his office and ran down both me and the valueof propertytc, the Realtor. This was a deliberate and in- tentional harassment and was of great embarrassment to me. I under- stand from othersthat this is not the first time he has loudly voiced his opinions regarding my property. Does he realize every time he opens his mouth with these derogatory remarks, he , educes myproperty value and 's my chance of sellirig' I can only imagine that he • does indeed know, and that these remarks are deliberate and for the purpose discrediting _ of me. Please be advised that it is of no con- , to Kraft what I do with my property: In the past few year=. the City 'has thrown a monkey wrench into several possible sales with articles in the newspaper re: possible sight of City Hall, Women's Abuse Shelter, etc. . Sheer coincidence, I 'm sure! i 1 i 1S. Overcharges on Water Usage and Sewerage A few winters' back, I wrote toyou regarding the City of Shakogee` s overcharging me $-32.00 per month for water/sewer. When I finally called attention to this, ( including the Council who admitted this average) it vas promised that I would receive a. rebate; or at least a credit toward my account. So farnot surprisingly, I have not seen either one. Since this went on for approximately six mnshs be- fL re it was acknowledged, I assess this at about $240.00 that you owe me. I expect this will be forthcoming shortly? Oh; sure! ! 19. Refusal to issue !Gun Permit For `Nears, I had a permit, issued from Mpls. , to carry a gun. When the State law changed and said that one could be issued for Mn. , I then toCityShakopeeandhad no problem receiving one. changed over the _ t',' of t.+: hal '�-d suggest- ion wasissued a Pani t- f=r ( l believe) abou t 3 yea' s, with no _'gg=st there shouldhe any reason was noteligiblecarry. I that ascii whyl dl -?, to =Citi �hei should yi•k. �_ - ..1._,1 ,.e criminal record, etc. , meet al., the qualifications,icatio`is■ and do ;. h.'.-�_ •z -- im'• _.± r = � ,. ... At with gatereceipts, etc. for a sports promoter friend of a.. time help i h promoter and strangely enough, after I won in Court against mine. udderi ; ; st: :g_� . enough, the City of Shakopee's lawyers. • . permit could no longer be renewed! d! in Court, even the judge asked me about my nice, lush mariu.ana crop in the yard! ) Mr= Brownell, made three false statements on three sepa- rate occasions when I re-applied for my permit.tt. He included everything from being a licensed bodyguard to being a P.I. (I never claimed to be Ther on application, he simply arbitrarily denied my alit and thethird , application, giving no reason at all . _ 7. ' 19. Refusal to Issue Gun Permit -Continued As a State Licensed Firearms Instructor for over 35 years, I am more than qualified. I have been called into Court as a firearms and as a ballistics expert in this field. I even offered to go out on the range with Mr. Brownell to show my safe handling and accuracy to allay any apprehensions of this so-called Chief. Of course, he refused' Under the "freedom act" I want to know the name of anybody in Shakopee that has been given a permit to carry, and the reason for issuing such a permit! In a previous letter to the City Council, I expressed my opinion of Mr. Brownell and his questionable character. I must say I find it amusing and interesting that an obscure Chief of Police with little to distinguish him, should end up on a Gaming Commission in charge of the State Lottery. ( l wonder if he has relatives in WiPcon- sin?) My point is, after all , that under State Law, if legitimate reason cannot be found for denial of license (criminal record) and if a citizen feels he has reason for carrying occasionally (I do) there's no point on which you can legally turn down my application{ At least, the last time I heard, the State did still hold priority in this! I will expect my nun permit application to be honored, or will know an honest reason why it is denied! 20. Sod on Fourth Avenue Blvd. and Property This is going to have to be replaced. This is the City's responsibi- lity because the City Engineer did not take the time to check the so- called sod before it was installed, It turned into not grass, but crabgrass, nutweed, and other weird assortments of obnoxious weeds. You have only to look up and down the block and across the street on this block to see at a glance the poor sod that was used' If this is harassment, it must have been wholesale` for the whole block, because it 's a mess{ This iP the City's responsibility and I expect it to be replaced come late Spring! 21. My Dogs Mr. Brownell also falsely accused my dogs of being vicious, of bark- ing continually, and of pestering the neighbors. You have my permis- sion to go to my neighbors and check with them regarding their be- havior and whether they've ever endangered anyone's person or proper- ty! The dogs are never outside unless I am with them and my neighbors know this. The only time they were ever off my property was when some- one deliberately broke the lock on their door and let them out of the travel trailer they live in. They were retrieved within an hour and these so-called "vicious" dogs were found playing with some very ex- cited and happy children who were enjoying them tremendously. You may also check with the children in the neighborhood who play Frisbee and ball with them. (Ask about the yellow lab and the female doberman) . Both are licensed, have had their shots, and their records are at the City Hall. They have their own trailer, mattresses and blankets to sleep on; heat, water, lights, TV, and radio. The temperature is kept at approximately 64 degrees in the Winter and, in the Summer, they are air-conled. They eat better than most people, and are better taken care of and more closely supervised than many children I could name! Yes, they're spoiled with chicken, etc, and an occasional crunch bar' They also respond to commands in both German and English. Do you know of any other bi-lingual dogs? They are certainly no cause for sus- picion or harassment ! ,. ^ 8. F 22' Regarding W.R. Mars As a matter of curiosity, several of us would like to know whn this man is. No one seems to know anything about him except that he offend- ed several long-time citizens of Shakopee by implying in the newspaper that if the citizens of Shakopee weren' t so dumb they'd attend Council meetings and bring in petititons, etc, when they disagree with the Council . Right! This man's evidently deaf, dumb, and blind to the fact that this town's Council doesn' tbother with petititons or advice no matter how many citizens show up, if their mind is, as usual, rinsed to the wishes of the people! I ' ll just bet you this newcomer, his wife, kids, and dog, are on a few committees here and there. This is the type of newcomer that Shakopee loves to put on committees; and, why not! Nobody of longstanding in this town with any knowledge or foresight will serve anymore! Oh well, after he lives here a few years he' ll find out how the system really works and become just as dis- illusioned and disgusted as the rest of us! His comments in the paper were a harassment of a town and its' citizenry about whom he knows nothing at all ! IN CONCLUSION, it seems the total for all of the aforementioed comes to approximately $26,000.00, without interest. (Don' t smile - I 'm deadly serious! ) All the aforementioned, failing to be honorably re- solved, will finally have to be addressed! My patience is at an end. 1 I want immediate action/reimbursement from the Council, or I will ask my Attorney to go ahead and proceed on all nf the above examples of continual harassment, and ask for three times the amount mentioned. , I 'm sick to death of the stalling, lying, shuffling, and so-called face-to-face, man-to-man meetirigs with an arbitrary City Council that promises restitution or resolution of these problems, but in reality, does nothing! Sincerely, -3P719e1 -/4377 P. S. Where do we find some of the recent years fly-by-night employees who come to Shakopee only long enough to get" experience" (screw the town over) then leave us all with a mess! They come from God only knows where, stay just long enough to antagonize those steady, honest deserving employees who have served- Shakopee for years, then disappear into the sunset! it is ill-serving and hippocritical to continue such hiring practices (not to mention the retirement practices) that bleed this town dry! As a Committee, the City Council seems to be more in- terested in being self-serving and sanctimonious than in considering referendums, wishes, and petitions of its people! I may be more than slightly agnostic, but I quote, "God so loved the world, that he didn't send a Committee! " One could only have had Shakopee in mind when the quote was coined! ! cc: Various State Agencies II 61 , MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner RE: Application for Rezoning from RTD to I-i by Larry Link, Donald Link, and LeRoy Houser DATE: January 10, 1991 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting on January 9, 1992, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending denial for the application to rezone a 3 .54 acre parcel of land from Racetrack District (RTD) to Light Industrial (I-1) . BACKGROUND: At their meeting on October 3 , 1991, the Planning Commission continued this public hearing to their November 7, 1991, meeting at the request of the applicants. The applicants requested the continuance to allow them an opportunity to amend their application to include the properties to the south and west of the subject site. The applicants contacted the adjacent property owners and they indicated that there was not a desire to include their properties in this rezoning request. The applicants then requested that the Planning Commission review their original rezoning request for their parcel at their November 7, 1991, meeting. At that meeting, the Commissioners moved to request that Staff include, as an objective of the 1992 Work Program, a study of the RTD and mandatory PUD provisions. They also moved to request that Staff conduct a study of Section 11. 36, Subd. 4, "Performance Standards", Item D, regarding outside storage. Barry Myer, attorney for the applicants, requested that the public hearing on the rezoning request be continued pending results of the study on outside storage. The Commission subsequently moved to continue the public hearing to the first meeting of the Planning Commission in January 1992 . At that meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the approval of an amendment to the City Code which would allow outdoor storage in the Racetrack District with restrictions. Proposals for outdoor storage would be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the City Council through the Planned Unit Development approval process. DISCUSSION: The subject site is zoned RTD. (See Exhibit A. ) This district was created specifically for lands within and adjacent to the Canterbury Downs Race Track, and it is based on the Land Use Plan for the racetrack area adopted by the City Council in 1986. The intent of the district is to create a high quality environment with a high degree of land use compatibility and public street efficiency. It is further the intent of the district to require the planning of entire land ownerships as a unit, rather than permit piecemeal or scattered development on a lot by lot basis. A variety of commercial uses (such as offices, restaurants, hotels, and motels) and light industrial uses (office-showroom operations, corporate offices, research and development laboratories, and warehousing) are permitted in this district. The applicants are proposing to rezone 3 .54 acres of the parcel to I-1, Light Industrial. The purpose of the Light Industrial Zoning District is to serve as a transition between more intense industrial sites and residential and/or business land uses. Permitted in the Light Industrial Zones are such uses as warehousing and wholesaling, offices, research laboratories, and restaurants. Conditional Uses in the I-1 District include: assembly and storage of such products as food, glass, lumber, wood, paper, fabricated metal, machinery, appliances, and transportation equipment; storage of coal, gas, junk, salvage, scrap metal, paper, and rags; commercial recreation; heliports and airports; bus and truck maintenance garages; railroad operations; mining and excavating industries (if located on a lot of over 20 acres) ; landscaping services; animal hospitals and clinics; and certain types of day care facilities. The site is located near the primary entrance to the Canterbury Downs racetrack, and has one of the best potentials for the development of uses accessory to the racetrack because of its proximity to County Road 83 and Canterbury Downs. The area of the lot proposed for rezoning from RTD to I-1 does not follow the lot lines of the platted lot. (See Exhibits B and C. ) Of the 662. 24 feet of depth to the lot, only 466. 69 of this depth has been included in the rezoning request. This situation was created due to an ownership reconfiguration due to a divorce and death and was recorded by Scott County. According to the Scott County Recorder's Office, the remaining 195.55 feet of Lot 1 is owned by Cecil Behringer. Jeff Koznick owns the lot to the south of this site. The Planning Commission recognizes the apparent difficulty in developing the Racetrack District properties. Objective number 6 of the Land Use Chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Racetrack District be restudied. This study was originally scheduled to occur in 1992 or 1993 , but is being rescheduled to the 1992 work program. In addition to this rezoning application, the applicants are considering developing their lot with a construction company office and warehouse. Although this use is permitted within the RTD, the applicants have anticipated problems with the conditions restricting outdoor storage. Section 11.36, Subd. 4 (D) currently states: "The storage of all materials; semifinished or finished products; trucks, business vehicles and equipment and waste products shall be within a completely enclosed building. " A study of the existing outdoor storage conditions within the RTD has revealed that many businesses are not in compliance with this ordinance. In another Staff Report, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve an ordinance amendment which would allow outdoor storage within the RTD using performance standards criteria. Outdoor storage proposals would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council during the Planned Unit Development approval process. The Planning Commission is recommending denial of the rezoning request for the following reasons: 1. ) It is contrary to the Racetrack District Land Use Study approved by the City Council in 1986 , and the draft Comprehensive Plan; 2 . ) Rezoning is being requested for a small parcel (3 . 54 acres) , and piecemeal development could occur; 3 . ) The area of the lot proposed for rezoning does not follow the lot lines of the platted lot; 4 . ) The types of permitted and conditional uses in the I-1 district are not compatible with those in the RTD; and 5 . ) The parcel is located near the entrance to the racetrack. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny the request to rezone the east 466 . 69 . ' of Lot 1, Block 1, Behringer' s 1st Addition from RTD to I-1. 2 . Approve the request to rezone the east 466 . 69 . ' of Lot 1, Block 1, Behringer' s 1st Addition from RTD to I-1. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is recommending Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 329 , an Ordinance denying a request to rezone the east 466. 69 ' of Lot 1, Block 1, Behringer' s 1st Addition from RTD to I-1, and move its adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 329, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REZONE THE EAST 466. 69 ' OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BEHRINGER'S 1ST ADDITION FROM RACE TRACK DISTRICT (RTD) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (I-1) . WHEREAS, on August 29, 1991, Larry Link, Donald Link, and LeRoy Houser submitted an application requesting rezoning from Race Track District (RTD) to Light Industrial (I-1) of land owned by them described as the east 466. 69 ' of Lot 1, Block 1, Behringer' s 1st Addition; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled for October 3 , 1991, and notices duly sent and posted, and all persons appearing at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed this request at their public hearing on October 3, as well as on November 7, 1991, and January 9, 1992 , and voted to DENY the rezoning request. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted by reference in City Code Sec. 11. 21 is hereby amended by rezoning the east 466 . 69 ' of Lot 1, Block 1, Behringer's 1st Addition, from Race Track District (RTD) to Light Industrial (I-1) . Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: ,QL/ i City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1992 . [ORDREZ] • Ex k i 6 i4- A- . ._------- N • . _ • • .. -.... . • F-----------: . _. ... .. . •-• .. _ • . . . • .__. _ • - . .: . z ... .. . ._ . - • I z --- -•.-., . .. . •.___ . • _ . _ . , _ _ - - ; - - • -- •••z-,:,--- . ________• . . .. . • , • . . - . , ...., ,...:....„............-,_. ...-._, ... •:, .i .-____ • . • • .••. __ ..:.. .. _________„__________„„ _ . ....-77:•,,. . ;, .......-...„.- . • . . .. .. . • .• , • -_-!......„... ••:••••• •••_ .. - .. . - . . .. r . • _•.. , • .• - - -". ..:- ". • .• • , : • • • *,.. • „„;--:..._•-•...... -. ,• , , / ''''s--41'*1-- -----:!'13."'•••-- • . • . ,. I 1 • . . ,. • ! ral 1 '-• -.,. -.' '.,' .... :--"i--.._ . .-- • . 1 I •.... '-.. . "”: ! •••..s : ..T.*. k f i • . -....1116. a=or.0 IIMO MB•Ma* a`f'-::.-...'-'-'.4---- i ...,i 1 (i I - -„. • - . • ..: ,`"=-...1. 1 1 ' . --- -..- i ....,••-• 'r.,1 ;4•%•er. Lid *. ---'`. . • I a: : ' . . % I, 1.....- Z % * i I . % ! •:'.. r'• F.7.. % i 2 ---•r"-\14'''''i:_i•":1•••:';•-.-i- .'''•-: . ,..- . ____._ ___, • 's.7 . - ---" .-- V:'. i•_j! i'- 1::.''S. ..-',.. .--'' . \rD I .---c-;;---•-2,'::: .: ____—•:. 6.....i.__1:_...;,., ,,.., . N.,:. I , . r----•----AC 7',..'-1---1,--v-1• rev.;•,„,. Ni.,. • ,,.... .i :, I:: ;•;,,,.:: g• lig: lz• I''..:-. :; . ''''' ''' 1 !, I ( I I'' I • : a. 1••• •: si . 1 .,, .t.:...-.. •./;... . ...-?-_ ..'.:.Z. 1::. I.!. ::',' :=. !).. •,.'. -,... •• ••••••:..... • k•-•\ ...,..0.... ) -• --=',LIT---1-,•-•-• ••,:.---'•- • •'s••••;; '...."-. ' '":':-.4 g... -; I 1 i . 1••-•••• ." ; • 42 . . .:::"•:• . ::::'•&• ••• r-A / , .e. :‘ :.7 .`-...:••-! ' X7.4."` ',.•"-i.•l• : :::•t••••7-`-: ‘:, : N < •• N -,.... z ••", 1: i .:• •.•• !Az:-,..- .e•••• . ..7••,. ........ .2 — - .-' -.-z--------- __Jr,. ,...,4..,, t'-'7..; ...:::,:,! 12 . .1, • ii .:• . .. \<,..,,. ._f...„,..?..N.sk... ...4a.....4,.... I N.I.›..4t•-14. , .._ ,.........:......... . • • 9 I IF- --.—i-51 eititt_a...7zc*.i.......341..___J,,...E.:_s;/ i 1 -. ... . Ii...-.1)1VZ, (L)41-4-j-.., /'' • w.' .. --., . _____ -- • ''''-'-•'" :-....,.........-,..25.4 it___ _ t.r....r --P--.r•-•:-.-- •-•!-----7--:f• -•"-'•-• --:!..,cs.....=.4.-•---av- '-7.1::-77-;;7f i.... -- -- --. --••••I"....z.., -• -- -'-illB-1" 1 _ -..,. • .....„,„___-____4..--___.--.:2_-:..!.-::-..--1.--- .... •-'*-- -1.. ./.-.- L...-1 ----------." '---6----- •7•'f:: ...---- . -•••• -.' -- I 11 , F „....--, .. c "'.......-'-•\...,S, I •- - -.....-:-,---,---4-'.1 MATCH -•!...,- LINE • .- •••,:.:.s 10:1:1. : I : I ‘--.- . I : .---;_______ . Arallinirial-el.=‘;SZZIWAr-44--Ti 4T-JNIMSN ./.1/of? I '''.. r__.-' I • • . ''''.?..... SNOW . I . 1 t n i . . • • I 'S.., •••,-; 1; • • •••-c. -..:• , -:• :;. .,1- — 'N. L________........., ':-.7.1-'.. 1 1 1 I .1.,.,..' 1 --:_::::,.• ti ! i • :: , . ,...„N ........ ._____L_....4 L ; 1 • i,-. i • ,.. • --..!,, c.•,., ..7.„; --... . h ........ • .„. . .. ., .• •-•... • .: • . ! . . \ ..... • -..._, . , : :: •••,.. -...,.. i. 1 • . , •' • , li. 12._ s'........ • - AG AGRICULTUR.-c • , I A G _ . i ••• • '\.-...- ...............c,r.rukt. • . •,L R..-.Lz.....L. . ! \,.., . . ri 4 SI..rl. . .., --.......-.—.... R2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL : . • . ; ; . • , I \ .,. i• R3 MID—DENSITY RES. . .• . : • R4 MULTi FAMILY RES. . I : • , . • • • , . . . . - . . . :44. .. • . u i \ . . , . SI HIGHWAYBUSINESS , a B2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS : , . , , ;I 1 . B3 CENTRAL BUSINESS I • . i .r: 1 I i 11 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 J L .. . , , ! , r, • 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ' N • I : 1 —, ...... . . . . ; • . • ' .....„...., - S SHORELAND i i•.' i ! I , • , - . • .. ... ... I FLOODPLAIN T ,--- . .... .. .._.._. ____________:_;._ ...____ _ _: . . ...MDIST= . • . . \ i. . 1"..•• livi AND AT 11--r3- :' _7.- •• -.-. - - • .. . . 1 .... .. 1: ...._.... I •i . RTD RAC'Eft-tACK DSSTR: \ 1 \I • 14 . / • • . -. • , EKhi b.1 1- ir-3 BEI-IH-INGt."-F3 S FIRST ADLA i lut\i. F_ :::7-A —' : . • "' . - , - •. • •• • . . Aiti.t?.. 4.1/11e ..: A:=..'4•.S Z.j.41. '•...i:.1. .;t: . 7.II 5 Z.2Z.•.. ::::.. .:: • .. . . 6G2.24 i i, S 813°SI.ZE2," . i 7.7 : . ..a,• ,,,,•‘. ••• ..:•!-•-r-----=- ,: 5 :=1::: ..........4:. • ::• • • . "7— ...3:- '''7:'''•? * ::::::-::•:::::::::::::::•:::::::::::::•.-.:::.:.;...:::......,,.....::: ::::::•::::a":•••••••••••••:::::::::::::::•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::-....*:::::::::::::::::_:::::. ............ - . .- ---- li ....:-...........x.:::::::..........:.:.::::.:.::::: :/14••••:::::::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•.•.•.•.i.• . .•••:•:•:•::::::::::::::::::::::. .................::::::.......................................::::::........:,::::1:::i:::::::,.......N ..., esi 1 e- : . NJ ••••,..:::::.;•;;;.:i.::::::::::::::„::;:,..::.:::„...:;.:•,.:::-......-......::::..........:::::::::::..:::::::...........n...,........ . , . uz 0 ::-..; ...........:::..E.,.:.:.:.:.:.:::-****:-.'f':*:***-**-*:':":•:•:•••••••• ••••:::•:•:•:•:•:•::::::.;.::;;:.:•::11:..............: •,,,, , ,_. 01 " •••••••::••-,f,se:-••••••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•::::::::.x.x.:::..........,:....:.:„............................u:::,.....:......: , ••• !,.,, . . il•••••••:'4:•••,. ....:::::.:::::::::::;.•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•:::;,:;•;:::::::::::::,:::::!.. ,i,i4:::::::::::::-.... ..,.., I •-•_•1 . : .:.• .:,. cs, :_. .11 <- ' . :: ::,,.:2•,:: ::„.••••••::::-.;•••::::::•:::::: :::::: ::::::::•;::: : :•: ::.:::::::•••••••••:•::::::::::::::::!::Vc.fi:....ii;,.._::: •'• ,, -_ <- I* a 8 i ::::::::::::-::::•-•:::::::::::-:*:::::-.i:1:1:::::•:i.i•:•.::::.•-•„•:•.•-•::::::$1.::::::!..:i.:•ii.i..:::...:1:::•:::i..:::::::::.::::.,1•: :::::.::::•::::::...:1:::.:::ii.......:•...: i ......:::::::i ..,,..i.. a... ,....1 •:::::::::::::::::::::?•:::::':':::::::::::: •••,k:::::4:, (..), ..,., ...::- •?.: ' ......_ ___ •.......:...•--,-, 0.•••••••.. . ".., 1...-..... , ---.. ,—— • , - - • -- i .• , __,_ 1 1, . . ._ ..., i •,•• --- ,- -- : -,- , c- •••• , ...- -... • --; cv,--.,, • -, T - - Z .... . . -... ....• s. ..-1 (--. 7 7 - .- • i.. \...7 ,• ''..,.\- .. • : ,r . \ •.1 — ..- ..; . / . . —\ '' /- ---(' :. -A' A 1 _ - ... - .._ •„,, . -.:._ .....4/ _ _i_ _ ____ •:.....:x,, :: :4:: N ___ . — ... _ ..- : . . • _ ;. _ . __.. . . •• . — ; :: ----- -, = Area proposed for rezoning from RTD to I-I. E2 = Lot owned by Jeff Koznick, 903 Marquette Ave. , Mpls, MN. I Cip 1 ! '� ,. > -a K a ci ci 1 1- i- .. c- ...\ I 1 b CREc I I v 130 I. r a r.4r m I ....".. .) C Din rJ �:c ,- 0. .` i G7f i I 7 3 5 ot ii O I w • Ch: ( Q I' I \, C. N....) 1 N. i C r. N r r �� I 70 O O r Y : O ` O `C O 0 0 �' m 0 L� a I CS c Y * 0 £ /�: r O C r c- • m r_• : N - [:. ID O _ - C CI ' ., • C O r 'r! m C: I N <- - O r)--- e- .l G :L:: . • r I O V 01 C p4 • ( 1 C..1 z a._ ►� F = O .1.-' 3 ) — r I Y7 \ c j I /4 — C J�✓i• r N 7, ......_,______ ,. , . ",=., , Z II p-D +1 ciNX3 ' REZONING REQUEST To: Shakopee Planning Commission From: Mr. Larry Link I respectfully request the property we just recently purchased which is legally described as the East 469 ' of Lot 1, Block 1, Barringers 1st Addition be rezoned to its original zoning, light industrial for the following reasons: 1. The RTD zoning was a protection zoning implemented to protect the Canterbury Downs owners. 2. The consultants study on which the Shakopee Planning Commission and the Shakopee City Council used to base their decision on for implementing RTD zoning was seriously flawed. No place in the report did the consultants address historical land use data for similar facilities in the United States. Every race track in the United States has a mixture of commercial, residential, light industrial and heavy industrial uses located proximate to them. No other city or Government agencies we contacted that has race tracks in their jurisdictions has implemented protectionist zoning to assist in the financial success of this industry at the cost of adjacent property owners. This zoning classification has resulted in decreasing property values of the adjacent property owners within the RTD zone. Our recent $30, 000.00 purchase of 3 . 59 acres that has a 1500 sq. ft. improvement on it and is served by all utilities proves this, in light of the fact that all other industrial land that has utilities and sewer and water sells for $32 , 000 . 00 to $36,000.00 per acre. 3 . Very few uses of the land are permitted within the RTD zone. Most of the uses permitted are geared to spin off businesses directly related to the race track. Unfortunately, Canterbury Downs has all possible spin off business located within their facility and to try to compete with them directly in retail, services related to the horse industry or food service would court financial suicide. 4. We feel the State of Minnesota has added to the demise of the horse racing industry in this state by allowing other types of gambling in the state. We do not think it is appropriate for the Council to continue to suffer under the delusion that removing property rights of adjacent property owners some how enhance the financial success or security of Canterbury Downs. CONCLUSION We believe light industrial zoning is the appropriate zoning for this site. It was zoned light industrial before Canterbury Downs came to town, it is evident that this was the intended land use plan for this area and it still should be. We believe the adjacent property owners within the RTD district should be restored their right to use their own property once again. 1 James B.Croft DennisPeL.R. MKronroe KRASS Monroe Orlin Q Te Slaa Barry K.Meyer & Patricia A.Weller Mark,1 Moxness x 4ri - �OP Patrick J.Sweeney —` J�1�, Kathryn E.Kelby Murray R.Kiane rh.i l fed 'Certified veil Tial Specialist Randy B.Evans *Also Admitted m Wisconsin x Also Admitted in California Diane M.Carlson September 12, 1991 South Lindberg S. Ekola City Planner City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Rezoning Request Dear Lindberg: Larry and Don Link have asked me to see if I can be of assistance with regard to the rezoning request they have made for 3 . 16 acres presently zoned race track district. The application is for rezoning to light industrial. I know that when we talked to the Planning g Commission about the proposed Brambilla rezoning, one of the concerns expressed was a loss of industrial property in Shakopee, which was considered to be at a premium. Since the prospect for racetrack related enterprises appears bleak, it may be time to take some of tnc land which five oars ago was thought to be needed tor. racetrack related y- enterprises, and put it back into the industrial use originally contemplated for. I understand my clients have ordered the required abstracting work and that this matter has been set for a Planning Commission public hearing on Thursday, October 3 . If you think it would be helpful, we would certainly be available to sit down and discuss this matter with you. I would appreciate it if you would forward to me copies of the staff report and ancillary documents as they become available. I would also appreciate it if you would send me ' applicable portions ,.71% and the a copy of l.li� ClpZ,il E' i..�.C3ii`.J of the iLi�.�''..��C'�}. ✓�.4G' comprehensive plan if you will be referring to them for they will come into play in this application. Thanks for your help. Very trulyyours, KRASS 4/HONE /CHARTERED P ' lid-fit. Krass -torney at Law PRK/bmp cc: Clients Southpoint Center,Suite 1100, 1650 West 82nd Street,Bloomington.Minnesota 554311447 Telephone:(612)885-5999 FAX(612)885-5969 Don Woodward,SIOR PRE612/DENT 612/i35-5(131 Mark of Integrity DON WOODWARD & ASSOCIATES Industrial/Commercial Real Estate November 1, 1991 Shakopee Planning Commission City of Shakopee Shakopee,Minnesota Re: Rezoning of property Along County : 83 A recent telephone conversation from a client has prompted me to submit this letter. The client asked my opinion as to the advantage of the possible rezoning of a 30-acre land parcel from Race Track District (RTD) zoning to Industrial zoning. I recommended that the client join the adjacent land owners in requesting that the City of Shakopee rezone their land parcels from RTD zoning to Industrial zoning for the following reasons: 1. With the limited uses of the land under the RTD zoning, I have found very little interest from potential buyers with a use that will conform to the current RTD zoning. There appears to be a stronger Industrial demand during the past several months and the indicators certainly are pointing to a continued strong demand for Industrial use in the forseeable future. 2. Even taking into consideration that the proposed by-pass and new river bridge, which are becoming a reality after so many years, I certainly have doubts that the RTD zoned land will be in strong demand in future years. 3. Without the rezoning of at least some of the RTD zoned land to some alternate type zoning which is in demand, the current owners of these limited use parcels will be subject to the success or failure of Canterbury Downs. Since Canterbury Downs continues to experience financial problems and lack of attendance, any extensive development for property which is zoned for RTD is unlikely. 1815 West 152nd Street • Burnsville, Minnesota 553.37 • 612/435-5031 MEMBER SOCIETY OF INDUSrRIA1.AND OFFICE REAITORS It is my opinion that the current owners of these limited use parcels and the City of Shakopee would be better served through rezoning to Industrial use. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to state my opinion. Sincerely, Don Woodward & Associates, Inc. MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner RE: Conversation with Jeff Koznick regarding the application for rezoning from Larry Link and Donald Link DATE: Nov. 7 , 1991 On October 3 , 1991, Staff received a telephone call from Jeff Koznick of 903 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN. Mr. Koznick recently purchased Lot 2 of Block 1, Behringer 1st Addition. (See Exhibit A of the Staff Report. ) This parcel abuts the parcel under consideration for rezoning from RTD to Light Industrial . Mr. Koznick requested that Staff relay his opposition to the rezoning of this property to the Planning Commission. He stated that he feels that the rezoning of this parcel from RTD to Light Industrial use would reduce the potential for developments and accessory uses related to the racetrack. He also stated that, with its close proximity to the racetrack, rezoning this parcel would reduce the ability to sell large parcels of land to potential developers. law offices " RAS S James B.Croft PeI,Kronroe Orlin D.Te Slag ft DennisnnL.Monroe Barr K.Me)2r £ l tricia.\-\eller Kelby \lark•l Moync rsx Kathryn F;-nihan Murray R.Klane -VIci\ ROE Timothy F.Moynihan chartereli •Q•rtdiM Ci�il'Rial Specialist Randy B.Evans *Also Admitted in 11is opsin x Also Admitted in California Also Admitted in South nakeaa November 8, 1991 Lindberg S. Ekola City Planner City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Rezoning Our File No. 7947-1 Dear Lindberg: Barry Meyer indicated that at the planning commission meeting on November 7 , a consensus developed relative to taking a hard look at options other than rezoning to accommodate the proposed use on the Link property. As I understand it, those options include a text amendment to expand the uses and the RTD, as well as the possibility of a PUC variance. Some time is required to accommodate those goals and I understand that this matter was tentatively put off until the first planning commission meeting in January, 1992 . In that regard, please accept this letter on behalf of my clients as a waiver of the requirement of the planning commission to deal with the rezoning request prior to the first meeting in January, 1992 . Thank you. Very truly yours, KRASS .7711 or, 'L is i-flip R.' Krass Attorney at Law PRK/bmp cc: Larry Link Don Link \LI1\COR\EKOLA5.PRK/bmp Soulhpoinl(k nt r.Suite 1100. 165(1\test 82nd Street.Bleximindton.Minnesota 55431-1447 Telephone:(612i 885.5999 F\\(612)885-3969 oat u!fites j Phillip R.Krays" L.. (� James B.Cmfl Dennis L.MonroeRASv\ Orlin D.Te Slaa+ Barry K Meyer & Patricia A.Weller \lark.1\Iornc;C,xKathryn F.Kelhy Murray R.Klane i\i1Ic.i'c RTimothy F.Moynihan chartered *emitted Cicil'Q'ial Spe ialis Randy B. \alts t\IstAdmitted in Wisconsin x:\Iso Admitted in California +Also Admitted in South Dakaa January 6, 1992 VIA FACSIMILE 445-6718 Lindberg S. Ekola CiLy Planner City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Hearing January 9 Our File No. 7947-1 Dear Lindberg: The rezoning/text amendment hearing scheduled for January 9 involves property owned by Larry and Donald Link and LeRoy Houser. I think it would be appropriate, therefore, to have all three names on the agenda item and if you could accommodate us in that respect I would be most appreciative. Very truly you : , KRASS & e •' 4 ' HARTERED ../0/ 'f • f ip R Krass �Ytt. _ney at Law PRK/brnp cc: LeRoy Houser \LIT\COR\EKOLA.PRK/bmp Southpoint Center.Suite 1100. 1650 We 82nd Street.Bloomington.\Minnesota 55431-1447 Telephone(612)885-5999 FAX(612)885-5969 it b MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner RE: Ordinance Amendment allowing Outdoor Storage in the Racetrack District (RTD) DATE: January 13 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting on November 7, 1991, the Planning Commission requested that Staff conduct a study of Section 11.36, Subd. 4 , Performance Standards, Item D, regarding outdoor storage within the Racetrack District (RTD) . At their meeting on January 9, 1992, the Planning Commission held the Public Hearing for the proposed Ordinance Amendment which would allow outdoor storage, and recommended its adoption to the City Council. BACKGROUND: As a condition of approval of the Canterbury Downs Racetrack, the "Shakopee Racetrack Area Planning & Zoning Study" was performed for the City of Shakopee by Howard Dahlgren Associates, Inc. in 1984 . Its purpose was "to allow the City to both maximize the opportunities, and avoid potential problems associated with the location of Minnesota' s first parimutuel racetrack within its corporate limits. " This study suggested that outdoor storage in the area surrounding the racetrack be regulated in the following manner: "All outdoor storage, trash storage, which are visible from existing and planned adjacent streets, residential areas, institutional uses, or places of public assembly, shall be screened. Although the use of site planning and architectural design is the preferred approach to the screening of these elements, the amount of screening to be provided shall be at least equivalent to a screen 6 ft. in height and 80% opaque. A screening fence or wall shall be constructed of attractive, permanent finished materials, compatible with those used in the construction of the principal structure. Screen fences and walls which are in disrepair shall be ^ Y, _ .repaired. Planting- screens Shall' consist of healthy, fully hardy plant materials, at least 6 ft. in height and shall be designed to provide a year round opaqueness of at least 80% at the time of maturity. " Construction of the racetrack was completed in June of 1985. Although the completion of the track stimulated growth of existing businesses, it also stimulated land speculation within the community to such a degree that the City was inundated with development inquiries and requests for rezoning to accommodate hotels, motels, restaurants and associated commercial developments. Because the only land properly zoned for these uses near the racetrack was in single ownership, a great deal of pressure was put on the City to open up development opportunities for other adjacent landowners. _ Irk response to. landowner.,concerns, .the . City _Council appointed..a .. Race Track District Land Use Study Committee. Hoisington Group, _ Inc. was selected by the Committee in December of 1985 to assist . . them with the Race Track Land Use Study. Based on this study, the Racetrack Zoning District (RTD) , Ordinance No. 204 , 4th Series, was adopted in 1986. The Racetrack District (RTD) is a Zoning District specifically for lands within and adjacent to the Canterbury Downs Race Track. (See Exhibit A) . The intent of the district is to create a high quality environment with a high degree of land use compatibility and public street efficiency. It is further the intent of the district to require the planning of entire land ownerships as a unit, rather than permit piecemeal or scattered development on a lot by lot basis. Development in the Racetrack District requires a review by both the Planning Commission and the City Council through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval process. PUDs were made mandatory within the RTD to encourage maximum compatibility and to provide for a high quality environment with greater City control over the development process. The uses permitted by the PUD process within the Race Track District are attached as Exhibit B. A variety of uses and activities associated with the racetrack are permitted. Also permitted are a variety of commercial uses (such as offices, restaurants, hotels, and motels) and light industrial uses (office- showroom operations, corporate offices, research and development laboratories, and warehousing) . DISCUSSION: Section 11. 36, Subd. 4 (D) , regarding outdoor storage within the RTD is currently stated as follows: "The storage of all materials; semifinished or finished products; trucks, business vehicles and equipment and waste products shall be within a completely enclosed building. A reference to the reasons behind this portion of the ordinance cannot be located in the Staff Reports, or in the Planning Commission and City Council minutes. However, in a recent conversation with John Schmitt, a member of the Planning Commission at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance, he stated that this portion of the ordinance was included because the RTD was perceived to be a visitor oriented area. The City had hoped that it would be developed with hotels, retail establishments, and tourist oriented facilities. He also stated that, if the RTD were left to develop in the existing environment, outdoor storage would develop into the same type of problem that we have had in other areas of the community. Section 11. 40, Subd. 4 , regarding Planned Unit Developments, states that certain zoning district standards may be negotiated and variances from ,the. district requirements may .be granted -by the City.. .:,,,,,..,. as a part of the PUD process. However, a variance that would . permit outdoor storage may be perceived as a variance to a use, and . could be ruled as contrary to statutory law. Since the adoption of the ordinance in 1986, development and building activity has been very limited within the RTD zone. In addition, site inspections at various businesses within the RTD have revealed that the ordinance requirements regarding outdoor storage are often violated and that it may be unrealistic to require compliance. Photographs of various outdoor storage activities are attached as Exhibit C. The majority of these photographs are of the Canterbury Downs Race . ...Track. Although most of the work vehicles, track materials, . equipment and machinery that is being stored on the grounds is vital to the operation of the track, Canterbury Downs is in violation of the aforementioned ordinance due to the fact that these items are not stored within an enclosed building. The attached photographs also provide evidence of the violation of this ordinance at other locations, including E.D.I. Machine on Eagle Creek Blvd. , Precision Auto Body on 4th Avenue, and Bjorkland Trucking on 4th Avenue. Outdoor storage is necessary to these operations, and Staff has not received complaints regarding outdoor storage at these operations. Although there are a variety of uses permitted within the RTD, past development efforts have been hindered due to the district's limitations regarding outdoor storage. The Planning Commission recognizes the apparent difficulty in developing the Racetrack District properties, and recommends that the City Council amend Section 11.36, Subd. 4, Performance Standards, Item D, regarding outdoor storage. The Planning Commission is of the opinion that outdoor storage within the RTD should be allowed, but should be regulated through performance standards. Standard requirements regulating outdoor storage would help staff in more uniformly administering and �;, enforcing outdoor storage in 'the RTD: These requirebents indlude the following: A. No outdoor storage will be permitted in front of the principal building or within the required front or street side yard setback. B. A 15 ' height limitation for all outdoor storage. C. All outdoor storage must be screened to a height of 6 feet on the entire perimeter by opaque fencing, berms, and/or continuous vegetation as approved by the Planning Commission. D. Only company vehicles, equipment, machinery and production materials will be permitted to be stored outdoors. E. All outdoor storage uses must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in the PUD _ . ..approval process.. .... ...:.-:•.. . ....,: ....r......:....::.....,_.-. ,.:: -.�-. . F. Operations existing on the date of the adoption of this ordinance must be in compliance within a. six. month time frame. If the amendment is approved, existing businesses within the RTD would be sent a letter explaining the new outdoor storage requirements and the six month time frame for compliance. Inspections would be performed at that time, and a warning letter sent to those operations not in compliance. This warning would state that they will be subject to immediate court action if they are not in compliance by a specified date. Outside storage for new developments will be regulated through the mandatory PUD approval process. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Amend Section 11. 36, Subd. 4 , Performance Standards, Item D, to allow outdoor storage within the Racetrack District when regulated by Performance Standards. 2 . Do not amend Section 11. 36, Subd. 4 , Performance Standards, Item D, to allow outdoor storage within the Racetrack District. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Ordinance No. 328, an ordinance amending Section 11.36, Subd. 4, Performance Standards, Item D, to allow outdoor storage within the Racetrack District when regulated by Performance Standards, and move for its adoption. <.. ;.,.,. ._.. ;.:. ORDINANCE NO. 328, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, LAND USE REGULATION (ZONING) , BY REPEALING SEC. 11.36, RACE TRACK DISTRICT (RTD) , SUBD. 4, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND ADOPTING ONE NEW SUBDIVISION IN LIEU THEREOF, RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: • Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning) , is hereby amended by repealing Sec. 11. 36, Race Track District (RTD) , Subd. 4, Performance Standards, and adopting one new Subdivision in lieu thereof, relating to the same subject. "Subd. 4 . Performance Standards. A. Acceptable Building Materials. 1. All portions or sides of buildings and all fences which are visible from a public street or abut residential. or institutional uses or zones or places of assembly such as public parks or recreation facilities shall be constructed with durable, low maintenance, quality building materials. 2 . The following exterior building materials shall be deemed acceptable for the required portions or sides of the building and fences, if [it is] incorporated into an architectural design which is consistent with the standards established within the District: face brick, stone, glass, wood, architecturally treated concrete, decorative block, cast in place or precast concrete panels. B. Minimum Landscape Requirements. 1. All plant materials used in the required landscaping of the Race Track District shall comply with the following minimum sizes: Major Deciduous 2-1/2 inch diameter Ornamental 1-1/2 inch diameter Coniferous 6 feet in height Major Shrub , .. . .... 5 gallon _ . _ . .... . 2 . Landscaping shall be required in an amount equal to one (1) caliper inch per 500 square feet of building gross floor area. Credit may be given for existing quality trees using the same formula. 3 . Landscape plans shall be required and shall be prepared by or under the supervision of a landscape architect. They shall show types, common and botanical names, sizes, number and location of all plant materials. 4 . No building permit shall be issued until the applicant shall file with the Building Official, a performance bond,"• or, other guarantee,.acceptable. to the City, in the amount of one and one-half (1-1/2) times .the cost" of .completing the required. . landscaping, said cost to be determined by the Administrator. The bond or other guarantee shall cover one calendar year and two complete growing seasons. C. Screening. The following must be screened: (1) roof-top facilities; (2) parking areas; [and] (3) loading and service areas; and (4) outdoor storage. One or any combination of the following elements may be used to meet the screening requirements: site design, building design, grade separation, berming, landscaping, fences, walls or other landscape features. 1. Roof-Top Facilities. (a) All roof-top facilities shall be either: (1) Totally screened from the eye level view from adjacent parcels and existing and planned public streets; (2) Painted to match or complement; (3) Incorporated into an architectural design which is aesthetically compatible with the principal structure. (b) All materials used to screen roof-top facilities shall be aesthetically compatible with the exterior building materials of the principal structure. 2. Parking Areas. All parking which occurs within •-• 'the 'required-"'front yard 'shall 'be 'screened to at "` least the height of the headlights of the parked vehicles or three feet. The use of screening shall require at least two types of screening materials used proportionately at 60%/40%. One 2 type of screening material may not be used for more than 60% of the required screening. 3 . Loading and Service Areas. Loading and service areas shall not face directly on a public street. Maneuvering and truck loading areas shall be at least 50% screened, to a height of four feet from the eye level from all roadways. 4 . Outdoor Storage. All outdoor storage shall be screened to a height of six feet on the entire perimeter of the storage area by fully (100%) opaque fencing, berms, and/or continuous vegetation as approved by the Planning Commission. This screening must be maintained in a neat and attractive condition. 5[4] All required screening shall comply with the performance bonding requirements established for Landscaping, Subparagraph B of this Subdivision. D. Storage. The storage of all materials; semi-finished or finished products; trucks, business vehicles and equipment and waste products shall be within a completely enclosed building, except as follows: Outdoor storage of materials, semi-finished or finished products, trucks, business vehicles, and equipment as a customary accessory use may be allowed, provided that (1) no outdoor storage will be permitted within the required front yard setback; (2) no storage may exceed fifteen feet in height; (3) all outdoor storage items must be neatly placed, in an orderly and attractive manner; and (4) all outdoor storage must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in the PUD approval process as in conformance with the language and intent of this Section. E. Existing Landscape Features. No tree removal of any kind shall be permitted in the Race Track District until a Final Development Plan has been approved by the Council. Grading shall be permitted only upon issuance of a Grading or Building Permit by the Building Official. " Note: The bracketed language [thus] is deleted; the underlined .. - -language is inserted. Section 2 - Existing Uses. Existing outdoor storage not in conformance with this section must come into compliance within six months from the effective date of this ordinance. 3 Section 3 - General Provisions. City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty For Violation, and Section 11.99, Violation a Misdemeanor, are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4 - Summary Approved. The City Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance, marked Summary of..Ordinance No.. . ..",and a copy. of .which_ is _ ... :...:;...,+.... attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.. The. Council furtherdetermines that . publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Section 5 - Posting and Filing. A copy of this ordinance is filed in the office of the City Clerk and a copy is provided to the Scott County Library for posting and filing, at which locations a copy is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours. Section 6 - The City Clerk shall publish the title of this ordinance and the official summary in the official newspaper with notice that a printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and the Scott County Library. Section 7 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective upon its passage and the publication of its title and summary. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of (11. 36] 4 ORDINANCE NO. 328, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, LAND USE REGULATION (ZONING) , BY REPEALING SEC. 11. 36, RACE TRACK DISTRICT (RTD) , SUBD. 4, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND ADOPTING ONE. NEW. SUBDIVISION IN LIEU THEREOF, RELATING ..TO..THE . . .�.,.,... SAME SUBJECT. The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. , Fourth Series, approved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on , 1992 : City Code Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning) , is hereby amended by repealing Sec. 11.36, Race Track District (RTD) , Subd. 4, Performance Standards, and adopting one new Subdivision in lieu thereof, relating to the same subject. The amendments allow outdoor storage of materials, semi- finished or finished products, trucks, business vehicles, and equipment as a customary accessory use in the race track . district, provided that (1) no outdoor storage will be permitted within the required front yard setback; (2) no storage may exceed fifteen feet in height; (3) all outdoor storage items must be neatly placed, in an orderly and attractive manner; and (4) all outdoor storage must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in the PUD approval process as in conformance with the language and intent of City Code Section 11. 36. The storage area must be screened, to a height of six feet on the entire perimeter of the storage area by fully (100%) opaque fencing, berms, and/or continuous vegetation as approved by the Planning Commission. This screening must be maintained in a neat and attractive condition. All fences must comply with the construction and maintenance standards which now apply to buildings. Existing outdoor storage not in conformance with this section must come into compliance within six months from the effective date of this ordinance. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk and at the Scott County Library. [11. 36] • • A• ...„-if .,,..._.___________..._. ..„, ...."---..".------7: .....__ • 1 : , RD _,,,,_r, ,.., ,..;_.„--:- , . _., r----F A i 1 1-1 1 1,q 2 Lo , 11 I l4c „�o'p` _ 1 AMUS=.ENT PARK i I_\.,Mr F :I . . a ,:;''''_:-- . E°5" .7 i ii. • Aii .,,,,„„..z. , ••�1• .7 J— ,j}- yam... . - IR\ I I I I I , / •E't."--'''''-ts_ - 1.-1;-2:41e: - _...... ,,,,,., .--,......,,„...=r; !,----, . -A, : . .-U,„,.. t R. . L—'--, i't Ab 1 1 uls='-a...1.. t.....--..24":. .-.' 'ry •del :•. 3.'y::...`. _' .. - 1 1 K. � I •ir n ; �`__31 , • .t-.- "="k";444".... '� "3$344.. *r. . '.';: T rMpr/rt:G GIT:^ =VP. 4 1 • • R-1 SINGL j '" - . • R-4 MULTI•-=- : - - I 13-1HlGH15 ' ' - ¶T ! T F7r rLTT i-2 y HEAV' . A. � . RTD RACE :I , \ A _ :-- ��1 `JLt�. F�ZO ;!�G i HC:SiNGTON GROUP :NC - RACE TRAC- G;STRiCT =H Bn U=; a aS3CC:a-ES : ^ C` 11 • il c. LAND U,. STUDY :,c y -------••--- - - ( i LXf—{ I c3 I— — • topography , inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities , or any other feature likely to be harmful to the . health , safety or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. B. Copies of all plats within the Shoreland District shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Nature, Resources within ten (10) days of final approval by the City. Source: Ordinance Nc . 149, 4th Series �.t:.a. . ,,.�..- .�.,; ..,�..,•. .:�.�.:,. ..r.:., .... . .:, r•:..£ffective• ter-- . . . , ..•.. :��_..a_:. .. C. Planned Unit Development • (PUD). Altered zoning standards may be allowed as exceptions to this Section for P:,D's provided the preliminary PUD plans are approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Source : Ordinance No . 219, 4th Series Effective Date : 7-2-87 Subd. 12. Notification Procedures . A. A copy of the notice of a public hearing to consider a variance to the provisions of the Shoreland District or a conditional use in. the Shoreland District shall be' sent - to 'the Commissioner of Natural Resources such that the notice is received by the Commissioner at least ten (10) days prior to such hearings . B. A copy of all amendments to this Section and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses within the Shoreline District shall be sent to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of the amendment or final action . Source : Ordinance No. 149, 4th Series Effective Date : 8-30-84 SEC . 11.36. RACE TRACK DISTRICT (RTD) . Subd. 1. Purpose. This mixed use district was created specifically for lands within and adjacent to the Canterbury Downs Race Track and it is the intent of the district to create a high quality environment with a high degree of land use compatibility and public street efficiency. it is further the intent of the district to protect existing landscape features, to preserve open space , to sensitively integrate development with the natural landscape , to appropriately space accesses to the public street system and to require the planning of entire land ownerships as a unit rather than,,pe.rmi,t:,.pi. ce•meai or,sca.ttered, deye1onment.-on.,:a:=3lot v "Iot basis Subd. 2. Uses Permitted by Planned Unit Development (PUD) . Within the Race Track District, no structures or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses, which uses shall be permitted only PUD and subject to all stated conditions : 3.'-l : • A. A licensed Class A race track which includes following customary accessory uses, activities and facilities : 1. Commercial recreation . 2. Employee housing and dormitories . 3 . Food and drink concessions, program sales, etc . 4. Horse auctions . 5. Horse barns . 6 . Horse racing . c:.w. . :•tc: .—.. �..�R.... ::..•.— .?..aa•......t •..N•:.. :...-..�. •EO•t•s e•-•-•traini•na ming . .and..,e: �er ci•se .. ... facilities. • . 8..• Maintenance facilities and equipment . • • 9. Off-street parking facilities . 10 . Paramutual wagering . 11 . Private clubs . • 12. Printing and publishing facilities for race track related purposes . 13. Race track administrative offices . 14 . Signage. Source: Ordinance No. 204, 4th Series Effective Date: 7-31-86 _T::• -15. . -Class I day care facility with an approved .•Z' ` PUD Class II day care facility not allowed . Source: Ordinance No. 264, 4th Series Effective Date: 5-26-89 B. Clubs and lodges including fraternal organiza- t_or.s , YMCA' s and YWCA' s . C. Minor commercial recreation including but not limited to the following : 1. Bowling alleys. 2. Golf courses . 3. Miniature golf courses . 4. Roller skating rinks. 5. Water slides. D. Community park, recreation and open space uses which do not conflict with race track operations . E. Essential services. F. Health and athletic clubs . . .'.civ.:x=«�y'`.'...Sx,'S'•.:.+c.',jyeu' s'.�iw•`x'�.r:, ... Aib11pU'. :tyr;.•:a•-•. t2•.s..:•:s r';_,.:._uF•�::x ; ' -,14' :de+..;,rte-"!4*.-101014,F iw.:. r.. ..a.F. ._. G. Horse care uses including boarding , t_a _ning , showing , grooming and veterinary clinic facilities . H. Hotels, motels and conference centers including such customary accessory uses as internalized retail and entertain- ment facilities provided such uses: 311-13 (12-1-89) 5 11.36 1. Are an integral part of the principal use 2. Have no entrance except from within the principal building; 3. Display all internal signage on the ground floor level of the building; and, 4. Occupy not more than 25 %' of the ground floor area. �+ ....•Y....d!•...�.A: V:N R*. '+Y}.vs w..:ti•.s.n:.,,, l..^tiw.. LZ�L„j•' •induS w r•:•r•..a.':.. :r• s•;i Lv... -�.:'.:;:Aw s•�v "t f:Ir.. ,.tial uses but specifically limited to office-showroom, corporate offices, research, and development laboratories; warehousing and light assembly type maintenance . J . Offices : Business, corporate and professional . K. Public buildings. L. Restaurants: Class I and II but excluding fast- food and drive-in restaurants. M. Signage as permitted by Section 4.30 of the City Code . N. Customary Accessory Uses. Subd. 3. Lot Area, Width and Coverage; Building Height, Yard and Access Spacing Recuirerents. . A. Minimum Lot Size: One (1) acre. 3. Minimum Lot Width: 300 feet. C. Minimum Yards: 1. Front: 30 `eet. 2. Side: 25 feet. 3. Rear : 30 feet (30 feet when abutting a residential area) . D. Maximum Hard Surface Lot Coverage: 80% . E. Maximum Building Height: 35 feet. F. Minimum Access Spacing: No street or driveway :._entrance to a major street shall be located closer to another street or driveway on the same side of the Street than as follows : 1. County Roads 83 and 16: Access limited to public and private streets only having a minimum spacing of 600 2. Shenandoah Drive and any continuation thereof to and including Secretariat Drive; and Fourth Avenue: 300 feet. Subd . 4. Performance Standards. 1✓-':G EbS:�r3... ! ^. - ."'ti•••••.ic-r.w -t.... .!'S• suers ,�y�,,. �y.H: ii>r::if j.'y"•"' '} e, �•:a"Tvt a.4.ti•i;'L/a�. 95A"i !./ "�i�. j`�y:' I':�t. A. Acceptable Building Materials. 1. All portions or sides of buildings which are visible from a public street or abut residential or institu- tional uses or zones or places of assembly such as parks or recreation facilities shall be constructed with durable, low maintenance , quality building materials. 311-16 (9-1-37) § 11. 36 2. The following exterior building materials shall be deemed acceptable for the required portions or sides of}. o building, if i: is incorporated into an architectural�. - � i `ect•.:ral design ^ w n♦ich is consistent with the standardsL eJ Vto l b 1se within:lin tDistrict: face brick, stone, glass, wood, architecturally treated concrete , decorati7e block, cast in place or precast concrete panels . ..T 1..CNK.;... �.: ^�".•iJ . w l+N`iw ..+V• -.. '. • - - .•...:. ..• C.�"..':.:)"."iK .. .. .. r. .. .... •. .:i-k 7'.K-. `B: �Minimum�LanC`scape Requirements. • 1. All plant materials used in the required landscaping of the Race Track District shall comply with the following minimum sizes : Major Deciduous 2-1/2 inch diameter Ornamental 1-1/2 inch diameter Coniferous 6 feet in height Major Shrub 5 gallon • • 2. Landscaping shall be required in an amount equal to one (1) caliper inch per 500 square feet of building gross • floor area. Credit may be, given .for existing quality trees using •.&,. 'the sameformula. 3. Landscape plans shall be required and shall be prepared by or under the supervision of a landscape architect. They shall show types, common and botanical names, sizes, number and location of all plant materials. 4. No building permit shall be issued until the applicant shall file with the Building Official, a performance bond, or other guarantee acceptable to the City, in the amount of one and one-half (1-1/2) times the cost of completing the required landscaping, said cost to be determined by the Administrator. The bond or other guarantee shall cave: one calendar va-_ and two growing seasons. • C. Screening. The following must be screened: (1) roof-top facilities; (2) parking areas; and (3) loading and service areas. One or any combination of the following elements may be • used to meet the screening requirements: site design, building design, grade separation, berming, landscaping, fences, walls or other landscape features. 1. Roof-Top Facilities. (a) All roof-tot) facili�ies .s.hall. _be. �?':SA.r7 Yy: :.,;,ei:t.. .{.•.. �:.. �.-..�'.• ..:n,. _ :x..v:,.•L:` .i -'<a.it'• �•v:. . .. ,: .0 .�.•.�.:r ;.: (1) Totally screened from the eve level view from adjacent parcels and existing and planned public streets ; (2) Painted to match or complement; (3) Incorporated into an arcnitec- ; tural design which is aesthetically compatible with the principal structure . 311-17 (8-1-86) • § 11 .36 (b) All materials used to screen roof-too fad_ __es shall be aesthetically comi atibie with the exterior building materials of the arinci _al structure . 2. Parking Areas. All narking which occurs within the recuired front yard shall be screened to at least the - sc_ ne.. height of the headlights of the parked three vehicles I re +�' red foet The use of screening shall require at least two t hes of scre� �� n� �, , .. -� mater ia?s' used ' groport i onatelyat"6.0-%/4.0% ' `One type of screening material may not be used for more than 60% of the required . . screening : 3. Loading and Service Areas. Loading and service areas shall not face directly on a public street. Maneuvering and truck loading areas shall be at least 50% screened, to a height of four feet from the eye level from all roadways . 4. All required screening shall comply with • the performance bonding requirements established for Landsca_irg, Subparagraph B of this Subdivision. • • D. Storage. The storage of all materials; semi- finished or finished products; trucks, business vehicles ,.and •• . equipment and waste products.`shall be within a completely enclosed building . E. Existing Landscape Featu ' tree al of �. � 3. No ram TO� t any kind shall be permitted in the Race Track District until a Final Development Plan has been acoroved by the CouncV il. (( 'zd V _ 1 i shall be permitted only icon issuance of a Grading or Building P it t .rit by a he Building Official I - - Subd. 5. Variances. Variances may be negotiated within this District except as sP,'- • -, cal _v restri. to �Q - -. . -_• '.?i� .a Subd. 4 , A through E. Variances shall be allowed for access spacing (Subd. 3 F, • above) only if the PUD proposal aro-,ides for a lesser n_': e_ V accesses than would De pe_ mi _ted by s __ ic . _ VV t application of this Section. Variances fromSubd. 4, A through E of this Section, shall not be negotiated. • Source : Ordinance Nc . 204 , 4th Series Effective Date: 7-31-56 SEC. 11.37. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (URD) . . Subd. 1. Purpose. This manned industrial district was :+t;;�.a.e <.+c rte! ....Cr•eai.�d .-for:: lands located- adiacent "'tb,"tF�e- 'c��'1 roaf�"c:t aclCS'" s ':;`^s ? the original plat of the City of Shako:etheG, the East ShaScoee Plat or Keeper 's Addition. To be eligible for inclusion in the URD District property must be located in close proximity to arterial or col '-actor streets. All Property located in the Central Business District (and zoned 3-3) is specificallycally excludedfrom to be rezoned URD. It is the intent of the district to create an E•_ environment with a high degree of compatibility with nearby land Exhib's f- C., Outside Storage in the. RTD Conferbu.ry JD0wnS • yam .T.+ - -v`fXi••w4' •^%$b S2•s:-►a.:+.eo • •- IK•'.-1 •• •-'r A` Pte•:-:.wv- • _ -� -, .. • •• X- .. ,per: ' ..••+•11•111.. n6"' YJ�,1."r ♦``-?i'��:moi . xµ _: "..�. . PARI<E D TRACE ismorwa, , SEMI it 1 EQ 1.1lPP^ENT t aliasr "MR I LER - .. A 0 . , , ...ur.2........ ...A,:.142._! i . r_M .1.e"`• . . -.r` .. •i _• --•a --�..� _ ..•.�tt�. t - .. xP ' EQu►PMENT '36CAT 6 TRA�� CI-ES Can}er bury bowrms }�ho'4os token • a&1, 1991 by Terri e Sordb 4, s f Ca+.V.- 10 r,n e-r C-I r Oan4-erbu.1^V Downs ' A **leN. 51110471;:...-_-. r ;:...- f< ' ,...:...re-, a,r'a •'t •42 • R- •.•i. ' ,t;,.1'r CZv.. ,�§ Y y•Ss'�2'�s.'04 . - RACE GATES MIsc. TRACK ,_ -.. rou R 3 us EQu i PM):NT7 TRA I LE R (V1131-u LA NICE. . .f/MN.e_-... . F.N..�.ti.w.a�e..• .r.....y..�w •..... ..-.. ...._........- Iy.-v....»..ai.a�r+_a.i.iai.+s:...� .tir. ...new•�M��1iR+.t�.y._.�A pMe. l r i • 0 P• • '''''''' .•••• ."... 41/1""'" AP; • . xi 4E7*—a ,glii. • ��_ .. ._r_ moi•_ ....__. .. - .. .. - �, .. �'N{ TR ACTOR S/ QCGTti S ; EOu(pm2NT TRAILERS Tf,64-o s kn 06. Q 4, ,qq l , y Te.rry end beck, ASS 4-. O Tanner a Car)-1-e..rbi...1/4.r(.4 a u•-)n-5 1 • • . S. . -4----.4.-,...- - • ,••:". • i . • • f, .7-4"'f';::' 1 • ; • • -.• :.•••• . 1 1 --7g•=1--;- -" 1!". Wee-•' " • ., •• - . ., •'. .;41K-,.-tr - ....- . . .• •itt,-. ...:•• , At , _ :AL-,..,:-..: ...•-. Illr • . , • ••.- ..:„.. - . • , .,_____. 0 ..,....,_ ..... •• ._.. i.z:rxigt.ins00- EpAit- onE • . wuriuNr....1111401,4..f.. . • .40;•4111...f,: .. --Iftallfgsfa . - -- ' -.- - .- ...,•,.. ... - •-•• • . • .. . . •- • '-'..1.•-'..!....1.4.4'T4 ,. • • •-: '- .. •.. .. .....:..TT.,: ; ' %-,.-.'' .^"•:* .. - ..- _ . . . , . .. ....!` * . Y.tII ,..4,-- . -. • ;:i -.4.., . -.• .---••:fi,-'41 iW-- - _, - s-r. -,,,-... • • sgt •144- -"P-11'.',..• *.......:..''.:.:'..7"..-".-e,..•..!.:1.. N 10 1.:..... ...,.."'.'''.*:', :"",. . ..., .. . ,,... ... , , . . • • . ... . , . misc. FENCE D t• we i 6roRA GE 1(0 ! sozsA For I . FENCED Av0iAi ErnP. PARKING . t,avow . , ....__ -------- .._ I•• 41411441i1.$ .. I ..".'''.''ki - • .-"1/4"4. :....: 14;-.•,if•_---2,::. .6... _ .. ... 117 . I . . -,...._._.,. . A . • _ i ..,:„... . _._. . _ ..1 . i.:...,,.:„.. . „. .. . .... . ,• . . • • ....._ . _ • _._____.. __1 . ........05_,... __.• VS il I . I i .. • .... i ";- -".....,,' r ."1- .. — --&--,-at-c-- ---z.- • _— I , . 4• .. i..- ,_,.. , • liwid , Am _,7-• i.i. AIM %-t:eft.. 1 10.1111.4. ^....,.. . ....-----* ..... .. . -........... Miiiii . ... 11110111.. . .... ....• - • . .5•:.4. - 1 .........r. .,!..:,-...' .1.-.,-....", ... ....:.. +f;' ',:''f"' MtSC. LC,AD 1 N G c.D. t.A..NORK f\R EA TR UCR S Phcd-os fa kerl 06-..R 41 igcl I , JrAi I err-1'e. SanotbQck., Ass-I, C__14-v Fla-nn•er• f ... C . Cox, rbUr DnS e y 4 ;1.1 t _ -r .. . WATER H GT E L TrzucKS / REAR (5� ELEvAToR u f f -.• ^,_,.a,._- -*!?..,..6--.-:-..-A-- -?: _ � t.$` • .fir .- - . - 41 ,oke _ - —77.7-;-:r STABLE AREA Phc -os +akeSn Cd-. a4, 149 C Joy 7Err-t-e Sandbeck, Ass+, C ii-ki lana e.r G - M N, EXhibif C) 1‘../ •. -- • f i , i 'Dui-door Sforag e. I .., Canfer-bu.rti Dock)( -5 1O/ XJ /q1 64 1--cRoy Houser -----. . - : •..--- ..ti--........- ---.....442. .,.: .... -. -• .-.. ,.- ...-4 .-ilrf,r-''. 4'11 t.'11.4'4.'. .•'.'''` "7,' . 1 : '''L 1 .!-:',L•.1-7-"44.‘ • . - .,...-.-...''.::077.--,:"'es..78,..,, !',-1...• • .. '..,...- -,-,••••.,iii . 4 . ..-t ', -, ..,: ,.. . 4,, ef, -7,7 ••••"••: •..;••.,• ..,•:ff.: ../.1 .P1 , - -.I • . lt •1 _._ -,•,'• ...., . — , .,.74....6.:2..-'.'• "z;v1 !••-', wp. jiy. V S . I '• t .! 1 .' .1-4-'--- - '.."7 -'.. i. . '4'.4" - imil - F • At, --- ; -.------.4. Tr--,--:. .-. : . • , . . - • ,.. -- ''‘,-.4`''•S• '-L..rri-is- •, ... • •....... dt 7 M - - -.:., r,,....,..: ...... -....0--.--iii:L.• 4 ... ,,.... ..."_-p. jkiiiiit4-41.1.-pr ,ilit __Iirj. 'II-6 -b-.. • -.,.....,-...,4„._c .... „ . .. ,• IIIII...• 1 ei" `-' . - ._„._....--...-,.. .7...-.::"*. .,--r.. ""•'".. ...-- -1; C. • • " A' i-13. ..1.:-.....r..;74. _ -441Fit- .1.,_- -... „1iiii=,.- ..:---7---z-_-..-.-...-::-.-1-, ...., . . ....•. .--..,:-.• ,,,,:- .. _ . ,... _- • -,..-.5._ — -......-....-.........-_,—2,-, n.ciP, ,- .....-- ..ma- - **-=,.. -...r..--''-- ' . •''''',.'"-,sr*."-."-.,....,,-...to.--.....-..eielli ..,.... , -....................,-.,.,, "444: ''!.4. • '','-'40 )..., ,;..,-;"::.'-- -,,„, ,-v-a' ' 37.... .:' ..t..,="." . '''•-7‘ '--'1:ki-'--- '1. .1"."14"..,'"'''V..., ___'... . • -'-. ,...-" 6-,,,......7,44,i...44, ..,.- . ' '.4j-;,.. _ '!:1".7.,tag'-. --7-.''C'SrC'''• •' ' :'''?' -.'- '*-;..-•- ::-364.. . - ''-'n,i7i--..,..7.-,'-if--'' -''''''•ki-t... .2-1-,- !"..1*•*• ••• • • :•,:'•.;;;..I.;. ;--••„.., .._. _ . - ....•........„ .• •7 t...,•\4•tr,i0.''''';'•;.*A.-7''"--.,`,..•.. •, r;... a.- • -.•• . _..... . --. . .. . . • • • •, . , ,• „ . .. , . • .•- .- . , - S "-. . ' •• . , . ... .. .. .„. . ., ... . .• •• ' •''' -`'‘. •,••. . •-•--.•-....--•---- •.•...•--..,--------......,-.........-•-..........•••••- •••••••,••••.•.,• ••••••••••••••••••••••••• - -....^ - . .. — • . . . . - . , -,—•-•.,..-•• .• - ,..- .. ...‘:,• i••-•'''•-1,1,,.. -.•',•''"•"'"'"-r .••••••• ,••X'.:'•'•••••••••:.••='••,..1., ' . '•--••Vi',1-:"*'‘...,•••*• ,','• . . . . '•••= . . -.. • ,. . •-•• • ' la j t 1 ....1 INEEN • ' .. 1111 .40: .•\. _--- . .' ' .4...""..-.:.::-_ ---% • • . ' ' 4.... 4k, 1 iN; til . ..; - - ,-1 - .-. fr 1..•', 2 4. i .1 .I';„ 1 ''.' 14'.r•;,,---,.:1_......_ - -• --.:. --,-- . . .,....... .•... • - . •_,... ,,,,_, • • , , 1.• "' ' A.A. 444 •• . , , . . , .•.•,* . • I I , p ' •' ' ' ''' / ... . 6,pt* , ' • , • . . AO. ' , • ' ...-• . -1 ' ...paralkir • '•.4..-...rek. , A....„...1.,-,..11 .‘ • -.'"t *"...-,:•--I4 __ -....r.,,.:....i..;a:,..'_, 4.41,011107,-vik i " . r1r;e1661"141111.1.1512IIRT9: ..-"---;-'..-: - : • It g/00,P411"6 - ; --- ;L-..g.vmt41101 • &lire.IIP 01 'IP 711P111 1 . ' C : . , • • '4Svalit diti Olt 11).0 tti,411-1 • • • • ' • --• • to Olt Oil - : p e ' ' .1:: -17_dih sillk.ILLALL LA...A, - .-' . . . ' kiPl'w v1;z • • : ' F.7.174-7-trr war- 1 '. . : : . - . . . ; o• )•,1 .... , ...d- .:& ,-_&_",, ,k,0,, ,:loik_•., 4, ' s '• 4t4)11,*(1, - $ gradrdlib-*-411=Viiis:=i"." -• : - %.1 '-,1!..4-4-; -J I) i'i A .1,4 if-- 30,16. .....,..-,......,,,-„,_•--.:.--........,...,,,,,,..-&.-?..„,...i.........,.._•_,..„,•- ..,,,,iii,...-,,,..,--2,-. t ,,, i .4',-., .r„,,,'41 11,14100.6;5747.....4yjp4.1atieb,"*.17.74;t7:041174.c74.4,11rA:66,-.04--e•_qv...... - . -......i ;?._fi , , ;:t.. 1 .,,,%. :::s..„.., Et.%.i.L3.2t:i--..;*°?..-+,-1.42i.--Vi,_ ,•,-.1:4---'..-7 4WrAr...04141e-ti'"z-.‘t-AT'741,-.k'k,-"3. -,:a---A •-: F,'-'w,f•'.-`4 E.7.7''•-:.-.1';'1)!;,..Z17;:-"-•••;47 -4•:7,.;-:!':-..0..-J,14,1... .-‘7,41;...:,-1- ; •::.VZ1,,..,. • •-••• ' ',. -::.?c-7,!•1`, 4 .• •••-:".,"71•4 s",1 57-47.;/)53.- ;•'!:%;-7-tV::,..:;!.'r-.7v.--"e..-.....";.:....,;44e--7•;',..-.,:t....-a.•";iplz.:7....,....• : ;,.,,,_..:,r-,•-..: ..-.t..„ .,e.-"""i,_„".-.. 4.'";"-_,•„.":".",,,i'',%•e(.1":";-.7.4%...-,`;•!::',•,..',.";:•.,7,;7"•(-!•;-...-:,•.... ..-7 rn.;•,--7'.... • ...00.441er". 70;..1.^•,••>,'""..",•1• .c"" ,1*.••"..1 .*--';',:ri''''''..;.0:`,.'"44.•":•"7.C.1.14,,,,t---,,::" ,; ;.4 .7„,-.:, ,.,,L.'• '•,e•••• . .9.;.' ,. ,........,...;;.5,,,,•,...... . ---st--;:r2=',-.:. .4.-..; ,1,;1 .-A-. ;,,z; ••..c!-,..-;:1547.<,'4. ••.- ,.... ,--....;-...A.• ..•4„,-..*....,........: 4., s, •-•.,•- ... •eA 2„,,,,.:,...071 ,,,..?...?_ ../.'..i, :,......i.„........„4,...,..xot," e .4 .. ,.:,,....4_,,• . .,..•,..1.;.•...-, ..,-:.„.,--•,::?,-e 7•••"Z., ?." •.- '7'..-.);...4. ,.. ,4 'f****A*4.,-4";k.";4-'51"14,,rA‘ keli....eit".''.-.:.; " W.•:?1,.'-';‘,:.01 _I,-.4 -Ire- ,,:.4-99.*--- --.-).• .c. /'/' ; ..:'445-...v;*40,vi,„te..tR,v, ...:$44,--(4,..py:•.--.....*4.-,v r."4,7*,--...iie!Ox.-4,...,,-4,.-..i-,„.-...,,, 4 . dolls. -4,. ,2,1 .14-444.-41r -11r1444kite`*tr .:'t5tites•• cd-- -....-/'4',.".'.'4 .1',,,''''', R r-- Q•4; :- w,-.,,piev- A,N.1,60,-.4-,"-.400ep ,- ,1.z,r,,,v,;, - ..th-z ct,d---iukv t .....-.. .• 4. .,..i's••(4r- Nip..4„1"'s,xicv,,,N44.1-101 -\,-. .v.P.44:,-;,74 .•i,;:.ra-,,,,,-,0•14‘._..4-.t-01,2,-. ., - . • ,...-ri • .__, -_, - , 4;z,...u.„--Tip.,,,,„ 40,, ftlz- s1.- 4-4 ,---3;t-c 4121,. Iiii,....:41 -...."... (,...--, ,,,....w 0,,,,,,)111,,74',VIelff.el'...ie.4.....•of..o•ii,kv7„,, ...e.;;Wgrr. -4,f N1/44. • . • ' ••:11,7 -N%441416•'W".',04'41-.14-41. Q.+ - :•••• :11*/.r...,^ -.:74. s, •'1 ...,... AN.s...S.1'•..r..A: . .- „„,,,..4%.,--: •"....-.". ..-,...._.# . , . , C5-5 0u+dc- See. n t-- , K 1 ,L) i oi -7 Iq 1 by Le(?oy /NJoLk-S€r .r,,,,,,,,-. .. . ''' •' r : ' 071,,x `` r,..•. t '. .-.r'4. �.... ..- • rN1`�ri �i 1:•::- ..1„• � i-- r• .`_ • • 3�ork land I r- R`/''�` f '...:t:; ft. Y� = 4,i... a9I E . "� kr AL � '' r = .fir • h- y .t in."1 1 it J moi ;�` r.- tet: •' -? ._ ' �” y•. ':6.4 ,-,;' . • • 1Jj 6r-k r d �rc�dC n3 , } ` 1 q}Y 1` , 4 ,. err. �i . ,_ : �` .,L; i 1 t z - .. - L•.•.�♦..y aR {{y ( , y,,1S„-y 4 It '' • 1 --'- - -r-.i ,- Ar- i 'N., N 1 • Oaf-) erbury --DocvnS }... �.. . . •r i 1 d.• :..011110111111pitri ^” - '' s'ai'd -- gy ..'.— -- may. t �. �4.,.._ $,...1.7„:,, M.;;;;.'.•r " }-...-v - ^ �..T � K..It30.17 t V 4 i4 : 'ms's. a •-s- F# "Vie'...., -r-. .A •�. 't' st. • - -, x� . " '', ,r. - , r .� . ' •' it , .- .. - ' VA. , r'' , . _aY-". _,r'1 !' G ( -eloor Sf-o -;a i n 44-le RTb 10/a7 /91 by LeRo4 -14ockser • E D, I. PI 3401 Cruel e Citepi SJ vc . ( Ilflllil}I' 111111ll1111I11i!!I'4 ,011 II'k1_Iii41NI��`1III I .. .•z:.. - _ 'H�Ilpi1ilIllillti .., III II • - .. lir • - ...r.....,�•F- _ __—__•.m•� _. _ - t�Y it a/ psi• .recision Aao moodyI.- • _. i ' . ..�.,..i.j.ililu w 1 Il�ill t N� ♦ ••••....:%;:,....:...,-,.,::Z<. M �� „, - am ~ .. -'.moi, �1't9� •7[`..; } �'XU. Y r /�. 7 x & ■ $• lys s. :1'�� Y s _ r Jig _ Q « - • - :Ls . . II ' . -� . y Mr' • �- . t'rc CSiOn l.� OCT 4 " - � -T _.-� o� � _ � " ata 8 E. � _ � �,,�_,� J��-ate_; ti • .�.. ¢� "f::�i•' r ' 'ter 7 r. 4. .A1< 4 }£ „`tv -'.--.'j•-•,‘•;.--,... y �` • '�Yas �i .7014c-,4,,.•e ', Ye gypf . _ . X10 • .44. `.-. lFv ,L'fy��. a ,s i,..„. ,&i ';sic „`.`. ..-� 'Y. ... t. „.1.'�e1-.N. r-.4 -�� ,-' .''• w- • Cd 11 MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg Ekola, City Planner RE: Concurrent Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley Sixth Addition DATE: January 14, 1992 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting on January 9, 1992, the Shakopee Planning Commission moved to recommend to the City Council denial of an application for Concurrent Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for Minnesota Valley Sixth Addition, with the exception of Lot 1, Block 2 , if the applicant was willing to pursue the platting of this lot. The applicant is requesting final plat approval of Lot 1, Block 2 . BACKGROUND: The proposed revised final plat is located at the intersection of Vierling Drive and Presidential Lane. The plat measures approximately 31, 270 square feet, with 9,718.56 square feet being platted as a single family lot and the remainder being platted as an outlot. (See Exhibit A. ) The area is zoned R-2 , Urban Residential. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the Planning Commission memo on the proposed Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. Please refer to this memo for background information. DISCUSSION: Staff recommended denial of the three lots that were originally proposed for this plat for the following reasons: A. There is inadequate sewer depth to provide City sewer services to the proposed three lots. Section 3 . 12 , Subd. 1 of the Shakopee City Code includes the adopted standard specifications (See Exhibit C. ) These specifications require a 9 ' depth of the service line at the property line and that the services shall be at right angles to the main. Neither one of these conditions could be met. Services were proposed at only about 3 . 5 ' to 4 ' deep at the property lines. B. The larger setbacks due to the existing cul-de-sacs would have resulted in an irregular pattern of residential development. The increased setbacks would reduce the back yard space for these residences, and the administration of these unique setbacks would have been difficult. Staff also recommended the approval of Lot 1, Block 2, if the applicant was willing to plat only this lot. The impact of the existing cul-de-sac of this lot is not nearly as severe as it is on the other two proposed lots. In addition, Lot 1, Block 2, is located much closer to the existing main than the other two lots. This distance is more commonly found in the City. The sewer line as proposed would be permanent. In 1978, the City adopted an ordinance which limits the amount of sewer discharge in the southwest area of the City. The City Engineer has determined that the proposed one lot subdivision will not exceed the sewer allocation limits, as prescribed by the ordinance. The Park Dedication requirement for this portion of Minnesota Valley 3rd Addition was not met in 1979. The plat has not been identified as a future park site in the draft Comprehensive Plan Parks Element. A cash payment in lieu of land dedication will be required for park purposes. The Scott County Assessor's Office has assessed the value of the land at $8,800. 00. Using this value in the calculation, the requirement for Park Dedication would be $274 for the lot. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the revised Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition, subject to conditions. 2 . Deny the revised Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has recommended approval one lot and one outlot in the Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. 2 . A cash payment in the amount of $274 . 00 shall be made in lieu of land dedication for park purposes. 3 . The City Engineer will reapportion the existing special assessment against the lot and the developer shall waive his right to appeal the reapportionment. 4 . No building permits shall be issued for Outlot A until it has been replatted. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass Resolution No. 3529, a Resolution Approving one lot and one outlot on the Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 3529 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING ONE LOT AND ONE OUTLOT ON THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF MINNESOTA VALLEY, 6TH ADDITION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did approve one lot and one outlot on the Preliminary and Final Plat of Minnesota Valley, 6th Addition on January 9 , 1992 , and has recommended its adoption; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Preliminary and Final Plat of Minnesota Valley, 6th Addition, described as follows: Outlot C, Minnesota Valley 3rd Addition is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. 2 . A cash payment in the amount of $274 . 00 shall be made in lieu of land dedication for park purposes. 3 . The City Engineer will reapportion the existing special assessment against the lot and the developer shall waive his right to appeal the reapportionment. 4 . No building permits shall be issued for Outlot A until it has been replatted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer' s Agreement. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 21st day of January, 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. OFFICE OF CITY CLERK COUNTY OF SCOTT ) I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, do hereby certify that I have compared the attached copy of Resolution No. 3529 with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true copy. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at City of Shakopee, Minnesota, in the County of Scott on the day of , 19 Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Prepared by: THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 10 ooxi , ZZFri- m oozy I t I I...:.:: i .. 00D m m-1 7.7 \ ''''- = t r r'` 4'• I m m=S D--1 .. -.M m f - a = - 71Z m O • D 0 . coT12•Vi N S N to -u ` I O couwrr •eno •o. ,s I Z Z 0 �.S r, x O C It `_ -C ZO iim ` �Z .-i r :I:m 1 11. :_.. n—Iz m Z I t;:: ;;; x<nm ' rnD III o u ..7 O D-I ' /� al0 a I L ozvC v, la i° 1. -0 x171 n. y L Z 0 m D0 Z L M 's a" Tt_3 � m i Z X _ I rC .lm a F rg m _II o 7v ymo= t " Cy N0 ^ a oM _ o r"i b m C: I x•-' �� I y oZ ° -J Ba L" --L— — �z3 "a I a S� f NZ ;a I o ND g ti 0,7� ,;_ o LAP.'E o rnzm F ti ro+' 10 •-- --- f N.234,17z•N'F ..Q —_ N O 1. I Yres- 162.17 TE.00 x N 0 '= I N z —; eo p a, r�r, ' ooD OD D�. t":S Z -'--- C3: . 0 = Ix I "'w - -,. C r cel ' 6.;*re IA I mw to r3 ni ---- 15698 -•---._`;2.00 i — -+o J(.�? ''-) •-5.0.30'2z• E. m {))r;: •-East Erie of COW C,MINNESOTA YALLEY DRO ADDITION :ZI-� • is r T��• O H m* x i� ox zN D • co D C m v o Q • x . • m D IMMO C° Om 7j Z X 00 H cn wm W o H m N m N H —I • rn N - > •o m N toI m m • E X H I B I T B MEMO TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner RE: Concurrent Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley Sixth Addition DATE: December 31, 1991 INTRODUCTION: Randy Laurent of Laurent Builders, Inc. has submitted an application for Concurrent Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for Minnesota Valley Sixth Addition. The proposed plat is located at the intersection of Vierling Drive and Presidential Lane. The development is 2 . 3758 acres in size and contains three single family lots and two outlots. The area is zoned R-2 , Urban Residential . (See Exhibit A. ) BACKGROUND: 1. Minnesota Valley 1st Addition was platted in 1976, the 2nd Addition in 1978, the 3rd Addition in 1979, and the 4th and 5th Additions in 1981. (See Exhibit B. ) The proposed plat is a replat of Outlots B and C of Minnesota Valley 3rd Addition, which was platted in May of 1979. (See Exhibit B. l) 2 . The plat contains three single family lots and two outlots. Two of the lots measure 9 , 043 . 66 square feet, and one measures 10, 451. 64 square feet. Outlot A is 51,785 square feet, and Outlot B is 13 , 170 square feet in size. (See Exhibit C. ) 3 . The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing sewer lines (See Exhibit D) to the north in Minnesota Valley 2nd Addition until the area to the south develops. The proposed design for the interim sewer lines does not meet the City Code requirements. 4 . There is inadequate sewer depth to provide City sewer services to the proposed lots. Section 3 . 12 , Subd. 1 of the Shakopee City Code includes the adopted standard specifications (See Exhibit E. ) These specifications require a 9 ' depth of the service line at the property line and that the services shall be at right angles to the main. Neither one of these conditions can be met. Services are only about 3 . 5 ' to 4 ' deep at the property lines. The two lots furthest south will require the greatest amount of shallow sewer lines. Exhibit F is the plan of the proposed interim utility services and future service lines. 5 . The applicant has proposed that the sewer system will be reconstructed to connect with future sewer lines to the south. The future connections can meet the City Code requirements. If the plat is approved, a method of financing the construction of the permanent sewer lines should be addressed at this time, rather than by the future homeowner. 6 . Sewer allocations are listed in Section 3 . 21 of the City Code. At this time, the City Engineer has not yet determined if this applies to this property, but will be investigating further. 7 . A temporary cul-de-sac (Presidential Lane) was constructed as a part of the previous plat, Minnesota Valley 3rd Addition, in 1979 . The street is intended to go through to the south as that area develops. The existing cul-de-sac will encroach onto the proposed lots until such time the through street is constructed. An access easement would need to be recorded, concurrent with this plat, for the cul-de-sac. 8 . The pavement line of the cul-de-sac and the proposed lot lines are shown on the Preliminary Plat. If only a 30 ' front yard setback were required, the house could be constructed only 12 feet from the cul-de-sac pavement. In this area, houses are typically constructed approximately 42 ' front the street pavement. As a result of the existing cul-de-sac, larger setbacks should be required for the proposed lots which are affected. A condition could be drafted to require a larger setback for the lots affected by the existing cul-de-sac. The increased setbacks will result in smaller backyards for the residences on the proposed lots. Snow removal and parking on the cul-de-sac may also become neighborhood issues until the through street is constructed. 9 . According to Shakopee Public Utilities, a watermain to serve this development is already in place, however water services are not. These would need to be installed prior to the paving of the street. 10. U.S . West would be providing telephone service for this development once they are made aware of the time schedule. 10. Special assessment balances currently exist on the parcel . 11. Section 12 . 07 , Subd. 5 (C) regulates the park dedication requirements for replats. The ordinance states that when land has not previously provided park dedication, or if additional dedications are needed, in the City' s determination, then park dedications shall be required with the replat. Further research on the park dedication requirements was needed at the time of the preparation of this memo. Staff will supply the Planning Commission with additional park dedication information at the meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend denial to the City Council the Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. 2 . Recommend approval to the City Council the Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. 3 . Recommend approval of Lot 1, Block 2 only. DISCUSSION: Staff has suggested the three alternatives listed above for discussion purposes. Staff could support the approval of Lot 1, Block 2 , but cannot support the approval of the two more southerly lots, due to sewer line design and the impacts of the existing cul- de-sac on the development of these two lots. If the Planning Commission makes the decision to recommend approval of this preliminary and final plat, it should be subject to the following conditions: A. The front yard setback on Lot 1, Block 2 , and on Lot 2 , Block 2 , shall be 45 ' from the front property line. B. An easement must be recorded prior to final plat approval for temporary public access for the cul-de-sac. C. Construction plans and specifications for the interim and permanent sewer systems must be approved by the City Engineer and the Building Official prior to Final Plat approval . D. The applicant must provide financial security to the City which will adequately cover costs to install the permanent sewer system. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition, based on the following reasons: 1. There is inadequate sewer depth to provide City sewer services to the proposed lots. Section 3 . 12 , Subd. 1 of the Shakopee City Code includes the adopted standard specifications (See Exhibit B. ) These specifications require a 9 ' depth of the service line at the property line and that the services shall be at right angles to the main. Neither one of these conditions can be met. Services are only about 3 . 5 ' to 4 ' deep at the property lines. 2 . The larger setbacks will result in an irregular pattern of residential development. The increased setbacks will reduce the back yard space for these residences. Administration of these unique setbacks would be difficult. Staff would recommend approval of Lot 1, Block 2 , if the applicant is willing to pursue platting of this lot. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion recommending to the City Council denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat for Minnesota Valley 6th Addition. - • _*----v-; : i'. .,.J ''' ,1-t. r.,i'',. ,; a_.....--- - „„.......... ., , ..._ ,.. 1 . . • E xhi o • - ( - T... •.0•••• . . : .•.._ . ...... . - ...• ••••••• - - • '' • '•: • :w :. - -•, /". z /2- _____L___,--1-1-=-111 • 2 '.. r: ,•‘ ,,.. ..."..,...• „ ,. „,--- ,. ., . . , A.... . .• ,„,. .,.. ..... 57..., ../.., / :/.., , v......,4,4:‘• :•,:,‘‘... i-, .- . , . . • . ,. . , C , 1 A , z•B / ".' ' ,, ..,,, \‘. Amigo/KA i , / l'/.. / / - , • - .. N _* ....0:-: I // ,. • ------7---T. . , 1 k , • • / i )>•• ,...,../- . / 2_01n in j At- --- , i .40 • ; 1 ‘ % 1 / • .....-••• ' .• ' t. 9.• '\ .,. / /1 / / ' 1 \ \ k ' • //yr ,-. I 1•••-li ; ••• ."'"- " .. -.., z.:, . +, i ' ‘ ,r...:6•.-1 1-.0..... •N i' / .80 ...• :9 //,, STATE Er I •./., i / ......1f1 ' • li CORR F::-TiOttAi_ / 7• i 1 •::.1 0 .7.• •:474.7. - fAC,LIT Y • • / /.‘ ":,./ -.1 1 i FOR • . • • 01 : "..?4:...'.,/ —•!--. 1; •• ViONEN . , . • , , ', : I., i.......1. .".10:;1/.'.'e.A:....24.1'>"\::pl:cs ...,„ .,.../\ ..,..... ..,...., _C•i'.. .6i._.: i.:...,:.:_.; "r77:**4).,....4s..:"...._t. 1-;___-541;.-1.: i ' • L.X7r .._ ...___. ___.... .1.....__ ,, ,,,,.., 1.___ .__;.....17.1.1. ;7 .........-- : -r " z7Z / ' 6 .0. . : L-0-- ...... I i us .--: ___ /4/ ii 7:110: AVE -.1e//,1 .......7 1111. , , 'Jiff•, ; - ! • :,.......,.tz_:,..zj .T...::1.... u.....:,....._f 1<.-- ...-.' rrr I • .43., ,1 ,'' : 67.---...-7 . 7 i i . i 7 ' 1 rilii7-4:' •--114, r.:T1 :___1---b _4_ , .4 r:3-ttl• 'col t i s- // /1 it-- t 1-- -1.-I 1--f-1 ---Ir--4 ---1.1 itda r . :1 .• II . As i.ti. . . ti• t. 1.,„„.. 1 i ,...l...;.......... 1 4 ' . . . ' L,...... ...i 1,...-J • E. i .i tr:777 r7;771 1."7".. 1.2:41 F.......:71 • F.'s • 1:1 —1-- .._.:.._.; 1.... ! ....4 1 --t--, r-7---4 1---,---t t:-,_.., 1_4. ....L.v F.;_ .1 , / f vot2.E,mui I !--1 t-'1""t j"--t 7-r-i 1.--1--t .--L-Z: r---;-- --i , /ri s,/ • • I ELIXPC: r:--1 •--.0 1.----,---41 !----i-4 j-1 . 6:. : • I I 1 I I -i, „. I R. A r- - ws: -- • - 1 • 44,,,,---.......,_ LOT i • - 1 c,t.''. j.1 13 1-, &Lill '_,___L'i an • - ,..7._, _ . E .--, i--11 _. w - . , , . . , . : • 11 ----, 1 / - .1.-... Lot 2 .‘,,, 1....-.7.--4 -4-1 r-!4-1 t-:4-• • ' s' -s' 4-. 1 • !. it . , 11 . I , Iroi , : ,,t , ,. .,.. „ :;..1L-..:0.. I . tel F.T11....j, ! i 1 . 122...r4 Et71:73 r-;-7-.477 1 [ ' N, ‘- s')----i • i 1.7_1-:_4 HLT:1, ,__... i' , •i•--..-i.._< .P !..-4 2.4 1-1.4 E E....17:1".1 ! D.-. s , / 1-Ll'•.''''s I i • 1 's* . . - I . • . , • • ia-rEl r-1-1 • ' / ' \ t...--' \,,: , r-i' (--N., 1 i . .. / • - ‘ Q 1..---,--t 1--- i r-,---,.-----r *.....4,E,,4 \1.4.• , ----.:J 1.-:-!zt:i - ; , i • !___I—te—ri. "_..'. :€:-\•,, 4_ ' 'g 0.:4*.,...4. 2 ( 1 1.1014 Pemc , , A r•—rt_•i ief—t_j p......; 4---,-; mobs . , .. . I , R i-r.,4 2.,...1 is--H ! • i-L4 3,/. . :.t::10.1"4!SRI x i v. .o, .. irgio ierzi......1 mum 5: ,2._Itt,777:7....Nc.;.:...119...:..tn., ,-,- / , . i 1 -- iti ..........1_,j moo= 1 ..............,- • -f-- . : R 1 ,‘ zr,,c.."...7 rrrt-d 41 ir—rv7i, : ,4;-•";1-461„,.114. Iv.r,.. c.,,,o•. Q : ! E i ____--------:-;------.....•”. 1 7mmorommr...:„:"................ e . ,,, ,.% ". ' •- . . \ "'"-•1• : : ' : •"": ' • t t % - ' I L \ rt ' • ' • I . - --\\ I ---- AG AGRICULTURE 4 1 1 • R1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL L - 1 . „ . R2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL . 1 .. .. R3 MID-DENSITY . 1 RES. . .---- • R4 MULTI FAMILY RES. - ,-..._ „.......--...... ..1 ! I --—------- B1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS B2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS B3 CENTRAL BUSINESS .. E7-1 R- ......• oposed ivINI VA LLEY Gt_l 11 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Addition 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL • S SHORELAND FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT ---- MANDATORY PUD RTD RACETRACK DISTRICT ______ / :::. 1 :-..: .........1 I. 1---.1.----- t� s 3 40 v- -N MN VALLEY :7 :�=_ � _� • \\ LATS ,, ,- ;fi _, , e;,1 I \ t'W VALLEY Piths I ' ,0147:_______ = I Addn. o3 P14ied 1'114' ,- _.. a d A ddn.. 6-71 F latfed X 9 8 I st Q1 1/11't `,1111 all 2iont Iv— , ►� e 19 Tai t1 11 C 3 _ ddn : 8y %fed 9 • r,�o INi *' Addn.: .0!OZ tP�aµed MI J ' "111��''�� sum ���/ 1a C I 5th Addn.. V // r / . wet* s'iniPi\ . ' on dIYUvIE. lalle1 mus PA RK lani "I rffli V 'St :617 . . / IA I IM Pil LI 11 SUL 1. i'. 4 I g*lif0r 1 '' MI ' TE pb° � c� _ ill CORRECTIONAL V �/� � aClLi Y In MI G � � / - 7 I /, 70 00 4kz.4 f" /Ord Ave MI I C Ls IN 1._ .,f, • -4 am ono in 1 ma---- ,.....,,' 111—e!MI ni se— . LD.u1Kf::'" v ' 1 "?.0# PI 711 al PURI M. 110 II II_Illt MI IN Mil illi 1111111.441P ILL' MI M' WIC MB IL MO ill In In - -IN _- �^ - CNY.CM SCPOOL 1♦ -. mw, -■ NE mm mw+ w ..O s Y M. di . �. Q O 31 CM Q as v 00 ME= El COI CEY. '- S -IIII mwm9 -s momnmsa �jE1JEf Ni , mwm/ m� m O ruCP/ Ilab---.- E .1 .11, „I. 1.1. 1.0. poiJ` n m� m '� 5e A. 7s' ©om o. min IMO NMI nom F ' i' LOT : C _ _ w �� �� me MI ora I rm mm mMI MI l-•- _. R1° (,-v o,,r4 il .1/ =,..EI MUM Etas u E/!! E!� IDS E!� Ill i \• 1 ,i2.T ,AVE., i i a % Eon i_ sr . iiii.ia a. I to i'v` E imam Val at aP,�, _ a.,rii / Y e rkc I 411:- 6E1•j ovnor 0 E ov..o,, j \ .GQ dar • I • r� 1 \ I13f , TaN►aM \\v ,IJ \\ I N I 11,i li \ 57.?I aid i s' t'if s -- •_. • hip/ .q,.;gz.., - . :•••.••,i.9 • • 6.7 s., a , f . , -1- I __ 6 x , -,, • a c •4 4, o 4 . .,.;- •,. . • , ., ,.. . ,. ...• - .• . .... 0.> . . . / . .!. :. 'n•::• :7: /Vg' YCLII-e-LI 'e ‘... '4. . 0 Q ' • .Q 0 .., • (. ...L. '7; - i, Addn •0 2.,.-_-....-I ,-• re/ . ---- - . . 0. . . . ., (1,,, &--• C ,.... -,...-- 111/11166.3Nt1 1V1..t.N30IS32id e. .;•.y s.' c..) ;1...• -• ..,-,.,.....- .. oa .. ...•2.!.4-,..'I- v; 001 . . . , 711111110 , 0.) Q . 0 on o ftft , ,•ft 'C. ••,, LL.J ,">. ••7 n , z s' • L.LI,.., ,..; '.'. ., •-, •`.'.; ,-, ‘-: , . . k-- _..1.. . 0 1--- -.•,- _.1 • .,• .., , --- ...-..- '-• --f.r.... I\._ 0 .. . .. .....:: ,.",.;.. 1 N. N:"'-. .......i. ' `f 4,'....' ' 6.f".• ',-; iz: • 1---- :-••-• `..ft • 0- • -L.:- :••.: : .AFAR I . .2.-:. , n • N. : i, , - • •:...-.7 iN.,a i ,-,i .zi ..'s ,•. . l'el •.;% c.R., m . 1 :.; . .. ; ..i 42 ') L. -53-,c4' „, ..: .,_ po,;;!, 1 .• es z_. ;.... . . . • -,41.1-004/.4.-• °Sir - V .kaais i M.1-1.A44.1,-• . I co k ... Nusiele1VH .,. • • i..._ • ...... _____ .• .,, • AlSP•0...3 9(' . (1) l:' ,n, -Tr-----.--, , ;.. • vt• %:•,..%.`", .: --N ‘.:',.; '1'.. = 41-: 4J % . ul. , I.. i •'. N iz i-t7 --- ;V_,f6p0...,:v reAv • 1 /01.9 : ..91/6 ; .ts• ----:;•I'....i"..:.1: ••4 ,s• --- --•'%. :.' ••4 - .% cy. •iii % ...--• ' 1 ....1.0i i ; ;41,01' ' ...:it • ..:1/4.: ' • x 9.e i : 0.i,A.• : , 0,....,• ! r or,/ T. '.-1,7,6 ! .. ft9 . ..t..•c..' . 1 . • I ! I i NI : i ' • ;..,...i , . ‘,1 ! .tm, 4, . Nil i , .,.. ...,4 ......i 1 ,•1 ..';1 '.... .. ''. '' .<-% .k. ..44 ..: I;i .,,.... 1-,, '‘' ';'• Ni ItC •,: 1.1 .s. \' r•-/.1.-EAp;;."•$: ! ‘.,- .:1 ',A N:f. :.tr) '''' .• ct•NI 1:4.,, cf)..'" ‘,.CO k:l I%t•••• it; Po 03 •.,‘' i% C 0.:,.. ,kr; 0 1/4.: %; 1, ......i ,!'! 1‘,• 1: %! ,.• !kl :*: tti i*. 4.1 'Z.! 'ki i''-z• V P ez' 1!*: :,.. ','"' - •.: ::. ,.... .. .. •,...-i- z.: 1 .4 .,.1 • •-,• ?., ... , •ti ; , 1 - , i a . • af:1.1F 3 I ep!z_; : ,,,w. , L P?N_, i._RP* .; t_. 00A' ..1 t-ITN_ j i 0091:j. 1 A.',/ .0/a 09 ----.------,. • • . . . - . , _ - Af..EA.04...1. •..!-,. cfrZ IR/ _..- I , V k , 1332:LLS • ... • . - ,N.16.55'../A• .••••' 49,56't : so si,'__ • ' .ii..i, 1 :sosi..', I 5 .9/ : -5.*3 `!ick- r.s.og. 7 I-sT•sti 3-1 1-4.&w. ,' (50.t. ' . ..:-.:• I'"'. r: -7-7 -ai • ,.,1 • ,...," .:. •`. 1 :4:. : . ..4, .,!..f.!":•I k• •Z‘l .1% '''11. 'c Ss' 1.:.-, s'l I. ...• , ft) .a. .ftv 4"1 ...i. .4 :v IN 1.: a •ffl 'a ,• a - . s:•.,•• :::. A in N- .--N cr ;.'; 1' %. •-' .s. .- %, .." ez: 1!•, :•,••,• "A I `'.:5. :'t 41 `qi 1' "le; I% .. ; ''• es, N in`N.' CO A,' •S i't., ‘Ni CO Icj t4 OI..,.: 0 '..': . X i . .r5t.W.' !CI •,,, I s .§. I • §; I • 14: I ..1.) I - N, N '',: !•,1 1••• .. -:._ _. _..... -, ' • .1.:. I ''''. 1 .. k.• ' I ". i ... • - ' e• -. % L 519.!` J L 59 11-i L•rcow : . -5°"..i C 5.?..".: 1.!C"_...1 L!9"1: Jl 5".2.1 J I 517''' 1 L. ".'V/ J. ;"•. W -.....- ci.• '4 . ..ros • 2•91p< - ••,. •4 --I 4 •••-k f --- • -- , <. - -•-• ,4 c.,1 .4•-• . ! , ,209,9 . , a.-9.e . .. 0;ge • , vi7A0 : /( 6 1 I 4 i i I ....--..; 14 ; • ....-PAVY 1 • c r 1-^4.I; I •i ; •\1 !.. "cl . '.• N.! I cv sii 1 :., i Ni 1 .,., ... . „...,.. i .,:l'is•.•:.'•1 ,to - . ,T.,te...4.'s•' ' an ,..-f 14, ,.... !,••1 • I, . , t...1 ' I•. , `Nb. . .. 4. ...• • ..kl• . ,n as -r. ..ft:" Vt ..• ft. 7 -• .... - (0 '.• .ft. In v • Tr %I I %,. %.%. 1 - Ikr: .." - N..N.i itn' - ti A `-`2 •k! I C‘j .k.•! I I's -'' ';',I : -&- - •: % :.:1 ;*\ Nli -N". ;..1 , , ;* 9; L , L ..00rr_, : , ,,,,,,,' i.- .. 00.-,91 6•°29.7.1 .I_ A 9•".14..1 l' ''''°"9'.; "1°' : . _ .q..4*.>A,i,v Z86 'ez - - • • ' : ..f.,fro,/f• -- - • .o. •• ! ., • ,.: :A; ;.• Af.i• o4/A. ,•iry .1 1338IS • .. •-• W1 Od •11 efr,fro if.. ..i,s, • MN --, . . •• //AO' --.: ..- - dic/6/ • ' I I. - •-' r -• I 00 OA' • "op/ 1 . WOO/ ' .... 'ego/ 1 , 0000i ! ! 06 ' • • • " - - - I... . a ' : . ; .1.1•4104/, I ,'4, 'o' I I N4 I yaw, NI I NI i 1‘, ••••1 I .. . -C. ve :4 4 •'.• Ai 2.1.! .' 4 I:,i, '''• 3: ' CU .Z4" 14 in .v, •a Tr ....tiff ''t 0 :::1 ft w osf '- I.- '...".: kt % Y:.4. /-- NII I% ;:ta SI 1•••• Cti N Ztl ;S! .* IC'%1 :le .' .,. CI CI N. C..I kb 40 , I ••: • .,..1 I ki I '4. 0 .••• •', ••• •!, . 0, * • 1--6.el4E f. -Pr"'71 L-...?.?"?.J i_070.00! .__.cgool '1, ... .avow , :._ez.v, ti, le . Pozo..., k • ._. t'Apos 71„4:f404/;‘, PO 09, -•': '--- ” r . . , . ., -• ., . ,'''' .... • ..... . . i • I \ I - .., ........*: ,-, ' • • c --- - **••'i. ------ --- ..".%)-••• / -......: .,... • C ; C . *:•.;**** ....-.• :•— 'i:***. •---- /) 1 ..-1( /,.f.:..:: / . u). ...... / , i ( . / --- • --, '-' ••••• i :::. ; •.: \ ,..A..\ i 1.....:i..: • • \ . t, i• :1-1 ..•'‘ --•••..: :.'• • - 3 1 •• 1 • •P a, 11 a „... ,), \ 1 • 3: til \ \ ..... (A IV 41- :...• ''. \..1 .:-.....:--1., c, : • i a ....:.. z , . • -. 7 c. in \ - tr• 1 . ...: : .:Iri q 1 C .e..9 . . K \ \ \ • *9 1 . 2 ..., ,s' i i \N.1°04`43"W. V.'s: ' 1 c. •;-, , ':. s ii \ EN.1°04.43",W ‘1 r1.51 s.' ......' 0 in N \ , „ .. , \ . . ,--7.--, i• ,-,7,ij, c ..... in \ . . ,„t.: 2.-i—rs, } .--•••• . •,:: rr ......t ,W•••••••• ) 4, 01CA ..:.......\.. es:0 16 4 3:I 11 : •--1 \ C s..-, 0 pg cnt, 5 Or84/iasep..7:22 er Ziir••• 1::::, \ . \ \ 4 V) • kT.-1 \ .-•:-14 :- ....: ii_re:).:!:1:10,!z r 6.47,:,*: , 37 2•24.,,,,,42 _0.), ......• \. \ 1....:t• , 1 v16.12......... _ ,.<v q19.42 -•- 41..., x I .::li 80 I, •(.7.1 --,-.. -: ,-/ -\--\.. 109.93 \--- ,• 160.00 • t-1 1 '',.,,..,, . rri . . - - , -- ‘ 189.83 -.:8LACRTOT3----\ ------ X) '-5,0*30'ZZ"E. ' 1 1W I N.. W W --G"Water:main : .*. i.,I ;::• * ••nrn: :-: :— :. : "r . 4 : al !.•:; : :...: :- :.: : i l-': i... 0 • t 1 I , 1i. ,:,.ce../ . _ -5— U411 M R vvD V863 116.7Z : ;7313 0 (n \ i1.030ZZ )V ,: --- 1•11 - cn 800 ;:. : -----F\ i 67.00 ..-.. -. b•:. ...: .. ,..,t,„c.116.5-7/ Frtt 7-1/ .--in -1::•, ,-,,-;-,t.,--7:- i 0 . :•), .. \ •••• (ri...1 ;:.1 _r:lz.. ...:i • .4e 1 „-,r- ;A• • ,•-• ...17..: 1 ••••-• ti i•-•I in ....: 6: .., f.i Z '••••' ...•••• ...-..-.1 . I ,`;‘, si;,---.. ' • F.-to! ./-.-'-'00. ,ci? ug c ,, .0..... ...... .... ci, 1 ,-,..• 9.,..,_.).(:_ ta33 ,.,,--z1-- 1•,:-:•,-„.- 1 rri ',..,:. 0 ; , ---,cij 1• t-13 ,...1 ,- --..: r\)--e,.,. q. ,.;.I f-1--6_ 1 2.(A iN;1='' •.I A:::y e.w U2 ;',. "t/ I W os tr ...I; • K -11 -4' -0 lr , .4‘ Z1 (11317)toD3 -:f111- ....• C) -- ..... .... 1- '2' . : ti -.. . i :: ::,•• p.., it ii7r-...r._,0 , io ____........••..,. __.. .••• . , s .. : -t,• . , • , ..., ,...: : , . , ..„—:. : :. • .... _..-4...,„--,.....• pp) ,,.,.. — - -- ........ ....: , • 1 / ,..). )...--4.,..,_,_i_„.-,__,..-,...„.,. ,.,,,..„ :....-.. •-....:1.1::;/,..:":17'.1 '-8..0°30'22"E. --' Easi line of Oullot C 1:-.'11....1!.,....•::•••:4; ' (-Telephone box cc) t•-: MINNESOTA VALLEY 3RD . .•••::•,:::,,'i 1,','. .'y kT% ADDITION • 80 . .•• • ..•-;;-:: : ::.:ivl \ .::;1.-,1i)T :::.•',.:1 F?1•I:i,,iii,..:,. iiii. I r,::,"1.. ;:11,..);91.1.I:......ii.%1 Ji . , • X Z . ---• • .3 - - -S---; : • i . cv. • z o c c). I-, n o • o• (1) 1-•• (II (11 —I rt a ) D- 33 (1) , rn co co co tU -I n • [3. '3 n -) 1-1 33 • UJ IV I- ri- 0) 71 i_f • rr rt a I--1 13 1- 77T (1) .--- n - p - ' - • .... • • ! j j -i_ C�t 5n moi- _ -- D �'•.`� Ex11 �- / ., _';`, '.`" 'F �`e.,,,......-•••••"'". -`- .,r, l tom: \ " ` s.‘ San +ar� � --' .- : - . . 1 ••‘.. SeWe,r5 ...----,----- -..7•-•"--'•.--4-- ' ; i ';'"•.t.•'T•-....-- ' '''' . ; . • -e- ; % • .S t yt_- &. . fr J• '/ r •i e « •r--•••••-:"-•:. �. 1,; . 1 t.._3 t t s:. ., • "/' i t.=- •ter -' r^ . _ _�• -l. f� !' .�,,; ;' e'" _ .• ' �y Tom. 1.-..7..e."...-•-•• / /' '/ w _ ` - •_..-_. 1 ems- r�-_•.:•!�' t •� r'-- _ I _ 'L'•:,.1.•11.6%'!: .-j:_ f'T'S - .. /d��' /• .1 `-- -- .`... . %t «- i i i �.. ~ t 's1-::::........1-%;"....:11. .�� F _• • ...II..> i co. • :tY - -/I� � _e e., r...__e•` _ _-T- r? • f--':-'-: 7- -- - :t `__� . ,. x'•17 • .-. ___ 1--- is e 'r -s• t .-• f V 1 -_i Friar- .... • %/ ff• . _ .a�_f-r+.. • • x; - r wr •_ ,��__ -"y .._ '_.•�•(`.n. j, tests • m�or.••.zsr-/-_�••-e-:•--.,c 3,.,...... TcT `s '' t _r- ,t t.. i :4: •;, r- -►-- ) _ -:t... , ' E ' -:s -�.o=wrest, riy a.ras . _ tr :'•'•47-2-r-m-►S.� ,....` a ,�—r-- •_Le-- a —*—•e--- _ fj ,.;•;;'- - _ i • • ,, i • _ 4 • oto f3J '; S° ~r~ #= • ! — ; it 2 �1 s . _ itj i !TO-. SS! -"Ise -4 __ I i-t % • tit • • .. :T1 : /•_lir Ex hi bid- E SEC. 3.12. CONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER MAINS. Subd. 1. Design Criteria and Standard Specifications. All construction of sanitary sewer mains and service laterals shall be strictly in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer and open to public inspection during regular office hours. Such Design Criteria and Standard Specifications may be adopted and amended by resolution from time to time by the City and shall be uniformly enforced. Subd. 2. Permit Required. A written permit is required from the City Engineer to construct or reconstruct sanitary sewer or service laterals. Application for such permit shall be made on forms approved by the City and shall sufficiently describe the con- templated improvements, the contemplated date of beginning work and the length of time required to complete the same, provided that no permit shall be required for any such improvement ordered installed by the Council. All applications shall be referred to the City Engineer and no permit shall be issued until approval has been received from the City Engineer. All such applications shall contain an agreement by the applicant to be bound by this Chapter. Plans and specifications consistent with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall also accompany the application. A permit from the City shall not relieve the permit holder from damages to the person or property of another caused by such work. Subd. 3. Inspection. The City Engineer shall inspect sanitary sewer construction and reconstruction. Any work not done according to the approved Design Criteria and Standard Specifica- tions shall be removed and corrected at the expense of the permit holder. Any work done hereunder may be stopped by the City Engineer if found to be unsatisfactory and not in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications, but this shall not place a continuing burden on the City to inspect or supervise such work. Source: Ordinance No. 136, 4th Series Effective Date: 10-27-83 3 .02 N' SUBDIVISIONS. Before w k begins on these parts, the developer is scheduled to grade the street to grade with no spot elevation to vary over 0 .5 feet, and overall grading to within 0 .2 feet. After the utilities are installed , the existing backfill material shall be compacted and reshaped to the required section as • shown on the detail plan, and noted in the Standard Specifications. All excavation and shaping c f these streets shall be incidental to the other items of the contract . SECTION 4 .00 SEWER SERVICE INSTALLATION (2621 .3E) : Generally, a 4 inch or 6 inch wye shall be used in the main line. An approved adaptor or other approved method of connection to the wye shall be installed. When cast iron or ductile iron service pipe is used, the sanitary • wye shall be a standard cast iron soil pipe fitting with slip joint and plug installed , watertight. House connections shall be kept as deep as required to serve thea property, with a minimum depth of 10 feet in the street and not less than 9 feet at the curbline. All exceptions to be approved , by the Engineer. All house connections shall be sealed . by capping with cast iron stoppers firmly in place, or by other methods approved by the Engineer, which shall effectively prevent water from entering thei sewer until the connection is placed in service. SECTION 5 .00 MANHOLE STRUCTURES: On streets that are not at . design grade, sewer manholes shall be built with such additional adjusting rings or short manhole sections as necessary to allow for adjustment of the street to the proposed grade as shown or. . the plans. On other streets, manholes shall be set as shown on • the standard detail sheets. Manhole casting tops shall be 1 /4 inch below the street surface , when the street is paved . Ongravel streets , manhole casting shall normally be placed 2 inches below gravel surface. The thickness of gravel within the depressed area shall be the same as the street. • ... The Contractor, with the approval of the Engineer, where standard manhole sections cannot be used, as in junction and transitional , manholes , may construct such sections of brick, concrete , or a combination of such materials set on a concrete base . The outside of brick or block manhole sections shall be plastered with Portland Cement grout as directed. Hollow concrete block ` will not be allowed for any manhole construction. 6 N m CO l 0 -4 . • N O I Y C m C770 m I m C v700070^, d m m'0 Y O m C.i N " C 0 0 0 t. .. m"i.. C CO .i.i C 3 O Y O m A " O L m C 7 m d Y Y- Y'• 3 0•4 O + O •+ I.4 .0 m 0 .c O C 0 0' O Y m 0 0 0+. d E t >.0 0 >4+ 0 3 4 Y CL OA.41 E m4-4 mm m Y Cm w N E C m C ., U m N O+, COm C F O w t >+m CO N 0 dN mmo CO Om 4i 3 i 0 m � 0 � � 7 0D C �mU C ,i N5, V CA 14 '41 LI W .i "i m .4 CO YCOam0 . mcp m 0 44 0 Cm > 0 m CO d N0m> mUm 0CU m A CN U F"i 0 0 0 ^'+, 0 d 4.4 l.4 N 0 -'+ m., 0 t m mG Y m Y E 3E 0cnc O Y N .i AO' - C U O a ,, 0 C44 0 A pp-+ c • E Y C co '" 0 ., .44 0 O m 7 0 .,Y C )4 m 0 U A, t+ U W 0 0 pmN OC C c >, p7 mmN "0; t 07„ tO.. c 0 >.m .. d C O 4 0 m"i 1y > m ., m O N . 0 U m 0., . Y NO U C m b L CO C .i m 7. Um „ 0y Cm . omN CD , C EY - OI 7 c O ti E C 0 Y m d. N E CO . mQI 441 m 'OCE a mmm y. A . 0.i ...4i y E 0 mm0N7cO N Y y -i -4 m 0 x X30. . I"A"i 0 m 14.,./ CD C m.fly N 0 ^ C mC O C C > m O m 0U -CN0ot 0 > C OCosiONN tE O03EY Ot00 ONm "14 d CO O .�Y0Mm0 0OtGCcmCD.4..4 „mm 1:3 41 N 0 0 7 b14 U O C C F"i 0 C > C m,p m"0 U C m O m 44 14 >° m 0 0 0 0 m 0 >, m 0%, 44 y , 0'U m m u 0 Y "" I4 00.i Y V 0 y m Y .'.I., C C g 0 U C 44 0 C V E C 0 m m m N CO A 0 CO 0 O y m Y > ti C m -+'O Y U c m 7 > 0 44 U O I LI„- 00 m0 m w 00E'6CO 0000,, m j ENTRY PROPOSED UTILI MINNESOTA VALLE .F 1 R.ANDERSON & AS; �t�, a n a ,• 1T A , • _ 1"=30' BLOCK 1 I LOT 1 I o I • I Ex ,3smr 8/6.o z G,kN 816.7 MIN 135MT B/V.6 I _\ Zn! / Nl.ih I 1 r 1/ ' 4; \\ 1 -PROPOSEO SEWER SE11o.Cr (/VP) • r B/r J 1 C.o. ...�.._._-. TEMP. CUL. DE 3AC (EXI/ I C d G I I / _...- I . 1 ---4..WAT E R .j1 b �J s --- rt 3 Y% -H_ It ---K- —. — H- - f-1.,..___a - - ---' Q > 8.. 5_4.1.4.. rur. ELEv. 3,. ' `'r FUTURE�N, F_+c. 1n14 1A�1{� IAL UrP3� �s 36W£R sEA.` / ��„n yl/.v AN / ZNV tll� 1 CA I j CdG 3/y"WATER i 1 I ./ / 1 I `\e 1 . xNV I a 1 _ 813.8 -1— I zniv 8,4.3 I GARS ,v,N.l3SMT I I GAR MIN. 13SMT.I , 816.7 814.8 817.8 814.3 oG� I ( I I n cp ; I I I 816 s:„. V 173 LOT 2 I I LOT 1 --1 • BLOCK 2 I”. _ .... r A. t C.) lick MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Rahr Malting Private Wastewater Treatment Facility Comprehensive Plan Amendment DATE: January 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION: At the January 9, 1992 meeting the Planning Commission passed a motion which recommended that the City Council approve the comprehensive plan amendment which would add several policies to the Sanitary Sewer Element of the 1980 Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. The amendment would allow Rahr Malting Company to construct a private wastewater treatment facility. Attached is a copy of the adopted 1980 Comprehensive Plan Sanitary Sewer Element (attachment No. 1) . The bolded single spaced sections in the attachment (page 92. 5) reflect the proposed amendment. BACKGROUND: Rahr Malting Company has been operating in Shakopee for well over 100 years. It has been a major employer throughout its history and provides a significant tax base for the community. Rahr Malting is in the process of making major operational changes in an effort to remain competitive in the malting industry. A new malt house has recently been approved by the City to provide for expanded capacity. To be more competitive a private wastewater treatment facility is needed. The Sanitary Sewer Element of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan included two sections. The following is an outline of the Sanitary Sewer Element. A. Existing System 1. Existing Sewer System Problems B. System Expansion 1. Proposed VIP Trunk Sanitary Sewer 2 . Future Shakopee-Jackson Interceptor 3 . Estimated Service Area Flows DISCUSSION: The entire existing urbanized core of Shakopee including the Rahr Malting site is served by the MWCC lift station L-16. Attachment 2 illustrates the location of lift station L-16 and other sewer facilities in the City. This lift station was constructed in 1971 to divert flow to the Blue Lake Treatment Plant via a 14-inch force main (MSB7024) . The lift station and force main have a capacity of 2.7 million gallons per day (MGD) average flow. Measured flow to L-16 has far exceeded the predictions of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. In fact, since 1986, the flow to the lift station has surpassed what was anticipated for saturated development conditions. This discrepancy is primarily attributable to growth in discharge from Rahr Malting. The anticipated flow from Rahr was 0 . 82 MGD while the actual flow is currently 1. 4 MGD. With the proposed malt operation expansions the maximum flow would be 1.7 MGD. The estimates detailed in the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan indicate that flow to L-16 will exceed capacity by 1992-93 . The MWCC has declined to expand the capacity of the lift station and force main system because of excessive cost. An alternative to expanding the lift station is to divert flow as envisioned in the prior plan. Private wastewater treatment plants are common in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Recognizing this, the Metropolitan Council has developed policies to help guide and regulate the development of these facilities. In 1988 the Met Council reviewed the Shakopee Comprehensive Plan as a part of their regional planning effort. In attachment No. 3 (page II-3) the Met Council recommended that the City of Shakopee update their Comprehensive Plan to include provisions under which private wastewater treatment plants would be allowed. The proposed private wastewater treatment plant will help make Rahr Malting more competitive while at the same time it will reduce the demand on the City' s sewer system. The proposed facility will also provide additional environmental benefits. The plant will allow Rahr to reuse water as well as capture sludge. Rahr will be using the sludge in several different applications (primarily agricultural uses - cattle feed, fertilizer, etc. ) . Based upon 1991 billing rates, the City collected $338 , 000 from Rahr Malting for sewer services. The City was charged $264 , 000 in 1991 by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) for sewer treatment services. The $74, 000 difference between collected revenue and expenditures is used by the City to pay for local administrative and operating costs. With the construction of the proposed facility, the City will no longer receive the revenues from Rahr, nor pay the fees to MWCC. Based on discussions with MWCC staff, the City would receive approximately 5, 000 sewer availability charge (SAC) credits if Rahr were to no longer use the metropolitan sewer system. MWCC currently requires that municipalities charge $700 per SAC when building permits are released. The value of the SAC credits would be over $3 , 000, 000. MWCC will not refund this amount but rather will accept SAC credits in lieu of collected SAC charges. The City has increased its sewer demand by an average of 230 SAC units over the past ten years. The City could retain the revenue collected for SAC charges and submit SAC credits to MWCC. If the City maintains the annual 230 SAC unit demand, the City could retain collected SAC revenues for over 20 years. One SAC unit equals 274 gallons of maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume. Single-family houses, townhouses and duplex units each equal one SAC unit. Commercial buildings are assessed SAC units based on maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume. Industrial buildings have been assessed SAC units based on maximum normal daily wastewater flow volume. Maximum normal flow volume is generally less than maximum potential flow volume; accordingly, fewer SAC units are assessed for maximum normal flow volume than for maximum potential flow volume. In December 1991 MWCC staff brought the proposed Rahr Malting facility to the Commission. Four alternative actions were proposed in the November 27 , 1991 memo (Attachment No. 4) . The MWCC decided to hold off on making a decision until input from the Metropolitan Council could be made. The processing of this proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will bring this issue to the Met Council. The proposed policies in the Comprehensive Plan amendment are intended to closely regulate private wastewater treatment plants in Shakopee. (Please refer to page 92 . 5 of Attachment No. 1. ) Five policy statements have been drafted to guide the development of these facilities. Plants will be allowed for industrial uses only. All plants must be constructed in accordance with all federal, state and local regulations. All liability will be with the owner and the City shall have the authority to stop operations if an emergency were to occur. Amending the Comprehensive Plan is the first step in obtaining approval from the City for Rahr to build the private wastewater treatment plant. Rahr will also be required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) for the plant. The public hearing for this CUP will be heard after the Comprehensive Plan is amended, the environmental review process (EAW) is completed and all necessary state and federal permits have been received. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2 . Deny or amend the proposed Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which would allow private industrial wastewater treatment facilities. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass Resolution No. 3530, a resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment, which would allow private industrial wastewater treatment facilities. RESOLUTION NO. 3530 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE 1981 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE CITY. WHEREAS, on August 4 , 1991, the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan of the City; and WHEREAS, on January 9 , 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow the construction of private industrial wastewater treatment facilities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the proposed amendment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the 1981 Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to allow the construction of private industrial wastewater treatment facilities in the City as outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part thereof. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Exhibit A Private Wastewater Treatment Systems Private treatment systems are small, privately-owned treatment facilities such as package treatment plants and their collection systems. These facilities usually require a National Pollution Disposal Elimination System (NPDES) permit or state disposal system permit (SDS) . Neither the City nor the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) wishes to be the owner or operator of private treatment systems or bear any portion of the capital or operating costs now or in the future. The applicant must provide financial guarantees to the City that the necessary financial resources will be available to construct, maintain and operate the facilities according to the conditions stipulated in state, city or other governmental permits and approvals. If an emergency arises in which the owner and/or operator cannot fulfill these conditions, the owner shall cease discharging to the treatment system until a long term solution is established. Policies Private wastewater treatment systems will be considered where they are necessary to serve industrial process water treatment needs. The owner/operator shall meet the following conditions. 1. No private treatment system or expansion will be considered until the City is assured that the property owner will meet its financial requirements for the foreseeable future. Private industrial wastewater treatment facilities will be allowed only if they are not an economic detriment to the City of Shakopee. 2 . The treatment system owner must obtain and comply with permit (s) granted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The system must be located, designed and operated in accordance with its permit(s) . 3 . The development of the private treatment systems must be consistent with the City' s approved comprehensive plan. The facility should not encourage premature development in areas not currently planned for this development or lacking the municipal or other public services it would require. 4. Any liability or other problems, including pollution problems, resulting from the development, construction, operation, or maintenance of a private wastewater treatment system will be the sole responsibility of the owner/operator of the system. 5. If an emergency arises in which the owner and/or operator cannot fulfill these conditions, the City will require the owner of a private treatment system to cease discharging to that system until a long-term solution is established. 6. All private wastewater systems must use a proven treatment system. ATTACHMENT 1 SANITARY SEWER PLAN The present sanitary sewer system has limited capacity for expansion and development of lands in Shakopee. The significant limitations are in the areas of future residential development more so than commercial and industrial development. Under the proposed zoning for the City, significant limitations will be felt in the development of single-family residential areas and will limit multi-family development to a few small areas along Third Avenue with a larger area in the eastern part of the City. The system is limited in several areas due to limited pipe capacity and eleva- tion of the system. In addition, the existing MWCC lift station and force main have corresponding limitations. Therefore, the extension of the sanitary sewers - to lands to be developed will require new trunk or interceptor sewers to be constructed. The analysis of the existing system and planning for new facilities have occurred over a period of years, beginning about 1971 to the present. A comprehensive sewer study and report was submitted to the City in 1972 with copies forwarded to the Metropolitan Sewer Board at that time. The Prior Lake Interceptor Sewer was designed, in part, on the basis of projected sewer needs stated in that plan. Subsequent studies have been made to analyze the limitations of the system in the existing service area. Existing System Treatment of wastewater from the City of Shakopee is accomplished at the Blue Lake Wastewater Plant located in the City of Shakopee. Sewage from the City flows to the plant by way of the lateral collection system, to the "Fiver Interceptor", to an MWCC lift station located at the old Shakopee City Wastewater Treatment Plant located in the northeastern part of the existing service area. The lift station discharges through an MWCC force main east about 1; miles to the Shakopee Interceptor and V.I.P. Interceptor along T.H. #101 , to the Blue Lake Treatment Plant. -84- The Prior Lake Interceptor, serving the City of Prior Lake and the eastern part of Shakopee, was constructed in 1977. Sewage flows in a northerly direction from the City of Prior Lake to the Blue Lake Treatment Plant. At present, there are no connections from the City of Shakopee to the Prior Lake Interceptor. The large industrial area in the northeastern part of the City is served by a system of lateral sewers connected to the Shakopee Interceptor along T.H. #101 . The system has ample capacity to serve the industrial area anticipated for development in the immediate future. EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM PROBLEMS: Problems with the present system appear to be limited to the collection system that is tributary to the MWCC Lift Station at the old Waste Treatment Plant. The main problem with the system is that of insufficient capacity to meet community needs for continued growth and development. Pipe Capacity: The present MWCC Lift Station and force main have a capacity of about 3.6 MGD. When the total land area is fully developed within the service area, the system will exceed the present capacity. Expansion. of the service area would require major construction to increase the capacity of both the "River Interceptor" and the MWCC Lift Station. Pipe Elevation: In addition to the problem of capacity, the elevation of the sewer system is too high in relation to the elevation of lands available for expansion develop- ment. Therefore, sewage pumping would be required even if the existing system had enough capacity. An alternative to pumping would be the construction of deeper sewers from the northern part of the City to the southern part, all at great expense and no benefit to the intervening property. Therefore, it can be concluded that the present service area cannot be feasibly expanded. -85- Infiltration/Inflow: Another problem that must be discussed is that of surface and/or groundwater entering the collection system. At present, no known direct points of inflow exist. A major source was eliminated with the construction of storm sewers in the western part of the service area which eliminated the connection of two catch basins in the sanitary sewer system. In addition, prolonged street flood- ing has been eliminated which formerly allowed inflow through the vent holes in the sanitary sewer manhole lids. On the basis of brief analysis of sewage flow records, it appears that infiltra- tion and inflow is a significant problem in the old sewer system. A review of sewage flows recorded at the lift station and flows recorded at Rahr Malting Company was made. The analysis was made on an hourly basis for a 32 month - period during winter months of 1977 to determine "dry-weather" flow conditions. Recorded flows from Rahr Malting Company were subtracted from total flows at the lift station and divided by the sewered population. Accordingly, the dry- ( weather flow is calculated to be at the rate of 85 gal ., per person, per day (gcd) . Total flows for 1978, on the basis of the above calculation, indicate an annual rate of 100.4 gcd. The flow-rate stated in the Systems Statement indicates a calculated ann::al rate of 106.5 gcd. On the basis of the fore,cing, it appears that the total volume of infiltration and inflow waters entering the system tributary to the lift station is about 50 to 70 MG per year, which is about 10 percent of the total flow to the lift station. The City recently completed television studies of the "River Interceptor". The study was done, in part, to find leaks in the pipe where groundwater may enter. The general condition of the pipe was found to be good with several locations where pipe settlement had occurred. In those locations, the settlement appears to have been gradual enough so that the pipe has not cracked or separated and the overall integrity of the interceptor sewer appears to have been maintain€6 L -86- Policv/Recommendations: Connection of roof drains and footing drains to the sanitary sewer system is not allowed in the City and prohibition will be continued. It may be advis- able to conduct infiltration and inflow studies to determine the extent of anv problems. Since the cost of a complete infiltration/inflow study is high, the City is extending the program to televise lateral sewers where it is suspected that problems may exist. Also, checking buildings as opportunities arise, for determining existing roof or footing drain connections will be a continued practice. Infiltration tests and exfiltration or air tests are made on all new sewer construction. Allowable limitations are based on current practices in the metropolitan area and will be modified as standardized practices are modified. Existing Service Area Flows: The old townsite consists of approximately 2,400 acres, most of which is developed. Following is a table of areas within the existing service area which are available for development. The anticipated sewage flows from those areas, when developed, will generate an average sewage flow to the MWCC lift station of 1 .08 MGD. Table 32 Projected Sewage Flow Increase From Existing Service Area to MWCC Lift Station Estimated Population increase from Undeveloped Areas (Proposed Zoning) Land Use Area(Ac. ) du/.;c. a.u. Population Unpiatted R-2 59.3 2.5 = 148 lots Platted R-2 272 lots 420 x 3 Pers./unit(PPU) 1,260 k-3 4 5.0 20 units x 2.7 PPU R-4 73 14.0 1 ,022 @ 2.2 Pod 2,200 Other specific proposal - High density 80 units @ 1 .5 PPU 120 Med. density 48 units @ 2.7 PPU 130 Total Population Increase 3,765 Estimated Sewage Flow Increase Avg. flow increase @ 106.5 gcd = 0.40 MGD 1977 flow (avg. ) = 0.68 MGD Total Projected Avg. Domestic Flow to MWCC Lift Station 1 .08 MGD Total Projected Peak Domestic Flow to L.S. @ 3.1 x 108 3.35 MGD Wet Industry (Rahr Malting) (800 gpm) 1 . 15 MGD t_ Total Peak Flow 4.50 MGD -87- Based on projected needs, the low density residential portion of this area will be fully developed within 2-4 years. Therefore, a new system of trunk and lateral sewers is necessary in order that proposed growth and development can occur. System Expansion PROPOSED V.I.P. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER: An analysis was made of the remaining capacity in the existing Shakopee and V. I.P. Interceptor Sewer along T.H. #101 . The studies show a reserve capacity in excess of the needs of the existing service area to be 1 .98 mgd (average flew) . Further feasibility studies were completed to examine the cost and to determine the area which could be served from a trunk sewer connecting to the Shakopee Interceptor. Those studies indicate that it is feasible to construct a trunk sanitary sewer south from the Shakopee Interceptor to the "Upper Valley" and then west to serve an area designated for a residential area in the area of Shakopee between C.R. #16 and C.R. #79 and north of the proposed T.H. #101-169 Bypass. A tabulation of areas to be served and the phasing of the V.I.P. Trunk Sewer service area is shown in Table 20. The service area can be extended to include a portion of Jackson Township at some time in the future. Tne feasibil- ity of such service to Jackson Township may well depend on the availability of service by way of a future "Shakopee-Jackson Interceptor" sewer. FUTURE SHAKOPEE-JACKSON INTERCEPTOR In the Comprehensive Fewer Plan prepared in 1972, several major connections were designated to serve Shakopee from the Prior Lake Interceptor. The main connec- tions are provided at a location northeast of Dean's Lake and south of C.R. #16. The Shakopee-Jackson Interceptor Sewer is designed to serve about 4,500 acres of Shakopee and about 6,000 acres of Jackson Township. The facility could also be designed to convey the wastewater from Chaska, should the existing waste treatment plant for that city be abandoned. The proposed alignment and profile have been designed on a preliminary basis to follow the 'alignment of the future highway bypass. It would be constructed with- in the excavated highway area southwest of C.R. #16, in order to reduce the depth of trench excavation and consequently, reduce the cost of construction. -RR_ The Shakopee-Jackson Interceptor would also provide relief for the V. I .P. Trunk sewer should the flow conditions exceed the flows predicted in the design V. I .P. Trunk Sewer. The relief lines from the V.I .P. Trunk to the Shakopee- Jackson Interceptor could be located in several alternate locations between C.R. #lb ana C.R. =17. Final design location will be based on estimated cost of construction. ESTIMATED SERVICE AREA FLOWS: For purposes of estimating sewage flows, the service areas of Shakopee have been separated into three divisions or general areas. The areas inlcude the V.I.P. Shakopee Interceptor expansion areas as well as existing service areas. • The existing service area includes (a) the old townsite tributary to the MWCC lift station, (b) the part of the industrial park south of T.H. #101, (c) the highway commercial area south of T.H. #101 that is tributary to the MWCC V.I.P • Interceptor, (d) the commercial area (Valley Fair) north of T.H. #101 that is tributary to the MWCC Shakopee Interceptor by way of a lift station that is owned and operated by Valley Fair. E The flows from area A above are estimated on the basis of estimated population increase by development of the vacant residential districts within the service area, plus a separate allowance for one major industrial flow; Rahr Malting Company, which is metered separately. All other flows are included in the residential flow on a per capita basis at 106.5 gal/cap/day. Flows from all other divisions on the existing service areas, B, C, and D, are estimated on a per gross acre basis of 2,000 gal/ac/day. The estates inc'ude flows from existing users and a similar allowance for future developments within the areas. The expansion area flows are estimated on the following gross area basis: 1 . residential @ 100 gcd a) single-family - 2.7 units/ac. @ 3.0 PPU b) multi-family - 8.0 units/ac. @ 2.5 PPU 2. Commercial @ 2,000 gad 3. Industrial @ 2,000 gad The following ,table lists the various areas and average daily sewage flows within (- the existing and expansion service areas. -80- Table .? Sewer Service Area Expansion Flow For Saturated Development Conditions Existing Sewer Area Flow Rate Avg. Flow Area No. (Ac) Land Use (GAD) (MGD) ( I ) A Population 10, 140 @ 106.5 gcd 1 .08 Rahr Malting Co. , @ 300 MGD .82 13 615 Industrial 2,000 1 .23 C 190 Commercial 2,000 .38 D 95 Commercial 2,000 . 19 Total Average Flow in Existing Service Area 3.70 MGD ( 1 )Future Diversion from Existing Service Area to V.I .P. Trunk(-).37 MGD,Avg. Y.I.P. Trunk Area Flow Rate Av Flow Expansion Areallo. (Ac) Land Use ` (2) (GAD) - - - MGD 1 55 Industrial - 2,-000 .11 2 60 Industrial 2,000 . 12 3 75 Industrial 2,000 . 15 t , 4 50 Industrial 2,000 .10 5 30 Industrial 2,000 .06 6 35 Commercial 2,000 120 Residential 2,000 20 Resic'en iai 800 .33 7 155 Industrial 2,000 .:i1 8 120 Residential 800 .10 9 100 Residential 800 .08 70 160 Commercial 2,000 .32 11 150 Residential 800 .12 Subtotal for Shakopee only 1 .80 MGD (3) 12 360 Residential 800 .29 Future Subtotal V. I .N. Expansion Area(1- 12) 2.09 MGD Diversion from Ex. Ser. Area "A" to V.I .P. Trunk .37 _ Total Avg. flow to Shakopee Interceptor 2.46 MGD Future Diversion from V.I .P. to Shakopee-Jackson Interceptor -.91 Future flow to Shakopee Interceptor via V.I.P. Trunk 1 .55 MGD t , _00_ Shakopee Interceptor Area Flow Rate Avg. Flow Expansion Area No. (Ac) Land Use (GAD) (MGD) 13 95 Industrial 2,000 .19 14 140 Industrial (5) 1,00G .17 15 115 Industrial 2,000 .29 16 55 Industrial 2,000 .26 17 160 Commercial 2,000 .32 (4) 18 125 Commercial 2,000 .25 Subtotal to Shakopee Interceptor (Area 13-18) 1 .48 MGD (1 ) The diversion is necessary to avoid exceeding the capacity of the MWCC lift station. (2) Residential flow from expansion area computed @ 100 gcd (3) .29 MGD from Area (12) (Jackson Twp. ) after 1990 (4) No. 18 combined with Existing Service Area D to Valley Fair lift station - (ultimate L.S.- capacity @ 1,200 gpm) (5) Present plan to construct one warehouse facility on 93 Ac. of Area 14 The following table is a summary of the total flows from the various divisions of the proposed sewer service area for the City of Shakopee. The flows shown are computed on the basis of saturation development of all lands within the area boundary. Reference Planning Design Criteria of March 10, 1981 , Memo From City to Metro. Council for more detailed metholology. Table 34 - Summary of Net Expansion Areas by Land Use S.F. Res. Mult.Res. Commercial Industrial Existing Ser Area A Additional 1009 dwelling units Existing Ser Area B - - - 70 Existing Ser Area C - - 95 - VIP Expansion 390 120 125 270 Shak Int. Expansion - - 145 240 TOTAL 390 120 365 580 t._ -91- Table 35 Flow Variation Factors Peak Flow (MGD) Flow Variation Factor Average Flow (MGD) 0.OU to 0.44 4.0 0.00 to 0. 11 0.45 to 0. 7U 3.9 0. 12 to 0. 18 0.71 to 0.87 3.8 0. 19 to 0.23 0.88 to 1 .07 3.7 0.24 to 0.29 1 .08 to 1 .40 3.6 0.30 to 0.39 1 .41 to 1 .70 3.5 0.40 to 0.49 1 .71 to 2. 16 3.4 0.5U to 0.64 2. 17 to 2.58 3.3 0.65 to 0.79 2.59 to 3. 13 3.2 0.80 to 0.99 3. 14 to 3.64 i.1 LOU to 1 .19 3.65 to 4.41 3.0 1 .20 to 1 .49 -4..42 to 5.39 2.9 1 .50 to 1 .89 5.40 to 6.30 2.8 1 .90 to 2.29 6.31 to 7.66 2.7 2.30 to 2.89 7.67 to 8.91 2.6 2.90 to 3.49 8.92 to 10.27 2.5 3.50 to 4. 19 10.28 to 11 .97 2.4 4.20 to 5.09 11 .98 to 14.38 2.3 5. 10 to 6.39 14.39 to 17.18 2.2 6.40 to 7.99 17. 19 to 21 .30 2. 1 • 8.00 to 10.2: 21 .31 to 26.31 2.0 10.40 to 13.49 26.32 to 33.28 1.9 13.50 to 17.99 33.29 to 52.49 1.8 18.00 to 29.99 over 2.50 1 .7 over 3C..,.0 1 cfs = 449 gpm = 0.646 MGU 1000 gpm = 2.228 cfs = 1 .438 MGD 1 .0 MCD = 1 .54723 cfs = 689 gpm -99- Private Wastewater Treatment Systems Private treatment systems are small, privately-owned treatment facilities such as package treatment plants and their collection systems. These facilities usually require a National Pollution Disposal Elimination System (NPDES) permit or state disposal system permit (SDS) . Neither the City nor the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) wishes to be the owner or operator of private treatment systems or bear any portion of the capital or operating costs now or in the future. The applicant must provide financial guarantees to the City that the necessary financial resources will be available to construct, maintain and operate the facilities according to the conditions stipulated in state, city or other governmental permits and approvals. If an emergency arises in which the owner and/or operator cannot fulfill these conditions, the owner shall cease discharging to the treatment system until a long term solution is established. Policies Private wastewater treatment systems will be considered where they are necessary to serve industrial process water treatment needs. The owner/operator shall meet the following conditions. 1. No private treatment system or expansion will be considered until the City is assured that the property owner will meet its financial requirements for the foreseeable future. Private industrial wastewater treatment facilities will be allowed only if they are not an economic detriment to the City of Shakopee. 2 . The treatment system owner must obtain and comply with permit(s) granted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The system must be located, designed and operated in accordance with its permit(s) . 3. The development of the private treatment systems must be consistent with the City' s approved comprehensive plan. The facility should not encourage premature development in areas not currently planned for this development or lacking the municipal or other public services it would require. 4. Any liability or other problems, including pollution problems, resulting from the development, construction, operation, or maintenance of a private wastewater treatment system will be the sole responsibility of the owner/operator of the system. 5. If an emergency arises in which the owner and/or operator cannot fulfill these conditions, the City will require the owner of a private treatment system to cease discharging to that system until a long-term solution is established. 6. All private wastewater systems must use a proven treatment system. 92 . 5 . ATTACHMF,INT al 2 • I G Tr i 71 CI) as E — i.... U) X 4...,. .:,<L. (1) �- ` ,,---..X. ---_a Y`—� 1 .•V „„,,,,c : _i_ 2:_::_ Jjjj� i E• , - r,, _/,I �i�/ d� /- /: -- es'• Ja. /Y' • .!. / ' • 8 - ®i i _sem\_ I — 1 :/ 3 T,. �i�� —.–—� r o p- 1IIjjI 'n // t. _ . ...,.... 11 8 : i 3r. ,e , f .% J� 1___-:,'_.____ ,� ii Y B ' = , — ///l id% '� =1.I i 1 Ilk - " No. / 4;, , ; . .. ... CA 0 \ N a ...lob VI•.._ .•-••••-. ..N.,„ 1 5 l' o - _ t• I co Y F o •••r. -,....z.... --'-7- 7-7:7-----7'\ \\`� \\N > C• rano < -_-:-_-!--_-=_:.,...-.--- �/ `_ o e = u ii yam' % �� .''''%'-...... . ' = O 10 O --,J - U LJ I ..-,.r VW, arr .5 ., ' WI VS El r'' F-1 l '""''. ATTACHMENT 3 1988 Systems Information Statement Shakopee permit densities in excess of 4 units per 40 acres , local governments should also incorporate an on-going inspection and maintenance element as part of their on-site system management controls (Policy 2 and Content Requirements for Local Sewer Plans) . See Policy Plan Table 8 . 3. Management of Private Wastewater Treatment Plants Small private treatment plants are located throughout the Metropolitan Area serving such developments as individual industries, mobile home parks , and other urban-type uses located in the urban and rural service areas. The Council is concerned that these facilities encourage urban development in the rural service area or become the responsibility of the Council or Commission due to permit violations or death or bankruptcy of the owner-operator. The revised Policy Plan states that private treatment facilities should be permitted only if they are provided for in Council-approved comprehensive plans and are in full accord with the local comprehensive plan (Policy 12) . Shakopee should include in the sewer element (sewer policy plan) of its local comprehensive plan the conditions under which private treatment plants would be allowed, including the location (map) , capacity and flows to existing • facilities, 2m declare that under no circumstances will private wastewater • treatment plants be acceptable. If there is a later change in the community's osition or policy, a plan amendment should be submitted for Council approval. 4. Nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction in the Minnesota River Watershed Watershed management organizations (WMOs) and local units of government in the Minnesota River Watershed need to adopt and implement as part of their water resource management plans (M.S. 473.875) a water quality management program to reduce nonpoint source pollution to ensure that in future years the region does not have to implement higher and extremely costly levels of treatment at the Blue Lake and Seneca Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Treatment levels at these plants are such that further improvements in the future beyond what is presently scheduled will provide little benefit in better water quality. Further improvements in water quality in the Minnesota River must come through controlling nonpoint source pollution that will otherwise seriously affect the local limits that can be discharged by the wastewater treatment plants located on this water-quality limited river (Policy 1) . The State of Minnesota has established a reduction of 40 percent in the nonpoint source pollution load to the Minnesota River as part of the agreements between the MPCA, Council and MWCC. Since nonpoint source pollution can be drastically curbed through proper land management, land subdivision, runoff management and natural system protection, local units of government need to begin to address the issue through the comprehensive planning process. Local units of government need to identify in their plan amendment what process will be used to address the issue of nonpoint source management. 11-3 ATTACHMENT 4 OPERATIONS & BUDGET 91-304 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 230 EAST FIFTH STREET ST. PAUL, MN 55101 (612) 222-8423 NOVEMBER 27, 1991 TYPE: POLICY SUBJECT: COMMISSION POSITION ON REQUEST OF RAHR MALTING TO WITHDRAW FROM METROPOLITAN DISPOSAL SYSTEM (MDS) SUMMARY: Rahr Malting Company (Rahr) is in the process of initiating an expansion of its facility in Shakopee. As part of this expansion, Rahr has requested an NPDES permit from the MPCA to discharge treated industrial effluent to the Minnesota River. •. If granted a permit, Rahr would stop discharging industrial waste to the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant. Rahr, upon suggestion by MPCA, has sought the Commission's position on this change. Involved is the balancing of environmental benefits; total costs (public and private) , and ramifications for nonpoint source pollution projects between the current system and one with Rahr discharging separately. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission formulate a position which balances environmental, cost, and risk factors on Rahr' s request to withdraw from the MDS. OPERATIONS & BUDGET 91-304 • • DISCUSSION: Background: Rahr operates three malting houses at its facility in Shakopee, MN. Process waste includes a high strength industrial waste which is discharged to the Commission's Blue Lake Plant. The Blue Lake and Seneca Plants are currently the only point source discharges to the Minnesota River below the Highway 169 bridge. This stretch of the Minnesota River at present does not consistently comply with the State water quality standards. The ongoing upgrades at Blue Lake and Seneca and a 40% reduction in nonpoint source pollution, as measured at the Highway 169 bridge, constitute the State strategy for water quality improvement in the Lower Minnesota River. Current Status: Rahr is initiating the addition of a fourth malting house to their facility. Rahr's goal is to remain competitive in the malting industry by adding production capacity and by controlling production costs. Their expansion plans have precipitated a need for additional wastewater facilities; i.e. , either greater lift station and sewer capacity within the Commission and City of Shakopee systems or independent treatment capacity for their process wastewater°'by Rahr. Rahr has stated it is in their best interest to withdraw from the MDS and operate its own treatment plant with a direct discharge to the Minnesota River. Rahr plans to use an existing cooling water discharge pipe located approximately one half mile upstream of the Highway 169 bridge. Construction of a wastewater treatment facility on plant grounds and use of this existing outfall constitute the extent of Rahr's planned wastewater treatment expansion. Rahr is in the process of pursuing an NPDES permit with the MPCA for the planned wastewater facility. The MPCA directed Rahr to contact the MWCC regarding the allocation of waste loads to the Minnesota River. In the MPCA's 1985 Minnesota River Wasteload Allocation, the ability of the river to accommodate waste (assimilative capacity) is allocated completely to the MWCC Blue Lake and Seneca Treatment Plants. The addition of a discharge such as Rahr could result in a change in the load allocation and a resulting change in MWCC permit limits. Such changes also affect plant capacity and effective facility life. An additional point source discharge above the Highway 169 bridge may also affect compliance with the June 30, 1996 goal of 40% reduction in nonpoint source pollution. The level of treatment planned for the Blue Lake and Seneca plants is designed to meet water quality goals if the nonpoint source reduction is achieved. If the nonpoint source reduction is not achieved, there is a risk more plant upgrades will be required in an attempt to meet water 2 • OPERATIONS & BUDGET 91-304 quality goals (compliance with State water quality standards) . ISSUES: 1. Environmental Benefit Currently, the MWCC owns and operates all of the point source discharges to the Lower Minnesota River (Chaska, Blue Lake, and Seneca Plants) . The control of nonpoint source pollution and MWCC facilities represents water quality control for the river. Rahr's waste is factored into Blue Lake's treatment capacity. Rahr's discharge constitutes approximately 5% of the flow and 15% of the strength going to the expanded Blue Lake Plant. The addition of Rahr as an independent discharge would mean water quality control would be spread among more players; the Blue Lake treatment load would be reduced; and the actual environmental benefit would remain the same if Rahr is held to the same discharge limits as the Commission. The MPCA controls the permitting process with input from EPA and would be responsible for equitable limitation. The State nondegradation policy places an upper limit on the pollutant loading from point sources. As MWCC service needs increase, the loading to the river must be kept constant. This requires a higher degree of treatment at a facility. Rahr, as an independent discharge, would not be subject to these increasing treatment requirements. The overall effect would be; Rahr maintaining a level of treatment equal to MWCC's current requirements,- while the Blue Lake and Seneca Plants are required to upgrade treatment. The benefit to the river would remain the same at the expense of MDS users. 2. Total Cost Rahr has concluded it will save money by withdrawing its industrial waste from Blue Lake and treating and discharging separately to the Minnesota River. Cost considerations follow. • Rahr continuing at Blue Lake: SAC for Rahr expansion (to MWCC) $640,000 Annual flow cost (to City) 803, 000 Annual strength cost (to MWCC) 229,000 MWCC costs (lift station/forcemain improvements--needed immediately) $2, 000, 000 3 OPERATIONS & BUDGET � I 91-304 Rahr discharging separately: Construction costs for treatment plant $4, 100, 000 Annual operating costs 321, 000 MWCC costs (lift station/forcemain improvements--not needed immediately) $700, 000 SAC credit to City $3,000,000 Although the cost considerations do not lend themselves to simple comparison, it is quite clear that Rahr wants to be in control of its own future costs and, therefore, out of the MWCC system. 3. Implications for Nonpoint Source Control The Minnesota River does not always attain water quality standards. The State dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/1 as a 24 hour average is not maintained under certain flow and temperature conditions. The strategy for achieving water quality goals consists of plant upgrades at the Blue Lake and Seneca facilities and a 40% reduction of nonpoint source pollution. The 40% nonpoint source reduction is to be achieved by June 30, 1996 and will be measured at the Highway 169 bridge at Shakopee. The headwaters conditions defined by the 1985 MPCA Wasteload Allocation will be used as a baseline for determining the extent of the nonpoint source reduction. The MWCC has a vested interest in the success of any Minnesota River nonpoint source reductions. The conditions of the current Blue Lake and Seneca permits and the conditions oft the State and Federal consent decrees are contingent on, and require participation in, nonpoint reductions and investigation efforts. The success of nonpoint source control programs will determine the future effluent limitations on the Blue Lake and Seneca Plants, the need for treatment upgrades, and future expenses for the Metro Area. Rahr is proposing to discharge upstream of the Highway 169 bridge. Such an additional loading would require further reductions in nonpoint source pollution, as measured at the Highway 169 bridge, to achieve water quality goals. The addition of Rahr's discharge above the bridge may affect compliance with the 1996 nonpoint source reduction goal and could drive future plant upgrade requirements. If Rahr chooses to discharge below the Highway 169 bridge or all parties involved with assessing nonpoint source reduction compliance agree to a change in compliance measurement, the 4 OPERATIONS & BUDGET 91-304 conditions of the Blue Lake and Seneca permits and the consent decrees will be met; and the current strategy for water quality improvement will be maintained. 4 . Other Two policy questions need to be aired. First, if the MPCA does determine that MWCC must give up allocated load, and take lower limits at Blue Lake, then what are the implications of taking public capacity (river assimilation capacity) and giving it to private interests? Second, what are the implications of financing treatment capacity (Blue Lake under expansion and upgrade) and then allowing users out of the system, thereby not using the capacity? OPTIONS: 1. Support NPDES Permit issuance to Rahr. 2. Conditionally support NPDES Permit issuance to Rahr. 3 . Oppose NPDES Permit issuance to Rahr. ---.7)K Hold off decision pending input from Metropolitan Council. 49 Submitted by: Reviewed by: y v , Donald R. Madore Gordon O. Voss Director of Quality Control Chief Administrator RJF/PWA 11.27.91 5 / 2% a} TO: Mayor Laurent Councilmembers Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Tom Steininger, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Vacant Police Sergeancy DATE: 01 13 92 INTRODUCTION: Sgt. Gerald Poole was assigned the duties of Acting Deputy Chief of the Shakopee Police Department which left a Patrol Sergeancy vacant. BACKGROUND: State law requires the Police Civil Service Commission to establish "eligible registers" and to certify the three names standing highest on the appropriate list to fill any vacancy. These lists must be the result of competitive testing. On 10 15 90, the appropriate notices were posted inviting officers who wished to establish themselves as candidates for the rank of Sergeant to notify the Commission of their intentions. On 11 02 90 , the Commission invited eight officers who identified themselves as candidates to participate in written testing which was administered on 11 20 90 . The officers who passed the written test were interviewed on 12 08 90 . After the interviews, the Commission recessed until 12 10 90 when they reconvened and established an eligibility list for the position of Sergeant. At the same meeting, the Commission certified the three candidates listed below as standing highest on the list. Any of the three candidates were eligible to be appointed. 1 . Ronald Carlson 80 . 49 2 . Raymond Erlandsen 79 . 29 3 . Brian Clark 78 . 45 On 12-19-90 , Raymond Erlandsen was promoted to Sergeant which removed his name from the eligibility list. The list, however is good for two years from the date it was established. The top three names on the list are now: 1 . Ronald Carlson 80 . 49 2 . Brian Clark 78 . 45 3 . Bryan Koch 70 .96 Sufficient funds exist in the 1992 Police Budget to pay a sergeant should the council promote one. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Promote Officer Carlson to Sergeant. 2 . Promote Officer Clark to Sergeant. 3 . Promote Officer Koch to Sergeant. 4 . Do not fill the vacant sergeancy. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #2 . All candidates represented themselves very well during testing and selection of finalists must have been difficult. The point spread between the top two candidates is only 2 . 04% indicating that they are both very knowledgeable. Promoting Officer Clark would provide the best fit on the management team with which I wish to accomplish the goals I have shared with you and to implement additional concepts which we have agreed would make the police department more responsive to our community. ACTION REQUESTED: Appoint Officer Clark to the position of Police Sergeant, effective immediately, at the 1992 rate of $3174 . 85 per month with subsequent adjustments as provided for by the Police Sergeant' s Union Contract. TO: Tom Steininger, Chief of Police FROM: Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission SUBJECT: Eligibility Register DATE: January 13 , 1992 In accordance with provisions of M.S.A. 419, the following individuals are hereby certified as being the top three candidates on the current eligible list for promotion to the position of Sergeant. 1. Ronald Carlson 2 . Brian Clark 3 . Bryan Koch 1 ( � Marcia Spagnolo,l Chari Shakopee Police Civi Service Commission cirUh1 CitJ TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Purchase of Squad Cars DATE: January 15, 1992 Introduction The 1992 budget has $31,000 appropriated for the purchase of two squad cars and equipment. Background The 1992 budget has $31,000 appropriated for the purchase of two squad cars and equipment. The Hennepin County Purchasing Cooperative contract for full size squad cars has been awarded to Superior Ford. The bid is as follows; Base bid (ea) $12,765.00 Cloth split bench seat (ea) (187.00) Extended warranty (ea) 545.00 Service Manual (1) 75.00 Vendor total for two cars $26,321.00 Alternatives 1. Do not buy squads this year. 2. Rebid on our own. 3. Buy one car as per above. 4. Buy two cars as per above. Recommendation Alternative number 4. Action Move to authorize the purchase of two full size squad cars from Superior Ford in the amount of $26,321.00 under the Hennepin County contract. 1:2, C MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Moratorium Appraisal Report DATE: January 16, 1992 INTRODUCTION: In November, the Shakopee Council directed the appropriate City officials to obtain an appraisal for 57 acres of property identified within the moratorium area south of the Shakopee Senior High School. The appraisal was completed by Paul Smith & Associates on November 23 , 1991. It would be appropriate at this time to discuss whether or not property negotiations should proceed with the property owner and/or School District. BACKGROUND: Shown in Attachment No. 1 is a map illustrating the location of the appraised property. Staff believes that the value for the property indicated in the appraisal report is consistent with land values in the area and staffs expectations. The Municipal Facility Task Force that was created last fall recommended as part of their work plan that upon completion of the appraisal, that the appropriate City officials be authorized to begin negotiations with the property owner and School District. Keep in mind that the School District has a need for approximately 30 acres south of the present Senior High site to provide for future expansion of the Senior High School building. Therefore, it would be appropriate to negotiate with the School District potential cost sharing alternatives for the subject property. Staff would like to recommend that the appropriate City officials be authorized to begin negotiations with the School District and the property owner for the acquisition of the 57 acres identified within the moratorium area. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to begin negotiations with the School District and the property owner for the acquisition of the 57 acres located south of the Senior High School. 2 . Table action pending further information from staff. 3 . Schedule a Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss this matter in greater detail prior to the initiation of property acquisition negotiations. 4. Do nothing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to begin negotiations with the School District and the property owner for the acquisition of the 57 acres located south of the Senior High School. BAS/tiv APPRAISED ,1S -11dlvdd •r ' 11 N 'dl dO Q �C� .4 --� O 1 3.0S3ININIW o ,~� ; izd MEMO TO: The Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Police Officer Request for Use of Sick Leave for Golden Gloves Boxing Activities DATE: January 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Officer Ron Carlson has requested that the City Council allow him to use up to 60 hours of sick leave this year for Golden Gloves Boxing trips and shows. BACKGROUND: In the past the City Council has encouraged voluntarism in the community and has agreed that volunteers working with youth organizations in the community represent a contribution to the community. It is assumed that the current City Council continues to share the opinion of previous City Councils as relates to community voluntarism. For the information of Councilmembers who were not on the City Council last year, in 1991 Officer Carlson requested to be granted additional vacation time for Golden Gloves Boxing - related activites. The City Council denied his request last year. In making a decision on Officer Carlson's request there are several items that the City Council should consider. These include the following: (1) Officer Carlson is a member of Teamsters Union Local 320. The granting of time for coaching of youth activities in the community was not bargained for nor is it a part of the contract between the City and the Union. (2) If the City Council were to grant this request Officer Carlson other employees should be able to make requests for other worthwhile activities and should expect that the City Council would also grant their requests. (3) The purpose of sick leave is for individual or family illness. The purpose is not for coaching of Golden Gloves Boxing or for any other type of volunteer activity. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Grant the request submitted by Officer Carlson to provide up to 60 hours of sick leave during 1992 for use in conjunction with Golden Gloves Boxing trips and shows. 2 . Reject Officer Carlson's request. RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons mentioned above it is recommended that the City Council reject Officer Carlson's request. ACTION REOUESTED: Move to direct the City Administrator to inform Officer Carlson that while the City Council endorses voluntarism in the community it rejects his request for the use of up to 60 hours of sick leave for Golden Gloves Boxing trips and shows in 1992 . Attachment c: Tom Steininger, Police Chief Officer Ron Carlson MEMO TO COUNCIL DECEMBER 29, 1991 DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM REQUESTING THAT THE COUNCIL PERMIT ME TO USE SICK LEAVE FOR GOLDEN GLOVES BOXING TRIPS AND SHOWS THIS SEASON. • OUR CLUB CURRENTLY HAS AP'PROXIMATELY 30 YOUNG PERSONS, WITH MOST OF THEM BEING UNDER 16 YEARS OLD. LAST YEAR I. VOLUNTEERED OVER' 300 HOURS OF MY PERSONAL TIME TO THIS PROGRAM . I AM MAKING THIS REQUEST SO THAT I WILL NOT HAVE TO USE VACATION AND HOLIDAY TIME IN ORDER TO TAKE MEMBERS OF THIS TEAM TO OUT OF TOWN TOURNAMENTS AND BOXING SHOWS. THE NUMBER OF REQUESTED SICK LEAVE HOURS WOULD NOT EXCEED 60 DURING THE. SEASON. I FEEL THIS PROGRAM IS A POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON THESE YOUNG MEN AND BELIEVE THE SCHOOL TEACHERS, COUNSELORS AND ADMINISTRATORS FEEL THE SAME AS I DO . PLEASE ADVISE ME IF I CAN BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE IN CLARIFYING THIS REQUEST. RESPECTFULLY, RON CARLSON • COi\ SENT MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consultant Agreements ` • DATE: January 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Staff is requesting authorization to execute the attached agreements for consultant services. BACKGROUND: On January 7, 1992 the City Council of Shakopee concurred with the Consultant Selection Committee's recommendation to retain the firms of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. and William Engelhardt and Associates as consulting engineers to supplement the current City consultant, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates. The Council also directed staff to prepare the consultant agreements for signing. The City Attorney has prepared the necessary agreements (attached) and staff is requesting authorization to execute these agreements. Once the agreements are presented to the consultants, some minor revisions to the specific language may be made, but as long as the context of the agreements are not changed, staff would like to request authority to make those changes without prior Council approval . ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct the appropriate City officials to execute the attached agreements with Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. and William Engelhardt and Associates for providing ongoing consulting engineering services and to authorize staff to make any necessary revisions to the agreements that do not change the context of them. DH/pmp AGREE PLEASE NOTE: Consultant Agreements will be on table. / 1/, MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: March 3, 1992 Council Meeting DATE: January 10, 1992 March 3rd is the date set for precinct caucuses in Minnesota. State law provides that no city council may conduct a meeting after 6: 00 p.m. on the day of a major political party precinct caucus. City Council should discuss an alternate date for their meeting so that staff can set any necessary public hearings appropriately. Recommended Action: 1] Select a date for the March 3rd Council meeting 2] Offer Res . No . 3532 , A Resolution Changing The March 3 , 1992 Council Meeting Date , and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 3532 A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE MARCH 3 , 1992 COUNCIL MEETING DATE WHEREAS, The Shakopee City Code has set the first Tuesday of each month as the regular meeting date for the City Council; and WHEREAS, The Shakopee City Code allows the City Council to change the meeting date by adopting a resolution at least one week prior to the regularly scheduled meeting; and WHEREAS, The Minnesota precinct caucuses are scheduled for March 3 , 1992, a regular scheduled City Council meeting date; and WHEREAS, State law prohibits the City Council from meeting on the day of a major political party precinct caucus after 6: 00 p.m. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, That the March 3 , 1992 regularly scheduled City Council meeting shall be changed to Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 21st day of January, 1992 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form, , City Attorney lb CONSENT The latest printout for budget status is the preliminary December 31, 1991 issue. At this point there are some divisions that may go over their budget for the year, notably the Fire division which shows expenditures at 98 . 2%. There is approximately one months worth of non-payroll activity to go ( December bills paid in January) and the recording of the increase or decrease in the liability for employee vacation and sick leave time. There are three divisions that are showing having exceeded the division total budget. Administration is showing 102 .7% expended, primarily due to the Management Analyst, Engineering at 103 . 0% primarily due to allocation of staff time (charging Engineering vs. Public Works) and Recreation at 103 . 4% primarily due to temporary wages where the budget is $18 , 500 and expenditures are $30, 349 . 0 * 00000 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 000 * 00 * 000 * 0 * 0 1 ✓ * * F. * r * F. * F.r 1 * rr * 11 .1-• * O * A C) 40 A * 00000 * A * A * A * AAA * 00 * 000 * 0 m ►- r * 00000 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 000 * 0 • r * 04Owww * CO * 00 * O) * 000 * Ow * NNN * r * 0 0 A * 404040(0(0 * 1- * V * N * W W W * 2-.I-. * W CA O) * W * A >< b-I Z -4 O -< 0 0 TI 0 000000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 > ✓ rrrrr r r rrr rr rrr r•' r --{7 0 \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \\\ \ r D ✓ r rrr r r ).. 4-4- r r A AA0AA A A A AAA AA AAA A A 7C \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \\\ \ \ 0 CD CO(0(D(L(D co co (D (0(0(D C CD ©(0(0 c N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N to rn D 3 N r r 0 0.6)0 0 Z 1••, W N NN NNW NI-. I-•r NN -4 O) AWW(Il- VI UI WW VV 030N 00)A OWNA VV WW co VVOU10)00 00 00 0000 VCA0N MI-.0 VCO GIA 00 WW CO AAONNA NN 00 NN ANAV MAN CD U0A.00 00 VI UI W 00NrCCCD 00 00 00 0)00000 oOVr AO)4(D 00 00 * * * * * * * * * C) 00000 , C) A W W W W mm D D D D D 0 =___= D 0 0 mmm >D CCC 3 0 >>>» v —1 mmm mmm m WW -1--I 000 3 3 • 77777H N < N NNN N m DD>>> gft Z 70 WWW m= mmm D v Z 0 0 N N Z Z Z -1 m 0 0 WOOCAWW -4 = WO -I-I-4 D N 0 w 00000 70 -I DD Om= -4 7:4 7G760 0 m rr < 0 0 rr rCm 00000 N 0 N mmmmm N CCWOW Z C) ZZZZZ -< CCC w 7 -4-4-1-4-4 V-17-0 Z I-I mIlm rnm rr 11'012 0 Z Z mmximm Z r-<-(-<rr C) m -< c H N m m WWWWW m m N 3CNI 00 mm0 m '0 H 0 rrrrr .0 0 C OCC -I-C 000 0 7, -1 C 00000 C C 0 0V-0 22 cam C 0 1*i M 00000) I-I M 'O mv-o mm MH-0 M -n I v m m r rr m= mmr -0 33333r 1-1M '-I C) 0 IT7?I H H 3 3 IT T. m rn > HHHDH > > fI"C/) 00 33 »Cn D N H ZZZZ? H ti ., HH H < C) Z -4-4-4-4V ZZ mm ZZ Z 77 V V --1 0 0 -4--f V H 0 r 0 Z O 00000 0 O O 0 0 0 w N 000 O 0 D r rrrrr r r r 1-.1-•/-• rUl rrr r r C) i mil1 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 i C) A A AAA A A A A AAA AA AAA A A 0 N NNNNN N N N WNN VIVI NNN N W C r 4011 r-1 WW1-. W r Z W 00000 W W U)00 (OW NNO N0 -4 N 00000 N N 0 1 I M I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I i l l 1 W Z A M A W I r W r r OW W 00 A W W A N wNI-.000 I UI O) ANr MN AI--r r O) 0 0) 000Nr N I- r I...2-.F. 01.. 1NN r r • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 0)A4r r W r r 0)WW AA AWW A W H N NNr0o00 r CT 0) ANr rr Arr r r < ✓ w W 00 yt 0 Co W r CO '0 I V 1 0 A CD IS N 3 I'll v N D * * * * * * * * * Cn 0 * * * * * * * * * 0. m * * * * * * 1 I m 0 C) A C) C) C) C) C) C) N C/) N N N N CA Uf N CI) r * 0000 * 0 * 0000000 0 O * 000 * 0 * 0 * 0 /., * AAAA * A * AAAAAAA A * r * rrr * I". * r * r * NNNN * r * A * AAA r A * C) 10 * * r * r * rrr * H * X - * 0000 * oo * mao000000 W * C) * AAA * N m ►"' 0 * p * •••.1...1,1 r * N C) * 7C A M z -1 0 < 0000 0000000 0 0 000 0 0 v -31/' rrrrrrr r r 1+,++ O A \\\\ \ \\\\\\\ \ \ \ r+ r -f N rrrr r.. \\\ \ \ m = AAAA r A AAA r' A r D A AAAPAAA A \\\\ \ \\\\\\\ \ \ \\\ A \ 0 Co Co(0 CO (0 Co CO(0(0 CO(0 0 (0 (0 000 (0 0 0 0 NNNN N NNNNNNN N N NNN N N N rvl m D 3 AA 0 C v C WO rr Z /" rr M1UIWO)NNA 00 rr MANN-NI VV 0,1WWrNNN 00 NN OW1-W 00 00 1..I (4 • • • • • • 00 00 rr w • 000oWA0 00 VWAVVC)C)-4 00 00 WVIW(0 NN 00 WW Co 1-'0000 00 .0.00)NWrr VI 00 00 0000 AA 00 1./1(./1 C..) I I * * * * * * * * * * ___= G) 0000000 -It m m Irn m 0 0 0 DDDD N MMMMM nm MAA, ZZZZZZz Z m NON 0 X Z3Q 0 cc <x<xxx 3.3. 00000 0000000 mZZZZ M nTt-) ,,, A Sr A NNNN Z 010101010101-71 N 0 zZz = C) MIFIMMMMM = > 0 ___= 000 0 0 XI 0 0000 mmmmmmm > m X1aX1 m 73 EEE z M C) MMMMTI a v Z C00M �ozmmaaz m C) 0 C 0000000 1 0000000 A ) X 000000000 Cl) -1 m er 0000000 mm 0000000 < Z m Z C) M N -IM M /*1 CA NN M NNNNNNN 0) m MMOcCCCCCC r mmc m m m M Or-CC 0 v-vmmvv 0 c 0Om c 0 0 M MC)vv M v-a-ovv-av 0 M 0 C m 0 rr rrrrrrr M mmC- M m M 3 31-f1-4 N MMF-I MMMN 3Dmm m mm mmmmm > m�� J N 0 >row m NNNNNNN rm > m Z1 rz < Z Z « r < M CN) -1 1 -1 Z A 1 M M 0 Z 0000 0 0000000 0 0 000 0 0 0D rrrr r - /-o-f- +4 I- I- n I I II I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I C) AAAA A AAAAAAA p AA NNNN W NNNNNNN N N WWN N w N 0 tWWI-4+4r / 1-.1-.0. Z N000 0 0000000 0 N 000 N 0 N z 11 I 11 I I I I I I I 1 1 111 / I a0)O)W A C)WWWrrr W W (4.14.06.1 ) r4Wr N AN)-4,-4,1N1- r r NrN W W A Z .400N )4. +41-N/++41-.1.- r I r I"' N 0 1 1 1 1 1 �"'N►" r r C)0)Cf W I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 INN1 A C)WWWrrr W W WWW W W A M N ANrrVNr r r NrN r r N Z AAAAAAA /.. < 1') r AAAAAAA (/1N V1 V1 V1 V1 VI N N r WWWWWWW 0 03 0 it 0 C)C)C)O)C)C)C) W0000000 CCs) • I - 0 I co *R N 3 * m * * -13 N D * * * * * * * * N C) * * * * * * * * D I• ') I I I * * * r C) 0 0 0 0 C7 Cj 0 0 m N 0 CO N N CO N N N el a 00 * 0 a 000 * 0 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 a 0 r x rr * r a rrr * r r * r * 1.. * A * A * A * A 0 (0 CO * AA * A AAA a A A * A * W W * 4J * NNN x N N * N * N * N )1 N * N * NJ m r x N N * r * 40 40(0 * CO CO * Co * Of * 0) * C.) * r * r C) x CO 00 * V * V V V * 0o V a A * V a IT * Of a A x r 7C IA 0 Z -1 O < 0 O 00 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > rr r rrr r .- r r r r r �� ��� � m _ rr r r r r r I- r r 1- .- 1-- I-• D AA A AAA A A A A A A A - O 40(D 40 (0(:(0 CO CO CO CO CO (O 40 40 NN N NNN N NJ N N N N N N m m a 2 0 N a-1- C 2 NJ NJ N(1 co(O -4 NN NN A A 0)0) (Orr 4r AA WW f•-•i-6 Of Of 00 NN r 0)00 W W (9000)(0 00 CO CO CO CO 00 A A W CO V V CO CO 0:O 0 CO CO 0)0)00CO V v of 0) V V A A (0(0 (O(0 V V 00 A0)0 4.31(0 (OWv+r Of Of AA CO(J1 WC.) VV 00 00 00 Ia * a a * * * a * * * rrr r r r 7( D ►-1 CO = MM D 000 D D D 0 Z m Z rr C) 000 < 2 0 rn > 0 v z mm C NNN 2 0 0 m -4 CO m Z an < 0 0 Z C m (0 Q0 1-1 0 as ►<a-1 .0 IA 37 -D(2 -4 a -4 .73 0 0 Z m1-1 a 0 m m to(/) C -4 -4 0 0 CO -< C) 1-- Co D -I 7C 73 C) ►-4 0 2 Z .4 m C) N 0 0 1"1 V) -4 m 73 CC in,O mrnrn 0r .0 ri xi 0 in C a xi 0 -1 1)-0 C Z Z Z 0 C 0 C 1, I-4 n C RI3 -0 o M -4-1-( G) 1•-1 -(1 )-( -0 z I<19 11 1-r- V NNN H-1 r 0 1-11-1 4n 2 . 9" 7 N 0 D 1..1 > A D (n H C) r t.< 73 1-1 Z Z Z C N Z 1.1 CO -4 H 1-I N 0 -1 Z 00 0 .400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > rr r Cal rr r r r r r r r r- C) 1 1 a 1 1 1 a I 1 a 1 1 I A O AA A AAA A A A A A A A NN Al WWW N N W N N (9 W W Z r r W 00 0000 CO C.) 1-- N 0 0 0 N Z 00 N 000 0 N 01 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I A 2 a-a- A .41...1.. G) A r W G) O 1I N A 0 0)W N W(1N r N N r ►- A r 1,.Cr) 0) rCJN r CO r N r r C) 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 I I I I I I I.1... A .4/ 1..- CO A r CO CO O) 1�- A I-I Of G) N (.3(I N r N N r r A N) A Z N rrr r N 0) 1-6 N N N 00 0 0 F, (040(0 V IP 0 00 A CO r a-r 40 4.44 C,) rrr 40 A •'0 I V V-1 A r 0 A 00 * N 2 „ N D * * * * * * * x x * CO C) * * * * * x * * *x 3, m * * * * * * a m I 1 I I I n n C) C) (0 63 N CA CO co N COCO CO W CON COy N A * 00 * 00 * 00 * 00 * 00 000 * 000000000 * 000000 F+ F. * W * W * (,Aj * * �W A.A.A. * AAAAAAAAA * AAAAAP = CO CO * O) * O * 0 * AA AAA ** WWWWWWWWW * W WWWWW m ►+ N * W * W * C.) * O * 1.4....1 0)0)0) * CO(0 CO C(0 CO(O CO CO * V V V V V V X C) II• Z -i 0 -C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 000000000 000000 D \ \ \ \ \ 1-.1-.\\ \\\r F-rF-rr�-rr— -I N A. ~•~ F-�F-•F•. F•Fl-F.F- �- ►-•/-.1-.F r r \ \ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A?A A A A D A A A A. CO CO CO CO CO COW COMX Wq3WWWWW=W COWC3Wt'3W N N N N N NN NNN NNNNNNNNJNJ NNNNNN m M D 3 A N 0 C N F.F. NN F.F. WF..F• I-.1-.A A I-rF-.V1 V Wr0)rW Z N VV NN WW WW 0)I- 0 F•(0 00tfl N U'COA0000 OWAV0)(40 N NN 0000 00 F.F. 00000 F+UIV00 C0F•W0F-AODM 000NANF. O OC N:V CC WW AC? ?V0F-• 00NO1-O)r1.,)NNO) 00)WW;0WN W toW WCr 00 00 co VF• NVA1- OCOOC)iCO(n(OCOCO0 I-•VCOVACOU1 * * * * * * * * • 0 Z 33 333 333333333 333333 N › Z D 1 NM 000 ZZZZZZZZZ FiNHFiNM D () D 00 1-i1 ZZZZZZ X 0 c mm 000 1-vMr-v�vc-i- MZZZZZZ MMMMM 3* D rm- 00 rrrrrrrrr 00000rn ccccccccc 0000>> < �� vvV 333333333 DDDDDD Z N 0 3* r DDD WWWWWWWWW NNV)NN0 0 WW X37373 000000 0 O 9 X3 CC -I1-1 ci.Q.2.1t�k�l�l2�lrf� 000000 a c' D H 00 000 0 XI A 90 XXXXXXXXX mmm m m m m m m = �� mmmmrnm 0-0 y m 0 p� DDDDDDDDD 0 Z 2 C7� -i1-i1-i-1� i� N 00 m G) F-1 (n -4In XI -0 rr1 A a In In Cn mm(n 000000000 CCCccc F-I 0 0 0 D 0 CC 000 rrrrrrrrr -(-i--i-4-i-! -4 TI V � (<T7 �1 -cru I- 000000000 1-1-1-r-CI- m D rr vvr A00000000 rrrrrr X D D r m F IFI ~ I.-it-II-4/-1/-1H m 333333333 -ice-(-i--i F4 p mm A.A. DDDR»ADD mrnmm mm In < F-I F1 00 D'�N FH F-i H r-/!-;.--I m m m m m n a) D FIN Z<ZZZZZZZ 000000 0 Z Z N ZZ 1-4-i-1-l -1-i-i i 1 "i W .1 •.1-.1I-1 -12 Cn /-1 •-4 N 0 -i 0 Z H 0 0 0 O 00 000 000000000 000000 D W H r F• F- 1-.1-• r4.r n I 1111111 I I 111111 (') A A A 4.4* A.A.A. AAAAAAAAA A A A A A A 0 O N C•3 W r NN N N N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W F. W -) WWI... WWWWWWWWW VVVVVV Z I I I I to 00 N N O 000000000 000000 -1 Is W I I III 111111111 I I I I I I W N W F. A WW AAA 0)OAWWF•F•F•r 0)00WF.F• Z N F.F. ANA A C.)NNF•00000000 AWNN0000 0 0 F. F. F. V NF. F•OF• F•.0 F.F•F•AWN F• F+ONF+NF. I I I I I I I ICI A W W F. A WW AAA 0)0)AWWF•F•F.F. 0)0)0CF•F• H F. N F. N N F.F• ANA ANNNF•0(0000 A NNNOO aO Z A < 0) 0 C.) A 0 F• I • r 0 A Co a N X v * * * * * x N D * * * * * * * N L7 * * x * * D m 1 I * I I 0 X X X X X 0 n i rn 0Cn C (n co ti N A. * 00000000 000 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 0 * 00 * 0 * 0 i * rrr * Y * r * Y * r r * rr * r * Y C) co * AAAAAAAA AAA * A * A * A * A A * AA * A * A Z co * 0000000 0 000 * A * A * A * A A * AA * A * A m r * 00000000 000 * (0 * CO * V * C) 0) * AA * N * r C) * (0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0 000000 * N * W * N * N r * 00 * r * N 7< 1-4 C) Z -4 O_ < 0 V m 00000000 000 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 > •-r r r r r r rr r r -I (n \\\\\\\\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ m h.r-rrrrrr rrr r r r r r r rr r-• > 0.0.0. 0.0.0.0. AAA A A A A A A',:. A \ C (0(0,0(0(0(0(0(0 (0(0(0 A (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 J (0 NNN:V V NNN NNN N N N N N NN N N M > 3 0 r r r r Mr C - Z W W r- "...1441 N N A A 0000 W 00 -4 O)A00AAA1-*AA N(0 O)0) rr NN VV 00 0000 (ONrJ �1v 000) UIWVWWWUtWW W1-.A00 00 00 0000 00 0000 -1r0) 0U1 0)W (40)(O)0)0);00)0) 00'0 OW 00 00 NN 00 WW 0)00) 00 OW 0. 1 .4-103VV 0)0)00 00 00 0)0) 00 0000 UiOUI 00 NW * * * * * * * * * * 00(000(I)00 NNN N 73 A .7/ 73 Vu M 0 _______= 000 C) I.1 C 0 m DD m >>>>>>>> CCC 0 72 m D -< 7373 > N 7<7<XXXXXX -4-i1 1 N M V Z 7C7C .MI 00000000 =s -4 72 0 00 N Z < r*I72m72r*Imrn72 mmm A C 0 m 0 00 0 R* Z mmmmmmmm NNN -1 1-( 0 0 0 mm V 111 < r m > D O 00000000 C Cg OM C CO 0 m72mmmm7272 CC 72 4 = 72 HN O C) 7272727272=7272 CCC r CO 0 r -4 «««« W720 2 1-1 0 ZZ 0 m r)--1rr-(`-(1-(1-1H CCCCC o Z z 1-1 -I-i W 0 00000000C000000007272= 0 N0 Z rr 0 I-(2 mmmmmmmm COMM 20 0 000000(00 >>> 0 Z ZZ -< C) 72 Z Z Z m 00 m m C) 0 0 r (n -I _ 73 CCCCCCCC M•9-0 N CO m m N -OM a -0 � --1-4-1-4-1-1-1-4 M72M C r 0 0 c r N r r r r r rM 1-i 0013 V C C 0 0 C m 0 ; I-1-rr-rrrr X: z 1v O h1 1-1 -0 z3 1-ii-4)-11-11-41-41-IN 00-i r M -0 M -10 M N p 11-1-11-1-11 -4-4 r 3 72 0 rr-1rrrrrrr m > m �- 73mmmmr mmrn 00 0 r > > 0 0 > < CO CO 00000000 ZZ-c Z r r 13 (n V)C -4 Z Z CO Z 73 W 1 1 CO -I 4-4 1 H 0 Z 00000000 r r 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 O W > rrrrrrrr AAr r r Y I- r I r 00 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 0 AAAAAAAA AAA A A A A A AA A A 0 0303030303030303 W W W N N N N N WW N W C V�IV,1.IV.1.4 r1-40 r W W W r for W r Z 00000000 (0(00 0 0 N N 0 O(0 N 0 -1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 0)CAWWrrr rrr W W A W A Wr W 0 2 WNNN1--000000 AAW r r N r A rV r 00 0 Orrrr ANr WNr r r 0) (J r r00 N CO • IIIIIIII I I I 1 1 1 I t 11 I I 0)0)AwWrrr rrr W W A W A Wr W A 4-4 NNNNr000000 AAW r r N r A rel r r-' < I- 0 N (O V W *i 0 W N r V •V I • r 0 A CO 410 N X -0 N > * * * N 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0 1 I I m C) C) C) A C) C) C) C) T T T 7C X X N 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO UI 0rrr 00 * 00000000 * 0 0 0 * 00000 * 0000 * 0 * 00 r AAA * AAAAAAAA * A A A * * AAAA * A * r. C) (0 WWW * W W W W W W W W * VI (n ()I * N V1(JI VI N * Cn VI V1 W * W * WW m r rrr * C)C)0)0)0)0)0)0) * A W N * 00000 * AAAA * A * 4-r C) •-•1-.1 V V N. W * 4-r X 0 M z -I 0 -< 0 000 0000000_0 0 0 0 00000 0000 0 Ti 00 r r r 4-r 4-r r2. \"... \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \\\\\ AAAA 1 to \\\\ \ r r r r f--.-- A A A A A 4-A m D A A A A A A A A A A A A A \\\ \\\\\\\\ A A a a a A AAAA A AA (0(0(0 00(0(0(0(0(0(0,7 (0 (0 0 \\\\\ \\\\ \ \\ (0:0 d (0(0(0(0 (0 (0(J 0 N N N N N N '9 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N NN m M a W N A 03 W N C C) NrrO r r AWOON Z NU1r 0WrrOWAON VV VV AA WrrrWUI NV100)r A w A --1 0)00(4 000Ui0 woANO VV AA V1UJ1 1.-000oNrr A000A (0(0 V0000 0V0 C00-.10UICNW WW (0(0 00 000WC)A VI V00NA WW 0)0)0 AWN 000A(JIV(0(40).. UIUI (0(0 00 000000 000-40 0000 V0V * * * * * * * * CCC 0000C)000 N G) N MMMMMMMM _..1 Z X "Ni--4-I1 VMMM M __ 000 --i-4-1-1-4-4-4-4 M m D >>>>> CCCC 0 303* CCC -c.<-(- -c-( rn z 7C MMXIMa 00000000 C) 0 0 (/)-4)000 -4 XXXXX 00 < 000 -T4VVVVVVV N mm m 0U)0N)V)(n(n0 M C m A-C)(-C) 0 mm 0 rrrrr R 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N M -( rnmrnmrn 00O90 >>>>>>>> M DDDDD m21zzzzz 00 _xx,,,x„ 00000000 m. M MMMMM 3S mmmmv,vm 0 00Ommmmmmmm 000 mm xmmmmmmmm 00 . .. m 0 M 0 -i m z 111CCCCCCCC (/) -( v W,,,. mmm -1-(-I--I-I 1.1 C . . „r„ DD-,0 C .0 1 rrr MMMMMMMM m D 0 00000 112C v M(n m mmm 4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4- v < V C)00C)C) mm IM v Z1 3 vvv 1-tMMMM)-41-4M4- .XIMMv 4- 1D 222 1-11 1-.. -1-i-I ( 1..( r N 33113 C) 0 000 NMNY-(Mrrr M m A>>>> 30 m zzz mmmmmmmm o R. 73 �•,-..-�.,M 1> 0 Qpm m mmm 00000000 < ZZZZZ 1ZMM N V C) Cl) -11--41-1 mzAZ C M C 0 W 00‹ n 0<1 [A v 0 M Cl) M N -( 0 Z 000 I-000000o 0 r 0 00000 0000)-0 O 00 > rrr r A r r rrr r www,- r A r III 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 I I I 0 III ) I I I C7 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AAAA (W W A A A AA0 WWW 04004444 N W W NNNNN 0000(AN N WW C N N N ...1-.)--.1,1V--4-4-.4 A (v 1,,. W W W W W 001-.0 r _ WN Z 1-.1-..1-. 00000000 0 0 0 00000 N4-(0N 0 00 1 I I I II I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I ) , 1 1 1 1 I rrr r(00)0)AWrr W r W C)Wrrr I I WNr (OrNrNN0000 r A r 00000 00tH( W CMM Z rrr .rrrrr Nr r W N Or AN - r AA 0 1 ) ) - I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 III ) I ) 00 A r 4-.r 4-(O0)0)A(J.r 1 ( 1 1 1 t i l l WN4- mrNbNN0000 r r W C)W0rr 00ACJ W MM z A r NNao Do aO OOrN r AA Z 0o < N (0 it 0 C) - I • r 0 A 1 w it N 3 * m v * * N * * Cl) O * * * * * * D m C) C) 1 1 1 I m Cl) Cl) V) C/) N Cl) m • 0 0 o 0 0 0 * 0000 * 00 * 0 * 000000000000000 •- - r I.. r r r * r r r r * i-r * r * 0 m A A A A A A * AAAA * AA * A * A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 2 (0 00 CO 00 CO CO CO * C)0)0)0) * MM * CA * UI UI UI VI UI UI U UI Ui UI VI VI VI Ui UI m r O O 0 O O 0 * (4(4(4 W * WW * CO * 030303030003030303(00303030300 0 A A W N r 0 * .4,1,4-4 * 00 * (0 * M Z -i 0 < 0 0 T O O O 0 O 0 0000 0 0 - 0 000000000000000 D ✓ r r r r r r r r r r r \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ m S \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\ \\ D ✓ r r r r r rrrr rr r A A A A A A A A A A aa A .0..0 A A A A A A A A A A?A A 7C \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\ \\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 0 CO (0 CO (D CO (0 (O W W(0 OM (0 (0(0 Z(0:C(D(D it(D(0(D(0(0(0(D v N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ((Il D OJW 6 r r r r N A ~ Z 00NN rr rr rr 0r00 V r r rvr r -4 00 WW rr (0(D UI UI 0)0) 0) A UI-)00 0000 Ar 0,.............., 00 cn Ui 00 (0(0 00 (0(0 A v?.0 C.) V W W N N 0)A W V 00 r 00 A(D 0(0 C.) 0) 00 00 00 (D(0 00 WW A00V1U1 ON-4 AA V1....MM.-4- 0V10r0000 00 00 NN VIVI 00 00 W000v00 WVI00 WW W(A00AVr0r0)00000AWA * * * * * * * * * * • v 3 0 = N m <-f<.< EE G) CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC O 1-4 D C Al r DDDD na I-- -0 -u < 0 D m mmmm ON 0 NNNN(/)(/)NNNNNNNNN Z > m N 0 m CCCC -1-1 73 D 0 0r -1 NNNN mm M gCEgggXZXZZZEf£ < 3 m C.. Z -.0 NOON D mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m C -1 0000 3 3 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 1 = 0 Sm NNNN DD < -1-1"1-1-1•'.1-1'.'1'.'i-1".'1-4-4-i-1 0O ID-1 m 0 v Z S SS=S DD m CC)OOC)C)C)C)OCC)C)C)CC) m A C) Z 0000 00 a 000000000000000 C) A m W Z mm r 333333337333333 Z M 333333333333333 (Ti C 0 Z 0000 MM 1 ZZ G) X M73 v m 0 M 0 N -I m X1 v 0 N N v (Ti m0N(N CC -4 3333-(--4-1-1-4-{-1-4-4-4 M .v -1 C C 73 0 CI CC -I--I ,-i r- .mm m mmmmmm mm -I O I v v 0 C CO v v 1-4)-4 D N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r (II m Ti, v -0 -I1 M MG)-0v rr < C)C)C)C)mmmmmmmmmmm 3 7, r r v v r-1- M M m v v v v v v v v v v v M M N 3 M M -I-4 r 2====== 0 m M m m m Z 3Dr?I ~*-I CCOOC )00000 -1 = 3 N N A D >1-4W0 mm 9° ZZZZZZZZZZZ .A < v < I-I MZ NN M mm m(TiM mm(TIMM A Z Z-'1 N .73 0 -4 -I C v < N -1 I-4 M N 0 -4 1 0 r 0 O 0 O 0000 0 0 O 000000000000000 > ✓ W r r r r rrrr rr I- ( I 1 1 , I 1 1 1 , 1 1 i ill 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 C) A A A A A A AAAA AA A 0.0.0.0.0.A A A A A A A A A A 0 W 471 N N (.3 N NNNN WW W 0.0.0.A W W W W W W W W W W W C r r r r r W W Wh„r -1.1 W (0(0(0(0NNNNNNNNNNN I 0 CO 0 0 0 N N000 00 0 1 I I I 1 ( I I I I 1 1 1 I l l l l l l l l t l l l l l W V1 W W 0) W A00A VV r 0)Arr0)0)AAWWWrrrr 1 r 00 N r A r NWAN NN r Ar V W ANN 1-6431,31-6C0-4a)UI 0 r 0) r N r W 0)O r r r r r 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 W A W W O1 W A0)0)A VV r 0)Arr 0)0)AAWWWrrrr r ✓ r N r A r NNAN NN r 0.I-VWANNrW Nr00 VO)VI C W W A CT1 ✓ W V 0 7k O 0) VI 0) 0 r CO CO 0 CO 1 A A I1 V 0 0 A C * N 3 m v N D * * * * Nm ** * * C) * * * I 1 1 I rn A C) A C) U) 7 7< X N 0 0 0 V * 0 r * F,. A Co * A 2 CO * Co m I-. * O C) * O) 7C C) H 2 1 O -< 0 0 -7, O > r --I N m z 1- D A x \ 0 Co •D N m m I-. > O rr3 O W r W O m A C N rtn C N CO NON 2 N (111•.mmAWWr0 0000 A 000W)-0OOVm 0000 N OmWNON(O 4 AA W OWW-Ir00000 NN * --1 < 0 m 1 l-1'I,tm-n D Z -1 CCCCCCCCC D ZZZZZZZZZ r 000000000 0 m 00,4WWNrrr0 0-1r- r•1 0 WW001-.00AWr -I 0 M a -1-4-1-4-4-1-1-4-1 C) 000000000 r-1 2 -•1-•1-1-1-i-1-I-1-I 2 m • DDDDDDDaD C) C) rrrrrrrrr M M G) N m M COrr 0=--1M0 m r -1-1 C(D 'i a -1 I-10(O(ODD>mz C m rmN -r3 z 7 m N 3 -4 F-IMD 1-1.Z73> 0 -<01,X0 -1rn.- 1 m x -am N > (n • -4>M.- MM r 0 ArOOC) MC 2 M CZ«D <Z -i 1-1 v)Dmm- MO .D -10X r -4 m m C)-1 -11 1-4 z• D c 0 c-4-or- 2 2 -1 • 0 )-1T1 rc z r-1 Z 0 -40 ti -< m C) C) v -1 o > I- C) • • I C) A 0 N C W 2 N -I 1 W Z ✓ 0 N I W 1-4 - 2 W ✓ v as 0 CO r A - I • I-. O CO * N 3 m v N D * V) 0 * D m * 0 1 m C) X 0 00 * 0 * 000 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 00 * 000000000 * 0 * 0 C) I- * r * rrr * r * r * r * F..1.. * * UI C) 10 * 1n * WUI UI * 0 * U• * UI * WW * 000000000 * 0 * 0 m N * W * NNN * N * r * r * rr * . * 0 * WWW000 * v * 1D * CO * 00 * NNNNNNNNN * m * 0 X C) * co * 000 * r * r * 0 * 00 M Z -1 0 -< 0 0 M 0 000 0 0 0 00 000=00000 0 00 > N r rrr r r r rr rrr \ \\\ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\\\\\ \ m7 ✓ r r r r r r r r --rrrr'rr r N UI UI UI Cl' Ui UI 00 000000000 UI 0 7C \ \\\ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\\\\\ \ \ 0 CO WWW 10 (D W.NJ (D LLl tGW.1010(000(0(0W ( (0 V N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N m D 3 I-• r 0 rr 0)r0 NN C - - 1-'r VV 0)0) (0(00 UI N WW 0000 -i 0)0) 0)NNN WW UIUI 00 0)0)0 I-.00 rUIN WNr rr NN 0000 AA 0000 00 00 00 00000 WrWAC0VVWWW WW 00 00 VNNN UIUi 00 00 Vv0 000000I00000 00 00 AA 0000 <0c0 00 00 000 0000000000 00 00 * * * * * * * * * • 'r1 -n'T, 000000000 0 D MM -0-0v V•C-O V V"0 0 Cl) M DDD m < 0 .7370 -4-1-4--1-i--1-41 3 N OG)C:) 3 0 Nti) «-«<-«<-< 3 ? < 3 CCC m 1 m —i1 • .70.7o.7D7o7o70 0 3 m 2. mmm D Cl) .i1 mmmmmmmmm -4I m Z0 O 000000000 000 1.4 =C) CC M M M M M M M M M -I m 0 0 70 H r 00 000000000 70 0 A 0 333 I-I z m -,-i -1-i-1-i-1-1• I-i-1 D () ZZZ C)) O Z 73737373707073.7370 Z 3 = DDDDDDDDD N C f*I C)C)C) Cl) i-i 7070MM7073707070 Z Z 011..11.4 l -•11-i !C>IscyiA#yt#*>IL M M M < M mmm Cl) W W W W W W W W W IT NNN < 0IUIUIUI00000U1 C) N M Cl, 1 m M mmmmmmmmm v 0 M 73 CCC rn A 0 fir- Z73 000.00.0000 m C -I O m m m C z 0 1 M C c c c c C c c C z m m IN N N I-i T1 G) MZ M I'i M M M 1-i M I-1 I-i 1 N 3 O MO MMvvvv-vv U) 26 0 H !�R�Ra Mr 3 D v �' 33333i33� m O U / & D N M —I> DDDDDDDDY N N Z C C C M C` Z r r-41-1/-11-4 I-II-II-II-11-4 C C) Cl') mcm Z = 1 -0 ZZZZZZZZZ W M NNN -1 0 2.-0 -1-4-4-1-1-41--1-4 U) M -.CD 0 v a=z Or 3� 70 1 MMH (/) H 1-4 --1 v 0 17-0.10I -1 Z 1 1 1 r 000 0 0 0 0)0) '400000000 0 0 > A rrr r r r 00 r r 0 I I I I ) 1 1 I I milt I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I C7 A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A 0 C.) W W W N W N O)0) NNNNNNNNN W W C ✓ WWW W CO Cl) 1-1-• WWWWWWWWW 00 CO Z 10 rrr N 0 0 r 0 N N N N N N N N N O I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I.... Arr A r W 00 V0)0)AACWrr r r Z A I,,,WN A r - 00 rANNrWNCOV 0o r 0 NJ rrr r r r 00 rrrrrrrrr r r oil I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I ✓ ArrA r w 00 �10)WAAW wrr r r H rWN A A r r 00 rANNrwNoov Co r C Cl) Cl) rI A ;t 0 I-., CO 0 A W 73 I • r O Li, m ** it N * * * 3m 73 N D * * * * N G * * * * * * * * * * * * * * m 11 1 11 I I C) C) C) 0 C) C) C) C) C) 7C 7K 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 N N 0 N N N N co N r r0 * r0 * 1-0 00 * r0 * 00 * O )1. 0 O x QO x 00000000 r x U1 * U1 * U1 * A * W 0 * V1 * U1 U1 * U1 U1 * U1 Ut U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 Ut Z (O W * W * 0 * A * 00 * 010) * O) O) * WW * NNNNNNNN CC) N A W * I"'I"" * NNNNNNNN X () M Z -I 0 < O p p 0 00 0 r r 0 0 rr O O 0 00 00000000 > T \ \ \ \ \\ 44 rrrr444r N tris 4" 4 .. r \•, - \\ \\\\\ \\ m = \ \ U1 U1 NU1 U7 Ut 0 00 0000000 D \ \ \\ 00000000 0 W W (0 W \ \ \ \\ \\\\\\\\ N N N N NN N N N W W (OWN)N(ONN Pt N N N N N N N N N N m m 0r N D 0(O WO)ArQU1oo r(1100000W0 C WW WV71VAA CI) WN 0000 WOoQv0(OOVO -I 00 W0I ( (j1 WA rr AA F"1"' AW VN0(D000V0 00 W0I 00 O)O) U00 U1v- Ui 40UI0N000 00 00 00 00 000 00 vv 00 0WW OW000U1000 00 00 00 00 000 0 0 00 00 000 000000000 * * * * * * * * * N N N c 00 Z Z D MH 33333333 1 rn > I>>>>>> �) > Z -i D zz ZZ .00000000 xpAximmmmA m .1 - x x - m OOO 00 004 D C) W I(1 D 00 WWWWWWWW m z 1 r A - I 0 3 00 AAAAAAD D D D D D D D Z I-' 3 rn 0 mm CO 33 ZZZZzzZz 0 U) W I- z (7C) - m 33 7C 7C 7C 7c 7C7�7,7C 0 a A 0 Z <0 00000000 (T1 0 0 CO 22S22S22 I C) 3 D DDDDDDDD m 1 m C C (,#) 000000070 C) 00000000 • 0 n m v 0 m m m m m m m m m C) p mmmmmmmm m 0 m G- r N -i m m 0 a 0 0 0 0 C 00 '7` v .A101-4m1-4m)-4m r z m m v 00 Ic*i m c 00 zm zm mzm -I �1 N CO v CO X ( 0 0 -44-4-4.4-41-4-44-4 t Z m z rn r C C) mm mzmzmzmz 3 fta 2* Q. r 22 Q. -4 AC)AAzOm(7 rn 00 Q. mm rnrmrrnrmr 0 N W C N>(nv(n>N J m C) C C W N 2 N v7J -ID-(D-(D-ID C) 0 N W �1�1 W 0 W « r r- r- r- m 0 0 (0j 00 CO Z N DVDVDv>- r I- 70 z C) -(A.-<>-<>-<> v (n 4 r H 0 A 3<3<3<3< -4 -I -I r N -I- � ' 0 Z 0 0 > r r rr 0r Aa r r 0 00 O10)AWNN U10 I I f..t.. rrWWNN(!1(St C) A A A A NN ' I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 W W W N W W W A A AA A A A A A A A A 0 W W WW CO (O (C r Ol0)O)WO)OO)W C O r r O O W N W r r Z I I I 0 Ni N r A r 00 r 0 r 0 r 0 r 0 -I r r � 0 0 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (•' N V N 00 r 0 I- W4 00000000 Z IV Ir r O) 00 r 0 N 4N 00000000 0 I I I I 1 1 I 0 r 1-.1... 00000000 W r r r 0 0 r I0 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I"' N V U1 O0 U1 0 N N r 00000000 00000000 1 Z N V COW < W N NN W 0 V W (0 OWYK 0 r ✓ I • r O (n (O * N 3 rn v * * * * x x (n D * * * * * * N C) * * * * * * * * D m I ( (I I (7 I I ' 1 111 7 X X X X C) [7 C) Cil N 7C 7C N 0 N 0 Cl) N OO 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 * 000 * I"' r r r r r r r * r * rrr * C) W Um Um 0000000000000000000 N UI N (n Um * U) * NN Um * I W 00 0 0000000000 00 OO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 W 00 00 CO CO * 0) * N U)UI * m N . 0V O) 0000000000000000000 A 0W ON 0 00 * W * O)O)O) * ?. C) H Z -1 O -< 0 O m O 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 D r r r r r- r.-rr----r r r r r r F. r rr --I N \ \ \','... . ..... \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ m = II.. r rrrr.—rrr,.... rrr:---f-rr r -- r r' r — -_— D U7 U) Um N(n U'U)U)Lu U"U' : Um UI U) Um UI 0 UI UI U't T. co co W(0(WWWDW L=W(D D(0 D C.^+::UI L 'L O co W W (G W (D(A(0 -c N N NNN NNNNNNNNNNNN(JN(JN N N N N N N NNN CTm M Ir D N r r W r r ; 0 rrV WNO)NrAN AOAO) 0 N N A N O(n O V Um(O Um W 0 A U) (00000 C Z O)0 WIV000WONWOVO)--01.--0AC0oo0 r►- rr rr '--r -1 r (5W' OOWOVOOr0N000UIOWC0rO NN NN AA (5W' 00 II WWWW A NN AONOoo00vOIv0--l000r-l000 U)U) 00 00 00 00 AA 0000 O 00 rO Um O V00 Um O UI O u•JOOO)U)0 N 0 00 00 00 00 00 Um U) 0000 O O O N 0 0 0 UI O O O O O O O O O O N O O U)O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0000 * * * * * * * * * 1 1 3333333353333333333 1 3 3 r M Z CCC Z > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m Z z C) D m ZZZ 5 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A -( 0 CO 1-11-1M N D 000000000000000000O A C) CO 0 -fl -I <<< < -1 I 0 I -I *) MMM D r WWWWOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW -0 D A AAA rn -4 3 3.2.3.3.3.3.3.3.0,0,0.3.3.3.››)./.3. m U) -I 1 C NOW z M C) Z Z Z Z Z z z z Z z z Z Z Z z z z Z z 3 \ m z CO 4-u.4)-4 O 7CJCJC7CJCJCJCJCJCXXT.JCJC7C7CXX= 0 O -n W M -I{-1 0 -1 III=I=___=2=____=2 2 5 M A -4 I 000 = DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD C) f) m )-i M "f1'71m n r 0000000000000000000 -4 CO C) 333 x -OAV'UAAAAAA'77'VAA'V AAAA D zzz mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m > N A m m m m m m m m m m m m m m rn m m m m N N m N Z 0 Z M N --I m A N A '0 MA HAV H A HAH A M vv HAMM 0 0 0 C) O N C)C)C) 11 C A D z A z A D z A Z A Z A z A D z A z A C C C 0 C C 000 -I D 0 -<-IH-{1- M-41.-4 CMM-IM rn m m Z m v zzz m -9 m Mm1Cii1Mr zmzmzMZI-mZMZ (n (n N m N A mmm 3 r ZAC7AnzCC)AC)momozAC)AC) r M N OI' MIRmI- OMHMMmMmMC)mMrnM Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. "1 Q.Q.Q. 0 M m NA:n' UIA U)A(0 Z C/)v 000-17 'ii m N A Dr2.-13>D-ID-I3*-13>-(DD-10--00 (n (0 0/) (/) 0 N NNN N < 0 r r O r r r -0 r r C C C C) on:-) C) M-0 - m C -17 0 - m 3 CC Co to x== Cl) zDADAZDvDVDADAZDADv CO N U) 0 Cl) 000 4-, -1-<>-<>--1-<>-<>-<>-(1.-1-(3:-<> C7 0 C) 0 0 000 A 3<I< 3<3<3<3< 3<3< A A A r A rrr M M-1X-(3-r1-4303-+3-13-'-+3-(3 )--( M *-I !n '-I NNN I•I rn -t -1 m -I M -I -urn -1 -1 v ' m m 0 m m m -I -1 M -1 Z N N N O 0 NCJ)O)O)0)D)Q)D)AAAAWWWWWWW 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 D M r A W CJ N N Nrr00 V.-lAAAN N r r r r r r r r r 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 1 I I I I I I A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 0 N W 0)0)0)C)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0) W W CO (.) W N C.)CO C.) C r r CO CO W CO W r W W(O Z 0 0 N IOMON 4OMO404 ON IOMO r r r 0 r 0 000 -1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 111 A r 0000000000000000000 W W W r G) r 1-.1-.1,-. Z A N 0000000000000000000 r r N r r O) O)UC`) 0 r r 0000000000000000000 r r r r r r rrr 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 111 A r 0000000000000000000 W W W r W r rrr M A N 0000000000000000000 r r N r r O) aUm C') < (O A NIV0 m 1* 0 W I r W 0o A I 00 00 • r 0 Um co it N X -o CO D * * * N C) * * * D m * * * C) I m C) C) C) 0 0 0 W * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r rr * UI UI UI UI to cm UI UI UI UI UI (UJi N ICJI E CO * co 00 00 00 CO 00 0o co 0000 CO S CO * NJ r r r r r r r C) N * O co CO V rn VI A W NN r O CO CO C7 0 H Z -1 0 -< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 O > T \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \_\ \ \rn T r r r r r f- r \ UI cit UI Ui Lm Um cm cmcm U7 UI UI UI X \ \ \ 0 co CO CO (0 (O (.7 C0 (0 (0(.0 C0 (D (J (C 0 NJ N N N NJ NJ N N NN NJ NJ N N m M rW rWrrN D r01---(oWrnW(n0 r 0 (O 0UIVIA (OWOoo A NN C C W-.1W -4rrV CJ00W WW WW rr rr Zr C)(D00 N a)CnV rr00WN WW NN NN 0000 00 (0(0 NN VAC) WW UI UI VV NN r 0oWNNV00(0C)(00)N 0)0 AA 0000 UfUi UIU 00 NN UIUf OOO 0)0) 00 UIUI 0CJ7 A ,40WW WOOrN(nOO NN 00 00 00 00 00 V V 00 000 00 00 (D(D 00 O U10 0 0 0 0 0 N W A O r WW 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 0 0 00 AA 00 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * N 44 C C (I) CO 4 N 00 C) 0 3 3 D 0 z z -( D S MM I-I m-n mm m�'I mmrnm mm S m M I-I D E z > zz -I C t-1 z ZZZacczz22zzzzz r 0 m .m m N 0 WHIN-1 N m zzzzzzzzzzzz � < < rn m � m z 000000000000 mww < 0 C C!) CO m (A m 1-1- T) 0 CO0 z z C)AAAAWWWWrr0 C z w M►-I I-I 70 -i rn mm D p OWN'OVUTANAWI 11 0 -( -4 0 0 CO --( D.-< -< mCrr S D-4-4-(-4-41-i-4-(-4-4-( Mm > 0H =000000000000 C 0 0 CO ZZ O -4-4-1-4-.4.-1-4-1-4.-1.-4-4 0 m m 0 C x 00 0 -< 0 D m >>>>>>>>>>>> 1-1-I-I-1 1 1 rr rrr 3 3 O -mi 0CC m N rn CZ) X Z 2 0 CO NN m r 0 f() I- D mm Z C A r C) H rn r -D 0 M 0 M M rrr00rr0000r-1-0 m 0 C) 0 C) 3 C) o C)C0 0 0 CO 0 1--I (O(D(000(1,(0-I 0)(0MD rtI 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 00 = m C C —1 oo(Doo000oo)000Dmz C WOW 00V a)z�m I.4 m -n �I 0 n 03 mm Pi 0m v Vm) 3 I I D)DD-4-4DC M o 01-- 1.> DD 0 !-I'-I .--1M70. I R^ R'. Re S --( Qo Q* 0 N-1mm-4-�r.r Ci) N - r ri m rr r 0-13)-( I i D CO > L7 CO N CO 0 CO N 3 x (0 V) N 3 3-I-(- -n < mit r M C) C) 0 M z CCm < C CvmI-ImM 0n mc z m = 00CO00 azOmIIQN <Z -40 0 0 00 0 I < Z 0 0 0 00 < 0 M< COmrn C 1-1 MO 3 .Z7 m N CO N CO 0 N M 1(n m m C M Z Z v 0 z -4 7J 0 -4 z -4 m I I m 0 C CO 0 z CO 0 rl Z O oo O O 0 0 00 r 00 r 0 0 O D r A r r r r A A rr W r r r C) I I I I I I I 1 it I ( I I C) A N A A A A N A A A A A A A 0 N W W W W A W W WW UI W N W C NJ N O 0 O CO NJ (D 0 0 r r r co Z O O W O O r .-( 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( ( A O r A W W O r rr UI W r A Z A O V r NJ r O A ....IN CO r W r 0 r O r r r W O N rr a) r r r I I I II I I I I ( I I I I A 0 r A CO W 0 r rr A W r A M A O V r N r O A -4c..) r r W r Z NJ CO UI O0 CO r < co I- W f.) r O) a) 0U A N a) it 0 CO V UI 4 N 00 r O V 0 M I A r O UI CD iR N X v * fn D * U) L') * > m I 0 C) rn CO A • r C) CO 2 Co m r� C) T. C) H z -1 O -< 0 • • -11-1 N m 2 0 m m r _ D CO r 3 1v I CO A CJ 0 CO w w w cr1 - - - - `z Co V oo O CO r CO -1 V AACoWVrN N CO Cn r IV Co 00 V V O Crt V N f11 N OOOOtfl00 0 -*1'*1 T1-17-n-n T1 -i CCCCCCC D ZZZZZZZ < ▪ 0000000 m z 0o 0o r1to cn t7)0) 4u1-1-44. 0 70 1-i-1-1-t-1-1 C) 0000000 -I-I--C-1-1-i-I >>>>>>> C) rrrrrrr G) N —1 rn rnvcn rrrr r Cf D m CO cc CO(ID —i 0-c X co co co oo m 73zmrn--+rnrn Q0=3> WD r .-4 r *1oo3r�+ m Cr-o33 N -4Z 73 v v C) 7307)07070 v c m<00 N T1m<< o C3mm -1 Zm33 r QZmrn 0 \-1ZZ Z COI -i-1 001 Z<nvv v NN A C) 0 C z z 0 N Z it 0 r v 1 • I-. 0 N CO ii N 3 m v N CO C) D m O m cr+ to o fW 1 NN w 1-' C o .- - 4.- w C z O"O 'O W "" -3 W Co N w C* = •N 0 0 C) C- I-. I-- O 0 c" A) FS O O w 1 I I I IC7 O O O O 9 C C!) n F•3 0 0 o O C) w '▪ O'S K C 0 Cl-c -Lic n a sr N CD a ►- - > N N 1 vt O WW 1W �• = OIO\\O 0 C+ C) a .. C) oo Op a) a ( z a a C] a C�j -EA- c+ c+ n .- b N WOW U) cm m > C) Olen O�� 'n c r a o r n h w w w n 00 0 o • \O co co N 1 1 CO 1 2 O • 2 z rn < CD C 0+ '1 c. c+ C E '1 x CD � CD a_ c+ < (D C ccnn CD n 1-' -P- 3 C_,. I— 1 vi • - N • ii ----4 . - O VvNi 0 (CO CO CO CO < w CO Co CO w -4 p F-H N H N O h-H F-' F-' f-, H ,N ct, .o No •o " VD 0 0 0 �- r NNJt W W N N N N ~ c+ o o a • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I H ,* m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 1�-. �-. gu t< CO O =J Co CO Co OD < Co Co Co Co Co -4 0 c-1 cG 2 F-' F' H H R. I-' H I-' h' I-' H H ai i i O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N n'd Cn O ? 0 0 0 0 0000000 cn+v (D (D O £ 0 1--3 ,.d 11CD CD a LI tol H 0 '=i ''i G. C f N 00) a. NO i-. \O -4 .n N 0 4- Oho ' > c+ .no CO H NO < - ON w0° °� NO Cb F 0 'Ji 0 N C\C\ vt 0 NJ1 ON 0a 0o 0 rnrno 0 ' C+ h o. 0 4k - 73 ni z a7 < Z = = = () C) ] 2(D (D (D (D 0 (D CD (D (D (D 0 0 f 1.&Eg 3 3 3 3r33 33311O3 r• r• r• r 0, r• r• r• r• r• '1 .y WC) ct d+ c+ Cf c+ Cf c+ c+ Cf p 's ^t rn N go NOo- rtdC b i i '� ci•`1' O +• m ("D ' H gii CD i U)0y KQay0n to v, o o C a CD : 0v, O O '1 0) 0 C) (D H 0O H CD (A ri � cn UR b p1 • Cl I-,- < 0 O0 c+ • wwwwwwwwwwww n•O O O O O O -4 O O -4 -4 O Co NO .O NO NO NO .O .D CO CO CO CO CO O\ vi 4- w N H 0 .O .O .O ON Vl • 'T1 b b x < C) :: :: x 3 cortzi 00 O 3 D. 00 0 • K c+ 0 pc z a 0 A. 3 .cy x(1) O 0 , 1''• O b 0 . O 'b \ r• '-h p (D 11 3 3 0 - 0) 0 O c+ 0' a 0 3 H (�D 0 M ' ,0 CD p 'i 0 (D c+ C] X -EA- • NO N NO -4 .Jt H .NJi3 ON NO . NO 0 CoD .~Jt < vet O vii H I-4 •n 0 Nn NA ON O CO 0 110. CO 0 N 0 0 0 ) :). k_. MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Appointments to Boards and Commissions DATE: January 16, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3523 , making appointments to boards and commissions, for Council's consideration. BACKGROUND: A their regular meeting on January 7th, City Council made nominations to various boards and commissions to fill terms expiring January 31, 1992. Pursuant to Council policy, appointments shall be made at the Council's second meeting in January. Because there were not additional applicants than there were openings (except for the Police Civil Service Commission) , the Interview Committee decided that it was not necessary to interview all candidates. Most candidates are incumbents. The Committee did interview new candidates and the two candidates for the Police Civil Service Commission. As reported to me, the Interview Committee is recommending the appointment of all candidates to the boards for which they applied. In the case of the Police Civil Service Commission, the Committee unanimously is recommending the appointment of Marcia Spagnolo. Marcia was appointed to fill an unexpired term and the Committee believes that she should be reappointed. The Committee unanimously is recommending that Michael Phillips and Cole Van Horn be appointed to the CDC for three year terms and that Elmer Otto be appointed to fill the unexpired term of Michael Beard. The Committee unanimously is recommending that Nancy Christensen and Joe Zak be appointed to the Planning Commission for four year terms and that Joe Kelly be appointed to fill the unexpired term of Joan Lynch. Attached is a ballot for Councilmembers to vote on the appointment to the Police Civil Service Commission. It would expedite the whole process if Councilmembers could bring their completed ballot to the Council meeting on Tuesday and give it to me. I could then have the results tallied and the proper names inserted into the resolution for Council consideration, later on the agenda. Additional/Withdrawal of applications 1. Jim Link, whose term is expiring on the Housing Advisory & Appeal Board and Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals has indicated that he is willing to serve another term. He needs to be nominated to the position. His appointment along with that of Mr. Laurent will fill their two expiring terms. Appointments to Boards and Commissions January 16, 1992 Page -2- 2 . Ken Scannell has submitted an application for the Cable Communication Committee. He needs to be nominated to the position. He should also be nominated to the Community Access Corporation Board of Directors, since the members are the same for both boards, and do meet the same evening. His appointment along with that of Mr. Bill Anderson will fill the two expiring terms on these two boards. 3 . We have received only one application for the Board of Review, from Mr. Reinke. Last year Mr. Reinke and Mr. Marks served on the Board of Review with Councilmembers Clay, Sweeney and Vierling. I called Mr. Marks and asked if he would be willing to serve again this year. As he stated last year, he said that he was willing to serve in this capacity if there were insufficient Shakopee residents willing to serve. He noted that he is actually a resident of Jackson Township. Mr. Marks would need to be nominated to the Board of Review. Council needs to decide on the desired make up the Board of Review for 1992 . Some alternatives are: a] Membership of 5 , and appoint three councilmembers in addition to Mr. Reinke and Mr. Marks b] Membership of 3 , and appoint one councilmember in addition to Mr. Reinke and Mr. Marks c] Membership of 3 , and appoint two councilmembers in addition to Mr. Reinke d] Council decide to sit as the Board of Review (it has only been the last two years that Council has appointed a separate Board of Review) . e] Other 4] Melanie Kahleck has advised me that she wishes to withdraw her application for the Community Development Commission. This leaves three applicants to fill three terms (two three year terms and one unexpired term as a result of the resignation of Michael Beard. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1] Decide on make-up of the 1992 Board of Review. 2] Nominate Jim Link to the Housing Advisory & Appeal Board and Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals, nominate Ken Scannell to the Cable Communication Committee and the Access Corporation Board of Directors, and Richard Marks to the Board of Review; and, waive procedural policy so that their appointments can occur tonight. 3 ] Offer Resolution No. 3523 , A Resolution Appointing Individuals to Various Boards and Commissions, and move its adoption. 1992 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BALLOT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Police Civil Service Commission (Vote for 1) Terrence Born Marcia Spagnolo Beard Laurent Lynch Sweeney Vierling APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COMMISSIONS City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 We welcome you as a possible applicant for one of our City Boards and/or Commissions. What are the qualifications for serving on these advisory Boards and Commissions? You must be a resident of Shakopee, except where non residency is permitted by Council resolution, and more importantly, you must have an interest in serving your community. The Boards and Commissions meet during the evening and typically have from one to two meetings per month, as follows: Planning Commission/Board of 1st Thursday after 1st Adjustments and Appeals Tuesday at 7 :30 p.m. Community Development Commission 3rd Wednesday at 5: 00 p.m. Energy & Transportation Committee 3rd Wednesday at 7 : 00 p.m. Ad HOC Downtown Committee 2nd Wednesday of month or as needed at 7:45 a.m. Cable Communication Commission Quarterly or as needed on Monday at 7: 30 p.m. Housing Advisory and Appeal Board As Needed Building Code Board of Adjustment As Needed & Appeals Shakopee Public Utilities 1st Monday at 4 :30 p.m. Commission Park & Recreation Advisory Board 4th Monday at 7 : 00 p.m. Police Civil Service Commission As Needed Community Youth Building 2nd Saturday of the month Committee at 9: 00 a.m. Board of Review 7:00 p.m. 2 to 3 Tuesdays t / in May l Name: IC ew ,cd,•t#e 1/ Address: 1 .' j € �'4izk1Pc r nv Phone: (H) 14G-to Sr (B) How long have you been a resident of Shakopee? 77 - 3I Occupation: Cart Pr o v s d ee_ Does your work require you to travel? (check one) A great deal Periodically Very little X Not at all Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use (Use separate sheet if T necessary) rh f'e k 'p up C ko VVI.A.7fr A yypeAdi i Its -11 ., VL ali s �' CPa 4-e f'v) t$ e'e5J Board or Commission in which you are interested? Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: /3 fir 7 1/4 / vii Dvf c4 , 5-Y, of Conflict of , interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or indirect. In accordance with this definition, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which could be constructed as a conflict of interest? Yes No X . If yes, please provide the details on a separate sheet of paper. Please list three references (Name, Address and Phone) : 1. 1eao# .e !/ A4pad S.� S foI MYr S� Lice5 1L 2 . I1GNL1-.‘ w4T mcwr I't !! Pe•Ai M,dr S� ! -?S`t'y 3 . (( Sc o LSS WZ I-Go S'^ 7�'Z-S�!I O I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 1,$ .4'ie;gr/"417 Signature RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: - 13-902- Date City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 445-3650 I j DATE RECEIVED: ' 1' - . APPLICATION FOR COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COMMISSIONS City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 We welcome you as a possible applicant for one of our City Boards and/or Commissions. What are the qualifications for serving on these advisory Boards and Commissions? You must be a resident of Shakopee, except where non residency is permitted by Council resolution, and more importantly, you must have an interest in serving your community. The Boards and Commissions meet during the evening and typically have from one to two meetings per month, as follows: Planning Commission/Board of 1st Thursday after 1st Adjustments and Appeals Tuesday at 7: 30 p.m. Community Development Commission 3rd Wednesday at 5: 00 p.m. Energy & Transportation Committee 3rd Wednesday at 7 : 00 p.m. Ad HOC Downtown Committee 2nd Wednesday of month or as needed at 7 : 45 a.m. Cable Communication Commission Quarterly or as needed on Monday at 7 : 30 p.m. Housing Advisory and Appeal Board As Needed Building Code Board of Adjustment As Needed & Appeals Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 1st Monday at 4 : 30 p.m. Shakopee Community Recreation 3rd Monday at 7 : 00 p.m. Police Civil Service Commission As Needed Shakopee Youth Building Committee As Needed Name: Richard G. darks Address: 12951 Koeper Avenue/1100 E. 4th Ave Suite 210 Phone: (H) 445-5038 (B) 445-9100 How long have you been a resident of Shakopee? Business-5 years Occupation: Professional Real Estate Appraiser, MAI Does your work require you to travel? (check one) A great deal Periodically xx Very little Not at all Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use? (Use separate sheet if necessary) Real Estate Appraiser since 1978, formerly deputy assessor in City of Plymouth. Understand the board of review process. 3 `-Y ' t . Board or Commission in which you are interested? Board of Review Shakopee, 1990 Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: I have been long term resident in the Shakopee area, and have served on various boards, conauissions and organizations within the City over the past 12 years. I have been requested to submit an application for the board of review for property valuation in Shakopee. Since I have appraised real estate in this area over the past 10 years, I am willing to offer my expertise to help the city in this process. Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision from which the individual has or could have the potential to receive personal gain, whether it be direct or indirect. In accordance with this definition, do you have any legal or equitable interest in any business, however organized, which could be constructed as a conflict of interest? Yes No x If yes, please provide the details on a separate sheet of paper. Please list three references (Name, Address and Phone) : 1. Terry Joos, 1251 S. Harrison Street, 445-2011 2 . Todd Schwartz, 1178 S. Tyler Street, 445-4942 3 . Robert Schmitt, 855 S. Market Street, 445-4784 I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. i Signature RETURN APPLICATION AND 4-j- 020 ` qq PLEDGE TO: Date City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 445-3650 ob() DATE RECEIVED: i �-� • RESOLUTION NO. 3523 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, THAT THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS ARE HEREBY MADE: 1. Nancy Christensen and Joe Zak are appointed to the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals for four year terms ending January 31, 1996. 2 . Joe Kelly is appointed to the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals to fill the unexpired term of Joan Lynch ending January 31, 1995. 3 . Randy Laurent and Jim Link are appointed to the Housing Advisory & Appeals Board and the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals for three year terms expiring January 31, 1995. 4. Elmer Otto is appointed to the Energy & Transportation Committee for a three year term expiring January 31, 1995. 5. Eldon Reinke and Richard Marks are appointed to the Board of Review for 1992 . 6. Bill Anderson and Ken Scannell are appointed to the Community Access Corporation Board of Directors and the Cable Communications Advisory Commission for three year terms expiring January 31, 1995. 7. Michael Phillips and Cole Van Horn are appointed to the Community Development Commission for three year terms expiring January 31, 1995. 8. Elmer Otto is appointed to the Community Development Commission to fill the unexpired term of Michael Beard ending January 31, 1993 . 9 . Jim Cook is appointed to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for a three year term expiring March 31, 1995. 10. is appointed to the Police Civil Service Commission for a three year term expiring January 31, 1995. 11. Steve Johnson and Robert Tomczik are appointed to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board for three year terms expiring January 31, 1995. Adopted in Adjourned Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of January, 1992 . ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney izA MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Steve Hurley, MIS Coordinator SUBJECT: Computer Equipment Purchase - Police DATE: January 14 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: The Police Department has $5 , 000 in its 1992 Capital Equipment budget for the purchase of computer equipment. BACKGROUND: Two new PC's are needed to upgrade the Police network. The new equipment will replace older and slower PC' s now used by clerical personnel. The replaced machines will replace two other PC' s used by two detectives. The oldest PC' s will continue to function on the network as workstations dedicated to a single application. One new PC, a NEC 386sx, will replace the existing IBM PS/2 Model 30 now being used as a connection to the State BCA. Additional speed and memory will improve the processing of State data. The other, a 386-33Mhz PC, will replace a 286-12Mhz computer greatly enhancing the through-put of information in the department. QUOTATIONS VENDOR PRICES (1) 386-33MHz PC (1) NEC 386SX 3 . 5 & 5. 25 F. D. 20Mhz 80 Mb H.D. 45Mb H. D. 2 Mb RAM 2 MB RAM VGA Monitor 3 . 5 & 5 . 25 Mouse drives NEC VGA monitor Arcnet card PC TAILORS $1, 420 Roseville (Includes 105Mb H.D. ) 633-8240 PC EXPRESS $1, 689 Richfield 861-5555 INTERNATIONAL PC WHOLESALE $1,479 New Hope 593-0988 AMERIDATA $2 , 015 Minneapolis 557-2592 * Ameridata has been awarded a State contract for supplying computer equipment. They have been the City's vendor for PC's that. must connect the police department with the State computer system. Only two manufacturers have been approved by the BCA, IBM and NEC. Since IBM's cost for a similarly equiped PC is about $1,400 more, only the NEC price is shown. RECOMMENDATION: Purchase one, (1) 386-33MHz PC's as configured above from PC Tailors, Roseville for a total price of $1,420 and one (1) NEC 386SX PC from Ameridata for $2, 015 for a total cost of $3,435. Funds to come from 1992 Police Capital Equipment budget. REQUESTED ACTION: Move to approve the purchase of one (1) 386-33Mhz PC's from PC Tailors, Roseville for a cost of $1,420 and one (1) NEC 386SX PC from Ameridata for $2, 015 for a total cost of $3,435. CONSEN J•56 , MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Jackson/Harrison Street Project No. 1991-2 DATE: January 14 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: Staff is requesting that the City Council set a date for the public hearing to consider the proposed special assessments for the Jackson Street/Harrison Street Project. BACKGROUND: The Jackson Street/Harrison Street Reconstruction Project is essentially completed and all project costs have been identified. This project consisted of reconstructing Jackson Street and Harrison Street between 11th Avenue and 12th Avenue. The final project costs are $147 , 730.92 . This consists of construction costs totalling $113 , 991. 75 and engineering/ administrative costs of $33 ,739. 17. The original feasibility report had estimated the total project costs to be $140, 800. 00. The final projects costs are approximately 4 .9% higher than what was originally estimated in the feasibility report. The feasibility report had also recommended that this project be assessed 25% to the abutting benefitted property owners and also that the assessment be pro-rated based on the fact that the street did not reach its service life of 20 years. Based on the life of the street of 15 years, the assessment was pro-rated 75% and the total amount assessed was 18 . 75%. The assessment calculations are in conformance with the current policies and were accepted by the City Council at the public hearing ordering the project. Prior to levying any assessments on this project a public hearing must be held. Attached is Resolution No. 3526, which declares the cost to be assessed and sets the date for the public hearing for February 18, 1992 . ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3526 which sets the date for the public hearing for February 18, 1992 . 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3526. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3526, A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for the Jackson Street/Harrison Street Project, Between 11th Avenue and 12th Avenue, Project No. 1991-2 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM3526 RESOLUTION NO. 3526 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments For The Jackson Street/Harrison Street Project Between 11th Avenue and 12th Avenue Project No. 1991-2 WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of: Jackson Street and Harrison Street, between 11th Avenue and 12th Avenue, and the contract price for such improvements is $113 , 991. 75, the construction contingency amounts to $ -0- and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $33 , 739 . 17 so that the total cost of the improvements will be $147 , 730. 92 and of this cost the City of Shakopee will pay $120, 031. 37 as its share of the cost. _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $27 , 699 . 55. 2 . The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and she shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3 . That the City Clerk shall , upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 18th day of February, 1992 , in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7 : 30 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2 . That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. She shall also cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney CONSENT MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Apgar Street Feasibility Report DATE: January 13 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: Staff is requesting that the City Council of Shakopee amend Resolution No. 3517 ordering a feasibility report prepared for Apgar Street between 1st Avenue to 6th Avenue to include studying the following streets in conjunction with Apgar Street: Pierce Street, 3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue; Shumway Street, 3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue; and 2nd Avenue, Pierce Street to Apgar Street. BACKGROUND: On January 7 , 1992 the City Council ordered a feasibility report prepared for Apgar Street between 1st Avenue and 6th Avenue by Resolution No. 3517 . Upon a preliminary analysis of the subject area, staff feels that additional streets adjacent to Apgar Street should be included in this feasibility report, as follows: Pierce Street - 3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue Shumway Street - 3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue 2nd Avenue - Pierce Street to Apgar Street (See attached map for street locations) Staff would like to include these street segments in the same feasibility report as Apgar Street for upgrading at the same time due to the fact that these streets are substandard, have inadequate utilities and poor drainage. Pierce Street and portions of 2nd Avenue are still gravel streets, while Shumway Street and portions of 2nd Avenue do not have sewer and water mains. There are residential properties in this area that are still on septic systems and wells. There is extremely poor drainage on portions of 2nd Avenue, resulting in icy conditions that must be sanded and maintained almost continuously throughout the winter. In 1990, the City Council of Shakopee adopted a 5-year plan for upgrading all gravel roads within urban Shakopee. These street segments were included in that report and proposed to be upgraded in the third year of the 5-year plan or 1992 . Based on the above discussion, staff would like to request that the resolution ordering a feasibility report for Apgar Street be amended to include the aforementioned street segments. Attached is Resolution No. 3527 , amending Resolution No. 3517. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3527 . 2 . Deny Resolution No. 3527 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3527 , A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 3517 (Ordering a Feasibility Report Prepared on Apgar Street between 1st Avenue and 6th Avenue) to Include Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Report for Improvments to: Pierce Street, 3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue; Shumway Street, 3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue; 2nd Avenue, Pierce Street to Apgar Street and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM3527 RESOLUTION NO. 3517 A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement To Apgar Street, Between 6th Avenue And 1st Avenue WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Apgar Street, between 6th Avenue and 1st Avenue by street reconstruction, curb & gutter and utilities and to assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAROPEE, 'MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to David E. Hutton, Public Works Director, for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best- be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney r 1 Il'' - i .1 .._ • PROPOSED AMENDMENT - , ft_l<l<t»W-1•I IN NI( mi■ LA PARK 9 REC •' .i , a I ; 1.rift ?f✓F 'BLDG _ :J I _ I" = 11 '1 111111 Kse 1 -2-1 l.i--n.2.-i-____'_ I 1 A 1' q f111� Ilw 1 ii: _. —�_ `_ e _ 1 Io11111 1! 11. 1, — EI_. i1111i 1 A AVFo K - -- * _ - — -I-_=tom Q . e • STATION ° • o N. 1---1----T. ___ -- , ;11 : 0111 . ,�IR� 1 r�� , rIll T`1.1: -(4._ 1 l I--"--1= Niill l I I l,� l-741 .fid f 1! Z A i. .• x( 11 li 117 ST 4 .. �� ° 1:1 it' 1,1 11v MARKS ''I 1` A -+�, , . - l �� j i LHU RCHt �. 3 I ' j ! I SCHOOL I.. ,, �-l Ii � 1I 1. [411,1. LI N •v l�rh 1..,. . 1 _ . 1 _�. _ 1 - HOLME S �„ �u t rs F .p .d • 'Q T- V • L ' N PARK 1 �I 1 1 f i-J \l •` : • 1 _ 1 <4`' tIi 5(h !1 Afr 1�`h �, AYE c S i I 111111 CVO RAL MAF I I . E m I ‘ 1 I I I - t to - V V CHU • k I -I I . I • - I j E SCHOOL SCH it 161h1. I .. I _ _�_ i 1 1. 1 . 1 l _,__ 14' . 6,ti A l' �-EASIBILTY ORDERED I kiWi l ► �. . u ruuIinrui rrmTnkakai������imr����ka��r�ka��rrrrTrn�karka�r�r �r I 7 i191��� 11 �� . I. 1, ems 1 - _ - ' f , _ LIL ,� - s ST. •HNS wan a _ LUTH. I 1111 _ �' R a s 3 a 11----- it � 1111111.: . i' .... V G iN ': 4 , ail S _._ ___ __ low aft ' - 't _ Illir a A --j _ _ 4 . , , 48 - - _ - e 1�' i 11 1 I n�- e i is (1 - AN ® 11 uC) L I W G I 5c. MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator /4 FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Muhlenhardt Road DATE: January 14 , 1992 INTRODUCTION: Staff is requesting that the City Council set a public hearing to consider improvements to Muhlenhardt Road by adopting Resolution No. 3528 . BACKGROUND: On September 18, 1990 the City Council of Shakopee ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for street improvements to Muhlenhardt Road by Resolution No. 3286. The feasibility report was initiated by staff as part of the Capital Improvements Program due to the extremely high maintenance costs associated with this road. Concurrently, the City of Shakopee received a petition from the majority of property owners to vacate a portion of this road due to safety concerns. The completed report investigates both the feasibility of upgrading this road as well as the potential for vacating portions of the road. The feasibility report has been completed and is attached. This report took longer than normal to complete due to the complexity of the issues involving both upgrading and vacations. In addition, staff took additional steps during the preparation of the report that are not normally part of the process such as obtaining a Planning Commission recommendation and holding a neighborhood meeting to solicit input. In addition to the recommendations in the feasibility report, additional alternatives were developed as the result of the neighborhood input. Attached are the maps showing the various alternatives that will be presented at the public hearing. Staff will give a presentation at the public hearing on the feasibility report and the various alternatives. Staff is requesting that a public hearing be set by adopting the attached Resolution. The public hearing will be both to consider an improvement and to consider possible vacation of public right- of-way. The legal notices that will be sent out will include a cover letter explaining the dual purpose of the public hearing. Staff is proposing to hold this public hearing on February 18 , 1992 . Another public hearing has already been set for that meeting, namely the assessment hearing for the Jackson/Harrison street hearing. For that hearing, 44 notices will be sent out and if the City Council desires to hold the Muhlenhardt Road hearing on a separate date, staff recommends delaying it until the first meeting in March, whatever date that is. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3528, setting the public hearing for February 18, 1992 . 2 . Adopt Resolution No. 3528, but set a different date for the public hearing. 3 . Deny Resolution No. 3528 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Typically, the special assessment hearings do not generate much attendance and the staff presentation tends to be fairly short and concise. On the other hand, Muhlenhardt Road will generate a substantial amount of interest and the staff presentation will be quite lengthy due to the number of issues involved. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3258, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on an Improvement to Muhlenhardt Road Between County Road 16 and County Road 18, Project No. 1992-2 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM3528 RESOLUTION NO. 3528 A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling A Hearing On An Improvement To Muhlenhardt Road Between County Road 16 And County Road 18 Project No. 1992-2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 3286 of the City Council adopted September 18 , 1990, a report has been prepared by David E. Hutton, Public Works Director, with reference to the improvements of Muhlenhardt Road between County Road 16 and County Road 18, and this report was received by the Council on January 21, 1992 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of Muhlenhardt Road between County Road 16 and County Road 18 by pavement and storm drainage facilities in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting and benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of - $172 , 100 . 00. 2 . A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 18th day of February, 1992 , at 7 : 30 P.M. , or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 129 East 1st Avenue and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 3 . The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 1992-2 Public Improvement Program. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney ALTERNATIVE NO . 1 0 C.R. 16 ________________----)4 N j - -tSEGMMGENRTE aTA rxo f 5 - I-- C.R. 16 � JI PROPOSED VACATED ROADWAYC NoR/zoN DR t SEGMENT B : c) i PROPOSED VACATED ROADWAY1 . PROPOSED r/W///// i RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE NO . 2 0 C.R. 16 Q N r r r Nrr 2f MCCUIRE' C7 i Ur---- -- icUC.R. 16 Q = 1 z PROPOSED VACATED ROADWAY SONS�T eT 2 _ hr°R/Zr) DR r� PROPOSED .�//,' RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE NO . 3 0 C.R. 16 4 r I r L,15. r x CK r Mc�jur�ECT H r �V �/ -- o r C.R. 16 Q/ L: a: / zr -i; SONS = r m ; C C7- 2 / Ts• 2r r fN°R/ZoN DR cbG� PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE NO . 4 0 C.R. 16 Q r r LLI g i O MCGUI F CT r Ut - oY � C.R. 16 II i S) r r cl-• G' , r' ., PROPOSED % RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE NO . 5 NO STREET IMPROVEMENTS n C.R. 16 c MCGUIRE- CT U' -- o, �51 C.R. 16 LIJ z Z SL� C S4- CT DR t BARRICADE 'i► PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE NO . 6 0 C.R. 16 Q r 1 r r r �� MC cCT� - 0 C.R. 16 Q IZ = SUNS HoRlzoN o • • i r 0 i / PROPOSED r== RECONSTRUCTION 4 + FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO MUHLENHARDT ROAD BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 16 AND COUNTY ROAD 18 LOCATED IN SECTION 13 AND 24 RANGE 22 TOWNSHIP 115 CITY OF SHAKOPEE SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA a I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engin-er nder the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date 4,C/9/ Registration no. 19133 . NOVEMBER 1991 1111 REPORT CAN BE FOUND IN THE 1992-2 PROJECT FILE. N MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: 1992 Regional Transit Board Contract for Transportation Services - Resolution No. 3531 DATE: January 15, 1992 INTRODUCTION: Each year the City of Shakopee enters into an agreement with the Regional Transit Board for transit service funding. In order to continue transit service levels as they presently exist within our community, the City of Shakopee must enter into an agreement with the Regional Transit Board for funding in 1992 . BACKGROUND: On January 8, 1992, staff received an agreement from the Regional Transit Board that provides funding for our program in 1992 . The contract agreement simply establishes the amount of funding for our program in 1992 and the process by which these funds will be disbursed in the City. Due to the length of the agreement I have not enclosed a copy with this memo. Copies are available in my office if you wish to review one before the meeting. The agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Attached is Resolution No. 3531, authorizing the appropriate City officials to enter into a service contract agreement with the Regional Transit Board to provide public transportation service in Shakopee for the calendar year 1992. The resolution also specifies that the City of Shakopee will not be responsible for any transit deficit that may occur in conjunction with our transit program. The 1992 agreement provides funding in the amount of $236, 360. The proposed agreement allows us to maintain service at existing levels. If we wish to add more service in 1992, the agreement can be amended accordingly at that time. ALTERNATIVE: 1. Move to approve Resolution No. 3531. 2 . Do not approve Resolution No. 3531. 3 . Table approval of Resolution No. 3531 pending further information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3531, A Resolution Authorizing the City of Shakopee to Enter Into a Service Contract with the Regional Transit Board to Provide Public Transportation Service in Shakopee for Calendar Year 1992 , and move its adoption. BAS/tiv R&M3531 RESOLUTION NO. 3531 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE TO ENTER INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD TO PROVIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN SHAKOPEE FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1992 Resolved that the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, enter into contract with the Regional Transit Board, to provide public transportation service in Shakopee. Further resolved that the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, agrees to provide -0- percent of the transit project from local funds for State Transit assistance and/or exurban funding. Further resolved that authorization to execute the aforementioned contract and any amendments thereto is hereby given to the City Administrator, City Clerk and the Mayor. Further resolved that the City Administrator or the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute requests for reimbursement from the Regional Transit Board. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney COSENT / ..,2) MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Adm' ' strator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clem_ RE: Application for One Day Off-Ste Lawful Gambling Permit DATE: January 13, 1992 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: The All Saints Catholic Church of Lakeville, Minnesota, is holding a banquet at the Shakopee Ballroom, 2400 East 4th Avenue on February 29, 1992 . They are making application for a one day off- site lawful gambling permit in order to hold a raffle at the banquet. When submitting the application to the Minnesota Gambling Control Board, they must include a Resolution from the local unit of government specifically approving or denying their application. The Shakopee City Code does permit an organization holding a State gambling license regardless where based or located to conduct not more than one raffle in any given year if it is held in conjunction with a banquet and or a dance. All Saints Catholic Church does hold a State gambling license and therefore does meet the requirements of the Shakopee City Code. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 3524, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving a One Day Off-Site Lawful Gambling Permit for All Saints Catholic Church, and move its adoption. JSC/tiv COSET\ MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Merger of the Community Development Commission and Downtown Committee - Resolution No. 3533 DATE: January 16, 1992 INTRODUCTION: On January 7 , 1992 , the Shakopee City Council directed staff to take appropriate action to facilitate the merger of the Community Development Commission and Downtown Committee. BACKGROUND: On January 7 , 1992 , felt that it was in best interest of the City to merge the Community Development Commission with the Downtown Committee. Several of the current Downtown Committee members have expressed interest in serving on the Community Development Commission. This should provide for a smooth transition. Attached is Resolution No. 3533 , A Resolution Assigning the Activities of the Downtown Committee to the Community Development Commission. It would be appropriate at this time to offer Resolution No. 3533 , which would facilitate said merger. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer Resolution No. 3533 , A Resolution Assigning the Activities of the Downtown Committee to the Community Development Commission, and move its adoption. 2 . Amend Resolution No. 3533 , and move its adoption. 3 . Table action pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3533 , A Resolution Assigning the Activities of the Downtown Committee to the Community Development Commission. BAS/tiv R&M3533 RESOLUTION NO. 3533 A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE AND ASSIGNING THEIR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council established the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee as a sub-committee of the Industrial Commercial Commission on April 21, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Ad Hoc Downtown Committee was established and assigned the responsibility of preparing a downtown economic development strategy to the Industrial Commercial Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, on December 27, 1983 , the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee presented to the City Council for their review and consideration a downtown revitalization plan; and WHEREAS, in the spring of 1987 , Phase I of the downtown revitalization plan was initiated; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council believes that the Downtown Committee has completed it' s initial objectives as set forth by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council finds it desirous to streamline the review process in regard to downtown development issues; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Community Development Commission was created to maintain and develop a positive industrial and commercial business climate within the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, the former duties and responsibilities of Downtown Committee can best be served by the Community Development Commission at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL, that the Community Development Commission shall assume the duties, activities and responsibilities of Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Shakopee City Council hereby acknowledges and expresses it' s appreciation for the many hours of time volunteered by those persons who served on the Downtown Committee since its inception in 1981. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney / �0,, rC* MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Ad 'nistrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk _ RE: Request for Reimbursement P rsuant to Agreement DATE: January 21, 1992 INTRODUCTION: The City has received a request for reimbursement of a portion of the cost of crossing Eagle Creek Boulevard with sewer and water, pursuant to an agreement dated December 7th, 1987 . BACKGROUND: When sewer and water were installed in CR-16, they were installed on the North side of the street as opposed to down the center of the street. This caused a longer distance for the properties to the South to connect to the sewer and water. Because of this situation, the city agreed to share in the cost to bring sewer and water to the South for the developer of the Eagle Creek Junction Addition. The City and the Developer entered into an agreement in 1987 whereby the City agreed to participate in $78 . 80% of the cost of four water and sewer lateral crossings. One cost participation has already been made. Another sewer and water crossing was made with the development of Eagle Creek 3rd Addition and a cost participation is being requested, pursuant to the 1987 agreement. The current property owner, Laurent Builders, Inc. , is a successor to the original developer, Inca Development. The agreement is binding upon successors of the original parties, Inca Development. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the City Engineer has approved the cost of $14 , 153 . 12 for the crossings. The Developer is entitled to 78 . 80% of this amount. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the payment of $11, 152 . 66 to Laurent Builders Inc. for reimbursement of a portion of the cost of crossing Eagle Creek Boulevard with sewer and water pursuant to the agreement between Inca Development and the City dated December 7 , 1987 . A6IL The Laurent Building L A U R E N T Corporate Office 128 South Fuller Street, Shakopee, MN 55379B U I L D E R 5,A1 N C. (612) 445-6745 January 16, 1992 Dennis Kraft City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Dennis, Please find attached a copy of an agreement dated December 7, 1987 between Inca Development and the City of Shakopee. This agreement provided for reimbursement of a portion of the cost of crossing Eagle Creek Boulevard with sewer and water. As Laurent Builders, Inc. is a successor to Inca Development and has recently completed bringing sewer and water across Eagle Creek Boulevard, we hereby request the city remitt $ 11,152.66 to Laurent Builders, Inc. This amount is 78.80%, (as provided in the agreement), of the cost of crossing as shown by our engineers breakdown hereto attached. It appears that the agreement authorizes the proper City officials to carry out the execution of the agreement; but if you believe it necessary to take this to council,we would request that be done on January 21, 1992. In any case, we would appreciate a prompt remittance of the above amount. Thank you for your service. Sincerely, Randy R. Laurent Vice President RRL;kp BUILDERS • DEVELOPERS PAGE 1 of 1 0„:,/ UTILITY CROSSING COSTS CR16 AT ROUNDHOUSE CST EAGLE CREEK JUNCPION 3RD ADDITION 1/15/92 SHAKOPEE, MN ' �J A0-i t i i e_S CONTRACTOR: BARBAROSSA & SONS, INC. 9 ASE WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION 1 CONN. TO EX WATERMAIN 1 EA 750.00 750.00 Ct< 2 6" DIP 77.5 LF 24.00 1860.00 o < 3 FITTING 435 LB 1 .00 435.00 0K 4 6" GATE VALVE 1 EA 400.00 400.00 5 RECONSTRUCT CR16 FOR WM 1 LS 2500.00 2500.00 6 ROCK EXCAVATION 109 CY 0.10 _ _10.90 SUBTOTAL WATERMAIN $5,955.90 SANITARY SEWER R CONSTRUCTION 1 CONN. TO EX SS 1 EA 612.00 612.00 ''' 2 MANHOLE 1 EA 1250.00 1250.00 3 8" PVC SEWER, SDR35, 0-13' 80 LF 43.00 3440.00 4 EXTRA DEPTH MANHOLE 5.7 LF 70.00 399.00 5 OUTSIDE DROP 1 LS 650.16 650.16 " SUBTOTAL SANITARY S $6,351 .16 TOTAL o Er X rION COST WATERMAIN $5,955.90 SANITARY SEWER ,$6,351 .16 CONSTRUCTION COST $12,307.06 ENGINEERING, SURVE'YING, AND ADMIN. 15% $1,846.06 TOTAL CROSSING COST $14,153.12 / hr. : "`° H /�.sa7 , 6� SIGNEN �� ENGINEER 44 d�/ v�4f_co.✓ - jjtp ,2/-9a- , ,o16 1 g7 RI �(• gs THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into by and between Inca Development, party of the first part, and the City of Shakopee, a municipal corporation pur- suant to the laws of the State of Minnesota, party of the second part,, WHEREAS, On June 10, 1986 a Motion was duly made, seconded and adopted directing the proper City officials to enter into a Developers' Agreement whereby the City would participate in 78,80% of the cost of one water and sewer lateral crossing of Eagle Creek. Boulevard to the proposed Eagle Creek Junction plat and 78.80% of the future cost of a maximum additional three-sewer and water lateral lateral crossings of Eagle Creek Boulevard to the remaining property in said plat, and that the cost of such. participation be taken from the special assessment fund. THEREFORE, In consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable con- sideration, by and between the parties hereto, IT IS HEREBY CQNVENANTED AND.'AGREED That the party of the first part has constructed a water and sewer lateral across and under Eagle Creek Boulevard from the City main to Eagle Creek Junction plat for which the City of Shakopee is to pay 78.80% of the costs thereof; and IT IS FURTHER AGREED by and between the parties hereto that the City will pay up to a maximum of 78.80% of the future costs of not to exceed three additional such crossings, providing that the total cost of such crossing improvements be approved by the City Engineer before any work is commenced on any such additional crossings by the party of the first part. IT IS FURTHER AGREED That the cost of such participation shall he taken from the special assessment fund. IT IS FURTHER AGREED By and between the parties hereto that this agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, assigns and successors of the parties hereto and the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to carry out the terms and purposes of this agreement and to execute the same. THIS AGREEMENT is dated this r / day of / , 198 i. INCA DEVELOPMENT _.._`trtxne BY.:. By A. Cc' By CITY 0 SHAKOPEE , �' J i Its ayor Byc. ►,- f, L C,• ; /jl>ZL_ Its Cit; A:mi�}istrator /1 ' C.-- / !,*Y,f.i t Its City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF SCOTT ) / The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 198 by r ' 7, • and of INCA DEVELOPMENT, a Minnesota Corporation, on behalf of the corporation. << J Notary Stamp or Seal / (4 ;, ��GGCI Rrymond C3.Ruuska STATE OF MINNESOTA ) NailioireaRitictitnesK. SS Li 12421192 COUNTY OF SCOTT ) • The foregi g instrunient,e as acknowledge before me this /V d ay of , 1987 by , ! 1 / its Mayor, John K. Anderson, its City Administrator ' - OWE and by iu•:de` A. Cox, its City Clerk, of The City of ShakoPee, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Stamp or Seal 4..44 : . - __� ;;� :cr,A Hullandej Notary Public-Minnesota esota •c Hensen County My Comrn.Exp.12-21-42 4 /1. b. RESOLUTION NO. 3534 A RESOLUTION SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF MUHLENHARDT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that portions of Muhlenhardt Road between County Road 16 and County Road 18 serve no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before such action can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 18th day of February, 1992 at 7 : 30 p.m. , or thereafter, on the matter of vacating portions of Muhlenhardt Road between County Road 16 and County Road 18 . WHEREAS, two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U. S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1992 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney