Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/1999 TENTATIVE AGENDA February 2, 1999 Page -2- 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions continued: B] Amendment to Zoning Ordinance relating to the shoreland district - Ord. No. 537 C] Amendment to Zoning Ordinance relating to conditional use permits and variances - Ord. 538 D] Park and Recreation Facilities Bond Proposal E] Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Improvements 15] General Business A] Public Works and Engineering *1. Engineering Consultant Contract Extensions *2. Additional Compensation to Complete the Storm Water Management Plan 3. Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Feasibility Study for Improvements to Sarazin Street South of St. Francis Avenue-Res. No. 5060 B] Police and Fire C] Parks and Recreation 1. Southbridge Park Land Sale - School Site 2. Community Park- SouthbridgefMnDOT Property D] Community Development 1. Sand Companies appeal of BOAA denial of a conditional use permit for multiple structures on one lot in the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zone *2. Approve Job Description and Authorize Recruitment of Office Service Worker 3. Amendment to City Code to Allow Massage Centers in the Major Recreation District E] General Administration *1] Temporary Liquor Licenses - St. Mark's Church *2] Nominations to Boards and Commissions *3] Application for Tattoo License - Polly Sills 4] 1999 Fee Schedule Changes *5] Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreements 16] Other Business 17] Recess for executive session to discuss labor negotiations 18] Re-convene 19] Adjourn to Thursday, February 4, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 2, 1999 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report 5] Approval of Consent Business- (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS - (Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) *7] Approval of Minutes of November 4, 10, and 17, 1998, and January 11, 1999 *8] Approve Bills in the Amount of$303,424.64 9] Communications: 10] Public Hearings: 11] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 12] Recess for an Economic Development Authority Meeting 13] Re-convene 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: *A] Final Plat of Condominiums of Shenandoah Place, located north of CR-16, east of Sarazin Street and west of Canterbury Park-Res. No. 5058 TENTATIVE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 1. Regular Meeting February 2, 1999 2. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of Consent Business-(All items noted by an 4 are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the President,there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion.Those items removed will be consideredin their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 5. 4 Approval of Minutes: v.k ,e .. .". t`1)' 8 6. Financial 4 A.)Approval of Bills 7. Other Business: 8. Adjourn to February 16, 1999 edagendadoc OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 1998 Members Present: Brekke, DuBois, Sweeney, Amundson, and President Link Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeil, City Administrator and R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director Others Present: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk and Jim Thomson, City Attorney I. Roll Call President Link called the meeting to order at 8:20 P.M. Roll was taken as noted above. II. Approval of Agenda Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. III. Approval of Minutes Brekke/DuBois moved to approve the minutes of September 3rd, 1998. Motion carried with President Link abstaining. DuBois/Amundson moved to approve the minutes of September 14th, and October 6, 1998. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Financial A. Approval of Bills Brekke/Amundson moved to approve bills in the amount of$372.31 for the E.D.A. General Fund and $104.98 for Seagate. Motion carried unanimously. V. Other Business None. VI. Adjournment Amun.dson/Sweeney moved to adjourn to December 1, 1998. Motion carried unanimously. ilitkJA The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. J • dith S. Cox .D.A. Secretary Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CON S �i�� l TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: January 28, 1999 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA and Seagate fund for the period 12/31/98 to 01/28/99 . Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $205.15 for the EDA General Fund and $1, 029 .23 for Seagate. E+ 11 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II H II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O II 11 W �I 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 11 x II U II II Ln «1 M 1"I (4) II In CO II H .--1 N N N N CY.II E+ II H II II O O� N N N N d W II N 0 0 0 0 NII N Q II H H H H .--111 11 II El II r2.4 II x cn viii o 0 II II . II co co II at 0 u U) II n 0 Ey CW. II A Z c U Q z 0 0 H H U) U) 0 U) W W 114 G'' 0 0 a a a H Z z rn Z 0 H H `t1 W d, 0 H El A El N �aH z U) }� H U z E-1 U E� 0 co WH A H 5 Ell H al 0U r4 H 7 ,D °° W O N > H N II II II 14 al x II 0 o U 11 C N to [s� o O M O 11 to o U z II O O O O at a% a% 01 H H H H H W m M El 04 N N 0 H H * * * * 4. * * * H U d' 0 01 6t H to H In * H H '-I 1O d' d' * 0 W * z Z 0 0 0 * h , H H W 14 4 W 0 > a d' 0 H 0 0 o H a H 0 . G+ 0 Wril H °' 0 0 C] H Q H H N o * * A * to 0 0 * zi,, I-I 0 0 41e>' El El * N OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 4, 1998 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Amundson, Link, DuBois and Sweeney present. Also present: Mark McNeil, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Terry Link, Fire Chief; and Dan Hughes, Chief of Police. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The following items were added to the agenda: S.A. Park Survey, S.B. Valley Haven Park Update, 16.A. Tobacco Hearings, and under 17 Executive Session add pending litigation. Link/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Cncl. Sweeney reported that Public Works Director, Bruce Loney; Administrative Services Director, Ron Ward of I.S.D. 720; and himself, met with Brad Larson of the County to discuss traffic control options adjacent to the Junior High. As a result of that meeting, it was determined that traffic warrants are likely already met for flashing amber lights at the crosswalk advance warning signs. Temporary signs will be placed this fall. Ultimately, it is the intent to be able to control when the flashers are in operation. The County has given permission to paint"School Xing" on the C.R. 17 pavement at Prairie Lane for the northbound traffic, as well as at 11th Avenue. The painting was scheduled to occur November 4, 1998. An advance warning sign will also be placed south of Prairie Lane, as well as direct locational crosswalk signs at Prairie Lane. The cost of the flashers will be $3,000 - $4,000 each (total of$6,000 - $8,000). Funding will come from the street budget with a budget amendment. Mayor Brekke read a Resolution of Appreciation to Bryan Koch and presented him with a framed copy. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5009, A Resolution of Appreciation to Bryan D. Koch, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke gave the Mayor's report. Mayor Brekke reported that information is being gathered to draft a proposed referendum. He said the survey will be a random sample which will be made available for further response. Councilmembers were asked to review the survey and to contact Mark McNeill with any comments. The survey will help City staff to understand what park improvements the residents Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -2- would like to see, where they would like changes, and whether or not they are willing to help support those improvements through approval of a future bond referendum. Mark McNeill reported that Phil Johnson, owner of Valley Haven Park, will be contacting residents of the park to set up a meeting with 3-4 residents to infomally review what they would like to see in a park closing ordinance. Based on that, the City will determine if a meeting is necessary later in November. Althea Rank, Valley Haven Park resident, approached the podium and asked Mayor Brekke if he felt that he was accurately quoted in a recent article relative to a park closing ordinance. She also asked if he was aware that an ordinance does not prevent a park from closing. Mayor Brekke stated that he did feel that he was accurately quoted. He said that a park closing ordinance doesn't legally prevent them from closing the park. However, from an economic standpoint it could make it impossible to close a park. In response to Ms. Rank's comment that the residents are not seeking "additional" protection, Mayor Brekke explained that he interpreted the resident's seeking protection from the City as "additional" protection to the State's Notice of Closure requirement. Ms. Rank stated that there is no actual protection until an ordinance is adopted and hoped that the City staff would read the ordinances of other cities. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. The following item was deleted from the Consent Agenda: 15.D.4. Hovercraft Replacement for Fire Department. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda: 15.D.5 Bureau of Justice Assistance Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; 15.E.2. Personnel/Salary Changes -Resolution No. 5012 A. Assistant City Engineer - Market Pay Adjustment; B. Mike Huber, Engineering Tech II - Promotion, and C. Custodian-Position Reclassification. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 7:37 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Developmental Authority meeting.. The meeting re-convened at 7:50 p.m. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve bills in the amount of$224,278.04. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mayor Brekke opened the Public Hearing on the proposed assessments for public improvements to Eastway Avenue and Timothy Court, Project No. 1997-3. Bruce Loney reported that the project has been completed and all costs have been identified. The final project costs are $258,628.40 which includes construction costs and engineering/administration costs. The project was petitioned 100 percent between the developers and was 100 percent assessed. The previous estimate for this project was $283,281.62. When asked if it is unusual for developers to petition for improvements where there are existing home owners, Bruce Loney said that this is the way. He said unless the project is assessed before home owners move in there would not be any assessment. He said this was vacant property that the developers petitioned for, and during the course of selling property the lending companies will require escrow funds for the assessments. When the assessment hearings take place a notice of the hearing is sent to the property owner of record. In response to Cncl. DuBois' concern that the home owner does not end up with an unexpected assessment, Bruce Loney explained that the petitions are recorded on the property and pending assessments are placed on the parcels. Judith Cox, City Clerk, reported that Developer, Dale Dahlke has stated that all of his closings have 150 percent in escrow with the title company and that he is in agreement with the assessment as proposed. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any interested citizens present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this item. Patty Allison, 631 Timothy Court, approached the podium and stated that she had closed on her home before receiving the assessment notice. She said that she was not aware of the assessment until that time. Chuck Harrison, 614 Timothy Court, approached the podium and said that his assessment was also a surprise. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, stated that the developers are obligated to pay the assessments, not the home owners. Judith Cox stated that Dale Dahlke has advised her that there are funds in escrow. Having no further discussion, Mayor Brekke closed the Public Hearing. Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5010, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Eastway Avenue and Timothy Court Within the Plat of Pinewood Estates and Shenandoah Place, Project No. 1997-3, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Police Chief, Dan Hughes, approached the podium and reported that the City received notification that they were partially funded for two Community Service Officers (CSO) in October for one year and possibly for two additional years. The request was for$53,398. A second request was made for $224,793 to pay for computer equipment needed to facilitate the conversion to the Scott County New World Systems Law Enforcement Record Keeping System. This request was not funded. Chief Hughes attributed the success in receiving the grant to the ability to reallocate 1.6 full time equivalent (FTE) sworn positions to community policing activities through the proposed hiring of CSO's, which would be approved annually. He said he understood the Council's concern regarding an on going personnel expense should the Federal funding cease. The $53,398 grant request requires a 25 percent local match of $13,350. Chief Hughes recommended that the $10,000 allocated to Code Enforcement be used to cover a majority of the match. The balance would come from authorized and unfilled positions within the department. A discussion ensued in which the vacancies and the budget were discussed. Chief Hughes stated that there are currently four vacancies with the possibility of a fifth. He said he would like to begin the search as he wanted the officers on board after the 1st of the year. DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to enter into an agreement with the United States Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Service for a $40,048 COPS MORE 98 grant which will be used to fund community service officer positions. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to buy back the unused holiday hours from the following officers: Gulden 40 Robson 40 Schrot 40 Tate 38 Tucci 40 Crocker 30 Carlson 40 Conway 10 Forberg 35.5 Scherer 40 Lipinski 40 Flynn 40 Dellwo 40 (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page-5- Cncl. Sweeney explained that $25,000 has been budgeted to replace the hovercraft which is now estimated to cost $40,000. He expressed concern, asking if a new hovercraft is necessary if the old one is saleable. Fire Chief, Terry Link, explained that the existing hovercraft was purchased used, is now 9 years old, and was not designed specifically for rescue use. He said the unit uses a 2-cycle snowmobile engine for driving the fan system and has been rebuilt and repaired three times after rescue operations in the last couple of years. He said the new model has a larger carrying capacity and a four cylinder engine, and is more reliable. He requested that bids be taken for the replacement of the existing hovercraft unit. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the Shakopee Fire Department to take competitive bids for the replacement of the existing hovercraft unit. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to enter into a grant agreement with the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance for a $10,896 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5011, A Resolution Terminating the Employment Status of Probationary Employee, Tim Adamek, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize staff to utilize Scott County Personnel Department to advertise for a Maintenance Worker for the Public Works Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize closure of City Hall at noon, December 24th; for the afternoon. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5012, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 5005, Which Adopted the Adjusted 1998 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to adjust the current Assistant City Engineer salary to Step 7 of Grade K of the amended adjusted 1998 Pay Plan with an effective date of November 1, 1998. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the promotion of Michael Huber to Engineering Technical III, effective November 1, 1998, at Step 5 of the 1998 adjusted pay plan and to Step 6 after a successful six month probationary period and with a new anniversary date after a successful probation period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the Building Maintenance Worker job description. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the reclassification of Charles Fuller to Building Maintenance Worker, to be paid at Step 3, Grade A of the recently revised 1998 Pay Plan, effective November 1st. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5008, A Resolution amending Resolution No. 4803 Adopting the 1998 Budget, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Judith Cox reported that the developer of Pheasant Run is asking that the letter of credit for the construction of Valley View Road not be required until a later phase of the development is final platted. She said the Pheasant Run is a phased development and at this time the developer is planning to plat approximately 25 percent of the development. The balance will be set aside as an outlot to be developed in future stages. This plat will include the dedication of half of Valley View Road. When a right-of-way is dedicated in a new plat it is contained in the developers agreement to provide assurance of the construction of a road at a later date. The current developer's agreement requires that 75 percent of the estimate for their portion of the road be set aside in a letter of credit or in cash with the City. A similar situation exists for the developers of Longmeadow, who were also required to submit the 75 percent letter of credit for the future construction of Sarazin Street. Ms. Cox explained that because the construction of the streets involved in these two developments is not anticipated in the near future, this is a policy issue. This is compounded by the fact that the City now requires the 75 percent security as opposed to the 25 percent security that was accepted until this year, and the elimination of a third security option. Cncl. Sweeney explained that the 75 percent security requirement came about due to the problems that arose with the Cambridge project in which the City moved ahead and ended up going to General Levy. He said the only time a developer needs a letter of credit is if he is asking the City to use their bonding authority to front the money for the project. He said he was strongly opposed to changing this requirement at this time, that 75 percent is protection whereas 25 percent is not equal protection. Judith Cox explained that the road under discussion (in Pheasant Run) is being platted to the south of a large outlot that will later be developed in phases. When the future road is constructed, it will benefit two developers, who are requesting that the City construct the road so that half will be assessed to the current developer, and half will be assessed to the property owner to the south. When the City constructs the road the City will sell bonds and let the assessments. Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Shawn Dahl, Ames Construction/Pleasant Run, approached the podium and discussed the location of Valley View Road as it relates to the 1st Phase of Pheasant Run. With Plan A, Ames Construction is constructing the roads and paying for them, as well as providing the bonding and letters of credit to secure the construction and utility installation. Phase II is anticipated to be developed sometime late in 1999. This is the first time that a portion of the development will touch Valley View Road. He said it was his understanding that this is in the Capital Improvement Plan. However, a time line has not been specified for beginning or completion of the road. He said he is not objecting to the financial security requirements, but is asking to defer them. He said the issue is that it is not available to them now and they do not know when it will be finished. Steve Ach, Centex Homes, representing the Longmeadow project, approached the podium and stated that their situation is different from the Pheasant Run Project. He said that they have put up a letter of credit for the future construction of Sarazin Street that has an indefinite construction date. He said their concern is that the security is in place and they have no idea when the road will be built. In addition, he said their entire development is accessed from Brittany Street. He proposed the release of the letter of credit but if they have to secure this he asked for a reasonable time frame to be set for constructing Sarazin Street. A discussion ensued relative to the letter of credit. Cncl. DuBois argued that the letter of credit would be an undue hardship and that this situation is different than in the Pheasant Run situation. She also said that this was not the intent of the 75 percent requirement. Jim Thomson stated that this it not unusual for cities to insure the payment for proposed future streets. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve the request of the developer and delay the deposit of the 75% letter of credit to insure the payment of special assessments for the construction of Valley View Road within Pheasant Run First Addition until the platting of the final phase. Motion failed 4-1 with Cncl. DuBois in favor. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve the request of the developer and delay the deposit of the 75% letter of credit to insure the payment of special assessments for the construction of Sarazin Street within Longmeadow First Addition until the platting of the final phase. Motion failed 4-1 with Cncl. DuBois in favor. Bruce Loney reported that the extension agreement for Council consideration, from WSB & Associates, Inc., is to prepare a preliminary design on the proposed Boat and Ferry Landings and River Outlook in Murphy's Landing. He said that Murphy's Landing has been actively pursuing the reconstruction of historic Murphy's Inn and several other projects, and Dennis Kelly, Executive Director, and Shirley Olson, the previous Executive Director, have been working with various agencies to obtain funding. Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -8- A proposal has been sent to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) and the Prairie Restoration and Handicap Accessible Trail and the Boat Landing, Ferry Landing and Lookout construction have been recommended for approval in the next legislative session. Murphy's Landing does have enough funds to fund the preliminary design work. The request is for the City to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates for this work, with the cost to be reimbursed by Murphy's Landing not to exceed $9,500. Dennis Kelly, Executive Director, Murphy's Landing, approached the podium and explained that the proposal is to turn back to the river, putting a landing in place and reconstructing Murphy's Inn, using modern construction materials. The main floor would be interpretive space, the second floor would be for offices concerned with the environmental and cultural conditions of the Minnesota River Valley. A boat and ferry landing on the river are also proposed. The DNR will also construct a trail to connect the current trail in Memorial Park through Murphy's Landing, the Peavey property, Valley Fair, and tie in with the Old Bloomington Ferry Bridge pedestrian and bicycle bridge. He said the hope is to bring bicycle and pedestrian traffic through Murphy's Landing on this trail. Mr. Kelly stated that the reconstruction of Murphy's Inn is estimated at $850,000. The restoration of the prairie and a barrier free trail from the landing to the Inn, boat landing and ferry construction, and the Minnesota Valley State Trail is estimated at $1,865,000. The City of Shakopee has promised $30,000 in in-kind services and cash in the amount of$25,000. The City of Eden Prairie has made a similar commitment. The Lower Minnesota Watershed District has committed $75,000. All of these commitments are dependent on getting the engineered drawings for WSB to move forward with. The DNR has obtained funding for the trail through its own resources as well as a grant from ISTEE, totaling just over $800,000. Murphy's Landing is securing donations of trade labor and $500,000 cash for the Inn. Bryan Rock has contributed exterior stone in the amount of$45,000, as well as a cash grant from the Stans Foundation to help move forward on the preliminary engineering and to begin to fund the construction of the Inn. $110,000 from the LCMR, contingent upon 1999 legislation, will also help to fund the construction of the landing. Link/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., for the preliminary design of the Boat and Ferry Landings and River Outlook at a cost not-to-exceed $9,500, contingent upon receipt of funds from Murphy's Landing. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 9:01 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 9:12 p.m. Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Marti DeKam, 430 5th Avenue East, approached the podium and stated that she was very unhappy with the lack of service by Waste Management. She explained that she recently moved to Shakopee and has spoken with a representative of Waste Management at least once a week in an attempt to have her trash picked up. She said that her trash service has been sporadic if at all. Sometimes part of her trash has been picked up, other times only the recycle trash has been taken. Sometimes they stop and other times they drive by, picking up trash from her surrounding neighbors. It has been approximately six weeks since she has been dealing with this trash pick up issue and she asked why she could not find a different hauler. She received a $56.00 bill for trash pick up and has only had all of her waste taken once since September 25th. Mark McNeill explained that Waste Management was present approximately six weeks ago due to service complaints. Since that time, there have been fewer complaints. He said that because Ms. DeKam has received sporadic service Waste Management may be able to make an adjustment on the bill she has received. He said that he was not ready to recommend a different hauler and stated that they have made a conscious effort to improve things. A discussion ensued as to how Waste Management is informed that there is a new customer and how the information regarding pickup is communicated to the customer. Mark McNeill will follow up to make sure that Ms. DeKam's trash is picked up. Cncl. Link reminded the Councilmembers that Waste Management representatives have stated that if service is not adequate they would issue a refund. He said that it is now the responsibility of the City to see that Ms. DeKam receives a refund for a lack of service. Cncl. DuBois recommended a policy direction to Waste Management, that before beginning to pick up service for a new customer that they contact the customer, send the customer a packet of information specifically explaining how they want the service handled, what day the pick up is and any other information the customer would need to know in order to receive satisfactory service. Bruce Loney explained that during the platting of Southbridge and the design of improvements for Southbridge Parkway, it was suggested that the Dean Lake diversion channel should be incorporated as requested by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. Several meetings were held regarding this and a verbal agreement was made to proceed with the project and incorporate it into the design. The proposed reimbursement agreement before Council formalizes the previous agreed to amounts by the parties involved. The City Attorney has reviewed this agreement and his comments have been incorporated. Southbridge Development will be assessed 20 percent, and both the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and the Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed Districts will be assessed 25 percent up to $50,000. Official Proceedings of the November 4, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Bruce Loney explained that a channel was previously enlarged to divert waterflow into Dean Lake. He said the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District would like to see a diversion channel so that low flows could be diverted to Dean's Lake if necessary, to improve water quality. Some pipes have been incorporated in the Southbridge Parkway development, which will help recharge the wetlands in the area. The total project costs are estimated at $200,000. The initial cost estimate was approximately $190,000 just nine months ago. Construction of the channel is estimated to be completed over the winter. A discussion ensued relative to the project costs and protection from the overflow of drainage. Sweeney/DuBois moved to table the Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Shakopee, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District for the construction of a system to divert up to 20 cfs of Channel flow around Dean Lake. Motion carried unanimously. In order to expedite the upcoming tobacco violation hearings, Jim Thomson recommended that each tobacco licensee, with a 1st violation, be notified by letter that he may plead guilty and pay a fine rather than having to appear at the hearing. DuBois/Link moved to allow first time tobacco licensee offenders to plead guilty and pay a fine rather than appearing at the tobacco hearings on November 10, 1998. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 9:53 p.m. for an executive session to discuss labor negotiations and pending litigation. The meeting re-convened at 10:12 p.m. No action was taken during the executive session. Sweeney/Amundson moved to adjourn to Tuesday, November 10, 1998, at 6:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. 44,J. ei( I ith S. Cox o x Ity Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 10, 1998 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 6 :15 p.m. with Councilmembers Deb Amundson, Jane DuBois, Cletus Link and Bob Sweeney present . Those absent: None. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Paul Snook, Economic Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director and Judith Cox, City Clerk. Paul Snook stated that a Task Force had been established regarding the downtown parking situation. Mr. Snook stated that the Task Force made recommendations to the EDA and the EDA then pursued the Task Force' s recommendations with WSB who made further recommendations . Mr. Snook then turned the meeting over to Duane Wermerskirchen to speak on behalf of the Task Force. Duane Wermerskirchen approached the podium. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that the Task Force consisted of people from the following businesses: Real Gem Jewelers, Valley Sports, Turtles, Bill 's Toggery, Pablos and the Post Office. The Task Force inventoried the downtown and then did an individual street study with the number of parking spaces available at certain times. From this information gathered, the Task Force identified a few trouble areas. The first area was that of First Avenue. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated the Task Force recommended a two-hour limit for consistency purposes for the parking spaces in front of Valley Sports and the Pullman Club. Mr. Wermerskirchen also noted the area of First and Lewis was congested which was probably due to the fact that business owners were parking there. He also noted that there are approximately 100 spaces behind the new Blocks 3 & 4, however, the public does not know it is available. Mayor Brekke questioned whether some of those spaces may be reserved for residential parking. Mark McNeill replied at the present time, the spaces were not reserved, however, the lot was not to be used for all-day parking for employees and business owners. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated there was no time limit for the parking spaces on Holmes Street in front of City Hall. He also noted that the dental office located on Sommerville has five parking spaces but the spaces are always full which probably means that the dental office employees are parking there. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that the Task Force recommended that these spaces also be limited to two hours to be consistent with other downtown parking. Mr. Wermerskirchen also stated that the four spaces across from the Post Office should have two two-hour parking spaces and two Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -2- 30-minute parking spaces. He also noted that the Highway 169 parking lot causes some concern because there is a three-foot berm there so the parking lot is not visible. He also noted that the stoplight is inconvenient because the vehicles cannot turn there. Mr. Wermerskirchen stat4U the Task Force recommended changing the crosswalk and cutting the berm down. Mr. McNeill noted that Scott County had been consulted regarding the recommendations and would agree with the recommendations, however, there would be a cost involved. Deb Amundson questioned whether making the access available would be helpful if the Huber Park area were ever developed. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that the lot is never used in its present state. Regarding Second Avenue, Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that the Task Force recommended that the two spaces next to City Hall should be two-hour parking for consistency. He also noted that the parking lot at Pablo' s has no signage. Regarding the Post Office, Mr. Wermerskirchen noted there is a green area which could be used for parking and offered a letter from the postmaster. Mr. Wermerskirchen noted that Lewis Street has a number of apartment residents and business people using the parking available. Mr. Wermerskirchen offered proposed signage which were designed by WSB. Ms . Amundson questioned whether safety was ever an issue and Mr. Wermerskirchen replied that it has not been a problem with his business or Turtles . Jane DuBois stated that she noticed only one handicapped parking space on First Avenue and although there were additional handicapped spaces in the back, she wondered whether the public was aware of that. Mr. McNeill stated there are requirements regarding handicapped parking and he would check into the same. Jim McQuiring, Pearson Florist, approached the podium. He stated he supported the two hour parking downtown. Mr. McQuiring noted that his business was fortunate to have adequate parking, but he knew that Sommerville Street was being abused by employees of businesses. Jack McGovern, McGovern' s Garage, approached the podium. He stated he was not in favor of a change in parking. Mr. McGovern stated that he has four spaces in from of his business and his customers start dropping off their vehicles early in the day and pick them up late. If there was a change in parking, Mr. McGovern stated the lot in back of him would be filled and he would not Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- have room to park his customers' vehicles until they are picked up. He also noted that the lot has a bad drainage problem in the winter when ice builds up. Terry Hennen, Sport Stop, approached the podium. He stated he agreed with a lot of what was said but sometimes owners need to park in front of their business for extended periods of time. Mr. Hennen suggested business owners buy permits. He also suggested diagonal parking on both sides of Lewis Street . Jane DuBois questioned whether that was feasible. Bruce Loney stated that the street was not that old and some of the sidewalk width may be lost but that he could look into the issue. Bob Sweeney stated that Lewis Street is the same width as First Street which has diagonal parking. Mayor Brekke stated it was the consensus of the Council to look into diagonal parking and staff should return to the Council with recommendations. Deb Amundson questioned whether there was adequate enforcement. Police Chief Hughes stated that any changes would be enforced, however, adequate notice should be given to the public. Mr. Sweeney suggested that staff bring recommendations to the first Council meeting in December for action. He further stated that if the only issue is cost that perhaps the downtown businesses would need to be assessed. Ms. DuBois questioned that if the City owns property, would the City be responsible for the assessment. Mark McNeill stated that it depends on who is benefiting from the change. Cletus Link stated that he would like to see another study from the Task Force after all businesses were notified that employees must be told to use the parking lots to see if there was any change. Mayor Brekke stated there will be a public meeting but not a public hearing on this issue so any businesses should put their comments in writing prior to the meeting. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that the Post Office may donate land to the City for parking which would be a win-win situation. Mayor Brekke thanked Mr. Wermerskirchen and the Task Force for their work. The meeting then proceeded to the hearings on the Tobacco Ordinance violations. City Attorney Jim Thomson stated the purpose of the hearings was to determine whether action should be taken against the licensees as a result of violations that occurred on November 21, 1997. Mr. Thomson stated that the maximum penalty for a first violation was a $200 fine and suspen- Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -4- sion of the license for 10 days. A second violation within any 12-month period was punishable by a maximum penalty of $500 and a 20-day suspension of the license. Mr. Thomson stated that the licensee can admit to the violation and describe any extenuating or mitigating circumstances or deny the violation. If the licensee was denying the violation, Mr. Thomson suggested waiting until all admitting licensees had appeared and then return to the denying licensees. Bob Sweeney noted that the Council may recognize some of the violators as second offenses, however, those violators needed to be treated as first offenses because one year had elapsed since the previous violation. Jim Thomson confirmed Mr. Sweeney' s statement but added that the Council may look at the circumstances of being issued a second citation. Mr. Sweeney noted that in all but one case last year, the violators were fined $200 which was suspended. Mayor Brekke questioned why the violators were fined but then suspended to which Mr. Thomson replied a probationary period was probably imposed wherein any further violation could have the fine reimposed. Charlotte Post approached the podium and suggested, that as a parent, the Council should look at suspension because the system was not working too well . The following hearings were held: a. Bret-Becca- Inc . . d/b/a Pullman. No one appeared on behalf of the licensee. Jim Thomson stated that the licensee did receive notice via certified mail. He offered a certified copy of the conviction and further stated that the police report noted that at 9 :30 p.m. two juveniles entered the facility and neither was asked for identification. The police officer spoke with the bartender who thought the juveniles may have been too young, but he was too busy to ask for identification. Bob Sweeney noted that this was the same licensee that did not appear for the last violation hearing. Sweeney/Link moved to impose a $200 penalty and 10-day suspension of the tobacco license of the Pullman, beginning November 18, 1998 . Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -5- b. Shakopee Council 1685 Home Aasociatiori. d/b/a Knights of Columbus. Ken Tieben approached the podium and admitted the violation. Mr. Tieben stated he was manager of the facility and noted the employee who sold the tobacco was no longer employed. Mr. Teeman also stated that as of the first of the year, the KC Hall was not going to be selling tobacco products. Jim Thomson stated that the police report indicated that the employee did look at the juvenile' s identification but sold the tobacco anyway. Sweeney/DuBois moved to impose a $200 penalty for the Knights of Columbus and suspend for one year based on the fact that the facility was not renewing their license for 1999 and with the condition that no more violations occur while the license is held. Mayor Brekke noted that he was in favor of one-day suspensions for first-time offenders . Jane DuBois questioned how the one-day suspensions are imposed and Jim Thomson stated that the facility cannot sell any tobacco on the specified day but does not need to remove all tobacco products. Robin Koehnen, Koehnen' s Amoco, approached the podium and stated that the person buying the tobacco is the perpetrator. She stated that her business deals with this on a daily bais and has no control over how tobacco is distributed when it leaves her business. Ms. Koehnen opined that the Council needs to deal with the perpetrator. Mayor Brekke replied that the perpetrator is not just the buyer of the product but also the seller. Motion carried unanimously. c. Tom Thumb #250 . Walt Wicki, area manager, approached the podium and admitted the violation. Mr. Wicki questioned whether citizens have a right to have a juvenile who is using tobacco arrested and Chief Hughes stated citizens do have the right . Mr. Wicki stated his business does try to enforce the ordinance and stated there were no other violations during the last year. All employees are instructed in carding. Jim Thomson stated that the police report indicated that the two juveniles were able to purchase tobacco without identification. Sweeney/Amundson moved to impose a $200 penalty and 1-day suspen- Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -6- sion of the tobacco license of Tom Thumb on Friday, November 20, 1998. Motion carried unanimously. d. Berens Market. No one appeared on behalf of the licensee. Jim Thomson stated that the licensee did receive notice via certified mail and the return receipt was received. He offered a certified copy of the conviction and further stated that the police report noted that two juveniles entered the facility and one juvenile was asked for identification which showed the juvenile to be under 18 but was sold tobacco anyway. DuBois/Link moved to impose a $200 penalty and 1-day suspension of the tobacco license of Berens Market on Friday, November 20, 1998 . Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke noted that there was no representation from the business and therefore would be treated the same as other offenders not being represented. e. Buperamerica, #4035. Joseph Skiska appeared on behalf of the licensee and admitted the violation. Jim Thomson stated that the police report noted that one juvenile was asked for identification but was still allowed to purchase tobacco. Mr. Skiska indicated that the employee who looked at the identification thought the juvenile was of age. He also stated that the business does have a thorough training program including a videotape and reading materials. Mr. Skiska also stated there were internal controls, however, human error occurred in this case. Mayor Brekke stated that the Council may need to look at this violation differently due to the circumstances. Jane DuBois stated that mistakes are made and leniency may be appropriate. It was noted that the juvenile ' s dates of birth were 11/19/80; 9/20/81 and 8/24/81 . Amundson/Link moved to impose a $200 penalty suspended for one year and 1-day suspension of the tobacco license of Superamerica, also suspended for one year. Bob Sweeney stated a violation did occur. He stated that to enact no penalty would not be consistent with not penalizing a business that was giving up its license. Jane DuBois also noted a problem with inconsistency. Deb Amundson stated her motion took into account the business demonstrating thorough training and the fact they were working towards complying with the ordinance. Cletus Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Link stated that after listening to the manager and seeing the documentation and effort, he agreed with Ms. Amundson. Jim Thomson noted that it was important to be consistent . Jane DuBois stated she accepted the difference between carding and not carding and that in this matter; the training was evident. Motion carried unanimously. f. Koehnen' s Amoco. Robin Koehnen appeared on behalf of the licensee and admitted the violation. She stated the employee did card the juvenile but that the employee had a tendency to transpose numbers. Ms. Koehnen also stated a videotape showed the employee carded the juvenile, however, the employee was not wearing her glasses. Ms. Koehnen stated that the employee was no longer employed but that the employee did pay her fine even though she was not in a position to do so financially. Ms. Koehnen stated that the act was not intentional and their employees are trained. She stated the City needs to move forward with punishing the person buying the tobacco and not just the seller. Jim Thomson stated that the police report noted that the juvenile was asked for identification but was still allowed to purchase tobacco. DuBois/Link moved to impose a $200 penalty suspended for one year and 1-day suspension of the tobacco license of Koehnen' s Amomo on Friday, November 20, 1998, also suspended for one year. Motion carried unanimously. g. Corp-Tool . Inc. d/b/a Arnies Friendly Folks Club. No one appeared on behalf of the licensee. Jim Thomson stated that two notices had been sent to the licensee. Mr. Thomson stated that the licensee did have a previous violation. He offered a certified copy of the conviction and further stated that the police report noted that two juveniles entered the facility and were asked for identification which showed the juveniles to be under 18 but were sold tobacco anyway. Judith Cox noted that the business changed hands and the first offense was not against the current licensee. Bob Sweeney noted that the licensees listed in a, g and h are primarily liquor establishments and he viewed the violations to be more serious than other establishments since Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -8- minors were not supposed to be present in 'the establishment with- out a parent. Sweeney/DuBois moved to impose a $200 penalty for Arnie' s Friendly Folks Club without a 1=day suspension due to the fact that the current licensee was not the violator. Motion carried unanimously. h. Shakopee Eagles. Steve Pauly appeared on behalf of the licensee and admitted the violation. He stated that the business was in the midst of remodeling and the employee did card the juvenile and thought it was the juvenile' s birthday. Mr. Pauly also stated that the business will not be renewing its tobacco license in January and is no longer selling tobacco products. Jim Thomson stated that the police report noted that two juveniles entered the establishment. Identification was checked for one juvenile and no tobacco product was sold. The other juvenile was checked for identification but was still allowed to purchase tobacco. Sweeney/Link moved to impose a $200 penalty suspended for one year based on the fact that the facility was not renewing its tobacco license. Motion carried unanimously. i. K-Mart. #9638 . Anthony Franko appeared on behalf of the licensee and admitted the violation. Jim Thomson stated that the police report noted that the juvenile was not asked for identification because the employee thought the juvenile was old enough. Mr. Franko stated he was not the manager at the time and the employee was new. He also stated that K-Mart does provide tobacco training and the store does put forth a good effort to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Franko also stated that the employee resigned the night of the offense because she was so upset about the incident . DuBois/Link moved to impose a $200 penalty with $100 suspended and a 1-day suspension of the tobacco license on Friday, November 20, 1998 for K-Mart based on the fact that K-Mart provided intensive training. Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Mayor Brekke noted that the violation was similar to the Tom Thumb violation and he would like to have the penalties consistent. Bob Sweeney stated that Tom Thumb did not provide a training program. Deb Amundson stated there may be a flaw in the training if the employee did not ask for- identification. Motion carried 4-1 with Amundson dissenting. j . Hennen' s ICO. Jack Hennen appeared on behalf of the licensee and admitted the violation. He asked why the matter took so long to be brought before the Council. Mark McNeill stated that the criminal matter against the employee had not been held until July and this portion of the violation could not be dealt with until the criminal proceeding was completed. Mr. Hennen stated that he does train his people. The employee who sold the tobacco was a young girl who felt intimidated because the juvenile was an older- appearing male. He also stated that he believed the criminal matter was dismissed. Jim Thomson stated that the police report indicated that two juveniles entered the establishment . Neither was asked for identification and tobacco products were sold. Jane DuBois stated she would be abstaining from voting on the matter. Bob Sweeney stated that he knows Jack Hennen is careful about protecting his employees and the employee could have signaled another employee for help. Sweeney/Amundson moved to impose a $200 penalty and 1-day suspension of the tobacco license of Hennen' s ICO on Friday, November 20, 1998, based on the fact that the juveniles were not carded. Motion carried unanimously with Cncl. DuBois abstaining. Jim Thomson noted that there was one other case . MGM was not in front of the Council this evening because the criminal proceeding had not been completed. He suggested notifying them and advising how similar cases were handled and that they are entitled to a hearing. Bob Sweeney stated that the Council needed to be aware of liquor-only establishments and the differences between those and other businesses . Robin Koehnen reapproached the podium and questioned whether the Council could do anything to help the businesses with the tobacco problem. Mayor Brekke stated that there are educational tools and Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -10- ordinances regarding juveniles. Police Chief Hughes stated that there were a large number of juveniles cited for tobacco offenses and would provide a specific number via memo. Deb Amundson reported on the Audit Committee's selection of a new auditor. Ms. Amundson stated that the current auditor was not able to provide audit services for 1998 and thus proposals were sought from other auditing firms. Six proposals were received and three firms were interviewed. Ms. Amundson stated that although it was a difficult decision for the committee, the committee was recommending Kern, DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. from St. Cloud. Amundson/Sweeney moved to accept the proposal of Kern DeWenter, Viere, Ltd. as auditors for 1998 in the amount of $17, 900 . Motion carried unanimously. Mark McNeill reported on pay plan miscellaneous items . Mr. McNeill stated that certain matters had been before the Council previously but there appeared to be no recordable action. The items related to changes in the pay plan enacted November 1st. Mr. McNeill requested that formal action be taken by the Council this evening. Judith Cox noted that there was a memo on the table stating that any pay changes were retroactive to November 1st. DuBois/Sweeney moved that step placement of those Officer and Non- Union employees moving up a grade, shall be at the pay step of the new grade which was equal to, or the next higher step than what they were previously receiving under the old pay plan, effective retroactive November 1, 1998 . Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to promote Tracy Menden to Police Records Technician, placed at Step 1 of pay grade C, effective retroactive November 1, 1998 . Motion carried unanimously. Mark McNeill reported on the Courthouse Parking Committee. Mr. McNeill stated that recommendations for appointment to the committee were on the table. He also stated that Art Bannerman recently recommended Tom Shaughnessy who was not listed in the memo. Official Proceedings of the November 10, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Sweeney/DuBois moved to appoint Police Chief Hughes, Bruce Loney, Barb Hobday, John Rademacher, Ron Ward, Mark Wermerskirchen and Tom Shaughnessy to the Courthouse Parking Committee. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Sweeney moved to adjourn to November 17, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8 :38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jth S. Cox City Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 17, 1998 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Amundson, Link, DuBois and Sweeney present. Also present:, Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Jim Thomson, City Attorney. (Cub Scout) Pack 218 was present for the presentation of the colors and the pledge of allegiance was recited. The following items were added to the agenda: 5.A. Union Pacific Train Speed, and 15.E.3. Resolution Certifying Delinquent Storm Drainage Utility Bills. 17. Executive Session was amended to include pending litigation as well as labor negotiations. Link/Sweeney moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Sweeney gave a liaison report. Mayor Brekke gave the Mayor's report. Mark McNeill reported that the Union Pacific has notified the City that, within the next three weeks, train speeds will increase from the existing ten miles per hour, to 30 miles per hour through Shakopee. Upon receipt of this information, he contacted the League of Minnesota Cities and MnDOT to find out what the City could do regarding this. Both said that train speeds are a Federal prerogative and are not governed by the State or the City. The Railroad and Motor Carrier Proceedings Unit with Mn/DOT may hear appeals on this but must be able to demonstrate that this is a unique public safety issue. However, there has not been a hearing on speed since at least 1980. Staff has been researching the actual ownership of the path that the tracks lay on and found Ordinances from 1941, which they are working on updating. This would assist in trying to negotiate with the railroad. Staff will attempt to have the railroad keep the existing ten mile per hour limit until a resolution is reached. Cncl. DuBois recommended pursuing state grants for cross arms to cover the Marschall Road crossing, which is the most dangerous. Mark McNeill said that typically railroads contribute to the cost of the closing of street crossings. The cross arms that Cncl. DuBois referred to cost between $100,000 to $150,000 per intersection. He said that fencing, crossing improvements, and other situations should also be looked at. Cncl. suggested that staff also look at what the Federal Rules actually state. DuBois/Sweeney moved that staff make this a high priority item and research all aspects (relating to the Union Pacific proposed increase in train speeds to 30 mph). Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -2- The following items were added to the Consent Agenda: 15.B.1. Hiring of Maintenance Workers, 15.B.4. Revised Assessments for Sarazin and Roundhouse Streets, 1994-10, and 15.E.3. Resolution Certifying Delinquent Storm Drainage Utility Bills. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on any item not on the agenda. Sue Watlow-Phillips, Legislative Chair, Mn. Coalition for Homeless, and President of Metro Interface Council on Affordable Housing (MICA), approached the podium and stated that she was present to support the residents of Valley Haven Manufactured Home Park request to use the 1987 State Law regarding the park closing ordinance to provide protection to them if the park is closed in the future. She had four reports from which she gathered information and stated that all the cities in the metro area and across the State of Minnesota are addressing the issues of affordable housing and the potential increase in homeless people within their community. Ms. Watlow-Phillips explained that because Shakopee is a non-entitlement community under CDBG, the City is covered under a State consolidated planning process. This was developed in 1995, goes through 2000, and is updated every year and is open for public comment at this time. The State certifies that the City is obligated to abide by affirmatively furthering fair housing. Ms. Phillips referred to page three of a HUD document that clarifies a rule which is under public comment. This refers to regulations relative to the consolidated plan regulations that define fair housing certification and discusses an analysis of implements to fair housing choice. She said that the residents of this park are elderly, disabled and/or on public assistance and therefore meet the criteria for the fair housing law. She warned that by not implementing this ordinance, the City could be in violation of the fair housing law as well as affirmatively furthering fair housing. Mayor Brekke stated that the City of Shakopee has one of the best records in the Southwest Metro area for providing affordable housing, and the current mix of affordable housing. He explained that because the rental vacancy rates are currently very low, the City Council has actively supported the Evergreen Heights affordable housing project. He said that the City is concerned about affordable housing issues but is not ready to take action on this ordinance at this time. He said to date, no park closing has been announced, and staff has been in contact with the new park owner and there is no intention to close the park. Ms. Watlow-Phillips stated that this was her opportunity to provide some public comment as the City moves ahead. She said that the Coalition for the homeless and MICA would just like to encourage the City to move ahead with the ordinance and to protect the rights of the residents, and to use the application for TIF funding to the State as a way of making sure funds are available Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- to pay the owner if he decides to close the park. She said the concern is that the residents do not lose the ability to have relocation rights. Mark McNeill explained that staff is looking for a method of assisting financing for any redevelopment project that may arise. He said that tax increment may be a possibility. He also noted that there is no park closing before anyone at this time. He said that staff wants to be sure that there is a workable ordinance for the City as well as the property owner. Mayor Brekke stated that it is unfair to paint Shakopee as a City that doesn't care about residents of mobile home parks because staff is actively considering and researching this issue and working with the parties to reach a solution. He said that staff will come back with a proposal for the City Council to consider and make a decision on. The residents will also have an opportunity to have their say throughout the process. The City Administrator was directed to see if the City is currently receiving funds from HUD, CDBG or the HOME program funds. Althea Rank approached the podium and stated that the residents realize that the park owner does not intend to close the park. However, she said the residents feel that there is a need for a rush. She provided copies of an ordinance which the residents reviewed with the park owner, and said that they would like to see as Shakopee's Ordinance. She said that six months is not a rush, and asked what would happen with a nine month notice of closing. She said that while the park owner has stated that he does not intend to close the park, unexpected things happen and the residents want protection now. Mayor Brekke suggested that the residents convey future concerns to Mr. McNeill or himself until this issue is ready to come before the City Council again. Mark McNeill stated that Mr. Johnson, the park owner, will be meeting with his attorney to draft an ordinance. He will then meet with the resident's group and if a resolution cannot be reached he anticipates a meeting involving the City and the residents at that time. MaryAnn Wyman, Organizer with APAC, approached the podium and stated in response to a previous question regarding the use of TIF funds for park closing ordinances, that TIF has never been used in this way. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any other residents present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the Minutes of April 28, September 3, September 8, and September 14, 1998. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve bills in the amount of$1,430,498.38. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mayor Brekke opened the Public Hearing on the modification of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plans for TIF District Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 9. Gregg explained that this public hearing is to receive public comments on the modification to the TIF Financing Plan for District Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 9, and the redevelopment plans for projects supported by the Tax Increments. He said the proposed budget changes are to update the revenue forecast based on current conditions and to adjust projected expenditures for the Chaska Interceptor accordingly. There is no proposed district extension or expansion, and no new projects added or planned. The changes include a revenue increase of $434,000, which places the total revenues at $84,519,000. Expenditure increase are at $584,000 bringing the total to $80,192,000. Transfers were decreased by $150,000, bringing that total to $4,327,000. District No. 7 will close at the end of 1998 and District No. 9 will close at the end of 1999. There are funds used to pay off existing debt service on four bond issues currently outstanding. The projects included in the plan are the close out of the acquisition and demolition for Blocks 3 & 4, upgrades to Tahpah Park grandstand, the Civic Center construction fund with the balance going toward the Chaska Interceptor. Mayor Brekke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this issue. There was no response. DuBois/Link moved to continue the public hearing until December 15, 1998, at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed assessments for Vierling Drive, Taylor Street and Polk Street, Project No. 1997-1. Bruce Loney reported that this project included sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, storm water ponding, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and street improvements. The project has been completed and the final project costs, which include construction and engineering/administration are $796,994.10. The previous estimate in the feasibility study was $900,000. Mr. Loney explained that the assessed costs are $643,279.12. The City pays for street and storm water oversizing with State Aid/CIF of$110,912.83, and Shakopee Public Utilities participated in some trunk water oversizing which total $12,802.15. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mayor Brekke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this issue. There was no response. DuBois/Link moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5015, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Vierling Drive, from Taylor Street to Presidential Lane; Taylor Street, from Vierling Drive to the North Plat Line of Arlington Ridge First Addition; and Polk Street, from Vierling Drive to 13th Avenue, Project No. 1997-1, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed assessments for the Southbridge Parkway Collector Street, Project No. 1997-4 and 1997-4A. Bruce Loney reported that this project began this year and includes utilities, landscaping, lighting, irrigation, and restoration. The project has not been completed but the bonding schedule has been set up and requires that the project be assessed this year. The final project costs have been projected to be $5,097,942.85, which consists of construction costs and engineering/administration costs. The funding for this project is mainly through assessments. However, the City is participating in the cost of bituminous trails along Southbridge Parkway, sanitary sewer oversizing and the Dean Lake Bypass storm sewer and channel construction. The assessments are $4,729,914.85. The City will be reimbursed approximately $50,000 from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and $50,000 from the Prior Lake - Spring Lake Watershed District for the Dean Lake Bypass channel once the work is completed. There are three developers associated with this project who have petitioned the City to construct the project. The City has signed petitions and letters of credit have been submitted. The Mn/DOT parcel did not participate in petitioning for this project. Mayor Brekke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this issue. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium and stated that he had requested that the City assess the project this year because they had sold most of their property, and have the funds to pay off the special assessments that will be levied against them. He explained that letters of credit were submitted and waivers were signed so that the assessments cannot be appealed. He noted that the agreements with the City state that he will pay the cost of the project, for which he listed a number of items that were estimated and total approximately $280,000. When the estimates are actualized, he asked that the City Council consider, in the event that too much money is collected, that a refund be given to the developers. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Sweeney/Amundson moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5016, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Southbridge Parkway Collector Street, Utilities, Landscaping, Lighting, Irrigation, Restoration and Appurtenant Work, Project No.'s 1997-4 and 1997-4A, and moved its adoption. Jim Thomson stated that there are some complicating issues that will require consideration if and when the Council reaches the point of authorizing a refund in the event too much money is collected. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Police Chief, Dan Hughes approached the podium and stated that as a requirement of this grant, an advisory board met and recommended that federal funds of $10,896 and a local match of $1,211 be spent on emergency vehicle pre-emption system emitters for all marked police vehicles at a cost of five to seven thousand dollars ($5,000 - $7,000); ballistic vests at an estimated cost of $1,200 per vest; and the remaining funds in miscellaneous squad and first aid equipment upgrades. Chief Hughes explained that the grant requires that a public hearing be held so that the public can comment on the manner to spend the funds. Mayor Brekke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this issue. There was no response. Sweeney/DuBois moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5018, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee City Council Concerning the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct staff to make the necessary adjustments to extract $10,000 from the Police Department budget. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 8:20 p.m. for the purpose of conducting an Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting was re-convened at 8:35 p.m. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5014, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat for Stone Meadow 3rd Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5013, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of HTS 1st Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Michael Leek explained that staff recommended denial of the request (Gilbertson property) to rezone property to Multiple Family Residential (R3) because they could not find that either the zoning ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan were clearly in error, due to the surrounding single family residential uses. After discussion at the November 5, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, staff suggested that the Planning Commission and the City Council may want to consider whether or not this area should be looked at for a different guiding than is currently in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission denied the request to rezone the property located south of County Road 16, east of Roundhouse Circle, west of Austin Circle and north of Shakopee Avenue to (R3). Michael Leek suggested that staff proceed under the current application, but publish a new public hearing notice if this matter is tabled, and direct it back to the Planning Commission for consideration of(R2) as a potential land use designation. Sweeney/Amundson moved to remand the request to rezone the (Gilbertson) property to Multiple Family Residential (R3) to the Planning Commission for consideration of Medium Density Residential (R2) as a potential land use designation. Motion carried unanimously. Michael Leek explained that Heritage Development is requesting an amendment to the zoning map to rezone Light Industrial (I1) property to Multiple Residential (R3). This property is guided to the east for high density residential use in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. He said that from a land use perspective, splitting the parcel into two different land use classifications was not effective as a buffer. Staff previously recommended that the request be granted. However, after the public hearing the Planning Commission recommended rezoning the property located north of County Road 16 and west of Canterbury Park to Medium Density Residential (R2). A draft ordinance was prepared to rezone the property to (R3). Councilor DuBois announced that she would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter. Thomas Bisch, Heritage Development, approached the podium and stated that he respectfully disagreed with the Planning Commission's findings. He said a concept review meeting was held on October 27, 1998, in which the residents expressed concerns with the project and Eagle Creek Boulevard. Their concerns were related to speed, safety, and a request for a crossing over Eagle Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Creek Boulevard. They also had concerns regarding buffering and any other use, other than single family. At this time, he said their request is to rezone to (R3) and not to discuss the proposal or the concept. However, he said the concept shows 312 units under the(R3) zoning with the zoning allowing a maximum of 360. The maximum under (R2, R3) in divided parcels would be 290 units. He said there is 150 feet of buffer between the property and the right-of-way of Eagle Creek Boulevard.. He said he did not think the residents would be satisfied with anything other than single family on this property. He also explained that due to the County's quarter mile spacing requirements, there is only one exit from the property. The property is currently zoned Light Industrial and the request to rezone would be down-zoning and would be in compliance with efforts to remove some industrial property to residential. He said that single family would be very difficult here and (R2) requires more land mass than what is proposed for structure. When asked what his arguments would be against leaving the zones as they are, Mr. Bisch stated he preferred a single unified product that could make more comprehensive use of the property with one use. He said an (R3) use would be closer to that of the property to the north. He explained that with the bedrock conditions as they are, they would like to go up rather than out, and the (R3) allows for this. Michael Leek explained that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide buffering from Canterbury Park to the west. However, he said in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan the (R2) area is immediately adjacent to Industrial on the west. He said staff did not feel it would make sense to require (R2) to buffer (R3). In addition, the project to the south of Shenandoah has a higher density and there is no need to provide (R2) adjacent to the north. To the south it is guided for single family residential. Staff determined that the 4-lane county road provides 100 feet of right-of-way and there is opportunity for additional buffering to the north of Eagle Creek Boulevard. He said buffering the use from the single family residential to the south was not seen as an issue. Traffic loading remains the real issue. He said the County Road 16 facility was designed for significant traffic loading, and in his view there is not a substantial difference between the blended use in the Comprehensive Plan and what an(R3)would provide. A discussion ensued as to whether or not a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would be more appropriate for this property. Mr. Bisch explained that Julie Klima had given him the option, but felt that the (R3) process would be easier and more straightforward. Michael Leek stated that if a PUD is used, the City can place restrictions on the development. He said, given the circumstances surrounding this parcel, there were only two options. Cncl. Link stated that a zoning of(R2)would not produce affordable housing. Mayor Brekke asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this matter. There was no response. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Link/Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 532, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 by Rezoning Land Located North of County Road 16 and West of Canterbury Park from Light Industrial (11) Zone to Multiple Family Residential(R3)Zone, and moved its adoption. Action was postponed to allow the City Attorney to research the voting requirements due to Cncl. DuBois'intended abstention because of a conflict of interest. Dave MacGillivary, Principal Springsted Financial Advisor, approached the podium and asked for consideration in adopting Resolution No. 5017, awarding the sale of $2,375,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1998B. He said that bids were taken with the lowest bid from Dougherty Summit Securities at a rate of 4.20 percent. He said the estimate at mid October was 4.12 percent. Moody's rating of A2 was reaffirmed. Moody's believes the City will maintain its sound financial position due to conservative budgeting and continued tax base growth. The General Fund balance is sufficient to meet both cash flow and contingency requirements at $3.8 million, or 60% of General Fund revenues. City policy dictates that the General Fund balance be maintained at a minimum of 35% of the following year's expenditures. Moody's expects the City's high debt burden of 7.7%, to remain manageable due to anticipated tax base growth and rapid principal amortization. The high debt burden is attributed to borrowing by the Shakopee School District and any above average direct debt burden reflects the accumulative debt burden of all entities. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5017, A Resolution Awarding the Sale of$2,375,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds Series 1998B, Fixing Their Form and Specifications, Directing Their Execution and Delivery, and Providing for Their Payment, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 9:01 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 9:05 p.m. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, reported that for voting purposes relating to Ordinance No. 532 to rezone property north of CR-16, east of Sarazin and West of Canterbury Park, Cncl. DuBois is not considered a member of the City Council as she has a conflict of interest. Therefore, the statute requires a two-thirds vote of all members of the Council. With membership down to four, three of four votes would be sufficient to pass the ordinance. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Mayor Brekke stated that he is not comfortable enough to support the request tonight, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation for (R2) for the parcel. In his opinion, he said it would be best to combine the (R2) and (R3) zones to be in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan, and to do a Planned Unit Development that allows for changes, as well as more control for the City in terms of applying conditions to the development. Motion carried 3 to 1 with Mayor Brekke opposed. Michael Leek reported that the Surface Water Management Plan was never formally adopted, but has been used to guide development decisions. He said that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), has informed staff that the Plan must be formally adopted before final DNR approval of the City's shoreland ordinance will be granted. He recommended that the City Council consider approving the Surface Water Management Plan as submitted or with appropriate revisions, and that staff be directed to incorporate any changes into the overall Comprehensive Plan. Bruce Loney explained that this Plan has been resubmitted and comments were received from various agencies which need to be incorporated. He said he would like to get this Plan adopted and approved for the Comprehensive Plan as well as for the First Generation Plan, so that a Second Generation Plan can begin. Peter Willenbring, P.E., WSB & Associates, approached the podium and stated that after the Plan was originally developed and reviewed by the Watershed District, Lower Minnesota River Valley, City of Prior Lake, Prior Lake/Spring Lake, City of Savage, the Metropolitan Council, DNR, and regional and state agencies, comments were made and adjustments were made. He said the Plan has also been updated as the result of a recent review by the agencies that can approve the Plan. In addition, he said there are a few more adjustments to be made before the Plan is ready to move forward. He added that this will be an evolving document. In response to a question relating to the Shiely site, Mr. Willenbring said he was not convinced that the issues identified as part of the problem were fully addressed. He said that no capital improvement studies or regulatory programs will be implemented before coming back to the City Council to discuss the issue and whether or not to proceed. In response to a question relating to nitrate levels, he explained that high nitrate levels are generally the result of agricultural activities and run off. Mayor Brekke suggested that a D.1.c. be added to Section V. (Assessment of Problems and Corrective Actions) stating that if problems are identified from the study, that the City may limit pumping from the Shiely quarry. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -11- DuBois/Link moved to approve the Surface Water Management Plan as submitted and to distribute the plan for review and comment by adjacent or affected jurisdictions, with the addition of D.1.c. that the City may attempt to limit pumping from Shiely quarry if there is a problem identified in the study. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan reported that Greg Ingraham, of Ingraham and Associates, presented findings and recommendations for the City's Parks Systems Plan to the City Council on September 30. Those findings indicated that 15 percent of those who use the park and recreation facilities are from commercial and industrial areas. 85 percent of the users were from residential areas. Using this ratio, it was determined that $3.9 million or (15 %) of new park and trail demand is attributable to commercial-industrial growth, and $19.4 million or (85%) of future growth is attributable to residential growth. Based on the analysis, the existing park dedication fees of $750 and $900 per dwelling for residential development are insufficient for developing park and recreation facilities to serve new development. The study also revealed that the $4,500 per acre dedication fee for commercial and industrial property exceeds 15 percent. Mr. McQuillan explained that based on the study, the City should revise its park dedication fee schedule to reflect the actual proportional ("fair share") cost of the system which is 85% for residential development and 15% for commercial/industrial development. A list of recommended rates was provided with fees proposed to be phased in over a three year period. A discussion ensued regarding fees and phasing. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5024, a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4801, a Resolution Setting Fees for Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. It was Council's intent that this increase would continue through December 31, 1999. Michael Leek reported that staff has developed a "needs based" criteria for requiring fencing around drainage ponds. He said if the Council considers the proposed criteria appropriate that staff should be directed to prepare a resolution for Council to adopt, and incorporate the criteria, making them part of the official City Policy. The proposed criteria would require the developer to install a 6-foot high fence along the property line of ponds in commercial and industrial districts proposed to be within 100 feet of a residential building, a 10:1 bench at the Ordinary High Water (OWH) mark, fencing around drainage ponds with slopes at a ratio of 3:1 or less, fencing for ponds in close proximity to uses with large numbers of children, the installation and maintenance of fencing shall be the responsibility of the owner of the property where the pond is located, and fencing shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -12- A discussion ensued as to whether or not this policy could be effective retroactively. Jim Thomson stated that the only way this could be made effective retroactively, is if a developer would come before the Council with a proposal that a condition could be attached to that might be related. A discussion ensued regarding the criteria. Jim Thomson explained that if the Council chooses not to adopt the policy, it does not mean that as a development application comes forward, that the Council is prevented from imposing a fencing requirement as a part of the development process. No action was taken by the Council. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the agreement with New Horizon Computer Learning Centers, and authorize the appropriate city officials to execute said contract. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5019, a Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Requesting a 90-Day Extension of the December 31, 1998, Due Date for Review of the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Plan for Consistency with Amended Metropolitan Council Policy Plan, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Michael Leek relayed the City of Shakopee's dissatisfaction with the Metropolitan Council's efforts to assist Scott County and Scott County communities in implementing the goals of the Livable Communities Act. He said that Shakopee has an interest in passing this resolution as the Evergreen Heights project has been recommended for funding from the Housing Incentive Program Account. One of the requirements is that the City participate in the Livable Communities Act. A revised resolution is on the table. Mr. Leek stated that he would be responding to the representation that applications are not being received from developing communities. He said that this is clearly not the case. There was also representation that staff has been trying to work with developing communities to put together fundable projects. In response to this, he said that when he requested input and assistance and review of Shakopee's application, he was told he would have to wait until the Task Force had reviewed the application. He will be responding separately, but said that it is important to send a message to the Metropolitan Council that it is not appropriate, if they are going to require developing communities to meet all of the additional requirements of the Livable Communities and growth as it relates to housing, to make the Demonstration Accounts and other accounts, largely core city and developed suburb accounts. Link/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5025, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Electing to Continue Participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for Calendar Year 1999, as modified, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -13- Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5022, a Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of Easement Within Vacated Spencer Street, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the hiring of Michael Nelson and Michael Dellwo as Public Works Maintenance Workers and to be hired at Step 2 ($13.02/Hr.) of the 1998 Public Works Union Pay Schedule effective November 30, 1998 and subject to a successful pre-employment physical and background check. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Amundson/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for engineering surveying services for the upper Valley Drainageway Trail North of Vierling Drive, and the Marschall Road sidewalk from 11th Avenue to Vierling Drive. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney reported that WSB & Associates came up with a proposal for an Advanced School Flasher System along CSAH 17 near the Shakopee Junior High School which includes two flashing beacons to be located at the advance pedestrian crossing sign location for the 11th Avenue crossing (southbound traffic) and for the Prairie Lane crossing (northbound traffic). Bids were taken with the low bidEganMcKay from Electrical contractors, Inc. at $14,899.20 He said if the Council wants to proceed, payment is recommend to come from the Street Division, Capital Expenditures. Sweeney/Amundson moved to accept the low quote of $14,899.20 for the Advance School Flasher System along CSAH 17 from Egan McKay Electrical Contractors, Inc. with payment of this work to be from the Street Division, Capital Expenditures. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct staff to prepare the necessary budget amendments for the Advance School Flasher System. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5023, a Resolution Adopting the Revised Assessment for the County Road 16 Sanitary Sewer and Water Service for Outlot D, Canterbury Park 2nd Addition, Project No. 1994-11, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to accept with regret the resignations of Firefighters Mike Theisen and Todd Schwartz effective November 1, 1998. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5020, A Resolution of Appreciation to Todd Schwartz, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5021, A Resolution of Appreciation to Mike Theisen, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the November 17, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -14- Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the Police Department to make a grant application to the Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program (MATPP). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the purchase of the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Filling System from Metro Fire for the amount of $36,253 from the Fire Station's Construction Budget Contingency Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the hiring of Clay Johnson as a probationary police officer at a monthly rate of $2,743.95 per month subject to the satisfactory completion of pre- employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the hiring of Jason Arras as a probationary police officer at a monthly rate of$2,743.95 per month subject to the satisfactory completion of pre-employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Ordinance No. 533, an Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Adding Section 8.07 Regarding Emergency Vehicle Preemption System, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mark McNeill reported that the Council needs to discuss sanitary sewer and storm sewer utility rates for 1999. Gregg Voxiand said that this must be done before the first of the year, and his preference would be to do it as a workshop. There was a consensus to meet on December 9, 1998, at 4:00 p.m. to discuss utility rates. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5026, A Resolution Certifying Delinquent Storm Drainage Utility Bills for Collection on the Tax Rolls Payable 1999, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) A recess was taken at 10:08 p.m. to discuss labor negotiations and pending litigation. The meeting was re-convened at 10:37 p.m. No action was taken during the executive session. Sweeney/Amundson moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. J dith S. Cox, ity Clerk Esther TenEyck, Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 11, 1999 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 4 : 00 p.m. with Councilmembers Deb Amundson, Cletus Link and Bob Sweeney present . Those absent : Jane DuBois. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, Jim Thomson, City Attorney and Judith Cox, City Clerk. Mayor Brekke noted an addition to the agenda, Item 6A, Release of Letter of Credit - Pheasant Run 1st Addition. Bob Sweeney requested that item 6B, Discussion of Possible Residential Development Moratorium also be added to the agenda. Link/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. The Council recessed for an executive session to discuss pending litigation at 4 :05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4 :25 p.m. Mayor Brekke indicated that the Council discussed pending litigation and took no action. Mr. Thomson left the meeting. The Council entered the Work Session. R. Michael Leek presented the Subdivision Review Committee ' s recommendations and revisions to the City' s Subdivision Regulations as well as the City' s Design Criteria. Mr. Leek stated that the proposed subdivision regulations contained more details regarding the planning process by explaining how the process works and detailing the obligations. Mr. Leek highlighted some of the revisions, one being Section Nos. 12 .28 and 12 .32 which would incorporate a 60-day approach. Regarding Section 12 .28, Subd. 2, Bob Sweeney questioned if it would be a problem complying with the 10-day notification if the City received many drawings or documents in one day. Mr. Leek replied that it should not be a problem since it was relatively easy to check and see if all documents have been submitted. Cletus Link stated that it could be a problem if a planner was out sick or on vacation for a week. Mayor Brekke suggested looking at the provision in greater detail and asking Jim Thomson for an opinion. Mr. Leek also noted that a significant difference between the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance is that the current ordinance already Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- contains a number of design criteria and the proposed ordinance takes the approach that some matters are dealt with by a separate document since the criteria changes as the City changes. Mr. Leek noted that most of the last year' s meetings of the Subdivision Review Committee dealt with street width. Mr. Leek stated that the Planning Commission had recommended a 32 ' street width compared to the Subdivision Review Committee' s recommendation of 30 ' street width. John Schmitt approached the podium. As a member of the Subdivision Review Committee, Mr. Schmitt clarified the issue regarding the 10-day application notification. Mr. Schmitt stated that by the time the developer submits its drawings and documents, a number of meetings have already been held between the developer and planner and that the 10-day notification rule would probably not have much effect. Mayor Brekke questioned whether the City can have private streets. Michael Leek stated that he knew of no ordinance restricting private streets. Mayor Brekke noted that having private streets could be a problem down the road when reconstruction was necessary. Bob Sweeney also noted a problem with ongoing maintenance. Mr. Sweeney stated that if the City approves having private streets, that it should require an enforceable contract between the developer and the public works department. Mr. Sweeney stated that in that way if fees are not paid for maintenance, the City can add the fees to the property taxes. Cletus Link stated that he is against private streets and still believes that street widths should be 32 ' . He noted that any other street width is asking for trouble considering the City' s infrastructure. John Schmitt reapproached the podium and stated that the public does not know the difference between a public and private street because the street looks the same. Mr. Schmitt suggested that signage or markers be placed at the entrance to, a private street . Deb Amundson questioned what the benefit was to having a private street. Mark McNeill stated that it reduces the cost so it makes the land more developable. Michael Leek stated that no right-of-way is required and the developer can then put in more units and reduce the cost. Mr. Leek stated that due to his concern regarding private streets that a proposed amendment was being brought to the Planning Commission meeting on January 21st. Mayor Brekke suggested that the Council look at not having any Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -3- moreP rivate streets. Mr. Sweeney stated he was not sure that installing a sign or marker at the entrance of a private street would work because people do not pay attention to or notice signs. Ms. Amundson noted her concern for emergency vehicle access on private streets. She asked how many private streets were contained in the City and Mr. Leek replied there were probably six or more developments with private streets. Bruce Loney stated that the original intent of the private streets was that they would be little "spurs" off a public street, however, new developers were changing that original intent by coming in with longer private streets. Mr. Sweeney suggested that developers could ask for a variance if they wanted a private street. Mr. Link noted there is currently no boulevard policy regarding where utilities and trees are placed and that a policy needs to be adopted. Mayor Brekke stated it was the consensus of the Council to have the option of considering a private street via a variance and that there needs to be further work on the boulevard policy. Mr. Loney will work on these two items and report back to the Council . Mr. Sweeney questioned whether the use of private streets can be restricted and Mr. Leek replied that it can due to the street being managed by the property owner or management company. Regarding design criteria, Bruce Loney reviewed the proposed Design Criteria plan. Mr. Loney stated that the Subdivision Review Committee went through the current policy and combined current criteria with future needs for change. He highlighed the following changes: driveway grades criteria, inclusion of an as- built grading plan and tree preservation fence and additional storm sewer recommendations. It was noted that there was no language regarding pond shelving and Mr. Loney stated that this would be included in the next draft. Bob Sweeney noted that in Section 4, Sanitary Sewer, Subd. 1, the first sentence needs to include sizing standards. Mr. Loney noted that regarding utilities, it was recommended that distinct corridors be set up for utilities. Mr. Loney also noted that the Design Criteria included the City' s recent street light ordinance. Regarding the public street width language in Section 7, Subd. 2, Mr. Loney stated that he would be bringing more specific information back to the Council. Mr. Loney noted that Subd. 8 regarding cul-de-sacs had also been revised. Mayor Brekke requested that in Section 8, Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Subd. 1, a period be placed after the word "curb" thereby deleting the language "except as determined in commercial areas. " Mayor Brekke stated his concern was due to the County Road 17 area. Michael Leek suggested an alternative to deleting the language could be to include additional language to address the Mayor' s concern. Regarding Section 9, Subd. 5, Buffering, Mr. Loney noted that this was a new section. Mr. Leek stated that he had done some research regarding this subject while at another city and recommended a minimum of 25 feet. The Council agreed. A discussion was held regarding non-conformities with the Design Criteria and questioned whether the Council wanted to tie up additional Planning Commission time. Regarding Section 12 .49 of the Subdivision Regulations Ordinance, Mr. Loney noted it was customary to have a completion date within the Developer' s Agreement. Mr. Sweeney agreed that a date should be included in the Developer' s Agreement . Cletus Link stated that a date should be included at the time of platting. The matter will be reworked and brought back to the Council. Mr. Link also noted his concern that pavement is getting ripped up. He suggested a policy should be adopted regarding lifts to include that only one lift is put on until all homes are built at which time the other lift could be put on to alleviate this problem. Mr. Loney noted that currently, the procedure is that the first layer of pavement goes down and is allowed to settle for one year before the next layer is applied. The Council then discussed a possible County Road 83/County Road 16 realignment and improvements. Mr. Loney noted that Scott County may agree with the City and developer' s realignment plan if the City and developer pay for all costs. He also noted that Scott County would require 17th Avenue to become a county highway. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium. Mr. Albinson stated that Valley Green was trying to promote commercial property which dictates good access. He noted the current transportation plan was not very workable in that the access does not provide for a substantial amount of vehicles in and out . Mr. Albinson stated that Valley Green would also like to strengthen employment possibilities. He further stated that Valley Green hoped to bring a legitimate cost sharing proposal to the Council. He noted that the development would be expensive but that Valley Green is capable of paying its share. Mr. Albinson stated that if the full-blown plan was developed, Valley Green Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -5- would be able to fully develop the property and increase employment . Ron Bray of WSB & Associates approached the podium and stated that WSB was also involved in working on the proposed improvements. Mr. Bray also concluded that at present, County Roads 83 and 16 do not provide for good access or traffic. Mr. Bray noted part of the problem was the degree of skew in the roadway. Mayor Brekke questioned whether the City could convince Scott County of the problem. Mark McNeill noted that another meeting could be held. Bruce Loney stated a possibility would be to turn over jurisdiction of 17th Avenue to the County. Mayor Brekke stated that if that were done, he would like to see a stipulation included that the speed limit would not be over 30 mph. Mr. Bray indicated the key would be to working out the design standards with Scott County. Bob Sweeney noted that generally the County is willing to give over county roads due to maintenance issues. He questioned why the County would want to take over 17th Avenue and Mr. McNeill replied it was for continuity reasons. Mr. Loney stated that if the City had a certain number of accesses, it can declare an urban district and set a 30 mph speed limit. Chuck Rickart of WSB noted that the urban district plan can also be set by the number of structures. Mr. Loney noted that the City cannot declare an urban district on a county highway. Jon Albinson reapproached the podium and stated that all these issues were interchangeable and work together. He noted that if one change is made to the plan, the other pieces fall apart . Bob Sweeney suggested that Valley View could be used as a negotiating point with the County. Mayor Brekke stated it was the consensus of the Council not to give up 17th Avenue but to keep negotiating with the County. The Work Session ended at 6 :20 p.m. The Council returned to the Adjourned Regular Session. Sweeney/Amundson moved to authorize the release of the letter of credit for public utilities in Pheasant Run 1st Addition in the amount of $651, 298 .75 noting that the City had security for the unfinished utilities. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Bob Sweeney suggested a discussion be held at a future Work Shop regarding a possible six-month moratorium on future residential building because the City is beginning to get overloaded with development; and is trying to rework the subdivision ordinance which will affect those' developments. Cletus Link agreed, noting the timing is good due to the problems with 17th Avenue. Ms. Amundson also agreed with the idea. Sweeney/Amundson moved to add discussion of a possible six-month moratorium on residential development to the next Work Shop agenda and invite the Planning Commission to attend. Motion carried unanimously. A Work Session will be scheduled for January 25, 1999 at 6 :00 p.m. Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn to January 19, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6 :25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 411pNaCt pith S. ox ty Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary 0' OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 11, 1999 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 4 :00 p.m. with Councilmembers Deb Amundson, Cletus Link and Bob Sweeney present . Those absent: Jane DuBois. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, Jim Thomson, City Attorney and Judith Cox, City Clerk. Mayor Brekke noted an addition to the agenda, Item 6A, Release of Letter of Credit _- Pheasant Run 1st Addition. Bob Sweeney requested that item 6B, Discussion of Possible Residential Development Moratorium also be added to the agenda. Link/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. The Council recessed for an executive session to discuss pending litigation at 4 :05 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4 :25 p.m. Mayor Brekke indicated that the Council discussed pending litigation and took no action. Mr. Thomson left the meeting. The Council entered the Work Session. R. Michael Leek presented the Subdivision Review Committee's recommendations and revisions to the City' s Subdivision Regulations as well as the City' s Design Criteria. Mr. Leek stated that the proposed subdivision regulations contained more details regarding the planning process by explaining how the process works and detailing the obligations. Mr. Leek highlighted some of the revisions, one being Section Nos. 12 .28 and 12 .32 which would incorporate a 60-day approach. Regarding Section 12 .28, Subd. 2, Bob Sweeney questioned if it would be a problem complying with the 10-day notification if the City received many drawings or documents in one day. Mr. Leek replied that it should not be a problem since it was relatively easy to check and see if all documents have been submitted. Cletus Link stated that it could be a problem if a planner was out sick or on vacation for a week. Mayor Brekke suggested looking at the provision in greater detail and asking Jim Thomson for an opinion. Mr. Leek also noted that a significant difference between the current ordinance and the proposed ordinance is that the current ordinance already ti Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- contains a number of design criteria and the proposed ordinance takes the approach that some matters are dealt with by a separate document since the criteria changes as the City changes. Mr. Leek noted that most of the last year' s meetings of the Subdivision Review Committee dealt with street width. Mr. Leek stated that the Planning Commission had recommended a 32 ' street width compared to the Subdivision Review Committee' s recommendation of 30 ' street width. John Schmitt approached the podium. As a member of the Subdivision Review Committee, Mr. Schmitt clarified the issue regarding the 10-day application notification. Mr. Schmitt stated that by the time the developer submits its drawings and documents, a number of meetings have already been held between the developer and planner and that the 10-day notification rule would probably not have much effect. Mayor Brekke questioned whether the City can have private streets. Michael Leek stated that he knew of no ordinance restricting private streets. Mayor Brekke noted that having private streets could be a problem down the road when reconstruction was necessary. Bob Sweeney also noted a problem with ongoing maintenance. Mr. Sweeney stated that if the City approves having private streets, that it should require an enforceable contract between the developer and the public works department. Mr. Sweeney stated that in that way if fees are not paid for maintenance, the City can add the fees to the property taxes. Cletus Link stated that he is against private streets and still believes that street widths should be 32 ' . He noted that any other street width is asking for trouble considering the City's infrastructure. John Schmitt reapproached the podium and stated that the public does not know the difference between a public and private street because the street looks the same. Mr. Schmitt suggested that signage or markers be placed at the entrance to. a private street . Deb Amundson questioned what the benefit was to having a private street. Mark McNeill stated that it reduces the cost so it makes the land more developable. Michael Leek stated that no right-of-way is required and the developer can then put in more units and reduce the cost. Mr. Leek stated that due to his concern regarding private streets that a proposed amendment was being brought to the Planning Commission meeting on January 21st. • Mayor Brekke suggested that the Council look at not having any Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -3- more private streets. Mr. Sweeney stated he was not sure that installing a sign or marker at the entrance of a private street would work because people do not pay attention to or notice signs. Ms. Amundson noted her concern for emergency vehicle access on private streets. She asked how many private streets were contained in the City and Mr. Leek replied there were probably six or more developments with private streets. Bruce Loney stated that the original intent of the private streets was that they would be little "spurs" off a public street, however, new developers were changing that original intent by coming in with longer private streets. Mr. Sweeney suggested that developers could ask for a variance if they wanted a private street. Mr. Link noted there is currently no boulevard policy regarding where utilities and trees are placed and that a policy needs to be adopted. Mayor Brekke stated it was the consensus of the Council to have the option of considering a private street via a variance and that there needs to be further work on the boulevard policy. Mr. Loney will work on these two items and report back to the Council . Mr. Sweeney questioned whether the use of private streets can be restricted and Mr. Leek replied that it can due to the street being managed by the property owner or management company. Regarding ' design criteria, Bruce Loney reviewed the proposed Design Criteria plan. Mr. Loney stated that the Subdivision Review Committee went through the current policy and combined current criteria with future needs for change. He highlighed the following changes: driveway grades criteria, inclusion of an as- built grading plan and tree preservation fence and additional storm sewer recommendations. It was noted that there was no language regarding pond shelving and Mr. Loney stated that this would be included in the next draft. Bob Sweeney noted that in Section 4, Sanitary Sewer, Subd. 1, the first sentence needs to include sizing standards. Mr. Loney noted that regarding utilities, it was recommended that distinct corridors be set up for utilities. Mr. Loney also noted that the Design Criteria included the City' s recent street light ordinance. Regarding the public street width language in Section 7, Subd. 2, Mr. Loney stated that he would be bringing more specific information back to the Council . Mr. Loney noted that Subd. 8 regarding cul-de-sacs • had also been revised. Mayor Brekke requested that in Section 8, Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Subd. 1, a period be placed after the word "curb" thereby deleting the language "except as determined in commercial areas. " Mayor Brekke stated his concern was due to the County Road 17 area. Michael Leek suggested an alternative to deleting the language could be to include additional language to address the Mayor' s concern. Regarding Section 9, Subd. 5, Buffering, Mr. Loney noted that this was a new section. Mr. Leek stated that he had done some research regarding this subject while at another city and recommended a - minimum of 25 feet. The Council agreed. A discussion was held regarding non-conformities with the Design Criteria and questioned whether the Council wanted to tie up additional Planning Commission time. Regarding Section 12 .49 of the Subdivision Regulations Ordinance, Mr. Loney noted it was customary to have a completion date within the Developer' s Agreement. Mr. Sweeney agreed that a date should be included in the Developer' s Agreement. Cletus Link stated that a date should be included at the time of platting. The matter will be reworked and brought back to the Council. Mr. Link also noted his concern that pavement is getting ripped up. He suggested a policy should be adopted regarding lifts to include that only one lift is put on until all homes are built at which time the other lift could be put on to alleviate this problem. Mr. Loney noted that currently, the procedure is that the first layer of pavement goes down and is allowed to settle for one year before the next layer is applied. The Council then discussed a possible County Road 83/County Road 16 realignment and improvements. Mr. Loney noted that Scott County may agree with the City and developer' s realignment plan if the City and developer pay for all costs. He also noted that Scott County would require 17th Avenue to become a county highway. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium. Mr. Albinson stated that Valley Green was trying to promote commercial property which dictates good access. He noted the current transportation plan was not very workable in that the access does not provide for a substantial amount of vehicles in and out. Mr. Albinson stated that Valley Green would also like to strengthen employment possibilities. He further stated that Valley Green hoped to bring a legitimate cost sharing proposal to the Council. He noted that the development would be expensive but that Valley Green is capable of paying its share. Mr. Albinson stated that if the full-blown plan was developed, Valley Green Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -5- would be able to fully develop the property and increase employment . Ron Bray of WSB & Associates approached the podium and stated that WSB was also involved irr working on the proposed improvements. Mr. Bray also concluded that at present, County Roads 83 and 16 do not provide for good access or traffic. Mr. Bray noted part of the problem was the degree of skew in the roadway. Mayor Brekke questioned whether the City could convince Scott County of the problem. Mark McNeill noted that another meeting could be held. Bruce Loney stated a possibility would be to turn over jurisdiction of 17th Avenue to the County. Mayor Brekke stated that if that were done, he would like to see a stipulation included that the speed limit would not be over 30 mph. Mr. Bray indicated the key would be to working out the design standards with Scott County. Bob Sweeney noted that generally the County is willing to give over county roads due to maintenance issues. He questioned why the County would want to take over 17th Avenue and Mr. McNeill replied it was for continuity reasons. Mr. Loney stated that if the City had a certain number of accesses, it can declare an urban district and set a 30 mph speed limit. Chuck Rickart of WSB noted that the urban district plan can also be set by the number of structures. Mr. Loney noted that the City cannot declare an urban district on a county highway. Jon Albinson reapproached the podium and stated that all these issues were interchangeable and work together. He noted that if one change is made to the plan, the other pieces fall apart. Bob Sweeney suggested that Valley View could be used as a negotiating point with the County. Mayor Brekke stated it was the consensus of the Council not to give up 17th Avenue but to keep negotiating with the County. The Work Session ended at 6 :20 p.m. The Council returned to the Adjourned Regular Session. Sweeney/Amundson moved to authorize the release of the letter of credit for public utilities in Pheasant Run 1st Addition in the amount of $651, 298 .75 noting that the City had security for the unfinished utilities. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the January 11, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Bob Sweeney suggested a discussion be held at a future Work Shop regarding a possible six-month moratorium on future residential building because the City is beginning to get overloaded with development; and is trying to rework the subdivision ordinance which will affect those' developments. Cletus Link agreed, noting the timing is good due to the problems with 17th Avenue. Ms. Amundson also agreed with the idea. Sweeney/Amundson moved to add discussion of a possible six-month moratorium on residential development to the next Work Shop agenda and invite the Planning Commission_ to—attend. Motion carried unanimously. A Work Session will be scheduled for January 25, 1999 at 6 :00 p.m. Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn to January 19, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6 :25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, pith S. ox ty Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary <ce. CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT rlemorandu �. TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: City Bill List DATE: January 28, 1999 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1998 based on data entered as of 01/28/99. Also attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval. Included in the check list but under the control of the EDA are checks for the EDA General Fund (code 0191) and Seagate (codes 6654 & 9450 including Canterbury Drive) in the amount of $1, 234 .38. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $303,424 . 64 . • CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 12/31/98 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 00 N/A 258,619 0 -0 0 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 75,330 3,213 67,524 90 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 225,000 18,903 172,704 77 13 CITY CLERK 182,430 16,857 170,693 94 15 FINANCE 326,090 27,318 304,433 93 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 263,500 19,895 244,741 93 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 512,700 70,928 509,560 99 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 148,390 14,002 108,446 73 31 POLICE 1,812,370 186,048 1,717,623 95 32 FIRE 486,860 50,689 450,393 93 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 261,400 33,718 257,996 99 41 ENGINEERING 417,790 46,328 407,381 98 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,213,580 60,463 939,140 77 44 SHOP 125,890 14,109 110,703 88 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 430,960 36,299 389,832 90 91 UNALLOCATED 1,968,180 41,090 415,916 21 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 8,709,089 639,859 6,267,083 72 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 485,570 59,804 406,997 84 TOTAL TRANSIT 485,570 59,804 406,997 84 19 EDA 156,600 47,408 124,951 80 TOTAL EDA 156,600 47,408 124,951 80 H f 4/ VI RS a H H H H H H HHH H H H HH H H H H H 000 I:4 W w� 0 z M M M C*1 to to to HNDH di UN to �IDto H N N O H N HW.ND ND 03 CO CO CO CO CO c0 O O O 0 d' N N fA CO H H 111 M W r NUN UN lil t`tll NLn Lf1 N Lf) O L11 to It' N N N 0 0 t0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O H N 0 0 H 0 0 0 44 al al s' 0 .1' 0 0 0 0 0 d' vs 000 N 0 0 H N 01 N 0 N N .c1'In CO CO 0 0 H H 0 M 0 CO CO H H H Is CO M H M M CO co co N H N CO CO H CO M N H M M M C4 H H dd ' N d' d' H H H H ' W H H N H V W N N d' N d' d' N N N N d' M N N d' N d' N N d'd'd' I I 1 0 C I I I I I I IN IN IN IN 111 HN N 0 N to N N Hrl I O H H N 0 N N HHH H N 0 H H 40 H N H H N H N ICC H H N CO 03 O 01 01 01 01 CO O 0%01 t0 01 CD 01 01 H M M 0 D\ � � �CO O O O O 01 0% O O t0 0 0% O O O O O 0 O H CO H 0 P zw W W W > a 0z z wwWa w 0 W W H H H 0 0 am H >4 a zU o aaWWWH w a H H w W co g ''-1a H 0 Ctl 0C 1-3 E 0 o0 Cl) Z U 0 0 0 0 UU $-1 ww 0 EHa ,�y 'zz 01 A na U W i� W W z A co .7 CO0 co c0 01 v' H o0 z 0 OC]C pC H a A U z � a CON N CO Fal aaa UUj F U • 0 0 W U CO to F U rl o n a W 0 0 04 a CO .)-I 10 Z to H H � CO UU] O V a a a W H 0 M w H 0 0 0 N A en M w4W coIal H w U a w A0 w a N N HHH N Lf) FF O U UUU O d' 0 kz7W 0 HHH F U w C=. C4 c4 C4 IX H a z ww HHU] Cil CU] 0 El U]U]U] 7 co a 0d D c]CW1]En co 41 41 41 a4 0 aaa M a H HHH w a 0 0 F R as I� A W (�r7 10 1:4 04 HHH 0 E-L 03 01 DI U H 0 www a Z w� 0 0 a a aaa H En ez U) `� aW aA F H HH H FFF U U) ta,1 F' AAA a U HH w x X . LtsLsx 0 wEn a4 a W D 00 01 WWW g X U U�y U A w U U E F F ti. H 0 a fx 0 PG f1~a U H 0 2 04 Cl) U] U] 04 W CO U A WWW H I7 r�. .,,d-As tO% 00 0.00 000• 0- 0 N ON 111 L11 �Y d' 00 00 U1 Lf)O 00 CO CO 00 .0.44 NN 0% 'CO 00 NN 00 00 00• 0- 0 MCO d't0 111 in OO 00 %.0 UN N 00 NL- 00 NN HH O Hd' O M M N N L0U L10) d'V' to0 11)0 LA0 In0 Nr-I 0%Cr‘H MCsi t0 t0 N N +?t? N rl M In U1 t0 t0 to In OM1 01 +fi t? L?t/-t/). V?+/f � In t11 V}t/k i?i? t?t? t?CO- t?t? H t?t?N t?Lf H H d'd' rI 4/H 41> t/} CO.t/? H H CA-to 4.6.CA U Ca x a U w Cl)EI W H H H H H H rl rl rl H H H rl H H H N N N O O O H F N N N N N N NNN N N N N N N N \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ w A H H H H H H HHH H H H HH H H H H H NNN C4 0 0 0 0 0 0 ��� 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ��� \ \ \ \ \ \ 0101 0% O) \\ \ \ rn en ON mmrn 0 W al at 01 rn al m m m rn 0%% m rn o1 01 cm rn CT 01 01 01 01 01 W 0 al H H H H Hi H1 H-I H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H '�' U H H H U 0to to 0 H N en d' H▪ Z 0 U)H N M a' Ln to Is ON N t0 t0 t0 W t0 t0 W Lit tn Ln in 111 111 WA l0 A WA t0 /1 t0 /1 WA t0 A WA WA WA W A 10 A WA l0 /1 WA t0 A ND g W• 0 WVON ON ON ON ON ON 0 WV WV WV WV O V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V W O . U 0 N 4) 01 Cd A+ i 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a W 0 CO 11m 0 z U W w UL] H 10 1.0 H 1.0 . N t- M 00 O O O N H H N 01 N N 01 c0 0 0 03 N O U1 U) V' V' H M H 01 H V' N t` H N U) 01 V' U) W 1.0 W 01 N H V N W t0 m 01 V' H t0 0) 'J t0 t0 H O O O O m O U1 N m O t0 U) 0% N 0 0 00 0 O O 0 r-• M N U) H H 0 U) V' N H 0 N z O 0 H H M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 N 0 N N M H 01 H V• V' H V' V' H 0 H H H H N 01 Pd Mm cN m V' N N N N M N M H N M N Cr) V' m W 411 V' V' V' V' V• V' V' N V' V V' V' N V' V' V' M V' OPO I I I I i I I I I I I I I iI U iH CO H N H H H mV 0 ' H N U) 0 8-1 H W V' H O M U1 H CO H N N U) V' U1 m W N V' H N N 0 M 4 M M M H O1 m m N 00 N t0 t0 co 00 H M H CO M O O O O O O O O 01 0 0 W. 01 01 O O co N O z H z H g CJ Z H Cl) a H a > w H z z a O OFi Cl) a Z Z z Cwo 4 ai a Cwn H x H_. H LL H H at H 04 W F U U �+ W g g W C7 g W 14 O H CO O1 CO Z U C) Z Z P4 C7 Z W z H W ON W W W 0 Z C7 F F H F 0 0 C7 0 F C) al q Z H W Z Z Z to z H F H Z H U Z H 0 0 Cl) C7 H W W H Ii) CO W to H to 4 W M M Cl) Z F Z Z U F Z to U to F to PG 1W •W to GI Go H H HW H G104 al 4 CA WOl w G4 F Ol 44 as w 0 Z w o 0 • › o 0 C7 0 0 w 0 o Z WW O0G 0 a 01 OI q d x x a x 0 0 co F F A Pu U 0 W W U F4 w a Z U a O Pu >+ U N mCo Z H L1 C4 HH C7 Z W F U ZO C) H 04 m as H Co PO Z H H 0 H 0 tt!]tp U tal Z .4 to U C7 0 01 F Z W H A a Z 0 W > W H Co CO H F F W 0 PG H ZGc. W >4 CO C:4 to m 4 a a F a H H ca F H w O w w Z C7 U H a to to a a H 7Eas 0 Z H F Z 0 H w a U W a WW U H PIC 0 a Pe zz Z 0 w 'l a H H F W X a wwj U U A L co a Z vii Z x Z 33 co Z 0 H �ti H Z a 'l Co) U 03C/3to HH H h FF Z a HC) CO a z H Z zP4 w C. F F F tea w C°) rzl a o Es o w o 44 Q Q z PO to H Cto PO PO U U U U U A AiA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01 0“0 O O 00 co 01 01 00 00 O O t0 t0 O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O O U1 U) O O V'V' E-' 0%N U1 O O U)U) N N O O m M 00 CO O O O O O O O O W t0 U)U) O O U1 U1 0 0 O O 00 CO nO H 01 O O 00 00 d'd' t0 t0 N N t0 W CO CO U)U) O O O O O O N N O O O1 01 U)U) O O U)U) O H H NO U)U) U)U) 00 co co 0o m m U)U) V V' N N CO CO U)U) O O O O 00 CO tO t0 V'V' N N N N L}i/)ivi• i?i? vvin. O O t0 t0 N N i?in- W W i/}in- H H m M O1 01 t0 t0 t0 t0 H H V'V' 411-0). 41)-01. • i?i/} i?i? i?L} NN NN NN m 0101 HH HH t0t0 V}i/) i?i/) i?in- ift i/) i/)i/} i?i/) 411-in- i?4/1- C.) /}U w x Pd U W COtoW H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H F O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD .4 \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ U Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N •y, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .`j. U 01 01 01 01 01• 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 at 01 01 U W 0)01 at 01 01 01 O1 01 O% O1 01 0) 01 O1 O1 O% O1 O% O% W = 01 0% 01 0) 01 0% 0% 0% 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) ',.1~ U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H U 0 a Z t0 N 00 0% 0 H N M w U) W N 00 01 0 H N m H W 40 W W N N N N N t` N N t- N 00 a0 00 00 U ".L t0 A ton tan ton tan ton tan WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA t0 A WA Z0 0 * O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* O* x W V t0 V WV WV WV WV t0 V WV WV t0 V t0 V WV t0 V WV t0 V t0 V WV WV 0 U U M • 0 ' 0) na C4 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 00 0000 0 0 0 0 0 a M ow I 0 z M 0 V' U d' M M t0 H V' Ll) O w O .. M Cr) H LO 1D 0 0 N 00 01 0 0 N N \ Na)VI N O co co LO 01 O1HH N N N CO V' d' N a0 CO CTd' to to to N H co a0 d'd'Lf)Li) CO V' d' Tr VI tO t0 O N M M t0 W N N M N m l0 LD WaD Wt0 LD H 0 0 VI N N N 0 0 M M H M M 0000 t() 0 0 O 0 O O O MMM O 0 N N V• 10 IO 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o in 0 N E N N V• VI V'Ln N H H H d' H H H M M M V' H H m H N Z G; V' V' N N N In V' N N N N M N N N N N N m N V' N V' p W m m V' V'V'H M V• V'V' V' VI V'VI V'V'd'VI V' V' V' V' M 0 Gq I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII I I I I I O I d' V' H H 10 H V' H V'V H M H H H CO CO M N H H H d' 0 O O N N N O O in L)Li) N N N N CO HU) V• N N N 0 4 co co d' MVI 0 a0 N N N m H M M H M M N H M H V' CO N N 0 0 0 CT N o 00 0 0 00 0000 0 o 0 o N Z 0 H E Zal al al v w v w H 7 U U H co I 0 z z z W W W z > W W z > W Gal W H U1 C!) W W W to H H H W GG H H W a' H 0 H al E W WH EEW W 4 as E W as E w a o4 4 w Cu H H 7_I zzw H a as z ca as EEEz u1 a a H 04 a a. Di a a.al 42 Pl al U Z Gd Ga' z O U H If) H z H E H as O W W O W U)u) co co co W uWl O ay >+ 000 EH a U x0 WWWW '� �Z alaaax °��: 0U0 w ww o as yaN aa o w 0 GO co H H H a UU U W WW N 4 U al E x H 000 0 'ZZ x W Z UUUU E Z C7 C7 4 00 WH H z H z x Z W zzz a H H E Z asW H U W W W W E E O Gd H O GCggGd at W H com a vm l 44 C7 A EE wwww �a a N w x >• cov)u) a U t)C.) g W Z as 44 • 4 W E Z U E www a E 00 W W OO as as U • O W W H a aGda 0 U AA Z a Gia 0x00 A A A AAA A W WW W w as a a a a o O c7 x # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 00 00 00 NWOOH 00 0000 000 NN 00 000 00000 00 0101 00 M M 00 E. 00 0(=> 00 co Lo Lf) 00 0101 00101 00 LO IO 000 VI 111 VINN LILn co co 00 1010 00 g00 00 NN H V'010 00 HH Lf)V101 0101 CO 03 ONN Lf)LID LC)NM NN HH Ill In VI V• 00 O N N N N N N Lf)V'CO N N N H H t/}(n M 01 01 Lf)Lf) tf)01 d' H H H M 00 M M 00 O H H d'V' N N t?t? in t? in-t? N M CO V' t?i? 40-(/). t/}t? M M H H MVI 00 Z/}t?tfl,t/}t/} N N t>tA• i?ia> t?t? t?i 1- L}i/} . . L}i? t?t/} t?M.t? H N H H VI-CA 4,/}4A- 0 ?t?0 W M Gd U W E Co W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H E o O 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 00 0000 0 0 0 0 0 O A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IX 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O .^t. \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ • U 01 01 O1 O1 0101 O1 O1 0101 01 01 0101 0101 0101 01 01 01 01 01 O w 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0l 01 011 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 MW x m m almrnrn alm a%al 01alHH rnmrnrn 01CA01a% m U H H H HHH H H H H H H H H HHHH H H H H H U 0 a Z VI 1.11 W N CO O1 O H N m V' in LO N a0 01 H 00 a0 CO 00 CO co 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O 1O A %.13A 43A 40 A WAWA LO Awn 43A lD A LO A LO A 10 A LD A LD A WA M U O# O# O# O # O# O# 0 # O# O# 0 # O # O# O# O# O# O# 'FtD V toy toy LO V 10 V LO V W V l0 V 1O V W V W V 1O V LO V LO V LO V W V O7 O U 4) C31 of a i 0 0 000 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 00 a W ow a1 rnrnrn O ��� z cococo olrnrn w . . . CO m CO Co COCO CO OD CD 00 00 Co aD O1 01 01 O1 01 O1 01 H ri l0 aaa 010101010101 H 01 . • • • • • • N 01 NO O H N HFH rh an m e1' w U) c)r- 01 lD d' zzz to >>»>9 '0 0 o N UUUUUUU w w 0 oC H 0 0 0 333 H ZZZZZZ 0 H N H AAAAAAA 0 0 co rI ri CI 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 m U) N U)Ll) ri H H rI H H ri 14 H d' ri ri H ri ri ri r-I H ri H H rI r♦ a' ' 01 01 01 01 N) 01Cr)01c')mm N N m N P1mf7elelfnm N M N NN.�77 W Tr TP d,V•d, Tr I'V'V.d4 TN TO Tr d' Tr Tr Tr Ti.dr V'ds d'Tr Ti' dr d' N N 0 tY) II I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I UI H H HHH to HOMV'U)CO H H N H UriN )H1DOri H H H 00 U M H U)U)U) U) H U)U)U)U)U) 01 "1' V' V' N 1.0 01 H N U)U) U) m U) d'd' ' m O1 t-r-t- N d'10 10 10 10 10 M d' H d' H H H lD l0 10 1.0 N 01 is CO CO O O 0 0 0 O 0 10 l0 10 10 10 0 O O 01 0 0 0 10 10 l0 10 0 0 0 01 0) U) W U1 CO U)U)U) W u)co W co co co co co W WWWall WW U WWWWWWW W C7 C7 C7 U UUUUUU 'Ty UUUUUUU U WW Z z ZZ H HHHHHH U1 U1 HHHHHHH U1 H U11.7 14 O 0 H H H > 9'J'J>'J'J z W W 9> 9 D 9> W > W Q IWy H H M MM a 0404xx0404 W H H wa:rxxxaa H o4 H E•1 W U)0) W Www www E�--11 a a wwwwwww a w a > >4 O a H HH U1 U)CO WU)U)U) 7. a a U)U1W u)En WU) a U) a 1C4 H a as H a 04 a 04 00 O '.W�cel 0 �Q� Q� > UAQQQ n C7 rnn �� UA CO l rnn WW 0) U) a as Z ZZZZZZ Z ZZZZZZZ Z a1 W �.., 0 000000 H C7 H C7 0000000 C7 0 C7i i 01 (l (J C7c5 H HHHHHH Z Z til Z HHHHHHH Z H Z H Z ria zz co cou)WWccn W H H H U)v)U)cUIWU) H co H y H CNH w wwwwww a .i: E-# E wwwwwwfw H Cl) H ri C) C U) Z HZZ Iz. ww[*awwct. H r>~ w wCuruC=.wCuCu G4 • • W H u)HH 0 000000 D W > W 0000000 W 0 W 00 1 D a 0aa a axaxxx 01 a Cu aaxxaxa a a a 00 A a aaa a as Cu Cu as W O Q 0 as aaaa.a 0 a 0 0C N H z Z E E-4-'H AH H Z 000 H wcxaxu4cxa4 0 O N N N 0 H x x x x x x x 0 H r r r Z 'C UUUUUU U E-1 H UUUUUU C7 W C.)C) • • • • ZZZZZZ H ZZZZZZZ 04 ZZ a a E+HE. co HHHHHH o4 WWWWWWW >' 0 HH 00 0 cn Ul U) U] rx 9.>1>�.>>j.>1>�9j a a "Z, Ul AAA0 zzzzzz u) H gggg.f�P. W w aha' HHHHHH Q H Z (7C7(7 H O a a a .IsH H H H H H H U W (70070W a A H 0 0 0 U)co corn co co 1' A W '.)i a)al'?1.1J.!!t.21co W w 000 WWWWWW 1C A a' '� W xxx HHHHHH A 0 (7 >4>4> >4>'> >4 (7 2 HH O 0001/ a A A A A A A A z FC Z UUW • • • • • a >+ wwwwwww H H a al D1 0 Z HHHHHH Cl 4 0 ZzzZz�z o 00 w 0 qqq (7 Wcoolu)cou) 5C a 0 D4 zzz z zzzzzz (�7� !�j� 0 [*� (r� W H H HHH H HHHHHH r7 x+ ."�• 0 'a4ZC.400^00 .04 a1--I K i1 # K # K # K K K K K i1 00 is t- 01N010 NN e1''O ri M VD VD lO 00 CA CA 00 00 OM U)N MO in OD 00 00 MM 00 EV 00 U)tf) Nri0l ri NN 0DONNCo011D un in VO VO CD CD CO CO O rHm00 L)O ri U) U)U) Tr Tr 0)01 OO CO CD Mt-O t- 0101 10 d'0101 O1MM MM 1-1 r♦ OO MM NM U)CD N U)Ln.-1 CO CO NN tests. O0 0 U)U) un un MNNN NN NO1 rHNI)N CO CO-4/)- OO un L0 1010 U)0010 COl01D s1' d'd' OO U)U) un u) 0)0T d'ct' MU)NO 1010 U)Md'Ot-lOc- M M 4h.4/1- VI-411- NNNrHCOcn NM 4/1-4/1- U)U) VT 4/). ti.40 i/T 4/1. 4/1.4/1. . LT LT LT ,4/1-LT , 41>4/1- 4/1- .VT 4/1- .4/>i/? t?LT I H H H H H M d' LI) H H H 4 LT LT 4/1.4/1- LT i/T LT LT H i/T 4/1- C.) 1>U 4/I- al M G4 U W H co W H H HriH H HHHHHH H H H H HHHHHHH H H H HH H E-1 0 0 00 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 (7 ,y' \ \ \\\ \ \\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\ \ \ \ \\ W Cl N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'Y. O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 ,4 0 0) 01 01 0)0) 01 0)0)0)01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 01 01 01 O W 01 0) 01 01 01 01 01010)010101 01 01 0) 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 0) 01 01 W „"l,' 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 x 0 H H H H H ri HHHHHH ri ri ri ri HHHHHHH H H H H rl U 0 .1 Z 0 H N 01 v' Ln 10 N CO 0) O H N m H 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H U d4 t- A t` A t` A N A N A t� A t� A N A N A N A r- A N A N A N 0 0. 0i' 0 i. 0 i. 0 i1 0* 0 i' 0 K 0 K 0 i. 0 i' 0 i. 0 i' 0 x W V l0 V l0 V 0 v lD V lD V to V 10 V lD V l0 VV <D V l0 V lD V 10 0 O U to m trI la a 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a w 0 a 4.1 0 z M Ut` COrn to ao 0 H Tra0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 a0 In • t0 N 0 0 a0 o a1 0101 010101 CO CO a0 OA 'O CO O1 O. 01 N CO TrN N N N N N N d' M V'to d'to TrN N1.0 H 1.0 to Nto m 4, U) U) N 10 HHHHHHH 0 0 0 0 N CO N 0 0 0 d1 O 0) O H O 0 Iti Qi Ri ai laV Ni Iti O H 0 0 H H W 0 0 0 H 0 01 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N M In H 0 0 0 0 N M 0 H 0 0 El m rI H H H H H H N M M 0 H rI V1 a0 d1 to H 0 01 aD R'P C13 d1 W 11 d1 V1 M 1"C14 d1 d1 d1 H N N N M H 11 N HM m et'd1 d1 d1 d1 d1 d1 m d1 d1 d1 N N d1 d1 d1 CO d1 d1 d' d1 O C0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 UI H NM10riNNd1 0 H H In 0 0 H 10 H H In In N N IUN In III In N N N In N N in N d1 d1 N N In 11 N N N N .. H rI H H H H r-I N CO H N a0 a0 a0 m t0 N N a0 a0 H d1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 o a1 a% 01 O O o 0 01 O1 0 0 z z 0 H Hz ElH CO IcC w 1g w H w w `Z fA El Z H COzz z w 0 w 0 H 0 w w 0 V H El W EH+ CO a a H H 0 01 � H H H 0 CO z H H a 0 0 w w w U) a w w H CO Z CO 0 H z U) H A xmcncnvimco 4 Cu H w 0 W H G4 a 1 Qa�a�aQawQa�a x1 0 U U �'' a °� a� w w �I 0 ZZZZOZZ o 0 KC Ocz o 3 C.) El w A axxrzaxx 5+ A w 3 U U w N El E41 z 0 x 43 m na Ei H 0 CO H a w w w O tx El El 0 Z 0 C) 43 C)0) W Z a0w a > A U H a Z U aU U Z q 0 cn O al W O 44 H U a 0 Cl H N H U U Pd El CO 4 O H Z 0 H (x CO0 0 CO 04 0 w Ulnw cn co U)U) 0 Z ra 0 0 a w al z w w w eE x O HHHHHHH Z ►a W 0; w Z 1 Cl O i� 3 a 0000000 0 4 H U w w AH H H 0 0 w CO a °aaa°a140a a x z z z z x x z E z z z z i1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0 d1 d1 0)N 0 0 0 0 0 H 00 00 N In mm 00 00 mm 03C0 mm V1 d1 In In NN a0 a0 ri El 0 a0ao i�0100000N 00 00 0101 00 00 00 NN LOU) 11 11 MM d1 11 11 11 00 M n0 1010 N 01 N H In M 05 N 00 Into 1,1. 11 4411 00 00 00 CO 03 N N In In 11 11 10W MM t� 0 4.0.0)-0 ka t0 a1 N d1 M 11 01 N N VI d1 V/11 d1 11 M M In In n III LOU) 01 01 N N W 10 e11 d1 0 0 O1 01 10 04.0.0)- N W N O a0 N aO H L>•L? 4.17-If} 4.11-41} . I,Is d1 d1 'Cr 11 411.4/) r♦H L} In In HH t0 10 M M L} H N W V1 d1 N N U w M a U H C1) w H HHHHHHH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H El O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O 4 \ \\\\\ 5S \ \ \ \ \ \ — \ \ \ \ \ Cil Cl N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O • C) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 ma, U W 0) 01 01 O1 O1 01 01 01 01 01 a1 01 01 O1 01 a1 a1 01 a1 01 0) W x 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a% 01 01 01 01 01 x U H HHHHHHH H H H H rI H H H H H H H H H U 0 in t0 N a0 a1 0 H N M VIf) t0 N CO O1 H Z H H H H H H N N N N N N N N N N U A N n N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N n N A N A N A N A N MV * o* 004 * O* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 i1V 1O y WV t0 V 10 V t0 V t0 V t0 V 10 V t0 V 10 V t0 V 10 V WVWVWVW O," U U No al rn RI Cl. Qa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C4 Co o ca ai 0 Z Co co U 01 H 01 0 a0 H. . H N N N 0 0 co N O1 a0 1 01 tO 0 01 01 0 0 In M ri Tis CO d, H10 TrO to V's1 N in N N In 10 If1 to 0 01 10 Ln U LO l0 10 Tr 01 d' N IO H 0 N 0 M 01 0 N Co 0 0 0 O 0 tO ao w N 0 0 H 0 H H 0 H A 0 0 0 V O N 01 H ri 0 N O O O O N O O N H O 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 El N H H H M C- H H N O M H N H In e-1 H H g c4 NI N N N 111 d� N M 0 H N N N M M N sN ^J Co M N er N d� M N I' N V Vd� d� er Vd� cM Tr o a) II I I I I I I I I I i I I I I i i U I Til0 H 0 N O O Tr m In Ln H N H H ao H H U 0 VV VI d' q N Va0 H N N NI H Ln Ln M N H A' 03 co d' aO tO a0 00 H 01 ao co W M t` N VI M M N O1 01 01 10 N 01 O O 01 O1 O O O O 01 O O Co Co O CoEn U Co Z Co CO Co fa-1 H a Co H Co z H CO 0 0 al H H CO H Co Lti 04 Co H 'J H x (Y, H E• Co >+ a >4 Co >+ Co U a a a Co Co a o a H Q a Q H A,' CO CO CO a a H Co a H H El a a a El a El H a 41 a a a 01 Cl) H al Cn CC Cw4 z H Co Z �w Co Q Co En a z cin 1:n 43 Et 0 et1 Fs 0 Z Zat COH 0 ) AZ COC� CO aH Co Q G 1 U El U > U CO Z El El EH CO H �7 D O O a 0 0 Co 0 ccfl Co al H EEl Co H 0 C4 Z co 0 U 0 C.) H 0 U a q 0 0 0 a s 0 N H 0 0 ZEl IX 0 0 Z U z 0 Co El H Co El El as a El z al 0 Co H N Z a A H i i `) CO CO z a Cl) Co Co CoCO CoLa CO HH Co U H CoHCo C] Co 0Z H a' .'7 U U 0 U �µ x H Co�A Co Z U rx a 0 H0 04 Co w 'J HEl CI 0 CO al AA C) al Z Co Z 0 0 Co C!) 04 >+ a A a Cl,s 0 U 4 gym4 al CJ ' U o0 Q �i H 17 H H 4z4OU i Z 0 al al Co C4 CA 0 0 a a a cx I:4 Ca Co Co Co Ca C4') CO Co El El El Fl H * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * '-I 00 00 0101 00 00 00 00 00 Ln In 01001 to ON 00 00 NN 00 CO CO to to M 00 00 VrV. 00 00 00 00 00 NN 000 MM co co 00 00 00 00 r4H N O O O O N N Ln In 0 0 LIN Ln 0 0 0 0 N Ln M O M Ln Ln 01 a1 Vs Vs td 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 N N in in O O N t` O O i?L} Ln in tO l0 M M O1 In Vr tO t0 N N a0 a0 N N in In a0 a0 O O t? i?t? V'V' 01 01 Ln t11 LIN to 'WV NN MU) N 40-Ce) M M 411.4/1- iAi? M M CO CO a0 CO NN V).41). . . . . Lf i? t?L} t?i? t?CO- i?i? Lf i? t/}i/} t?iQ N N H H 0 O M M t?sR M M 40. i? U i?i? H H Co V}tn. C4 U Co El Co Co H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H v-I H H El O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 4 S. \ •. \ \ \ \ \ - \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Co A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'Y, 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O A4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ S .✓. U 01 M1 O1 01 M1 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 a1 01 01 M1 O1 01 U CA a1 M1 (A 01 0) 01 M1 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Co 5C 01 M1 01 O1 01 01 M1 01 CA 01 Cl) 01 O1 01 01 O1 01 CA 0U H H H H H H r-1 H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 Z O H N M Vs In 10 N a0 01 O H N M Vr 111 LO H M M M M m M M M M m 14 Vr Vs cp V• V• Vr U A N At *N A N A N A C.- A C- A C` A C- A C` A N A N A N A NANA NA N A U * 0* O* 0* 0* O* 0* 0* 0* O* 0 * 0* O* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 Co V WV tD V WV WV WV WV tO v WV WV to V LO v WV 1O v WV WV WV WV U U N 0 Eri0 a Q (T. 000 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 a w 0 D 1 0 z w 0 W�W�� CO M to MMMMMMMMMM d' 0H 01 011.H HHHHH N N 01 01 in 01 0000000000 0 AlUH 1 Io In H H H Le)Lfl In U1 LO In 01 d' d' d' O1 V' to 1111n In Lfl Ln U)un un LI) LI) ,Z M w0'.0 VD ao 03 a0�O�O t0 t0�o O N \O l0 M U1 t0 ti)V0 VO LO t0 VD Lo Lo V0 l0 �O H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO H 0 0 H in o CD o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 000 LI L)11100000 01 N 0 0 d' p H H H 00000000 0 O O o O 0 HO 0000000000 0 H H N N N H H H M H M H H H 01 M H M N H NI M M M M M M M M M M PZ adal N MMM NNNNNNNN M M sr erd,VVTrTrTrVTrw d' 0 W I d'sr d' d'd'd'd'd'd'd'V' tel' d' d' d' d' d' 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 11 I I I I I d' I 1 I I H U H 0M d' HHHHHHHH H H in H H H N 000riNNNNMM d' 4 U) M111Ln NV'NHNN d'N to H N M M M 0 HHHMMM d'LO LO 10 0 LO 00 Tr TrLOVVW00 0 M 0 0 d'0 LO O 0 O 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LD 0 a z H CO H P410 0 3 EA a U Z co cn w cn U)cn 0 a cn H H0 Z co www w CAW > a a w > z H H H HHH H HH a 0 W H a W NWWWWWWWWW W H H aaa a as w 0 U a w H UUUUUUUUUU U 0 a s aa(LEaEaa CO CO a U] H HHHHHHHHHH H H H a aaaZaZa+a 0 H a+ C7 ›9›D✓✓››D C4 0Ch 0 W E00 ncnUHU)H00 cnEn z m 3 w aaaaaaaaaa a a wwwwwwwwww w m W C) www C7C)C73L7 (� o 0 w C7 0 E U]cn Ul U]W Cn U]u)cn U2 U] on A Z ZZZ ZZZCDZCDZZ H Z H Z H Z H H H 000 HHHZHZHH U) W xC H U] W w >'>'''4' 4>4>4>4>44 tl Hxxx HE+E+HFHEE a z H w WaaWWWprH�ru rzl CA HHHHH H Cu au au aHo Z O O HHHHHHHHHH H 1 a WNW as alp a;,as a 0 w a' w w 3 ��� ������ a 0o 0 HFE 000i 0W00 a U Ll 0 N A I:4 00000000 W H q W ZZZZZZZZ U1 W C7 E' 0. UUUUUUUUUU U HHHHHHHH Z W Z a 4 ZZZZZZZZZZ Z >>>>>>>> 0 U] HHHHHHHHHH H aaaaaaaa 1-+ CD 04 En U FEFE'HEFHHH H tEnn 41 En CWn twn twn twn LNn 011 4 E atl 4 W H Z Z 7.7.Z'Z'z`I,'T.'T. 'Z. a H E all WwwNWwwNw w 0 1� w >+ w m W D E£Z z Z z Z£Z Z z R EEE � �;� �� I� o a H >4a wwwwwwwwww W E C0i000 zzzzzzzz a >1 w oau `n z CD CD CD 11 WWWWWWWW Q H W U) H FD W HEH aaaaaaaa 04 U WWW 0C9t7C7(9C7C7C7 a a >' >+ Z WWWWWWWWWW W Ips; �3 00000000 W w cn W N 0 2 EiE+HHFHHE > D aa� H W HHE'HE+EEFEH H F4 0)U)V2 HHHHHHHH FA FA al H tprpM > > > FA 3 3333333333 3 * « • In 111 111 O)L�O M LD 0 0 H O d'N N O O O O lO l0 IO LO CO 00 O O 00 00 10 H 01 0N1 N cc;‘) 0 0) )NO M l:00HN[� 0) E-1 HH NMtnN Ln10HOHen%.6)r-N 00 00 03 op NN toko 00 CICU 0lco.U) 0) MM Lfl N ri 01 M H Ln 10 d'ri 10001 U1 UI In Ln riH 0101 HH 00 0101 00 L�O O L L L�sr N 001 6101 O LOU) i/1•i?CI �'i/A i?t/}NH i?i/}H d'NNN H CINH HN HN i?i? N N U)in N N 4/1-0-1A-Ll'i?L?N N i/)H 0 N N TAWyi U} t?t? .. • L}i? t?i? Lk i? t/}Lf . iM L} i? H HH i?i? tn N �, i? in- i? � s?� U W Z a 0 W (F/1 W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HHHHHHHH H H 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 WA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N IX 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ \\\ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ .Yi U 01 01 01 O1 O1 O1 Ol O1 O1 O1 CM O1 O1 O1 01 01 O1 O1 01 01 01 01 O1 01 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 01 U w 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Ch CA ON CA CA Ch 01 CA Ch CA 01 W .T. 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 O1 01 O1 01 H H H H H H H H H H H M U H HH H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H H 0 a 0 N CO 01 0 H N M d' U1 10 N CO in Ln Ln U1 in in U1 in U) A N n N n N A N n N n N n N n N A N n A Aoi< 0 o o o 0 0i< 0 0 oi< oi< o o V Lo v W '.o v 10 v 10 V Lc v v to v 10 v 10 v 10 v to v 10 0 U • fn CD V/ b a pp� CU O 000000 0 al H ni H CU H ni H H M W 1 o a U ZN-I LCI N rNa -I to d' CO 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 H U d' HI t0 t0 ri HI H 01 CA CCI H 0 HMd'0NO CO 01 O,•• OO 0 N d'd'd'd'd'10 ill ' U r- 0 N 10 rr r1 H c0 CO r1 ' fV CO 0 UI in H at 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 I CO Z 0 0 N r1 HI r♦H rt N H H a CO O 0 Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 0 ri M fh r1 H HI ri r♦H LII H co H N CO C; d' fh M f1 C1 01 c1 N N H In M HI O CCri a d' d'd•d'V'd'V' V' d' N V' d' N 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I C.)IH OHHOOa0 H H N d' H N U t0 III U)r1LllLCI til d' N H 0 H H Li) d d' 't0 LO tO d' M 01 CO d' 01 H to 01 0 t0 t0 W 0 0 0 N 0 0 Z 0 H 4 OlCAU)UlCf1U1 CO U WWWWWW CO H 000000 0 0 H 0` .�� >aa'caaa H a' CO 1M E a WWWWWW ,a U CO HH C W U]U ]U1 U] a cn 0 ZZZZCOH CO COZ 0, CO Z a, CO E 000000 H CD Z 0 CO cm 0 a HHHHHH Z H H 0ZZ H > IX 0 WWWWWW 4 i CO w Ln a CO CO Cl) 000000 a CO ZZ 0 0 I 0 CaoSCCIxaIx CO a CO a CO VI CO CO aIli aaaa Z 0 A a El N N C4 0 a w cn u Ix Z H CA E O Z Z Z Z Z Z H H H Ra HHHHHH . 00000a 0Z Z E z Et, • COCAU)ci)U]W H Z 0 0 cCCI ������ w Z A a a 04 al al al of.4 c21 0 H CO H a El COCOCOcnaaca CO az X CO 3 33rn 3333 N 0ea; 0 £ Z a * * * * * * * U1 1.11 0Lf100U100 H H 00 00 00 t0t0 00 d' E d'V' 0 t`Ll O N U1 0 c0 c0 in U1 V'd' 0 0 U1 in 0 0 t0 J U1 U1 N O1 H t0 Uf 0 O fir) 00 ri H 0 0 ID to e-I H d' 0 N M N U1 N d 00 f+)cO 1.0 t00 +1 M GOH fMLO LO 00 00 0101 NN N 10 10 H ' L}tf} 4/1-.03- H ri N N VI- ((N Nfrifk d' V}V} . -l .VI- H H H r1 t0 H H 0 V? 4/3- COU In cir M O4 U CO ai CO H rt H H rt r+H H CO CO 03 c0 CO H El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N N N N DI x A N N N N N N N N• H H H H H O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o O O • U 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0,• 01 01 m 01 01 U [xi CA 01 at 01 01 Ot 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 CO '�7"'. 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 x U H HHHIHHH H H H HI H H 0 U 0 01 O H N M eM In to H Lf1 to t0 to t0 t0 t0 t0 U a( N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 0 ON 0rx, * ON ON ON ON ON O* to V l0 V t0 V t0 V toy toy t0 V t0 V 0 U 0 H m ro a H H 0 H 01 01 01 H 1 CO N 4e CO 0 1n N M O O 01 H a0 M U1 0 W 01 to co V. co In H 01 111 O O N 01 H N N O H r. O to 10 10 N UlCO N 0 0 10 N ar 01 01 0 to H 0 0 d' H 01 CO 0 H CO N 0 10 cts 0 N CO 0 In N Q1 O N a% N N to CO t? tO 01 a0 N 0 M L ' CO0) 0 COGO O1 N M W H H H N H d, 1'7 N H N to 01 VT L} Lf N H O O t? Lf L? i? L} 01 N iik 4h 412. !A W 0 O 0 H G'' CO W Z z w w HH H [11 41 0 0 z 0 z w a a w > H - 0 H. n z A 44 0 H H W W K E,,, H >+ a, H O 9 E rn U A H A W W O U IcTi W W 1.Os > 01 a EEn m a. od '.Hi~ w U U H 01 H R' 01 H `Z 4 W W �3 CO ,Y, rti 0 E W O 01 H O H a. W H E A w a a: COW U x H .0, <n H N aO O H a0 01 O H O O O U1 U 0 H H Nw a Tr VI w w w N N N Nw co H ft it * *t *t *t 3t 3t it = 4t 3t *t * *t *t Ot u w w CZ. a. w w C a. . Ct. CONSENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE i , A. Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek SUBJECT: Final Plat of the"Condominiums of Shenandoah Place" APPLICANT: Heritage Development, Inc. MEETING DATE: February 2, 1999 Introduction: Heritage Development,Inc. has made application for approval of a final plat of a portion of Shenandoah Place into 5 lots to be known as the Condominiums of Shenandoah Place. The subject property is part of the Shenandoah Place PUD, and is located east of Sarazin Street and North of C.R. 16. Discussion: On March 4, 1997 the City Council approved Ord.No. 469 rezoning the entire project site to PUD Overlay District No. 10. The PUD plan identifies the subject site for the construction of 5 multi-family buildings and a pond in the northwest corner. On May 6, 1997 Res.No. 4658 approving the preliminary plat of Shenandoah Place was approved. The preliminary plat identified the subject site as an outlot. In June of 1998 application was made for a minor subdivision of the outlot to create the 5 lots upon which the 5 buildings were to be constructed. The minor subdivision was approved,but in attempting to file it the applicant has been informed that,because the property is torrens either a plat or R.L.S. must be approved for recording. The attached plat,the Condominiums of Shenandoah Place, is consistent with the PUD plan and preliminary plat. Alternatives: 1. Approve the final plat with the following condition: a. All conditions of PUD and preliminary plat approval shall be complied with. 2. Approve the final plat with revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the final plat. 4. Continue the item for additional information. 1 CONSENT Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted, as a part of its consent agenda, to recommend approval with the condition proposed by staff. Action Requested: Offer and pass Resolution No. 5058 approving the Final Plat of the Condominiums of Shenandoah Place with conditions as recommended. i�iVii! p R.Michael Leek Community Development Director 2 RESOLUTION NO.5058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE CONDOMINIUMS OF SHENANDOAH PLACE WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did review the final plat of The Condominiums of Shenandoah Place on January 21, 1999,and recommended its approval;and WHEREAS,the City Council did review the final plat of The Condominiums of Shenandoah Place on February 2, 1999;and WHEREAS,all notices of the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon;and legally the property that is the subject of this plat has heretofore been described as: Outlot D,SHENANDOAH PLACE NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,as follows: That the Final Plat of the Condominiums of Shenandoah Place is hereby approved subject to the following condition: I. All conditions of PUD and preliminary plat approval shall be complied with. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota, held the day of ,1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 1 CONSENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: R. Michael Leek • SUBJECT: Final Plat of the"Condominiums of Shenandoah Place" APPLICANT: City of Shakopee MEETING DATE: January 21, 1999 Introduction: Heritage Development,Inc. has made application for approval of a final plat of a portion of Shenandoah Place into 5 lots to be known as the Condominiums of Shenandoah Place. The subject property is part of the Shenandoah Place PUD, and is located east of Sarazin Street and North of C.R. 16. Discussion: On March 4, 1997 the City Council approved Ord.No.469 rezoning the entire project site to PUD Overlay District No. 10. The PUD plan identifies the subject site for the construction of 5 multi-family buildings and a pond in the northwest corner. On May 6, 1997 Res.No. 4658 approving the preliminary plat of Shenandoah Place was approved. The preliminary plat identified the subject site as an outlot. In June of 1998 application was made for a minor subdivision of the outlot to create the 5 lots upon which the 5 buildings were to be constructed. The minor subdivision was approved,but in attempting to file it the applicant has been informed that,because the property is torrens either a plat or R.L.S. must be approved for recording. The attached plat,the Condominiums of Shenandoah Place, is consistent with the PUD plan and preliminary plat. Alternatives: 1. Recommend approval of the final plat with the following condition: a. All conditions of PUD and preliminary plat approval shall be complied with. 2. Recommend approval of the final plat with revised conditions. 3. Do not recommend approval of the final plat. 4. Continue the item for additional information. 1 CONSENT Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative no. 1, approval of the final plat with condition. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion recommending approval of the Final Plat of the Condominiums of Shenandoah Place with conditions as recommended. • !� � R.Michael Leek Community Development Director 2 —.... . . .... . . • . . . . . • . . • . . • . . •• — Ili .1 .!::HE N,•:,;%i I:.:;.'•1• -. 1 (-4.0 •'-'•L.7::71.: :: . .• 1 -1..1 2 A.0611.- '. a „ , , "" 8 serwsir.8 ::.•:."---.:--- - J. ....... ! .01 :X s 4 : 1 11 i i ------ 8 p 5 01 St- ! i 4,---••••••,, IX 41i tv = 11 z 2 • .-. , . C) 1.; .. Sg 1 "Iti.. •--. ............ ..--,. ........-- 0 1.! ..:... til ti -•-,-- El ,, ' '''7---- k ' 16 .....€ Ig 1 1 .S;', • , ,., ,.. . g •- •...11 151 S r I.: .:. b!,..s.ri ."` s`.. I. .•:,"I. ;16 ,., , ... P.. . .. 84' N,11 5 S '....7'•i 4 :.- ,' :'• ' / -,'-' il "I 1 . itl r.s :i . ... 7-* -..... , I 1 .....i: 64 XIII el Fa ii 4:., ‘..'.•-• ..-..- .A St•.:::, C.3 Xig ... -. t.; §.. .-.... q g I LI -3 • 0... 01" Norzetrr 467.37 .... r q 1 "11 711 ' — K CA I l I i 11 •I i p ' 0 - iii i lir ti i 11.. I. .1 i fp .1 ii ;I:il 1 4/1 1 i II I r !I !.1 q ,1 I i • l• . 11 II A , 1 ;WI 1 i 1 II: ; i 1 1 q I 11 •1 i 11 l' 11 i i is i si i i Li' 3 1 A I 11;It 1 ; I i I It I I t 1 1 nil I 1 i 11 , I i P : lin • 1 1 .. Id . II I 1 r l' rq; 1. I I.I if St I i II 11 da 1 1 li;i , 1 t PI I ill;1 • I ek, I II I i I .. . at i 1 XI ! I I P I: 01 It I !1 1 l"rj r— I 1 , nil ) ! i 1 11-. Ii 1 pp 1 I II i — . C) 1 i = : I r i ri 1 , .t II, I = li. f 1 1 i i , , ril i 1 . i i .1 It t ' CITY OF SHAKOPEE /11.3 . Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Shoreland Ordinance DATE: February 2, 1999 INTRODUCTION&BACKGROUND Staff has prepared a text amendment to the Shoreland Ordinance. The text amendment is in response to changes recommended by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), as well as changes proposed as part of the draft Business Park Zoning district. At its January 21, 1999, meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council with the modifications noted below. Please find the January 21, 1999, memorandum attached for reference. The Planning Commission recommended that Sections 5.64 and 5.65 (as provided in the 1/21/99 memo)be stricken and replaced with the following language. Section 5.64 Extractive and Mining Uses. Extractive and mining uses shall not be allowed in the shoreland district. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the text amendment as originally proposed. 2. Approve the text amendment, with revisions, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Approve the text amendment, with additional revisions. 4. Do not approve the text amendment. 5. Table the matter to request additional information from staff. PLANNING COMNIISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the text amendment, with revisions (Alternative No. 2). ACTION REQUESTED Offer Ordinance No. 537, and move its approval. Ordinance No. 537 has been prepared in conformance with the Planning Commission recommendation. Should the City Council elect to proceed with another alternative, staff should be directed to prepare the appropriate ordinance. ulie Klima Planner II is\commdev\cc\1999\cc0202\tashrind.doc ORDINANCE NO. 537, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11,ZONING, SECTION 11.54 (SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONE) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.54 (Shoreland Overlay Zone is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined and deleting the language which is st elc eugh: Section 1.1 Statutory Authorization This Shoreland Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103.F, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statures, Chapter 462. Section 5.22 A(1)Design Criteria for Structures, High Water Elevations (1) for lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least ene-(1-)foot three (3) feet above the highest known water level, or ene-(1) three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; Section 5.6 Standards for Commercial, Industrial, Public and Semipublic Uses B. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or. if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Section 5.64 Extractive and Mining Uses. Extractive and mining uses shall not be allowed in the shoreland district. Section 4.22.A Land Use Districts for Lakes (5) General Use District Uses Recreational Natural Development Environment Lakes Lakes Commercial P C Commercial Planned Unit Development** C C Industrial C N C*** Public, semipublic P C Extractive Uses C C Parks& Historic Sites C C Forest Management P P Mining of metallic minerals& peat P P ***Industrial uses are allowed by conditional use permit on Natural Environment Lakes if properly zoned and if the conditions in Section 9.0 of this ordinance are satisfied. Subd. 9.0 - Industrial Uses on Natural Environment Lakes 9.1 Conditional Use Permit required. Industrial uses are allowed on Natural Environment Lakes by Conditional Use Permit if such uses are allowed by the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance in the underlying zoning district and if the conditions attached to the development of the site are met. 9.2 Impervious Surface Coverage. Industrial uses on natural Environment Lakes shall be allowed 50% maximum lot coverage with impervious surfaces. This can be increased to 75% maximum lot coverage if the City has an adopted Stormwater Management Plan which adequately addresses stormwater runoff and surface water quality issues in the City, and a specific site plan is reviewed and approved by the City for the Industrial use in question which follows the policies and procedures in the Stormwater management Plan and which utilizes accepted engineering practices to divert, detain, and/or treat runoff before entering the Natural Environment Lake. 9.3 Building Height. The maximum allowable building height for Industrial uses on Natural Environment Lakes is 35 feet. 9.4 Substantial Screening. "Substantially screened from view of water" as required in Section 5.21(D) of this chapter when applied to Industrial uses on natural Environment Lakes which are considered"uses without water-oriented needs" shall mean screening of at least 75% opacity in summer, leaf-on conditions_by either vegetation or topography, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 9.5 Trails in shore impact zone. Trails may be allowed in the shore impact zone as part of a conditional use permit. Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1999. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 (0. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Revisions to the Shoreland Ordinance DATE: January 21, 1999 INTRODUCTION On October 21, 1997, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 500. This ordinance put into place a new shoreland ordinance. The Department of Natural Resources(DNR) has informed the City that several minor changes are needed prior to the DNR granting approval to the shoreland ordinance. In connection with the draft Business Park Zoning district, staff is also proposing several changes regarding industrial uses in the shoreland area. DISCUSSION Please find attached a copy of the current Shoreland Ordinance (Ordinance No. 500, Exhibit A). Staff is proposing the following revisions. Language which is underlined is proposed to be added. Language which is struskthFeugh is proposed to be deleted. Section 1.1 Statutory Authorization This Shoreland Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105 103.F, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statures, Chapter 462. Section 5.22 A(1) Design Criteria for Structures, High Water Elevations (1) for lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least one (1) foot three (3) feet above the highest known water level, or ene-(4) three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; Section 5.6 Standards for Commercial, Industrial, Public and Semipublic Uses B. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontages or_, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography assuming summer, leaf- on conditions. Section 5.64 Extractive Use Standards A. Site Development and Restoration Plan. An extractive use site development and restoration •lan must be develo•ed a• •roved and followed over the course of o•eration of the site. The plan must address dust, noise, possible pollutant discharges, hours and alterations. It must also identify actions to be taken during operation to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, particularly erosion. and must clearly explain how the site will be rehabilitated after extractive activities end. • B. Setbacks for Processing Machinery. Processing machinery must be located consistent with setback standards for structures from ordinary high water levels of public waters and from bluffs. Section 5.65 Mining of Metallic Minerals and Peat. Mining of metallic minerals and peat, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 93.44 to 93.51, shall be a permitted use provided the provision Minnesota Statures, Section 93.44 to 93.51 are satisfied. Section 4.22.A Land Use Districts for Lakes (5) General Use District Uses Recreational Natural Development Environment Lakes Lakes Commercial P C Commercial Planned Unit Development** C C Industrial C N C*** Public, semipublic P C Extractive Uses C C Parks&Historic Sites C C Forest Management P P Mining of metallic minerals& peat P P ***Industrial uses are allowed by conditional use permit on Natural Environment Lakes if properly zoned and if the conditions in Section 9.0 of this ordinance are satisfied. Subd. 9.0 - Industrial Uses on Natural Environment Lakes 9.1 Conditional Use Permit required. Industrial uses are allowed on Natural Environment Lakes by Conditional Use Permit if such uses are allowed by the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance in the underlying zoning district, and if the conditions attached to the development of the site are met. 9.2 Impervious Surface Coverage. Industrial uses on natural Environment Lakes shall be allowed 50% maximum lot coverage with impervious surfaces. This can be increased to 75% maximum lot coverage if the City has an adopted Stormwater Management Plan which adequately addresses stormwater runoff and surface water quality issues in the City, and a specific site plan is reviewed and approved by the City for the Industrial use in question which follows the policies and procedures in the Stormwater management Plan and which utilizes accepted engineering practices to diver, detain, and/or treat runoff before entering the Natural Environment Lake. 9.3 Building.Height. The maximum allowable building height for Industrial uses on Natural Environment Lakes is 35 feet. 9.4 Substantial Screening. "Substantially screened from view of water" as required in Section 5.21(D) of this chapter when applied to Industrial uses on natural Environment Lakes which are considered "uses without water-oriented needs" shall mean screening of at least 75% opacity in summer, leaf-on conditions, by either vegetation or topography, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 9.5 Trails in shore impact zone. Trails may be allowed in the shore impact zone as part of a conditional use permit. The changes proposed to Section 4.22 would allow industrial uses within the shoreland overlay zone only with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The criteria proposed in Subd. 9.0 provide guidelines/additional information regarding industrial uses in the shoreland overlay zone. Section 11.83, Subd. 2 of the City Code states "the City Council may grant a zoning ordinance amendment when it finds that one or more of the following criteria exist." Based on these criteria, staff has prepared the following draft findings. Criteria#1: That the original zoning ordinance is in error. Finding #1: The original zoning ordinance is in need of additional information to comply with Department of Natural Resources(DNR) requirements. Criteria#2: That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Finding#2: Changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. Criteria #3: That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3: Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred with the opening of Highway 169 and the subsequent development and growth pressures of property surrounding Highway 169. Criteria#4: That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the text amendment, as presented. 2. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the text amendment with revisions. 3. Do not recommend the proposed amendment to the City Council 4. Table a decision and request additional information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council (Alternative No. 1). • ACTION REQUESTED Offer and approve a motion recommending approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council. (,L lie Klima Planner II is\commdev\boaa-pc\1999\0121\tashord.doc exKIBgr A ORDINANCE NO. 500, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11,ZONING, REGARDING THE SHORELAND DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 -That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, SEC 11.54 (SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONE- SH) shall be deleted and the following added as Sec. 11.54 (SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONE—SH): Subd.-STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AND POLICY 1.1 Statutory Authorization This Shoreland Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105,Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500- 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. 1.2 Policy The uncontrolled use of shorelands of Shakopee, Miinnesota affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. The City of Shakopee,Minnesota,hereby recognizes this responsibility. Subd. 2.0-GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS 2.1 Jurisdiction The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the shorelands of the public water bodies as classified in Section 4.0 of this ordinance. Pursuant to Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, no lake, pond, or flowage less than 10 acres in sizein municipalities or 25 acres in size in unincorporated areas need be regulated in a local government's shoreland regulations. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland may, at the discretion of the governing body, be exempt from this ordinance. 2.2 Compliance The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; the use, size, type and location of structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and waste treatment systems, the grading and filling of any shoreland area; the cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations. 1 Ord500 2.3 Enforcement The Zoning Official is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements(including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Violations of this ordinance can occur regardless of whether or not a permit is required for a regulated activity pursuant to Section 3.1 of this ordinance. • 2.4 Interpretation In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes. 2.5 Severability If a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 2.6 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 2.7 Definitions Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. For the purpose of this ordinance, the words "must" and "shall" are mandatory and not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally. 2.711 "Accessory structure" or "facility": Any building or improvement subordinate to a principal use which, because of the nature of its use, can reasonably be located at or greater than normal structure setbacks. 2.712 "Bluff': A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (1) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; (3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater,and (4) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. Ord500 2 2.713 "Bluff impact zone": A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff 2.714 "Boathouse":A structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. 2.715 "Building line": A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. 2.716 "Commercial use": The principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental, or trade of products,goods, and services. 2.717 "Commissioner": The commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. 2.718 "Conditional use": A land use or development as defined by ordinance that would not be appropriate generally, but may be allowed with appropriate restrictions as provided by official controls upon a finding that certain conditions as detailed in the zoning ordinance exist, the use or development conforms to the comprehensive land use plan of the community, and the use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. 2.719 "Deck": A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site and at any point extending more than three feet above ground. 2.720 "Duplex," triplex," and "quad": A dwelling structure on a single lot, having two,three, and four units, respectively, being attached by common walls and each unit equipped with separate sleeping, cooking, eating, living, and sanitation facilities. 2.721 "Dwelling site": A designated location for residential use by one or more persons using temporary or movable shelter, including camping and recreational vehicle sites. 2.722 "Dwelling unit": Any structure or portion of a structure, or other shelter designed as short- or long-term living quarters for one or more persons, including rental or timeshare accommodations such as motel, hotel, and resort rooms and cabins. 2.723 "Extractive use": The use of land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals, other nonmetallic minerals, and peat not regulated under Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51. 2.724 "Forest land conversion": The clear cutting of forested lands to prepare for a new land use other than re-establishment of a subsequent forest stand. 2.725 "Hardship": "Hardship" means the same as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. 2.726 "Height of building": The vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. 2.727 "Industrial use": The use of land or buildings for the production, manufacture, warehousing, storage, or transfer of goods, products, commodities,or other wholesale items. 3 Ord500 2.728 "Intensive vegetation clearing": The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip,row,or block. 2.729 "Lot": A parcel of land designated by plat,metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditors plot, or other accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by said description for the purpose of sale, lease, or separation. 2.730 "Lot width": The shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. 2.731 "Nonconformity": Any legal use, structure or parcel of land already in existence, recorded, or authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments thereto that would not have been permitted to become established under the terms of the official controls as now written, if the official controls had been in effect prior to the date it was established, recorded or authorized. 2.732 "Ordinary high water level": The boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. 2.733 "Planned Unit Development": A type of development characterized by a unified site design for a number of dwelling units or dwelling sites on a parcel, whether for sale, rent, or lease, and also usually involving clustering of these units or sites to provide areas of common open space, density increases, and a mix of structure types and land uses. These developments may be organized and operated as condominiums, time-share condominiums, cooperatives, full fee ownership, commercial enterprises, or any combination of these, or cluster subdivisions of dwelling units, residential condominiums,townhouses, apartment buildings, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, resorts, hotels, motels, and conversions of structures and land uses to these uses. 2.734 "Planned Unit Developments, Commercial": These are typically uses that provide transient, short-term lodging spaces, rooms, or parcels and their operations are essentially service-oriented. For example, hotel/motel accommodations, resorts, recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily service-oriented activities are commercial Planned Unit Developments. 2.735 "Planned Unit Developments, Residential": A use where the nature of residency is not transient and the major or primary focus of the development is not service-oriented. For example, residential apartments, manufactured home parks, time-share condominiums, townhouses, cooperatives, and full fee ownership residences would be considered as residential Planned Unit Developments. To qualify as a residential Planned Unit Development, a development must contain at least five dwelling units or sites. 2.736 "Public waters": Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005, subdivisions 14 and 15. 2.737 "Semipublic use": The use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. 2.738 "Sensitive resource management": The preservation and management of areas unsuitable for 4 Ord500 development in their natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expansive soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special protection. 2.739 "Setback": The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top of a bluff; road, highway, property line, or other facility. 2.740 "Sewage treatment system": A septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in Section 5.8 of this ordinance. 2.741 "Sewer system": Pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. 2.742 "Shore impact zone":Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. 2.743 "Shoreland": Land located within the following distances from public waters: 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. 2.744 "Significant historic site": Any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 307.08. A historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or Wit is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are automatically considered to be significant historic sites. 2.745 "Steep slope": Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands with average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more,that are not bluffs. 2.746 "Structure": Any building or appurtenance, including decks, except aerial or underground utility lines, such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph,gas lines,towers,poles, and other supporting facilities. 2.747 "Subdivision": Land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent, or lease, including Planned Unit Developments. 2.748 "Surface water-oriented commercial use": The use of land for commercial purposes, where access to and use of a surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business. Marinas, resorts, and restaurants with transient docking facilities are examples of such use. Ord500 5 2.749 "Toe of the bluff": The lower point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. 2.750 "Top of the bluff': The higher point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. 2.751 "Variance": The same as that term is defined or described in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. 2.752 "Water-oriented accessory structure or facility": A small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways,fences, docks,and retaining walls,which,because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses,pump houses, and detached decks. 2.753 "Wetland": A surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39(1971 edition). Subd. 3.0 - ADMINISTRATION 3.1 Permits Required 3.11 A permit is required for the construction of buildings or building additions (and including such related activities as construction of decks and signs), the installation and/or alteration of sewage treatment systems, and those grading and filling activities not exempted by Section 5.3 of this ordinance. Application for a permit shall be made to the Building Official on the forms provided. The application shall include the necessary information so that the Building Official can determine the site's suitability for the intended use and that a compliant sewage treatment system will be provided. 3.12 A permit authorizing an addition to an existing structure shall stipulate that an identified nonconforming sewage treatment system, as defined by Section 5.8, shall be reconstructed or replaced in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. 3.2 Certificate of Zoning Compliance The Zoning Administrator shall issue a certificate of zoning compliance for each activity requiring a permit as specified in Section 3.1 of this ordinance. This certificate will specify that the use of land conforms to the requirements of this ordinance. Any use, arrangement, or construction at variance with that authorized by permit shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and shall be punishable as provided in Section 2.3 of this ordinance. 3.3 Variances 3.31 Variances may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this ordinance. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. In considering a variance request, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Appeals must also consider whether the property owner has reasonable use of the land without the variance, whether the property is used seasonally or year-round, whether the variance is being requested solely on 6 Ord500 the basis of economic considerations, and the characteristics of development on adjacent properties. 3.32 The Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Appeals shall hear and decide requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it has adopted for the conduct of business. When a variance is approved after the Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the approved variance required in Section 3.42 below shall also include the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Appeal's summary of the public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of the variance. 3.33 For existing developments, the application for variance must clearly demonstrate whether a conforming sewage treatment system is present for the intended use of the property. The variance, if issued, must require reconstruction of a nonconforming sewage treatment system. 3.4 Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources 3.41 Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions must include copies of the proposed subdivision. 3.42 A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten(10) days of final action. Subd. 4 .0 - SHORELAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND LAND USE DISTRICTS 4.1 Shoreland Classification System The public waters of the City of Shakopee have been classified below consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Scott County, Minnesota. 4.11 The shoreland area for the waterbodies listed in sections 4.12 and 4.13 shall be as defined in section 2.743 and as shown on the Official Zoning Map. 4.12 Lakes Protected Waters A. Natural Environment Lakes Inventory I.D. No. Blue Lake I.D.No. 70-0088 Dean Lake I.D.No. 70-0074 Fisher Lake I.D.No. 70-0087 Rice Lake I.D.No. 70-0025 Unnamed I.D.No. 70-0080 Protected Waters B. Recreational Development Lakes Inventory I.D. No. O'Dowd Lake I.D.No. 70-0095 4.13 Rivers and Streams 7 ORD 500 • A. Transition Rivers Legal Description Minnesota River From the West section line of Section 4, Township 115N,Range 22W** B. Agricultural Rivers Legal Description Minnesota River From the border of Scott and LeSueur Counties to the East section line of Section 5,Township 115N,Range 22W** C. Tributary Streams Eagle Creek From Basin 245, Section 13, Township 115,Range 22W to Section 13,Township 115,Range 22W ** Unnamed to MN River From Section 2, Township 115,Range 22W to Section 1,Township 115,Range 22W** Unnamed Tributary From Basin 249, Section 23, Township 115,Range 22W to Section 14, Township 115,Range 22W** *All protected watercourses in the City of Shakopee shown on the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Scott County, a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given a classification in Items A-E above shall be considered "Tributary". **All from and to locations are subject to actual municipality boundaries. 4.2 Land Use District Descriptions 4.21 Criteria For Designation. The land use districts in Section 4.22, and the delineation of a land use district's boundaries on the Official Zoning Map, must be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive land use plan and the following criteria, considerations, and objectives: A. General Considerations and Criteria for All Land Uses: (1) preservation of natural areas; (2) present ownership and development of shoreland areas; (3) shoreland soil types and their engineering capabilities; (4) topographic characteristics; (5) vegetative cover; (6) in-water physical characteristics, values, and constraints; (7) recreational use of the surface water; (8) road and service center accessibility; (9) socioeconomic development needs and plans as they involve water and related land resources; (10) the land requirements of industry which,by its nature, requires location in shoreland areas; and (11) the necessity to preserve and restore certain areas having significant 8 Ord500 • historical or ecological value. B. Factors and Criteria for Planned Unit Developments: (1) existing recreational use of the surface waters and likely increases in use associated with Planned Unit Developments; (2) physical and aesthetic impacts of increased density, (3) suitability of lands for the planned unit development approach; (4) level of current development in the area;and (5) amounts and types of ownership of undeveloped lands. 4.22 Land Use District Descriptions. The land use districts provided below, and the allowable land uses therein for the given classifications of waterbodies, shall be properly delineated on the Official Zoning Map for the shorelands of this community. These land use districts are in conformance with the criteria specified in Minnesota Regulation, Part 6120.3200, Subp. 3. Where a conflict exists between a zoning classification in existence prior to the adoption of this ordinance and the land use described below,the land use designated on the City's Zoning Map shall govern, so long as it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan: A. Land Use Districts For Lakes Recreational Natural Development Environment Lakes Lakes (1) Special Protection District- Uses -Forest management P P -Sensitive resource management P P -Agricultural: cropland and pasture P P -Agricultural feedlots C C -Parks and historic sites C C -Extractive use C C -Single residential C C Mining of metallic minerals and peat P P (2) Residential District-Uses -Single residential P P -Semipublic C C -Parks&historic sites C C -Extractive use C C -Duplex, triplex, quad residential C C -Forest management P P -Mining of metallic minerals and peat P P (3) High Density Residential District-Uses -Residential Planned Unit Developments C C -Single residential P P -Surface water oriented commercial* C C -Semipublic C C -Parks&historic sites C C Ord500 9 -Duplex,triplex,quad residential P C -Forest management P P (4) Water Oriented Commercial District-Uses -Surface water-oriented commercial P C -Commercial planned unit development** C C -Public, semipublic C C -Parks&historic sites C C -Forest management P P *As accessory to a residential planned unit development. **Limited expansion of a commercial planned unit development involving up to six additional dwelling units or sites may be allowed as a permitted use provided the provisions of Section 8.0 of this ordinance are satisfied. (5) General Use District-Uses -Commercial P C -Commercial planned unit Development** C C -Industrial C N -Public, semipublic P C -Extractive use C C -Parks&historic sites C C -Forest management P P -Maung of metallic minerals and peat P P B. Land Use Districts for Rivers and Streams Transition Agricultural Tributary (1) Special Protection District-Uses -Forest management P P P -Sensitive resource management P P P -Agricultural: cropland and park P P P -Agricultural feedlots C C C -Parks and historic sites C C C -Extractive use C C C -Single residential C C C -Maung/metallic minerals and peat P P P (2) Residential District-Uses -Single residential P P P -Semipublic C C P -Parks and historic sites C C P -Extractive use C C C -Duplex,triplex, quad residential C P C -Forest management P P P -Maung/metallic minerals and peat P P P 10 Ord500 *As accessory to a residential planned unit development. **Limited expansion of a commercial planned unit development involving up to six additional dwelling units or sites may be allowed as a permitted use provided the provisions of Section 8.0 of this ordinance are satisfied. (3) High Density Residential-Uses -Residential planned unit dev. C C C -Single residential P P P -Surface water oriented commercial* C C C -Semipublic • C C C -Parks and historic sites C C C -Duplex,triplex, quad residential C C C -Forest management P P P (4) Water-oriented Commercial-Uses -Surface water-oriented commercial C C C -Commercial planned unit dev.* C C C -Public, semipublic P P P -Parks and historic sites C C C -Forest management P P P (5) General Use District-Uses -Commercial C P C -Commercial planned unit dev.** C C C -Industrial N C C -Public, semipublic C P C -Extractive use C C C -Parks and historic sites C C C -Forest management P P P -Nfining/metallic minerals and peat P P P *As accessory to a residential planned unit development **Limited expansion of a commercial planned unit development involving up to six additional dwelling units or sites may be allowed as a permitted use provided the provisions of Section 8.0 of this ordinance are satisfied. 4.23 Use and Upgrading of Inconsistent Land Use Districts. A. The land use districts adopted in Shakopee City Code Chapter 11, Sections 11.22—11.46, as they apply to shoreland areas, and their delineated boundaries on the Official Zoning Map, are not consistent with the land use district designation criteria specified in Section 4.22 herein. These inconsistent land use district designations may continue until revisions are proposed to change either the land use district designation within an existing land use district boundary shown on the Official Zoning Map or to modify the boundary of an existing land use district shown on the Official Zoning Map. B. When a revision is proposed to an inconsistent land use district provision, the following additional criteria and procedures shall apply: (1) For Lakes. When a revision to a land use district designation on a lake is considered, the land use 11 Ord500 district boundaries and use provisions therein for all the shoreland areas within the jurisdiction of this ordinance on said lake must be revised to make them substantially compatible with the framework in Sections 4.21 and 4.22 of this ordinance. (2) For Rivers and Streams. When a revision to a land use district designation on a river or stream is proposed, the land use district boundaries and the use provisions therein for all shoreland on both sides of the river or stream within the same classification within the jurisdiction of this ordinance must be revised to make them substantially compatible with the framework in Sections 4.21 and 4.22 of this ordinance. If the same river classification is contiguous for more than a five-mile segment, only the shoreland for a distance of 2.5 miles upstream and downstream, or to the class boundary if closer, need be evaluated and revised. C. When an interpretation question arises about whether a specific land use fits within a given "use" category, the interpretation shall be made by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. When a question arises as to whether a land use district's boundaries are properly delineated on the Official Zoning Map, this decision shall be made by the Shakopee City Council. D. When a revision is proposed to an inconsistent land use district provision by an individual party or landowner, this individual party or landowner will only be responsible to provide the supporting and/or substantiating information for the specific parcel in question. The Shakopee City Council will direct the Zoning Administrator to provide such additional information for this waterbody as is necessary to satisfy Items A and B. E. The Shakopee City Council must make detailed findings of fact when taking final action that the revision, and the upgrading of any inconsistent land use district designations on said waterbody, are consistent with the enumerated criteria and use provisions of Section 4.2. Subd. 5.0 — ZONING AND WATER SUPPLY/SANITARY PROVISIONS 5.1 Lot Area and Width Standards. The lot area(in square feet) and lot width standards(in feet)for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential lots created after the date of enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream classifications are the following: 5.11 Unsewered Lakes A. Natural Environment: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 80,000 200 80,000 200 Duplex 120,000 300 160,000 400 Triplex 160,000 400 240,000 600 Quad 200,000 500 320,000 800 B. Recreational Development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Ord500 12 Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 150 40,000 150 Duplex 80,000 225 80,000 265 Triplex 120,000 300 120,000 375 Quad 160,000 375 160,000 490 5.12 Sewered Lakes: A. Natural Environment: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 40,000 125 20,000 125 Duplex 70,000 225 35,000 220 Triplex 100,000 325 52,000 315 Quad 130,000 425 65,000 410 B. Recreational Development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 20,000 75 15,000 75 Duplex 35,000 135 26,000 135 Triplex 50,000 195 38,000 190 Quad 65,000 255 49,000 245 5.13 River/Stream Lot Width Standards. There is no minimum lot size requirement for rivers and streams. The lot width standards for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential developments for the six river/stream classifications are: Transition Agricultural Urban &Tributary No sewer Sewer Single 250 150 100 75 Duplex 375 225 150 115 Triplex 500 300 200 150 Quad 625 375 250 190 5.14 Additional Special Provisions. A. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in Sections 5.12 and 5.13 can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential Planned Unit Developments under Section 8.0 of this ordinance. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in Section 5.12 can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. 13 Ord500 • B. Subdivisions of duplexes, triplexes, and quads on Natural Environment Lakes must also meet the following standards: (1) each building must be set back at least 200 feet from the ordinary high water level; (2) each building must have common sewage treatment and water systems in one location and serve all dwelling units in the building; (3) watercraft docking facilities for each lot must be centralized in one location and serve all dwelling units in the building;and (4) no more than 25 percent of a lake's shoreline can be in duplex, triplex, or quad developments. • C. Lots intended as controlled accesses to public waters or as recreation areas for use by owners of nonriparian lots within subdivisions are permissible and must meet or exceed the following standards: (1) they must meet the width and size requirements for residential lots, and be suitable for the intended uses of controlled access lots. (2) If docking, mooring, or over-water storage of more than six(6)watercraft is to be allowed at a controlled access lot, then the width of the lot (keeping the same lot depth) must be increased by the percent of the requirements for riparian residential lots for each watercraft beyond six, consistent with the following table: Controlled Access Lot Frontage Requirements Ratio of lake size Required increase to shore length in frontage (acres/mile) (percent) Less than 100 25 100-200 20 201-300 15 301-400 10 Greater than 400 5 (3) controlled access lots must be jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision or by all purchasers of nonriparian lots in the subdivision who are provided riparian access rights on the access lot;and (4) covenants or other equally effective legal instruments must be developed that specify which lot owners have authority to use the access lot and what activities are allowed. The activities may include watercraft launching, loading, storage, beaching, mooring, or docking. They must also include other outdoor recreational activities that do not significantly conflict with general public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by adjacent property owners. Examples of the nonsignificant conflict activities include swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The covenants must limit the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked and the total number of watercraft allowed to be continuously moored, docked, or stored over water, and must require central»ation of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alterations. They must also require all parking areas, storage buildings, and other facilities to be screened by vegetation or topography as 14 Ord500 much as practical from view from the public water,assuming summer,leaf-on conditions. D. The use of motorized watercraft (iincluding but not limited to boats powered by inboard and outboard motors and jet skis)is prohibited on natural environment lakes. 5.2 Placement,Design,and Height of Structures. 5.21 Placement of Structures on Lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level, provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows. A. Structure and On-site Sewage System Setbacks(in feet)from Ordinary High Water Level*. Setbacks* Classes of Public Structures Sewage Treatment Waters Unsewered Sewered System Lakes Natural Environment 150 150 150 Recreational Development 100 75 75 Rivers Transition 150 150 100 Agriculture and Tributary 100 50 75 *One water-oriented accessory structure designed in accordance with Section 5.22 of this ordinance may be set back a minimum distance of ten(10)feet from the ordinary high water level. B. Additional Structure Setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody: Setback From: Setback(in feet) (1) top of bluff; 30 (2) unplatted cemetery; 50 (3) right-of-way line of 50 federal, state, or county highway; and (4) right-of-way line of 20 town road, public street, Ord500 15 or other roads or streets not classified. C. Bluff Impact Zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. D. Uses Without Water-oriented Needs. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public water frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer,leaf-on conditions. 5.22 Design Criteria For Structures. A. High Water Elevations. Structures must be placed in accordance with any floodplain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or flood-proofed must be determined as follows: (1) for lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least one (1) foot above the highest known water level, or one (1) feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; (2) for rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least three feet above the flood of record, if data are available. If data are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least three feet above the ordinary high water level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flows and to establish a flood protection elevation. Under all three approaches, technical evaluations must be done by a qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent with parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood plain areas. If more than one approach is used, the highest flood protection elevation determined must be used for placing structures and other facilities;and (3) water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this item if the structure is constructed of flood-resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. B. Water-oriented Accessory Structures. Each lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in Section 5.21 of this ordinance if this water-oriented accessory structure complies with the following provisions: (1) the structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. Detached decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point; (2) the setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten feet; 16 Ord500 (3) the structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer,leaf-on conditions; (4) the roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed or used as a storage area; (5) the structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities;and (6) as an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area up to 400 square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline. C. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements: (1) stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and Planned Unit Developments; (2) landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and Planned Unit Developments; (3) canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings; (4) stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion; (5) stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions,whenever practical; and (6) facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of sub-items (1) to (5) are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations,Chapter 1340. D. Significant Historic Sites. No structure may be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented in a public repository. E. Steep Slopes. The Building Official and/or the City Engineer must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for Ord500 17 construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer,leaf-on vegetation. 5.23 Height of Structures. All structures in residential districts, except churches and nonresidential agricultural structures, must not exceed thirty-five(35)feet in height. 5.3 Shoreland Alterations Alterations of vegetation and topography will be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. 5.31 Vegetation Alterations. A. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section 5.4 of this ordinance are exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow. B. Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as regulated in Sections 5.62 and 5.63, respectfully, is allowed subject to the following standards: (1) Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the soil and water conservation district in which the property is located. (2) In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, livestock watering areas, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: (a) the screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (b) along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and (c) the above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. 5.32 Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. A. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, the grading and filling standards in this Section must be incorporated into the issuance of permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways. Ord500 18 B. Public roads and parking areas are regulated by Section 5.4 of this ordinance. C. Notwithstanding Items A. and B. above, a grading and filling permit will be required for: (1) the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within shore or bluff impact zones;and (2) the movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material outside of steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones. D. The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: (1) Grading or filling in any type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland*: (a) sediment and pollutant trapping and retention; (b) storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; (c) fish and wildlife habitat; (d) recreational use; (e) shoreline or bank stabilization;and (f) noteworthiness, including special qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. *This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other local, state, or federal agencies such as a watershed district, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant will be so advised. (2) Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; (3) Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible; (4) Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used; (5) Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; (6) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; (7) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater; 19 Ord500 • (8) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; (9) Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005; (10) Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties; and (11) Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. E. Connections to public waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, must be controlled by local shoreland controls. Permission for excavations may be given only after the commissioner has approved the proposed connection to public waters. 5.4 Placement and Design of Roads,Driveways,and Parking Areas. 5.41 Public and private roads and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. 5.42 Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. 5.43 Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of Section 5.32 of this ordinance must be met. 5.5 Stormwater Management. The following general and specific standards shall apply: 5.51 General Standards: A. When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store,filter, and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters. B. Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used 20 Ord500 to retain sediment on the site. C. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and man-made materials and facilities. 5.52 Specific Standards: • A. Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. B. When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that they are designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation districts. C. New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. 5.6 Standards for Commercial,Industrial,Public,and Semipublic Uses. A. Surface water-oriented commercial uses and industrial, public, or semipublic uses with similar needs to have access to and use of public waters may be located on parcels or lots with frontage on public waters. Those uses with water-oriented needs must meet the following standards: (1) in addition to meeting impervious coverage limits, setbacks, and other zoning standards in this ordinance, the uses must be designed to incorporate topographic and vegetative screening of parking areas and structures; (2) uses that require short-term watercraft mooring for patrons must centralize these facilities and design them to avoid obstructions of navigation and to be the minimum size necessary to meet the need;and (3) uses that depend on patrons arriving by watercraft may use signs and lighting to convey needed information to the public, subject to the following general standards: (a) no advertising signs or supporting facilities for signs may be placed in or upon public waters. Signs conveying information or safety messages may be placed in or on public waters by a public authority or under a permit issued by the county sheriff; (b) signs may be placed, when necessary, within the shore impact zone if they are designed and sized to be the minimum necessary to convey needed information. They must only convey the location and name of the establishment and the general types of goods or services available. The signs must not contain other detailed information such as product brands and prices, must not be located higher than ten feet above the ground, and must not exceed 32 square feet in size. If illuminated by artificial lights, the lights must be shielded or directed to prevent Ord500 21 illumination out across public waters;and (c) other outside lighting may be located within the shore impact zone or over public waters if it is used primarily to illuminate potential safety hazards and is shielded or otherwise directed to prevent direct illumination out across public waters. This does not preclude use of navigational lights. 5.61 Agriculture Use Standards. A. General cultivation farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting are permitted uses if steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones are maintained in permanent vegetation or operated under an approved conservation plan (Resource Management Systems) consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts or the United States Soil Conservation Service, as provided by a qualified individual or agency. The shore impact zone for parcels with permitted agricultural land uses is equal to a line parallel to and 50 feet from the ordinary high water level. B. Animal feedlots must meet the following standards: (1) new feedlots must not be located in the shoreland of watercourses or in bluff impact zones and must meet a minimum setback of 300 feet from the ordinary high water level of all public waters basins; and (2) modifications or expansions to existing feedlots that are located within 300 feet of the ordinary high water level or within a bluff impact zone are allowed if they do not further encroach into the existing ordinary high water level setback or encroach on bluff impact zones. 5.62 (Reserved) 5.7 Conditional Uses. Conditional uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures, and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established community-wide. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within shoreland areas: 5.71 Evaluation criteria. A thorough evaluation of the waterbody and the topographic, vegetation, and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: (1) the prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; (2) the visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; (3) the site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and (4) the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible suitability public le in relation to the of waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. 5.72 Conditions attached to conditional use permits. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals, upon consideration of the criteria listed above and the purposes of this ordinance, shall attach such Ord500 22 conditions to the issuance of the conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions may include,but are not limited to, the following: (1) increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level; (2) limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the requirement that additional vegetation be planted;and (3) Special provisions for the location, design,and use of structures, sewage treatment systems,watercraft launching and docking areas,and vehicle parking areas. 5.8 Water Supply and Sewage Treatment 5.81 Water Supply. Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed standards for water quality of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 5.82 Sewage treatment. Any premises used for human occupancy must be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment, as follows: A. Publicly-owned sewer systems must be used where available. B. All private sewage treatment systems must meet or exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for individual sewage treatment systems contained in the document titled, "Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards, Chapter 7080", a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. C. On-site sewage treatment systems must be set back from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the setbacks contained in Section 5.21 of this ordinance. D. All proposed sites for individual sewage treatment systems shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in sub-items (1)-(4). If the determination of a site's suitability cannot be made with publicly available, existing information, it shall then be the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient soil borings and percolation tests from on-site field investigations. Evaluation criteria: (1) depth to the highest known or calculated ground water table or bedrock; (2) soil conditions, properties, and permeability; (3) slope; (4) the existence of lowlands, local surface depressions, and rock outcrops; E. Nonconforming sewage treatment systems shall be regulated and upgraded in accordance with section 6.13 of this ordinance. Subd. 6.0 - NONCONFORMITIES All legally established nonconforniities as of the date of this ordinance may continue, but they will be managed according to applicable state statutes and other regulations of this community for the subjects of alterations and additions, repair after damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use; except that the following standards will also apply in shoreland areas: 6.1 Construction on nonconforming lots of record. 23 Ord500 A. Lots of record in the office of the county recorder on the date of enactment of local shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements of Section 5.1 of this ordinance may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot size requirements provided the use is permitted in the zoning district, the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time,and sewage treatment and setback requirements of this ordinance are met. B. A variance from setback requirements must be obtained before any use, sewage treatment system, or building permit is issued for a lot. In evaluating the variance, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall consider sewage treatment and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lot and shall deny the variance if adequate facilities cannot be provided. C. It in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the requirements of Section 5.1 of this ordinance the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. The lot must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the requirements of Section 5.1 of this ordinance as much as possible. 6.2 Additions/expansions to nonconforming structures. A. All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of Section 5.0 of this ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to Section 3.3. B. Deck additions may be allowed without a variance to a structure not meeting the required setback from the ordinary high water level if all of the following criteria and standards are met: (1) the structure existed on the date the structure setbacks were established; (2) a thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure; (3) the deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not exceed 15 percent of the existing setback of the structure from the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than 30 feet,whichever is more restrictive; and (4) the deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. 6.3 Nonconforming sewage treatment systems. A. A sewage treatment system not meeting the requirements of Section 5.8 of this ordinance must be upgraded, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system's improper setback from the ordinary high water level. B. The governing body of the City of Shakopee has by formal resolution notified the commissioner of its program to identify nonconforming sewage treatment systems. The City of Shakopee will require upgrading or replacement of any nonconforming system identified by this program within a reasonable period of time which will not exceed 2-years. Sewage systems installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under 24 Ord500 Minnesota Statutes, section 105.485, in effect at the time of installation may be considered as conforming unless they are determined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, or other deep disposal methods, or systems with less soil treatment area separation above groundwater than required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Chapter 7080 for design of on-site sewage treatment systems, shall be considered nonconforming. Subd. 7.0 - SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS • 7.11 Land suitability. Each lot created through subdivision must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration. Suitability analysis by the local unit of government shall consider susceptibility to flooding, existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water-based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. 7.12 Consistency with other controls. Subdivisions must conform to all official controls of this community. A subdivision will not be approved where a later variance from one or more standards in official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended purpose. In areas not served by publicly owned sewer and water systems, a subdivision will not be approved unless domestic water supply is available and a sewage treatment system consistent with Sections 5.2 and 5.8 can be provided for every lot. Each lot shall meet the minimum lot size and dimensional requirements of Section 5.1, including at least a minimum contiguous lawn area, that is free of limiting factors sufficient for the construction of two standard soil treatment systems. Lots that would require use of holding tanks must not be approved. 7.13 Information requirements. Sufficient information must be submitted by the applicant for the community to make a determination of land suitability. The information shall include at least the following: (1) topographic contours at ten-foot intervals or less from United States Geological Survey maps or more accurate sources, showing limiting site characteristics; (2) the surface water features required in Minnesota Statutes, section 505.02, subdivision 1, to be shown on plats, obtained from United States Geological Survey quadrangle topographic maps or more accurate sources; (3) adequate soils information to determine suitability for building and on-site sewage treatment capabilities for every lot from the most current existing sources or from field investigations such as soil borings, percolation tests, or other methods; (4) information regarding adequacy of domestic water supply; extent of anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations; near-shore aquatic conditions, including depths, types of bottom sediments, and aquatic vegetation; and proposed methods for controlling stormwater runoff and erosion, both during and after construction activities; (5) location of 100-year flood plain areas and floodway districts from existing adopted maps or data; and (6) a line or contour representing the ordinary high water level, the "toe" and the "top" of bluffs, and the minimum building setback distances from the top of the bluff and the lake or stream. Ord500 25 • 7.14 Dedications. When a land or easement dedication is a condition of subdivision approval, the approval must provide easements over natural drainage or ponding areas for management of stormwater and significant wetlands. 7.15 Platting. All subdivisions that create five or more lots or parcels that are 2-1/2 acres or less in size shall be processed as a plat in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 505. No permit for construction of buildings or sewage treatment systems shall be issued for lots created after these official controls were enacted unless the lot was approved as part of a formal subdivision. 7.16 Controlled Access or Recreational Lots. Lots intended as controlled accesses to public waters or for recreational use areas for use by nonriparian lots within a subdivision must meet or exceed the sizing criteria in Section 5.14 of this ordinance. Subd. 8.0-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS(PUD's) 8.1 Types of PUD's Permissible Planned Unit Developments(PUD's)are allowed for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. The land use districts in which they are an allowable use are identified in the land use district descriptions in Section 4.2 of this ordinance and the official zoning map. 8.2 Processing of PUD's Planned Unit Developments must be processed consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance, except that an expansion to an existing commercial PUD involving 6 or less new dwelling units or sites since the date this ordinance was adopted is permissible as a permitted use provided the total project density does not exceed the allowable densities calculated in the project density evaluation procedures in Section 8.5. Approval cannot occur until the environmental review process (EAW/EIS) is complete, where those processes are required by State law and regulation. 8.3 Application for a PUD The applicant for a PUD must submit the following documents prior to final action being taken on the. application request: 8.31 A site plan and/or plat for the project showing locations of property boundaries, surface water features, existing and proposed structures and other facilities,land alterations, sewage treatment and water supply systems(where public systems will not be provided), and topographic contours at ten-foot intervals or less. When a PUD is a combined commercial and residential development, the site plan and/or plat must indicate and distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential, commercial, or a combination of the two. 8.32 A property owners association agreement (for residential PUD's) with mandatory membership, and all in accordance with the requirements of Section 8.6 of this ordinance. 8.33 Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that: 1) properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional buildings, beaching of watercraft, and construction of commercial buildings in residential PUD's; and 2) ensure the long-term preservation 26 Ord500 . and maintenance of open space in accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in Section 8.6 of this ordinance. 8.34 When necessary, a master plan/drawing describing the project and the floor plan for all commercial structures to be occupied. 8.35 Those additional documents as requested by the Zoning Official that are necessary to explain how the PUD will be designed and will function. 8.4 Site"Suitable Area" Evaluation • Proposed new or expansions to existing Planned Unit Developments must be evaluated using the following procedures and standards to determine the suitable area for the dwelling unit/dwelling site density evaluation in Section 8.5. 8.41 TheP roject parcel must be divided into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals, proceeding landward: Shoreland Tier Dimensions Unsewered Sewered Recreational development lakes 267 feet 267 feet Natural environment lakes 400 feet 320 feet All river classes 300 feet 300 feet 8.42 The suitable area within each tier is next calculated by excluding from the tier area all wetlands, bluffs, or land below the ordinary high water level of public waters. This suitable area and the proposed project are then subjected to either the residential or commercial planned unit development density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of dwelling units or sites. 8.5 Residential and Commercial PUD Density Evaluation The procedures for determining the "base" density of a PUD and density increase multipliers are as follows. Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the waterbody, but must not be transferred to any other tier closer. 8.51 Residential PUD "Base" Density Evaluation: A. The suitable area within each tier is divided by the single residential lot size standard for lakes or, for rivers, the single residential lot width standard times the tier depth, unless the local unit of government has specified an alternative minimum lot size for rivers which shall then be used to yield a base density of dwelling units or sites for each tier. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the residential Planned Unit Developments are then compared with the tier, density, and suitability analyses herein and the design criteria in Section 8.6 8.52 Commercial PUD "Base" Density Evaluation: A. Determine the average inside living area size of dwelling units or sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed units and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not include decks, patios, stoops, steps, garages, or porches and basements, unless they are 27 Ord500 habitable space. B. Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the following table: Commercial Planned Unit Development Floor Area Ratios* • Public waters classes Recreational *Average development unit floor Agricultural lakes and Natural area(sq. and tributary transition environment ft.) river segments river segments lakes 200 .040 .020 .010 300 .048 .024 .012 400 .056 .028 .014 500 .065 .032 .016 600 .072 .038 .019 700 .082 .042 .021 800 .091 .046 .023 900 .099 .050 .025 1,000 .108 .054 .027 1,100 .116 .058 .029 1,200 .125 .064 .032 1,300 .133 .068 .034 1,400 .142 .072 .036 1,500 .150 .075 .038 *For average unit floor areas less than shown,use the floor area ratios listed for 200 square feet. For areas greater than shown, use the ratios listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use the ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the manufactured home,or if unknown,the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet. C. Multiply the suitable area within each tier by the floor area ratio to yield total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites. D. Divide the total floor area by tier computed in Item C. above by the average inside living area size determined in Item A. above. This yields a base number of dwelling units and sites for each tier. E. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the commercial planned unit development are then compared with the tier, density and suitability analyses herein and the design criteria in Section 8.6. 8.53 Density Increase Multipliers: A. Increases to the dwelling unit or dwelling site base densities previously determined are 28 Ord500 allowable if the dimensional standards in Section 5.0 are met or exceeded and the design criteria in Section 8.6 are satisfied. The allowable density increases in Item B. below will only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are increased to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional means acceptable to the local unit of government and the setback is at least 25 percent greater than the minimum setback B. Allowable Dwelling Unit or Dwelling Site Density Increases for Residential or Commercial Planned Unit Developments: • Density evaluation tiers Maximum density increase within each tier(percent) First 50 Second 100 Third 200 Fourth 200 Fifth 200 8.6 Maintenance and Design Criteria 8.61 Maintenance and Administration Requirements. A. Before final approval of a planned unit development, adequate provisions must be developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and functioning of the development. B. Open space preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long-term preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections: (1) commercial uses prohibited(for residential PUD's); (2) vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance prohibited; (3) construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials prohibited; and (4) uncontrolled beaching of watercraft prohibited. C. Development organization and functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established, when applicable, all residential Planned Unit Developments must use an owners association with the following features: (1) membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchasers; (2) each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can become liens on units or sites; (3) assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions; and (4) the association must be responsible for insurance,taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities. 29 Ord500 . I .I M 8.62 Open Space Requirements. Planned Unit Developments must contain open space meeting all of the following criteria: (1) at least 50 percent of the total project area must be preserved as open space; (2) dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or structures, except water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, are developed areas and shall not be included in the computation of minimum open space; (3) open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in,their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries; (4) open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of dwelling units or sites, by guests staying in commercial dwelling units or sites, and by the general public; (5) open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the systems; (6) open space must not include commercial facilities or uses, but may contain water-oriented accessory structures or facilities; (7) the appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, must be preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means;and (8) the shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, must be included as open space. For residential PUD's, at least 50 percent of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least 70 percent of the shore impact zone area of new developments must be preserved in its natural or existing state. For commercial PUD's, at least 50 percent of the shore impact zone must be preserved in its natural state. 8.63 Erosion Control and Stormwater Management. Erosion control and stormwater management plans must be developed and the PUD must: (1) be designed, and the construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length of time of bare ground exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or other appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans approved by a soil and water conservation district may be required if project size and site physical characteristics warrant;and (2) be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and qualities of stormwater runoff Impervious surface coverage within any tier must not exceed 25 percent of the tier area, except that for commercial PUD's 35 percent impervious surface coverage may be allowed in the first tier of general development lakes with an approved stormwater management plan and consistency with Section 5.3. 8.64 Centralization and Design of Facilities. Centralization and design of facilities and structures must be done according to the following standards: (1) Planned Unit Developments must be connected to publicly owned water supply 30 Ord500 _ r and sewer systems, if available. On-site water supply and sewage treatment systems must be centralized and designed and installed to meet or exceed applicable standards or rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and Sections 5.2 and 5.8 of this ordinance. On-site sewage treatment systems must be located on the most suitable areas of the development, and sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors must be provided for a replacement soil treatment system for each sewage system; (2) Dwelling units or sites must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation above the surface water features, and maximum height. Setbacks from the ordinary high water level must be increased in accordance with Section 8.53 of this ordinance for developments with density increases; (3) Shore recreation facilities,including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps, must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope, water depth,vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or docking of watercraft must not exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier (notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an existing commercially used harbor). Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers; (4) Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening must be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided; (5) Accessory structures and facilities, except water oriented accessory structures, must meet the required principal structure setback and must be centralized; and (6) Water-oriented accessory structures and facilities may be allowed if they meet or exceed design standards contained in Section 5.2 of this ordinance and are centralized. 8.7 Conversions Local governments may allow existing resorts or other land uses and facilities to be converted to residential Planned Unit Developments if all of the following standards are met: 8.71 Proposed conversions must be initially evaluated using the same procedures for residential Planned Unit Developments involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the development and these standards must be identified. 8.72 Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage, open space, and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the 31 Ord500 conditional use permit. 8.73 Shore and bluff impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of the conversion. These improvements must include,where applicable,the following: (1) removal of extraneous buildings, docks, or other facilities that no longer need to be located in shore or bluff impact zones; (2) remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of buildings and other facilities as viewed from the water, and (3) if existing dwelling units are located in shore or bluff impact zones, conditions are attached to approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial alterations. The conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible, to other locations, meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced. 8.74 Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in Section 8.5 may be allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the future. Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring seasonal use, improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment systems, or other means. Section 2 — Summary approved. The City Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance, marked"Official Summary of Ordinance No. 500", a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Section 3 -Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication of a summary of the ordinance. Adopted inMi . session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, nnesota, held the_,21___day of Ju.,,, , 1997. /. th City of Shakopee _ ATTEST: I Ali4.......A 4 • Cii erk 22 � / 1997. Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the A9 day of /11/ 32 ORD500.RTF ORDINANCE NO. 500, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE SHORELAND DISTRICT The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. 500, Fourth Series, approved by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on October 21, 1997: State requirements regarding the protection of shorelands along public waters have changed since the adoption of the City of Shakopee's current Shoreland Overlay Zone provisions, in turn necessitating revision of the City's ordinance. Section 1.0 - Statutory Authorization &Policy-This shoreland ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. Due to the uncontrolled use of shorelands of Shakopee, Minnesota, the Legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. Section 2.0 - General Provisions & Definitions-The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the shorelands of the public water bodies as classified in Section 4.0 of this ordinance. The Zoning Official is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor. It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. Section 3.0 - Administration - A permit is required for the construction of buildings or building additions, the installation and/or alteration of sewage treatment systems, and those grading and filling activities not exempted by this ordinance. Application for a permit shall be made to the Building Official. The Zoning Administrator shall issue a certificate of zoning compliance for each activity requiring a permit. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of this ordinance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall hear and decide requests for variances. Section 4.0 - Shoreland Classification System &Land Use Districts-The public waters of the City of Shakopee have been classified consistent with the criteria found in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3300, and the Protected Waters Inventory Map for Scott County, Minnesota. The land use districts and the delineation of a land use district's boundaries on the Official Zoning Map must be consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive land use plan and the criteria as so stated in this ordinance. The land use districts and their delineated boundaries on the Official Zoning Map are not consistent with the land use district designation criteria specified in Section 4.22 herein. These inconsistent land uses may continue until revisions are proposed. • Section 5.0-Zoning and Water Supply/Sanitary Provisions -The lot area and lot width standards for single, duplex, triplex and quad residential lots created after the date of enactment of this ordinance for the lake and river/stream classifications are as set forth in Sections 5.11 - 5.13. Subdivisions of duplexes, triplexes and quads on Natural Environment Lakes must meet all standards of this ordinance. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards. Lots intended as controlled accesses to public waters or as recreation areas for use by owners of nonriparian lots within subdivisions are permissible and must meet all standards of this ordinance. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as permissible in Section 5.20 of this ordinance. Structures must be placed in accordance with any floodplain regulations applicable to the site. Each lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback in Section 5.21 if this structure complies with the provisions of this ordinance. Stairways and lifts, meeting City design requirements, are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Alterations of vegetation and topography will be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. General and specific stormwater management plan standards shall be followed according to Sections 5.51 - 5.52. Special provisions for commercial, industrial, public/semipublic, agricultural, forestry and extractive uses and mining of metallic minerals and peat shall be followed according to Sections 5.61 - 5.62. Conditional uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures, and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established community-wide. Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet the standards for water quality of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Any premises used for human occupancy must be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment as so stated in Section 5.82 of this ordinance. Section 6.0 -Nonconformities - All legally established nonconformities as of the date of this ordinance may continue, but they will be managed according to applicable state statutes and other regulations of this community for the subjects of alterations and additions, repair after damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use; except that the standards as set forth in this ordinance shall also apply in shoreland areas. , Section 7.0 - Subdivision Provisions - Each lot created through subdivision, including Planned Unit Developments authorized under Section 8.0 of this ordinance, must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration. Subdivisions must conform to all official controls of this community. A subdivision will not be approved where a later variance from one or more standards in official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended purpose. In areas not served by publicly owned sewer and water systems, a subdivision will not be approved unless domestic water supply is available and a sewage treatment system consistent with Section 5.2 and 5.8 can be provided. When a land or easement dedication is a condition of subdivision approval, the approval must provide easements over natural drainage or ponding areas. All subdivisions that create five or more lots or parcels the are 2-1/2 acres or less in size shall be processed as a plat and no permit shall be issued for lots created after these official controls were enacted unless the lot was approved as part of a formal subdivision. Section 8.0 -Planned Unit Developments (PUD's)-PUD's are allowed for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. The land use districts in which they are an allowable use are identified in the land use district descriptions in Section 4.20 of this ordinance and the Official Zoning Map. PUD's must be processed as a conditional use except that an expansion to an existing commercial PUD involving six or less new dwelling units or sites since adoption of this ordinance is permissible as a permitted use provided the total density complies with Section 8.50. Prior to final action being taken on the application request, the applicant must submit all documents as set forth in Sections 8.31 - 8.35. The procedures for determining the "base" density of a PUD and density increase multipliers are as set forth in Section 8.50. Before final approval of a PUD, adequate provisions must be developed for preservation and maintenance of open spaces. PUD's must contain open space meeting all criteria set forth in Section 8.62 of this ordinance. Erosion control and stormwater management plans must be developed and the design of facilities and structures must be done according to standards of this ordinance. Existing land uses and facilities may be converted to residential PUD's if all standards of Sections 8.71 - 8.73 of this ordinance are met. Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in Section 8.50 may continue but must not be allowed to be increased. is\commdev\cc\1997\cc 1021\summary.doc 1y. c , CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Conditional Use Permits DATE: February 2, 1999 INTRODUCTION&BACKGROUND In the past, the City has processed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications which included variances. Due to increased concern of this approach, staff has prepared a text amendment, which if approved, would require that any variance requests as part of a CUP application be subject to the criteria for granting a variance, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. At its January 21, 1999, meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council. Please find the January 21, 1999, memorandum attached for reference. Also attached is a copy of Section 11.85, Subd. 2 in its current form. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the text amendment as originally proposed. 2. Approve the text amendment, with revisions. 3. Do not approve the text amendment. 4. Table the matter to request additional information from staff. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the text amendment (Alternative No. 1). ACTION REQUESTED Offer Ordinance No. 538, and move its approval ' lie 'ma lanner II is\commdev\cc\1999\cc0202\tacups.doc ORDINANCE NO. 538,FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11,ZONING, SECTION 11.85 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.85 (Conditional Use Permits) is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined and deleting the language which is stfuclrteugh: Section 11.85, Subd. 2 (Application Information for Conditional Use Permits) F. •. . • - . . . . . a list of any variances requested with the Conditional Use Permit. All variance requests shall be reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit process but shall be subject to the Criteria for Granting Variances as outlined in Section 11.89, Subd. 2 of the City Code. Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1999. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 §11.85 SEC. 11.85. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Subd. 1. Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits. In granting a conditional use permit, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the occupants of surrounding lands and the City as a whole. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall not grant a conditional use permit without making the following findings: A. the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity; B. the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area; C. adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; D. the use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and E. the use is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Subd. 2. Application. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Zoning Administrator on forms provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the following: A. the legal description of the property; B. a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all properties situated wholly or partially within 350 feet of the property as such appear on the records of the Scott County Recorder, or such larger area as specified in the applicable conditional use permit provisions; C. evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; D. the fee; E. a plat or map of the property which shows, at a minimum, all lot lines, existing and proposed structures, driveways, and parking spaces; and F. such other information as may be required by the City. Subd. 3. Public Hearing. A. Generally. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published in the official newspaper, and sent by mail to the applicant and to the owners of all properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet, as reflected in the records of the Scott County Recorder. page revised in 1997 1431 ✓ / CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Conditional Use Permits DATE: January 21, 1999 - INTRODUCTION Due to increased concern by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and City Council regarding variance requests incorporated with Conditional Use Permit (CUP) review, staff is proposing a text amendment to address the issue. DISCUSSION The City Code is currently silent on the issue of variance requests which are included and/or associated with Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications. Past practice of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and City Council has been to review the variance requests as part of the CUP application and in some place additional conditions on the application to mitigate any impacts from the variances. However, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the City Council have expressed concerns over variances being requested as part of a Conditional Use Permit application. Therefore, staff is proposing to the following changes to the City Code. Language which is underlined is proposed for addition, language which is stfuekthraugh is proposed for deletion. Section 11.85, Subd. 2 (Application Information for Conditional Use Permits) F. . - - . . . •. . -- •• . a list of any variances requested with the Conditional Use Permit. All variance requests shall be reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit process but shall be subject to the Criteria for Granting Variances as outlined in Section 11.89, Subd. 2 of the City Code. G. such other information as may be required by the City. Section 11.83, Subd. 2 of the City Code states "the City Council may grant a zoning ordinance amendment when it finds that one or more of the following criteria exist." Based on these criteria, staff has prepared the following draft findings. Criteria #1: That the original zoning ordinance is in error. Finding#1: The original zoning ordinance is not in error. Criteria#2: That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Finding #2: Changes in community goals and policies addressing conditional use permits and variance has taken place. Criteria #3: That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3: Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have not occurred Criteria#4: That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the text amendment, as presented. 2. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the text amendment with revisions. 3. Do not recommend the proposed amendment to the City Council 4. Table a decision and request additional information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council (Alternative No. 1). ACTION REQUESTED Offer and approve a motion recommending approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council. a, ki,,,,;„/, ulie Klima Planner II i:\commdev\boaa-pc\1999\0121\tacups.doc CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Jon Brekke and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark J. McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Parks and Recreation Facilities Bond Proposal Date: January 26, 1999 INTRODUCTION The chairpersons of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Citizen Task Force have asked to appear before the City Council to discuss their recommendation for a park bond referendum to fund improvements of City recreation facilities. BACKGROUND At a June 10, 1997 joint meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Councilor Bob Sweeney suggested the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board seriously consider a park bond referendum to fund some park improvements. With over $13 million in parks, trails and recreation facility improvements identified in the City's Five Capital Improvement Program, the Park Reserve Fund would be depleted by year 2000. The Park Reserve Fund receives a majority of its funding through park dedication fees and the rest from grants and donations. On June 23, 1997, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended that staff facilitate the creation of a citizens task force which would review all recreation facility projects and determine how they should be funded. The Board also suggested the task force have representation from various associations, neighborhoods, seniors and youth. After six months of advertising and recruiting by staff; a committee of 15 residents were assembled to review the parks and recreation facility needs. From the outset, the 15 member committee established 5 major goals it wished to accomplish. They were: 1. Identify current and future park system needs. 2. Prioritize existing and future needs. 3. Identify available funding sources and assign funding sources to specific projects. 4. Conduct a community-wide survey to measure citizen attitudes about parks and recreation services, projects and support for a park bond. 5. Recommend to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council how the City can best meet the current and future recreation needs of the community. For the next 11 months, the task force spent many hours reviewing operating budgets, capital improvement projects, the city's new park systems plan and toured each park. In November of 1998, the task force conducted a Parks Facilities Survey. One thousand five hundred residents were randomly selected to fill-out a survey and return it to City Hall. Over 500 residents (32%) completed and returned their survey. The purpose of the survey was to garner citizen input about the existing park system and what needs to be done to improve it. The survey results helped guide the task force in deciding what needed to be done and how to fund it. See Survey Analysis on Attachment A PRESENTATION On Tuesday, February 2, 1999, representatives from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Citizens Task Force would like to appear before the City Council to report their findings. The joint presentation will be conducted by Jeff Kaley, the chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Matt Lehman, the vice-chair of the Citizens Task Force. (Burl Zorn is basking in the Florida sun for three months.) The proposed referendum projects are list on Attachment B. TASK FORCE PROPOSAL At the January 25, 1999 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting, the Advisory Board concurred with the Citizens Task Force recommendation to recommend to the City Council to hold a park bond referendum for the issuance of$6 million in general obligation bonds. If voters approve the referenda, then bonds will be sold which will be used to pay for improvements to the park system. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board also recommended the referendum be held the 4th day of May, 1999. MAYOR'S FUNDING PROPOSAL Based on the recent survey results, Mayor Jon Brekke is recommending the referendum be no more than$4 million. He is suggesting a 1/3 match or $2 million from other City fund sources to augment the $4 million bond sale. Of course, the match would be contingent on voters approving the $4 million referendum. DISCUSSION 1. Review the recommendations of the PRAB and Citizen Task Force and discuss your concerns and/or support with the representatives from each group. 2. Discuss the funding ppby Mayor osal Ma or Brekke. 3. If Council concurs with the recommendation of the Citizens Task Force and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, then it should, by motion, direct staff to meet with its bond council to provide an analysis of a $4 mil and/or$6 million bond referendum and its impact on a average house value of$115,000 over a 20 year period. (Staff has prepared a spread sheet illustrating the bond impact over a 10, 20 & 30 year period See Attachment C.) 4. Council should direct its City Attorney to draft the appropriate language to be placed on the referendum ballot. 5. Council should direct staff to prepare an Operating Perfoma for the Community Center which would include a leisure •'1 and fit . ilities. leisure .„ :1 McQu'4an Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENT A Shakopee Parks and Recreation Bond Referendum - Task Force Recommendations and Community Survey The Shakopee Parks and Recreation Task Force combined their knowledge of city needs with the results of the November, 1998 community survey to prepare a list of priority projects for a Spring, 1999 bond referendum. The following compares the survey results and the projects selected for bond funding. SURVEY RESULTS BOND REFERENDUM PROJECTS Strong support for bike and walking trails. Trails - Prairie Bend Park to Hauer Park 46% - Great Support, 32% Marginal Support Trail, 10th Avenue to Mound Street Trail Strong support for additions to the Shakopee Community Center Additions -Leisure Community Center(particularly an indoor Pool with lap pool, fitness center(cardio swimming pool, fitness center and teen and strength equipment room, aerobics center). room,two racquetball courts, multi- 44% - Great Support, 27% Marginal Support purpose rooms (teens, seniors etc.) Improvements to existing community parks. Community Park Improvements— 27% Great Support, 49%Marginal Support Improvements to Huber Park and O'Dowd Lake Park Improvement to existing neighborhood parks. Neighborhood Park Improvements— 28%Strong Support, 44%Marginal Support Improvements to Emerald Lane, Hiawatha, Holmes, Horizons Heights, Meadows, P & V, Prairie Bend, Stans and 10 &Main Parks Bond Referendum Strategy — Utilize a bond referendum to fund projects which: • Represent the desires and needs of the community(survey results and task force selection). • Appeal to a wide geographic area of the city(see map of priority project locations). • Respond to existing park and recreation needs. Use park dedication funds and other sources for new growth needs. • Utilize volunteers to "get the word out" regarding the bond referendum. • Schedule a Spring bond referendum election(just after the Shakopee Park Preview). ATTACHMENT A l► t i iY _' • itssi CEA.TES ;rr P3 °';r:-;3:es p,• !:':as ..., Shakopee Parks and Recreation Community Survey - November, 1998 Summary Results: Survey Response The 509 responses (32% of the 1588 questionnaires sent) is an excellent result. It indicates a high level of interest and assures a statistically sound result. Recreation Use Among the survey respondents, the following are the most popular recreation activities: 1. Walk/Hike, 2. Bicycling, 3. Playgrounds, 4. Picnicking, 5. Swimming. Park System Additions The survey respondents feel that bicycle/walking trails, a band shell, and natural areas are lacking from the Shakopee Park system. Many also felt a river boat dock and mini-golf course were lacking. Question #5 Community Center Additions An indoor pool addition to the Community Center received strong interest from respondents. Addition of a fitness center and teen center also received a large amount of support. Question #6 Project Support Bike and walk trails and additions to the Community Center received a large amount of support. A fair amount of support was also shown for improvements to community and neighborhood parks. Question # 7 Referendum Support A large majority of respondents (63%) said they would vote for a park and recreation facility bond referendum. Question #8 Annual Tax Contribution On average, supporters of a bond referendum were willing to see a temporary annual increase in property taxes of approximately$40.00 per year. Question # 9 See the attached survey results for more information. S'! ;5413 .612 '6i!n ;i. 7 iuli ATTACHMENT A Shakopee Parks and Recreation Community Survey — Areas of Support: The following_ items received strong. support from survey respondents: t Community Center additions — Specifically an indoor pool and fitness center. 51) Bicycle and walking trails. sib Community park improvements — Particularly when combined with trails, natural experiences, and passive recreation. Playground improvements at neighborhood or community parks. t A river front park combined with a boat dock and band shell. t Teen facilities/activities. Moderate to Lesser Support: • Acquisition of land for new parks (particularly for athletic parks). • Additions for indoor court sports (soccer, tennis, volleyball, basketball, racquetball). • Arts (exhibit or auditorium) additions. • Addition of a second indoor ice rink. ATTACHMENT A 0-7_, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O NN N N N en O • O 0 0l o of o oI eI o N CT �_ - M - 'Cr M .rs- 4 o \ o 0 o 0 0 0l a 0 Cin .et Oct . G1 in N 00 N t� C\ i V- N N om/_ — N r'1 ',D .c1:. "t C. 0 0 0 0 � -S" 3 0 -s o 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t C. — — _ CO L^ C N N N -CI- N 53. M _!',. vo 0.• cn = V = a) C o _s o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o cn tO az V i"'• C/5 M M N — N -1- N a, ooN — .o R5 > V05 S o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 C G N00 G1 n 00 N 00 C L V- N M N !f N M ., M 'C y L Q) o ✓ el o e p p p p p l 2 CA (�((.//// • M C1 t� c \O N N GN h %O a) M N N en M -;t' N N N . 0 .0 C t N ._ C C_ N C. C C. ^CS .- ._y C4 H ) "Q C ti C `� E c m C C a.) E C o V C O 0 'O -L3 •::: >- rX X 4 -` G o R •v X X vcz C •- .t C LI. Q ca C. o U = c L c) a. c x C. rs C ▪ o C. U x C ° >' ^C >' C 0. G x E C z Y L. = ca C O C a) fi 3 - i c- y •C y 1 _D E a C > X c oa = I) Ci U U 0 ,` ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SHAKOPEEi A COMMUNITY SURVEY 1 ite b_si RESULTS k ra `' • ` _ �:-'? rz.: T-i) ,...,-c,,.:::.: —'1.6-.-7-. 7.-,± . ..p.,...1-=_-_,V.--tAz-..zwennie-_,.. December 15, 1998 Summary: A total of 4. In which activities have you or members 509 surveys were returned for a response rate of of your household participated within the 32%. This is an excellent response and indicates past three years? Please check all that apply. a high level of interest in the issues. The numeric results are shown below. A detailed analysis and ❑ Playgrounds 0 Ice 0 Walking 0 Organized recommendations will follow. (247) skating/ /Hiking outdoor sports hockey (356) (i.e.softball, (121) ,baseball, 1. How often do members of your household soccer) visit the parks or public recreation facilities (175) in Shakopee? 0 Picnicking 0 Jogging/ 0 Golf 0 Informal sports (229) Running (148) (i.e.playing catch, ❑ At least once 0 1-3 times 0 Several times 0 Never (98) 'pick up"sports a week a month a year games.Frisbee) (26%) (24%) (37%) (12%) (1`5) 0 Swimming 0 Bicycling 0 Inline 0 Indoor court 2. Overall, how would you rate the park and (201) (269) skating sports(i.e. recreation facilities in Shakopee? (114) basketball. volleyball) (125) ❑ Very 0 Good 0 Average 0 Poor 0 Very ❑ Cross 0 Visit 0 Tennis 0 Outdoor court good poor country nature (55) sports(i.e. (12%) (48%) (33%) (5%) (2%) skiing areas basketball. (40) (156) volleyball) 3. Which Shakopee park and recreation (85) facilities do you and your family use? 0 Bird 0 Other. watching (81) ❑ Neighborhood parks(i.e.Deerview, 0 Shakopee Community Hiawatha,Holmes,Killamey, Center(Ice rink,walking& Meadows.Prairie Bend.Riverview, running track,gymnasiums, 5. What type of outdoor park or recreation Stans and Timber Trails) and meeting rooms) facility do you feel is lacking in Shakopee? (185) (220) ❑ Community parks(Muenchow, 0 Bike and walk trails 0 Baseball/ 0 Picnic 0 Natural 0 Interpretive/ Lions,Tahpah,O'Dowd.Memorial, (285) softball shelters areas historic areas Huber,and Scenic Heights) fields (78) (123) (27) (286) (30) ❑ Outdoor municipal swimming pool 0 Children's 0 Park 0 River boat 0 Bandshefl (158) play areas landscaping dock (125) (74) (58) (94) ❑ Soccer 0 Bicycle/ 0 Mini-golf 0 Other(please ❑ Other: fields walking (94) list) (61) trails (125) ATTACHMENT A 6. In which additional activities or facilities 8. If Shakopee develops a plan to improve within the Shakopee Community Center existing parks and create new park and would you and/or members of your family be recreation facilities based on this survey, interested? Pease check ail that apply. would you vote for a future bond referendum (a temporary increase in property taxes) to ❑ Child care ❑ Fitness ❑ A second ❑ Indoor help pay for the improvements? (69) center indoor ice swimming (186) rink pool 0 Yes 0 No If no.go to question 10 (50) (235) (63%) (36%) ❑ Indoor play 0 Rac uetbail 0 Senior 0 Basketball equipment (62) center (53) 9. How much would you be willing to see (74) (78) your annual property taxes increase to sup- O Volleyball 0 Aucitcrum ❑ Indoor 0 Indoor golf port the park and recreation improvements? (42) (54) tennis practice (37) (86) ❑ 520/yr. 0 S40/yr. ❑ S60/yr. 0 S80/yr. ❑ Art exhibit 0 Aerobics 0 Indoor 0 Teen (127) (106) (34) (28) (57) (88) soccer center (23) (115) ✓ •...- 0 ❑ other. 1 '`. i ' • "S'L 7. Which of the following improvements/ i' .,f^ -"2 "-1 `::: additions to the Shakopee park and -�','` =...::: :'=--"'`� ' r ,, recreation system would you be willing to � _� -� support? , ="' :i ' _- `_x• • i ce,, Great support Marginal No support - '. r - }"* %" + support • *r--:-.7--S4,5 ❑ 46% 0 32% 0 22% Additions to and extension of ?; .» bike/walk trails � •` u- . .,e ---i. — ❑ 28% 0 44% C 27% Improvements to existing , .,neighborhood parks parks - )* . - - ❑ 27% 0 49% 0 23% Improvements to existing community parks 10. Based on the map above, in which ❑ 20% 0 34% 0 46% Acquisition of land for new neighborhood do you reside? community athletic parks ❑ 27% 0 37% 0 35% Acquisition of land for new 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 passive use community parks (13°/,) (27°6) (22%) (17%) (17%) (4%) and natural areas ❑ 44% 0 27% 0 28% Additions to the Shakopee Community Center'(such as 11. How many people in these age categories the uses listed in question 6) live in your household? ❑ 19% 0 48% ❑ 33% A senior citizen center Please fill in number of people in each age category O 29% ❑ 38% C 33% A riverfront park(Huber Park) _0-5 years _6.11 years _12-19 years 20-29 years O 29% 0 37% 0 34% A lake side park(O 0cmd Park) _30-39 years _40-49 years _50.59 years _60+years ATTACHMENT B Shakopee Park and Recreation Task Force Bond Referendum Project Priorities 1/13/98 First Priority Projects Location Estimate Project Community Center Swimming Pool $ 3,820,000 Leisure Pool with lap pool -Comm Center Cardio and strength addition (1,600 sq. ft.) and equipment, 2 Fitness Center and Multi- ;racquetball courts(1,600 sq. ft.), multi-purpose room, aerobics purpose Room i $ 770,000 room (1,000 sq. ft) Indoor Play Area I $ 425,000 .Indoor play area addition (2,000 sq.ft.)and equipment Trails BikeM/alk Trail I $ 50,000 ;10th to Mound trail BikeNValk Trail I $ 50,000 'Prairie Bend Park to Hauer Park trail Neighborhood Parks Emerald Lane i $ 7,000 Shade shelter Hiawatha i $ 118,000 New warming house/bathroom, playground equipment Holmes I $ 70,000 :Playground expansion, path, plaza area, landscaping Horizon Heights I $ 100,000 ,Park expansion(3 acres), play equipment KiIlemay Hills I $ 37,000 Playground equipment, trail, trees Meadows I $ 7,000 I Shade shelter P &V I $ 10,000 ,Benches, plaza, kiosk Prairie Bend I $ 14,000 Shade shelter Stans I $ 30,000 Parking lot 10th & Main ! S 32,000 Benches. path, landscaping Community Parks Huber ! $ 370,000 Parking, plaza, boat landing O'Dowd Lake i $ 90,000 Road, parking, shelters, bathroom I I Total Bond Amount ( $ 6,000,000 ' I � ATTACHMENT B Shakopee Park and Recreation Task Force Bond Referendum Project Priorities 1/13/98 Secondary Priorities Lions ; $ 200,000 'Parking, Road, Pond Senior Center I $ 300,000 2,000 sq. ft.w/fumishings $150/sq ft Prairie View I $ 1,600,000 !Land acquisition 40 acres Eastern Area $ 700,000 Purchase 30 acres of MnDOT land for eastern Comm Park 2nd Indoor Ice Sheet I $ 1,900,000 Second ice sheet attached to existing building Total Other Projects I $ 4,700,000 I 1 Revised Funding Sources i Southbridge $ 200,000 'Trails, Ball field, Shelters- Park Reserve Tahpah $ 380,000 'Baseball stadium, Parking, Road, Fields-Park Reserve Timber Trails $ 5,000 Accessible surface-Park Reserve Scenic Heights $ 5,000 Accessible playground-Park Reserve Lions $ 300,000 Mini-golf course-Revenue Bond $890,000 ATTACHMENT C OO 0 O O r- .,_ r r r r 0 0) 0) N N 0 O O r - O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 up LO- C O O NI- NI- O 0)) re O 00 E co O N M M M N N O ✓ r (O CO O 0 N N d) N * % *k * k * * * 4# * % I# k4I: 4k *k4 4# * * * * o M 0 O O o O o a O o O O O O O)Lo M vi O 00) V O O in r o O N O .�- 00 aO0 Fri In O O `- O CO O r 0 ON N O O O O 69 00 Cl) 69 ER ER ER 69 ER ER Cl) CO 1111 CL (1'c°3 N 0 M O o I� O o ▪ O M O O 0O o co O (00 co 0co CO O O O dam) O r N .�. .N. to .Oi O O r 0 O r 0 NI-- M O) O O ER R 60 E 9 ER ER ER ER ER ER III 0 0 0 O O O o 0'1O O o (CO O o N O r o M O O d M O I- O 'r O uj O 000 O N O N (0 O N ,_ Ci r U) Uf) N CD '- ti s N N- O C O O O O O N .ri 00 O 0 O N- N- E 10 as O O O @ 64SER Ects to, ER ER ER ER 69 ER L S cL iz O 7 O O C O O II N L N ami LAN I- N a� c.. U) N r O 3 +O-' lb O - >b (o cu N O Ere a c , (XoI- ONI-I- O a a } m a 2 < I- _i I- i 1— ATTACHMENT C O O 0 O O I- T r r .- r 0 N N 0 O O r w O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 Lf) U) 0 0 O 0) O~) Y CO O E LA Lf) N M M M N N v) I- .- (O CO CO 0 N N 0) T 0 o M 0 O O o N O o M O o ,-- a O co 0 0 c) 0 0 Cr) N O M r uj O O O W d O O) Lo 0a) •co O co O e0- M y M .M.i M .~.. 0 d r 0 O rs r 0 (O O) Is. M O) O O O 6v9 CO te 441 E9 CO EA E9 EA E9 EA N 0) t VS U) a 0 0 0 N O O o O O o (gyp O o Qi O N O U) 0 O O II O O d• O O CO u-i O vj O O U) O O M O LA c6) 4) LA c9, (O r (O O Nd• )[) O O) 0 et •O .- M `. co M .. (h .. LO 0 r ' r 0 O r 0 CO CO I• O Si O O te 60 EA 9 E9 E9 EA FA EA EA 0 0 0 if O O o R. O o M O o M 0 r 0 �• 0 0 (O 1$) 0 (O r 0 CO U) 6j O r- 0 O co O) 0 0- in0 0 0 O (O . 0(ON O O (0O . ..i�- = 0 r 0 co rO i (p O O O SEA E • EA EA EA EA ER EA EA L 6 ED EA a) a) C 0 O) 7 7 II O) 00 O L w N i- N N 7 E2 fn 0 O N 7 0 N •N 0 • N e v > L ce x R 12 x x RI L x x O c`a CC a) o E - > cxoF- o CCF- CCF- F- 0 a IX >- co a 2 Q F- J F- I F- )% E. CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Jon Brekke and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark J. McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Improvements Date: January 26, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is recommending the City Council allocate up to $550,000 for improvements to the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium. BACKGROUND As early as 1970, plans were underway to build a new community baseball field either in Lions Park or Tahpah Park. In 1980, the Shakopee Jaycees donated funds and volunteer labor to construct a new baseball field at Tahpah Park. After years of flooding, the old Riverside Baseball Park on the north side of the Minnesota River was finally closed in 1985. The steel light towers at Riverside Park were disassembled and transported to the new ballfield in Tahpah Park. A committee of local baseball supporters raised over $15,000 to purchase a section of the Metropolitan Stadium grandstand and reconstructed it at the new ballfield. The purchase included steel girders, concrete slabs and seating for about 600 people. Danny's Construction donated labor and funding to reconstruct the grandstand. In 1989, two concrete block dugouts and a giant wooden batting eye in center field were built by the town baseball team and in 1993, the Shakopee Jaycees irrigated the entire 40 acre complex including the baseball field. UNFINISHED STADIUM Unlike many town ballparks, Schleper Stadium does not have a press box, concession stand or restrooms. A canopy roof over the grandstand is also needed to help block the sun from the fielders eyes (pitcher, shortstop and 3rd baseman) during late afternoon games. The backstop netting would also to be extended to the roof to protect spectators from foul balls. A temporary screening system was installed at the top of the grandstand. The sun-screen is raised and lowered on a pulley system which has a history of malfunctioning. USERS The Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium is the home field for the Shakopee High School Baseball Team, Shakopee Indians Town Baseball Team, Shakopee Coyotes Town Baseball Team, Shakopee American Legion Baseball Team, Shakopee Mickey Mantle Baseball Team and the Men's Over 35 Baseball Team. Occasionally, teams in the Junior Boys Baseball Program will use the field. STADIUM DESIGN AND COST OF IMPROVEMENTS In December of 1998, David Lineer was hired to work with staff and leaders of the local baseball program to develop a concept plan for stadium improvements. Needed improvements would include a concession stand, restrooms, press box and canopy. Mr. Lineer is the architect who did the concept design for the grant proposal to expand the Community Youth Center. Kevin O'Brien of Greystone Construction was contacted to provide the estimates for the improvements being proposed. See Exhibit A. The estimate for the press box, concession stand, restrooms and canopy is about $550,000. FUNDING The 1999 Five Year Parks Capital Improvement Program identifies $200,000 of Park Reserve Funds for stadium restrooms, concession stand and press box. (Prior to the adoption of the 1999 CIP, $400,000 was identified for the stadium project but $200,000 was shifted to the Community Youth Center Expansion Project which is contingent on a successful grant application.) In 1995, the City Council identified $380,000 of TIF funds for a various improvements in Tahpah Park. See Exhibit B. According to the Finance Director, those funds are still identified for Tahpah Park. It makes sense to use the TIF funds for the stadium project and use Park Reserve Funds for land acquisition and development of new parks. Even with TIF funds, the stadium project will have an estimated shortfall of$175,000. Therefore, the project either needs to be scaled back or additional funding from another source will be needed to complete the project. One suggestion would be to fund the project using a combination of TIF funds and Park Reserve Funds. For example: $450,000 TIF and $100,000 Park Reserves. BIDDING THE PROJECT If the City Council decides to fund all or even part of this project, it may want to bid it with certain components as bid alternates. The main bid package could include: concession stand, restrooms and press box. The bid alternates would include: landscaping, canopy over grandstand and storage area under the grandstand. Therefore, Council has the option to exclude one or two of the bid alternates or all of them. Council can also reject the entire bid package if it desires. DISCUSSION Step 1. Discuss Scope of Project Step 2. Discuss Funding Options. ALTERNATIVES 1. Allocate $450,000 of TIF Funds and $100,000 of Park Reserve Funds for the Joe Schleper Stadium Project and bid the project as one complete package. 2. Allocate $450,000 of TIF Funds and $100,000 of Park Reserve Funds for the Joe Schleper Stadium Project and bid the project with bid alternates for the canopy, storage area under the grandstand and landscaping. 3. Allocate $380,000 of TIF Funds for the Joe Schleper Stadium project and reduce the scope of the project to not exceed $380,000. 4. Allocate $200,000 of Park Reserve Funds for the Joe Schleper Stadium project and reduce the scope of the project to not exceed $200,000. 5. Table this item and request further information from staff 6. Do nothing. RECOMMENDATION 1. At its January 25, 1999 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended Alternative# 1. 2. If the City Council approves funding for this project, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended that it direct staff to prepare and solicit Request For Proposals for architectural and design services for the stadium improvements. Staff prefers Alternative#2, because it allows Council to choose the scope of the project based on the bid. ACTION REQUESTED 1. If the City Council concurs withe Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendation, it should, by motion, move to allocate $450,000 of TIF Funds and $100,000 of Park Reserve Funds for the Joe Schleper Stadium Improvement Project and bid the project as one complete package. 2. If funding is approved, Council should, by motion, move to direct staff to prepare and seek Request For Proposals for architectural and design services for the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Improvement Project. Cyrnz.1/1 Mark J. / cQuillan Parks and Recreation Director kitlitiC• T 1 %JPI . CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Project: Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Location: Shakopee, MN Bid Date: 12/18/98 Bid Time: Bid Type: Budget Architect: David Linner Estimator: Tom/Kevin Notes: Concession Building/Dugout Addition, and Canopy Division 1-General Conditions 7,400.00 Division 2- Sitework 21,000.00 Division 3- Concrete 26,740.00 Division Masonry 39,600.00 Division 5- Metals 250.00 Division 6- Carpentry 25,050.00 Division 7- Thermal & Moisture 9,670.00 Division 8- Doors & Windows 13,650.00 Division 9- Finishes 9,450.00 Division 10- Specialties 15,290.00 Division 11- Equipment - Division 12- Furnishings - Division 13- Special Construction - Division 14- Conveying Systems - Division 15- Mechanical 33,700.00 Division 16- Electrical 4,500.00 Special Conditions 13,700.00 SUBTOTAL (total cost) 220,000.00 Add for Canopy 148,000.00 Add for Press Box 60,800.00 TOTAL BID AMOUNT 428,800.00 .51-43 oeiz . Ir, coo,C) `' ,7as:yYt Sesv;Ce 01006 0 e 1221 East Fourth Avenue, Suite 110 Equal Opportunity Telephone: 612-496-2227 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Employer/Contractor Fax: 612-445-4191 v W ' TAMP!M!1 TV I,KriIL'f CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Clarifications 1. Sewer and water will be run over to and tied in to existing building utilities. 2. 150-amp electric service feed from light tower at home team dugout. 3. Patch existing bituminous parking lot at utility trenches. 4. "Bubbler" type drinking fountains in dugouts—no drains back to sanitary. 5. No lighting in canopy. 6. No fixed tables or benches 7. Wall mounted toilet fixtures with flush valves 8. 12 long span joists (88') with metal decking above and liner panel below, with colored metal fascia panels all around in canopy. 9. Re-use existing canvas sun screen. 10. 4 canopy columns and 3 press box columns. 1221 East Fourth Avenue, Suite 110 Equal Opportunity Telephone: 612-496-2227 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Employer/Contractor Fax: 612-445-4191 � Shakopee Trail Improvement Project (Exhibit I-F, Site C) Upper Valley Trail Extension Project - $250,000 Trapah Park Improvement Project (Exhibit I-F, Site D) 1. Grandstand Improvement Project - $50,000.00 2. Grandstand Concession/Restrooms - $100,000.00 3. Parking Lot Expansion and Repairs - $100,000.00 4. Trapah Park Expansion and Development - $130,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Interceptor (Exhibit I-G) - $950,000 Rahr Malting Force Main (Exhibit I-H) - $304,765 Downtown Redevelopment: 1. Land Acquisition - $1,400,000 2. Demolition - $250,000 3. Relocation - $250,000 4. Public Improvements - $100,000 5. Administration - $50,000 6. Alley Reconstruction/Underground Electric - $500,000 The above-described improvements will be financed by a combination of general obligation bonds, general obligation improvement bonds, tax increment bonds or tax increments, and special assessments and connection charges. Set forth below is a summary of all public and private projects within the Project Area with respect to which public redevelopments costs have been or are expected to be incurred, the amount expended as of June 1, 1995, and the amount remaining to be expended: - 2 - I * .Err'tO, �-- 0 00 o e N LO() N C m r 1 ) � o, 0 HH H a m oo' oo �0 00 00000 p p 00 O 00 00'0010 E a000 00 0 00 oo0010 I/ gao 00 o U)0 "' �' o�CD NDN mot CO N N r ,- 4040 H H H H H H H H H H H H O O 00000 O O O v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 00,0000 "C:1-050- 000g00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O 0 0 0 4,5 O O OC') N OSS N O ) C') -- .:1 N : c4 (OH HHH H H HHHHO SoO00000000 OOO00000000 r00 O Od OOOOIt>uf gC) N O 1t) ('fNU) 0U) C') NCD N 0 0 r r r ,.- 44 r HH H 43 43434,43434,4,4, 0000060-6 000 0 0 142 Toorm0000 :56° 66. 0000OO000000p0000OOoC') NOO (') stN rN4349 4,4YH H 00 W w 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. woo oouiouioo m (') v r- N (') 0Nt- N • r N 1111CM 4049 H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 we 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 SOO 00 a 000 uj 2 o, d c e'_ Zi'_ e'_ i'_ z e' Zi' 22222 i'_ i'_ Z Zi' 2 222 a C V W 0 000 ,3000 mq ea) 00000 0000000��pprppm (ID. C) N N W o jp 0 -� 0 0 OM OM 0 m 0 6w) co N m C m d o N 00 0 000 0 fAN N O 0 m N p m m - 0 ccccccccc mmmm . m = moi'mmsmmmmm = mmm = mmsm � mmm O LLNLLC re 'v YYYYV • YC . XYY = YYYYYLLCYY .E = YYmYCYYY IIa) 533 5 5 7 5 5 3 W a0 (o O w 0 10 O l0 0 (o 0 al 00 (0 O co (0 O 0 W F. (0 O 0 0 al n, UOMMO3mmmmmm aaan. mn. aoaCD1- aaC9a0aa00aaaaoaat) aoaaa i V w § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §§ § § § § § § § §§ § §§§§ §§ § § u W , , , 444949 es M 4A N . . . . . . . . . H HM HHHHHH HHHHHH h HHH I m o c c E EE 2 m o 0 = 0 02 ae (o w w m Cl)0 $, 'r- 0 t O O cD (`o W m m m >,,, E 0 o Y (n o o saaaia 0 as ao m E toE (oenot 000 c � > m 0) ao d r pcn C W t N s >. >,m m m Q l0 '� C c Y , c 9� o metes ot'n a m m m c e 0 0 ,co.-4, _ S aap oaL c a a `o � � c � ao �o E E Ep me6 `m 10Jo .c_. 00 = m o S 0. 0. 7s c m 7 (� C O m N 0 — O O a a a OD= 0,a (C 0 0 0 •0 G -� o o c c O E .-C7ur a as v = 9mm o o O .` c c ca •. - 0 = E E o o d m 0 ,Eo cuo c = « 1 nom mz -a - 2 c2 o ;.JJ ol- w -� > a -00 aii o wziyv m0 0 0 - r w 1`o m 0 0 0 (`o - `8Em cc miE cc 2200 — :c d � ctir- c o (a 9 /ar � Q `_` oaa m m m � c c O. ao o �? �? x as 00 0 01313— 0 E Z > y 0 c as ac o m5 vs o } YYmmm ;= 7, 0 oo 0maaY mY .. ~ Lit: Sac a ow c d chi c c2 W :c E (Y`oiaol -I -� (Y`o A c ac.a f a•W � a2 an. rQQ' o cua a 0 y .. 2 0 = m o o a O E lm a o v v a a a .c X ��4 l0 t t O W WW > m < aa 0E .crs00 a W OOQm Z. c Eitim 0 E ? 1015E 3 3 15 47 o • 0. = ao c T M 5). - -02 .13. 115E02 m c Et ;S c E o m .om oeO 0m) ac = x c cs aY =mvv c cC9 m eo - E 3 ' 0 . m o oa O . O 0 0 0 W 0c= off - o o > > } } .a ao o m o 0 (o = as (O c a`O w > > •c_ o a a Y W U JU UJmUI. U (A 000 cGUOO = = = 2UUm � JInJJJF- 3a ►- 2F- F- 22x2 = = Q rNP) 1t) (OhCDO) Or rN (') vU) CDh. CD CDCD000 .'- Nmv1f) (O (D1- CD0OrNNC'') (') QU) (O O r r N N N N N N N N N m Z LL O 110 H N m m m m m m m rn m m m m m m m m W o m m m N m m m m m m m m m m E_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y › » .. » » = � Z .wmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaammmmmmmmmmmmmmm Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U 2222222222_M2mmamaaaaaaaammaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 0 '9� 7-15 --* -- - --- -' -- 1 , • RI I' I r :1 ! *yob ?�r�Jl+�aa ri / , r I i c. IIIA C _ 1..• I Go .�.�..� _ 1,1--D ! I [ tijj ilr?V l. .',4 • : * 1 l / . 0j it CF �OICJ-:',NC., �- - - L_ • ,�.,c i_: / i;'� .I jai r �t4:I- ;ot-+ �1 ) II !1N4H J•ii” 6197.13z'; .4vd cgnscN j 71'1^1 ► i — -- --- ! \ y -� IAir. -- - -- — T__ — __ _- T '' ._ _'_ 41- S y . t- I ` . 4- ' - — —— - 4 ';'.:;-: 1 • I �-.i(.V I L `.l.7 v I a' t72 0. '''',/.P-6 1.P..tr—ir N i +i —,o- I : Qj . (- AGI �` / n a I.Ij,aot I ,I. I: ,c, + .. 011N r.Scre T -•- -i II1:1;;;. - • - --- --- --.- - . . '.';' ..k...T.11. I n ^ , ! r1 -17 ` . \, / I -' ! I I 1 . I 1, 'I( I —- I ":i\L, r) - I • / _ • �( i l /...0/yam ) i ! ' -- —:s.. -= -� - - I-- q r l('-) I • J ,C. .C.a• \ V. \ i•LI- 1 - ./7 ,:,--.1. n-)1_1,, . (,si) .. ,K" , N C 1.1•ylrlCi(� y -i...1-IC I.7i?;')1-1 6?" -- \( ' \\ ) .,. ., ' . /. • 61\ I�;�/� 'N ;•, /- \ \. :\--)::\ ' A' . . .\ e , ,(......., .. \ .) -....- - - " - \ • '. -- • . - . •• - . - / rir 1-se,Jy-) • \ ) • ,1 (-- \, ,' . ,\ ' / . • 0 ' • \ ;� . ---__ _ / \ k/' 1 / ` \ / \ \ i I r 1 1 • 4- _ I ' I • ! . IIi I ! ! I ! I 1 \ ` ' 1 I 1 I / 1 ' I I I + \. • I I ii l ; i1 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: TIF Park Projects DATE: February 2, 1999 Introduction Attachment "A" is the current TIF budget adopted in December 1998 . Costs included for 1998 and beyond are the finishing up of the Blocks 3&4 acquisition and demolition $50, 990, finishing up the Community Center $90, 000, Chaska Interceptor $1, 634, 565 and Tahpah Park items $380, 000 . Attachment "B" is the current forcast of estimated TIF collections based on proposed pay 99 taxes and the expenditures above except that the Chaska Interceptor cost is reduced to the final number. The forecast shows about $600, 000 in available funds if the TIF budget can be and is modified quickly. The full budget amendment process would be needed with public hearings. Legal counsel needs to give guidance on amending the budget. Shifting budgeted costs from the Chaska Interceptor to Tahpah Park projects due to the reduction of the cost of the interceptor would probably not require a full budget amendment process. The project cost part of the TIF forecast shows all project costs being paid out in 1999. Again, legal guidance should be given on this issue but I believe that these costs should paid in 1999 and at the latest, 2000 . Therefore, the city should pay out the projects costs and soon as practical including paying the Chaska Interceptor in 1999 . City of Shakopee A Tax Increment Budget Amendment 1998 Amendment TIF Districts TOTAL Sources Through 1997 Future Total Project Costs Land Acquisition/Writedown KMart 1,139,468 - 1,139,468 Highrise 83,965 - 83,965 Mebco 142,682 - 142,682 FMG 1,053,034 - 1,053,034 Block 3 &4 1,741,255 50,990 �t 1,792,245 Subtotal 4,160,404 50,990 4,211,394 Site Improvements KMart 1,598,915 - 1,598,915 BL 3 &4 178,731 - 178,731 FMG 17,293 - 17,293 Subtotal 1,794,939 - 1,794,939 Public Utilities KMart 1,576,045 - 1,576,045 Highrise Offsite 139,843 - 139,843 Storm Drainage 6,646,911 - 6,646,911 Rahr Force Main 304,765 - 304,765 Chaska Interceptor - 1,634,565 ,- 1,634,565 Subtotal 8,667,564 1,634,565 10,302,129 Parking Facilities - - - Streets & Sidewalks 542,676 - 542,676 Offsite -Track 2,932,395 - 2,932,395 Downtown 3,035,420 - 3,035,420 KMart 158,497 - 158,497 South Bypass 1,136,454 - 1,136,454 169 Bridge/junction 1,922,808 - 1,922,808 Downtown Alleys 500,000 - 500,000 10,228,250 - 10,228,250 Public Parks Park Improvements - - - Tahpah Stadium Restrooms - 380,000 380,000 Social/Rec/Conference 5,699,367 90,000 4r- 5,789,367 5,699,367 470,000 6,169,367 8 N N M b N co M N co r V1 rl b 4 0M O r O CO N E A 1ro1 b coco o N coo o 1i b 4-1 .4 CO N 01 O b N CO .i e-1 ri N CA. 001 N _ _ r1 M ..; 1 N M co M 01 N b M CO M r b .i rI b r b N N N V N b n n LIN r1 1 1f1 1O N n N n M ro r d b N rl n L NI O N CO N 01 b {may SOS �„� r b 01 N 01 0 Mr•i 0 01 01 01 0 r(jy v d v v N n n b M M 01 co N or 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Of co co co n III CO 4) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 CO {O M n 1A N N OE b O 0 111 b N N in tr+l W '0 1 a0 W Of N 01 an II N i M V ei rl 0 x 01 F 0 — M M CO 01 ON el M M m 0 H CO rl. ; 4)H CO 1 N o O N O 1n ,c) ON n M co co O n b I. 11111 a) o▪ H 0ml r m .ro MfD0oOb;11111111111 IIiiiIt o Q In a .a .a 01 1111111111111111101 o 10 o in MI .>+ b 01 O in 1'i• OI in HN Of O r1 .� Cco 4 o N R1 I N1 Ce-41 C:•11 ro O -) • y I�1^ M . .I rl M O co ro ro wCO 441. v _ w iro 01 010000.1v111111 v ill rtq .1 0 0 0 0 U E N N N N RI ~ m Cu 4.) 4.) to-2 •.1 IIIII 'i 1111 11111.° 11 0Ti CO .0.1 0 u--Iri O• a• 11 CO 11 a.1 0 w• 00)) o H - • +•-A A to O b b b II i O ' >.-e01 x 4.) o 0 0 rl 0 rl N 0 b U O 0 N 11 N' ai- N 01 V N CO V CO ri O N U .) rt rl 14 ,i. 11111 11 11111 _ N 11 W H IFu . . N N A O 1) oO 0 0 p0 0 Ua)O O el til 0 0ari n n Q 0 11 L 144 I1 D m U ri m o 0 1I10 0 o O O u) N x E o 0IM' Nao"OO 11p,-.01 Ha d u O A 4) W' ggIIF - 0, 1-4 -ell 01 0 .l N II,� _ Ll 01000 rNNN 0O V 0 CO 1� 1.) 0 4) m a01 0 0 G) 01 m 0 0 • m •e{ N a .i .a N N O rl r1 N N E F C.) a z rl N M V1 1(f b n 01 O el N M V1 III n CO 01 O H N M 01 to b r CO 01 0 rt N M w 1fI f0 a s •'l el el el el el el el el el N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M O O W W M ft, CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Engineering Consultant Contract Extensions DATE: February 2, 1999 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item is to consider extending the engineering consultants contract for a period of one year. BACKGROUND: On March 12, 1996, the City Council moved to pre-qualify the consulting firms of WSB & Associates, Inc., MSA Consulting Engineers, Inc., and Bolten&Menk, Inc. as needed for a three year term. MSA Consulting Engineers, Inc.,has merged with another firm and is now Howard R. Green, Inc. The contracts were entered into between the City and the consultants and the contract period was established to end on January 1, 1999. Staff has conducted yearly evaluations of the consultants performance for each year, and at this time staff would recommend that the contracts be extended for a one year period versus going through an extensive engineering consultant selection process. If Council agrees with staff;the recommendation would be to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the extension agreement as drafted by the City Attorney. If Council does not agree with staff; Council should direct staff to begin an engineering consultant selection process to determine a consultant to be retained for engineering services and for what contract term length. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the consultants contract extension agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 2. Direct staff to solicit statements of qualification from engineering firms for the purpose of retaining general municipal engineering consultants. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative#1. To authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the consultants contract extension agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. The performance of the consultants over a three year period has been satisfactory and acceptable and the time and cost to solicit statements of qualifications from other engineering firms is not worth the effort in staff's opinion. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the consultants contract extension agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. y,r r . Bruce it, one Public W$ .s Director BL\tiv- h:\tami\engineer\extension CON ULTANT ON RACT E. TENS 0_ • G' EMENT dayof , 1999. THIS AGREEMENT. made and entered into this oration of the State of Minnesota. by and between the CITY OF SHAKOPEE, a municipal corp hereinafter referred to as the "City- with offices at 129 Smyth Holmes Street. Shakopee.Minnesota, and WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. with offices at 350 Westwood Lake Office. 8x41 Wayzata Boulevard. Minneapolis.MN 55426,hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." RECITALS: ement dated March 19. 1996 A. The City and Consultant have entered into an f sinal services r the City. ("Consultant Contract") by which Consultant provides certain p B. The City and Consultant desire to extend the Consultant contract. NOW THEREFORE. in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in a this Agreement,the City and the Consultant agree as follows: Section III. Paragraph C of the Consultant Contract amended dttoed read provided for 1 1. 2000. unless otherwise "This Agreement is effective until January in the Agreement." Exc t as otherwise provided in this Extension Agreement. all the terms in the 2. � Consultant Contract arc unchanged. WSB &ASSOCIATES,INC. CITY OF SHAKOPEE.MINNESOTA By: Jon Brekke.Mayor Its: Mark McNeill,City Administrator Judith S. Cox.City Clerk 157280 SH155-74 896—d ZO/ZO d E11-1. OlE61EEZ19+ N3AVa0 V A03NN3N—Woad wegq:lt 66-8Z—uEr IS. 19 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CO S Et�T Memorandum `` '� TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Extra Compensation for Stormwater Management Plan DATE: February 2, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached to this memo is a letter from WSB &Associates requesting additional compensation for professional services to complete the Stormwater Management Plan above and beyond the previous extension agreement for the scope of services in completing the Stormwater Management Plan. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 1996, the City entered into an extension agreement with WSB &Associates to provide engineering services to complete the Stormwater Management Plan revisions at a cost not to exceed$7,900. During the course of performing this work, additional work was necessary to meet the concerns of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District and the Metropolitan Council in order to address additional concerns that did arise during the final stages of the plan preparation. This additional work was not anticipated in the initial scope of services proposal from WSB &Associates and attached is a letter from Pete Willenbring, WSB &Associates, outlining the extra cost that were a result of meeting concerns from these agencies. Staffhas reviewed the request from WSB &Associates and does agree that additional work was performed in order to complete the Stormwater Management Plan and much of this work was unforeseen at the time the agreement was entered into. The extra compensation amount is$6,600 and will complete the Stormwater Management Plan and provide the City with a completed approved plan that can be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Also,the plan will meet the concerns of all parties that have an interest in stormwater management in the City of Shakopee. The action before the Council is to enter into another extension agreement in the amount not to exceed$6,600 to complete the Stormwater Management Plan revisions as outlined in WSB's proposal. Staff would like to point out that much of this work has already been done in order to expedite the Stormwater Management Plan completion for the Comprehensive Plan. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates for professional services in completing the Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Shakopee. 2. Do not authorize an extension agreement with WSB &Associates. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 as this additional work was necessary to complete the Stormwater Management Plan as required by the Metropolitan Surface Management Act and for use by the City in its Comprehensive Plan for future development of the City of Shakopee. Funding for this work will be from the Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates for professional services in completing the Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Shakopee. /co", ..41) JAC Bruc Loney,Public Wo ' ector BL\tiv- is\tami\engineer\wsb - 350B.A.Mittelsteadt,P.E. Westwood Lake Office Bret A.Weiss,P.E. WSJ? 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Peter R.Willenbring,P.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Donald W Sterna,P.E. Ronald B.Bray,P.E. 612-541-4800 &Associates, Inc. FAX 541-1700 January 26, 1999 Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Re: Additional Services Associated with Completion of the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan for the City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1014.08 Dear Bruce: As a follow-up to our telephone conversation a few weeks ago,please consider this letter as a formal request for additional fees to compensate WSB for extra services that have been commissioned by the City for completion of the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. Specifically,WSB has undertaken the following additional activities in order to complete the storm water management plan. These activities were not included in the original scope of work associated with the storm water management plan: 1. Revised hydrologic model to reflect the change in the rate control conditions associated with the Blue Lake Watershed. A hydrologic model was previously developed reflecting a city-wide discharge rate limitation of one-third (1/3rd) cfs per acre. Based on recently prepared Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District and Lower Minnesota River Watershed District plans,this discharge rate restriction needed to be reduced to one-tenth (1/10th) cfs per acre. This required the entire hydrologic model to be revised,as well as numerous tables and figures in the Storm Water Management Plan. The additional cost to complete these revisions was $3,800.00. 2. Prepared for and attended a number of additional meetings that were not anticipated with the Planning Commission. In addition to time spent preparing for and attending these meetings, the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan needed to be updated at two additional intervals and multiple copies of the plan had to be reproduced so that a more recent plan could be reviewed by the Planning Commission. As part of this effort,about two dozen additional copies of the storm water management plan were prepared. The additional cost associated with these activities was approximately$1,600.00. Minneapolis • St . /_Cloud Infrastructure Engineers Planners F:',WPWIN'1014 08 012699-8/ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee January 26, 1999 Page 2 3. Attended numerous additional meetings over a two-year period as a result of the time line associated with finalization of the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan being extended to accommodate an anticipated future agreement regarding storm water management within the Prior Lake-Spring Lake outlet channel. The negotiations and discussions associated with this channel and future revisions to the Joint Powers Agreement extended not only the time line but resulted in new requirements being formulated by the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District as part of the preparation of their plans. In order to incorporate the updated policies and requirements from both of these plans into the City's plan,WSB was required to make major revisions to the original draft plan that had been prepared prior to either of these other plans being formulated. The additional cost associated with these activities was $1,200.00. Based on the above activities, the additional cost associated with completion of these tasks was $6,600. We thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at(612) 512-9854. Sincerely, WSB &Associates,Inc. 'i 2): -, . , 'r---------A Peter R. Willenbring, P.E. Vice President nm/cp F:I WPWZNI1014.081012699-bl JAN-27-1999 10:21 W513 2S H55UL 1 H I t5 !NL. b i GD411 ruu r-.YJG/UG B.A.Mirtelsteadt,P.E. 350 Westwood Lake Office Bret A.Weiss.RE. W99 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Peter P.Willenbring,P.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Donald W.Sterna,P.E. Ronald B.Bray,P.E. AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL 612-541-4800 Sc.Associates, Inc. FAX 541-1700 January 26, 1999 Mr. Bruce Loney,P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379-1376 Re: Extension Agreement to Provide Additional Services Associated with Completion of the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan for the City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1014.08 Dear Mr. Loney: According to our Agreement for Professional Services within the City of Shakopee and Section I-C-2 (Major Projects), this extension agreement is written to provide you with a method to reimburse engineering services for the above-referenced project. We are proposing to complete the work on a cost-reimbursable basis in accordance with our current fee schedule with the total cost not to exceed $6,600. The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse WSB &Associates for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. If this agreement meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Thanks for the opportunity. Sincerely, WSB &Associates,Inc. Peter R. Willenbring,P.E. Vice President City Administrator City Clerk Mayor Date Minneapolis • St . Cloud Infrastructure Engineers Planners F:wPwtM1oI4 OM I1699.exmgret TOTAL P.02 JAN-27-1999 10:21 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.02/02 350 Westwood Lake OfficeBA.Mitcetsteadt.P.E. Bret A.Weiss,BE. 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Peter R.Willenbring,P.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Donald W.Sterna,P.E. Ronald B.Bray.P.E. 612-541-4800 &Associates, Inc. FAX 541-1700 January 26, 1999 Mr. Bruce Loney,P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379-1376 Re: Extension Agreement to Provide Additional Services Associated with Completion of the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan for the City of Shakopee WSB Project No. 1014.08 Dear Mr. Loney: According to our Agreement for Professional Services within the City of Shakopee and Section I-C-2 (Major Projects), this extension agreement is written to provide you with a method to reimburse engineering services for the above-referenced project. We are proposing to complete the work on a cost-reimbursable basis in accordance with our current fee schedule with the total cost not to exceed $6,600. The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse WSB &Associates for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. If this agreement meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Thanks for the opportunity. Sincerely, WSB&Associates,Inc. Peter R. Willenbring, P.E. Vice President City Administrator City Clerk Mayor Date Minneapolis • St . Cloud Infrastructure Engineers Planners F:1wPwtrn1014DIM!l6oaexmeree TOTAL P.02 • CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Feasibility for Sarazin Street Improvements DATE: February 2, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Staff has received a petition for public improvements for Sarazin Street along the western boundary of the Prairie Village development, signed by the developer of Prairie Village. The purpose of this agenda item is to review this petition and for Council to decide whether to order the feasibility report at this time. Resolution No. 5056, attached for Council consideration, is to declare adequacy of the petition and to order a Feasibility Report. BACKGROUND: The developer for Prairie Village has petitioned the City for the improvements of street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, watermain, street lighting, sidewalk and appurtenant work for Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to the southern boundary of the Prairie Village development. The petition received does not represent 100% of the property owners affected by this improvement project. The petition received represents approximately 50% of the property owners and is therefore, over the minimum of 35% necessary for a public improvement project to be initiated by petition. The attached map showing the project area and affected properties, shows that two property owners would be assessed that are not signing the petition; St. Francis and Betaseed. The attached map shows two phases for the construction of the improvements. The phasing of the project is in response to a request from Betaseed. Betaseed has indicated that the 1999 growing season is critical for research that will be conducted on the eastern portion of their property, at the location shown as "2000 Sarazin Construction". It appears the phasing of the Sarazin Street improvements will not impact the development phasing of Prairie Village. Since the City does not have 100% of the property owners petitioning for the improvement project, the next step in the improvement project process is for the City to declare adequacy of petition and order the preparation of a feasibility report. By ordering the preparation of a feasibility report, this does not constitute approval of any kind, thus preparation of a feasibility report can begin for this project if Council so desires. The construction of Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road was included in the Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.), for construction in 1999. Attached is a copy of the worksheet taken from the C.I.P. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to approve Resolution No. 5056, a resolution declaring adequacy of petition and ordering the preparation of a Feasibility Report for Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to the southern boundary of the Prairie Village development. 2. Do not approve Resolution No. 5056. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, since the ordering of a feasibility report does not constitute approval of this project. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5056, A Resolution Declaring the Adequacy of Petition and Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Report for Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to the Southern Boundary of the Prairie Village Development. "Al 0 ' ce Lon- Public Works 'r' ector RESOLUTION NO. 5056 Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition And Ordering The Preparation Of A Report For Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to the Southern Boundary of the Prairie Village Development. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to the Southern Boundary of the Prairie Village Development, filed with the Council on February 2, 1999, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. The declaration is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035. 2. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer and the City Engineer is instructed to report to the Council with 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 , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk r o nr 0 ' o + co lii in to Tr o N . E co o o C V Ti I:.7e W I l cONd >. • N H F_ 2 N a. -- U t �p U C t0 . . Y 'c fat oa0i � a � N a 3 O C - 0a3 A 0 3 0 m c o o c c To ic � > y c W I 1ill I [ o ai 0 >ooQ..H U O O N U C O ' t0 y a �.. -JU. U) -0 O d dO 0 U0 N t- O• - O O O OO OOO U O ( U 0 O 0 0 O U •- W m of a acn V) F Y o ; cvic t u / i c ci, o2asc U- m LL FT C3 H y E 7 0 :0 LL U. tL LL LLQ•• 1 _.. E hi mLLLL .-. 0 � � ma� • 1 \ 3. -- 1tjfl• aim c J m a�2U 2 t— j a1 co o co o .0 m CO Of Of ° CO / _{ r ¢ m 7-84 ORRIN THOMPSON HOMES Minnesota's Enduring Standard of Value January 27, 1999 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 Attn: Bruce Loney, City Engineer Ladies and Gentlemen: We will be final platting and developing the fourth phase of our Prairie Village project this spring and summer. Attached is a copy of our preliminary plat showing the proposed boundary of the Prairie Village 4th Addition. In order to provide looped traffic circulation, we hereby petition to continue construction of Sarizan Street south of St. Francis Avenue to the end of our property. It is our understanding that Beta Seed, the owner of the southerly portion of the west side of Sarizan Street, wishes to delay construction on their part of the project until 2000. Accordingly, we request phased construction of Sarizan Street with the first phase to be built from St. Francis Avenue to Moores Avenue in 1999. We plan on completing the development of the 4th addition by September 15, 1999, and therefore request prompt and favorable approval of our petition. Respectfully submitted, ee W. Jo,Ton Senior Vice President THOMPSON LAND DEVELOPMENT LWJ/jdh 8421 Wayzata Boulevard,Suite 300• Golden Valley,Minnesota 55426 612/544-7333 phone 612/544-9086 fax LU Z 'Z. ^ Gi'G OFI eo ea +a •a - u - ou J O u0 •a' u^ u^ e^ a0o. •N f7 N 10 is's 11 h . u a +a sa _ u . a oe, ooi a SA Ill ooi 1W, 1 °. o a. . iv-tea?d '—� N if,Y ca. > 611 Oev. 00. i O e I -. ^ m Nf, �o co I 1,0 I .,.y N : S el• 1/)zN S ia ^ ° ^ R .,m it,. 5q i_ft. ui N ff, 0� l X r°p e °, .— ' __i_^ V I 1h s. +� N. z v �!! / $ O ou,� , Q ; 1V °1' 1 Tll�(�'�: $ 't` ' J h 1 i____,__ _- - ' 04 ?a/, tI OA R. , i.,Qy eh R 1 - ILO ° - F oa ._ w --° m o• R Ol °H a •` t : �" S I • µ •'m Nw i. t4 it'- 1 Qa 2 oei A i I—C $ M. 'kJ ba N �i s e a N § j`�C' ; I- 1 F. $ ^ s- R - os cc n _ _ `. mN °� N- C.L,J . el TA: I elN N § _J L- - •-_- • Vv ,, a oe I e.. M 9, A . s [Le � Sob lii �N IX t ' / 41/4 ` •l 'l eDi ¢ ' • 7 - •r N N m N N —� — —N / ,'A � y g co - / - \' -- •-0 ' g O - O N N N N N CO n+ 4 N '�"' m .... x � o o °o n m 0 yf - - s O _ , Q • Q1 � R * Qf . e e ^ g R-Z, ' N § i I, Q 2 3 3 3 3 « m \ \ $ '+ sa u u sa a sa u o+ N - J ,,\�- Ohm m °•- /: +a •{ - If) U 11 M so oi " , A __,s_ _._ __.... . : - . . c--,--i c„ i ' : .4. ig : _ __, :,...A pi.tt,01 77 - w°o as x ,-**-P4 \ m . m A . m. 1 .0. AN • •� " • u +a LLsa 4, GS.e • \ '$ N •. ` ' . -. ° S` --\ \.' .+e Q . �. /!y ----- 2-— 3f1N3AV SI3NVICA'i.m S aNV- -LS 41 \ XN. \ l 1, I r , 8 ._. ____ \ m O I 11111/4 • N: .,,\• \ i,\.\ N ` O- -' - r y_ , 0, .4A4 ^ I ••1a 7- -'• ,.\ t , S .^ N A, 1551 • i' f .y, ' D ¢ :,,,. • ‘ \4, 8 • e �r-�^ /0 / , , 4 'O 1 ID g g � . o N e R i J •• N N fn ea, ^ 0. , N.` , .` i $ s a-0 - Q _ • 1 -N 8 ''/N'•• 3 ' • • ea ,o-' i f ' tel. 3 i S vet . , � • ` •4. 04 y _ R N .A•_ _p - .-a ; / 4''., 2 N.; . Nl i . a - ,, czt 03 u to oCV N'd R el 00 e •AN e• t010 •' e. --- J CITY OF SHAKOPEE PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND WAIVER OF ASSESSMENT RIGHTS RECITALS A. The undersigned are the fee owners and contract for deed owners of certain real Property legally described as Outlot C, Prairie Village 3rd Addition, which is being platted as Prairie Village 4th Addition. B. As part of the subdivision and platting process for the first phase of Prairie Village,the undersigned has dedicated right-of-way for Sarazin Street. C. As part of the subdivision and platting process for Outlot C, Prairie Village 3rd Addition, the undersigned will be dedicating additional right-of-way for Sarizan Street. D. The undersigned desires the City of Shakopee to install the public improvements and assess the costs to the abutting property to be benefited. E. The undersigned understands that Sarizan Street will be designated as a collector street,but that the assessments for Sarizan Street will be based on the equivalent local street costs in accordance with the City of Shakopee's("City")assessment policy. F. It is understood by the developer that the City would be doing the Chapter 429 Public Improvements at the developer's request and for the developer's convenience and that the City would not be installing the improvements contained therein without this waiver. G. The undersigned is voluntarily submitting this petition and understands that the City is relying on it as a condition of subdivision approval and proceeding with the public improvements. NOW,THEREFORE,the undersigned agrees as follows: 1. The undersigned petitions the City to install the following improvements and to assess them against the benefiting properties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429: Sarizan Street from St. Francis Avenue to the southern boundary of the property including street construction, storm sewer, sanitary sewer,watermain,street lighting, sidewalk and appurtenant work("Improvement Project"). 2. The undersigned represents and warrants that they are the fee owners of the property described in Exhibit A and that they have the full legal authority and power to encumber the property. 3. The undersigned requests that the cost of the Improvement Project be assessed against the abutting benefiting properties. The undersigned understands that the estimated cost of those assessments cannot be determined at the present time,but understands that the assessments will be determined in accordance with the City's adopted assessment policy. 4. The understand waives all right to appeal or otherwise contest or challenge the levy of the special assessment,including but not limited to the right to challenge whether the increase in fair market value resulting from the construction of the Improvement Project is at least equal to the amount of the project cost that is assessed against the property described in Exhibit A and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit to such parcel. The undersigned further agrees that any requirements of Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 429 are waived to the extent that such requirements are not met. 5. The covenants,waivers and agreements contained herein shall run with the property and shall bind the heirs,successors and assigns of the undersigned. It is the intent of the City and the undersigned that this document be recorded as a part of the land records of Scott County,Minnesota. . 6. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall terminate upon the final payment of all special assessments levied against the Property regarding the Improvement Project, and the City shall execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish its rights contained herein upon receipt of such final payment. Date this ,V-8"1day of —IA NuAAY , l99 FEE OWNER CONTRACT FOR DEED TRUSTEES: �;.z ® „^ U.S.HOME 'ORATION ,,,,, Elmer J.M 1,as Trustee of C the Elmer Marschall and Kathryn Marschall By �`— Family Trust established April 24,1990 Its :ivision Senior ' e President / Ally /,.,, l/ ft-�_ _.1 _ : , I '.Marschall,as Trustee of the Elmer Marschall and Kathryn Marschall 4Famil Trust established April 24,1990 :144e ld F.Marschall,as rust of the Harold F.Marschall and Marie R.Marschall Family.� Trust established January 9,1991 //%/,LGPJ ifr Marie R.Marschall,as Trustee of the Harold F.Marschall and Marie R.Marschall Family Trust established January 9,1991 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF s� ss. The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before mo this o29 day of 4i1 NUAR t/ , 1997'by Elmer J. Marschall and Kathryn Irt.Mao seltall,as Trustees of the Elmer Marschall and Kathryn Marschall Family Trust established April 24,1990. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL(OR OTHER TIME OR RANK) '+ JOHN D.HARPER SI TURF OP PERSON TAKING A W LEDOMENT •-- {a. NOTARY PUBLIC•MINNESOTA ;It...) WRIGHT COUNTY +•,•`�' Mrcommission expirwt3t•2000 STATE OF MINNESOTA } COUNTY OF sig J The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before mc this o1 q day of <-I ANuIAY , 1999,by Harold F. Marschall and Marie R.Marschall,as Trustees of the Harold F.Marschall and Marie R.Marschall Family Trust established January 9,1991. /NOTARIAL.STAMP OR SEAL(OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) /, STUREOP JOHN D.HARPER �' NTAKIN ACKNOWLEDOMENF NOTARY PURL C•MINNESOTA WRIGHTCOUNTY My soma is Ion sxp5ao 1313000 STATE OF MINNESOTA l }ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN JJJ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.91Rday of --LA NuAr2,Y , 1999 by Lee W.Johnson, the Division Senior Vice President of U.S.Home Corporation,a Delaware corporation,on behalf of the corporation. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL(OR OTHER TIME OR RANK) JOHN D.HARPER sI TUR IL OI'PERSON TAKING A WLEDOMENr iA NOTARY PUBUC•MINNESOTA WRIGHTCOUNTY • My commission expires 131.2000 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY(NAME AND ADDRESS) U.S. HOME CORPORATION 8421 WAYZATA BLVD. GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55426 We have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this appraisal report or the parties involved. The appraisal is made subject to certain assumptions and limiting conditions which are listed in this report. It conforms with accepted professional, ethical and performance standards of the real estate appraisal profession in general. This appraisal was completed in accordance with the existing current guidelines set forth by Title XI of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989. The report also conforms to the requirements set forth in the Uniform Standards for Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The report also conforms to the internal underwriting and requirements of our client, as we understand them. The data, information and/or conclusions of value contained in this report may not be disseminated to the general public through advertising sources, public relations documents or other public means, without prior approval of School District 720 and the individual, undersigned appraiser(s). If you have any questions or comments'after reading this appraisal, please contact me. The undersigned appraiser certifies that he has personally inspected the property and has investigated information believed to be pertinent to the valuation of the property, and to the best of his knowledge and belief, the statements and opinions expressed herein are correct and reasonable, subject to the limited conditions set forth herein. As of the date of this report, I, Paul W. Wermerskirchen, have completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers. SOUTH METRO APPRAISALS Certified to the 31st day of December, 1998 X4/I 1/J Paul W. Wermerskirchen (Fed. Gen. License #4000086) Sova 9khro iSiL 1964 E Shakopee Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Office: 612-496-3836 October 31, 1998 School District 720 505 South Holmes Street • Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: 20.76 acres as part of Southbridge 1st Addition Plus Dear Mr. Ostlund: In accordance with your request, I have completed an appraisal of the above referenced property for the purpose of estimating its market value. The following written report presents the findings, analysis and conclusions of this appraisal. I have made a complete inspection of the subject property and • have fully identified the real estate in our written report, but a survey will more adequately identify the property.. The report is based on information and data that has been obtained from a variety of sources which are thought to be reliable and relevant. Some of this data is based on information provided by sources that cannot be readily, documented but which is felt to be pertinent and thus has been given some consideration. After careful consideration of the many factors influencing value, it is our opinion that the subject property has value, as of October 31, 1998, based on the factors described herein, of: $ 787,281.00 or $37,923 per acre fluctuating to a site not to exceed 25 acres to be determined by a survey. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Southbridge Park Land Sale- School Site DATE: January 28, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to give concept approval to a proposal which would sell 8.8 acres of land which had been dedicated for park in the Southbridge First Addition plat,to I.S.D. 720. BACKGROUND: On October 6th,the Council gave approval to the hiring a single appraiser to establish a value for land for which I.S.D. 720 is interested in purchasing for an elementary school site in the Southbridge Addition. Paul Wermerskirchen was hired. The result of that appraisal has been provided to the City. As shown,he has established a value of just under$38,000 for land in that area. The school district wants to purchase this land,which had been dedicated as part of the Southbridge plat for purchase as a school site. They are in need of 8.8 acres of land, which is located at the southeast corner of the plat,just south of a regional storm retention pond. That parcel would be combined with approximately 9 acres of adjacent property which has been guided as commercial, and currently owned by Southcross Development. The School District is aware that that the 9 acres are currently outside of the MUSA line, and efforts are underway by the City to get that area included. If unsuccessful, it is possible that the school building itself could be configured that it would remain entirely within the Southbridge Development, and thus eligible for sewer. Parking areas, green space, and other non-sewered uses could be in the Southbridge property. BUDGET IMPACT: The $38,000 per acre is more than what the school district has recently paid for property that it purchased in two locations south of the 169 Bypass, one of which is inside the current MUSA line. They have suggested$30,000 per acre; in view of the fact that the same taxpayer would be both paying for the purchase, and benefiting from its sale,that offer seems reasonable. The 8.8 acres would generate$264,000. The total per acre price of the 50.24 acre MnDOT parcel in Southbridge, including assessments, is $24,088.80. PROCESS: Because the land was dedicated with a restriction for park or school purposes,the land can be sold outright from the City,to I.S.D. 720. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the City Council approve the concept of the sale of 8.8 acres of park land in the Southbridge First Addition to I.S.D. 720. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should,by motion, indicate its approval for the sale of 8.8 acres of land for$30,000 per acre in 27-250084-0 and/or 27-250085-0, outlots J and K of Southbridge First Addition,to I.S.D. 720, assuming concurrence by the School Board. li" CZIAACASLJULU Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw WARRANTY DEED No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value( ) filed( ) )not required Document No. 400214 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER Certificate of al Estate Value No. SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA g I /6No This is the filing information jf of the document recorded in Aintaro o� �e�nc� J U Lf c� 1993 County Auditor n Pat Boeckman, County Recorder CcRTI by Deputy CLF i U]F1CA7E NQTCI,TE R�Cc 'ErLt F"®L,F� STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON$1.65 _(1 Date: July 20, 1998 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership,a limited partnership under the laws of Wisconsin,Grantor,hereby conveys and warrants to the City of Shakopee,Grantee,a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota,real property in Scott County,Minnesota described as follows: Outlots J and K, Southbridge 1st Addition, SUBJECT,HOWEVER,TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTION: This land may be used only for park or school purposes. The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: Building, zoning and subdivision laws,ordinances, and regulations; state and federal regulations; covenants, conditions, restrictions, declarations and easements of record; and reservation of any mineral rights by the State of Minnesota. Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, a Wisconsin limited partnership • By Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here 4 Nevac,Inc., Its General Partner The total consideration for this transfer is$500 or less By Its STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ss. COUNTY OF Dp.w.- ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this jr4day of July, 1998,by Frk ti AJev �„,„ ,the Pres�oQo,, f— of Nevac,Inc., a Wisconsin corporation and general partner of Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership,a limited partnership under the laws of Wisconsin,on behalf of'the limited partnership. Notarial7/ Stampor seal(or other title or rank): At.4 Notary Public WARRANTY DEED - -No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real 402/A 7 Estate Value( ) filed( ) )not required Document No. OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER Certificate of al Estate Value No. SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 I 1 1 jf o This is the filing information of the document recorded in thiJuty...0 � JUL f3c�1993 I O``A M County Auditor /rPat Boeckman, County Recorder by L.gii) Deputy '�LL CEFTIFICATE RECENE® STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON$1.65 '�-- .�L CERTIFICATE Nor Rrnuitp Date: July 20, 1998 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership,a limited partnership under the laws of Wisconsin,Grantor,hereby conveys and warrants to the City of Shakopee,Grantee,a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota,real property in Scott County,Minnesota described as follows: Outlots J and K, Southbridge 1st Addition, SUBJECT,HOWEVER,TO THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTION: This land may be used only for park or school purposes. The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: Building,zoning and subdivision laws, ordinances,and regulations; state and federal regulations; covenants,conditions, restrictions, declarations and easements of record; and reservation of any mineral rights by the State of Minnesota. Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, a Wisconsin limited partnership By Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here `� Nevac,Inc.,Its General Partner The total consideration for this transfer (� is$500 or less ByPA:X".12-- T1,-, .., , 3, , . , 4 6 sa.,(74 el) 14• +-.., . 2 i "rr 0 )... 0 6 ••;ix.,., . E.:,... . , 8 A ilidli WZ o en *-1 , 4 . z. ' •'-,-,.,- ,,," °.,0711-.-m, , .;- 4,,. .;,...,, ,,,,,,, • I.., ,..,w,it..,,,.6,k,l,k.o.....,,,,...E$.4-4,%,--,0-At-zt,', --',2. (,.,- , .-4-',',1Pai,, ' ..-nir wcz:,...'",.--.41-,,,,,-,...1-,4": '',-).,:'1444";'--.:::,-•"`----,-,---,,,,,-7,ii, .74.-le ° - ',I,',,:'-iti'46. . ''''''. -.-',:: ' ' ,..-, al I'-;-• 11 4,1 ?.',!. .,''',1:-(7,.;.• .444, t.,), •1: '."' ii,t-ii 1#1,k. ftii.:. 1::,!::, Aft,Ati,;...,40,..4.4„,..- , ,.,. =, /, •-(.1.--' ....,eir,), ....savetagt% ,z.:...14.. ; , ....... ?..)i.s.4.1,,,,/ ':,...z...<..,.opk..A.1. ..,/, .../.... />/.....:-.....,/,t- , • '',..-.Aic4)144*-RtN, -.1.14..:' te# ''',7 . ( • ,, ' 'w,-- ' S'A.••-,0.••a0-t ip "lilt% .N.:.:,,,::', 't. . A.\I- • ‘,., •••• • :*:'')•‘',";,•*;*--',Pet ' 1,,,,„ i••:',.•??,•; - .::. . \001 °I, --• , „ ... kitfavaLA•• ' , '''',__:''' . 1/ ) ok, 4i /---, N , . .„ 7/t.. -x - ,t—,,-- / -4 1 T t• • .;(.4._ .,. _‘ 1 -\c / E.* 1, ., .....,ek\ . - •_ A0 ;'1 \N. 4-• !-•- / ••,/..‹ . . • N..>‹, ,\-,,.., •\s‘. .--... . •/'-..;<,7- en a-.../7 . it,„:„,. • ____ ec v ---1 - 41, \ ---Pw' • --- • 0 ›.."" „,\, ..,,1 ir• ..... .1----...11 0 io. 4 .....C.' \\• . i.,......,..,,^ ''„.•;\\.... ).(., / Al( Al •••• o io 0 ,4 ./•-•,.,• A I I ;$141 11-1 i * , . .,., Y ,....- Y .. i 4 :PO ..........1 i 4 I ^0 '''' ak .,:;Vj '1,41 - ,Ne",/ • % y ,':`(,* c , ,00v,..- .;...,,,„.„.-..,.....:7;,. ,„,..„. -,:k„,0 atm' •- ‘. ,.; i.,, ,- to 41. "" ' • -.--4-!..:*.-. '..s.4' ,'•"11 Ilic...1. ,-'..1' ,,,;-...m.1.2,,,f „,:k., \ • /A :.:, '1'..• ,41.,"00. ie,::`- to o .4 /.... ,:.:.„.„ , if \<4..',1'.....'., / '\>.,.:-.... _ )' \ \%;''/ /•;.007;'-' ''''.;• rrOi' 1. az ... ul ',•.?'4 c•• c , Art. '1/24 ., i .-1:-1..- \ \>."/4,14'44 0.',',1,C49 T-;•gt . 11--- : .$1-..h. 44,,,,J*'",:',';',7,.--.,N:.,,*%•,,,, j ‘.._ 2 ,4=ValPil„,..,„,. :444.1i'4-,3 4 te in : o • /1.. --: K .,'3•1*;1.1,t-*.', •••'%'•,..''".:."'.. -...:".--:--....'-...., riltrattog.,rt:'-: - Tal.1 : '. .,_ ,,,,-,1 ,„41,i0;`,$•-•:',."AL4-'7,V01:-A"--. ----1 r---- 1 ..' --r-tlfi v . e v .4, ,,..4.44, .... ....•E, pi c e!t"!'i'fr:ar:Afi7f,IV62,,,ArtiB:...OP,,,, ,_ .1r0,7-".1 r, • ......_ ,,:„... ,,,,,Ag.6,,,,4 \ "71,1e --.. ro— -•, —11..!4,-- -•,.,:..•:,,, : 144,t \ , • 1 I., )•Z''4'4k*::,,t - ''''c,liri, --.L.,2c.,',„, /*/"/ •,7 ---. '` 4rolitT, ',./...,::,:-',:. ••'.-41:101/4,-, • ,----,d; _--IAA, 4--. .4,4„,kio,,,-. •):::''..,. . .-. --.1,5 vi./ 1 , s / 40e!1 - ,---- .-.,--'.,,I,••-, \,,.,..,--• 1 L.--__T—q,..i.4, ,• r -..;;„ .., • ,, 41t,t9.V:i .....:*:' ••••:•• ..• :..' ..',l. ./.'/...., ..... tz.40,..• '' .-''' i't4,0,,•• \i/N P49.`' '.-.:;:r::,......'1,:,.... ..,.' :.•1 Mg' / ,....". - —/—- "k ./,.ANN , , ,4,,,,.,•:,-- _ •iNN ..s. 4.;•••,' .,,,,y...,;•„•.,-,,:,...:„..,,..,::... ,.:.:::.ay 1 , ,,,,,, ,,„,,,, , ,, .„,, .,,,,ft „ ....,,, g.,14,- , - ,.. 1 4,.,.....m.t.1.,..-7,. ,,,,,,,____ , 4...N. / ,.. _. _, ,,,, ,..... ,,,,,,y, ,,-- ,..i.;; ,:- -L-e.•'.-.---. ---1 1 ---- *S:.4',4,013''''.':':::..r.:'`.;.:.2'.',...::.',.''''....:' ...1 4:1 - —1C; / '16r.- - ---?44' ..-.,i':V{...;',.. ,.. ,•''',..7.'".:''' 5 -4... , :''4,i, ,:,. 1744-'L__.k.,,)qapot.,..,(1, ' "."--. .,,i':', , , f,i'l.,::. 3.: 0 i si 't .,...4. c L-",-".‘--! /..s - 1 t) --,--.K IP' i ',.,; '14': ::' :'.......',-e.. . , t,.'., J .. , = o I 0 4:.",t,': ?.fir t's \ ts,,,- --.... ..... ,,,,, ;. 14.1•4 .fq.' If l',.-.” \, ' ' - -- --\ .• \''• J - '' ,-04`:4. .._..,•.-,-<, az ii.): $ A, '..•-;&?t.1"f"'.' ' 1/4. C''''.iV.,' '^'-' Jiti 4-...- / r-\•\ N j:'."(0 40 1 .r,--, ,AV t,...-3;,.,i';'.•1.,,`•-•.7:4'.''V ca., I .I....I: , 440,1111 t ... „ • "Vs .... i '.--ir. 1,,,,,,,4,,,,,, ,,,„,,,,,4 ,,,.., 1,0 / 44 .- • ...';`, ... S.,.' .....—. . ' ;'.-. , i't'-'•'''^',6tt'*'?', / o. zf oi fi,.... „41.4%, --. ,,,,.,, ,,,, • , ;de,.4.NY., , , i Kliel' '''. 57'974.1kr.i..:::,,/ta . ' '..,t 0.-:••,,,*;‘,.t.ffvf- •,-/ <017 t' 't 7;C,Lk :,:•.14;:,./..V.,,:::::".:,A. / i I 4r.g4a,k,•-,:g .:...,,,....:: ::,;if i,-..'....,,P;i4t.Y.,' ,i4s,4,,I.':',.Ati 1''''4'4; 5''s7",4 4.0.t4;',...,,,'iii,' / I . . ,4Vtl'....6" / 44,,"„r.,."'.' *'..a.0-1..1,31.4•.:,:a.,isii54e....•,;?' il \ , ,•**-eiv,•••.ig, .f:04„,,q.fot.:., ,lve,f, '34....11.1v. ,0,*,=•.;0„p.,,O;;;T::1;:Fin.40.4.,'.' 1 ' v, -•• 4,1t,gtrze‘A.Ak,.„It.941,,0,3,i4."',::,,•!•:,-,SPIAt.,'.-,„plAg,114, '..0: 9+,:.,,45•;-'4,:t;•:'*;',:itzi,l',.'1:' / ,\ -,,,t,,,r4 • q,..,14.- ,...- .1t. .., ,...,,, ,44, • r. ,-,,..,,,. ,y,,,,,;e1:: ,•„,..,.. ,..,• / 0.1!.-eStre .'4 J,. ".. .17,,i,;hq:....,',)::>•;:4;.',,-:1•-:,,,, I.\\ ;..':::'' I,-7.' •,'"..',..;•!;?...;P`' ,,;a:NO1 '441; :•;?,44.1:-.1'01..,' / 1 i \, ,,',Y' -,' -.,'.., .,.q....,„,,Y.'•0,4, - 0 ` ..1§ii0iivyyiv',,;').g.'' ,/ 1 15.0 .02 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Community Park/Southbridge MnDOT Property DATE: January 29, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to take action to purchase the 50.24 acre MnDOT parcel, and request a recommendation from the Park and Recreation Advisory Board for establishment of a community park site on that property. BACKGROUND: Over the past several months,the City has been dealing with MnDOT regarding the purchase of a 50.24 acre parcel (parcel 27-9110040)that remains from the U.S.169 right- of-way purchase. In September, 1998, MnDOT sent a letter stating a purchase price of $725,000 would be needed for the purchase,with all assessments to be assumed by the City. BUDGET IMPACT: Council will recall that approximately 9.5 acres on the south end of the MnDOT property (and the original reason for entering into negotiations with MnDOT)was needed for Southbridge Parkway right-of-way purposes; a small portion of undevelopable property under a high line was also rendered undevelopable. In November,the Council assessed the total acquisition cost of that 9.5 acres against the entire 560 acre Southbridge site and MnDOT parcel. This therefore leaves a total net usable parcel of the MnDOT property of 40.74 acres. The total cost per acre of those 40.74 acres, including assessments, is $24,088.80 per acre. MN DOT PURCHASE: The amount of money to come"out of pocket" solely to purchase the MnDOT property is $324,164.56. This is the total that remains from the original $725,000 purchase price from MnDOT, less the 9.5 acres which were funded through the project cost($136,835), and$264,000 which would come from I.S.D. 720 for the purchase of the park property in Southcross 1st Addition(elsewhere on this agenda). There will also be the first years assessments against the MnDOT property which would be due now. That amount is $61,615.48. The Finance Director recommends that the balance of$331,597.05 plus first years assessments of$61,615.48, come from the General Fund. Therefore,the total cost to purchase the 40.74 net usable acres of the MnDOT property, including assessments, is $725,000+ $331,597.05 +$61,615.48 =$1,118,212.53. After allowing the funding from the school ($264,000) and from project costs of$136,835, it means a total cost to purchase of$717,377.53. COMMUNITY PARK DISCUSSION: A community park of from 20 to 25 acres in size is needed in east Shakopee. The intent has been to take the appropriately sized parcel from the MnDOT property, and sell the remainder. Staff has already had contact from a church interested in purchasing between 8 and 10 acres of that property;the remainder of the property has been guided for multi- family, and could be put on the market. The Park and Rec Advisory Board should be asked to establish a size for a community park in east Shakopee. Note that the difference between what would be funded by the $264,000 from I.S.D. 720 (which would fund the purchase of 11.25 acres of that), and the ultimate size, could be reimbursed over time from park land dedication from the commercial property that Southcross Development is seeking to have added into the MUSA area. POLICY QUESTIONS: Assuming that the Council wishes to proceed with this concept,the Finance Director asks two questions: 1. Does the Council wish to pay assessments up front? The assessments are at 6% interest,which is more than what the City is able to invest money at this time. The Finance Director Voxland recommends paying the assessments up front from the General Fund Reserves. 2. Should the park dedication fees from the Shakopee Crossings commercial property go to repay the General Fund Reserves specifically (if approved in question#1), or should it go into the Park Reserve Fund? RECOMMENDATION: We recommend three things: 1. That staff be directed to send a check in the amount of$725,000, less deed tax,to MnDOT for the purchase of the 50.24 acre MnDOT property(parcel 27-911004- 0)in Southbridge. 2. It should direct that assessments for the MnDOT property be paid from General Fund Reserves,to be reimbursed from later land sales of portions of the MnDOT property. 3. That the Park and Recreation Advisory Board be directed to establish a park size for a community park in east Shakopee. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should,by motion, direct the following: 1. That a check in the amount of$722,607.50 ($725,000 - $2,392.50 deed tax)be made payable to the"Commissioner of Transportation-Trunk Highway Fund", for the purchase of the MnDOT property. 2. That the total assessments of$368,441.17+interest of 424,771.36 on the MnDOT property be paid from General Fund Reserves,to be reimbursed from future land sales of portions of the MnDOT property. 3. That the Shakopee Park and Rec Advisory Board be directed to make a recommendation regarding park land size and configuration of a community park on the MnDOT parcel. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw • Do 26 Minnesota Department of Transportation . $ a F e Transportation Building T°`Tai 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 September 3, 1998 Mr. Mark McNeill City Administrator C. Hall: 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 In reply refer to: 7300 C.S. 7005 (101=187) 901 Scott County Parcel 75 Reconveyance Dear Mr. McNeill: I am pleased to inform you that all approvals have been obtained for the conveyance of the above referenced parcel. The value of said 50.24 acre tract is $725,000.00 (which assumes, that all special assessments, present and pending, shall be the responsibility of the purchaser of this parcel) . If this is acceptable, please submit payment of$722,607.50 ($725,000.00 minus $2,392.50 deed tax) in the form of a cashier's check, certified check or money order made payable to "Commissioner of Transportation - Trunk Highway Fund". You will be responsible for payment of the deed tax at the time of recording of the Quitclaim Deed. Upon receipt of payment the State will issue a Quitclaim Deed using the enclosed legal description to the City of Shakopee. Please submit payment and any questions you may have regarding this transaction to Neal Bartelt, Transportation Building, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 632, St. Paul, MN, 55155 (phone 651-296-8647). Sincerely, i' Merritt inzie Director Office of Land Management Enclosures: Legal Description Map An equal opportunity employer r' March 25, 1998 7005075 . 901 DESCRIPTION FOR SALE OF EXCESS Parcel 75 S . P. 7005 (101=187) 901 All of Tracts A and B described below: Tract A. That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the southerly boundary of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 70-18 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said Scott County; Tract B . That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the following described line : Commencing at the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence north along the west line thereof for 992 . 09 feet to the point of beginning of the lime to be described; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 94 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds along the southerly line of Northern States Power Company' s easement to the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and there terminating; containing 50 . 24 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING AND RESERVING unto Northern States Power Company, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege and easement to construct, operate, maintain, use, rebuild or remove electric lines for the transmission of electric energy with all towers, structures, poles, crossarms, cables, wires, guys, supports, counterpoises, fixtures and devices used or useful in the operation, maintenance and use of said lines and facilities related and appurtenant thereto for transmission and distribution of electric energy over, under, across, and upon the East 165 feet, the West 165 feet and the Southerly 225 feet of the aforedescribed property being conveyed herein. The easement reservations contained herein shall also include the following rights to Northern States Power Company: a) The rights reserved may be exercised at any time_ subsequent to the conveyance of the property. b) The right to erect reasonable signs for the purpose of monumenting the boundaries of the easement area reserved herein. From time to time the electrical lines and supporting structures may be reconstructed or relocated on the said easement area with changed dimensions and voltages . c) The right of Northern States Power Company to have reasonable access to the easement area being reserved. d) The right of Northern States Power Company to enter upon the property conveyed herein to survey for and located said electric lines and shall also include the right to remove from said easement area any structures, trees (including branches of trees overhanging said area) or objects, except fences, which in the opinion of Northern States Power Company will interfere with said electric lines . ". % ;11 ..1.\\ II i\ Q 'o , r` .,° 6.:•\Irl\ 1°` r °yp° \ 0s. 7 , •'d r' ° VII I II 0 i::.I I\ o fi l , 111 �JUU j: c;. ' °0*I • Z • ���} I.-1 OIIi C/] ,I �I br W a xTT1% JI , • N I •ice! I I I Z W. ‘I\ w-} J� I! Lbo J � 6-'°°1cJC — '',C`-',1-._ ' I Lrh\ I, wn9 Ir V t1 WS�j' 1, 01 :, rr.,. fir I�N} �o° ,•`IC-��' + 1 I .+, .. \ .1•. �{ • 1�� .. Imo' ,i, \ 'l :';-0 • ...............--,"' \\ . 1 \\\\\ \ i i. LL off'` ',I ` \---1•°,. t, V • . \\,... _.I I V .,. ,,,,,, .\ ,:z- '; 1 ;,:' ' ',' & '\..r.1-L\_ . 0. ti o o 11,,14,\�., 7a \V i til ‘_,`C \ li.\ ‘• •\<5` o' 16 ',°C I o I °':� ' \ �£ Lir :: of S• ••,;''C,\tt .!,4,1 I° , 3 ,n \ ; 11� 1 1 • � I1 J • / UI- \ \ I• ' rIltn,i'lw _ .,' :B `x: yo• c:(' (11':?, °( :1-:•":).cLc, 0,, il') 1 '1 ,:' • '• \ \ ,„,,,, _ ,: I \: . 1 \., ., :, •••NA,. •I,kil \\•• •' '. \ • \‘`\' •1 ri . \-°\(,\, •- 1;_ . *:;''.,'. ::? y•,'.1 „_,..... . \\\\ 2:\ ;1_4A.. _ .i'l.i A.--• ..i....\.,: , / t 1: ' ', ' A. ' \ \\ \\K• • ' ' II _ __t Pi ft a.,T. __________.....7::„._._ .• _.I .. i-.7`. • ; ' Thr _ ••- • \ . , \ \\ \ ‘• '''"-,.., : I i on CJ eY \ L•'a!i'+�° ', P?,,, r1 \\' '�\\\ \. \`\,�6. it 1-6),1• . 2 • SP '', •.s 1• d6'iG I • A a 1 �I01 I t 1 I ' ,; `�,i B 11 J � I '� n ,' 7 1 H ,,- N �� l f • v i,- I h •,2---Z..,fir,' i '•'. `YN )'' y�69 c� '` _=v. W su — n Z I ' •.3 I,-,oi. I J�j U , ( <;• �` -. $‘e, �' , , ZG _",< \• //I1' Q $��]� �, 221 1^ ��� �r4 �i6 IX'1d •• 11 ` r?" .'er'1,11 i' v) ac 1T yt W 41 .•1 III )1 _.r-',.i.0 r< < 0 �K MT )11• 0,: /..."-' .r. ' tr'' ''' i ,M F' ° 1 14111 1 7I. )y N o [ i'r. i .-4 • • I)1 gil RI et :11 (� H \ o 17H r 1 23CCii N6 �� 8 r 4 • A. ae.r t'\I I 11 :P \ I,I.l'! .) ) 9 '1 j{I i C/ U ril ro.l"JIE O K. .$ �:. l O i ! i1 -� :f �7 (�11 m j F: w I• It C1 t 11 .N �� 1 = lP 1 ' c �� Vti%_ ' p O ' Iro. uut[Ilul O as C '1 I (.- 0`9 (;),i4 . ° • • r Z Z (P • II , r •• t 12Sl * jal ,3 1 i Ip 1 �\ ,rL' "I 'I ; _, Z s _., s3 .11 \--. Z 70 0 e 1 , _._., 2, J '1 i RI:lf...i., "}": 4 Y *Est An.' ? /,x^/ pl) r h 1'• . }- ; 1 I; • O p 4' — s" 71 n c IgirAte‘ '• 'pa I 1, V 7 - C • v - (F�-��v _ roaauc eii 1 lo A ''' .eQ. u > • .1 I LSDJu \ ' 0 I C 4'sry. \'+ o.corA ,3' ). ' VII '- ' I r f, jri, i 1 -k• -1,,-> I 9.Q `•1 r�y' `31 +Ir 5 I�° , 1S_ jl ♦' " ) {V ra��'pb Z'` Ft- r+ -lir•.w � �' , aii •, ..1 1.. " , q" ( °°° et '�V� ° 4.04 11 I. �x�v' i J.._ `\ \ \ \ ♦ r ( °i 1 *r D' r — W ~ 1 ice,. Ns' ----\-- \ r, :s. \ 1. , . .i.k ,,, $\\ 11..\ Ki.=r: \ \\X\ ..\\:\ \ . "'' -. i ( •I -.., --- CP is' : i, :" ° ' . -1,c ' • T s. • st' "C& 1 ft I• I ?j \ \\\\\ A.° - v `£„ti' Ol -U\ \♦ • }IiI • i ((� I. at\ 1 \\* ltl t ...'. \ ,;.• / 5 1 • ° ° �yf. �,�. ,,'• ( is 1 L\N‘. ms. J '1, 1\- .... _i .. \ Tf UCCS \—p m " l�';1; +1 \b�3 e /� 1 R) \, 7 '') I 0� �� 1 +�u11• or, `,11\-• N �+ , 1 1\\ riiii\ (.I) \ ; r 1-.. } '�y -6, J01 n ` O .)T•1 \:..1, ..),IL: ll'•- . \ \ (—j\ \ (11- \ .---Zo';" ' 1 , 1 1 ` A • : \ N p., ' l U `\` '\ ,1 I 1 1 UI '• r r ' , i % r ffV v� \ , 6 \\ 1 1 • I1 _ , L I 1•••V 1 • 1 I. I _ In.foO ., 1 r , .�, �,�••� I N CI ! I\ \ \ '• f• . 1 ; 1 \ ` ♦ ' CI 1� gid,- �}•.k7I IlL y I V N1\ \ : • 1 O 1 9? t 1 I ;. 1 i.i. 1 . \\,...\\,...,\,\\\\ •., 1 r`i"--._ = — i 1 (----- : i„.. ,: S 1 r` •. I — . ).I 1 i r)I 'a 1-, 1° ( 0 It °I"V I 1 p - 1) 1 ,.l ..„_c_,),,:i • 1�(�'1 , '1 • H, I'O 17.. (p % .• 000 I- I - 10 1 ♦ n ' 1.00 �eaq -I• ('IU l I. 1 Ial i -�..f1•-• '1 (Qa } ,. \r II 1 I .1 1 1 r 4 i � •\, '_1-• 'ter r /)/' � E r y?�, ,^ 1. v ( • � n 1 U> ,-, \. \ r .., •'� ° o ',,7 i , . ,':?:). ' ) j iu 11 , , . t, ... ......•' :, : • ,,. , ,...0 (..) cr -:-.` .r)(-3 '., .. I ,g- f 1,—.3 g 11 1 \.1), I:' ,Z,,,,,..._:;,2 Nri (A 111.r C 1 1 \ 1 Farr ..,,,...), ,....,, ....\s-ti I \I P • F.4. n. • • i.2. \s i • \ r ‘-', 1 u � .1.:\\s J I 1 > tt i C::'' C. :'''''''' '''1 1 ,t� '�` ��aa QC. 04%f N ` O I • . •• •00 , ,,,o1;4' 8 D fi 1 I ' (\ (•, ;1 CZ V: 1 O • II• \ t'',. ��' °o 0 1',I N1 o T I ' ;. 1,1 ' Z N D °cl:(' i.1111.11:',.., /! -. u• D I1' 1; ' 0 1 I'1', ifs -, '1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals Decision Resolution No. PC 98-112 APPLICANT: Sand Companies, Inc. DATE: February 2, 1999 INTRODUCTION At its January 7, 1999, meeting, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted 6-0 on a motion to deny a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)for multiple structures on one lot in the Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone, with findings and conditions as proposed by Staff. Sand Companies is proposing to construct a townhome project consisting of 56 units on 8 acres(gross density of 7 units per acre) at the northwest corner of County Road 17 and Vierling Drive. Copies of the December 3, 1998, and January 7, 1999, staff reports to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals with said resolution is attached for the Council's reference. On January 11, 1999, staff received an Appeal application and letter from Mr. Darrick Metz, Sand Companies, Inc. This letter has also been attached for review. For reference purposes, staff has prepared the attached tables. The first table consists of the list of conditions proposed by staff and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Table 2 contains the criteria necessary for granting a CUP and the proposed findings of the BOAA as well as its vote on individual findings. Also attached to this memorandum is information provided by Sand Companies, Inc. and the neighborhood in opposition to the proposed development. ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the Appeal, and make a motion to either deny the Appeal request upholding the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision or approve the Appeal request(with revised findings)over- turning the Board's decision and direct staff to draft a resolution consistent with that determination. Alte k,tt: Julie Klima Planner II i:\commdev\c61999\cc0202\aplsands.doc PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR RESOLUTION PC 98-112 TABLE 1 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned,maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof 2. Building materials,parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shall be renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit, if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. * 8. The applicant shall construct a 4 foot berm along the north and west perimeters of the property. ** 9. Building materials shall include a 4 foot high stone or brick veneer on all sides of each building. ** 10. The applicant shall construct and maintain a pedestrian/bicycle/walkway to provide access to commercial properties.** Conditions 1-7 are those which were proposed by staff. * The Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted to remove Condition No. 7. ** Condition Nos. 8, 9, and 10 were included by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF THE BOAA TABLE 2 Criteria#1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted,nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity; Finding#1 The Board has received no evidence that the proposed conditional use will be injurious to the use and the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes which are already permitted,nor would it substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. This finding was found by the Board NOT to be met with a vote of 3-3. Criteria#2 The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area; Finding#2 The Board has received no evidence that the use would impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses predominant in the area. This finding was found by the Board to be met with a vote of 5-1. Criteria#3 Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage,and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; Finding#3 The Board finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and parking either exist, or will be provided. This fincfing wasfound by the Board NOT to be met with a vote of 3-3. Criteria#4 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and Finding#4 The Board finds the overall use of the property is consistent with the purposes the R2 Zone with conditions listed. This finding was found by the Board to be met with a vote of 5-1. Criteria#5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding#5 The Board finds the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for Medium Density Residential use. This finding was found by the Board to be met with a vote of 6-0. ';1,=+k' iw",5'W a*Siff. N f a •-� ..::k >4. W,Y e •: sci 4 Sand Companies, Inc. 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 727 Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 Office: (320) 202-3100 Fax: (320) 202-3139 E-mail: sci@sandcompanies.com Website: www.sandcompanies.com Appeal Application of the Decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals Sand Companies, Inc. requests that the Shakopee City Council review the information presented at the two Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BOAA) meetings, as we feel that this development met the five criteria for Conditional Use Permit(CUP) approval. Our proposal was significantly altered by conditions imposed by the BOAA that clouded the decision making process and materially changed the CUP application. As this development is consistent with the City of Shakopee's zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan and has met your City statf's review without detrimental findings, Sand Companies, Inc. requests to have the CUP application reviewed as initially proposed by the developer. We stand ready to present information or be on hand to answer questions regarding this CUP application and understand that conditions may be added to enhance the development in the eyes of the City. To help you visualize our product, Sand Companies, Inc. would like to invite you to see / tour our new rental housing development located in Mahtomedi, Minnesota. This development is very similar to the one being proposed by our company in your community. I am available at your convenience at(320)202-3100 or locally at(612) 810-1886. Kind Regards, Sand Companies, Inc. -----:.:0-';' Ali Darrick Metz Business Development Manager Construction • Property Management • Development Equal Opportunity Employer PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: Perry and Susan Mulcrone 114ECIIIVED Tom and Renee Erickson JAN 2 8 1999 Jim and Gail Skoglund Denny and Mary Kay Vierling Randy and Laurie Gregor Steven Menden Andy Unseth SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (RESOLUTION#PC98-112) DATE: January 27, 1999 REFERENCES: (a) RESIDENTS OPPOSITION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (RESOLUTION #PC98-112)DATED DECEMBER 28, 1998 (b) CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM DATED DECEMBER 3, 1998 (c) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKET (CUPINFO.AP3) (d) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE(R-2) SECTION 11.32 ENCLOSURES: (1) AFFIDAVIT FROM DONALD SCHMEISER,DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (2) PROPOSED SITE MAP OVERLAY (3) PROPOSED SITE MAP INTRODUCTION The residents of Prairie and Meadow Estates request that this information be included for review by the City Council in addition to the original opposition package submitted for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, reference(a). Close to two months ago,just before Thanksgiving and the Holiday season,the residents of the Prairie and Meadow Estates neighborhoods were invited by the Sand Companies and City of Shakopee to review and provide input to the proposed townhouse development located just north of Veirling Drive and west of Marschall Road. Many residents took that invitation and have subsequently spent countless hours over the holidays reviewing the proposed townhouse development and the Conditional Use Application sought by Sand Companies (Resolution#PC98-112),reference (b). The residents studied and researched the plan and Conditional Use Permit and uncovered substantial evidence that the project would be a poor venture for the Town of Shakopee. As outlined in the residents' original package as well as the BOAA's decision,the application was found to be in violation of the criteria set forth by the City Code 11.85,reference(c), and is an inappropriate use under the R2 zoning, City Code 11.32, reference (d). The purpose of this package is to further clarify the residents position on the CUP,recap the BOAA's discussion and vote on the CUP and forward further evidence that the CUP is in violation of the criteria established in City Code 11.85. DISCUSSION The residents of Prairie and Meadow Estates feel that the Conditional Use Permit for multiple structures on a lot and setback variances of the proposed development sought by Sand Companies should be denied for the following reasons. a)The proposed development is an over-intensified use of the site and is in violation of the intended use according to City Code 11.32. The proposed development is an inappropriate use of the purchased lots and does not provide the appropriate buffer intended for by the R2 zoning to"transition between single detached homes and other land uses,"in this case the commercial development near CUB Foods. A buffer is necessary to relieve sight line and congestion as well as preserve property valuation, but the proposed development is far too congested for the lot intended to provide the smooth transition. The fact that the developer is seeking a CUP and setback variances is evidence that the development over-intensifies the land. In order to fit the 56 units on the two lots, the developer must gain CUP, gain setback variances, place a narrow private street on the site, and place conditional berms on other landowners private residences. b)Evidence exists that the proposed development will be in violation of the first criteria set forth in Code 11.85 and will be "injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity of the site." The police incidents statistics provided by the Shakopee Police Department outlined in the residents first package for the BOAA, show that similar developments had an increase in criminal and safety incidents.The Federal Bureau of Investigations crime analysis showed that population density, degree of urbanization and degree of stability with respect to the population moving were all factors in criminal activity and that criminal activity heightened citizens awareness of crime. The residents feel that the heightened awareness will injure their use and enjoyment of their existing homes. The residents further feel that the increased congestion,traffic and litter will also substantially injure their use and enjoyment. c)Evidence exists that the proposed development will be in violation of the first criteria set forth in Code 11.85 and "will substantially impair or reduce the property values of the homes in the immediate vicinity." Local research outlined in the residents first package and conducted by the residents of a similar development in Shakopee showed that this type of development significantly impaired the appreciation value of neighboring ownership properties. While homes properly buffered appreciated at 9%,the homes adjacent to the similar property appreciated at only .50%. Further, expert testimony submitted by a local Realtor shows that the values of homes are adversely affected by congestion and improper or poor use of land. Additional testimony is provided in this package, enclosure (1), by the Development Services Director for the City of North Las Vegas which is the fastest growing town in the United States. This affidavit testifies to the serious impact a development ran ha\7P nn naiohhnrino nrnnPrty ualnPQ d) Criteria#2 of section 11.85 of the City Code states that the use shall not impede the orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant properties. The residents feel that the congestion and increase in rental units will affect the rent of the neighboring apartment complex to the east of the site and could reduce prospective developers and uses of the neighboring vacant lots to the south of the site. e)The plan does not adequately provide for the facilities required by Criteria#3 of section 11.85 of the City Code that states that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other adequate facilities have or will be provided. As discussed in the first package and at length before the BOAA,the proposed site plan does not provide for a safe,well-maintained site with proper facilities. This package will discuss only a few of the concerns raised regarding this issue. Enclosures (2) and (3)of this package show the private street with the curbs drawn in,as well as other items that can be expected to be on the site. The site has an extremely narrow, private road emptying directly into commercial property and Veining Drive which is a collector street. Sage Lane directly to west of the site empties in to Veining Drive and is considerable wider. The dead end street in the plan does not allow safety and commercial vehicles to safely turnaround without backing up. This is a major safety concern because small children can be expected to be on the site and can easily be lost out of view to a backing truck. The site does not provide for water drainage in an area that has significant water accumulation and standing water on the access trail. The site does not provide for sufficient parking in the western area. f) The plan does not fit the intended use of the site set forth in criteria#4 of 11.85 and illustrated in paragraph (a) above. g) The conflicts with the comprehensive plan as intended by the R2 zoning and criteria#5 of 11.85. h) The developer to date has not demonstrated a"hardship"necessitating setback variances. The residents feel that compelling exists that the plan and CUP are in violation of the City Codes 11.85 and 11.32 and should be denied. The BOAA unanimously denied the application on grounds that the CUP did not meet the criteria established under Code 11.85. BOAA DISCUSSION The Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals heard presentations by both the Developer and the Representatives of the residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed site. Many residents were present at the hearing and dozens more watched from their homes. Several key points in the discussion need to be reviewed. (a) The Developer stated that the City MUST grant the CUP and variances. According to the City Attorney, BOAA and City Code 11.85, the CUP and Variances do not demand granting but are applications only. The City can deny the applications for failure to meet the criteria established or even for failure to achieve necessary votes for approval. (b) The Developer raised issue with the residents graphical presentation of the crime statistics provided by the Shakopee Police Department but did not contend the statistics themselves. (c) The BOAA twice voted the setback variances out of the CUP application. The Developer refused to grant extension to redesign the plan without the variances. The Developer did not demonstrate hardship necessitating the variances according to City Code. (d) The Developer provided statistics from Illinois to provide support to criteria#1 rather than local statistics as directed by the BOAA. (e) The BOAA imposed several conditions on the development of the site before testing to see if the site met the five criteria of Code 11.85. (f) The CUP FAILED to meet criteria#1 and#3 of the City Code 11.85 and the BOAA unanimously denied the resolution. (g) A BOAA member asked the Representatives of the neighborhoods if the residents would be more in favor of the site if the townhouse were ownership properties rather than rental properties. The Representatives stated that the neighbors seek only that the land be developed under the Permitted Uses only under the R2 zoning in City Code 11.32, or be replotted and be developed properly without the aid of CUP's and variances. Since that meeting,the residents have met twice and have agreed that they would be more in favor of ownership properties than rental units, but are still concerned'with the over-intensification of the site and the narrow, private street. The residents have continued to attempted to reach resolution with the developer and to date no resolution has been reached. The heart of the BOAA's denial of the application centered around the idea that this project may indeed be injurious to the property values of the homes immediately adjacent to the site and the over-intensification of the site. With the BOAA's vote to deny the resolution,the residents' opposition to the site is further supported and moves from grass roots opposition to a community-wide level opposition. CONCLUSION The residents of Prairie and Meadow Estates ask the City Council members to consider carefully all of the issues surrounding this appeal. They feel we are a community involved in the development of our heritage together. The proposed site is located at a new key entrance to the City. That is why the residents have looked at this development carefully. This plan is simply too congested and raises too many concerns over property devaluation, safety, parking,traffic, affect on adjacent vacant properties,facilities, road and long term care. The residents feel that these concerns are too great to simply dismiss so that the developer can add a few more units and make more money. The Residents ask the Council to follow the recommendation forwarded by the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals and deny the CUP Application. The land can be developed appropriately either by the permitted uses of the R2 zoning or by being replotted. All of the Residents concerned thank you for your time and consideration on this issue. • NORTH LAS VEGAS CITY ID : JAN 13 ' 99 9 :24 No .001 P .02 Mayor City Manager Michael L.Montandon Patrick P.Importuna Council Members William E.Robinson John K.Rhodes Paula L.Brown Stephanie S.Smith CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS Development Services Department •Donald Schmciser,Director 2266 Civic Center Drive,P.O.Box 41186• North Las Vegas,Nevada 89030-6307 Telephone: (702)633-1515•Fax: (702)649-9316 January 13, 1998 Mr. Perry Mulcrone 1428 Prairie Lane Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-3507 Dear Mr. Mulcrone: At your request,I am submitting this letter to express my candid opinion concerning the low income housing development being proposed adjacent to your subdivision. I base this opinion on over 30 years of experience in urban planning as a planning consultant, a municipal employee for lour cities ranging in size to over 106,000 persons in different parts of the Country, and as an executive dircctor of a regional planning commission for 10 years. l have a master's degree in urban planning and have taught several courses in urban planning at local universities and community colleges. The reality of there being a diminution of property values when incompatible land uses arc located adjacent to one another is not a new concept. It is the basic foundation of land use law as we know it today. It was understood when the small village of Euclid, Ohio won a major decision against unsurmountable odds in the United States Supreme Court in 1926. The validity of a zoning ordinance is based on the very notion that a property owner does not have the right to use his/her property in such a way that the "economic" value of adjacent property is in any way adversely impacted. When such is the case,then the perpetrators may be subject to damages in a court of law. From my experience,the compatibility of different.types of residential uses located adjacent • NORTH LAS VEGAS CITY ID : JAN 13 ' 99 9 :24 No .001 P .03 to one another is directly dependant upon the degree to which they are of the same "quality." For example, a housing development that has the appearance of being of low quality when located next to a housing development that is by comparison of higher quality,will have the affect oflowering the value of the higher quality development. Contrariwise,everyprudent home buyer knows that if you buy the lowest cost home in a higher priced residential al area the higher priced homes will have a tendency of inflating the value of the lowest cost home in comparison to the same home in other areas. Similarly, a low income housing development will have a negative affect upon single family homes valued from$150,000 to S250,000. If the City of Shakopee approves the low income housing project proposed to be located adjacent to your subdivision, it would appear to me the residents would have a ood cause for filing a class action suit against the City. If it should come to that, I can place contact with a nationally renowned land use law firm that I'm familiar with in your area. Please advise. _Si eerely _.. . 7 40;01.4,01,- Donal' Schmeiser, AICP Dev opment Services Director All SI iiii i L- ® ! ti THE VIEADO S 7T ADDI O1 z • o N D '0 2 m r Ci 5.g../ u) s. c r u) r ul CA tv _. 0 r- 2 D M'0 Z m f„ m z r o 0 ; a o O z 0 r Z 427.34 Cm o Do • z Alt gom � ao eeTe�cx g C 1- m c r al ,..t ,s; at i. v, _.< D m ' + X01 t xi in Txiki 1.11 D _ I •i NN_., j,T,T ANp ��.0 n � •ii ,)u ! rT E� YENI •$ I :jI:1i O � mUk*I1ii ; f~ Api) [p' � l �� r 1 "+ oo 1 .n ,, —1 if• • ••; M mm - tlE m I 1 Z0 I `" • Nat" , p �A i ay n y dim th - EN - Iv cyt. a �r / um amp __ Imom j '� rm 6 .1 ® g ti fnS 2f o $ / / 1 r+-• 1 I mi.r+, ri r 0 1 - 8 --- t `�60 1111111 ' •a 01 1 I 1 O'� •i . I L �cy��, 1 8 an r_?>/ / a- §1 Ur e,,,DAO[ -II C . ®11 I i:, co 1=••••.o.r•-17/76—••-1 I ;: IN 4- h !v) m . I -� ! 140411 0 I ia'u.). ! II *1141, 68 0 r Ory �� a) 1 �� S ,....." • �� •! Iir .s ca'.. I ��• , 4 ' , 1 1: . ' Z. 1 4 �j I • iii P H4- 1 I �. 1 ®II TT ' i 11 1Q ; . i 1-=' . . 1 fl i X01 I• —r •4_ !° /1 1 %. I 1al 11; ®i1 ' • I i L. 0I • 1 -x- 1 � I1 • I ® ' Ii1I i IC 1 ,, / m CSI1 • w 1tt 0° 1 *;lik 1 I pt.\ 4,1-1-g — — oi L .........1 N �'�3 pzo� S CO5,s . mi r . 1 g �Ct r C._. ripN ill C?Q "yp _ +L> r (10. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for multiple structures on one lot DATE: December 3, 1998 Site Information: Applicant: Sand Companies, Inc. Site Location: Northwest corner of Vierling Drive and Marschall Rd. (County Road 17) Current Zoning: Medium Density Residential(R2) Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-1B) South: Highway Business Zone (B-1) East: Highway Business Zone (B-1) West: Urban Residential (R-1B) Comp.Plan: Medium Density Residential INTRODUCTION Sand Company, Inc. has filed an application requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)to allow the construction of a development containing more than one principal structure per lot. The general location of the subject site is north of Vierling Drive, west of County Road 17 (Marschall Road), and east of Sage Lane, as shown on Exhibit A. DISCUSSION The site is zoned Medium Density Residential (R2). The applicant is proposing to construct rental townhome buildings on the property. Section 11.32 of the City Code allows the construction of developments containing more than one principal structure per lot with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The subject site is approximately 8 acres in size. The site plan, attached as Exhibit B, provides for 56 townhome units, for a density of 7 units per acre. The landscape plan, as shown on Exhibit B, identifies the provision of 214 landscaping units. The City Code requires that this development provide 152 landscaping units. Therefore, the plan provided by the applicant has met the landscaping requirements for this project. Off street parking requirements for this project are also met on the plan provided by the applicant. City staff has recommended that the portion of the private street serving the residential portion of the development be renamed. The renaming would comply with the City's current street naming policy and provide additional clarity for addressing purposes. The applicant should contact city staff regarding possible street names. Setbacks between private streets and buildings, as required by the approved plat, are set at 20 feet. However, the City Code requires 35 foot front, 30 foot rear, and 10 foot side yard setbacks between property lines and buildings. The site plan indicates that the applicant is requesting variations to the front yard setbacks (those abutting Vierling Drive)from 35 feet to 30 feet. The site plan also indicates a request for variation from the 30 foot rear setback for Lot 2, Block 3 (for location please see Exhibit C). Due to design of the project and minimal impact on public right- of-way, the requested variations do not appear to provide any adverse impact to the development. Section 11.85 of the City Code states that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall not grant a conditional use permit without meeting the following criteria. Staff has prepared the following findings for consideration by the Board. Criteria#1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity; Finding#1 Staff has received no evidence that the proposed conditional use will be injurious to the use and the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes which are already permitted, nor would it substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. Criteria#2 The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area; Finding#2 Staff has received no evidence that the use would impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses predominant in the area. Criteria#3 Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage,and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; Finding#3 Staff finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and parking either exist, or will be provided. Criteria#4 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and Finding#4 Staff finds the overall use of the property is consistent with the purposes the R2 Zone with conditions listed. Criteria#5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding#5 Staff finds the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for Medium Density Residential use. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Board may approve the conditional use with conditions as presented by staff. 2. The Board may approve the conditional use with modified or additional conditions. 3. The Board may deny the request. 4. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. The Board may table a decision for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approving the conditional use with conditions as follows: 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof 2. Building materials, parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shall be renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit, if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Resolution#PC98-112 as pr ented. tz(A,t4 Julie Klima Planner II i:\commdev\boaa-pc\1998\1203\cupsands.doc RESOLUTION NO.PC98-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,'MINNESOTA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING TWO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON ONE LOT LOCATED IN 1'HE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R2)ZONE WHEREAS, Sand Companies,Inc. has filed an application dated received November 6, 1998, for a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Chapter 11,Land Use Regulation(Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.32, Subd. 3 (0.)for developments containing more than one principal structure per lot; and WHEREAS,this parcel is presently zoned Medium Density Residential(R2); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as; Lot 2, Block 1;Lot 2, Block 3 and Oudot A, Boulder Ridge, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County,Minnesota. WHEREAS,notice was provided and on December 3, 1998,the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director and invited members of the public to comment. NOW !'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF TELE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the application for Conditional Use Permit No. PC-98-112 is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof. 2. Building materials, parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shall be renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit,if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 3rd day of December, 1998. Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ATTEST: Community Development Director CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO.PC98-112 I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. PC98-112, presented to and adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of December, 1998, as shown by minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of , 19 Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SEAL -- a i NI .... _ L ..w Na I ' __■ 1 r 1- I I l I I I hal I::5--`-- 11111 im•anuiiiirm_ in re numw#25ri - ,, . _ _........_ ai■■mu .o a Illi - - _ - ,- - lijijVIAltyilijiisltll '�r � 4�a M4IN -� _ -- _1 i-F _ - _ F!II�IQ_ 1 L�� 1 11J i 1 i 5 - g:;usor 7 ��►v -.0 v ♦ ��44v 011©110 - 1 ©• 1- 1111 s 12 Mi � i,r,1 4,"�o��Io ;241�j�Q9'41 il vAP in um X111111 i , ti. 4**.k. apt s 47, 41,1 PF,A1211 - i 1 i . . mat * SI'l 4148'• 804021 - --- . ' - ell ; 'i4�'il0 DI.I■A0 0� 431 NFUWE ST.1;k4" 4 Alt air - R N - rrri iiiAlmo I iiii :•:•:•:• • • , • . tli - P - . ti iiE r : .-:-.1:_ - S? 1� co ,illii11111 L 'In:,,,,, th %mil mew 11- \11 NE ---' - �0 0t`w " = - - ,BA- �. mit d_ ,� "' - N - p� co - a : ` ;owe V. ESA- I ri! Hco :Dom* qi NI_L R s S�. -�'' ; PER? , i : - serk_tAwari _____ i _ :. 4, 114. 1 eing m- .-- ropy, ® I CM Olarlate ! 0110 : 144 / ! ® M X110® C 4U mieSI ape N ttI - - Z ffl D - 4.- -- le LIU 801 11411 - ® RT . �7 �p11 Litt MI 0 Eta: ��`.�1,s! ® OIC► o: cirq trivla is ;17- 1$, X oma . •,* 0014* WVx ® a► ;1, 41111v ��oli .49 AIWA p11 * smitt../ . yto ...© R gstt over ' . 7-, �� ......t,, , , 0 tt 4 C E-4 CA W 1 � r. .q A, _ • _ • 0ISo tvROWiA -* jjqig II r ']L 9 31.10HN110.1. - 'iii ir v + --10- r-; .�s -,- .4 71 /•1/ veaI1 ', t n iDaW°3 Pun 39CI IN N3a1n09 - i,„.' -°z'"'er_I 9,011,19,011,11.1D1 MN '- T • 00,1:1011.,30 ('4N '1'1VH0SeVN) LI 'ON 'H•G''S'O (14.11,10.009.009 91'464 r —1 r— I L__J 1 11111 9 10'19'90'E �^,ab �Iti c -c � iii ii8I o I illkip II cn , 1 ,yii I 14 __,D___ 1 10 Ill ';iIit _!, iu11 ?*!;i!i /cf) 116, f I ♦ i ■ �• -...., t.Apy,,, ' I .4 'A rW 1 ,x..&,.,0,0 / 11 +p♦7� 2_/\v i 0 1 0 A ii I I ,,OP C ,4 1 ei ® 1 gym' / I • // ''11U s , ia;iji 0 I - a , // CO IW o' I N .'ma •a L_—> -�_1 / e<i I ry 1„Z �_ � I O `\' b 4.4, / .....•(!./1 Q1d 4 A r mrN // i e o 9 4 k ii 41 1 0� 1 11 or lc 1 d l'il 81 ii;i —• .. .0.6.1.-.T % iS3 a fiyis 44 44 1 ;i ; i i 11 g goi Nz W.N-D ' I , 4:42: ill flY� G - s = o ryr I; ill I / 1 4cLt4 I I I 5 / 1 I I I li 1 ll 1 g r i ga //N0I11.CICIb' HItLL Sm7ad�w aHi ► I `° ® C - / �� J---L--- -----� L v 3NVJ1 39V9 . 1 . U 1, rca's,I I ill Ew •-1 , - ,"-..,, .c.',7,- tr) a :- 0-4 0 CI' 4 ts : . ( 'Clel 11VHOS6VH) LI ON • H'V' S'0 fM 1 II 1 1 ..., 2% 264.52 sio25.50"E 21/.71 J. $ Pi .. /411.,10.00S 811,64 arta ,- ....., 0 i 3 1.1.1 14 > P.4 r CC • ot Po 03 ID im z I 1 II I PR-. 14 et i *,.,, %%. s• -rt nil- 8 lir ,li 4;.*.; 2:..i. ;Iv N., 4 .,* 4‘," :,i- 02 __ 040.7, .= ,, ,A N .1..÷ SO OZI ..„, / 'i-ft-',-- ` 1 1 I-Q8-- •., Al. -- "v-..., :. P, ' 1 i ' I I 001 I I I l\PiV I - `-.1143:3:V'371 ' °°.'r'''9 m Min 0.IV 33VNIVUo.ars'CV.9014''1.1. if.t. d Of I, - 66,111c '':.`.." ....., - s‘1,?•?,.:3°N.- I -4 ,,I % -.1.• 6°.0 6' . . , 99-Tii5e-,1,1 1.'1 1 „ ; ZO7 e-666.s• i• • i r ,e0 .so 5 , s, 4 .r.8 8 • ieeu e 12 0 4.„e:i 1 M 6 ti!TO N ' '' '‘ s t.te i. * eilk . i bu 1... g J.N3r13SV3 Amin A 300N10•0.'.5 5 ,I •1 0' 13 .:7 .% R . I p-4,4a, VI *At' .ri.t4 ilk.-.4k.11.44, 1'4". , ..i / loci . A, DO % • ...03 m.6..so.00N ,N k :. -0.kos .4, ,,,..,,,:,2 I 1,"1-: a ' f7E-11-134'e',4* t4.. I 3 :'"'b , (' ms'."1, , , gi .-..8 '; .Z.'Z'f-s-:-. E? - ''''+'4,•44$,S., 8 -.4.7 -.1•A. „, ,,,,,..4.- ,,,..„...)-, A.,„=5,,,,,,,9,:•-j go'? „‘,...:*.,.. ,••,,,..* -= ..tb.p ‘-'*;i:‘',1 ,'+''',9:•'.5‘ (.:,:,.‘ 6--;/.,0.°2 Is- LI IX'fr-/ A' C)-1 d''''S ' • 7 t 1 ....-1 , i•-• ' , ,...14„.3,--..,-- *P ', 0 ,., / ..:-.+.Q.10.0N sa 15.701-..2L , .' ' --- ,,,..?/ .-,- w -..t.-.:-- 4../ trO / • , ., 0.- ,,,,i ,,, ,) ,7 "„"26•0,?"-,931-5.('ii.--, : ' n., ,0:1•17'0,.\ -- •'" ,• 1.,t + DI ,- tt11,--/., ..t.,..-,,s --r to.i, , i , z••''P.., 4`'Pt'la ,3,0,st%„mo,.,GsC'.-`L”0.00N 0-4so-v45o•444t1,°a.5?.0**-:'-..-1--°-0a'Z,1k.,^,;•,\••*A...1.,_s4P°71e:1:• N*9'/\-;\ . . " or 44 •, Id \ Cr ..";• \-7——---'1 "——Z;',-24761-74-0,:,AA, '• 41, ,•\ .... W I it? 0,•,,,,/ , , 9 ,' ,0 , ..,,,______;.,N'ONv 30vNIni0..7-....... --V-AilEf• •-' ' • I 1 R 0 :6 e8P '"i- ,' 3..2a0= • 4`.,,,,, ,...r (.‘,- j 1 17.7. -4-,r1 ,,•• 0 ''..,,, %z"..... C‘i g..'0•„•,=.;*I,-•-=-.,- %•A4 3, . 4 8 .. ''l.,44iv/l 4I"i ..: .31,20.00S .;V. ,V / ,.(... ...., _ I I\ • \• 8 C:.• I I:" Rri•'V 7 I I II I p P gb '446 CV Pli It'• 4-' . ..,• g g• I il c., 0 §§ • 0 I I 0:' / ,,.. ,:,, Mar.g...•• V" " • ',• ---.-91.1___Ii `, 88. N 111 2 4 ;1!r i! 1 I A-;_," ?IN2rGSV3 A ---- • '17.‘b..... g 1 , alf.j''''. 1%;;LNI1 3.5M10.005 I ,-,,- • A , ? R Y 101.1.110 1 ° o 01 %• I tl.0 XiD6 ig 1 i •Psd, I,- ----- 3.6*.vo.00s ,, 1.• s,t4' a IN3,135V3 Affuln 040WNrvH0, i - _'2 g i o •:d TA I I , 4.61,,90.00 0 I • a" I . / C. t_. -- (..") ..'.. 3,f0,C1.00S HE'LL* , __- :-. ../2), , i5 ..-:(),C-.: .:' :, •4"../.. •- cS N a/0 CV ... . 7 .....::: II. ..---- i 1 I . ., ... ..... .• .. . .• ... .‘ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for multiple structures on one lot MEETING DATE: January 7, 1998 INTRODUCTION At its December 3, 1998 meeting the Board continued the public hearing on this item to allow the applicant and residents of the adjoining neighborhood time to develop and submit information regarding the possible effect of the proposed development on the market value of adjoining properties. Accompanying this memorandum is the material submitted by the parties, as well as a copy of the previous staff memorandum for the Board's consideration in reaching its findings. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Board may approve the conditional use with conditions as originally presented by staff 2. The Board may approve the conditional use with modified or additional conditions. 3. The Board may deny the request. 4. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. The Board may table a decision for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve or deny the request consistent with the Board's findings, with direction to staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for consideration as a consent item on a future Board agenda. c J R. Michael Leek is\commdev\boaa-pc\1999\107\cupsands.doc (0 • CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for multiple structures on one lot DATE: December 3, 1998 Site Information: Applicant: Sand Companies, Inc. Site Location: Northwest corner of Vierling Drive and Marschall Rd. (County Road 17) Current Zoning: Medium Density Residential(R2) Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-1B) South: Highway Business Zone (B-1) East: Highway Business Zone (B-1) West: Urban Residential (R-1B) Comp.Plan: Medium Density Residential INTRODUCTION Sand Company, Inc. has filed an application requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)to allow the construction of a development containing more than one principal structure per lot. The general location of the subject site is north of Vierling Drive, west of County Road 17 (Marschall Road), and east of Sage Lane, as shown on Exhibit A. DISCUSSION The site is zoned Medium Density Residential (R2). The applicant is proposing to construct rental townhome buildings on the property. Section 11.32 of the City Code allows the construction of developments containing more than one principal structure per lot with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The subject site is approximately 8 acres in size. The site plan, attached as Exhibit B, provides for 56 townhome units, for a density of 7 units per acre. The landscape plan, as shown on Exhibit B, identifies the provision of 214 landscaping units. The City Code requires that this development provide 152 landscaping units. Therefore, the plan provided by the applicant has met the landscaping requirements for this project. Off street parking requirements for this project are also met on the plan provided by the applicant. City staff has recommended that the portion of the private street serving the residential portion of the development be renamed. The renaming would comply with the City's current street naming policy and provide additional clarity for addressing purposes. The applicant should contact city staff regarding possible street names. Setbacks between private streets and buildings, as required by the approved plat, are set at 20 feet. However, the City Code requires 35 foot front, 30 foot rear, and 10 foot side yard setbacks between property lines and buildings. The site plan indicates that the applicant is requesting variations to the front yard setbacks (those abutting Vierling Drive) from 35 feet to 30 feet. The site plan also indicates a request for variation from the 30 foot rear setback for Lot 2, Block 3 (for location please see Exhibit C). Due to design of the project and minimal impact on public right- of-way, the requested variations do not appear to provide any adverse impact to the development. Section 11.85 of the City Code states that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall not grant a conditional use permit without meeting the following criteria. Staff has prepared the following findings for consideration by the Board. Criteria#1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity; Finding#1 Staff has received no evidence that the proposed conditional use will be injurious to the use and the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes which are already permitted, nor would it substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. Criteria#2 The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area; Finding#2 Staff has received no evidence that the use would impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses predominant in the area. Criteria#3 Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage,and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; Finding#3 Staff finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and parking either exist, or will be provided. Criteria#4 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and Finding#4 Staff finds the overall use of the property is consistent with the purposes the R2 Zone with conditions listed. Criteria#5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding#5 Staff finds the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for Medium Density Residential use. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Board may approve the conditional use with conditions as presented by staff. • 2. The Board may approve the conditional use with modified or additional conditions. 3. The Board may deny the request. 4. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. The Board may table a decision for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approving the conditional use with conditions as follows: 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof 2. Building materials, parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shall be renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit,if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Resolution #PC98-112 as pr ented. V Julie Klima Planner II is\commdev\boaa-pc\1998\1203\cupsands.doc RESOLUTION NO.PC98-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING TWO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON ONE LOT LOCATED IN 1'HE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R2)ZONE WHEREAS, Sand Companies, Inc. has filed an application dated received November 6, 1998, for a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Chapter 11,Land Use Regulation(Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.32, Subd. 3 (0.)for developments containing more than one principal structure per lot;and WHEREAS,this parcel is presently zoned Medium Density Residential(R2); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as; Lot 2, Block 1;Lot 2, Block 3 and Outlot A, Boulder Ridge, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County,Minnesota WHEREAS,notice was provided and on December 3, 1998,the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director and invited members of the public to comment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 1'HH:BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF ME CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the application for Conditional Use Permit No. PC-98-112 is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof. 2. Building materials, parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shallbe renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit,if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 3rd day of December, 1998. Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ATTEST: Community Development Director CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO.PC98-112 I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. PC98-112, presented to and adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of December, 1998, as shown by minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of ,19— Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SEAL . . L.__j______________i magi — L' sr--A' ': PaL:-L -2-L1-11179 Es. RI ele anowsli2 - N . . .. gmal L\1\WtiiPr$ ritireill �^� � . itirt------115titiscil ilia 71pialliel=1:21; os o 0©, •��e0011©11 IIIIC, /811 k vs. m Es. INN n g, 111 ... ail 4* 41 yt 0 rim ;IMF Oil as • l'4,04111111140:41M111 st 5� at��'�#IL/10loa die0s 0 r : Ui1IIr a Spiv EN 00 _ ����� Willi°�I 1�1 ,w- 1110110_ r�� mliiiiii p la , _..... � C011! Vtifl !0 i 1111•1111 ' ,A li 11_3" w h r„. Am Aidb_las. „goes ii. , saa.,....,,w - immommommin ---------\ 70 i ali o■■ kr ■ �' g �i : 151:11:11, rifil44,004 cy g.,P, ® n, paa; vii :nu*. 44ela ■l :�iiii© oy5a© : T ® va o■"i : i15!11e0 ®o"/�/511 � r- i ® o �� I m tom famenort MI; Kr V A ® 0■■�iGe © nis © Mb we sem, MO _mi, 1416 01- � .. v+tect i ff,.• �es 11 pa I _w 1 I % 4 IPS -gir ®\ cm 411 p0�o� ®�� -is, o .4 ©� � ter oe a A , C • . O • O ' • n • SAGE LANE ��"\ I THEM AD/WS 71{ ADDTTIONII W i Ipil/t40Q1 i 1 1 1 1 . ‘ -L J 1 L'wJ � W 1 ^, I I 0 / U I I I I poIY� I + € � � �$ AK F —I————, I �y,� I I 42134 . 1 1 ^ -----rJ 11 I ,,e,0,, 0 *i L. V rl 1%%�%% ///./1.1.. s u ° o i t F i 0! -,.;- I sl h % �R I 'a ll ° ,111 �• ,.:,, mill ti. ,11i i 06m ��i c I i8 1' '�\ . / I y\ ,I u � I e t1 ------, 7i%■■�% * I ..6, /I Nle0) -.� ,, lLN /' � \t- y\* , L e , mL AA 0° folk . 41 a * , �\, w �111b. IIIII111I6.1ilinimll •` ' ):om r Co 0C-4 ,c6o 02 vo ON /� `, b • o , 0 ,= I *41.k%; *1 `` 1` 7110g III / � : O itip I J t � f71 v \ e 1 ': ' 1 am 6 ; 4 i Er `` I 6, tr., ... I"� i I D OI' 1 RI I L---Cpl 470 0 1 W o �Ininli� `'�;11i, t l> • N © o 0- , �L111114 1 in1� � of �.0„ N U c, i o _____-:-,_ i $ 3:_06_ .0 6 ICllt ii,___11,_,_,:m ‘,„.: . . �-- - Z r1 7---11-J 494.18 800'01'41"W C.S.A.1-I. NO. 11 (MARSCNALL RD.) r ; _._ ___■ - DEVELOR�ENf a `i ,1..B.''c...�■ T Sd ; 1 ■ ■■ ■ ■ 4. 1} l, r r'!TR.-P■�IIII. BOULDER RIDGE m�.dY E y, rrr 3 �� III■■ TOUNNOMES )"'"1.11.t..•. 1 ■q i 1 ■ .', N.W MN&LWOW O, f • - ar»`6�ao imam :Oil r a .�.!. E..__I. Swoons,nr•¢eot. r..um WaIM tIl 6/ H y tZ 1 • 1 I i I ..-- THE Ir-A I,,. .:- I / TI/\AII i.- /:.m ^..L.•3 I I I V 1‘,1 CJ ;.,; :)„_ CJI. 427.38 800'13'O4'E 1 I 80 , i 1 -T n 1 I O 00.OB'49'W 1 FA. DoD I ot IW_ DRAINAGE AND UTLITY EASEMENT a d+'- i I • gQ• . f• 900'0949•E .--.....-....,1 t,45 O Y Q' W 011 t4 A e ,,(. S No• •E I IC �O jE�$• I o-1LITYG[ASENENI 8 ....7.:(-....;:::- -:%,' ;d€si S I W1 II I' 1 $8• O \,\ 541:3°.w. 1 a4 ro =▪gR. s91" / jJc•7 k'N [1 . \ ^y / N+... .. 2A SOO 08'49'E i1 Y � �o+'�i°!'11 m OUTI.OT A C�? 1.°.95 . i 1 I ` 06.89 t 1. _ {c� i. S/9\I 4.,„.S00.08.t9'E r4• ��9O $ 6,�.1 ..i I al. I4 W 'T4' • tl l ,P W `..7! n'ain dw 8m° N I' `:•',1 L.') z- t•" ;,"3 -III ~:4N"v- N C 4tiT I t V '`y Ab Y N0172.69'E 1�� G 0 Q N • .rY .` '\ 1)2.69 1 ' ;1 '....0 ?OE6L.CI.SYS ^^^ \i.DRAINAGE AN° _ 0 �y .loo \, N 4SS UTILITY EASEMENT`^/ m "9 tv r1 N I M I '. 01' ,� �4 `_pS• ,LC.LS.S0.9 `\\\ "i,,.,1 Iq'['r � U,.._ T y 40y YL.I \ .0' 27 i..1 L ' ,, 4,40^/`1 7_7 nom———1--' Jo 1"A m I 1 yr A\ tr..' NO0'47'85'W r• I [ '\-7' t7�j,,,c.' ", .�i?'Ct' q, ''$S' %'toro'stS\S'g5 v5}LiµLO ods • T I . . y ^y�.09 .•-'ONV 1, M ' 3' 1 (A\,�['r� Rc°'' � ,,'°L8$oY;o'.--'. h R4sb.�.,, ug" $P' Joh t0 y-D° •(7 -_N'.i.M.S.10.995 Ja}at��. i Jo ,y 1 / •' ,,:,• hea'• uI ; I._>.LC S°.yO, O N800 2jaWO.` I UL` I n/'� .§:t•-• \I uv I Iu .0`,_^� '-1. ,mS`�-1'. I��j4 ? 1...•./ A , EWI 3 SL'' /� .f Yy J'$Y,e44 4'4°t3. ..1/ / i L .�d"q t ` P '.. A•OOU.S' ,5 y1 Co - ,,.4`•c"...4.^c. s�.1,•%,. A.ti • u�C•i -71\-.:41'cot `t�'4 +'� N. cnw'.r.P $ 4'..4.'rU 1 g`'' 150.641'25'* ff 1 - Y F U N�o >smar F 4.4' ,•'� . y.v G . CR a y I NOO'08'49'W // S 11 6°51 m� 71 sq��4E a a puN ,` N I /%, w DRAINAGE&UTILITY EASEMENT o A 11 r4 9 ' 99961,0.1, p.,,7,P.�i I 8bg fN ,/, ,4LSY'SN m 1 900'0949•W j I X71 4 S'9'64020 i4 4.444 '•I`'I ?61.86-,�/,: LO Lt 1 r 1 ai el av91a•141` 2247 ^. 41.99 ^ 1 I G, 4. ° ^-DRAINAGE AND 5 V 4 W 180 I 1 u °, alt,,,-,...30 UTILITY EASEMENT.^ F"\I 1 I u fit, Iay.006=i 02.29 s6v4`... 8� II - 1 I l o �. /'. � otos - - � U I _ vhf�r�-1,f`� 1 126.05\ `I•�1 ra 1 ' v =.�\4\ I�� N ion 1 N.°m':' If g� 0 4t1,--4-\\4\.,4, 'n^' \/\\4'e°o 'j Y.ty1°Saq/. 44 i 1'i 1 u .- t r. \\J`I'j. yy9I'aSt m�D',1. 1 4S . `r 7L$8 .$�. I > N ?' gs' �W £°• »8 /y-$ 4 k. � B it O ' �I tog IN u{ ;. is wr9Y_/ . os�9z•0iS z$'a9z I 1 C N PI T �u o. 1 'y IQ- 1�„- 474.16 /4 ---1 1— 494.18 500.01'41"W I y 4? n gpii C .S .A.H . NO. 17 (MARSCHALL RD . ) m v I i� ` :7; I._I. .I r_16! r-1r/:..."r n f.....'irI f„1 I-...I _ _ — M.1 '"'•.I.';I I..-Y Y I I I'..-:I /-\:..:I.-.'I I I\.�I'J y " 111111 I� . , I I r) t 111111 all NMI NIB M SIN M M i all ime • Alpe me M = I MO S p/'" i THE V -ADOWS 7T A»I S \ 0 _ L $ 0 g+i t, ; ti . A 2 � m < N O i N a C �n W N — O v N Z a v a v = m r- C I- 0 m D ? m m In Z 427.34 c� cmc v � z v - r s . . D o Z . Z ._._._._. C m m p › ,- m F > •_•_•— CCI 0 v I,* al M M MI p p D . CO-� In c Z CO m m � a � �� C g m lb X • I ! 1.11 MIEN Itii A W N i v, -< I v01 2 O \ N. m a iiI 10 IS,mip.„m I p W W Z Z p t0 N "„..g.-• •M IL-v...., UMNCN ............ MENT 2� *** N * * * * * 0 i2fri : : I I 1 tcl§g c� ���uNu N.w is g " as -- —► S��gl�l V�$ 00m Om �8 m I I I '' o t ii.t.•_:: n p_02 1> h .iq 4 46.- m o m z — atl gg 0_ it =m 0 I ti 61 ZZ• ' pA 111 mmy d � , PA �, j I cTnaupOJ p ot'm d A A ,,D �� esti - � m / I, I 1 101 m W r N wr • ' / al ( 1 1"x'1 r d m E 4 op In I = g 0I p � (N� N O ® Ijlz oXmg8 /\j / • I • ) I ` 1 1 ++� 4., w �� a I I _+_ 1 IN -n CD !O OETDAQC I im ®II -- 1 Il \Y� • L.•o•z-•�•/mss—• I _+_ 1 Iu, J C)m103 til I I I I cn II i j T.Q cn rSA �(\ /)> III 0. 1 ! \�\O cJ • � g ► /` a% x� 1 , /,%, ! I 7 .� I m,i5 1 I • 4 ail 11 1 I 1 o ®11 , , I A I � c 1 all IIi 0 I M 01 - N Ig I -+- 1 1 I 1 H 4 ®11 J- ' a N f I -i- I 0 I i iI it. i I / 1 I .N •it ;? � 1 1 ! V s0m o I • 1 0 4 J I IOD .� — J N o �7 '�o�,g O°l SCO 1 1 Boulder Ridge Development PREPARED FOR: SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL PREPARED BY: sci Sand Companies, Inc. Commuction•t'noperty Management•Dc%clopment 366 SOUTH 10TH AVENUE PO Box 727 WAITE PARK, MN 56387-0727 TELEPHONE (320)202-3100 FAX (320)202-3139 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS I I Executive Summary 1 Request For Approval of CUP Tab 1 Boulder Ridge Site Plan Tab 2 1 ' Sand Companies, Inc. Company Profile Tab 3 Rental Management Information Tab 4 1 Response to Neighborhood Group Documents Tab 5 1 1 1 1 i i 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' The proposal described herein is for the development of 56 rental townhomes just North of the new commercial site along Vierling Drive in Shakopee. The project will consist of ' 30 tax credit units and 26 up-scale units. This townhome community will be developed, constructed, managed and owned by Sand Companies, Inc. SAND COMPANIES, INC. ' Since 1991, Sand Companies, Inc. (SCI) has earned its reputation for professionalism, thoroughness and proven results in the construction, property management and development industries. Our reputation and accomplishments can be attributed to the many successful partnerships we have formed over the years. Not only do we facilitate the construction, property management and development of a project, we become a part of it by establishing successful working relationships and communicating effectively with all parties involved. Currently, SCI has completed a number of developments along with several others that are very similar the Boulder Ridge development. In the past, we have worked very closely with city staff, city officials and neighbors to complete a development that all parties ' involved can be proud of. We look to maintain this same type of working relationship as we develop this project in Shakopee. The following are current developments similar to our development plans in Shakopee, we welcome either a visit or a phone call to the city contact to better understand the kind of developments we complete: 1 Lakeville Court - 56 rental tax credit units, Lakeville, Minnesota. ' City of Lakeville Mike Sobota (612) 469-4431 Countryside Townhomes- 12 rental tax credit units, Albany, Minnesota. City of Albany Tom Schneider (320) 845-4244 Huski Townhomes- 32 rental tax credit units, Hutchinson, Minnesota. City of Hutchinson Jim Marka (320) 234-4210 iWoodland Townhomes - 30 rental tax credit units, Mahtomedi, Minnesota. City of Mahtomedi Jon Hohenstein (612) 426-3344 Brickstone Townhomes - 30 rental tax credit units, Chaska, Minnesota. City of Chaska Dave Pokorney (612) 448-2851 I IElm Creek Twinhomes - 14 for sale twinhomes (14 time home buyer program), Maple Grove, Minnesota. ICity of Maple Grove Dan Temple (612) 494-6000 Other references can be found in SCI's Corporate Profile at the end of this packet. I DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY IBoulder Ridge Townhomes. Boulder Ridge Townhomes was awarded a 1998 allocation of Federal Tax Credits from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. These 30 I townhome units will have income restrictions and rent restrictions so as to serve the target market of working families. I As an example, a four person household living in the development would be making approximately$36,480 per year and paying gross rent of$790/month. Without the rent restrictions, typically based on the amenities, unit size and quality of the units, expected I rent would be in the neighborhood of$950 - $1,1500 per month. As you can see, the benefits of the tax credit program allow working families just starting out to be able to afford a safe and decent place to live. IThe following are pictures of Countryside Townhomes which will be very similar to the completed Boulder Ridge Townhomes. 1 b I 1 . I { t .; c +sa„,,-,1„ ,-----;',, r .ua 7 7 +tea&. € x£ ' em +a:? 3 w . fie` 'moi `'�3m,. „..„-_,.,,,,,v,, -a''k° .,�y , F €,ul+ :y < yak ba fir j..1 �#5u � 4' ',.;1.-.414,,A44.* , <n 'y,3 �: s -s _''�� I I I I 3 ', • ..tte „., 1 iiiik i `" 1 f i� f,b IIiiiii i liiiiiii Hit weer, . , ,, t . , I I I 3 s f I e �� 1 1 f - r fi't a,-< t- s, es „t 1 The 26 up-scale rental townhome units will be marketed toward young professionals Istarting out in the area and seniors leaving their homes. These units will be approximately 1,700 - 1,850 square feet in size with double car garages and a large number of amenities. I I 1 1 As in the tax credit units, residents will enjoy care free living as the management company will take care of snow removal, lawn mowing, repairs and maintenance. Rents for these I up-scale units will range from$1,300 - $1,500 per month. The following are interior pictures of Regency Park Estates in St. Cloud which will be Ivery similar to the completed up-scale Townhomes. I I F.t a • 1 _ w t NMI. i ;(` cS i ,__ ____: ' 41,.. , . - "1"4"""- .„..„............ __ . I M Y tt _ Id a'4Z ..•'mow i. Y -000I x I ' ar ^v �n (µq1I I r I 1 R, 111 lir -I 1 1 1 i rm 1 �1 INNIt . de i i i 1 i 1 1 1 1 i BOULDER RIDGE TOWNHOMES & THE CITY PROCESS zoning ' The development is zoned R2 and this eight acre site could have a maximum density of 11 units per acre or 88 units. The 8 acre site consists of 2 platted lots, which under your zoning requirements would allow a maximum of 8 units (1 - 4 plex building on each lot) on the 8 acre site, or 12 units (1 - 6 unit building on each lot) with an approved CUP allowing 6 unit buildings. Respectively, this would be 1 unit per acre and 1.5 units per acre. Again, the zoning this site states that this property is zoned R2 which has been guided for a density of 8 to 11 units per acre, not 1 to 2 units per acre. ' In order to develop this site to the guided density, Sand Companies, Inc. is applying for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that will allow multiple structures on one lot. There is nothing special or inventive about this request, you have been through this type of CUP request many times. It has been designed by your zoning ordinances to give the city an opportunity to evaluate the development for appropriateness and if warranted, impose conditions for the greater good of the community. iApproval of the CUP Sand Companies, Inc. understands that this proposed development must meet the 5 criteria outlined in the City of Shakopee's City Code. We also understand that there are a small number of neighbors that object in its entirety, to our proposed rental community with multiple structures on one lot. They, as we have, supplied information to the City staff and the BOAA to demonstrate ' compliance or non compliance to the 5 criteria. As you evaluate the information forwarded to your attention, Sand Companies, Inc. asks only that you also take a few moments to read through our comments on the neighborhood group's information located in the rear of this packet and that you visit our newly completed rental housing site in Mahtomedi, Minnesota. Variations to the City Code As part of the CUP application, Sand Companies, Inc. in its overall design of the site is also asking for variation to the front yard and rear yard setbacks of one of the lots within this 8 acre ' development. We are asking for 5 feet in the front yard (from 35 to 30) along Vierling Drive and an approximate like amount between our private drive and the rental units located to the South of the drive. With respect to second, or rear yard setback, Sand Companies, Inc. owns Outlot A (in which the private street will be placed), so we are essentially asking for a variance from ourselves for these buildings. The variations impact 7 of the units on the site. ' Sand Companies, Inc. asks that you review the overall site layout before you make a decision, as you may grant these variations as part of the site review and CUP approval. We have looked at this issue since it raised much concern at the last BOAA meeting, and have come to the following determination: If we make the units smaller and create 6 unit buildings we will not need variance approval. However, we do not believe that this is the best solution for the site and the residents of our product. We look forward to discussing this point with you should you wish it. i City Staff As you are aware, Sand Companies, Inc. has worked with your City staff to develop the property located on the Northwest corner of Vierling Drive and Marschall Road. Staff's comments as dated December 3, 1998 from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals found no data suggesting ' that this development would negatively impact the surrounding area and that this development is consistent with the City of Shakopee's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Imposed Conditions Between the City Staff and the BOAA, 9 conditions were placed upon the development and the ' BOAA removed 1 condition recommended by City staff. As we wish to work with the City as this development moves forward we fully agree with 6 of the conditions, and ask that you review our comments on the remaining 2 conditions and the condition removed by the BOAA. Original Condition Written By City Staff, Number 7 -which was removed by the BOAA Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated and received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. Sand Companies, Inc. Response We hope that you will consider this condition per staff recommendation and evaluate it as it pertains to the development site layout ' BOAA Condition Number 7 The applicant shall construct a 4 foot berm along the north and west perimeters of the property Sand Companies, Inc. Response We have no problem with this condition in its general sense. Both the neighborhood group (page ' 5, last paragraph of their opposition letter) and our company have expressed concern over the specifics of the berm as it pertains to drainage of our site and surrounding lots. We believe that this condition should be modified, still requiring the berm, but letting the City Engineer approve the height and length specifics for the greater good of the area. 1 BOAA Condition Number 8 Building materials shall include a 4 foot high stone or brick veneer on all sides of each building ' Sand Companies, Inc. Response As this is very large expense, it is our expectation that we be treated in the same manner and have similar requirements placed upon our development as that of resembling for-sale or rental 1 townhome units in your community. 1 BOULDER RIDGE SITE PLAN The attached site plan with accompanying landscape key has been modified slightly as we ' have had moved through the city process and spoke with neighbors about their concerns. The changes are as follows: • Placement of a walk/bike path connecting to the existing trail system • Additional landscaping placed on the NE portion of the property. We now propose 222 units of landscaping. The city requirement is 152. 1 I I f i rit • _ $11, iqy.' iLi /10 • sa Sand Companies, Inc. CONSTRUCTION • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT • DEVELOPMENT IIIREPUTATION SPEAKS FOR ITSELF Since 1991, Sand Companies, Inc. r (SCI) has earned its reputation for profes- sionalism, thoroughness and proven results in the construction, property management and development industries. Our reputation and accomplishments can be attributed to the many successful partnerships we have formed and fostered over the years. Not only do we facilitate the construc- tion,property management and development of a project, we become a part of it—by i _ ,71:,* .,1,74.1 1 - M � .1 WO � €=i an �n � en establishing successful working relation- . ._ „ . ships and communicating effectively with all parties involved. At SCI we take pride in delivering more than what the contract Country Inn By Carlson® says—OUR WORD IS OUR BOND. Woodland Park, Colorado—Pikes Peak la EN CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE • ra SCI has been the General Contractor „� u .>1111111 ,� + for multiple hotel franchises and a variety of t 4 �1 s multi-unit housing projects throughout the i. i . r j_ '`,� " � �� i y �� United States. We specialize in building � 1 quality hotels, multi-unit housing and com- 4,.w , ��� mercial and industrial buildings. -. SCI partners with only reliable archi- >. tects, engineers, planners and designers who share in our goal of complete customer „. . satisfaction. With each project we bring our own experienced project coordination, W Country Inn & Suites By Carlson® Walker, Minnesota OUR WORD y . O a) i i1. Pt p .. 4. IA ' ° Q o o oa8 3 ooa . >, a, >aa. b a .. b 5 'b v o w ° a, o i ce0y W a g 2 a" d NU ° C. N A .. ,V - mO o a o ,� a •,V °' ` 8 .5 i ° o mv, a. O + �.au �.t cu ›, , ai . O tu ^ . .08 Oy � °�iA b w g ya' .5 .5 O 0., 0 "' a, ,'b e :2 > 0d E o .�° . 6 0 0 a) aw d a bA A5 O r 0 aed a" °° .5 . O O bO U >. .= c $ a, , -O cd rA p0 a ' 0 c oOE ai 3 ap ,N a O a dp o ) .3 b , a aw ›, -d c b a) a.; A O" ,. •� o ° S a, '5 ° t o ' U o -o •,..' a a. w �O'51,0..1. w 0 U >, '� �" 3 U a) o o a) `n a0, 00 c N 3 0 ,A ate' a p Q. a, y �" ° ° a. o. 3 v' o v' N b 0 cu o o 6 ) &, O d 0B ) .tpp 1 -.i w 6a)o O Oao - y °, p : • - , O , 5 S O *. U •.8 . 5 .5 .5 5 • .5 5 -a w y b O n .>•, O v; .0 0 cd1I1 � to p h-.r' .r aA O •. ,rp .O v O 'C '71 .s a W y bo„,, 0 1111 e Ix 2 U es N 74: O C c n p o ykl) 0 "L'b w a N �' 4. ti 2 O '.i 8 W OO f ,, . v � a' E o ^o .¢4 1 }.,,,* y U c� "a� E'., pp :'� al a) C N .mo i' 2 1 ( . -iit e,-, ti. Yom• 0 'sir knt w. • v:, OpV O O f i Jt' td I, n�" ti d _ w Z ci) .r.::Lz .> C1°1) c.,)'" ' Ii ; OEatffi cti cd obi) .0 o ° 0 a� o g 0 Et CA a o a ay,y '�a, ° a b" ma' o ' 0 � 4. _ 0 o 1 .c" > moo , . ,.1;4.,e,'.,.H,,'.4.2!'.,', • i cd U � yam. O N O b 0 8 2 y E' 6 a v cC y0 U • Nbq O L ., y r ? t• 0.1� v w O ` '} � O rr. ® rN or 5 g — r .;.,s ; Cg :j pbq O q O Oti ft, ,c4 . , f", .. .,:..1.4 V s k. I . ...: 4 f yL ��..,,^^ o p w O W ' :3 7j 1 i'C '-'12.‘= ‘, t::1'.:,:i>',(.: 2 E..). D a b fiss E a :1)r, ^� & ct o E U .4 C 111 d C O O a Nlaji .1-11 o c� t; cd "O = E y Q 4 U `- N D Q sr o 1 Cd c ,•W .4) 'D O C" U " 'O ' ? $O c" N 6 �,' . t:": h -ta .1) —cW a fx a • c iX .*a'N o ,t4) �V a CO ao cA2Z N a > wO w Q o "W 2 o O o. "O Z O a> o a� tx,{A N U O a) v O o [i7 Z c7 U O c7 W q ci ti C w x E° ¢ v ¢z w 0. i 1 •• SC/ Sand Companies, Inc. Construction ♦ Property Management ♦ Development Leo M. Sand 1 Company Profile 1 1 January 1999 Office Location: 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 72 Waite Park. MN 56387-0727 Office # (320) 202-3100 Fax # (320) 202-3139 E-Mail: sciasandcompanies.com Website: http://www.sandcompanies.com 1 1 1 SAND COMPANIES, INC. 1 Mission Statement 1 "Satisfying our client ' s 1 needs by providing the t highest quality products � and services and by � employing a dedicated � team of the most talented, i qualified professionals in 1 our industry, whose hard work will prevail in every project they accomplish 1 for our clients." 1 1 SAND COMPANIES INC. Sand Companies, Inc. was established in 1991 by Leo M. Sand and Syl A. Sand combining over 50 years of construction, property management and development knowledge along with their years of experience to form one of the finest General Contracting, Property Management and Real Estate Development companies in the Midwest. They specialize in building and developing quality hotels, multi-unit housing, commercial and industrial buildings. The companies principal business is construction, property management, and development. Sand Companies, Inc. operates under construction, property management and development agreements with it's clients. In July of 1997, Syl A. Sand retired and Leo M. Sand the President/CEO became the sole owner of Sand Companies. Inc. In December of 1997 Sand Companies, Inc., purchased SCS Management, Inc. a full service hotel management company. The construction, property management and development process is completed by Sand Companies, Inc. They have the principle goal of reliable site selection and acquisition. They are responsible for market analysis, site selection, local government approvals, along with locating and arranging financing. Sand Companies, Inc. selects quality, reliable architects, engineers, planners and designers to achieve their goal of satisfaction. They provide their own experienced project coordination, on-site supervision and excellent quality controls to complete each project on time and under budget. Sand Companies, Inc. is engaged in constant, intensive research for unsatisfied market areas. When a possible area is located, market trends are studied, feasibility analyses are completed and a complete examination of the competitors is considered. ' A great amount of time and effort is taken before a decision to move forward with a project is made. Possible projects are carefully analyzed through a series of"checks and balances" while they are presented to the construction and development teams. During construction and after a project is complete, Sand Companies' property management division steps in to take control of the day to day operations. They manage ' apartments. townhomes and hotels. Sand Companies, Inc. has earned a reputation for professionalism, thoroughness and proven results. With the combined talents and skills within their organization, a great amount of pride is taken in each and every project by all company personnel. Their team insures value by careful planning, cost containment, innovative ideas and completing a quality project. They take pride in delivering more than what the contract says. 1 I I SAND COMPANIES, INC. I -00- I Vision Statement I I "A team of talented People I dedicated to a common 1 goal; to forge ahead, to I succeed in building a I better place to live." I I I I Leo M. Sand I President/CEO I I I I MANAGEMENT TEAM Leo M. Sand President/C.E.O. & General Manager 318 Golf View Drive 20 years Building, Property Management & ' Albany, MN 56307 Real Estate Development Experience Home - (320) 845-7085 Minnesota General Contractor's License ' Minnesota Real Estate Broker's License Arizona General Contractor's License Colorado General Contractor's License ' Minnesota Multi-Housing Association Jamie J. Thelen Vice President of Development 307 Golf View Drive Minnesota Real Estate Agent's License Albany, MN 56307 2 years Real Estate Development Experience Home - (320) 845-4681 Gene M. Walter Vice President of Construction Route 3 Box 98 27 years of Building Experience Sauk Centre, MN 56378 Home - (320) 352-3633 Peggy S. Eisenreich C.F.O. and Controller 1831 Red River Trail 10 years Accounting Experience St. Cloud, MN 56301 Home - (320) 252-8896 Joyce A. Winter Corporate Secretary ' PO Box 298 13 years Accounting Experience Albany, MN 56307 Home - (320) 845-4956 Jerry L. Burau Chief Operating Officer 4728 368th Street 24 years of Management Experience St. Cloud, MN 56303 Home - (320) 255-8919 Neil R. Fortier Director of Operations - Hotels 1913 4`h Street North 10 years of Hotel Management Experience ' Sartell. MN 56377 Home - (320) 240-7926 i 1 BANK REFERENCES Norwest Bank Julie Andzenge ' 400 South First Street (320) 259-3128 St. Cloud, MN 56301 CreditAmerica Savings Terry Kurowski 3210 West Division Street (320) 253-0142 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Melrose Credit Union David Braegelmann PO Box 339 (320) 845-4784 Albany, MN 56307 ' U.S. Bank Midway Office Greg A. Wittnebel (612) 647-3574 2383 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 U.S. Bank Jeff Wagner 1 1010 West Saint Germain Street (320) 654-2319 St. Cloud, MN 56301 Zapp Bank Bill Anderson 1015 West Saint Germain Street (320) 251-7110 St. Cloud, MN 56301 Merrill Lynch Peter B. Spaniol 110 6th Avenue South, Suite 101 (320) 251-0680 ' St. Cloud. MN 56301 I 1 I ID NUMBERS Federal I. D. #41-1741095 Minnesota I. D. #19672232 Dun& Bradstreet #79-842-4719 Rating 3A2 ACCOUNTANT ' Schlenner Wenner & Company Robert V. Hengel 37 North 28thAvenue, PO Box 1496 (320) 251-0286 St. Cloud, MN 56302 ATTORNEY Hall& Byers, P.A. Peter J. Fuchsteiner ' 1010 W St. Germain, Suite 600 (320) 252-4414 St. Cloud, 1V1N 56301 I 1 1 I TRADE REFERENCES I Trimpac, Inc. Joe Thiesen PO Box 277 (320) 202-3200 St. Cloud, MN 56302 JT Electric Service, Inc. Terry Oehrlein PO Box 476 (320) 845-4789 Albany, MN 56307 111 Pischke Backhoe Service Paul Pischke ' 233 Hickman Drive (320) 352-6270 Sauk Centre, MN 56378 J-Berd Mechanical Curt Johnson 3308 Southway Drive (320) 656-0847 St. Cloud, MN 56301 Brock White Linus Koopmeiners PO Box 1395 (320) 251-5060 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Apollo Insurance Agency John Delinsky t28 South 11 Avenue (320) 253-1122 PO Box 1206 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Four Seasons Siding Contractors, Inc. Dave Weyer PO Box 844 (320) 259-8642 1 St. Cloud, MN 56302 ' A.H. Bennett Company Dawn Gedker 1020 Lincoln Avenue (320) 251-5995 Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 Drywall Supply, Inc. Gary Erickson 5421 Quam Avenue North East (612) 428-2282 Rogers, MN 55374 Gerkin Windows Jeff Logsdon ' PO Box 3203 (402) 494-6000 Sioux City, IA 51102 1 i TRADE REFERENCES Central Landscape Supply Herman Roerick 4026 County Road 47 South (320) 252-1601 St. Cloud, MN 56301 1 KMAC, Inc. Jerry Krasen PO Box 548 (320) 587-9697 ' Hutchinson, MN 55350 Lamperts John Heisler 9220 Hudson Blvd (612) 739-5400 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 ' Granite City Ready Mix Jim Lehner PO Box 345 (320) 356-7569 Avon, MN 56310 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLIENT REFERENCES Hagemeister & Mack Architects, Inc. Murray Mack 501 West Saint Germain Street (320) 251-9155 Suite 200 St. Cloud, MN 56301-3605 Gorham HousingPartner r Patnck Gorham 219 South Union (320) 679-1632 Mora, MN 55051 Johnson, Sheldon& Sorenson Arch. Skip Sorenson 10249 Yellow Circle Drive (612) 935-6337 Suite 220 Minnetonka, MN 55353 Blesener Dahlberg Architects Wayne Dahlberg 1411 London Road Ray Blesener Duluth, MN 55805 (218) 728-4293 Hornig Management David Hornig 3101 Irving Avenue South (612) 824-7503 Minneapolis, MN 55408 ' Cathay Global Investments Earl Wing 13963 East Grand Avenue (303) 296-6789 tAurora, CO 80015 The Sage Company F.B. '`Brad" Howes, Jr. 703 Point of the Pines Drive (719) 598-7447 Colorado Springs, CO 80919 Baxter Country Estates, Inc. E. Terry Skone PO Box 1786 (941) 394-3597 Marco Island. FL 34146 Mercy Manor Dr. Robert C. Schwegler 334 Golf View Drive (320) 845-2032 Albany, MN 56307 I 1 1 I CITY REFERENCES 1 '111111"*"City of Albany Tom Schneider City of Chaska Dave Pokorney PO Box 370 (320) 845-4244 One City Hall Plaza (612) 448-2851 IAlbany, MN 56307 Chaska, MN 55318 City of Baxter Donald Lorsung City of Hutchinson Jim Marka 1 PO Box 2626 (218) 829-7161 111 Hassen Street SE (320) 234-4210 Baxter, MN 56425 Hutchinson, MN 55350 ICity of Detroit Lakes LeRoy Kick PO Box 647 (218) 847-5658 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 City of Lakeville Mike Sobota I 20195 Holyoke Avenue (612) 469-4431 Lakeville. MN 55044 I City of Mahtomedi Jon Hohenstein 600 Stillwater Road (612) 426-3344 Mahtomedi, MN 55115 ICity of Mankato Dan Jordet PO Box 3368 (507) 387-8600 IMankato. MN 56002-3368 City of Monticello Gary Anderson 1 PO Box 1147 (320) 295-3060 Monticello, MN 55362 1 City of St. Cloud Patti Gartland 400 Second Street South(320) 255-7218 I St. Cloud, MN 56301 City of Walker John Thompson I 511 Front Street West (218) 547-1619 Walker, NEN 56484 I City of Woodland Park Brian Fleer PO Box 9007 (719) 687-9244 Woodland Park, CO 80866 I I I I LEO M. SAND ' 318 Golf View Drive Albany, Minnesota 56307 WORK ADDRESS: Sand Companies, Inc. 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 727 Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 PHONE: Home - (320) 845-7085 Office - (320) 202-3100 EDLCATION: Graduated Albany High School 1977 Arizona General Contractor's License 1985 ' Minnesota Real Estate Broker's License 1986 Minnesota Residential Contractor's License 1992 Colorado General Contractor's License 1993 Multi-Housing Association 1997 ' WORK EXPERIENCES: President. CEO, Owner, G.M. Sand Companies, Inc. 1991-Present Partner Parktown Partnership 1986-Present ' President, CEO, Owner, G.M. Sand Properties Minnesota, Inc. 1994-Present President, CEO, Owner, G.M. Baxter Country Estates, Inc. 1993-Present President, CEO, Owner SCS Management, Inc. 1995-1997* Owner, G.M., Project Manager SMS Construction 1978-1991 *Sand Companies, Inc. purchased SCS Management, Inc. ' COMMUNITY SERVICES: Albany Jaycees - Project Chairperson for Lake Wobegon Trails, Catholic Aid Association, Albany Industries, Inc., Minnesota Innkeepers Association - 1996 Innkeeper of the Year, Minnesota Multi-Housing Association 1 LEO M. SAND Work Performed President, CEO, Owner, General Manager Sand Companies, Inc. 1991 - Present ' Overseeing all operations of Sand Companies, Inc., which is a general contractor, property management, and real estate development company of hotels, multifamily, commercial, and industrial projects. Working with architects, engineers, surveyors and soil analysis ' experts, project coordination, scheduling and quality control of all projects. Responsible for overall corporate management. In December of 1997 Sand Companies, Inc. purchased ' SCS Management, Inc. a hotel property management company primarily managing Country Inns & Suites by CarlsonTM. ' Partner Parktown Partnership 1986-Present ' Property management and ownership since 1986 of 40 units of market rate housing which were financed with Tax Exempt Housing Revenue Bonds and consist of 16 units in Albany and 24 units in Avon. MN. President. CEO. Owner, Real Estate Agent Sand Properties, Minnesota, Inc. 1986 - Present Currently holding a real estate broker license with Sand Properties, Minnesota, Inc. since 1994 purchasing land for all company projects as well as dealing with the laws of the State of Minnesota, that govern company real estate activities. Responsible for overall corporate management. Previous real estate experience 1986 - 1992 with Sand Realty in Albany. Minnesota and 1992 - 1994 with Century 21 - First Realty, Inc. in St. Cloud, Minnesota. President, CEO. Owner, General Manager Baxter Country Estates, Inc. ' 1993-Present Overseeing the ownership interest of Baxter Country Estates, Inc. and arranging financing for new and existing hotel properties. Responsible for overall corporate management. Project Manager SMS Construction 1 1978 - 1991 Working for SMS Construction, a general contractor, in all aspects of the construction industry, as a manager of the overall construction division, which included; purchasing, scheduling, coordinating, negotiating and awarding contracts, overseeing all superintendents and foremen, enforcement of safety and quality control, as well as overall supervision of all construction projects. 1 LEO M. SAND Construction & Development Divisions Completed Contracts Total Cost 1 1968 Albany Dairy Queen $100,000 Albany. MN 1 1974 Sands Motel $175,000 24 units i Albany, MN 56307 1977 Sand's Restaurant $275,000 ' Albany, MN 56307 1978 Albany Quik Mart $ 40,000 Convenience Store Albany, MN 56307 1979 Kentucky Fried Chicken $300,000 Fast Food Restaurant Albany, MN 56307 1983 Sandman Apartments $250,000 8 units Albany. MN 56307 1984 Joe's Trucking $115,000 Truck Repair and Hauling Albany, MN 56307 1 1986 Parktown Apartments $1,600,000 40 units Albany and Avon, MN 1987 Tom Thumb#405 $500,000 24 Hour Convenience Store Albany, MN 56307 1988 Melrose Credit Union $250,000 Albany, MN 56307 i LEO M. SAND Construction & Development Divisions Completed Contracts Total Cost 1988 Stearns County National Bank $ 60,000 Remodeling Albany, MN 56307 1988 Albany Community Center $ 40,000 ' Albany, MN 56307 1989 Lancaster Place Apartments $2,600,000 ' 84 units St. Cloud, MN 56301 ' 1989 Texaco C-Store $290,000 Convenience Store St. Cloud, MN 56301 1990 Park Place Estates $3,360,000 Phase 1 t84 units St. Cloud, MN 56301 1990 Speedy Print $250,000 Print Shop St. Cloud, MN 56301 1990 Summit Court Apartments $2,368,000 64 units Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 1991 Johnson, Sheldon, Sorensen Architects $350,000 Skip Sorensen Residence Monticello, MN 55362 1 1992 Park Place Estates $3,600,000 Phase 2 92 units St. Cloud, MN 56301 1 I SAND COMPANIES INC. C Construction & Development Divisions ' Completed Contracts Total Cost 1994 7th Street Townhomes $ 900,000 15 unit rental townhomes Monticello, MN 55362 1994 Country Inn of Baxter $2,150,000 1 46 unit hotel Baxter, MN 56401 1994 Regency Park Estates $8,300,000 145 units luxury apartments St. Cloud, MN 56304 1995 Country Inn of Woodland Park $3,100,000 60 unit hotel ' Woodland Park, CO 1995 Lakeville Court Apartments $4,035,000 52 unit townhomes Lakeville, MN 1996 Countryside Townhomes $1,118,000 12 unit townhomes Albany, MN 1996 Country Inn& Suites of Detroit Lakes $2,144,000 46 unit hotel Detroit Lakes, MN ' 1996 Albany Cottages - Phase I $ 240,000 4 unit rental patio homes Albany, MN 1997 Country Inn& Suites of Baxter $1,038,000 22 unit hotel addition Baxter, MN I SAND COMPANIES, INC. Construction & Development Divisions m 1 Co p eted Contracts Total Cost ' 1997 Huski Townhomes $2,550,000 32 unit townhomes Hutchinson, MN 1997 Mercy Manor $2,200,000 41 unit HUD 202 assisted living Albany, MN ' 1997 Country Inn& Suites of Shakopee $1,800,000 63 unit hotel Shakopee, MN 1997 Country Inn& Suites of Walker $2,200,000 ' 46 unit hotel Walker, MN ' 1998 Albany Cottages - Phase II $ 480,000 8 unit rental patio homes Albany, MN 1 1998 Park Forest Estates $3,700,000 55 unit senior apartments Mora, MN 1998 Country Inn& Suites of Albany $2,200,000 48 unit hotel Albany. MN 1 1998 Country Inn& Suites of Mankato $4,100,000 78 unit hotel w/300 person conference center Mankato, MN 1998 TGI Friday's Restaurant $1,100,000 1 6814 sq/ft restaurant Mankato, MN ' SAND COMPANIES)O NIES, INC. Construction & Development Divisions ' Completed Contracts P Total Cost ' 1998 Woodland Townhomes $3,450,000 30 unit townhomes Mahtomedi, MN 1999 Sterling Twinhomes $5,550,000 ' 34 unit twinhomes Mahtomedi, MN ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' ' 111 1 SAND COMPANIES, INC. Hotel Property Management Division Property Management Contracts 1994 Baxter Country Inn& Suites 68 unit hotel w/meeting space Baxter, MN (218) 828-2161 1996 Detroit Lakes Country Inn& Suites 46 unit hotel w/meeting space Detroit Lakes, MN (218) 847-2000 1996 Deerwood Country Inn ' 38 unit hotel Deerwood, vl (218) 534-3101 1997 Walker Country Inn& Suites ' 46 unit hotel w/meeting space Walker, MN (218) 547-1400 1998 Albany Country Inn& Suites 48 unit hotel w/meeting space Albany. MN (320) 845-2145 ' 1998 Mankato Country Inn& Suites & Conference Center 78 unit hotel w/300 person conference center & attached TGI Friday's restaurant ' Mankato, MN (507) 388-8555 1 I r SAND COMPANIES, INC. r Rental Property Management Division 1 Property Management Contracts ' 1986 Townsite Apartments 16 unit - Affordable & Market Rate ' Albany, MN Asset Managed by Sand Companies, Inc. 1986 Parkview Apartments 24 unit - Affordable & Market Rate Avon, MN Asset Managed by Sand Companies, Inc. 1990 Lancaster Apartments 1 84 unit - Market Rate St. Cloud, MN ' Asset Managed by Sand Companies, Inc. 1991 Summit Court Apartments ' 64 unit - Luxury Apartments Sauk Rapids, MN Asset Managed by Sand Companies, Inc. 1995 Lakeville Court Townhomes 52 unit - MHFA Tax Credit Lakeville, MN (612) 469-1009 1996 Albany Cottages 12 unit - Market Rate Albany, MN (320) 845-4200 1996 Countryside Townhomes ' 12 unit - MHFA Tax Credit Albany, MN (320) 845-4200 r 1 ' SAND COMPANIES, INC. Rental Property Management Division Property Management Contracts 1997 Huski Townhomes 32 unit - MHFA Tax Credit ' Hutchinson, MN (320) 234-6869 1998 Woodland Townhomes 30 unit - MHFA Tax Credit Mahtomedi, MN (612) 773-8553 1998 Sterling Twinhomes Homeowners Association, Inc. 34 unit - For Sale Twinhomes Mahtomedi, MN ' 1999 Brickstone Townhomes 30 unit - MHFA Tax Credit Chaska, MN ' 1999 Brickstone Estates 53 unit - Market Rate Chaska, MN 1 1999 Brickstone Estates 5,958 Sq Ft of Retail Space Chaska. MN I i ' Sand Companies, Inc. - Management Sector After extensive research, analysis, projections and planning, Sand Companies, Inc. launched it's own Rental Property Management Company in February 1998. The creation of the rental management company complements our hotel management company that was ' established in 1993. One of the most compelling reasons Sand Companies, Inc. found to enter the market was due to experiences we encountered with third party management companies. These companies seemed more interested in securing new management contracts than servicing their existing portfolio. We came to the conclusion that if we were going through the process of development, construction and ownership of our properties, it was in our best interest to complete the circle for vertical market integration and manage our long term investments. We strongly feel at Sand Companies, Inc. that there is no better choice than to manage what you have developed, built and own. We have a vested interest, and have hired professionals accordingly. Resident Selection Plan Each property has an individual resident selection plan and at least one site manager complete with an office. We specifically tailor to the property, taking into account the demographics, income criteria and community in which the development exists. ' Within the selection plan there are standard Tenant Residency Requirements- • The applicant must demonstrate the ability to pay rent and utilities timely. This is verified by the credit and criminal check that is run on every applicant. • The applicants references of current and former landlords are contacted and consulted regarding there history with each. • Credit history is obtained and thoroughly checked via the top rated outside third party credit agency in the nation. ' • Criminal history is obtained and extensively checked both instate and outstate. ' Rejection Criteria • If an applicant does not meet the income requirements(if applicable) • If an applicants household size is not appropriate, based on number of bedrooms. • If an applicant does not meet the resident selection criteria. • If an applicant has previously not fulfilled and complied with terms of previous and current rental agreements. ' • If an applicant has had chronic late or non payment of debt. • If an applicant has had any history of criminal activity. • If an applicant has had any history of drug convictions. • If an applicant has provided any falsified information. 1 �m � ,.,.. .� . '°w_�•.ar ,.�.��, ;.�-..c, .� rte_,�„ . . '� rv'°�„'' wr�U:��' c �-wnw- .t4e"'' I Sand Companies, Inc. 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 727 ' Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 Office: (320) 202-3100 Fax: (320) 202-3139 E-mail: sci@sandcompanies.com TO: THE CITY SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Website: www.sandcompanies.com RE: NIEGHBORHOOD GROUP RESPONSE DATED DECEMBER 28, 1998 ' Response to the DISCUSSION heading within the submission referenced above. Density Boulder Ridge Townhomes has a Density of 7 units per acre. The Maximum Density allowed on this site is 11 units per acre (88 units), not 8 units per acre as cited by the neighborhood group. ' Crime Crime Statistics were gathered from the Shakopee Police Department. It should be noted that the ' tables supplied to the Shakopee Board of Adjustments Appeals and the City Council Members were not created by the Shakopee Police Department. The tables and graphs were created by the neighborhood group, who selected pieces of information from a much larger printout of police calls ' given out by the Shakopee Police Department. ' You should be made aware that each one of the numbers on the chart indicates a police call or police car dispatch in response to a telephone call. The numbers do not necessarily indicate a "crime incidence" as explained by the neighborhood group. ' The graphs provided are misleading in several instances. Please evaluate the following information on the graph titled 1/1-97 through 12/31/97. ' The label "smells" is at 100%, it appears that the rental units selected have a major problem with odor associated with them. IN ACTUALITY, 1 phone call was made in 1997 asking the police department to investigate an abnormal smell. There is a second smells catagory identified in the report as well, in which case, there were two occurences, neither of which had anything to do with the identified apartment buildings. FightBrGJv, as with many of the abbreviations presented in the neighborhood report, is not clear as to what this line item stands for. I will concede that regardless of what it means there was a police ' presence requested to check out the situation 1 time, two years ago. The graph shows an overwhelming 100% clearly, implying that this abbreviation runs rampant throughout these I Construction • Property Management • Development Equal Opportunity Employer apartment buildings. As it does with VehCmpNChg and Asst Brnsvl (which stands for Assist to Burnsville, which seems irrelevant). ' The marker "prowler" indicates near 100% of this crime is designated to the 6 rental apartments, yet the data presented only shows 3 instances in 35 or 8.57%. Are all these police categories bad? ' Arguably, police calls can be positive, some examples include Accident Reporting (listed at 25%), Medical(listed at 9.4%), Assist Public (listed at 11.71%). tSand Companies, Inc. does not dispute the police data, however, the way it has been interpreted and presented by the neighborhood group does lead to several questions of accuracy and relevance. ' The City of Shakopee's 1990 Census information (this information is available at the public library) states that renter households make up 29.3% of Shakopee's housing (includes renters that rent single family homes). If you place the questionable interpretations of the neighborhood group data ' within this statistic, does it prove to you that by granting a CUP you will be endangering the surrounding area? ' Comparable Property The rental development Arlington Ridge was selected by the neighborhood group as a comparable property to the proposed. Photographs provided 1 Arlington Ridge Boulder Ridge Proposal ' 2 - 3 Story Apartment Buildings 15 townhome buildings 48 Units 56 Units ' Detached Garages(must pay extra for) Attached Garages(included in rent) 3 bedroom units @ 1150 to 1250 sq. ft. 3 bedroom units @1400 to 1800 sq. ft. ' Limited Deck Space Accessible porch and patio (walk outs) All units allocated Tax Credits 30 of 56 units allocated tax credits Do you believe that these two developments are comparable? Apparently a nameless county assessor did, however, as brought out in the last BOAA meeting, this assessor categorically denied ever stating statements contained in the neighborhood report as explained by Commissioner Gary Morke. Sand Companies, Inc. requests that you disregard the language that Assessor's office does not believe that a CUP provides the necessary buffer for all parties concerned, as stated on Page 4 of Criteria#2, 3rd sentence of the neighborhood report. There is a market rate townhome development called TAYLOR TOWNHOMES in the same PUD, 1 it is unclear to me, but it appears that these rental units have not been included in the data submitted. Housing Values ' The neighborhood graph shows that homes located adjacent to the Arlington Ridge Apartment Building have not raised in value in relationship to homes located about a block away. What was not presented in the graph was that the owned - homes adjacent to the Arlington Ridge site are all ' multifamily buildings. How are the multifamily owned units comparable to the single family homes located a block away? It would stand to reason that these two very different type of housing products would not appreciate identically. Could there be a different factors as to why some homes ' have not raised in value as well, perhaps the commercial site near by, or construction quality, density, location, etc. The information presented to you by the neighborhood group simply states ' that one apartment building (that is absolutely nothing like our proposal) caused a decline, or less appreciation, to the adjacent multifamily owned housing. ' Sand Companies, Inc. contacted Ann Mulcrone, who apparently is related to one of neighborhood members who presented the opposition paper, we asked her and also asked her Edina Reality Broker to have her present at the last BOAA meeting, she was unable to attend because of family obligations. This letter lends several generalizations to a singled out class of people and it is viewed by us as inappropriate in several instances. It is an opinion offered with no reliable data to suggest it's accuracy. As to residents selling their homes because of the CUP request, I spoke to John Kenfield (1194 Pioneer Court) who has had his home up for sale for 5 months. He has one of three properties for ' sale on Prairie lane and Pioneer Court. Mr. Kenfield, who's property directly overlooks our property, stated that he is interested in moving up North and that the property behind him and the proposed development had no bearing on the decision to sell. ' It is our wish to build, own and manage a rental communityon the property we own in Shakopee. p P Y p We are well below current zoning requirements and have consulted several architects and other ' professionals to design a product appropriate for the site, our standards and that fall within the codes and ordinances of the City of Shakopee. 1 I I I I 11 1I III I 13/ pop ., za_ Ulisi • ... tattarTriir_v:i 1 IArlington Ridge was listed by the neighborhood group as comparable to our townhome design I I F 1 Hii illilliii 1 I Arlington Ridge detached Garages g I I I I Adjacent Properties to Arlington Ridge - multifamily housing products I The group neighborhood r g oup states and demonstrates by graph that appreciation of these type of units is considerably worse than the single family homes located 1 block away. Their reason I for this lack of appreciation compared to single family homes is because of the apartment building called Arlington Ridge. r ...40.:...40.: � ■ t -e r My. x. .., a'. { t,„, a " � 4> vol} 4 1 1 40 I - I fi.e5 :we J III , 111111 . ♦ rs 1 Additional photographs of mult• •y housing products that border the Arlington Ridge site 1 1 a 1 4111_, 11 1 1 i 1 { 1 1 i 1 1 Sand Companies, Inc. development located in the St. Paul suburb of Mahtomedi e- _t w Although these are 6 unit buildings, this is the type of product proposed to the City of Shakopee for 30 of the units. We feel that these 2 story townhomes are substantially different than an apartment building. I 111 1 Tarsitlew1 g � , o 11111L. 00411104 1 1 1 REGAN ED DEC 2 8 1998 Sand Companies, Inc. 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 727 Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 • Office: (320) 202-3100 Fax: (320) 202-3139 E-mail: sci@sandcompanies.com Website: www.sandcompanies.com This letter is in response to the three (3) items that the Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals asked for clarification and supporting documentation on, at their public hearing on December 3, 1998. 1) Property Values 2) cul-de-sac/Hammerhead 3) Landscaping/berms Statement As the owner of the property wishing a CUP, Sand Companies, Inc. believes that we have acted in good faith towards the requested CUP. We have met and worked with City staff to inform them of our development that exceeds the City of Shakopee's codes and ordinances. Although not mandated, we held an informational meeting about our proposed development at a nearby school, in which approximately 18 people attended and asked questions. Further, we have personally responded to individuals with requests for additional information. We have no objection to sharing information about the site with any interested party, in fact it is important to us to move positively through the City process. To that end, I will be available along with professionals from different fields to answer any questions you may have at our next meeting, but please be aware that our goal is to gain a CUP, based on the requirements stated in the City of Shakopee's codes and ordinances as highlighted by the board report presented to you by City staff on December 3, 1998. We ask that although interesting and appropriate, extraneous information not relevant to the CUP approval be weighed accordingly. Property Values Attached are two documents that pertain to residential property values and multifamily multiple buildings on one lot, low income housing developments. One could argue that these references are not even in Minnesota, but the fact is, that there is no data on comparable units and their effects on neighborhoods in the City of Shakopee. Please read the following attachments, and when you are done, consider the following: Construction • Property Management • Development Equal Opportunity Employer • Traffic Patterns - There will be no additional traffic through the adjoining residential property's roads. Access to this property is on Vierling drive at two locations. It cannot be accessed by Sage Lane or by the street connecting Prairie Estates et addition to Marschall Road ■ Sound or Smell - There will be nothing on site that will add to the existing areas current levels. Examples of such items would include manufacturing plants,hazardous materials, or airport and train traffic • Visual appeal - These units are 2 - story, wood frame construction that have maintenance free siding and attached garages that will cost a minimum of $113,000 each to construct. Identical materials are used in single family construction. Further, the proposed site has been designed to maximize green space (including a tot lot). Site density and landscaping exceed requirements by the City of Shakopee and create a transition (zoned R2) from the commercial business sites to the residential single family home sites. Section 11.85 of the Shakopee City Code states five (5) criteria that must be met in order to approve a CUP. Criteria #1 was called into question by several neighbors, based upon the information provided to you we believe that the consideration that this development, based upon site layout and construction standards, does and will not substantially diminish and impair property values in the area We are proposing to build 30 units of housing. They will be rental and some will include financing from state and government sources that place restrictions on the amount of rent we charge the tenant and how much income the tenant makes annually. The tenant is responsible for the entire rent payment. This information, although seemingly relevant, has no bearing on the quality of housing proposed or the approval process for a Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings on one lot. About our other developments: Metro Area Mahtomedi 95% construction complete, not enough information to determine effect on neighboring property values Chaska 20% construction complete, not enough information to determine effect on neighboring property values Lakeville No single family homes neighboring the property Developments in Albany and Hutchinson located in greater Minnesota did not offer quantifiable information and were not treated as comparable. Hutchinson development is surrounded by multifamily developments, including a manufactured housing park. Albany is surrounded by agricultural land and new construction of both rental and single family homes. Relevant Facts The development is in compliance with the City of Shakopee's Housing Action Plan The development will meet all building codes and will have two inspecting architects The development will be Professionally Managed Cul-de-sac/Hammerhead Sand Companies, Inc. is in agreement that an area for emergency vehicles to access/turnaround on the site next to the retainage pond should be a condition of the CUP. Sand Companies, Inc. intends to work with City staff to create the necessary improvement. Landscaping/Berms At your meeting on December 3, 1998, there was some discussion as to the number of landscaping units needed to approve the CUP. Sand Companies, Inc. has no problem with a quantifiable amount, however, when deciding the appropriate number of landscaping units, please be aware that we are already proposing an increase of 62 units (40%) more than the city code requires. Attached is a memorandum from our engineering company about a proposed berm on the west property line. A representative from Otto Associates will be on hand at the meeting in January to discuss if necessary. We would like to come to a compromise if possible on the subject (perhaps additional landscaping without a grade change). However, as an owner, we want DEC-22-32 TUE 05:04 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 6124238180 P. 02 AODsndix L . Why Affordable Housing Does Not Lower 'roPertY Values Common Attitudes vs the Facts It is a common belief that affordable housing,including residettial care facilities and supportive lousing will lower neighboring p upmy values. However.ru:meous studies conducted over a period.of away yes and in various locations find that this widely held pmeonception is Isteciereet.Why? Because property values are primarily determined by the condition of tree particular property for sale and other broader,more complex forces such as overall area these other conditions whicand h prosperity. mus of affordable housing has no significant impact on A Wide Variety of Types of Housing and Residential Areas Were Studied • - The studies cover a.wide scope both of kinds of housing and of residential arem Elaborate studies have been conducted regarding affordable rental housing,owed housing,and housing for the physically and developmentally disabled,mentally ill,the elderly and homeless women and children. The actual apartment buildings,harm manufactured �multiple units range from to rural routes to densely populated areas it locations all over the United staDespite this variety of factors,all°f the studies except one the same conclusion—facilities of this kind structures prosperous ply do not affect neighboring property values. • Studies Were Conducted By A Variety of Public and private Sector Experts • Some studies come from the academic community,others are conducted by add reseert ees,dill more are government reports. The available studies have been conducted by the U.S.General Accounting Office. Coopers and Lybrand,U.0 B.'s Institute for Urban and Regional Development,California's t of and Community Development,and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public a ng Affairs. • Studies Used Many Different Methods to Detect Effects The studies assess the potential effect of housing facilities on neighboring property values in many ways. Some compare*elate prices of neighboring housing to prices in a similar control area. Some compare Sale prices before.during and after the construction of a facility to determine changes and then compare this data to amass odeterminnds in e the effect community. Others utilize a sophisticated statistical technique called analysis" proximity to affordable housing • Almost No Effects on Nearby Property Values Were Found Except for one,all of the studies,utilizing many methodologies,determined that property values are not affected by these housing facilities. The only study examined while suggested that facilities might have a negative effect on neighboring property values could not conclusively determine whether the affordable housing in . question was responsible for lower property values,or whether it was caused by other neighborhood conditions. Conclusion It is a common assumption that property values will go down in areas where affordable housing is located. Contrary to popular beliefs,studies indicate conclusively that affordable housing has little or no effect on • neighboring property values. No one really knov.s what determines property values—they are a Complex phenomenon,arid seem to be most closely related to the condition of the particular property for sale and broad trends scabcommercialinighboneighborhood prosperity, urban and surbur an ecpansian,toad and highway construction and nearby larges' The assumption that property values will decline with the location of affordable housing is based on the idea that one facility can effect a whole neighborhood.and that such facilities will be conspicuous.Unattractive poorly maintained and poorly managed. The studies cited on the attached sample bibliography as wall as others show that these assumptions are incorrect. Nomadism/a public interest law and social policy center on homelessness 1 DEC-22-32 TUE 05:04 Pei DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 8124238180 P. 03 PWVIgUlk�• • . A_ S,.nom'pleof the Resear on pe Value 1. Habitat for Humanity South Ranch 2 Community Impact Study . (Coopers ds Lybrand,1994) Study of potential impact of a proposed 196 owner-built and occupied hoarse development on a previously unoccupied area of Phoenix concluded that the development would benefit the consnumity t ringing in , . stable,working familia,drawing commevial to a new ana spaciailydinking existing developed areas of Phoenix. 2. Relations between Affordable Housing Development and Property Values • (Institute for Urban and Regional Development,University Of California, Berkeley, CA, • Working Paper 599, 1993) Determined that proximity to affordable housing is not a significant factor in determining sales prices,-and in tate instance it may have had a positive impact on sales prices. a Measuring the Effects of Affordable Housing on Residential Property Values (San Francisco State University, unpublished master's thesis,Smith, B., 1992.) Analysis found that among thirteen"Proximity zone'the highest increases in value and the lowest turnover rates were in areas closest to an affordable housing facility. • 4. 'The Effect of Group Homes for the Mentally Ill on Residential Property Values • (Hospital and Community Psychiatry., Boydell,Katherine M.,M.H.Sc.,John N.-Trainor, MSW, Anna M. Pierri. 1989.) Deterudued that property values in a suburban area with a group home increased more than a similar area without such a facility. 5. Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Questions and Answers (Johnson and Olson Associates of Austin, 1988.) This summary finds no evidence of property values declining because of the location of a group home for the• mentally and finds that there was less residential turnover near the group home than in other.' similar am 6.. The Effects of Subsidized and Affordable Housing on Property Values: A Survey of Research (Department of Housing and Community Development, State of California, 1988,) Out of 15 published papers on subsidized housing,group homes for the crisabled,and manufactured housing 14 • . concluded that this housing had no significant negative effects on the values of neighboring properties. Some reported positive property value effects. • Homeliase/a public interest law and social policy center on homelessness DEC-22-32 TUE 05:05 PH DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX HO. 6124238180. P. 04 . Appendix 1.3 7. The Impact of Group Homes On Residential Property Values (The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Prince George's County Planning Department, 1988.) Study found that most area around group homes appreciated more than other similar areas in the county. ��there is no correlation positive or negative between location of gimp homes and neighboring 8. Impact Study for Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, (Spear Street Advisors,Inc., San Francisco,CA, 1988.) �Deterermined that proximity to affordable housing was not a statistically sigrdf cant factor affecting property 9. Impacts on the 'Surrounding Neighborhood of Croup Homes for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (Illinois Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities, Daniel Lauber, Springfield, Illiztois, 1986.) • R sed' rch al to scernovetahie rathtesthe location of group homes had no effect on property values,mean sales price,or rnti10. Impact of Affordable Housing on Property Values (Lynn Sedway&Associates, 1983.) Study damned that appreciation rates near affordable housing were at least as high as the area average. 11. Long Term Neighborhood Property Impacts of Group Homes for Mentally Retarded People (Woodrow Wilson School of Public and international Affairs, Princeton University, 1982.) Of 32 group homes all over New York State,none had a short or long term impact on neighboring property values. • • • • Haawe5ase/a public interest law and social policy center on homdassness 3 DEC-22-32 TUE 05:05 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 6124238180 P. 05 . TROUBLESHOOTER'S GUIDE • lir Property Values TYPICAL OBJECTIONS! • Affordable housing will lower the value of surrounding homes. • • More people will try to sell their homes when an affordable housing development is introduced to the neighborhood. • Affordable housing developments will become quickly run-down soon after they are introduced. RESPONSES TO CONSIDER • It is false to assume that one affordable housing development can affect a whole neighborhood. Property market movement has mz uily to do with such factors as the neighborhood desirability, the characteristics of the particular housing units being sold, and the overall area development and prosperity. • Over a period of several decades dozens of studies conducted by independent researchers and employing a wide variety of methods have found that affordable housing has no negative impact on the price or frequency of sales of neighboring homes. • Because contemporary affordable housing is attractively designed, professionally managed and well-maintained,it preserves its good appearance, usefulness, and its value over time. And, it will not reduce the desireability of the surrounding area. SUPPORTING FACTS&STATISTICS • Why Affordable Housing Does Not Lower Property Values, (HomeBase, 1995), Appendix L This flyer may be adapted to your situation. • Survey of 6 BRIDGE developments by Cummings dt Landis • (below): sales price of single-family neighborhood homes not • adversely affected by proximity to'the developments. • A 1992 San Francisco State University study considering 12 years of neighborhood development in a four by nine block San HoaieBase/A Public Policy law Firm on Homelessness 73 i M ' r DEC-22-32 TUE 05:06 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 6124238180 P.06 Francisco area: 42-affordable housing developments created positive impact; only 1 family rental caused a negative impact (as a result of drug problems). The highest increase in sales prices occurred in zones dosest to affordable housing site. Sales prices • decreased as distance from site increased. • • A 1983 Sedway and Associates study of three affordable housing . • developments in Marin County concluded that there were no adverse property value impacts associated with the presence of - the developments. In fact, overall property appreciation of the Shelter Ridge market rate condominiums adjacent to the Shelter ' . • Hill affordable family rental housing was 249%, compared to the 206% overall appreciation of Mill Valley community homes. • • "I'm a reaItor. I'm very aware of property value from a market standpoint. As a property owner and a realtor, I do not feel that the Guerrero House [an 18-month transitional housing in San Francisco's North Mission District] has brought down the value. It may have added to it". S.F. Redevelopment Agency's 1993 Following Up study • A Department of Housing and Community Development study of.15 housing developments throughout the US., including subsidized housing, manufactured housing and group homes for the disabled, concluded that 14 did not negatively affect neighboring property values. • There are many similar studies outside California reaching the same conclusions. • "Defending Their Turf," an article in August 1995 issue of Smart • Money Magazine , reaches the same conclusion and provides a guideline of when concern is justified: • "If it is ungodly loud, blocks your view,smells bad or is a . proven health hazard, there's a chance your property value • will suffer." SOME TACTICS&RESOURCES • Present live testimony of reactors on the property values issue. • Cite court cases in which the property value challenge to affordable housing was determined as invalid. • Hom.Base/A Public Policy Law Firm on Homelessness 74 mss, DEC-22-32 TUE 05:07 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 8124238180 P.07 Michael S. MaRous, MAI • Low-IngoHousingme in Cour Backyards: What Happens to Residential. Property Values? • • • • F. A market analysis of four very lowwincome family housing developments In four growing Chicago suburban market areas was Conducted.Despite expvcta• "' i lions to the contrary,the evidence indteOted that low-income housing does not "' necessarily lower the value of surrounding residential property or curb further o w successful market development In the immediate area.The conditions eon- fributing to the success of the four projects analyzed include good planning,good design and buffering of the sites,and.good property manage- ti m �e • • NOt in my backyard!This shout is espe- • Will residential m daily strident when thedevelop- P lamt vwuen in the proposed neighborhood plummet when tow- meat is low-income housing—row after income housing is built next door? row of crowded,ugly,cheaply constructed buildings, garbage strewn everywhere, The certainty about low-income hous- drrty curtains partially hanging from bent ing is that the residents have met govern- rods over screenless windows, and bat- mEnt-established income criteria. Bvery- tered cars rusting to death in the parking thing else is a variable—the density, the lot.This iatage gives rise to a typically neg- construction materials and design, the •five reaction.Who would choose to live maintenance and management,and the re- next door to such a place as that? suItant effect on neighboring residential Midway through the 1990s, 30 years Pmpem'values.This study suggests that • • into The Great Society" housing pro- the stereotype is not necessarily accurate and the fear is not necessarilyfounded. • grams, and 20 years into the Section 8 housing experiment,can we answer these ms". it ' that Iow-income housing questions? built right m our backyards might have no • Is the low-income housingstereotype at all on property values. type In mid-1994,a suit was filed seeking to accurate? prevent the Illinois Housing Development • Does the commonly held fear of low- Authority(IHDA)from financing the de- income housing have foundation? velopment of 180 units of very low-income • Michael S.Maitous,MAI,Is president and owner of MoRRous and C flnn In addfllon to provId documented approisats. a ny a real estate appraisal t and feasibility studies,he has served as an.=pert witness frtigation Neat and best use studies.and sident tof Me Chicago Chapter of ttse.4 Appraisal institute.Mr Maf{ota is proceedings. of fie tee.A graduate of the University of woe with a currently land ee at the S,he h s published hedCorY arti- cles In a variety of protesslonal Journals fn urtX7n QCOnolY+ias,he hos publtStted GMtI- DEC-22-32 TUE 05:07 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 6124238180 P. 08 housing in a suburb in western DuPage pied. Therefore, the conclusions assume County,Illinois.The neighbors objected to competent management—not an insignifi- the project, primarily based on the effect cant factor they expected that it would have on the Because of the prevailing image of property values of their houses.IHDA be- low-income housing, some easurable • lieved that the success of such a suit would negative impact was expected;the method • be a deterrent to its activities statewide.As developed for analyzing the projects at- part of IHDA's full-scale defense,the po- tempted to account for this impact.Each of tential impact of the development of the the four projects was evaluated with re- • proms on surrounding residential property spect to the compatibility of the develop- values was assessed.In a relatively short ment with the surrounding neighborhood time,parameters for a market study were in tests of design and construction qual- set.Residential property values adjoining ity;the condition of the buildings;and es- similar low-and very low-income housing pecially the density. The overall feel of • complexes already constructed would be each development was measured by the analyzed.From a list of recent IHDA proj- presence or absence of litter the landscap- ects in the Chicago metropolitan area,de- ins;the age and condition of parked cars; . velopatents that matched the characteris- and the window treatments.The number tics of the proposed development were of children in the complex and their ages chosen: recently constructed projects (as ' were considered.Finally,the market was opposed to a rehabilitation project)adjoin- surveyed by interviewing developers and ing single-family and/or market multifam- brokers,reviewing multiple listing service ily developments;large projects with low- listings and annual summaries, and re- income and very low-income family units searching transactions with local assessors, (as opposed to elderly developments);and focusing especially on the units immedi projects located in developing suburban ar-• ately adjoining or facing the low-income eas with increasing property values. housing.Summaries of the analyses of the Three projects on the list fit these art - four projects follow. ria. Despite its recent completion,Water- ford � Park;Streamwood,Illinois Place was included to assess the ef- fects on additional development in the The first project reviewed was Victorian area.A fourth THDA project built in 1981 Park in Streamwood,Illinois(see Table 1). and meeting all of the same criteria was Streamwood is located 33 miles from chosen to assess long-term impact on the downtown Chicago in DuPage County.In market.Although the specific loan guaran- 1994,the population was 31,197;the value tees,tax credits,or rent subsidy programs of the average house was$97,774;average varied between the four projects,all were income was $46.271. According to the • entirely either low-income or very low-in- Streamwood Building Department, 1993 come family housing developments in de- building permits totalled 257, and 1994 veloping suburban areas. building permits through October 30,1994, . • totalled 1,591. . STUDY PARAMETERS AND The entire 300-unit development has • METHODOLOGY 100 low-income units in a single section . and was constructed on a site of about 50 The quality of the management of the pro- acres for a density of about 6 units per acre. jeers chosen could not be determined in The allowed density under the site's R-5 advance.As it turned out,all of the pro- zoning is 10 units per acre.The density as jects chosen for the study appeared to be built is consistent with the surrounding de- . adequately managed and were fully occu- velopment the adjacent neighborhood is w TARtS l Yio'lorten+Parc Summary ---- One Bedroom/One Bath Two eoaroomr/One and into Baths btd Number of No.of Site on Monthly Rent per No.of Size(In Monthly Rent per Low.income was Urns square reet) Rant square toot Was Square feet) Rent square foot 100 • 27 750 3474 50.63 37(29o) 1.060 $600 50.57 800 S544 $0.68 36(18a) 955 9674 90.71 DEC-22-32 TUE 05:08 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 6124238180 P.09 r.. • • zoned R-3, a designation that allows 6 dwellingunits esa$e increase was 3.1°b,a fig=consistent • per acre. The rear of the with the general market area according to low-income section borders the Windsor Place subdivision, asingle-famiI nes the brokers interviewed.Sale prices ave. Places to thei wt Y neigh- aged 98%of asking prices.Recent sales of Windsor Place is predominated frame ship model houses showed no relation- • modest ship between value and proximity to low- houses,souse with brick facades; • ranches;and some two-story houses rang-. income units. lug in price from $130,000 to $150,000. Liberty Lakes Apartments,Lake Zurich, Other development in the area includes Allnois slightly older single-family housing and. The second project reviewed was Liberty townhouses.Portions of the single-family Lake Apartments in Lake Zurich, Illinois neiighb a!?aidborder the unsubsidized (see Table 2). Lake Zurich is k located 37 apartment buildings. miles northwest of downtownn The Victorian Park project was con- Lake County.In 1994,the ChicagoIn lation was • stzucted in 1987 under a Section 236 interest 14,947,the value of the average house was subsidy.'Construction consists of four-unit $183,781;the average and eight-unit two-story frame buildings According to income was$76,876, with attached garages accented with dark build' $ Grauer in.�2993 I d blue or black shutters,patios or balconies, in 1994;fourwere dwere through g Sep and . p�eatts some be ingood�tao Themag. The property nage- Liberty loci 30,199t �� ��- ment reported hat 30 to 40 children live in � Y was constructed on an iy the lowincornefly shaped 8.05-nae site.The density The MAP Mu d units. as built is 87 units per acre,which is below P Listing Service the density allowed under the site's R-4 (MLS)reports that for the first nine months zonthou of 1994,405 houses sold in Streamwood, mg-12.units per acre,ugh the • with an average listing price of$136,240 Liberty Lakes density Is somewhat higher arta an average Salo amount of$133,096(or 4 3Sthan the nearby R-3 erzoning,which allows • • about 4856 of the dwelling units Pe!�because of the asking price).Sales in the mixed uses in the Lib- single-family area immediately adjoining arty Lakes appearsarea,the density itsof sur- thesb- subsidized low-income units were ana- consistent with lyzed over the life of the development. a public Uses to the ��h� Data concerning sales of similar houses in library,a chinch,and a the Lake school;uses to the northwest are the Lake . the subdivision not adjacent to the subsi- Zurich main post offfce and a fire station. • dized housing as well as resales of houses Two single-family developments are lo- bordering the subsidized units were col- sated east of Liberty Old Mill Grove abou Lakes across a street. The research found 12 sales of single- has housingYew old and family houses in the immediate vicinity. prices from isan$120,000 to e- Sales of'houses bordering the low-income $200,000,elopmtuld Jonquil Estates is a new de- P currently under con>#ruch i apartments showed increases in value and planned for 22 houses in the$229,000 • t ranging from 23%to 3.6%per year;the av- to$292,000 price range.The developer of TABLE 2 Liberty lakes Sunman, I ' One tleo'room/One Bata Two One 8afh Rent _ �"�gaoroorrls/O�Bath ubertRent per No. Size it Rent per No. Size(A t Rent per No. Stre Rant of Units Units ) Month tot aware per oot - Un 1s square Month toot square e it � 8 950 $867 S0.91 � Month toot sure $1.10 34 950 S1ASS $1.71 4. L Under Seotbuat 7:16.tenants are required to pay at loser 3095 of their income.which moat be lower than Sols of the median.An obeling to federal guidelines for 1994,210%of the median income bra belly of lour in DuPage,Lake.and Cook mwttlw le • Z CAItsS Publlstims.Inc,Lining in Greeter C fear,1994 Edition(Deerfield,Illinois:GAMS Publishing,Inc.,1994/.ISS DEC-22-32 TUE 05:08 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 6124238180 P. 10 • TAM 3 Waterford Piave ' One Bedroom/One Batt: Two 8edrooms/One Bath Total Number No.of Size(in Monthly Rent per No.of Stto On Monthly Rent per of tht4t$ Units square feet) Rent square foot Units sgarcxe feet) Rent square foot 288 24 550 $480 30.87 96 720 $600 30.83 168 840 3500 80.58 720 6620 $0.86 • jonquil Estates reports that,since an adver- Sale prices in the neighborhood averaged tising sign was posted in May 1994, six 97%of the asking price. ' contracts have been signed.The rear of the Liberty Lakes site is open area with a de- Waterford Place Apartments,Zion, tentlon pond beyond which are some con- llllnois dominium units. There are 270 parking The newest project analyzed was Water- .spaces on the site but no garage parking. ford Place Apartments in Zion,lllinois(see Constructed in February 1991,Liberty Table 3).Ton is Iocated 45 miles north of • Lakes is a dormitory-style development downtown Chicago in Lake County. In that consists of 70 units of low-income and 1994,the population was 19,775,the value very low-income housing,all of which are of an average house was$96,496,and the Section 8 units?Of the one-bedroom units, average income was$39,385.According to six are for the elderly and two are for the Living in Greater Chicago,4 1993 building mobility impaired.The building appears to permits totalled 134,and 1994 permits to- be well maintained.The management re- ' tailed 94 through September 30,1994. ports that about 120 children live in the de- The Waterford Place site contains 17.42 velopment,of which 10 are infants and ted- acres for a density of 16.5 units per acre. • dims,10 are high school age,and the rest There is parking for 576 cars.The develop- are elementary school age. ment is denser than the proposed sur- ' The MAP MLS for the first 9 months of rounding development,but is part of an 1994 shows that there were 286 sales of sin- overall design.North of Waterford Place is gle-family houses in Lake Zurich,with an an area planned for single-family houses; average listing price of$197,825 and an av- on a deadend road,this single-family de- erage sale amount of $191,934, or about velopment will eventually connect with its 97%of the asking price.Data available for extension in an area of existing houses.Re- sales in the single-family area immediately velopment on both sides of this road is adjoining the subsidized low-income units part of the developer's overall original were analyzed over the life of the low- plan.The plan calls for commercial devel- income development. Data concerning opment along the major arterial at the sales of similar houses in the subdivision front of Waterford Place, townhouses to not adjacent to the subsidized housing as the northwest of Waterford Place,and sin- well as resales of houses bordering the sub- gle-family houses to the north. Another sidized units were collected. major developer has a single-family devel- Eleven sales of new or existing single- opment known as Butterfield Place under- • family houses in the immediate area were way northwest of Waterford Place.To the • found. Resales of houses bordering the east of Waterford Place is farm land, a low-income apartments showed annual in- cemetery, and the Harbor Ridge single- creases in value of 28%, 6.9%,and 9.7%. family development. High-tension wires . These figures are superior to the 3.2% to • run along the northern rear boundary of it 4.6%increases in houses not bordering the the Waterford Place site. Liberty Lakes low-income house,and sax Waterford Place was constructed in , .perior to increases in the general market two phases in 1992 and 1993,using Section area,according to the brokers interviewed. 42 income tax credits-5 There are eight 'i 3. Under Section 8,the government pays the owner the difference between the tenant contribution(30%of income)and a fair • market rens omen on coral and operettas costs log a paned of 20 m 40 yarn Tenanw ars eli5ibde it uectr worm he lower than ; S0%of the median imam rxtivated kir family atom Accosdng to federal guidelines.50%tithe median income for family of • four in DuPage,lake,and Cook counties was 325,650. 4. Liming i7e Crestar Chimgs,220- S.seniors 42 Income Tax Credits are available for di�ie new e seroma cn os actinism:at and ndtabditatbn a[=Wag boadhngi. The tax credits may be taken for ten years after the project is placed in service with en annual amount of credit at a fixed per• ..^ k- A--..•.;.. Iw...w—, iw�..r ,1fV7R DEC-22-32 TUE 05:09 P14 DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 6124238180 P. 11 MU 4 Broaldwuan S maim One Bedroom/One Bath Two Beciroorre/One or One.and.e-Half Baths Three Rent �l1�ta Total No Sime{i1 Rent Rent Rent Number of per she of f Sias re Rent per Nsquare Per lalare o. Sero On Rear per of Units Units feet) Month foot tints' feet) Month foot Units Man Perort afoot Unfts feet) Month toot 181 70 700 $848 S1.21 82 1.100 81.045 60.95 10 1.250 81.143 60.91 13 600 8a18 $1.36 buildings and 36 units per building for a tion was 13,70I,the value of the average total of 288 units. Some of the units are house was $176,897, and the average in- slightly below grade. Amenities include come was$64,259.Living in Greater Chicago two detention areas, landscaping, and a reported 1993 total building pets of 594 clubhouse currently housing the rental of- and 1994 building permits of 578 through• . fice.The building is fully occupied. Units September 30,1994.6 come with carpeting,window treatments, The Brookhaven site contains 13.8 ceiling fans, and microwave ovens. The anew, resulting in a density as built of management estimates that 30 to 40 chit- about 115 units per acre.A library,a deten- dren live in the complex,of which 20%are lion area,and open space are between the school age,5%are high school age,and the low-income housing and the street•on remainder are elementary school age.The which the project is located.West of the site developer of Waterford Place previously is county-owned land designated as a for- has constructed identical developments est preserve. North and west of Brook- that are commanding market rents in other haven is a public library, and north of locations in Lake County.The complex ap- Brookhaven is a high school.A small group pears to be well maintained. of single-family houses are north of According to the MAP MIS,the aver- Brookhaven,and a newer townhouse de- age listing price in the Zion and Beach Park vt is across the stt+eet market area for the first 9 months of 1994 Constructed in 1981,the development was$99,876,and the average sale pike was is entirely Section&The 181 milts are con- • $95,328.All lots in Westside Hills,the sin- figured in seven clusters of four buildings. she-family development immediately north Of the 70 garden-level one-bedroom units, of Waterford Place, are priced at$27,900 12 are handicapped accessible,and of the and are being sold both to individuals and smaller one-bedroom units, 6 are handl- to developers. New houses in Westside capped accessible. There are 8,2 two- , Hills are listed at$132,000 to$136,900. In bedroom units with three slightly varying Butterfield Place,since marketing began in sizes and configurations and 16 three- January 1994,22 houses have sold and 10 bedroom units.The main buildings contain have dosed. Listing prices range from a total gross building area of about 191,000 • $114,990 to$122,990.In Harbor Ridge,list- square feet and a total rentable area of ing prices range from$111,990 to$146,900. about 165,600 square feet.The complex in- Waterford Place appears to have no ad- chides a clubhouse,a maintenance build- verse impact on market demand in the ing.parking,two children's play lots,a ten- area,as evidenced by continued sales and nis court,and a swimming pool. There is development of single-family lots immedi ample unassigned parking. The complex ately northdevelopment. appears of this housing dev � to be in good condition.Manage- ment reports that there are 142 children liv- Bl1ookh" n Apartments,Gurnee,Illinois tug in the development, of whom 62 are The final development analyzed was the preschool age,59 are in elementary school, oldest one(see Table 4).Brookhaven Apart- and 21 are in high school • menta is located in Gurnee, Illinois, 45 According to the Northern lilinois miles north of downtown Chicago in Lake MLS, the'average sale price of single- County.Rapidly growing,the 1994 popula- family homes in Gurnee for 1994 was • rouge of qualified yroiect cats winds is generally that poeoon peeped doemm attic peeped sa,a ltMrsnr venom MO sen be Ito • i Wella than 3011 of 5011.or UM of the wits median nieces 4.Zisa.g nr Gmaw asleaSe,218. DEC-22-32 TUE 05:10 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 6124238180 P. 12 ri17r"mmi......"..w--- . $179,941. Data available for sales in the ues adjacent to low-income and very low- single-family area immediately adjoining income family housing was expected. •• the Brookhaven low-income units were anti However,there was no evidence of this.In- alyzed from 1988 to the present The North- stead the evidence showed market values . em Illinois MLS reports that sales for the consistent with property not adjacent to the • first 9 months of 1993 for attached single- low-income units,and values rising at rates family houses had an average listing price consistent with the community as a whole. of$107,490 and an average sale price of A dampening effect on investment in new $102„756,or 96%of the asking price.Sales development in the immediate area was for the first 9 months of 1994 for attached also expected. There was no evidence of single-family houses bad an average listing this either. Instead developers are con- . price of $109,675 and an average sale structiug and are selling good-quality, . amount of$105,402.This is an increase of single-family housing right next door to 2.6%in sale price.Data available since 1'>_ Flo,low-incomeba market for sales of townhouses in the area iatmed� study designed slily adjoining the subsidized low-income analysis,not as a statistical regression anal • units and similar units not immediately ad- ysis.However,a statistical regression anal . joining were analyzed. The single-family ysis, "Relationships between Affordable Low-and Very houses bordering the low-income complex Housing Developments and Neighboring have not turned over,at least since 1988. Property Values, m conducted by Paul Cu low-income The sales of the townhouse units dose mugs JohnI arAic,of the Institute for to Brookhaven were compared with sales Urban and Regional Development of the housing do not of similar units away from the low-income University of California at Berkeley, automatically housing, all in Phase I of the townhouse reached similar conclusions for a variety of lower the value of development.There are four different unit low-income housing types.Although they models with different layouts and sizes. did not spedfically address the issue of ' surrounding Units with the A layout away from density,the authors concluded: residential Brookhaven ranged from a lois in value of ' poodyr damped.poorly msinnined.ander 0.89% to an increase in value of 2.93%on poorly managed projects out affect neigh- • development or an annual basis in contrast to a 1.67%in- of whether they are affordable or markebrate. crease for an A unit adjacent to the conversely.prevent Brookhaven units. Increases for r,3 units and well-maiatai oed prefer should not aft ' market away from Brookhaven ranged from 1.84% feet nd;hbosbooa property values.regard- to 9.76% annually. Increases for C units less of whether they am affordable or mar- development ranged from 0.89% to 3.07% away from ke around it. Brookhaven:a C unit facing Brookhaven From an appraiser's viewpoint. the • showed an increase of 1.38%per year.The conclusion must be that low-income and . only D unit sale away from Brookhaven very low-income housing does not auto- showed a 2%annual increase in contrast to matically lower the values of surrounding • a 2.5%increase in a 0 unit facing the low- residential development or prevent sue- income units.These figures show that re- armsful market development around it. sales of townhouses directly facing the Apparently,a development must fulfill >' Brookhaven low-income apartments reflect Main specific conditions before this con '' increases in value consistent with those re- elusion can be reached,First,there must be ported by the Northern Illinois MIS and good planning on the part of both the cora- } with comparable sales of similar units in mtutity and the developer The projects re- 1 Phase I of the adjacent market townhouse viewed were wee coordinated with sur- development that are not directly adjacent rounding densities and uses, and naturali . to the low-income housing. and manmade buffers were used to good l effect at all four sites.Second,there must be ,i. CONCLUSION • good construction quality and design.The developments reviewed fit in with the • A dampening effect of 3% to 5% on the surrounding community; there were no market values of residential property val- "public-housing red" doors in sight. The 1 7. Paul curtarsup and John Landis."iela fooshipe between Affordable Homing Developments and Neighbaeing Property Val- Na,'yanking Paper$99.University of California as lanitekltInstitutor foe Urban and ltesiOO 1 Development.Septoenbrt 1993. 17. 3 6 • ' DEC-22-32 TUE 05:10 PM DAKOTA COUNTY HRA FAX NO. 8124238180 P. 13 " 7 one project that was not as attractively de- phased out; HUD is being dismantled. signed was well buffered.Third,them must State programs will feel the pinch of these be good management.All four complexes national activities and likely will be tar- were well maintained with competent on- geted themselves.The negative image im- site management. This factor cannot be mediately conjured up by low-income overlooked, especially when considering housing has no doubt contributed to these J the Importance of the integration of these decisions. Yet the need for "decent,safe, complexes into their larger communities. and sanitary housing for every American" There is nothing new about these con- has not diminished since that goal was ar • - ,and the same criteria apply to the oculated in the Housing Act of 1848.The successful development of market-rent irony is that now that low-income housing housing as well.What is new is that these is being wall executed,the question has be- standards am now being achieved for low come whether or not it will continue to be • income and very low-income housing and built at all.Petihape the greater question is • that the result serves well to dispel the low- ' whether or not the truth about low-income hexane housing stereotype. housing c ah make a difference in either the The shift in the national political tern- reactions of its potential neighbors or in the decisionsperament brings high irony to this made about its future. sion.Section 8 housing programs are being 12-23-1998 4:41PM FROM OTTO ASSOCIATES_ 682 3522 P. 1 • ITTO SSOCIATES ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, INC, • MEMORANDUM DATE: December 23, 1998 TO: Derrick Metz,Sand Companies FROM: Marty Campion,Otto Associates RE: BOULDER RIDGE Shakopee,MN . Otto Project No. 98095 I spoke with Dave Nimorner regarding the construction of a berm along the west property line of the BOULDER RIDGE project. As the project is currently designed,stormwater runoff flows northerly in a proposed swale,from a highpoint located adjacent to the southwest corner of the southwesterly most building on the site. The construction of a berm would cause the swale to be located too close to the buildings. In addition, moving the swale nearer to the buildings would cause the backyards to be quite steep, severely limiting their use. Dave also suggested raising the buildings and trying to force the drainage from the backyards around the buildings to the street. Given the proposed building design,this would cause the driveways to be steeper than acceptable. I indicated to Dave that it may be possible to address both of out concerns if the bean were to be constructed centered on the west property line. Dave did not think that this would be an acceptable solution.. 9 WEST DIVISION STREET - BUFFALO. MINN. 55313 - 1612) 682-4727 FAX (612) 682-3522 DEC-22-1998 16:16 612 445 6718 P.02/12 LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT 1996 SHAKOPEE HOUSING ACTION PLAN • DEC-22-1998 16:17 612 445 6718 P.03/12 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 'I Housing Goals, Policies and Activities 2 Housing Affordability 3 Housing Diversity 6 Neighborhood Quality 7 Housing Density 8 DEC-22-1998 /6:17 612 445 6718 P.04'12 • LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT 1996 SHAKOPEE HOUSING ACTION PLAN Introduction • On November 2, 1995, the City of Shakopee adopted a resolution to participate in the ' Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. This act requires the participating communities to adopt housing goats and to provide an action plan for the achievement of those goals. The purpose of this action plan is to Identify the major issues with regard to housing in the City of Shakopee. This includes the housing goals and policies, implementation time frame, and the tools that will be utilized to bring the goals and policies into action. The Livable Communities Act aims to promote the development and preservation of affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council defines affordable housing as housing that costs no more than 30% of a family's income. In 1996, an owner-occupied housing unit could cost up to$115,000 for the Metropolitan Council to consider it affordable. For rental properties to be affordable in 1996, they could have a maximum rent of$638 per month. Timeframe This action plan covers housing activities in Shakopee for the coming year through the year 2000. These include housing policies and actions by the city, other government agencies and, to a smaller degree, private and market forces. The city expects to review and update specific housing issues on an as-needed basis and the whole action plan at least once every five years. Page 1 1EC-22-1993 16:17 612 445 6718 P.05✓12 • Housing Goals, Policies and Activities GENERAL HOUSING GOALS Shakopee supports the following general housing goals: • Having a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. • The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing in the city. • A variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the lifecycle. • A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the city while striving to meet the need far a variety of housing types and costs. • The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the Improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. • Adding to and preserving the affordable housing in the city. • • Shakopee will make its best effort, given market conditions and resource availability, to maintain a city-housing Index within the benchmark ranges for affordability, life-cycle and density. Specifically, the city will strive to meet the following housing benchmarks: 1. At least 64 percent of ownership and 32 percent of the rental housing as affordable. 2. At least 35 percent of the housing as units other than single-family detached. 3. An owner/renter housing mix of 70 percent owner occupied and 30 percent occupied by renters. 4. Have single-family detached houses with a density of 1.9 units per acre and multifamily housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. Page 2 DEC-22-1998 16:17 612 445 6718 P.06'12 • HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Housing costs continue to rise throughout the region because of a variety of reasons_ These include increasing land and construction costs. utilities and taxes; declines in government aid programs; and, indirectly, land use regulations. These cost increases greatly affect low-and moderate-income households. Changes in mortgage interest rates also affect the affordability of housing. The Metropolitan Council set a goal.that at least 64 percent of the ownership housing and at least 32 percent of the rental housing in Shakopee should be affordable. As of 1995, the city was exceeding both minimum benchmarks. The city will continue to try to meet or exceed these goals with the following policies and activities: The following narrative denotes those activities that will be undertaken by the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SC-HRA), non-profits, private developers and the City of Shakopee in an effort to achieve the affordable housing goals. HOME OWNERSHIP Affordable Financing • It is anticipated that 40 units of housing will be purchased through first time homebuyer programs funded by mortgage revenue bonds from the SC-HRA's bonding allocation end refunded bonds. Tax forfeiture land resources will also assist first time homebuyers on new construction. • The SC-HRA will work with Scott County non-profit organizations such as Christmas in May to coordinate applications for affordable home ownership rehab programs. The rehab of approximately six homes per year will be funded with the volunteer efforts of approximately 300 people. This results in a dollar equivalent of approximately$36,000. Rownpayment Assistance • The SC-HRA will work with those lenders who have participated in past first time homebuyer programs for downpayment assistance to 20 units of affordable housing. • The community action agency (CAP) will provide emergency rental assistance and the SC-HRA will provide mortgage foreclosure prevention assistance to 5-10 families annually. Homeowner Rehabilitation • The SC-HRA will apply for 10 home energy loans through MHFA. • MHFA low interest loans will be utilized to fund home owner rehabilitation of five units of affordable housing per year. Page 3 DEC-22-1998 16:18 612 445 6718 P.07/12 ' BtENTAL HOUSING New Construction • • The SC-HRA Intends to build 20-30 moderate rent general occupancy family townhomes in a scattered site development Essential Function Bonds, Tax Increment end SC-HRA Special Benefits Tax Levy will be the primary source of funding. • The SC-HRA intends to build a mixed use commerciei/residential project in conjunction with the downtown Shakopee river front development. The project proposes 40-50 moderate/market rate senior rental units. • A health care group that includes Allina Health System, Health Dimensions and the St. Francis Medical Center will be building a 51 bed nursing home in Shakopee. • Arlington Ridge is proposing a 64 unit tax credit townhome project In Shakopee. This project proposes a total of 112 units. Subtotal = 195 units Tenant Based Subsidy • The SC-HRA will prepare and submit applications for Section 8 Rental Assistance Certificates. The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority currently owns and administrates the following affordable housing programs in the City of Shakopee. • Sixty-four(64) Section 8 Rental Assistance Certificates serving 64 low/moderate income persons/families. • Four Rental Assistance Family Stabilization (RAFS) program vouchers. • Four(4) units of moderate rent housing. • Two (2)units of transitional housing. Subtotal = 74 units Privately Owned/Subsidized Housing • Levee Drive Apartments, 66 one bedroom senior units. • Village Apartments, 62 one bedroom senior units. • Clifton Townhomes, 56 general occupancy units. • Arlington Ridge, 48 general occupancy units, low income tax credit project. Subtotal ==units units Page 4 DEC-22-1998 16:18 612 445 6716 P.06/12 • Total units: Projected household total by the year 2000:fiat Page 5 DEC-22-1998 /6:/8 612 445 6718 P.09'12 HOUSING DIVERSITY Most of the housing in Shakopee consists of single-family homes. The city will continue to work toward having a wider variety of housing types with the following general policy: • Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout Shakopee. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city also adopts the following housing diversity policies and activities: • Shakopee will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. • The city will make efforts to plan and provide for the housing and service needs of the elderly and disabled. • Shakopee will encourage development of housing and services that meet the needs of nontraditional households. • The city will regularly review and, as necessary, change its zoning and subdivision regulations, building codes, design standards and approval process. This is to assure that these regulations and standards are flexible enough to allow a variety of housing options and to help lessen the cost of residential development and redevelopment. Such issues and regulations that Shakopee will review include: 1. The amount of undeveloped or underused land that the city has planned or zoned for single, medium, and high density residential development. 2. Planned unit development (PUD), mixed-use and cluster development ordinances that include residential density bonuses. 3. The flexibility to use zero lot line development. 4. Minimum unit size or floor areas. 5. Garage and off-street parking requirements (especially for seniors). 6. The use of private streets in developments. 7. Minimum right-of-way, pavement widths and standards for streets. Page 6 DEC-22-1998 16:19 612 445 671e P.10f12 • NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY It is Important to assure that the efforts to provide life-cycle housing are accomplished So that it is as compatible as practical with the character of existing neighborhoods and so it respects the environment. It also is important to prevent housing in older neighborhoods from deteriorating. To address these concerns, the city adopts the following policies: • Plan and design new housing to: 1. Protect existing housing, natural features, and neighborhood Identity and quality. 2. Assure there are adequate utilities and community facilities. • Maintain or strengthen the character of established neighborhoods and assure that all housing units are safe, sanitary, secure and free from blight. Shakopee also adopts the following neighborhood quality policies and activities: • The city will work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of residential neighborhoods and reduce potential negative effects of commercial or industrial land uses through zoning, site plan review and code enforcement. • Shakopee will require and enforce design and maintenance standards for multifamily residential development. Design standards will include provisions about building massing, architectural design, off-street parking ratios and location, access, traffic impacts, landscaping, fencing or screening, and trash handling. The city will allow affordable housing in any location suitable for residential uses. Shakopee will assure that development respects the natural environment to the maximum practical extent. The city will continue to use its shoreland, floodplain and environmental protection ordinances to assure protection of lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, steep slopes and woodlots. The city, in association with the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will participate in programs to help property owners with home maintenance and improvements through loans and, if available, grants. Page 7 DEC-22-1998 16:19 612 445 6718 P.11'12 HOUSING DENSITY • The City of Shakopee has taken steps to ensure compliance with the negotiated benchmarks. Some of these steps include the following: • The Zoning Ordinance has been amended to delete required minimum lot sizes; • The Zoning Ordinance allows for multi-family development within single family zones by Planned Unit Development(PUD) Overlay Zones; • The density standards for urban single family zones allow a density of five dwelling units per acre; • The density standards for multiple family zones range from five to eighteen dwelling units per we. Page 8 - (0. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: Julie Klima,Planner II SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for multiple structures on one lot DATE: December 3, 1998 Site Information: Applicant: Sand Companies,Inc. Site Location: Northwest corner of Vierling Drive and Marschall Rd. (County Road 17) Current Zoning: Medium Density Residential(R2) Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-1B) South: Highway Business Zone (B-1) East: Highway Business Zone (B-1) West: Urban Residential (R-1B) Comp.Plan: Medium Density Residential INTRODUCTION Sand Company, Inc. has filed an application requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)to allow the construction of a development containing more than one principal structure per lot. The general location of the subject site is north of Vierling Drive, west of County Road 17 (Marschall Road), and east of Sage Lane, as shown on Exhibit A. DISCUSSION The site is zoned Medium Density Residential (R2). The applicant is proposing to construct rental townhome buildings on the property. Section 11.32 of the City Code allows the construction of developments containing more than one principal structure per lot with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The subject site is approximately 8 acres in size. The site plan, attached as Exhibit B, provides for 56 townhome units, for a density of 7 units per acre. The landscape plan, as shown on Exhibit B, identifies the provision of 214 landscaping units. The City Code requires that this development provide 152 landscaping units. Therefore, the plan provided by the applicant has met the landscaping requirements for this project. Off street parking requirements for this project are also met on the plan provided by the applicant. City staff has recommended that the portion of the private street serving the residential portion of the development be renamed. The renaming would comply with the City's current street naming • policy and provide additional clarity for addressing purposes. The applicant should contact city staff regarding possible street names. 3 • Setbacks between private streets and buildings, as required by the approved plat, are set at 20 feet. However, the City Code requires 35 foot front, 30 foot rear, and 10 foot side yard setbacks between property lines and buildings. The site plan indicates that the applicant is requesting variations to the front yard setbacks (those abutting Vierling Drive) from 35 feet to 30 feet. The site plan also indicates a request for variation from the 30 foot rear setback for Lot 2, Block 3 (for location please see Exhibit C). Due to design of the project and minimal impact on public right- of-way, the requested variations do not appear to provide any adverse impact to the development. Section 11.85 of the City Code states that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall not grant a conditional use permit without meeting the following criteria. Staff has prepared the following findings for consideration by the Board. Criteria#1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity; Finding#1 Staff has received no evidence that the proposed conditional use will be injurious to the use and the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes which are already permitted, nor would it substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. Criteria#2 The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area; Finding#2 Staff has received no evidence that the use would impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses predominant in the area. Criteria#3 Adequate utilities,access roads,drainage,and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; Finding#3 Staff finds that adequate utilities, access roads,drainage and parking either exist, or will be provided. Criteria#4 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and Finding#4 Staff finds the overall use of the property is consistent with the purposes the R2 Zone with conditions listed. Criteria#5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. c• Finding#5 Staff finds the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for Medium Density Residential use. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Board may approve the conditional use with conditions as presented by staff. 2. The Board may approve the conditional use with modified or additional conditions. 3. The Board may deny the request. 4. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. The Board may table a decision for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approving the conditional use with conditions as follows: 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof 2. Building materials, parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shall be renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit, if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Resolution#PC98-112 as pre ented. (4,",<:51;4.,„: Julie Klima Planner II is\commdev\boas-pc\1998\1203\cupsands.doc • RESOLUTION NO.PC98-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING TWO PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON ONE LOT LOCATED IN'173E MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R2)ZONE WHEREAS, Sand Companies, Inc. has filed an application dated received November 6, 1998, for a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Chapter 11,Land Use Regulation(Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.32, Subd. 3 (0.)for developments containing more than one principal structure per lot;and WHEREAS,this parcel is presently zoned Medium Density Residential(R2); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as; Lot 2, Block 1;Lot 2, Block 3 and Outlot A, Boulder Ridge, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County,Minnesota. WHEREAS,notice was provided and on December 3, 1998,the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director and invited members of the public to comment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ME BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF ME CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the application for Conditional Use Permit No. PC-98-112 is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof. 2. Building materials, parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shall be renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit,if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the • townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 3rd day of December, 1998. Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ATTEST: Community Development Director . Ain CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO.PC98-112 I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. PC98-112, presented to and adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of December, 1998,as shown by minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of , 19 . Judith Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SEAL PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: Perry and Susan Mulcrone Steven and Mary Kay Menden Tom and Renee Erickson Andy and Eliane Unseth Jim and Gail Skoglund Troy and Paula Scott Denny and Mary Kay Vierling Pat Rein Randy and Laurie Gregor SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (RESOLUTION#PC98-112) DATE: December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURES: (1) CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM DATED DECEMBER 3, 1998 (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKET(CUPINFO.AP3) (3) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-2) SECTION 11.32 (4) SAND COMPANIES PROPOSED SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN MAP (5) FLYER FROM RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN (6) LETTER FROM JIM AND GAIL SKOGLUND OPPOSING PLAN (7) CRIME FACTORS STUDY FROM FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (8) US CENSUS BUREAU STATISTICS OF RECENT MOVERS COMPARISON (9) CRIME INCIDENTS ANALYSIS OF SELECTED RENTAL PROPERTIES - 1997 (10) CRIME INCIDENTS ANALYSIS OF SELECTED RENTAL PROPERTIES - 1998 (11) THREE YEAR STUDY OF ARLINGTON RIDGE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING HOUSING ASSESSED VALUES (12) AFFIDAVIT OF ANN MULCRONE DATED 12/28/98 INTRODUCTION Sand Company, Inc. has filed an application requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) to allow the construction of a development containing more than one principle structure per lot and setback variances of 30 feet from 35 feet for front yard setback and below the 30 foot rear setback as required by City Code. The general location of the subject site is north of Vierling Drive,west of County Road 17 (Marschall Road), and east of Sage Lane. The site is zoned Medium Density Residential (R2), enclosure (3). Sand Companies is proposing to construct 56 rental townhouse buildings on the property of which 30 will be subsidized rental units, enclosure(4). Section 11.85 of the City Code states that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall not grant a conditional use permit without meeting the criteria outlined in enclosure(2). A Paper in Opposition to RESOLUTION#PC98-112 - 12/28/98 -Page 1 J On December 3, 1998, in a memorandum to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, enclosure(1), City Planner II, Julie Klima,recommended approval of the CUP including granting setback variances. The City Planner,to that date, had not received any evidence that the proposed conditional use would violate the first(2) criteria nor conflict with the last(3)of the five criteria established in section 11.85 of the City Code. During the public forum at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals hearing on December 3, 1998,the Board heard strongly-voiced opposition testimonies to the development plan from several concerned citizens representing residents in the area neighborhoods immediately surrounding the proposed site (see enclosures (5&6)). The Board voted unanimously to table the decision on the CUP until January 7th, 1999 in order to allow all parties concerned more time to adequately research the plan and determine if evidence does exist that shows the plan is in conflict with the five criteria. DISCUSSION Despite the short time allowed for research, considering the Holiday season,the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods were able to meet once a week, task organize their efforts and compile compelling research that the proposed conditional use permit would be in conflict with the five established criteria and inappropriate for the proposed site. According to the City Code 11.85, enclosure (2), a conditional use permit"requires special review and limitations because if not carefully located or designed, it may have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties or the City." A conditional use permit may be granted only when all of the five criteria are met. Additionally, according to section 11.32 of the City Code, enclosure(3), "the purpose of the Medium Density Residential Zoning (R2) is to provide an area which will allow 2.5 to 8 residential dwellings per acre and also provide a transitional zone between single family residential areas and other land uses." While the applied conditional use for more than one principle structure on a lot and minor setback variances at first glance seems benign,those requests, and the applicant's final plan end-state must be viewed as a whole and weighed carefully against the intended protections provided for under City Codes 11.32 and 11.85. The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods have the following evidence that the proposed conditional end use to allow more than one principle structure on the lot and grant the setback variances is in violation of the five criteria of the CUP, the stated intent of the CUP and the stated intent of the medium residential zoning code. Criteria#1 of section 11.85 of the City Code states that"the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted." • While many factors influence and affect a homeowners use and enjoyment of his home, the residents chose to use their limited time to research the impact the applicant's use will have on crime. Crime was chosen because the residents felt there is perhaps no greater chilling effect, in today's day and age,to the use and enjoyment of lawn,play and home,than crime. • According to the FBI's crime factors analysis, enclosure (7), "some factors which are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are: population density and degree of urbanization, variations in composition of the population,particularly youth concentration, stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors, economic conditions, including median income and poverty level, cultural factors, family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness, climate, effective strength of law enforcement agencies, and citizens attitudes toward crime. A Paper in Opposition to RESOLUTION#PC98-112 - 12/28/98 - Page 2 • This study shows that crime can occur anywhere in America when properly cultivated with the above conditions. More importantly,the analysis shows that the factors have an impact on citizen's attitudes towards crime. Use and enjoyment are activities and emotions that the residents strongly feel would be substantially injured by the proposed CUP and site plan. • The proposed development site is eight acres with 56 units. The proposed plan has a density of 7 units per acre which is at the top end of the allowed density for zoning. The residents feel that this density is too great as evidenced by the application for multiple structures on one lot and necessary setback variances. Due to the close proximity to the Junior High,the residents feel that excessive youth concentrations within the proposed site is likely. • The US Census Bureau's census of recent movers, enclosure(8),has found that renters are very transient and mobile. According to the census,renters are less stable with respect to remaining in one location than owners. In fact, "about 40% of renter households were recent movers" whereas, only 9% of owners were recent movers. • Of the 56 townhouse units proposed, 30 units are affordable rental units. In order to rent the units,the applicants must not make over$29,160 for a two person household. This amount is in stark contrast to the neighboring resident's income level and would be a variation in the composition of the population of the neighborhood as outlined in enclosure (7). • The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods to the site feel that the above evidence alone is compelling enough to demonstrate a likely resulting injury to the use and enjoyment of their homes. However, in order to research further the possibility of injury to use and enjoyment resulting from crime from the proposed development plan,the residents requested crime statistics from the Police Department of the City of Shakopee for similar housing developments compared to city-wide crime statistics. • Of the many housing developments located in Shakopee,the residents selected the Arlington Ridge housing site because it mostly closely matched the zoning,plan, and intended use, to those of the Sand Companies intended use. In the analysis, enclosures (9, and 10), Arlington Ridge is shown to have up to 1.47%more incidents than other rental properties. Arlington Ridge accounted for 1.91%of the city total crime incidence for the full year ended 12/31/97, and 2.21% during the period 1/1/98 through 6/19/98. Interestingly, Arlington Ridge has several of the crime factors listed on the FBI's crime factors analysis. • The residents to the surrounding neighborhoods feel that the likeliness of increased crime and the resulting real injury to the use and enjoyment of their homes is compelling. The proposed conditional use, therefore, is in violation of criteria#1. Criteria#1 of section 11.85 of the City Code also states that the use shall not substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. • The value of a person's home is based upon many things. Many things rapidly improve and impair the market value of a home. There is perhaps no greater impact on a value of a home than the appearance, value and use of neighboring homes and sites. Because a home is by and far the largest investment to the average homeowner, great care must be given to the development of the neighborhood and the city planning. It is with fact in mind that the city codes 11.32 and 11.85 were written,to protect homeowner's and the community's investment. A Paper in Opposition to RESOLUTION #PC98-112 - 12/28/98 - Page 3 • The residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the site strongly feel that the intended use for rental property and the conditional use permit to allow more than principle structure on a single lot and setback variances will substantially affect the values of their homes in the real-estate market. The proposed conditional use will certainly impair the appreciation values of the neighboring homes while forcing discounted values on the homes directly adjacent to the site. • This claim was offered at the December 3, 1998 hearing; however,the Board requested the residents research similar developments to study the economic impact on neighboring homes and recommended speaking to a property assessor. The residents spoke to the Scott County Assessor's office and were given housing assessment figures for a similar housing development the Assessor felt was similar to the proposed use of the site, see enclosure(11). • The housing development, Arlington Ridge, had detrimental effect on the homes immediately adjacent to the site location. Over the three year assessment period between 1997 and 1999 the homes immediately adjacent to Arlington Ridge units appreciated at an average rate of 0.59%, while other homes in the area appreciated at an average rate of up to 8.98%, • To further understand the impact the proposed CUP and site may have on neighboring homes,the residents spoke to several real-estate agents. At the date of this submission, due to the Holiday season, Ann Mulcrone was the only agent to provide a sworn affidavit, enclosure (12); however her testimony typified the other agents' observations. In her 25 years as an agent and relocation manager, Ms. Mulcrone has witnessed the adverse impact rental units similar in type and congestion to those proposed in the plan, have had on neighboring homes in hindering appreciation and discounted resale. • When the proposed CUP of this site was fully disclosed,two homeowners in Prairie Estates immediately adjacent to the site placed their homes up for sale because they felt the CUP would significantly reduce the values of their homes. Prairie Estates is normally a development where homes are not on the market long; however, since this CUP issue has arisen,those two homes remain unsold. • The residents to the surrounding neighborhoods feel that the likeliness of the conditional use diminishing or impairing the values of their homes is compelling. The proposed conditional use,therefore, is in violation of criteria#1. Criteria#2 of section 11.85 of the City Code states that the use shall not impede the orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant properties. • In the residents' discussion with the Scott County Assessor's office,they learned that the CUP is not considered typical for orderly development or transition from commercial zoning to singly family detached homes. Typically, the residents learned, layers of transitional buffers are laid into place to ensure adequate buffering and property value integrity. The Assessor's office does not believe that this CUP provides the necessary buffer for all parties concerned. Typically, apartments are located next to commercial,then a layer of townhouse then detached homes. This is not the case with the CUP and,therefore, it does not follow an orderly development. Because there is a stark difference in the transition,the CUP will have a detrimental effect on the development and improvement of existing vacant properties in the area. The residents believe this effect will be most noticeable in the development of the unimproved lots immediately to the southeast and one block southeast of the planned site. The congestion of more than one principle A Paper in Opposition to RESOLUTION#PC98-112 - 12/28/98 - Page 4 structure on the single lot and the road variances is likely to limit the development possibilities of those vacant lots in use and in prospective buyers. • The other most noticeable impact this site will have is on the future improvement of the apartment complex to the east of the site on Marschall Road. The residents believe that the affordable rental units proposed by the developer will hamper the rental potential of the existing apartment complex,prolong vacancies and reduce the landlord's ability to continue improvements. • Finally,the setback variations along the south side of the site will impede the orderly development of the southern vacant commercial property in that the boundary area between the commercial site and the development site will, consequently, be too narrow. • The residents to the surrounding neighborhoods feel that the likeliness of the conditional use impeding the orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant properties is compelling. The proposed conditional use,therefore, is in violation of criteria#2. Criteria#3 of section 11.85 of the City Code states that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other adequate facilities have or will be provided. • The residents have found through their short research, several shortcomings on behalf of the developer concerning the provisions set forth in criteria#3. • First, the developer has only been in the property management field for 9 months. The intent of criteria#3 is to ensure that developers have the expertise and foresight to ensure their development has and will continue to have the necessary facilities for the safety and conveniences required in the modern age. Even some of the most respected management companies with years of expertise find difficulty in ensuring the provisions of criteria#3. Failure to provide, even momentarily, for the facilities required in this criteria can have disastrous effects. In reviewing the Sand Companies property in Lakeville, the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods to the proposed CUP site have concerns over Sand Companies abilities to manage. • Additionally, the residents believe the private roads planned for by the Sand Companies in the development are too narrow for safety and appearance. These narrow private roads will provide a real danger to children and pedestrians as well as Public Safety vehicles. In their discussion with the Shakopee Fire Department, the residents learned that while the Shakopee Fire Department approved the proposed private streets in the plan,their approval was less than enthusiastic. In fact, when questioned on the issue,the department said that they did not want to approve the narrow private streets and dead-end, but felt that they were obliged to since a precedence had already been set in the development property behind the Shenandoah Ballroom. The residents feel that wider city-managed streets are a necessity to the environment and climate of Minnesota for both safety and appearance. The private access road plan provided in the CUP is inadequate. • Drainage in the area is a very real problem as evidenced by the standing water to the west of the proposed site on the walking path. This standing water has presented a real danger and eye-sore to the residents of the neighboring homes for years. Because of the water problem in the area,the residents are very concerned about the Sand Companies planned provisions to control drainage. The drainage plan provided in the plan through the drainway and along the berm of the west side of the site is inadequate. The berm will certainly cause adverse drainage to either the homes to the west of the site,the walk path to the north, or the parking A Paper in Opposition to RESOLUTION#PC98-112 - 12/28/98 - Page 5 lots to the south,through runoff. The drainway and access walkway in the western portion of the site will certainly cause drainage problems unless a bridge is constructed. The residents are not convinced that the drainage plan, as stated, will adequately discharge runoff water to their proper locations. • Due to the research uncovered on crime in similar use properties,the residents feel that the developer has not adequately provided for law enforcement requirements. In neighboring cities with similar properties, a dedicated city law enforcement officer if placed full-time inside the properties to handle criminal activities within the property alone. The Shakopee Police Department does not have the resources to dedicate an officer 24 hours within the complex. Additionally,the residents learned while speaking to other Cities' law enforcement officials,the Shakopee Police Department does not have the technical systems that those departments have in handling criminal activities within similar properties. The residents do not feel a CUP should be granted that may be a burden to the City of Shakopee. • Finally,the CUP does not provide for public transportation necessary for the residents in the thirty affordable rental units. Failure to provide this necessary facility will leave those residents stranded with no transportation as the City of Shakopee does not provide public transportation. The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods have concerns that the lack of public transportation will force the residents to drive unsightly and unsafe vehicles which will impact the first two criteria. • The residents to the surrounding neighborhoods feel that the Developer has failed to provide in their plans an adequate provision for all facilities necessary for this proposed use. The proposed conditional use, therefore, is in violation of criteria#3. Criteria#4 of section 11.85 of the City Code states that the use must be consistent for the purposes of the use in which the applicant intends to relocate. • The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods feel that, while at first glance, the CUP might look consistent for the proposed zoning and buffer use of the lot, further investigation reveals that it is not. Section 11.35 of the City Code states that the medium density zoning is to provide a transitional zone between single family residential areas and other land uses. The reason a transitional zone is needed is to protect the safety and property values of the single family residential homes. As evidenced by the above discussions,this CUP is not an appropriate use of the proposed site. The permitted uses alone within the R2 zoning are appropriate. Due to the magnitude that this site has on the entire area, the residents feel that variation from strict permitted use, and lack of close community involvement in the development of the eight acres in question, will have an irreversible, detrimental impact on the very neighborhoods for which the zoned site is intended to protect. • The residents feel that the acreage is too small for the use which the applicant intends. The multiple principle structures on the small lot and setback variances will give the entire area a cramped, after-thought appearance. The site is just too small for the developers plan and is the reason for the CUP application. The residents feel the developer is, in effect, attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole. This cramped plan is especially detrimental to the City of Shakopee since the lot resides on Marschall Road which is the principle entry into the City of Shakopee. The residents feel that the cramped site will give visitors to Shakopee an unfavorable view of the city and convey a feeling of congestion rather than openness, safety and peacefulness. A Paper in Opposition to RESOLUTION#PC98-112 - 12/28/98 -Page 6 • The residents to the surrounding neighborhoods feel that compelling evidence exists that the CUP is inconsistent for the purposes of the use in which the applicant intends to relocate. The proposed conditional use, therefore, is in violation of criteria#4. Criteria#5 of section 11.85 of the City Code states that the use must not conflict with the comprehensive plan. • Again, as in criteria#4,the proposed CUP is in direct conflict with the zoning intent of R2 of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is established to ensure the orderly development and careful transition of adjoining properties. While the CUP plan meets the units per acreage requirement of medium density zoning, it does not meet the above four criteria and is therefore in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Additionally, the proposed CUP does not satisfy the transitional purposes of the R2 zoning. The proposed use is far too great of a contrast in density, street width and setback spacing to the family homes and commercial properties nearby. • Additionally, the residents feel the proposed use is in conflict with what was disclosed to them as intended use for the site by city officials at the time of purchase of their homes. Many of the residents were told that the site would have a lower density (2.5 units per acre)than the CUP proposes. • The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods feel that compelling evidence exists that the CUP is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The proposed conditional use, therefore, is in violation of criteria#5. ROADWAYS In addition to the discussion provided on access roads under criteria#3 above,the residents feel the proposed road layout by the developer is in violation with the Shakopee's easement requirements on either side of planned roads. The developer's road plan on the eastern portion of the site map does not provide adequate easement distance along the southern side of the road to the adjoining property. According to City Code, a builder must show real hardship in order to be allowed a variance. This stringent requirement is set to ensure both safety and appearance of the roadways and surrounding buildings. Sand Companies has not established a real hardship for variation of this requirement. REMARKS The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods feel very strongly about the detrimental effects the CUP poses to their homes and community. Their homes are their largest investments. They have spent their spare time researching and preparing this information for the Board during the Holidays when spare time is especially tapped. They unanimously feel that the CUP is an inappropriate buffer and transition between their homes and the commercial site. They do not feel that Sand Companies has sufficiently answered their concerns about its ability to manage property,protect the neighboring homes' values,prevent and handle criminal activity, ensure the neighboring homes continued use and enjoyment, provide adequate drainage and prove hardship to necessitate street variation. The residents have attempted on several occasions to contact and work with Sand Companies to come to a compromise and achieve a mutual, beneficial solution. As of this date, no resolution has been attained. RECOMMENDATIONS A Paper in Opposition to RESOLUTION#PC98-112 - 12/28/98 -Page 7 Because evidence exists that the criteria established in section 11.85 of the City Code are not met, it is recommended that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals vote no to the Sand Companies' Conditional Use Permit(RESOLUTION#PC98-112). It is further recommended,due to the critical impact of the proposed site to the areas well being,that the Board ensure the proposed site be used for permitted uses only as established under section 11.35 of the City Code and not entertain future conditional uses. Due to the uniqueness of the lot, the residents suggest a task force be appointed to prepare a list of appropriate uses and either work with Sand Companies, or find another developer to bring the plan to fruition. CONDITIONS • While the residents are extremely dedicated against the passage of Resolution#PC98-112,the Board of Adjustments and Appeals asked the residents at the December 3, 1998 meeting to prepare the conditions they would impose on the developer as provided by section 11.85 of the City Code. In the initial meeting between the builder and the residents, the builder agreed to providing an access walkway near the drainway, a 4 foot berm on their property along the west side of the site, and additional landscaping units along the northern side of the site. The following is the residents' list of proposed requirements and additional developer requirements the residents feel are necessary to mitigate the consequences of the CUP and improve the transition between the proposed development site and the homes immediately adjacent to the site. (a) Access walkway running along side the drainage ditch with bridge; (b) A four foot berm, measured from the base of the foundation, along the entire western and northern perimeter if the development site; (c) Four to six foot tall evergreen trees on top of the berm, planted no further than 30 feet apart and for a total of no less than 350 units; (d) Four foot high brick or stone siding along the front and rear of each housing unit; (e) An Association covenant, approved by the above representatives of Prairie and Meadow Estates, and required of each resident guiding prohibited uses; (f) A cement sidewalk along the eastern side of the site and up to Prairie Lane; (g) A security officer, certified by the state of Minnesota, on site 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; (h) Transportation support between the site and the public transportation system in Chaska. CONCLUSION The residents of the surrounding neighborhoods provide the above conditions for specific reasons and do not provide them as means to encourage the passage of the CUP. The residents are extremely committed to the defeat of Resolution#PC98-112 and will pursue all avenues within their legal power to ensure its injunction and defeat. The residents are not opposed to the permitted uses as provided under R2 of section 11.35 of the City Code. It is hoped that the developer, city and residents can find an amicable solution that, without question, improves the values and well being of the neighboring homes, not one that may or may not degrade the neighborhood and community. Prepared by Perry Mulcrone and Jim Skoglund. A Paper in Opposition to RESOLUTION#PC98-112 - 12/28/98 - Page 8 PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record • December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 1 (0. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: Julie Klima,Planner II SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for multiple structures on one lot DATE: December 3, 1998 Site Information: Applicant: Sand Companies,Inc. Site Location: Northwest corner of Vierling Drive and Marschall Rd. (County Road 17) Current Zoning: Medium Density Residential(R2) Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-1B) South: Highway Business Zone (B-1) East: Highway Business Zone (B-1) West: Urban Residential (R-1B) Comp.Plan: Medium Density Residential INTRODUCTION Sand Company, Inc. has filed an application requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a development containing more than one principal structure per lot. The general location of the subject site is north of Vierling Drive, west of County Road 17 (Marschall Road), and east of Sage Lane, as shown on Exhibit A. DISCUSSION The site is zoned Medium Density Residential (R2). The applicant is proposing to construct rental townhome buildings on the property. Section 11.32 of the City Code allows the construction of developments containing more than one principal structure per lot with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The subject site is approximately 8 acres in size. The site plan, attached as Exhibit B, provides for 56 townhome units, for a density of 7 units per acre. The landscape plan, as shown on Exhibit B1fies the provision of 24 1521andscaping tsl Therefore,the plg an The e City Code requires that this development provide provided by the applicant has met the landscaping requirements for this project Off street parking requirements for this project are also met on the plan provided by the applicant. City staff has recommended that the portion of the private street serving the residential portion of the development be renamed. The renaming would comply with the City's current street naming policy and provide additional clarity for addressing purposes. The applicant should contact city staff regarding possible street names. Setbacks between private streets and buildings, as required by the approved plat, are set at 20 feet. However, the City Code requires 35 foot front, 30 foot rear, and 10 foot side yard setbacks between property lines and buildings. The site plan indicates that the applicant is requesting variations to the front yard setbacks (those abutting Vierling Drive) from 35 feet to 30 feet. The site plan also indicates a request for variation from the 30 foot rear setback for Lot 2, Block 3 (for location please see Exhibit C). Due to design of the project and minimal impact on public right- of-way, the requested variations do not appear to provide any adverse impact to the development. Section 11.85 of the City Code states that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall not grant a conditional use permit without meeting the following criteria. Staff has prepared the following findings for consideration by the Board. Criteria#1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity; Finding#1 Staff has received no evidence that the proposed conditional use will be injurious to the use and the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes which are already permitted, nor would it substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. Criteria#2 The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area; Finding#2 Staff has received no evidence that the use would impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses predominant in the area. Criteria#3 Adequate utilities, access roads,drainage,and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; Finding#3 Staff finds that adequate utilities, access roads,drainage and parking either exist, or will be provided. Criteria#4 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and Finding#4 Staff finds the overall use of the property is consistent with the purposes the R2 Zone with conditions listed. Criteria#5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding#5 Staff finds the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for Medium Density Residential use. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Board may approve the conditional use with conditions as presented by staff. 2. The Board may approve the conditional use with modified or additional conditions. 3. The Board may deny the request. 4. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information. 5. The Board may table a decision for additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approving the conditional use with conditions as follows: 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof. 2. Building materials, parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shall be renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit,if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Resolution #PC98-112 as pre ented. V . Julie Klima Planner II is\commdev\boaa-pc\1998\1203\cupsands.doc RESOLUTION NO.PC98-112 A RESOLUTION OF'1iiJ CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE p�CIPAL S'TRUTFOR A CTURES ON ONE LOT CONTAINING LOCATED IN 1't1E MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R2)ZONE WHEREAS, Sand Companies,Inc. has filed an application dated received November 6, 1998, for a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Chapter 11,Land Use Regulation(Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.32, Subd. 3 (0.)for developments containing more than one principal structure per lot;and WHEREAS,this parcel is presently zoned Medium Density Residential(R2); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as; Lot 2, Block 1; Lot 2, Block 3 and Outlot A, Boulder Ridge, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County,Minnesota. WHEREAS,notice was provided and on December 3, 1998,the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director and invited members of the public to comment. NOW !'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY OHE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, WS: That the application for Conditional Use Permit No. PC-98-112 is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof. 2. Building materials, parking, screening, and landscaping will be reviewed at the time of building permit. General conformance to the layout of the site plan submitted November 17, 1998 is required. 3. Trash will be stored in full enclosed areas, including a top. 4. The private street within the project area shall be renamed and appropriately signed at the applicants cost prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 5. Any and all signage shall require an approved sign permit,if applicable. 6. Office use shall be limited to activities directly associated with the operation of the townhome project. 7. Variations to the front yard and rear yard setbacks, as depicted in the site plan dated received November 17, 1998, shall be considered approved. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, MV innesota this 3rd day of December, 1998. Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ATTEST: Community Development Director • CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO.PC98-112 I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. PC98-112, presented to and adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of December, 1998, as shown by minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of ,19 Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SEAL 4 y yi PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 2 Y Y 4MS s v Save This Packet For Your Information ''f'•',-4-2 '::`'i ` t - . Y i. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION INFORMATION LAND USE ADMINISTRATION City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 (612)445-3650 {CUPINFO.AP3} Revised 12/94 1 .,.ya }yam , I y 4-,t ..'a tT,' ,, . -'-- it k CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 0 - • CITY OF SHAKOPEE iy�.f:P INFORMATIONAL HANDOUT 5• J A conditional use is a use that is generally permitted within a zoning district, but requires t special review and limitations because if not carefully located or designed, it may have a detrimental impact on neighboring properties or the City. A conditional use permit may be granted only when the following findings are met: 1. the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity; 2. the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area; 3. adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; /it" 4. the use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and `TL-9_e_: v U -6--6 2 - 5. the use is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. ,.,,� /A2-0---i-4 In granting a conditional use permit or altering an existing conditional use permit, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or City Council may impose additional conditions to preserve the health, safety or welfare of the community or in order to implement the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. Additional criteria must be met for conditional uses within a floodplain overlay zone. These criteria are listed in Section 11.85, Subd. 13 of the Shakopee City Code. A conditional use permit shall become void if it is not used within one year of the date of final action by the city. A conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 6 or more months. i:\commdev\admin\otheecup.doc Revised 12/97 P Submittal Requirements for Conditional Use Permits SEC 11.81 SUBD.2. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Zoning Administrator on forms provided by the City and shall be accompanied by the following: A. The legal description of the property; B. A list of the names and addresses of the owners of all properties situated wholly or partially within 350 feet of the property as such appears on the records of the Scott County Recorder, or such larger area as specified in the applicable conditional use permit provisions; sf C. Evidence of ownership or an interest in the property; D. The fee; E. A plat or map of the property which shows, at a minimum, all lot lines, existing and proposed structures, driveways, and parking spaces; and F. Such other information as may be required by the City. APPLICATION FEE INFORMATION Over Height Fence $100.00 All other Conditional Use Permits $200.00 Renewal or Amendment of Existing CUP $200.00 Appeal to City Council $100.00 Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation $200.00 +$2500.00 cash deposit, all administrative costs and all consultant fees. Recording Fee (payable to Scott County) $19.50 i:\conundev\intems\beth\subreql.doc r 1 ' f Conditional Use Permit Review Process Meet with staff / / Application received by City / • i Public hearing scheduled IF application is deemed complete by staff • Staff and outside agencies review application / Staff prepares memo and recommendation(s) / J Public hearing held at Board of Adjustment and Appeals i Decision determined or tabled Note: City staff must determine the completeness of applications within 10 days of submittal. Incomplete applications will NOT be processed. Application process will take a minimum of 4 weeks. b\ewnM^'\Mr+r\!M�\akdlkl.d.p PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record • December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 3 • § 11 32 .SEC.11.32. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-2). as Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the medium density residentiak zone is to,provide an area which will allow 2.5 to 8 residential dwellings per acre and also provide a transitional zone between • r - single family residential areas and other land uses. Subd.2. Permitted Uses. Within the medium density residential zone,no structure or land shall 'A- be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. residential-structures containing two to four dwelling units; • B. existing single family dwellings; - C. public recreation; D. utility services; E. public buildings; -• F. day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons; or G. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit • A. multiple-family dwellings containing up to 6 units; B. home occupations; • C. hospitals and clinics; D. cemeteries; E. churches and other places of worship; F. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Board of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12,or any portion thereof; G. nursing homes; H. bed and breakfast inns; I, utility service structures; J. day care facilities serving from 13 through 16 persons; K. residential facilities serving from 7 through 16 persons; L. relocated structures; pp.revised n 1996 1151 -'" - £ k N,•? � ;. aal k :3` ' , i ¢. P*, k AA+... 3 11.32 .. ' _ "A$k„'"i� ..}'-4 _ � M. structures over 2-112 stories or 35 feet in height; • s x,x,,,,!- •,„'-*- N. developments containing more than one pnnapal structure per lot; or ,1„„ ' ::} :" � y O. other uses similar to those permitted by this subdivision, as determined by the Board if ', of Adjustment and Appeals. • , Subd.4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. open off-street parking spaces not to exceed three spaces per dwelling unit; it 1x B. garages; • C. fences; • !? D. gardening and other horticultural uses not involving retail sales; < • E. swimming pools; F. tennis courts; G. receive only satellite dish antennas and other antennas; H. solar equipment; or ii- d. I. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 5. Design Standards. Within the medium density residential zone, no land shall be used, H and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following • requirements: A. Density: a minimum of five and a maximum of 11 dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 60% C. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width (single-family detached): 60 feet; (two-family dwelling): 70 feet; (multiple-family dwelling): 100 feet Minimum lot depth: 100 feet Minimum front yard setback 35 feet Minimum side yard setback 10 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet Mit revised in 1996 • 1152 r - ..-'51:,' 0. • � ' eID= . c Y r -:,..:44,i11.1-...,',.%•;,,,', . :. . r41, P 53 I.a .0x'it •': ▪ F e r rAa * t r Hy , r t r^� . i . f$ armtrur •.7 3. n- ii.. •,.,. 7 ti 'i 'ay ��;:xq„„� s,.,• .� ; k�rt-�+ !^'� . �,, D * Maximum .;�. heightNo structure shall exceed thirty-five (3 5) feet in height without h out a rT „' L nal , t '" t' ; Sr:•d p -..,.:;:.......-t,,,,. _ k ,F '4xz dr a r. -". F$ t .4 P 'y• xconditiousel�m . •• ay.y Rg .'+' y a -thS d *�L4r;,;-,P.:6y}r 4 ., a}h F o t ) 1fi —. y w ri ' i" i w1 . P �? x '� t � vC�e a � "� 0 " .. a .dc+5x�„ _f„,,... i.. . Subd 6. Additional Requirements * � e K� ; s4., f a* ' A. W�Ali dwellings.shall have a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their `'•' _ :-width. All dwellings shall have a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of l(-• • •:their depth. . • i B. Alidwellipgs shall have a permanent foundation In conformance with the Minnesota• 'State Building Code. ';(Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 60, May 14, 1981; Ord. 159, •• �-J,`February 28, 1985, Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. -377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) .' - - c . - t SEC.11.33. Reserved. • - r ” y, • • • • pep nvis.d r,1996 1153 V r , PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record - December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 4 z • - x • ' • c r SAGE LANE � r. t 1 THE M�ADOWS 774i- 4 - i 3 1 f I i L�"J i L'�J I i `" I I = 1 a \ AC7:: —'-----j ■moi --_TJ R g I 4 �� -0 `I I .71'0: 1%%i%G .71—01 1 tail+ s D 1-!........7 1, i oi .( 11- I O r a 1 =- • V ' • I . O 1 al . 3 19F I � � thviiiialt. 993 • :Ra m a d �� ��_ 1 O 1 A FFF �f ::� Ba o ±¢ ,�, i itI, oio � .��. g � L1. . 1 3 pit 31,1 i lilt il?.: 6 / ice • 1 lit1 •i , %�� :i.•. j / Ar .� o � \•rsi_ !!t o R f o / le•0 9 ® 0 4.-6.1 0 I r ------ //��r� C / / / ,d' // ' it -j f O as * = I :6G • I I W 11 \y NO �N-. I I II 1 0.,.;.. I 0 o , la , a 1 ! `'r *, * I • I 111_ i' ' �l I D s F...-x ill M1 &ix: 1 Xa°,. __ _ ' 111 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I �' 1 ,rq um a iI 1 I --,.= _ • 11 r M - • 91- .-1 = — 1 R+ N 2: 1114 �� : r — m- 1, I ——� ., ' .14 0 r, , . , w * .,... I. IN% P —1 ———— r. _O_ rte- - w •a' 0, ,, 0 Da, 1 I k) ,,, < )ilillli �'' • m F �J S I _ 0 V 1 C.SA.N. NO. 11 (MARSGI--GALL RD.) > • . • n • . • ,., • - • o • z • - • ` • x • r • . ENFAMMEESEINEIHN D ■►,aza■►!2■■■■ 4*1Jlrl 1��1 °6= - min :; . RI'sl -"!"111191 BOULDER RIDGE SdCo.4wir,6•c ii!i!''} T 4 I �«''� asimumm • ■Rri TOUNWOI"IES >r...T.,...� 1 �...p...."12.7....., i i t ■.:_ . _.1:_..:._7 AhmmilL ■fihl SfN'1t1■■■■■ ru.a>ee.•+..ee0,_ r°�.• es ED•�e • PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record • December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 5 BE INFORMED ! SAND COMPANIES IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP LOW-INCOME RENTAL TOWNHOMES ON THE 7 ACRES BETWEEN CUB FOODS AND PRAIRIE LANE! THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY VALUES TODAY AND TOMORROW! PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENT NOW! ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1998 AT 7:00 PM AT CITY HALL , 129 S. HOLMES ST. IN SHAKOPEE, THE BOARD OF APPEALS WILL GRANT APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT UNLESS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT! YOUR VOICE COUNTS! WE NEED EVERY ADULT FROM THIS AREA TO KNOW THE FACTS AND TO TELL THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOW WE WANT THE SURROUNDING AREA TO BE DEVELOPED! LET'S BUILD OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TOGETHER! i I PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record • December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 6 s r 1208 Sunflower Circle Shakopee, MN 55379 December 3, 1998 Mr.Terrance Joos Mr.William Mars Mr. Gary Morke Mr. Larry Meilleur Mr. David Nummer Ms. Mary Romansky Mr. Michael Willard Shakopee City Offices 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Members of the Shakopee City Planning Commission: We are opposed to the development of the property located north of Vierling drive, and west of Marschall Road, as presented by the Sand Companies, Inc. We believe there are several issues related to the Sand Companies, Inc., proposal, that need to be considered before your decision on this property is made. These issues include: • The proposed rental property is not compatible with the surrounding area or properties; • A sufficient transition zone between the adjacent business and residential property zones, as required by city ordinance, is not provided in the proposal; • When compared to the city of Shakopee as a whole,the eastern portion of the city already has a disproportionately high number of rental units, (i.e., Hunter's Ridge, Huntington Park, Hillside Estates, Riva Ridge, et. al.); • Crime rates in the area can reasonably be expected to increase with the addition of rental properties; consequently, city costs for Police and Social Services could also be expected to increase; • The higher potential for short-term residence in rental property can reasonably be expected to strain other community resources, including public schools; • The proposed private roadway will be"24 to 26 feet in width"(as stated by a Sand Companies, Inc., spokesperson), which has potential to cause logistics problems related to city and local traffic, (i.e., Fire and other emergency vehicles, commercial delivery, refuse hauling, etc.); • Driveway lengths proposed for the properties will cause a cramped and cluttered look to a property that is along a major thoroughfare into the city, and adjacent to high traffic business properties; • Rental property appearance and long term maintenance are of concern; • Property values for current homeowners will be significantly affected by the addition of adjacent rental units, (as reported by two local Realtors and one local property appraiser). We implore you to seriously consider these and other issues before granting any conditional use permit(s), and before approving the Sand Companies, Inc., proposal for this property. Please work for a development of this property that will be of benefit to the city of Shakopee, the current business and residential neighbors to the property, and to the property residents themselves. We sincerely thank you for your consideration. Jim Skoglund Gail Skoglund PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record • December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 7 grayi CRIME FACTORS Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported Crime Index figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses which often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties,along with their residents. As- • sessing criminality and law enforcement's response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction must encompass many elements,some of which,while having significant impact,are not readily measurable nor applicable perva- sively among all locales. Geographic and demographic factors specific to each jurisdiction must be con- sidered and applied if crime assessment is to approach completeness and accuracy. There are several sources of information which may assist the responsible researcher. The U.S. Bureau of the Census data, for ex- ample,can be utilized to better understand the makeup of a locale's population. The transience of the popu- lation,its racial and ethnic makeup,its composition by age and gender,education levels,and prevalent fam- ily structures are all key factors in assessing and comprehending the crime issue. Local chambers of commerce, planning offices, or similar entities provide information regarding the economic and cultural makeup of cities and counties. Understanding a jurisdiction's industrial/economic base, its dependence upon neighboring jurisdictions, its transportation system, its economic dependence on nonresidents (such as tourists and convention attendees),its proximity to military installations, etc., all contribute to accurately gauging and interpreting the crime known to and reported by law enforcement. The strength(personnel and other resources) and the aggressiveness of a jurisdiction's law enforcement agency are also key factors. While information pertaining to the number of sworn and civilian law enforce- ment employees can be found in this publication,assessment of the law enforcement emphases is,of course, much more difficult. For example, one city may report more crime than a comparable one, not because there is more crime, but rather because its law enforcement agency through proactive efforts identifies more offenses. Attitudes of the citizens toward crime and their crime reporting practices, especially con- cerning more minor offenses, have an impact on the volume of crimes known to police. It is incumbent upon all data users to become as well educated as possible about how to categorize and quantify the nature and extent of crime in the United States and in any of the over 17,000 jurisdictions rep- resented by law enforcement contributors to this Program. Valid assessments are possible only with care- ful study and analysis of the various unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. Historically,the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by varied disciplines. Some factors which are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are: Population density and degree of urbanization. Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration. Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility,commuting patterns, and transient factors. Modes of transportation and highway system. Economic conditions, including median income,poverty level, and job availability. Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness. Climate. Effective strength of law enforcement agencies. Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement. Policies of other components of the criminal justice system(i.e.,prosecutorial,judicial,correctional, and probational). Citizens' attitudes toward crime. Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. The Uniform Crime Reports give a nationwide view of crime based on statistics contributed by local and iv PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record • December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 8 . Census of Housing-Recent Movers Page 1 of 6 U.S. CensusBureau ,.w.D Census of Housing Recent Movers We have collected Year Householder Moved Into Unit in the decennial census since 1960. Recent movers include those who moved in the 15 months prior to the decennial census. Many analysts use this item to measure transiency and neighborhood stability. In the second half of this century, we Americans have been prone to change homes frequently, especially those of us who rent. For the last four censuses, about 40 percent of renter households were recent movers. But, owners move also; about 1 in 10 were recent movers. Do you think Americans are more mobile now than we were 30 years ago? If we compare 1990 to 1960 data, the answer is "Yes" for renters, but "No" for owners. Individual States over the years have generally shown consistent patterns. The most mobile Americans have usually been found in the Rocky Mountain States, especially Nevada, and Alaska. The least likely to have moved recently have been occupants of the Northeast region; look at New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island over the decades. 1 9 9 0 Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units Total Recent movers Total Recent movers Number Percent Number Percent US 59,031,378 5,524,646 9.4% 32,916,032 13,683,377 41.6% AL 1,062,148 94,392 8.9% 444,642 193,206 43.5% AK 106,000 14,021 13.2% 82,915 48,280 58.2% AZ 879,000 111,776 12.7% 489,843 281,606 57.5% AR 620,077 59,099 9.5% 271,102 128,116 47.3% CA 5,774,899 692,531 12.0% 4,606,307 1,964,992 42.7% CO 798,607 90,439 11.3% 483,882 260,341 53.8% CT 807,559 55,386 6.9% 422,920 149,844 35.4% DE 173,874 17,540 10.1% 73,623 29,387 39.9% DC 97,085 7,955 8.2% 152,549 43,588 28.6% http://www.census.gov/hhes/housing/census/movers.html 12/21/98 Census of Housing-Recent Movers Page 2 of 6 FL 3,453,022 419,333 12.1% 1,681,847 836,565 49.7% GA 1,536,829 161,378 10.5% 829,786 403,053 48.6% HI 191,894 18,553 9.7% 164,373 63,987 38.9% ID 252,687 29,644 11.7% 108,036 57,500 53.2% IL 2,699,121 240,244 8.9% 1,503,119 549,742 36.6% IN 1,450,899 129,867 9.0% 614,456 265,117 43.1% IA 745,371 61,632 8.3% 318,954 131,440 41.2% KS 641,760 57,934 9.0% 302,966 148,580 49.0% KY 960,508 87,158 9.1% 419,274 179,621 42.8% LA 988,012 74,763 7.6% 511,257 226,113 44.2% ME 327,928 26,142 8.0% 137,384 57,851 42.1% MD 1,137,307 111,628 9.84 611,684 226,687 37.1% MA 1,331,533 86,419 6.5% 915,577 300,682 32.8% MI 2,427,472 214,631 8.8% 991,859 405,540 40.9% MN 1,183,738 107,678 9.1% 464,115 211,542 45.6% MS 651,612 56,125 8.6% 259,762 113,331 43.6% MO 1,348,733 121,707 9.0% 612,473 272,166 44.4% MT 205,938 20,847 10.1% 100,225 48,715 48.6% NE 400,416 32,282 8.1% 201,947 87,641 43.4% NV 255,490 46,877 18.3% 210,807 117,526 55.8% NH 280,415 23,488 8.4% 130,771 56,845 43.5% NJ 1,813,646 130,752 7.2% 981,065 294,354 30.0% NM 365,913 38,883 10.6% 176,796 90,472 51.2% NY 3,466,277 238,588 6.9% 3,173,045 752,403 23.7% NC 1,711,882 157,999 9.2% 805,144 351,666 43.7% ND 157,950 12,609 8.0% 82,928 36,142 43.6% OH 2,758,131 220,177 8.0% 1,329,415 516,047 38.8% OK 821,299 75,988 9.3% 384,836 206,586 53.7% OR 695,957 85,284 12.3% 407,356 193,778 47.6% PA 3,176,693 206,055 6.5% 1,319,273 431,029 32.7% RI 224,829 16,095 7.2% 153,148 52,451 34.2% SC 878,824 80,821 9.2% 379,220 167,826 44.3% SD 171,148 15,550 9.1% 87,886 36,722 41.8% TN 1,261,048 121,376 9.6% 592,677 271,106 45.7% TX 3,695,184 358,900 9.7% 2,375,753 1,262,940 53.2% UT 366,010 36,759 10.0% 171,263 95,568 55.8% VT 145,368 13,692 9.4% 65,282 28,165 43.1% VA 1,519,644 158,203 10.4% 772,186 342,819 44.4% WA 1,171,714 141,715 12.1% 700,717 350,308 50.0% WV 510,058 35,078 6.9% 178,499 70,482 39.5% WI 1,215,324 96,138 7.9% 606,794 243,222 40.1% WY 114,545 12,515 10.9% 54,294 29,687 54.7% 1 9 8 0 Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units Total Recent movers Total Recent movers Number Percent Number Percent US 51,796,395 6,126,736 11.8% 28,593,278 12,135,188 42.4% AL 941,237 107,051 11.4% 400,619 172,676 43.1% AK 76,659 16,515 21.5% 54,804 34,282 62.6% AZ 653,825 129,331 19.8% 303,207 181,532 59.9% http://www.census.gov/hhes/housing/census/movers.html 12/21/98 Census of Housing-Recent Movers Page 3 of 6 AR 575,469 74,323 12.9% 240,596 114,034 47.4% CA 4,825,384 689,490 14.3% 3,804,482 1,725,854 45.4% CO 684,417 127,991 18.7% 376,832 222,747 59.1% CT 699,259 61,216 8.8% 394,419 136,666 34.6% DE 143,077 15,367 10.7% 64,004 28,272 44.2% DC 89,828 8,371 9.3% 163,315 42,438 26.0% FL 2,557,184 423,699 16.6% 1,187,070 580,025 48.9% GA 1,216,432 154,308 12.7% 655,220 292,824 44.7% --HI 151,916 19,292 12.7% 142,136 59,549 41.9% ID 233,388 37,781 16.2% 90,719 55,704 61.45 IL 2,534,762 260,079 10.3% 1,510,612 572,902 37.91 IN 1,381,924 150,696 10.9% 545,126 253,619 46.5% IA 756,521 80,934 10.7% 296,512 135,468 45.7% KS 612,433 75,453 12.3% 259,806 133,767 51.5% KY 884,869 98,999 11.2% 378,486 168,278 44.5% LA 925,168 115,337 12.5% 486,620 211,905 43.5% ME 280,380 27,092 9.7% 114,804 52,453 45.7% MD 905,667 91,633 10.1% 555,198 209,233 37.7% MA 1,169,807 91,442 7.8% 862,910 279,335 32.4% MI 2,321,972 248,609 10.7% 873,241 389,023 44.5% MN 1,035,738 117,894 11.4% 409,484 197,806 48.3% MS 587,712 68,030 11.6% 239,457 101,028 42.2% MO 1,248,801 140,088 11.2% 544,598 241,132 44.3% MT 194,580 29,942 15.4% 89,162 48,945 54.9% NE 390,924 46,139 11.8% 180,476 84,788 47.0% NV 181,255 39,347 21.7% 123,072 75,462 61.3% NH 218,840 25,362 11.6% 104,653 45,934 43.9% NJ 1,580,120 132,668 8.4% 968,474 293,653 30.3% NM 300,568 50,431 16.8% 140,898 79,732 56.6% NY 3,083,170 243,174 7.9% 3,257,259 838,562 25.7% NC 1,397,426 153,592 11.0% 645,865 267,444 41.4% ND 156,515 20,431 13.1% 71,149 35,560 50.0% OH 2,623,022 258,496 9.9% 1,210,806 514,468 42.5% OK 790,606 113,301 14.3% 327,955 182,397 55.6% OR 645,952 99,789 15.4% 345,641 195,490 56.6% PA 2,950,662 227,398 7.7% 1,268,944 438,330 34.5% RI 199,075 17,518 8.8% 139,515 48,893 35.0% SC 722,559 82,959 11.5% 307,422 129,598 42.2% SD 168,002 21,150 12.6% 74,521 35,775 48.0% TN 1,110,083 126,387 11.4% 508,422 229,282 45.1% TX 3,169,588 455,887 14.4% 1,759,679 978,406 55.6% UT 317,207 48,324 15.2% 131,396 80,887 61.6% VT 122,560 13,200 10.8% 55,765 25,254 45.3% VA 1,221,590 149,503 12.2% 641,483 284,982 44.4% WA 1,011,322 153,835 15.2% 529,188 292,773 55.3% WV 504,921 51,976 10.3% 181,390 71,406 39.4% WI 1,127,367 108,967 9.7% 524,894 233,846 44.6% WY 114,652 25,939 22.6% 50,972 30,769 60.4% 1 9 7 0 Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units Total Recent movers Total Recent movers Number Percent Number Percent http://www.census.gov/hhes/housing/census/movers.html 12/21/98 . Census of Housing- Recent Movers Page 4 of 6 US 39,885,092 4,288,403 10.8% 23,559,658 9,372,311 39.8% AL 689,390 77,673 11.3% 344,723 139,722 40.5% AK 39,730 9,261 23.3% 39,329 24,278 61.7% AZ 352,104 68,575 19.5% 187,053 104,735 56.0% AR 410,437 49,915 12.2% 204,987 92,675 45.2% CA 3,611,630 454,154 12.6% 2,959,875 1,423,712 48.1% CO 438,133 65,838 15.0% 252,795 139,989 55.4% CT 583,410 45,484 7.8% 349,640 113,724 32.5% DE 112,050 11,642 10.4% 52,754 21,938 41.6% DC 74,040 5,449 7.4% 188,498 57,726 30.6% FL 1,566,948 259,881 16.6% 717,834 356,088 49.6% GA 836,511 113,538 13.6% 532,714 229,801 43.1% HI 95,249 12,057 12.7% 107,840 48,195 44.7% ID 153,587 21,018 13.7% 65,373 36,021 55.1% IL 2,080,907 198,598 9.5% 1,419,876 491,413 34.6% IN 1,153,240 121,896 10.6% 456,203 205,842 45.1% IA 642,662 62,690 9.8% 253,649 107,431 42.4% KS 502,578 51,957 10.3% 224,786 112,195 49.9% KY 657,993 69,239 10.5% 325,672 140,110 43.0% LA 663,833 69,609 10.5% 388,262 154,368 39.8% ME 212,212 20,307 9.6% 90,711 35,726 39.4% MD 690,246 61,833 9.0% 484,480 185,693 38.3% MA 1,012,000 75,726 7.5% 747,557 228,988 30.6% MI 1,974,736 211,246 10.7% 678,319 304,067 44.8% MN 824,595 80,597 9.8% 329,351 150,385 45.7% MS 421,915 50,700 12.0% 214,852 84,271 39.2% MO 1,021,168 112,936 11.1% 499,399 213,077 42.7% MT 142,774 16,969 11.9% 74,530 38,330 51.4% NE 314,315 31,914 10.2% 158,992 68,570 43.1% NV 93,682 19,716 21.0% 66,370 39,188 59.0% NH 153,774 17,245 11.2% 71,604 27,872 38.9% NJ 1,350,052 115,895 8.6% 868,130 252,063 29.0% NM 192,235 26,898 14.0% 97,154 54,070 55.7% NY 2,795,566 221,625 7.9% 3,118,183 688,211 22.1% NC 987,063 107,988 10.9% 522,501 204,290 39.1% ND 124,231 11,204 9.0% 57,382 26,688 46.5% OH 2,225,854 214,006 9.6% 1,063,519 429,315 40.4% OK 588,868 73,920 12.6% 261,935 143,282 54.7% OR 457,024 62,240 13.6% 234,607 129,213 55.1% PA 2,549,001 178,394 7.0% 1,156,409 356,125 30.8% RI 169,392 12,330 7.3% 123,196 37,154 30.2% SC 485,412 60,803 12.5% 248,946 96,140 38.6% SD 139,687 13,029 9.3% 61,120 25,829 42.3% TN 809,159 89,061 11.0% 403,802 173,805 43.0% TX 2,222,060 287,036 12.9% 1,211,513 639,081 52.8% UT 206,655 21,961 10.6% 91,279 50,868 55.7% VT 91,285 10,440 11.4% 40,813 16,145 39.6% VA 863,071 91,339 10.6% 527,564 224,040 42.5% WA 738,251 97,624 13.2% 367,336 207,922 56.6% WV 376,785 34,374 9.1% 170,429 61,881 36.3% WI 918,152 80,790 8.8% 410,652 161,633 39.4% WY 69,440 9,783 14.1% 35,160 18,426 52.4% 1 9 6 0 http://www.census.gov/hhes/housing/census/movers.html 12/21/98 Census of Housing-Recent Movers Page 5 of 6 Owner-occupied housing units Renter-occupied housing units Total Recent movers Total Recent movers Number Percent Number Percent US 32,796,720 4,011,702 12.2% 20,227,155 7,774,224 38.4% AL 528,031 68,410 13.0% 356,085 146,122 41.0% AK 27,679 7,154 25.8% 29,571 19,426 65.7% AZ 234,347 56,365 24.1% 132,283 77,858 58.9% AR 321,219 40,979 12.8% 202,333 92,347 45.6% CA 2,910,093 505,113 17.4% 2,072,015 1,057,790 51.1% CO 337,565 55,138 16.3% 191,854 100,227 52.2% CT 465,672 46,071 9.9% 287,064 85,526 29.8% DE 85,971 10,669 12.4% 42,611 16,516 38.8% DC 75,532 6,862 9.1% 176,534 61,700 35.0% FL 1,047,217 219,797 21.0% 503,197 264,896 52.6% GA 601,631 81,005 13.5% 468,694 191,363 40.8% HI 62,937 8,628 13.7% 90,127 38,576 42.8% ID 136,746 21,675 15.9% 57,093 31,242 54.7% IL 1,782,127 195,937 11.0% 1,302,844 442,910 34.0% IN 986,098 111,341 11.3% 401,780 171,177 42.6% IA 581,352 63,332 10.9% 260,005 96,396 37.1% KS 463,350 55,246 11.9% 209,549 96,945 46.3% KY 547,750 63,020 11.5% 304,117 127,070 41.8% LA 526,366 66,463 12.6% 365,978 140,975 38.5% ME 186,379 17,466 9.4% 93,976 34,514 36.7% MD 556,391 62,495 11.2% 306,610 115,332 37.6% MA 857,436 76,397 8.9% 677,549 177,384 26.2% MI 1,665,603 172,611 10.4% 573,476 248,824 43.4% MN 714,960 75,393 10.5% 277,021 109,967 39.7% MS 327,894 39,302 12.0% 240,176 93,277 38.8% MO 874,532 109,526 12.5% 485,522 196,807 40.5% MT 129,399 17,687 13.75 72,841 36,083 49.5% NE 280,867 31,209 11.1% 152,581 59,242 38.8% NV 51,491 12,664 24.6% 40,029 24,150 60.3% NH 117,232 12,184 10.4% 62,788 20,354 32.4% NJ 1,107,841 111,670 10.1% 698,598 195,904 28.0% NM 163,926 33,098 20.2% 87,283 51,716 59.3% NY 2,350,265 218,555 9.3% 2,898,445 651,574 22.5% NC 724,631 80,656 11.1% 480,084 188,583 39.3% ND 118,566 12,743 10.7% 54,796 21,697 39.6% OH 1,922,686 216,276 11.2% 929,871 376,688 40.5% OK 492,263 66,494 13.5% 242,330 122,124 50.4% OR 386,608 58,559 15.1% 171,606 90,252 52.6% PA 2,289,741 178,300 7.8% 1,061,098 314,444 29.6% RI 140,336 12,150 8.7% 116,999 31,211 26.7% SC 345,756 41,203 11.9% 257,795 95,905 37.2% SD 130,864 15,309 11.7% 63,957 24,357 38.1% TN 639,600 78,386 12.3% 363,701 153,468 42.2% TX 1,799,477 269,446 15.0% 978,639 495,833 50.7% UT 173,296 23,324 13.5% 68,236 36,176 53.0% VT 73,115 6,804 9.3% 37,617 12,754 33.9% VA 658,078 79,367 12.1% 414,762 167,798 40.5% WA 612,443 84,899 13.9% 281,725 147,858 52.5% WV 335,068 29,586 8.8% 186,074 66,930 36.0% http://www.census.gov/hhes/housing/census/movers.html 12/21/98 Census of Housing-Recent Movers Page 6 of 6 WI 786,617 73,702 9.4% 359,725 133,663 37.2% WY 61,676 11,036 17.9% 37,511 20,293 54.1% Contact Bob Bonnette at 301-457-3237 or mail to rbonnett@census.gov f information on the Census of Housing. Go To Census of Housing Go To Housing Statistics • CensusHomo : Last Revised: Wednesday, 22-Apr-98 10:38:21 http://www.census.gov/hhes/housing/census/movers.html 12/21/98 PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record . December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 9 • Crime Reported w/in 6 Rental Prop.s .... . . .. ..._...... .. ...... Shakopee 1/1-97 thru 12/31/97 ohcinpNch4 :,prowler.:,, .Asst Bmsvf 100% _ ` ,n Smells 95%-_-----. FightBrGJv — – -' 85%=-------- - - -- - - _.$. :$ 80% - - - - 75%=----- -- ------ - -- -- - y 70%- Average 8 23% 65°2 = = 60% : -- 50%=-_--------- __.... - _}JvCornpAbot ,: J 45% 7 - ...---...-_.._ •- . 35%+ a Assault Y Famil Off 30% I__:. .-_. Obstructing ,; >,25/0 - - J 20% ' f t Accident:: - -------- }, 15% -- ---1-- - -- - - - - -- ---- ... - - -- - 10% -4---•--- ------ - ._ ._. 1... _...__._._._..._._._._._._.._.. 500 --�----�-------- - -- -�--------._.�---- fl T �.... 1......._._.. _..-_ . _ _ .._._i . ._. �. I _\iiiiti: ----- -. _..-- .--...----------- 0% 11111 I I (If —A ' � H1 1 I�HIIi1111 if I III I II H Hill Accident Lost Utilities Bldg check Fire Call MisMischie Runaway void FightBrGJv AsstBmsvl Crime Description Statistics shown for the following properties: Arlington Ridge Valley Green, ShawneeTrail Clifton, Hunter's Ridge, and Garden Lane Crime Statistics provided by Shakopee Police Department 1-1-97 thru 12-31-97 FROM DATE: 1/01/97 TO DATE: 12/31/97 Police Arlington Valley Shawnee Hunter's Garden Shakopee %of Code Type Ridge Haven Trail Clifton Ridge Lane Citywide Citywide ACCO E Accident 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 25.00% ACMV E ACCIDENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0.00% ALRM E Alarm 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ASLT E Assault 0 0 0 1 1 1 10 30.00% ASTM E Asst motor 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ASTO E Assist 0th 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ASTP E Assist Pub 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% BITE E AnimalBite 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% DEAT E Death 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% DIST E Dist Peace 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% DOME E Domestic 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% DWIX E DWI 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% FIRE E Fire call 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% HAZD E Hazards 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% LOST E Lost 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% MEDI E Medical 6 1 0 3 19 4 351 9.40% MEDS E MedSuicide 0 00 0 1 0 8 12.50% SUSP E Suspicious 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% TRAN E Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ACMV F Acc my 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0.00% ALRM F Alarm 0 0 0 0 1 0 24 4.17% ARSN F arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% DIST F Dis Peace _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% FIRE F Fire 5 0 1 0 1 1 147 5.44% HAZD F hazards 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.00% LOST F lost 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% MEDI F medical 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% SMEL F Smells 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100.00% UTIL F Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% ACCO P ACC Person 0 0, 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ACFA P Acc Fatal 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ACMV P Accident 2 1 2 3 1 0 521 1.73% ACPD P 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ALRM P Alarms 5 0 0 1 0 0 484 1.24% ANIM P Animal 0 3 2 0 1 2 225 3.56% ARSN P Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ASLT P Assault 3 0 2 13 2 6 127 20.47% ASTL P Assist Loc 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.00% ASTM P Asst motor 1 0 0 0 0 0 129 0.78% ASTO P Assist Oth 3 0 0 0 10 1 180 7.78% ASTP P Assist Pub 16 3 418 26 3 598 11.71% BITE P AnimalBite 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0.00% BLDG P Bldg check _ 0 0 0 0 0 1 29 3.45% BURG P Burglary 2 0 0 1 2 0 47 10.64% BURN P Burn 00 0 0 0 0 15 0.00% CIVI P Civil 4 1 2 2 4 1 97 14.43%, CONS P Conservat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% CSCX P CrimSexCon 1 0 0 0 2 0 19 15.79% DEAT P Death 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.00% DIST P Dis Peace 7 4 1 3 4 5 178 13.48% Crime Statistics provided by Shakopee Police Department 1-1-97 thru 12-31-97 DOME P Domestic 10 3 7 16 7 6 219 22.37% DRUG P Narcotic 1 1 1 0 0 1 141 2.84% DWIX P DWI 0 1 0 2 0 0 72 4.17% ESCP P Escape 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ESCT P Escort 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0.00% FAMI P Family Off 2 0 0 6 1 3- 43 27.91% FIRE P Fire Call 1 0 0 1 0 0 26 7.69% FOUN P Found 2 1 1 3 2 255 3.53% FRAU P FraudExtor 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0.00% GOVT P PubOrdCrim 2 • 0 0 4 82 7.32% HARC P Har Calls 5 1 1 2 10 1 111 18.02% HAZD P Hazards 2 0 0 2 1 0 107 4.67% HUNT P HuntShoot 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.00% INFO P Informatio 4 3 3 5 3 3 233 9.01% KIDN P Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% LIQU P Liquor law 1 0 0 1 0 0 52 3.85% LITT P Littering 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 5.56% LOST P Lost 2. 0 1 2 0 0 68 7.35% MEDI P Medicals 1 3 0 0 1, 0 63 7.94% MEDS P MedSuicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.00% MISM P MisMischie 1 0 0 4 0 1 41 14.63% MISO P MiscOfficr 2 0 0 0 0 0 50 4.00% MISP P Mis Public 13, 3 10 10 5 6 469 10.02% NOIS P Noise 12 2 2 35 15 14 346 23.12% OBSC P Obscenity 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.00% OBST P Obstructng 1 0 0 1 2 0 16 25.00% OPEN P Open door 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 13.33% OTHR P Other 1 0 1 1 0 1 33 12.12% PARK P ParkingOff 9 0 5 2 0 5 163, 12.88% PRNK P Prank 911 3 1 0 2 3 0 91 9.89% PROP P PropDamage 2 0 1 2 3 ' 1 104 8.65% PROW P Prowler 1 0 0 1 1 0 35 8.57% REPO P Repo veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.00% + ROBB P Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0.00% RUNA P Runaway 2 2 0 4 0 1 108 8.33% SLMP P Slumper 0 0 1 0 1 0 18 11.11% SMEL P Smells 0 0 0 0 0 0. 2 0.00% STMV P Stolen MV 1 0 0 3 4 1 68 13.24% STOP P 10-38/6 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0.00% STPR P StolenProp 0 0 1 1 0 0 9 22.22% SUSP P Suspicious 4 1 9 7 10 4 461 7.59% THFT P Theft 12 0 3 4 13 2 687 4.95% THRT P Threat 4 0 0 4 0 2 57 17.54% TRAF P Traffic 2 1 1 3 1 6 466 3.00% IRAN P Transfers 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 10.00% TRES P Trespass 0 0 0 2 4 0 88 6.82% UTIL P Utilities 2 1 0 3 1 1 105 7.62% VAND P Vandalism 6 0 0 4 1, 3 247 5.67% VOID P void 0 0 0 1 0 1 61 3.28% WARR P Warrant 1 1 3 2 1 2 61 16.39% WEAP P Weapons 0 0 0 2 0 0 25 8.00% WEAT P Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% 9302 P LostPropty 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9311 P FoundAniml 0 0 0' 0 0 0 1 0.00%_ Crime Statistics provided by Shakopee Police Department 1-1-97 thru 12-31-97 9312 P FoundPropty 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9314 P AbandonVeh 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9730 P Medical 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9800 P A10PubCmp 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 20.00% 9801 P Domestic 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 20.00% 9802 P PublicAsst 0 0 00 0 0 2 0.00% 9811 P AnimalComp 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% 9818 P CivilDsput 0 0 0, 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9822 P FightBrGJv 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100.00% 9823 P FirewksCmp 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9826 P JvCompAbot 0 0 0 0 • 3 0 7 42.86% 9827 P Loitering 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9832 P NoiseCompl 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 14.29% 9835 P PedlrSolct 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9836 P Prowler 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 100.00% 9841 P ShootrHunt 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9846 P Suspicion 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.00% 9849 P VehCmpNChg 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 100.00% 9852 P Informaton 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00% 9902 P 911 PrankCl 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9904 P AsstAirAmb 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9905 P AsstBP 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9906 P AsstBrnsvl 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 100.00% 9911 P AsstMSP 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 50.00% 9929 P EscortFnrl 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9934 P HdgnPrchls 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0.00% 9966 P UtilProblm 0 0 0 0, 0 0 3 0.00% 9968 P VehRepoNot 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% 9971 P WarrSearch 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9973 P Void 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 170 39 65 188 179 90 8883 8.23% %of TOTAL= 1.91% 0.44% 0.73% 2.12% 2.02% 1.01% Crime Statistics provided by Shakopee Police Department PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record ' December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 10 Crime Reported w/in 6 Rental Prop.s Shakopee 1/1-98 thru 6/19/98 X100% - :=' 95% - - - - - - - - 90%= = 85%— - -- -- - to 80%= - - — Assist Lac — ---- ...:..........::...... ........... 75% 700%— - ---- •1 60%= - - - I--- -- ---------------------- -- ---------- ------------ --------------------- w 55c/o— ---- E50% ---.-- Family Off i Average = 9.28% .L 45% _ . 35% * • 30% $ Assault — Assault !- Domestic ._ Runaway 250 I Misc Public Noise 0 15% 10%= -- ✓...1__�r'- ,1IAN _._ .... 5%_ .._.._.__._._._..__.__�._._._._. — ...._._..... ., 0% -trl ttttt 'Ilttttl lttt II /iII I t IIl �lll l ! lil ; llllil�ll ! III ; tllllllll I Itt4 Accident Hazards Assist pub Alarms Bldg check Narcotic Hazards MisMischie Propoamage Theft Weapons Crime Description Statistics shown for the following properties: Arlington Ridge, Valley Green, Shawnee Trail Clifton, Hunters Ridge, and Garden Lane Crime Statistics provided by Shakopee Police Department • 1-1-98 thru 6-19-98 FROM DATE: 1/01/98 TO DATE: 6/19/98 Police Arlington Valley Shawnee Hunter's Garden Shakopee %of Code Type Ridge Haven Trail Clifton Ridge Lane Citywide Citywide ACCO E Accident 0, 0 0 0, 0 0 4 0.00% ACMV E ACCIDENT _ 00 0 0 0 0 28 0.00% ASLT E Assault 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 25.00% ASTP E Assist Pub 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% CSCX E CrimSexCon _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% DEAT E Death 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.00% DIST E Dist Peace 0 0 0 0, 0 0 3 0.00% DOME E Domestic 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 2 0.00% FIRE E Fire call 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00% HAZD E Hazards 0 0 0, 0 0 0 1 0.00% MEDI E Medical 1 0 0 5 3 1 164 6.10% MEDS E MedSuicide 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 8.33% MISO E MiscOfficr 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% SLMP E Slumper 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% SMEL E Smells 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% SUSP E Suspicious 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00% ACMV F acc my 0 0 0 0i_ 0 0 1 0.00% ALRM F Alarm 0' 0 0 0 0 0 21 0.00%, ASTP F Assist pub 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 _ 0.00% DOME F Domestic 0, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% FIRE F Fire 0 0 0 0 0 1 47 2.13% HAZD F Hazards 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% INFO F Informatio 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% MEDI F medical 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% NOIS F Noise 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ACCO P ACC Person 0 0, 0 0 0 0 2 0.00% ACMV P Accident 3 0 0 0 3 0 200 3.00%, ALRM P Alarms 0 0 0 1 0 0 293 0.34% ANIM P Animal 0= 1 0 0 0 0 97 1.03% ARSN P Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% ASLT P Assault 3 0 1 9 1 1 53 28.30% ASTL P Assist Loc 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 75.00% ASTM P Asst motor 0 0 0 1 0 0 68 1.47% ASTO P Assist 0th 1 2 0, 2 3 1 90 10.00% ASTP P Assist Pub 9 3 0 15 10 4 321 12.77% BITE P AnimalBite 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 14.29% BLDG P Bldg check 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0.00% BURG P Burglary 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0.00% BURN P Burn 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% CIVI P Civil 2 0 2 1 3 0 47 17.02% CONS P Conservat 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% CSCX P CrimSexCon 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 4 0.00% DEAT P Death 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.00% DIST P Dis Peace 6 0 1 2 4 5 106 16.98% DOME P Domestic 4 3 1 7 9 2 102 25.49% DRUG P Narcotic 2 0 0 0 0 0 46 4.35% DWIX P DWI 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0.00% ESCT P Escort 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0.00% FAMI P Family off 2 0 1 0 3 0 13 46.15% FIRE P Fire Call 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 8.33% Crime Statistics provided by Shakopee Police Department 1-1-98 thru 6-19-98 FOUN P Found 0 3 1 1 2 1 69 11.59% FRWK P Fireworks 0 0 0 0 0 0, 4 0.00% GOVT P PubOrdCrim 6 2 0 0 4 1 62 20.97% HARC P Har Calls 0 1 0 2 3 1 59 11.86% HAZD P Hazards 2 0 0 4 0 0 59 10.17% HUNT P HuntShoot 1 0 0 0 7 14.29% INFO P Informatio 2 0 0 1 3 0 118 5.08% KIDN P Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% LIQU P Liquor law 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 18.18% LITT P Littering 0 0 0 1 0 0 14 7.14% LOST P Lost 1 0 0 0 1 r 0 33 6.06% MEDI P Medicals 0 0 1 1 0 0 25 8.00% MEDS P MedSuicide 0 1 0 0' 0 0 6 16.67% MISM P MisMischie 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 5.26% MISO P MiscOfficr 0 0- 0 0 0 0 4 0.00% MISP P Mis Public 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 25.00% NOIS P Noise 12 0 2 10 11 4 157 24.84% OBSC P Obscenity 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% OBST P Obstructing 0, 0 1 1 0 0 15 13.33% OPEN P Open door 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.00% PARK P ParkingOff 2 1 1 3 0 2 84 10.71% PRNK P Prank 911 4 0 1 2 2 2 65 16.92% PROP P PropDamage , 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 7.14% PROW P Prowler 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 14.29% REPO P Repo veh 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 11.11%, RUNA P Runaway 0 97 0 1 1 0 38 28.95% SLMP P Slumper 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0.00% SMEL P Smells 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.00% STMV P Stolen MV 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0.00% STOP P 10-38/6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 14.29% SUSP P Suspicious 6 2 2 5 4 2 248 8.47% THFT P Theft 6 1 0 3 4 5 259 7.34% THRT P Threat 1 0 0 3 0 1 31 16.13% TRAF P Traffic 0 1 1 3 2 1 242 3.31% TRAN P Transfers 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 8.33% TRES P Trespass 2 2 0 0 0 0 39 10.26% UTIL P Utilities 1 0 0 0 0 0 83 1.20%, VAND P Vandalism 6 0 1 6 12 3 157 17.83% VOID P void 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0.00% WARR P Warrant 0 0 0 1 0 1 35 5.71% WEAP P Weapons 0 0 0 0, 0 0 14 0.00% 9301 P LostAniml 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9311 P FoundAniml 0 0 0, 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9811 P AnimalComp 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9835 P PedlrSolct 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 9966 P UtilProblm 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 88 33 20 95 92 41 3975 9.28% %of TOTAL= 2.21% 0.83% 0.50% 2.39%_ 2.31% 1.03% _ Crime Statistics provided by Shakopee Police Department • PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 11 Homes Adjacent to Arlington Ridge Change in Assessed Value '97 to '99 16.00% • 15.00%-- - -- -- - — - - - - 14.00%--- -------------- - ------------------ --------- 13.00%- - 12.00%-- - 11.00%7. _11.00%- ---------------- - - ------------------------------------------ - 1,'3)10.00%- --- - C9.00%- --- - -- ----- --- - --- -- ---- - -- - ..._.. -- 03 8.00%- — 7.00%------ - _._._._._.-._._......._....____..._._._._.__._._._._._....__._....._-_._..............__.-._..._._._._._._._._.__._...._ o 6.00%- - 5.00%- 4.00%-..- Average = 0.59% 3.00%- - -_._ 2.00% 1.00%- 0.00% - I I I I f I f I f r I I I I 1266 Po1k1262 Po1k1274 Po1k1270 Po1k1282 Po1k1278 Po1k1290 Po1k1286 Polk Property Location Data provided by Scott County Assessor's Office Homes 1 Block East of Arlington Ridge Change in Assessed Value '97 to '99 16.00% - 14.00%---- -------- -- - -------- -- -- - 12.00%------ - - ----._., . .. ... N11.00%- - -- - - - - )10.00%------ - - - C 9.00%- - - - - - 8.00%- - J 7.00%- o 6.00% 5.00%- - - 4.00%- - 3.00% 2.00%- 1.00%- - - - 0.00% I I ! I I I I I I 1221 Polk 1229 Polk 1239 Polk 1247 Polk 1281 Polk Property Location Data provided by Scott County Assessor's Office Homes 2 Blocks East of Arlington Ridge Change in Assessed Value '97 to '99 16.00% • 15.00%- - - ---- — - -- --- -- - -, 14.00%- --- — -- - - -- -- --- - --- ---- 12.00%- -- -- - 11.00%- - - - -- - - - L3)10.00%--------------- - ----�----------�-�---------------._._. ...-------- ------�----------------------�-----�--- !C 9.00% - 0 8.00%;...._._.. J 7.00%- -. 6.00%--------------------.._....--____ _______---- --__._._._._._._._.._......_....... _.-..................._ -------------- 5.00%- - - - 4.00%-._.__... _____-------___------_____ ___------------ ---- -- ........................_._-----...--- ---_------------------- 2.00%-- ------- --- ----- --------- ._._...._._._.__._.__._.__.... ----- ----- ---- ------- 1.00%- 0.00% 1204 Polk 1224 Polk 1244 Polk 1274 Polk 1298 Polk Property Location Data provided by Scott County Assessor's Office ANALYSIS FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO ARLINGTON RIDGE ASSESSED VALUATION Overall 1998% 1999% % Address 1997 1998 Change 1999 Change Change 1266 Polk $65,000 $65,400 0.62% $65,400 0.00% 0.62% 1264 Polk $68,500 $68,900 0.58% $68,900 0.00% 0.58% 1262 Polk $79,800 $80,200 ' 0.50% $80,200 0.00% 0.50% 1260 Polk $56,200 $56,600 0.71% $56,600 0.00% 0.71% 1274 Polk $66,000 $66,400 0.61% $66,400 0.00% 0.61% 1272 Polk $77,800 $78,200 0.51% $78,200 0.00% 0.51% 1270 Polk $79,700 $80,100 0.50% $80,100 0.00% 0.50% 1268 Polk $63,700 $64,100 0.63% $64,100 0.00% 0.63% 1282 Polk $63,700 $64,100 0.63% $64,100 0.00% 0.63% 1280 Polk $67,800 $68,200 0.59% $68,200 0.00% 0.59% 1278 Polk $77,400 $77,800 0.52% $77,800 0.00% 0.52% 1276 Polk $64,400 $64,800 0.62% $64,800 0.00% 0.62% 1290 Polk $62,300 $62,700 0.64% $62,700 0.00% 0.64% 1288 Polk $81,400 $81,800 0.49% $81,800 0.00% 0.49% 1286 Polk $72,800 $73,200 0.55% $73,200 0.00% 0.55% 1284 Polk $57,900 $58,300 0.69% $58,300 0.00% 0.69% Avg %Change= 0.59% ANALYSIS FOR PROPERTIES 1 BLOCK EAST OF ARLINGTON RIDGE ASSESSED VALUATION Overall 1998% 1999 % % Address 1997 1998 Change 1999 Change Change 1221 Polk $107,700 $110,800 2.88% $116,000 4.69% 7.71% 1227 Polk $86,600 $86,300 -0.35% $91,600 6.14% 5.77% 1229 Polk $79,400 $80,800 1.76% $85,100 5.32% 7.18% 1237 Polk $83,600 $84,900 1.56% $88,400 4.12% 5.74% 1239 Polk $82,500 $83,800 1.58% $87,400 4.30% 5.94% 1245 Polk $103,400 $106,800 3.29% $111,200 4.12% 7.54% 1247 Polk $115,600 $120,400 4.15% $125,800 4.49% 8.82% 1263 Polk $99,200 $102,600 3.43% $107,100 4.39% 7.96% 1281 Polk $90,800 $96,900 6.72% $101,000 4.23% 11.23% Avg%Change=1 7.54% Data provided by Scott County Assessor's Office ANALYSIS FOR PROPERTIES 2 BLOCKS EAST OF ARLINGTON RIDGE ASSESSED VALUATION Overall 1998% 1999% % Address 1997 1998 Change 1999 Change Change 1204 Polk $97,400 $101,200 3.90% $105,400 4.15% 8.21% 1214 Polk $101,400 $107,500 6.02% $111,900 4.09% 10.36% 1224 Polk $108,200 $112,000 3.51% $116,400 3.93% 7.58% 1234 Polk $98,700 $102,800 . 4.15% $106,800 3.89% 8.21% 1244 Polk $97,500 $101,300 3.90% $105,500 4.15% 8.21% 1254 Polk $99,600 $109,600 10.04% $114,300 4.29% 14.76% 1274 Polk $94,500 $98,300 4.02% $102,500 4.27% 8.47% 1284 Polk $111,100 $114,700 3.24% $119,300 4.01% 7.38% 1298 Polk $111,200 $115,600 3.96% $119,700 3.55% 7.64% Avg%Change 1 8.98% Data provided by Scott County Assessor's Office s . PRAIRIE ESTATES AND MEADOW ESTATES SHAKOPEE, MN Memorandum for the Record December 28, 1998 ENCLOSURE 12 Ann Mulcrone 2384 Pinewood Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 612-496-3593 December 28, 1998 Board of Adjustments and Appeals City of Shakopee As recently as March of 1998, I sold property on Prairie Lane which abuts the area now being considered for varience. My buyers understood that the zoning for the land abutting theirs was set and had every reason to believe that no varience in its use would be granted. I have worked in the business of buying and selling residential real estate for more than 25 years. This includes thirteen years in national employee relocation. I have held both Minnesota and Missouri Real Estate Brokers license and a Minneota Appraisers license. As a director of relocation residential properties, I studied the appraisals of each home (several hundred each year), and know for a fact that house values are discounted for adverse locations. This definitely includes reduced value for homes located in close proximity to mid and high density rental properties. Low density multi-family dwellings such as townhomes and condos and low density apartments which have association covenants that follow specific open-space and maintenance guidelines, would be acceptable to the location in question. Low density, multi-family dwellings have much less affect than high density, subsidized rental complexes that are crowded on to inadequate space. This location does not have adequate space. Just one of the critical requirements for a project as is currently being proposed is the total lack of public transportation to the location. Low-income and subsidized dwellings need convenient public transportation. Without it the result will be large numbers of "near-death " and eventually dead junkers crammed into the only available surrounding ground area. I have looked at the location from an appraiser's and real estate broker's perspective and there is no question in my opinion that the proposed varience is inappropriate. This particular location would have better use as originally zoned for R2 subdivision 1 and 2 and not given the conditional use permit. ; ( Ann Mulcrone Agent, Edina Realty .. m ■ f) ■ o ■ m ■ '•1 ■ CI ■ I ■ - ■ '- ■ 7C ■ r ■ C SAGE LANE ® ® I THE M�ADgUJS -171H ADDITION// .. �N LawJ 1 LTJ Iw IN I 1 i 1 I 1 0 \/a i HI I I I 1 / N !Li I / \ —'---- 1 1 42134 1 J i .1 IP P i ¢ ��� i E n A I .41 . , r/. .!E . ,....,,+., g.-; Q ; Q 1 I % 1r r VA' ;i m `q \Mc1 1 - Miii 8 ;q 41 e iiilli 1 11 N% ' . . 4., i ti, . 1 illiil �s 0 IIS lip 11 7 / 1 I Kf g / % i'�� � :'� X14 1 cn 0 cet �l / o ,Gfy. f�% \ .. T 6 1 i 4 9 i A / .!.A .? ,1 3 <-/ / 47: 1 lal VI 1231-h ver, iL. N;c2 t — A vg y• i lic --b• / io,?;,6 i ►L�`,. CV y / -frf., . -- ©11"� N , - i 00 V rN� / a pl z70%-443.&/-�i ti I © m / ��>` ,� 1 � f y/ \ \ yap" r----, I n I ,����;�\� iii....,.,�' I 0\ � • 0 L it S F i 1 �\/,Alwe' 1 r 44 ;I 4,1 rill . lir 't, N I o _— ►311" 1 ' ru td" j � INSkw I 1 1 : . 1 I 1 (P ' ` ' yr �, ---I �. � 4 ®11;x, 1 1 rn I� 6 I L_—_ N I ® • � g 1I 100_.,,.......„ l I W N N O v.i.fklii) s 1 ri� i ; L- Ik)A 61 C I. W 3.mrn,0t.�6 11 L1t i C3 rh iir _ o r--� I e o -J L 1 — 494.18 500'01'4111.1 U C.S.A.N. NO. 11 (MARSCNALL RD.) T. • CO • n ■ o ■ m ■ , ■ n ■ ■_ ■ • ■ x • r • , NEW TOUNNOME tl ' `� �' �♦� CI II ! a 01I1101iip/m/• Y w.....,.•...'.<•f'':M.a."- BOULDER RIDGE SandCompantel,Ina eili 1 I R ,i, r,•, .�.., TOWdNOMES 167 e...►'FAA Avows •b ■"� Ai 1.c..1. .w. IAA 7•o....T1 flail e ■■■I )I I A:,..M. li 1. >�x N.Y. w (6107-077/ l 1-�+� — f J7f-751-.9 R !MACOMB.YINNE6OTA P 6170)703.11$ 0 X W7777-771"7,7"17.111 1r •�r �� I21 k Z SitiZ s m r) a m 'n C) x - °- R r i SAGE LANE ice\ 4.0 / i / TEMADcWS1144 ADDITION// al r LTJ 1L�J I ' I N I 1 6 �. eH I 1 1 /I N 4]134 • 11 ———— 1 4$1 i m r '" %%%% %%%% I : n w s I 1 %%�%�i. % %�% � r • =• u p �1 I t.- A _ -._.---_....._I. I li I //,/ // Q YY YC64 iw �ij�" a sc tl \ ♦ N♦ \ I 13 4 III!!! gp �c I 3 / ps ♦ - niUt ,I li w / � _ ' 1 I i ..i'' 1 `• T, h 1 `� R 2 i /t � // �4 /p —� ®-/IIIA M E .�I© i -- 8 �, pL I sl Vdy /// .. I % .6°"° p 1\L� o ' fp L- -6x66 ,;-- ©II•.� • O 111`1 G� / ` n I • \!r I i I V n � // I`. i I Cii a T / ik mL I '� I co io , 17 I i to �' ; 11 ; I Jig,, ,,; _ I I ; t4 1 I ss.al IillI 11p L1 1 r...t° % rail -- -, 1 f/ Ill 1 I I I (P ii 1 D. 3111\ ' i 1 - N I � Q"It 161 l �``1, 0 j 1 `l _ J `4:i 0 1 I w a o poigf/ i r`_ --I N OS --1 1 ..... u N 1 1 I♦ . i i 24 i ri L.- 1 A a o . _ril,-; IN .mS.4L.m1 8 IL'LIL —— IL F Lel r---I I 00 -J L_ 1 494.1 °.00'01. 1 EU G.S.A.N. NO. Ii (MARSGNALL RD.) T. 6 a 6 n 6 0 6 m 6 n 6 a 6 x 6 - 6 C I x 1 e 6 C NEW TCNNNOr1E SCI III DEVELOPMENT ..♦ . : 720..71i. �''�.r'-Y.e a � ' -"ri �20 NT.•i1 BOULDER RIDGE Sand Companta,Ina. it 1 - 9 1 IWO II z,.'m--_ TOU1r1HOMES11 9I _�'OL_M oay — ME South T�.IY A.m. �A6� 5 i w. hn:: :16]01 f0 Ma TI7 lr —6. ai-� —1 — M.Y.P.rk.MN NLor ;Iil 1 Pik S�3i!:Z!:�!. - MIAKOPZE.MawI OTA Pu On NUM E!`6� 10 ,..... . I Y..1 W h.1 y . ......................... a E.M. 1 1 i 11n! N IVB./1J-i .J -1 V a......:I !I_J iV1_..II, ttJ �' !.; Pcar iii Ilmni to 1 •1 N w .n ( ' 0?� iivHOS„vJ) LI ' ON ' H ' V ' S ' O ma/ ill "— M„Ib,10.00S 91'b6b _ ��- _/ 91.414 I --b i I of 1 0 1 °tRa; .. 1 ~ 3 LU I .5 "F N 284.52 S10�2s 0 48.81 <`j` cv / ># io �” 217.71 � U !r^ a Cra I \ W ww W •� r1rn N / I n n a� a t., no 0 CO _ ' I / . � '4 0 'a .* IT) N N u 1'�r (N 1 el, v3,8'8111 _0 \ VI h n vos 4 ill rt-Q.:�4,•�,N'dlor' S: \ NZ (pi., �n a°i:b �Arc .'h N I �{-.1 , Oeec�a\\ /\ `aQ,yN in12 \ hy0 y I1)01 Al Cit �.4 \ ��- /1A= 1 /In1g .� M.Sl,►►.►OS 99'18 �`\ ` Ij I 1 1 I sz::: sl _ "4.; o I Of I..-- ng_ M 1N3W3SY3 AIflIlA UNY 39VNIYaO��' 0� Vis► /►►' ;At- ~� 1 1" 6B'I4Sl►►40S SL 9LZ ,� 8-01.6 1 i ^o I co I 02t/i ;'-98'19-� It-1pOt.9B�p C� MC/Z0•6/ ~J m i M.6►,90.0ON \g3'/'� \/ V :c481 1 I qi. W o9j•�4f�Z969/ S 1\`�l I lL'ILI I W W NAS / / 440 3 I g of •}I.�6' 3.(/ 66 0 1 / a N 1N31Y3SY3 Ainan�P 30VNIY210 t z $'�� n �4 1ii�.'d t�6/N0. 1 w •y n. w 1 •$, ICILI IM.64,90.00N 1 yw W .y 14i, o z III N n h -• 4`3,•,**o l 'M.t/,r0 6/9 \ t •o v. I a a> 2 e(E'�!� r,b' a •'• Sj 4v p • !�'� a_ //}}�� M„SZ,tb,bOS1 `�{h I z�,yo• 'Sh p.v-(0 o x rc,- `-✓ 99.02 eis .-.. :, -.<, 4. ` .', �' I o of . .">i� o D 00•.•-.r- "[•-413 /.100y ,, ti :n / 1 p Op- 0 N N N .`,4.".47 4,._,4„4` 10c"'N .. �� ÷4,.•I`1 m o h v�j // �✓� rda�b Of ryhO^h�P\��+fir �. 1;llc�P'�'^ig"F. v m0� .3-V�yOM Q��c .•-1 tiry�vti �� e\1 12 OJ1� 1!.1. �__.,AA vi Ie in ?`-;` `� a`9 - N 15 , / I sn \ Q� I ,�M L.:24;5537"c`- of ♦ OJ 0 •fc. 1' f OOfZ,CO.ZBN O A'��.p5"W`�� I 1 �# 4' / 1 SZ $21 20.51 °o. `,. )• .-I 25.00. yw �� .q `1144\d, D 6'01'55" 0 N 1„,-.is . [ _ Ot I OM~h .r..n w ��r sb24s d 0.11- f 0 1 to l o. 47 \ `' / t a �i,� ,-_0 �)b 590' /' o0o e" • W1 / O hh M� qp f .! i12; --."-�` I co. SNA, $4.5;C:3,14'1.‘ 45�h •l� . p v0,I e•OP 0\iA1\4I`AMf���04 \ 9.•t E 2, +�%.Nn,\Aid X9'1'1' nj�`� �♦ / ' �,� 63 V'1111Z t Sf,C4.00N SBSOA 44 25 W' �!�-- -.7 C9-,, e? 14' 4; <j0. �'��... ZE IC:C W ~ ZL'SSZ / e1 ) w n % �;1\� p.Og'S2 •774-014A I. Qin 'A) d ,•N?' l-'' ''' ^ y ? �� 1N3W3SY3 111711A S5 ' \� ry I N d o----�> ONY 30YNIYHO est```--- �'2.�,E; --/ ..}..' 1 03 tn V m o�1.�T�� // \` ,\545'•-• / i \ 0)ni, ..... i 2 1_1 I .. N kg ~a 1• I 401:c",,%'‘,4 _ ,o • IQ-n\�°jO'1 1 _'•1 l ) N C\ ! 11�Y1�^`` •was �lZ� 1j a 'mac N0 4,f 40, `" I / Al o IDCS ugh a ate_ nN,n� /to 1" 1 ir I Z • J� won ('� 'w \ 44 p w 3.84.90.005 ) co^��, / oa °' ai /-- n / /0 0) 01 i\ I . 'CO /ry ryry 1�� rte, /h \ . k II I 3 3 v '� 1p n o 0= i ¢•Q I ngd •r al G o1 a�• z g- _ 1 x M.sf,L4.4ova �.. o£ t` 111 O w S. - 0 1N3N3SY3 AlIIIIA o/ .....,.....,b7„..,, �$s'~a 1 , o Fo S 6 c'.. ",,�0`39YNIY2lU"1/ •m�$6•��06�N I�i Z 8n -. g /.,f I 3.S[Lf ylON -//_.�/ x$;e�1 0 3•yl`LOZ OS 1 o N i W I ! ) /� / n r �d0 1 g ,C o R p /• 0.. / 41'(01 '� o IA 1n�d I yh.Ct, 4.-............ 3.64,90.005 d' -M_ O) 0 • i -ry� m 1N3143SY3 ALIIIIA ONY 30YNIY610� ° • I n11) d 10 CV 0, I 4 M.6$',90.00 O 1N 1 o i. 1 / 1 -2 '•-•' 3,00,£1.00S 9£•Ltb , _--- L'J C). _r: , !,�•a.),-ir\` :, `d)(,; A I/1 I I I('1.1._, . fJ I 111.. rIY\‘ li-1‘...,--1 1i•.I "11I I /r , I • 1 4 . .. ..... ........ ........ . 1 1 a , Vtm r.... I . ['nil l r. i.m 11 I r"1: \...., I .' I I 1 A A ....1 I ` i _: =I �+ I 11111 b Fhmil I \I l../i...I...1 ..J•...1 V ...A......:r.::1:1._ 1._.1 i v I.... I,. t....) v (1...; t(�n V') ,... J ( — — _..._ —_. _......_ �....... I..... N g C4 N w ( ' Ge:! —11VHOS?JVN) LA ' ON ' H ' V ' S ' 011 iiiii ,i `I ____ --- --- M„14,10°OOS 911,61? -- I 91'PLf OZ ! - ,� I 1 I I - o . r I co • i� 1-.'I 3 LU s I „F — N I 264.52 SIO°28'50 / 46.61 .-- z / ? ”' I 1 1 Ci V. Li_ / W W w 0,N Z I 1 W Q N co I / I hu� Z 1- N 4/ r•1 O Z f I / inr•1 n a H -.4. N n O 1 1 �� 'a3g bS o� o< 3 vo< 3co / %. to Vg,i-- r . \ vi o h „1 N cl _ S + N2 O my 13/1..\1/ R `'�,vr'i 1(.11'1 �ssmN\\ i\ 0 by o in ^Z J A� . :�y N I g0.9 14 4�0 J 1 9t P ry�Qr w 1 /1 ,,�.y 1 U1Ti • N I i8� M.sz,ff.fos sz'Zsz991e \ ?Y, oo r I I I 1\n g 1N3W3SY3 Alllllfl ONV 30tlNIV j- 0£ Ol / ;•• "" • I — M SZ ff I $ SL'9ZZ l J'o h� 0£ 1�' 68'141 �` 9f0 f8 :moo„1 o I 1 //i ;'-98'19-/ L C-IO O.p Y M Q t0 8/ , I ~'R',o I I m )2�t1�J1- '7�1 �•�i 1 \ 440? 496 S I\ a jT 1 I M.6f,90.00N \53`� / \ / 8$ I �'�+�. :</ g/s 9/ \\1 et i I / ZL'ILI I W 0`j // \I N3 ♦ °� Y a` 8 0 N 1N3W35Y3 Aintin rF 30YNIY80 CO 1O 1 w o1`� n"�' 0 ir co 1 3�4d 4p s/N 1 I M.64,BU.00N ( N a s • of w S''.1;w w IN_, •L`' l '-.4e. O. 4, • Intl rn w <> 20 CO z „3 I 00 a ,� S r to x v h� ..1. 1... M.SZ,6b 605990Z1 ;,��� Ze Sq y')y M• • ' • • $o/v /fri SI V. Iv ��;5`d�d • I�++P��AicF J a mO� m3_p'�OP�Q /�� ry 1.. ..' x.20; X 37„�` O �OOSC0.Z8N O N235R 2•`�tl�\ I I I_i i� .�7�a /� i 12 I — 1 / �, �[ WJ, coo6•4, ,. ) 'i 25.00<�,. � r ywry�so \ �� a � �3rmr ` 566'O�'55�'��o N 1 0�r- or / CO m s44, +\5t + �i + vl I ��4.��~ "J L4 �N s es)rb :kill ��°23 58 p5�,,_/ I,o 0�O w41-d, 45+ok 2.3 /•4`'/ S •F. ,CY o \N POE EI�� 5\. E ,,1 rn N .o n. P j 19, A / , H.4 • I Jl o tbSt- $�+'i510.6 <f / +�tf ter,' �d�5.!l°j <�� r�� ' �y\ US0. M.S£,Lb,00N5 504'44'25"W ` i `Oi,• Viz Rh x�� �-.... W • 01` \w I L•2477ZL'SSZ -7/--4p.01 ) v + 1�� 6/ I 645.52'32.... 9 / ,� O\. . W I Fiy �INILIN ti) er�.CPPt 0 1N3W35Y3 A11111I1 S)s 9 \� ry i co U. 1 i .! �/> ONtl 3JYNIY1IO'' ''=•------ 545'1334�Ej \.- ri 9 In w z j/ 3.8£,IO.00N + °1 pry ;+ Oi ig 1 04 04 ›.'" 7!g , J N ',Cr 3•aS S\�49rz. .' �-r7InR ti 4.' '... ' • ... .) 0 3.64,90,,005 Ai /68\ �f�z n 2 , 1'l w I <' J seo9z ;� ' v Immo :• A 141 ro / ! cr co co I %\ r � 1 S. V (._ I hN I I • CL M • # 3 '� rry) m r N� VIn 02 Ca; or N I.rngI 03 in r O Eco O 0 CS z - I 0 I ."` • 1 W R:, Zr `_' S 1N30NVY3 Alllllrlo/ $$°y�;�!! m I x < �i7i j 30YNIYaU r>/ ,r, �� B+.Q h 8 n b I e . 0.°A._s� 2 3.sf,90.00S • 3• • In u{ I �`!. i 3.9£,"4*6 -c-,---UN i'�, xr/� n v ZdO fl'LOZ r g:• N z g O // 10 WZ< Z / / 41'LOZ / "' n\ a N O O O y`Oah /,--'-- 3.61,,90.o0S G/ Maj • 0 • i I '4,3 4'4) /\.r IN3W35Y3 Amin ONY 3JYNIYMU� tai to n 1h moo, in i b 0� •„o o� t0 Ol e 00'0 01 I a M.61,,80.00N p i I 1 . I o N I r p l I I L 1 / • / ! / / oc j F 3„40,£1°OOS B£'LZi I .!.'-i C.) . _> I /-..,c ,i C ��t.:•..!”a i j(()-.. n I r\I I I r7,"l'•._, LJ C.) I V\.J 11.1�..:`1 V I r `A i,i„"l\...,`l I r'•.I I ..c ....i t 1_.L. I I I I I I /5-, a2 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approval of Job Description for, and Authorization to Create and Fill the Position of Office Service Worker MEETING DATE: February 2, 1999 Introduction: During the 1999 budgeting process the creation of a new position to be shared by the Building Division and City Clerk's office was requested and approved by the City Council. The Council is asked to approve the proposed job description for this position, and to authorize recruitment for the position. Alternatives: 1. Approve the job description for Office Service Worker as presented and authorize the appropriate persons to proceed with recruitment for the position. 2. Approve the job description for Office Service Worker with revisions and authorize the appropriate persons to proceed with recruitment for the position. 3. Do not approve the job description or authorize recruitment for the position of Office Service Worker. 4. Table the request for additional information. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative 1. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion approving the job description for Office Service Worker as presented and authorizing the appropriate persons to proceed with recruitment for the position. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director OFFICESVCWORKER.doc/RML Job Description Job Title: Office Service Worker Job Code: Employee Name: Division: Building/City Clerk Department: Community Development/Administration Location: Grade: Grade B Reports To: Community Development Director/City Clerk FLSA Status: Non-exempt Prepared By: R ML Prepared Date: 01/28/99 Approved By: Starting Salary: $12.1457/hr. Salary Level: $12.1457-$15.1822/hr. SUMMARY Performs routine clerical duties and complies data in accordance with specific instructions and established work methods duties for the Building Division of the Community Development Department and the City Clerk Department.Maintains property identification(PID)files; building, electrical,plumbing and other files related to the issuance of permits and conduct of inspections and record files in the City Clerk's office. Provides primary back-up to the Customer Service Representative.May assist the Building Department Secretary and City Clerk Secretary in providing information and assistance to individuals,property owners,builders and others,both on the phone and at the counter. ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES include the following: Maintains a variety of alphabetical and numerical files and logs within the Building Inspection and City Clerk Divisions in an established order. Types or prepares a variety of reports, letters,forms and other documents using PC-based software.Inputs data, i.e.change of propery owner and/or address in PDS or similar property data base. Serves as primary back-up for the Customer Service Representative position,which requires the ability to operate a multi-line telephone system and the cash receipt function in the IFAS financial system. Assists the public and other staff in completing forms, searching city files for information and usage of property and other city files. Collects,copies and collates information from predetermined sources or projects. Assists the Community Development and City Clerk Secretaries with other clerical tasks as needed. Page 1 Performs other duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS To perform this job successfully,an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily.This position requires outstanding customer service skills. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge,skill,and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE High School Degree or General Education Degree(GED)and at least two years related work experience;municipal/county experience desirable. LANGUAGE SKILLS Ability to read,analyze,and interpret general business journals,periodicals,and simple legal documents.Ability to respond to common inquiries or complaints from customers,regulatory agencies,or members of the business community.Ability to write routine reports and coorespondence conform to prescribed style and format.Ability to effectively present concise and accurate information in one-to-one and small group situations to customers,clients and other employees of the organization. MATHEMATICAL SKILLS Ability to add,subtract,multiply and divide two digit numbers. Ability to perform these operations using units of American money,weight measurement and distance. REASONING ABILITY Ability to apply commonsense understanding to carry out instructions furnished in wirtten,oral or diagram form.Abillity to deal with problems involving several concrete variables in standardized situations. OTHER SKILLS AND ABILITIES Ability to comprehend and communicate policies,practices and services specifically of the Community Development and City Clerk Departments; and the City of Shakopee in general. Ability to maintain alphabetical,numerical and statistical files and records. Basic knowledge of computer operations, such as Word and Excel. Ability to operate a multi-phone system. Ability to use and operate a 10-key calculator,a dictaphone transcriber,fax machine and duplicating equipment. Ability to type accurately. Knowledge of English spelling,punctation and grammar. Ability to maintain working relationship with other employees and the public. Must maintain cofmdentiality as required by the Minnesota Data Practices Act as deemed appropriate for certain documents. PHYSICAL DEMANDS The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job,the employee is regularly required to sit;use hands to Page 2 fmger,handle,or feel objects,tools,or controls;reach with hands and arms;and talk or hear. The employee frequently is required to stand and walk.The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 10 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision,color vision,peripheral vision,depth perception,and the ability to adjust focus. Page 3 1S• Da �. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request of Elaine Lureen for Amendment of City Code Sec. 6.40 Subd. 5.A to Allow Massage Centers in the Major Recreation Zoning District MEETING DATE: February 2, 1999 Introduction: The City has received a request from Elaine Lureen to consider an amendment to the above-named code section to allow Massage Centers in the Major Recreation, as well as general commercial, districts of the City. A copy of the request is attached for the Council's information. The request arises because the new owners of Park Inn Suites (formerly Canterbury Best Western Inn)wish to contract with Margaret Collins to provide massage therapy services as an adjunct to the other customer services provided by the motel. Alternatives: 1. Offer and pass a motion directing staff to prepare an amendment to City Code Sec. 6.40 Subd. 5A to permit massage centers in the Major Recreation District. 2. Offer and pass a motion directing staff to prepare some other amendment to the City relevant to the subject request. 3. Do not direct staff to prepare a City Code amendment. 4. Table the request for additional information. Action Requested: Provide staff with direction relative to Elaine Lureen's request. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director MassageCenters.doc/RML 1 Elaine Lureen 1117 Jackson St. Shakopee MN 55379 (612)445-3303 January 24, 1999 To: City of Shakopee Administration/Shakopee City Counsel Members This is a writen request for an amendment to the license ordinance,to allow a licensed Message Therapy Center, in the recreational area of the City of Shakopee. The site of inquiry being the Park Inn Suites, (formerly Canterbury Best Western Inn). Thank You for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, l-' �Q Elaine Lureen 1117 Jackson St. Shakopee MN 55379 (612)445-3303 To: City of Shakopee Administration/Shakopee City Counsel Members Item I: a. Certified Message Therapist Credentials: Trained to provide a relaxing full body Swedish Message, some of the benefits including: Relaxation* Increased circulation* Muscle spasms relaxed/inner tention relieved* May aid in reducing high blood pressure* Many other benefits depending on the individual- Other services available plan to include, therapies such as: Aromatherapy- Sports Message and deep muscle work- Trigger Point& Lymph Drainage- Spa Treatments- b. Trained in precautionary messures for: Message during pregnancy HIV infected Conditions such as, heart ailments, some cancers, and insulin dependent. Sanitation methods Sexual issues and boundaries Proffesional Code of Ethics*(see attached policy) c. Regarding Insurance: This business will be covered by A.M.T.A.(American Message Therapy Association). or/ A.M.B.P.(Associated Message and Body Work Professionals). d. I have reviewed all licensing requirements, restrictions and regulations deemed necessary by the City of Shakopee: Sec. 6.40 Message Centers and Saunas./ Sec. 6.41 Masseur and Masseuse License. Item II a. This therapy practice is nondiscriminating of any race, color, national origin religion, age, or sexual orientation. b. "Draping" is an ethical procedure adhering to accepted professional standards c. Verification of certificates and hours completed, available apon request. Item III Personal Background/ Education Certified Swedish Message Therapist Touch of Life School, Eden Prairie MN Certified: Spa Treatment Certified: CPR infant and adult/First Responce Certified: Family Preservation training Certified: Positive Parenting Curriculum training Certified: Blood Pathogen and Universal Precautions/ Public Health Dept. Certified: Culture Competency Certified: Nurses Aid Other education includes: Precaution of communicable diseases Abuse issues, physical, drug, and alcohol prevention Mandatory reporter of abuse Advocacy of clients Graduate of: Pine River High School,Pine River MN 56474 (1977) Employed By: Public Health Dept./Carver County Community Health Services 540 East 1st Street Waconia MN 55387-1609 ( 1986- 1999) current. This amendment is requested for the benefit of industrial growth to the city of Shakopee in the recreational district/site of inquiry being: Park Inn Suites( formerly Canterbury Best Western Inn) 1244 Canterbury Rd. Shakopee MN 55379 Park Inn Suites has expressed intrest in this Message Therapy Center for the benefit of their guests, and employees. Also as a benefit for residents of the City of Shakopee and surrounding areas. I feel Shakopee has room to expand in this industry because of the limited therapy centers available in the City of Shakopee at this time. Responce to the interest of professional message in this area has been positive. I appreciate your attention to this amendment and this matter at this time. Respectfully. Professional Code of Ethics Ethics Defined: Ethics is the study of standards and philosophy of conduct, and is defined by a system or code of morals pertaining to an individual, group, or profession. Practicing good ethics means being concerned about the public welfare, the welfare of individual clients, your reputation, and the reputation of the profession you represent. Elements of professional ethics: a. Treat all clients with the same fairness and courtesy. b. Eliminate prejudice of any type in the profession and do not discriminate against colleagues or clients. c. Provide the highest quality care for those who seek your professional services by giving efficient service backed by knowledge, proper training, and skill. d. Perform only those services for which you are qualified, and refer to appropriate medical or other specially trained body workers when indicated. e. Set an example of professionalism by your conduct at all times. f. In no way allow or encourage any kind of sexual activity in your practice (this includes tolerating sexual advances.) Avoid businesses that use suggestive advertising. g. Communicate in a professional manner on the telephone, in personal conversation, and in letters. h. Refrain from the use of improper language and any form of gossip. i. Maintain your physical, mental, and emotional well-being so that your are looked on as a credit to your profession. j. Do your utmost to keep your place of business clean and neat. Always project a professional appearance for yourself, your business and therefore your profession. k. Do not practice under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I. Keep all communications with clients open, honest, and confidential. This includes accurate written documentations such as intake forms and progress notes. m. Live up to your promises and obligations. n. Know and obey all laws, rules, and regulations of your city, county, and state pertaining to your work. o. Strive to improve the credibility of massage as a valuable health service by educating your clients, the public and medical community as to its benefits. p. Be fair and honest in all advertising of services. Do not advertise specialized techniques or treatments unless you have the proper training. q. Continue to learn about new developments and trends in your profession by participating in local and national professional associations and pursuing continuing education and training. r. Keep foremost in your mind that you are a professional person engaged in giving an important and beneficial service. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator CONSENT FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary Liquor Licenses- Church of St. Mark DATE: January 6, 1999 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The Church of St. Mark has made applications for temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses for February 6, 1999 and July 24 and 25, 1999. They desire to be able to provide wine during their Winterfest on February 6th and beer and wine coolers during their Julifest on July 24th and 25th. I have been in contact with the Chief of Police regarding these applications. These events are something that have been going on for a number of years. There is no problem with these activities. Their applications and insurance certificate are in order. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve the applications and grant temporary on-sale liquor licenses to the Church of St. Mark, 350 South Atwood Street, for February 6, 1999 and July 24 and 25, 1999. Cit lerk is\clerk\jeanette\stmark /5. E. C6nsen -t MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Nominations to Boards and Commissions DATE: January 27, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to make nominations to Boards and Commissions to fill terms expiring on February 28, 1999. BACKGROUND: Terms on various Boards and Commissions will be expiring on February 28, 1999. According to Council policy, it is appropriate to make nominations to Boards and Commissions at the February 2nd City Council meeting. An Interview Committee will then interview the applicants and make recommendations to City Council for appointments at the February 16th meeting. (Councilmembers will be invited to vote by ballot prior to the start of the meeting on February 16th. ) Copies of applications from candidates are attached for Council consideration during the nominating process. Some applicants have expressed interest in more than one Board or Commission. For the most part, it has been past practice to nominate all applicants to the Boards and Commissions for which they have applied; however, that is not required. The number of terms that are expiring and the names from applications received to date are attached. Should additional applications be received prior to the City Council meeting on February 2nd, they will be placed on the Council table. In order to inform the community that the City Council is seeking applicants for Boards and Commissions, the following actions, as outlined in the Guidelines for Boards and Commissions, were taken: 1] Three ads in the local newspaper 2] Notice on the cable television government channel 3] Notices on bulletin boards: City, County, SPUC, Public Library, and Marquette Bank 4] Letter to chairs of local organizations 5] Letter to incumbents eligible for reappointment Nominations to Boards and Commissions January 27, 1999 Page -2- RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to make nominations to Boards and Commissions (as desired) : 1] Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment and Appeals: Bill Mars, Dave Nummer, Jerome Ince, Jay Lyle, Cory Bullard, Jason Bullard, and Christina Nadeau; 2] Park and Recreation Advisory Board: Jeff Kaley, Dean Shaner, David Vosejpka, Christina Nadeau, and Jason Bullard; 3] Shakopee Public Utility Commission: Andrew Unseth and Cory Bullard; 4] Police Civil Service Commission: Kim Weckman and Jason Bullard; 5) Cable Communications Advisory Commission: no applications received; 6] Shakopee Community Access Corporation Board of Directors: Jay Whiting; 7] Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Housing Advisory & Appeals Board: no applications received; 8] Board of Review: Cory Bullard. 4111) Clerk h judy\Bd &CNOM99 PLANNING COMMISSION-2 OPENINGS Bills Mars Dave Nummer Jerome Ince Jay Lyle Cory Bullard- 1st choice Jason Bullard- 1st choice Christina Nadeau-2nd choice PARK AND RECREATION BOARD-3 OPENINGS Jeff Kaley Dean Shaner Dave Vosejpka Christina Nadeau- 1st choice Jason Bullard-2nd choice SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES - 1 OPENING Andrew Unseth Cory Bullard- 3rd choice POLICE CIVIL SERVICE- 1 OPENING Kim Weckman Jason Bullard-3rd choice BOARD OF REVIEW- 1 OPENING Cory Bullard-2nd choice BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS - 1 OPENING None COMMUNITY ACCESS CORORATION BOARD OF DIRECTOR-3 OPENINGS Jay Whiting CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ADVISORY COMMISSION-2 OPENINGS None - APPLICATION FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO A CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADVISORY BOARD AND/OR COMMESSION If you have previously completed an application for a board and/or commission,please complete this abbreviated application form for reappointment. Name: i lI�AP 1 Nl ftp Address: l`H -5 C Phone: (H) (41-t `l aX8 (B) 3 3?- (L ID- Board D- Board or Commission you wish to continue serving on P1Anf?in Co r►7n'IisS/U; Other Board or Commission you wish to be considered for LoR. Signature � 2-t 197 Date RETURN APPLICATION TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 445-3650 DATE RECEIVED: /-,22._gI • Name: 1)/4/2 7141/4/VJ/Yl E� Address: /ZS 5 S{!& < C/J Phone:(H) 4/ys'— 3 413? (B) SO 7" 5s37 How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? 6 Y/1 S Occupation: C!VIC. 61v&l Jg6/ Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal Periodically Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet if necessary) Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) r6ANA/JN( lomN'<I/40 Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: (.6)4 7`i rwe 56 R1i/L G- 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 interested in any business, however organized, which could be constructed as a conflict of interest? Yes_ No,A . If yes, please provide the details on a separate sheet of paper. Please list three references(Name,Address,Phone): 1. yi J3 2. 13/60 /1,125 3. &A,Cy /vID�,L�E I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. S' ature /--ZS " 7? Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 Pii ,11);v•Z ► �as �9 � Name: J e r e in c- .ti c e Address: ,6/D 11 e a k e. 4v-c- Phone:(H) (G/3) 3"-- 3 8"`f r (B) How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? 60 qhs Occupation: c ,4 ��'�r/ Eaf. 2J Q fI rt 4v Awek• �yy�J7 Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal Periodically Very Little )( None Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet if necessary) Set. L //d[o4ih ey,d- Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) f/it 4.4 7 LOhs�+Yisl%�A Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: Sec bea.tnt A., sa 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 interested in any business, however organized, which could be constructed as a conflict of interest? Yes No)(. If yes, please provide the details on a separate sheet of paper. • '..;`; Please list three references(Name,Address,Phone): 1. A1 $Ul/'o e,&v /rQs ,Vo, /%e 0 1, A 1 c4411,,, 53 Ni' 1/9ff sy. 2. f;CK J(,�hewic2 `T ) Si, gams" 5t. -I 1.01 if 3. Th, Pit fah l s r 77r-o/ �h• �`�S"1/1L I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Sign e 7/f/f.P Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 RFCEIVED !Ak1 2 5 1999 CITY OF SHAKOPE JEROME INCE APPLICATION I am a lifelong resident of Shakopee who recently retired from Prudential Ins. Co. where I was employed as a Programmer Analyst. I have no experience with planning or zoning but I feel I have average intelligence and an interest in the orderly growth of Shakopee. I believe every citizen has an obligation to use his or her talents to make their community a better place to live. My involvement has been mostly with my church but I am a former JC and was a ten-year adult volunteer with Troop 218 of the Boy Scouts. I am currently in charge of recruiting, training and scheduling the Readers for all services at St. Mark's Catholic Community. I am also secretary of the St.Mark/St. Mary Social Justice Committee. My wife and I chaired the St. Mark's `Julifest' summer festival a few years ago which involved coordinating hundreds of volunteers and made a profit of over$20,000 for St. Mark's. I was also on the St.Mark's Pastoral Council. My experience includes leading meetings using Roberts Rules and in managing people. I think I can work with people and diplomatically handle those who disagree or have eccentric ideas. One of my inspirations was Mayor Jon Brekke. It is nice to have people in local government with no conflict-of-interest and no `agenda'; people who are only interested in good government. Jerry Ince 610 Menke Ave. 445-3845 APPLICATION FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO A CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADVISORY BOARD AND/OR COMMISSION If you have previously completed an application for a board and/or commission,please complete this abbreviated application form for reappointment. Name: Address: S MAQ So-\ W E-1 SC. AM-0?q-E VMA Phone: (H) NRS" \(8°:\ (B) PYZS3 Board or Commission you wish to continue serving on Other Board or Commission you wish to be considered for Date RETURN APPLICATION TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 RECEIVED 445-3650 .!nne i 1999 DATE RECEIVED: CITY OF SHAKOPEE Name: 8u i l &rd Address: tis-5 L r Arko..7 Y Phone:(H) (B) 92.?—x'12 Gp How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? / 3 ,v► o,, S Occupation: c.er (iiLelpSit6 2Ja®j )ePpon!al t-DM4 >A,c PhQr✓Q yew— Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal Periodically y Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet if necessary) / y C L1 rY`e%J�"" !'Q r `e'e r. T LCs o--e_ Al cr�',-fld 4 6 b L I`fd QA/ /uprol.Jf S,v i / 4i,c I ',eS_S nil-4-erS t k/o i P u :5,-bed lull- huipeis ctiJ eek e f l.ed t,,.1 u no ,v- ��l . / .v-t5 `t �Q g-`e ���s 4fr- Ad c a 04-p r-m, tyti o,✓s , Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) I . • ai ... . •VIAk -� .` ..n_ iii te v�4 Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: W a, dr 4-0 7t:Lo � 4k-LN-0 Q� 4 cd„,-12, -.-.4 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 interested in any business, however organized, which could be constructed as a conflict of interest? YesNo K. If yes, please provide the details on a separate sheet of paper. Please list three references(Name,Address,Phone): 1. . ary O ��lar� �i to6.14 Sz- iw! 2. eet)tJ CD 04J. ' ) n_23 Ab'Abilet $k 5 5/ 16, , 9 - O 57 3. liOuUQrt tAck,t ( ) / f< () Ll). Ape. SF. Pr;srI4/c _ W7-32S3 I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 12"11-j—zi Signature V13 97 Dat RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 REVEL/ED .!nM 2 5 1999 CITY OF SHAKOPEE ","" 1" • Name: la Son &4/la/el Address: 1/s3 f�Tiofo,d 571reeit Phone:(H) 41,Q X1(5 -646q (B) 6Sl -.298- S5$ How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? /1 a Occupation: kCott n/S Pa a b k /„a/!ayet- v Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal Periodically x Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet if necessary) ,, / Carted/if n/7/dne /people . �aiee. deo,S,OAr da. i4a Coanpan and have make /he cec,S, n ,iiat /r -iht bed /./WereXi/./Wereof 4e Ceynpa . 4aecjhinen./ Pa j Ai DI In1W:on aday . (/ V Board or Commission'n which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) 0 Mann i nCom i'ssion) Board off' t4dja; rne,�J�and 4'pea/' Pa'/L and ie. tea ,on V *so t &a/et () Po/,ke C,'v,'/ Service- CC,,n, ,ss,'or) Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an applicatign:hai a S /on 6eh -f i� CiI oeer& erh . gpal e 17 -eame a holy eOwn elwas 716. 86-e ,t)volvec0 ,'n eke co u..► - ; . . , . 4 b. . GO; a .+ �h e be r to- ' -/e_le 4 ti'tia' Peoplea/re ,iav� an //*pact cam/St7aKo ittot Conflict of interest is -'-fine s the participation m 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 interested 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,Phone): 1.Aave We /den Pfzir��, G/a- 9 ,12-- 0879 2.Sleue Sada 21/1 4910k Ua!/ 101? - 3aa- 9SYV 3. G is i/!e [,vNa tl 6-i P cc/ 4,57- a93- 9*/ I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. S.+•tune //o2r/99 Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 RECEIVED nm 2 5 1999 CITY OF SHAKOPEE / Name: Chf%Ski a- `..aleau. Address: 'MU Slue s-re v . v Phone:(H) 4c(o-3020 (B) How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? 3 xi-e acs 5 Occupation: \,rr� l '1L(`e Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal Periodically Very Little Ic.None Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet if necessary) t)ca-ensive ao n yr2.1, ve _w.‘rvi n'►i No blc r 1C recLnO Sc x'-vl., o n SC`' oLrSV.p c Uir)-P. pini Coct.cti 3 IQarS 14-ofkms •ip,., -e ! Co.. a • - — C 0CC • i a, r_r - •Irka_Q 6 i Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) +�y1 `Uvu. `coon n Ile�Co V M v .-Scio r` / goa 1 c 'P A-cQ k34-true rt1-s v-- p eels Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: L he \kew, c_ c%-Vs parv..s Cav► fiqh&r c-. ca_ 1 ‘Oc42- 1v 1 e ve.. R,e c rea.-ion f rb D ro4.ms avtc2_ -Pe.4.-i-_;k e s cex-F,. y-. ' . / - v. i • IA II . ill' 1 • ` . '41`] 7 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 interested 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,Phone): 1. Ela; rk gF';Lk C31tkes'em Ave_ Sha� �e 445-389 2. go\okr-k- ,- YV1 n -, \krn,x H 1-133 S- Rb sciAa. Ov. Ed-k P a nri e 937-i 3. I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 0}VM ct Signature Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 P ,kP i AA -9`l 9C APPLICATION FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO A CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADVISORY BOARD AND/OR COMMISSION If you have previously completed an application for a board and/or commission,please complete this abbreviated application form for reappointment. Name: 1 e A-14 III, cf 4./-n ,er Address: 2/ Z / s, /e br 1 v � Sh oP< „. S"S 3 77 Phone: (II) IMO--79 0/ (B) </9 , - Board or Commission you wish to continue serving on /J.ek t ,Pc e_ �a�fi•Jf• Other Board or Commission you wish to be considered for o Signature /-//- 9 y Date RETURN APPLICATION TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 445-3650 DATE RECEIVED: -JAN 1 2 1999 APPLICATION FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO A CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADVISORY BOARD AND/OR COMMISSION If you have previously completed an application for a board and/or commission,please complete this abbreviated application form for reappointment. Name: c . mberll AVIA Vfckintn Address: 1015 1\)caurnke j S+ . Shtdoppe, 'YIN) 553i' Phone: (H) 441:3-?.'(o.3 `J1 (B) 6, 1" I LAP Board or Commission you wish to continue serving on P01 I vii S e-r- l I veJ Other Board or Commission you wish to be considered for 144 Wiii4M11/1/ 4/1eSi Date RETURN APPLICATION TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 445-3650 DATE RECEIVED: 'AN 1 1 1999 • Name: Dave Vosejpka Address: 305 Thomas Ave . W . Phone:(H) 445-4339 (B) 496-5338 How long have you been a Shakopee Resident?Ten Months Occupation: Operations Division Manager (Valleyfair) Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal X Periodically Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet if necessary) My training in the operations division at Valleyfair has given me the opportunity to experience many types of situations . I am also a Ellis Lifeguard Instructor , and are on many rnmmittaa at work Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) Park and Recreation Advisory Board Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: I am interested in getting involved in the community and meeting other community residence . I am looking at future community involve- ment and think this would be a good board to start nn . 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 interested 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,Phone): 1. Mark Freyberg , One Valleyfair Drive , Shakopee , 445-7600 2. Patricia Carlson, 12574 Parkwood Dr. , Burnsville, 895-1163 3, Alison Glatzmaier , 354 Crestview Dr. , Maplewood, 651 -731 -0924 I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. /CL— Dabce. Signature t AA) 01 /26/99 Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee RECEIVED 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 !AN 2 1999 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Name: UNs ria A n5 b Address: ) O y ate+N rLb 8 0._a se, Phone:(H) 6►2- `�c/ /5''73 (B) s—o7 - 3 87- °° 1 How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? Occupation: pi Ad?Ke—r Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal X Periodically Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet if necessary) YCAR5 ou5 SF'LA(L i C`TM P ) N M k.A N 7v -\/t':2-4Z) Ly11/437 c c_ M/"1 Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) 5PUL Please state briefly why you are'interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: Com t 1..)1,\D-17-1 i ry v c)L v&-A/1 5" Amb g-z`T V J C.& 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 interested in any business, however organized, which could be constructed as a conflict of interest? Yes_No . If yes, please provide the details on a separate sheet of paper. U N_TS-E-774 Please list three references(Name,Address,Phone): 1. )ZceY r7e Dt_t ✓ P 2. Low VAN PI 3. /�v r-77-)-0 P-1 P � — 1° 1-4 I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledg . Signature 0J - IL-1 - 99 Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee JAN N 2 6 1999 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE FROM : 1999,01-27 15:29 #553 P.02/04 Name: J 1 ti- Add : S2 0 3rd A✓e PtoniEcE0 gilt O(15"1 (B) 511-1170 _ Hawing have you bean a shalropee Resident? 'I lb- 76fr's Occupation: EXac. s I l✓e ge C12 u. Does your work require you to travel?(Check one)) A greet dal _„_, Pe iodicafly ' Very Little Nvne Do you hive any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or oonaraiasion could use?(We o separate sheet if necessary) Q4„5LT1 tntwitjerr.o,./t- �f, 1 ,sncsI fraceSS Conirr4 C r aide '.t.a fj , e.e r „Ie-- , /e.,, e,— -5.4-Toro4 fr Wit& scoficry_ i(,5n✓',ca rdtTvJork 4,.,3,4_ e/,v.ve /A/ 4r4 y.ri ire SSC. �oae� SeeieJs on/ 5e ere( 4,4 RT work AA/4i ,AN TA# coir+�..,rj•. Board or Commission in whit,$ you are intereetad? (If more dna one, please indicate order of preference) C e M/n 4 r►ry ftcce%4 coleP re rno.✓ &a.-) Plesce state brie' why you are interested in serving cit this B oard/Commia$ion for which you are submitting an application: is /1',,AMr S /7' at.o1 /11•K,N ' , . ;nii 4.41,1-7 gvd fa151,c s-s- or oma,zu;,as Aid oar , • Conflict ofinterest is defined as the participation in any activity,tesommOzded salon, or decialon from whish the Individual hos or could lave the potential to rsceivc personal gain, Whether it be direct or indirect. In accordance with this definition, do you have pity legal or equitable interested in any business, however organised, which could be constructed ata eonfbet of interest? Yet_No„�C. If year, please provide the details on a aspirate sheet ofpapet. • FROM : 1555,01-27 15:30 R553 P.04/04 Please list three rofarena+os(Name,Address,Phone): i. i.P) 6(4rtf�ts,- 1151 S. Sco rt Sr. 14atcoPee 41/6-5/y$_ • 2. it tt-i, .61. !o yo r'l,o„,05 nvie .w, .r - 376-ci • 3. to, y -rho.,,R-s (611 Le 3;40)'V( ft , 1-4'cr yy7-701/ X hereby certify that the facts within the Ain:going application are tree sod correct to the best of oor knowledge. tl rI • 1. • / - Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Cleric . Chy of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street.South Shshope;hIN 55379 FROM : 1999,01-27 15:30 #553 P.03/04 • • CITY OF SKAKOPEE • BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS . VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION PLEDCZ . 1, I agree to attend an =mid Board/CoMmiSsion evening orientation held in January owe &fling>ar first two years on the Board/Commission. 'YES�_ NO 2. I agree to read the agenda material provided prior to the Board/Commiaaion meetimg9 so that I am pteparcd to pa ruoipste in discussion. YES ./_ NO_ 3. I agree to read and the the .attached "How To Aid Discussion By Asking the Right Questions"to enhance my performance u an active Board/CommiSSLan member. YES I NO 4. I agree to offer discussion on the pros and cons of the policy/issue bac4$ discussed and agree to refrain from personal criticism directed toward citizens. applicants, fellow Board/Commiaaion members and staff YES_✓ NO, — S. I acknowledge the City's requirements regarding attendance (Duet].led in Section B, Subparagraph I)and understand that I can be removed from a Board/Commission because ofpoor attendance. • YES_ NO 6. I agree to call City Hall to notify the appropriate staff person when I oa not attend a regularly scheduled Ince fi n. YES V' . N0___ 7. I age to refrain from voting on issues where I hare a oonf ict of inmost YES `/ NO tura MIP jim " Date • JAN.291999gg 11:0721 COMPUWARE MNPS N0.329 P.2/4 612 447 6716 r.d?/10 rf Name: Li \2 Address: t b 3 S age C o Lmri- I Phone:(H) Hct 6- 019 1 (B) O i-- 6 I 1 S How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? \ e a CS Occupation: S -e or A,)q` / CoMput4.gfe, Quo. Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal Periodically ✓Very Little None Do you have say special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet ifnecessary 5 ) ple Lor 1,06.k . Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) 61c,nAtti M ,'a tea o tr Please state briefly why you are interested in serving an this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: - fro ' • c 1. 0 (So e< S ` 4�ta(1't,e. If ?� 0. V/l,'c/►}�` �0,�,-�- 1�1 '�t�,� p�2C,is,bn 4 tvv el-t rout w?tt Otc41.4 cheat- b.�. ' pNr-k- o P 4414, Conflict of interest is defined as the participation in any activity, recommended action, or decision firma 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 interested in any business, however organized, which could be constructed as a conflict of interest? Yes_ No . If yes, please provide the details on a separate sheet ofpaper. JAN.29.199319 11:07AM COMPUWARE MNPS 61c$1,44�0418 P.3',de/10 Please list three references(Name, Address,Phone): 6�2 - - c - 1, J Oe W v.0 C . 77 00 I be. A Jt R\ ' rtoii., 1 S53o le_'. 4nel eor.,pgig -�2-'zo-pi tot 2. +c.k A rc.h S dti#�d`� -P.,4'u- ��,� N1 !� ss ifs 3. �er�r i.e4 e,n 1 ti Lf 3 - - e. C16 4-kms,r4. $.1 611--493' I hereby certify that the fads within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. — 'Qi2/6 Si.01', lI219q Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO; City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee MN 55379 ,1 i-i Cy_1y1A9 11.d(HM COMPUWHRE MNPSNO.329. P.4/4 61e. 440 0918 r.d9/10 CITY'OF SHAKOPEE • BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION PLEDGE 1. I agree to attend an annual Board/Commission evening orientation held in January once during my first two years on the Board/Commission. YES V NO 2. I agree to read the agenda material provided prior to the Board/Commission meetings so that I am prepared to particip to in discussion. YES NO 3. I agree to read and use the attached "How To Aid Discussion By Asking the Bight Questions"to enhance my erformance as an active Board/Conunission member. YES NO 4. I agree to ofr discussion on the pros and cons of the policy/issue being discussed and agree to refrain from per criticism directed toward citizens, applicants,-fellow Board/Commissionmemti and staff YES NO 5. I acknowledge the Cis requirements regarding attendance (Outlined in Section B, Subparagraph I)and understand that I can be removed from a Board/Commission because ofpoor attendance. YES NO 6. I agree to call City Hall to notify the appropriate staff person when I cannot attend a regularly scheduled me . YE NO 7. I agree to refrain from voting en issues where I have a conflict of interest. YESNO 0 u./ , L . Ap. 1 : .4"gin 4 If 1 J i' Dw 15' . E . a., • CC6ENT Name: f/1'42k )1'L L Kms-- Address: //B 9 lit-,FFr S-c) 5 r Phone:(H) 'V'I f- cis-Y-7 (B) 4/70 - c16. How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? / '/7 v42 5 Occupation: A-cccu N j 5t X LUT' U Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) A great deal )<Periodicaly Very Little None Do you have any special interests or training which you feel a particular board or commission could use?(Use a separate sheet if necessary R 2✓ / o u L `' 5/Flz vrrti) o k) C.ovh.vt 0A//TY DX u Prt,t 11N l envN i 5 si o A-A; ✓�`�- T C0 /A4 i C_ -D7E U fLLo P AvW a/ T- 4 J 77-JO z/ r K Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) cSf/A J O?I F l u i (-� c.. UTIL , T Y (o 4'7 A4/53 i o nJ Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: :37 wRN17c) /1/re.. 3f1 4I./G .1 Y N r‘m 1L lEx iZriwc,C__ ,iD ?CA-NNSk.«S '7D 45.5 , SI0Cs ow60�N� f PRJ�-/7r3f Ali51E PLU/E. ✓/fZ ah1,9-ro vvt J Al c�. . DR-Y '-410 /A/ ,'.7—/74C-- 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 interested in an business, however organized, which could be constructed as a conflict of interest? YesNoIf yes, please provide the details on a separate sheet of paper. JAN-28-1999 09:02 612 445 6718 P.08/10 Please list three references(Name,Address,Phone): 1. Dfcr3 )4 J ,u b s o.o 5"1,444-6 PtTlL. sins _ 7 y iiv 2. S C_c) �- 2 2� � � � W/ c.?S 07-0 "( 37,qu L z.---7- 5 6-s.✓N n / S Ai-k()fpm_ z y - 3o Fl I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ignature //3 Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 RECEPIED 1 1999 t.., 7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE JAN 28 ' 99 08: 56 612 445 6718 PAGE . 008 City of Shakopee 1s• I%• • Memorandum NT yCity CONSE TO: Mayor and Council I V " Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Tattoo License for Polly Sills DATE: January 25, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to consider the application of Ms. Polly Sills for a Tattoo License. BACKGROUND: Ms. Sills has applied for a Tattoo License to work for Linda Kurian at her business known as Body Art located at 205 South Lewis Street. Since her initial Tattoo License was issued in 1994, Ms. Kurian has hired additional employees to also practice tattooing at her establishment. A background investigation was conducted by the Police Department on Polly Sills. Nothing in the applicant's background was found to preclude her from being licensed. It is appropriate that this license be considered at this time. Ms. Kurian is in the process of updating her certificate of insurance to include Ms. Sills. The license will not be delivered until the City receives a certificate of insurance evidencing the required coverage. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the application for a tattoo license for Polly Sills. 2. Deny the application for a tattoo license for Polly Sills. 3. Table the application for additional information. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the application and grant a Tattoo License to Polly Sills, Body Art, 205 South Lewis Street, upon receipt of evidence of the required insurance. JSC/jms r).4 [i:\license\tattoo.mem] Jy CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: 1999 Fee Schedule Changes DATE: January 27, 1999 Introduction Council is requested to discuss two new items for the 1999 Fee Schedule. Background 1. The city has made direct deposit of payroll checks available for many years. Employees are strongly encouraged to utilize this feature but many chose to receive checks. Direct deposit is much easier for Finance to process plus there are no problems of lost checks, delayed deposit of checks or employee convenience because of different shift/sick/vacation time. When an employee loses/destroys a check it costs the city to process a replacement . Staff discussed the idea of charging a $20 fee to process a replacement check. Twenty dollars may not cover the cost of processing a replacement check but may provide more incentive to search for the original check. This fee would be waived if the employee immediately signed up for direct deposit. 2 . The city has not been charging interest on late payment of invoices. Generally there had not been much of a problem with collections until recently when there have been delays with collections from private developers and SPUC. City Attorney Jim Thomson has reviewed the issue and determined that Council could impose a charge of 1. 5% per month interest . The city auditors have commented on speeding up billings and collections from SPUC for construction projects . State law provides that governments pay interest on bills after 30 days unless there is a dispute on the bill . Alternatives 1 . Status quo. 2 . Adopt one or both of the fees described above. Recommendation Adopt both fees. Action Discuss the above issues and give staff direction to prepare an amendment to the fee resolution if desired. G eg Voxland Finance Director c:\gregg\memo\intfee .,l Direct Deposit of Payroll Fact Sheet Direct deposit of payroll refers to a program that allows employees to have their pay- checks electronically credited to their savings or checking accounts. .At the end of each pay period, a company supplies a depository fmancial institution with the payment information by modem. The financial institution sends the transaction to a processor- generally the Automated Clearing House(ACH) for distribution to the employee's respective financial institutions. The employer provides a statement of earning to the employee with each direct deposit transaction. For employees,eliminates the need for workers to make special arrangements to deposit their payroll checks. Moreover, since direct deposit funds are transferred electronically, there is no opportunity for theft or fraud. In contrast,the federal government estimates that more than four million paychecks are lost or stolen each year in the United States. In addition, FBI studies show that 2,000 fraudulent checks are cashed each day in the U.S. Recognizing the benefits of direct deposit, Congress recently passed legislation mandating that virtually all federal payments be made electronically. In addition,businesses can save about one dollar on each payroll check processed. And direct deposit eliminates the need for employees to take time during the work day to cash or deposit their checks. Financial institutions also benefit from direct deposit, saving an estimated 70 cents for each payment deposited through Automated ClearingHouse(ACH)Network rather than by check through a teller. Moreover, it eliminates the opportunity for human error. more facts... 1. Direct deposit often allows employees to have access to their pay sooner than by the traditional method of paper checks. 2. Direct deposit is a safer way to handle money than by traditional paper check. For employees accustomed to cashing their checks at a store or bank,it eliminates the need to carry around large sums of money. 3. Direct deposit increases a business' productivity by reducing the amount of work(and productivity lost)through issuing and reissuing lost or stolen checks. 4. More than 95 percent of all U.S.financial institutions(including some 14,500 banks,savings and loans and credit unions)are able to receive direct deposits. 5. Many financial institutions offer automatic transfers allowing employees to deposit part of their pay into multiple accounts. Money can go for such expenses as children at college or elderly parents. 6. Employees receiving their pay via direct deposit receive a paper check stub similar to the one they received with their paper check,recording such useful information as hours,wages and benefits. 7. Employees can check on the status of their deposit by calling a phone number provided by their financial institution. IS. E. CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreements DATE: January 29, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to approve an assignment and assumption of obligations under the Developer's Agreements for the Minneapolis Foundation property within Southbridge 1st Addition. BACKGROUND: The Minneapolis Foundation sold their property (Outlots E and I) within Southbridge 1st Addition to Arcon Development Inc. As part of that conveyance, the Minneapolis Foundation assigned to Arcon Development the performances governed by the Developer's Agreements. In conformance with a requirement in the Developer's Agreement, Arcon Development will be providing the City with a letter of credit to insure the payment of the special assessments for the construction of the collector street and the landscaping improvements for Outlot E. Arcon Development has subsequently sold Outlot I to Contractor Property Developers Company. As I understand it, Contractor Property Developers will be providing the letter of credit for Outlot I. The City is asked to sign a "Consent and Release" thereby consenting to the assignment by Arcon Development to Contractor Property Developers Company of the obligations under the Developer's Agreements and to release Arcon Development from their obligations under the Developer's Agreements for Outlot I. Authorization for the City Clerk to sign the "Consent and Release" will release Arcon Development from its obligations under the Developer's Agreements for Outlot I. City Council may remember that they approved a similar request for Valley Green Business Park last fall and for the Minneapolis Foundation on January 5th. The attached forms approved for Valley Green Business Park: "Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreement" and "Consent and Release" were reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The modifications to the forms for Arcon Development will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to execution by the City Clerk. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve execution of the "Consent and Release" 2. Do not approve execution of the "Consent and Release" 3. Table for additional information RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends alternative number 1, approve execution of the "Consent and Release" . This is considered a housekeeping matter. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the "Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreements" between Arcon Development Inc. and Contractor Property Developers Company for Outlot I, Southbridge 1st Addition and authorize the execution of the "Consent and Release" . Ouvra V h:\judy\assignsb.cpd ` q.. a 4 • DOC. N0. SS89 FILE VOL (P PAGE 6 n CERT 6/'?/ ,- 3/g`zg 0 FILE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES SCOTT COUNTY,MINNESOTA THIS IS THE FILING INFORMATION OF THE DOCUMENT FILED I HIS OFFICE ON OCT 2 2 /o:Y5-4 M. PAT BOECKMAN,REGISTRAR OF TITLES ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of August a'( , 1998, by and between Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ("Seller"), and Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership ("Buyer"). RECITALS A. The City of Shakopee, Minnesota (the "City") has, by Resolution No. 4885 adopted on April 21, 1998, given final approval to the Subdivision referred to as Southbridge First Addition, in Scott County, Minnesota. City and Seller have entered into a Developer's Agreement, dated July 21, 1998, regarding the part of the Subdivision legally described as Lots 1 through 21, inclusive, Block 5, Lots 1 through 12, Block 6, and Outlots F, G and H, Southbridge First Addition (the"Property"), a copy of which is on file and of record in the office of the Scott County Registrar of Titles as Document No. 96798. Pursuant to the Developer's Agreement, Seller agreed to construct and install the improvements designated therein as "Plan A Improvements". B. Seller has conveyed to Buyer the part of the Property legally described as Lots 1 through 21, inclusive, Block 5, Lots 1 through 12, Block 6, and Outlot H, Southbridge First Addition. Seller and Buyer desire that the obligations of Seller under the Developer's Agreement be assigned to and assumed by Buyer, that Buyer provide to the City a bond satisfactory to the City (the "Bond") to replace the security provided by Seller to the City under the Developer's Agreement (the "Seller Security"), and that the City release the Seller from the Developer's Agreement and release the Seller Security. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged by the parties, it is hereby agreed as follows: Scott County Abstract and TRI.,lns, • 323 Holmes Street,P.O.Box 300 Miaow,MN 56379 /NO4 M:\427.1\970428\Assignment of Developer's Agreement L 1. Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreement. Seller hereby assigns to Buyer and Buyer hereby assumes and agrees to perform the Developer's Agreement, according to its terms. 2. Release of Seller and Seller Security. Buyer hereby agrees to post the Bond with the City and to obtain the release of Seller from the Developer's Agreement and the release of the Seller Security from the City. 3. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above. CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada general partnership By: Centex Real Estate Corporation, A Nevada corporation Its: Managing General Partner BY: /L i t� Scott . Ric•ter It•: Minnesota Division President STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Menne ioi n The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ay day of August, 1998, by Scott J. Richter, Minnesota Division President of Centex Real Estate Corporation, a Nevada corporation, the Managing General Partner of Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership, on behalf of the partnership. oaf•, MARY JANE WEBER Ti Notary Public-Minnesota + - Hennepin County Signa atu;teti per on taking acknowledgement CommissioneVVVVVVV M:\4271\970428\Assignment of Developer's Agreement r R. .` • Yn • VALLEY GREEN BUSINESS PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By VALLEY GREEN BUSINESS PARK,INC.,a Minnesota Corporation,its General Partner onald . Clark,Its President STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12- day of August,, 1998,by Ronald M. Clark,the President of Valley Green Business Park, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, as general partner of Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the corporation and partnership. LLASignature of person/taking acknowledgement This instrument drafted by: MMACEY G MOH Best&Flanagan LLP (RAP) cta msettut 4000 U.S. Bank Place ; My Commission Expires Jan 31.2002 601 Second Avenue South Minneapolis,MN 55402-4331 K M:\4271\970428\Assignment of Developer's Agreement CONSENT AND RELEASE This Consent and Release is given by the City of Shakopee (the "City") effective as of October 6, 1998 (the`Effective Date"). In consideration of the Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreement (the "Agreement") between Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ("Seller"), Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership (`Buyer") to which this Consent and Release is attached, and in consideration of the Bond referred to in the Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which as substitute security for the Seller Security under the Developer's Agreement as evidenced by the Escrow and Payment Agreement between the City and Seller dated July 21, 1998, filed July 31, 1998 as Document No. 96803 in the Office of the Scott County Registrar of Titles is hereby acknowledged by the City; the City hereby consents to the assignment by Seller to Buyer and the assumption by Buyer of the obligations of Seller under the Developer's Agreement between Seller and the City dated July 21, 1998, filed July 31, 1998 as Document No. 96798 in the office of the Scott County Registrar of Titles; and the City hereby releases Seller from its obligations under the Developer's Agreement, accepts Buyer as the Developer under the Developer's Agreement, and releases and terminates said Escrow and Payment Agreement Document No. 96803. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Consent and Release to be executed as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SHAKOPEE By: fat , d _ Its: clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) .a.. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o?i day ofshffusettst, 1998, by Judith S. Cox, the City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Not ublic 04 TONI WARHOL ii NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESbTA {.P MyCommiseionExptresJan.31.2000 • M:\4271\970428\Assignment of Developer's Agreement Po C_M?i/ CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Water Damage at Pool Date: February 2, 1999 Sometime during the Martin Luther King holiday weekend, the municipal pool's furnace quit functioning. With no heat in the bathhouse building,just about every pipeline and plumbing connection suffered some sort of breakage including a four (4) inch main pipe. The Public Works employees discovered the problem while plowing the rinks on Monday, January 18. When the workers entered the building, the water was six inches deep and flowing out under the doonvays. The water worked it ways into the pool and on the parking lot. The pool is nearly half filled. Paul Sullwold of Minnesota Plumbing and Heating was immediately called to assess the condition of the water lines, furnace and other equipment. Mark Hauser of Choice Electric was called to assess the electrical system. The 30 year old furnace and water heater were badly damaged by the water and deemed unusable. Both were saturated by water gushing from a 4 inch waterline. A temporary furnace was installed until a new one arrived. The entire network of waterlines are as old as the building (30 years). Extensive repairs had to be made to every waterline including those that did not meet code. Some damage occurred to toilets, sinks and water fountain. The block walls in the restrooms had to be busted open in order to get to the leaks. It has been two weeks since the damage occurred and final repairs should be made by the end of the week. Most of the repairs will be covered by the City's Insurance. Minnesota Plumbing will plumb the facility so the entire building can be winterized. However, the waterline that feeds the Lions Park warming house comes from the bathhouse. Eventually, that waterline will be separated with a direct run to the warming house when the parking lot is expanded in two years. Estimated cost of repairs will be somewhere in the range of$16- 17,000 ($10,000 labor hours & $6-7,000 materials. cin: . 4-c,2._,Z___' :0 Mark J. McQuillan Parks and Recreation Director